Sick Detroit mom facing eviction fighting back with graffiti

[Wreckem]

Lock her up, she broke the law and damaged property that wasn't hers.

And what kind of stupid has a mortgage that would double? There's more to this sob story.

What she did wasn't a crime. What she did is called waste and it is solely a civil matter.

 

[Wreckem]

This does sound like a horrible situation but it's not hers, the bank owns it.

The bank lent her the money, she is defaulting and she is devaluing the property to a greater extent.

She technically has legal rights to it until the foreclosure(ie: the equity of redemption is extinguished) and thus it is not a crime. It is however contrary to the mortgage terms and would be considered waste, which would just make how much she owes higher by whatever the cost to paint would be.

 

[Wreckem]

Sounds like it will only cause the house to sell for less so someone will get a better deal.

That is not how foreclosure auctions typically work.

The mortgagee normally bids the amount owed on their note. This is how you get bank owned property.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

empathy not found

 

[Svnla]

How could her mortgage double? Adjustable mortgage? Interest only? It is sad that someone could be so ignorant about the largest purchase a person could buy in his/her life.

I am with waggy. I condemn her for her action but I do have some sympathy. She was not a deadbeat or house flipper (from the article information).

The paint job would be easy to overcome. If she wants to destroy it, she could have smash the whole house like a few of the former homeowners did.

 

[spidey07]

Likely both plus balloon. If you're too stupid to read and understand what you sign, then don't sign it.

She hopefully learned a life lesson. But no, she made her situation worse.

That's why poor will always be poor. Bad decisions. Bad consequences are the result.

 

[SheHateMe]

Likely both plus balloon. If you're too stupid to read and understand what you sign, then don't sign it.

She hopefully learned a life lesson. But no, she made her situation worse.

That's why poor will always be poor. Bad decisions. Bad consequences are the result.

She'll be dead soon, Spidey. This way, she won't piss you off because shes poor and made a bad choice.

 

[Newbian]

She technically has legal rights to it until the foreclosure(ie: the equity of redemption is extinguished) and thus it is not a crime. It is however contrary to the mortgage terms and would be considered waste, which would just make how much she owes higher by whatever the cost to paint would be.

Wouldn't the house being on the auction block and they are trying to evict her mean it's no longer hers?

 

[diesbudt]

There's a difference between being ignorant and being stupid, Spidey.

A lot of the people who were caught up by the banks giving out those toxic loans were just ignorant of what they were actually consenting to. When someone is ignorant about something...especially loans, it is much easier to convince them to agree to something that is way beyond their means.


I think many of us know about the teaser rates that banks use to get people to sign up for credit cards...then what happens after the first year? APR goes up to 12-15%.

Signing any contract, whether house, CC, or with a lawyer over whatever, you have to read it. No company can go against the contract that is written up, so somewhere it could have been seen how toxic that loan was. However most home buyers don't take the time and look at the fine print.

It was her mistake. However, I feel bad for her that life decided to basically destroy her with horrible after horrible circumstance.

 

[cybrsage]

I felt bad for her until she defaced the property. At that point she showed she was a spoiled brat who no longer deserves our symapthy.

As for the "read the contract and understand it as if you were in the industry your entire life" crowd, that is a very silly belief to hold. Most likely she asked them about a mortgage increase, since it would have clearly said it could go up, and the company told her any change would surely be minor. Her problem was in believing they did not want her to default on her loan when they actually did not care if she defaulted.

Like most people, she assumed the mortgage company wanted her to pay out the loan to completion. She also wanted to pay out the loan to completion. Having the same goal, she thought they would be on her side. What she did not factor in (and what many people do not know) is that the mortgage company intended to instantly sell her loan off, meaning they did not care if she defaulted on it.

 

[spidey07]

You have to sign and agree that they can/will sell your mortgage by law. Her fault for not reading and understanding what she was signing. Especially when dealing with probably the largest transaction/committments of most peoples lives.

 

[classy]

She'll be dead soon, Spidey. This way, she won't piss you off because shes poor and made a bad choice.

I say this with all seriousness, I would sell one of my kidneys to meet some these guys that post here face to face.

 

[nehalem256]

As for the "read the contract and understand it as if you were in the industry your entire life" crowd, that is a very silly belief to hold. Most likely she asked them about a mortgage increase, since it would have clearly said it could go up, and the company told her any change would surely be minor. Her problem was in believing they did not want her to default on her loan when they actually did not care if she defaulted.

Well it would seem that the reasonable minimum expected due diligence is to ask 2 questions.

1.) How much will my initial mortgage payment be?

2.) How much will it be after the "low payment period"?

Only numbers being acceptable answers.

 

[JoeyP]

Likely both plus balloon. If you're too stupid to read and understand what you sign, then don't sign it.

She hopefully learned a life lesson. But no, she made her situation worse.

That's why poor will always be poor. Bad decisions. Bad consequences are the result.

Can we get some kind of consensus that the borrower has some sort of responsibility? If you do not understand what you're signing, then DO NOT SIGN.

Maybe we need some sort of boot camp for potential borrowers, whether they are taking out a car loan, applying for a credit card, or buying a house.

I'll go even further and suggest finance be a required subject in high school. How many kids graduate (or don't) knowing a second language, but do not understand concepts such as interest, amortization, escrow, balancing a checkbook, fixed rate versus balloon, etc.? What, we have kids who speak French well, but end up getting a 6 year car loan?

 

[spidey07]

Can we get some kind of consensus that the borrower has some sort of responsibility? If you do not understand what you're signing, then DO NOT SIGN.

Maybe we need some sort of boot camp for potential borrowers, whether they are taking out a car loan, applying for a credit card, or buying a house.

I'll go even further and suggest finance be a required subject in high school. How many kids graduate (or don't) knowing a second language, but do not understand concepts such as interest, amortization, escrow, balancing a checkbook, fixed rate versus balloon, etc.? What, we have kids who speak French well, but end up getting a 6 year car loan?

Maybe we should make some federal laws where all this has to be explained to you in clear and simple terms. We could call it a HUD form, and then there could be all these other federal law required papers you have to sign that clearly explain everything to you. We could even have a special one that points out the balloon or variable rate and the consequences. How about one explaining pre-payment penalty?

Oh wait...there already are.

 

[JoeyP]

Maybe we should make some federal laws where all this has to be explained to you in clear and simple terms. We could call it a HUD form, and then there could be all these other federal law required papers you have to sign that clearly explain everything to you.

Oh wait...there already are.

And it doesn't work.

My point is that we (the actual people, not some government agency) need to admit there is a need, and provide the tools to protect ourselves. I'm willing to bet that someone with leadership skills can influence schools, and even set up workshops to educate adults. A coordinated effort could have positive results.

I'm not suggesting we all become real estate attorneys or CPAs, but at least know how to interpret the terms/risks of that 0% interest offer when you see that you can save 20% if you get that department store card.

 

[diesbudt]

I say this with all seriousness, I would sell one of my kidneys to meet some these guys that post here face to face.

Black market of kidney value...

hm...

Ill get a "boxing ring/debate square with ropes around" it set-up. I will convince the 2 most disillusioned members from both the dem and reps on this forum, and I will send a plane to pick you up.

 

[DCal430]

That's actually illegal. You already agreed not to do that when you signed your Mortgage.

Working in the mortgage industry I can tell you this is WRONG. Banks have no recourse against people who do this. There is no crime in doing this.

Anyways this isn't a bank own property, the COUNTY is taking the home for lack of tax payments. Their is no mortgage on it.

 

[DCal430]

That is not how foreclosure auctions typically work.

The mortgagee normally bids the amount owed on their note. This is how you get bank owned property.

You can't take money from those who have none, and some states limits what you can do to the "owner". Where I work we have had "owners" do probably over a 100,000 in damage to a home. We couldn't do anything to them.

We could potentially sue them, but if they have no money to take in a lawsuit, their is no point.

 

[classy]

Black market of kidney value...

hm...

Ill get a "boxing ring/debate square with ropes around" it set-up. I will convince the 2 most disillusioned members from both the dem and reps on this forum, and I will send a plane to pick you up.

Get the right ones and I'll fly coach. The flight won't have to be non-stop either .

 

[SheHateMe]

Working in the mortgage industry I can tell you this is WRONG. Banks have no recourse against people who do this. There is no crime in doing this.

Anyways this isn't a bank own property, the COUNTY is taking the home for lack of tax payments. Their is no mortgage on it.

She owes both the bank and the city money. The bank forclosed on her house before the city decided to put it up for auction...

I have no idea what that means for the house, will the city and the bank fight over it?

 

[DCal430]

She owes both the bank and the city money. The bank forclosed on her house before the city decided to put it up for auction...

I have no idea what that means for the house, will the city and the bank fight over it?

The bank must pay the city the propety tax, failure to do so means the city has the right to take full possession of the home and sell it off. The city lien is above that of the bank.

If the bank has foreclosed on the property, then the bank owns the property and is responsible for its property taxes.

 

[Matt1970]

She owes both the bank and the city money. The bank forclosed on her house before the city decided to put it up for auction...

I have no idea what that means for the house, will the city and the bank fight over it?

I believe the city and bank will have to agree on how the money from the sale of the house is split.

 

[Matt1970]

The bank must pay the city the propety tax, failure to do so means the city has right to take full possession of the home and sell it off. The city lien is above that of the bank.

Or this.

 

[DCal430]

Or this.

I believe once the home is auction off, the city will get all of its property tax money and the rest will go to the bank.

Though, I think they could have atleast waited for this woman to die. Seems like she could be dying.