Bank Forecloses On Elderly Woman Over $49 in Unpaid Taxes

[sailingaway]

and the taxes were actually paid....


There are some stories that are so over the top as an example of the brazen disregard for human dignity that they defy imagination. But, we know that truth is stranger than fiction . . . and this latest event is certainly proof of that.

Foreclosure fraud has become institutionalized within a corrupt banking structure; it began at the top with banks such as BoA and has trickled down into nearly every community. For example, one couple had their home in Tampa foreclosed on even after they had paid off the full amount in cash. Countless others have been victims of mortgage payment modification schemes.

However, the predatory nature of what is happening to 75-year-old Aron Ezilla Ridge in Travis County, Texas might in fact be what one news outlet is calling "The Saddest Story You Have Ever Heard." This story involves a mortgage company, but it also has a scary link to property taxes that should raise questions about the very nature of home ownership.

Back in 2010, at the peak of "Foreclosure-Gate," a few members of the banking consortium went on record to deny their responsibility for creating a system that might have given mortgage holders a raw deal:

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, whose bank is implicated in the scandal, said this week in a conference call that there have been no accidental evictions. “We’re not evicting people who deserve to stay in their house,” the multimillionaire banker declared.

“If you didn’t pay your mortgage, you shouldn’t be in your house. Period,” Walter Todd of the investment advisory firm Greenwood Capital Associates, told Reuters.

“Everyone’s responsible for following the law. If we all don’t have to pay our mortgage, should we just stop paying taxes, too?” said Anton Schutz, president of Mendon Capital Advisers. (Source)

Interestingly enough, even if you follow the law (and pay your taxes) as the above paragons of ethics assert, apparently your home can still be taken by sleight of hand and/or bureaucratic ineptitude. Such is the case with elderly and infirm Aron Ezilla Ridge, who is debilitated in a variety of ways as Courthouse News reports:

Ridge is partly blind, has diabetes, congestive heart failure and had surgery for colon cancer several years ago.

"She needs a wheelchair to leave her home and is largely housebound at this point in her life," the complaint states. "She can read but her reading level is approximately at the 6th grade level and her ability to read is, of course, further limited by her failing eyesight."

Regardless, she had paid off her mortgage 20 years ago, but needed repairs for which she did not have the immediate cash. She entered into an agreement for a "reverse mortgage" of $39,000 with a nationwide mortgage lender called James B. Nutter & Co.

A reverse mortgage is geared toward those who are 62 years and older, and essentially serves as a revolving credit line with title still held by the homeowner rather than with the lender as it would for a typical mortgage. Instead of the borrower making payments, the lender pays the borrower with the promise that the loan is to be paid at the time of death or sale.

It hasn't been so cut-and-dried for Ms. Ridge who is now the plaintiff in a case against James B. Nutter & Co. after payment of her property taxes came into question.


Ridge says she was told by the Travis County Tax Assessor's office in 2000 that she did not need to pay property taxes because the value of her home was below homestead and senior exemption caps.

But she received a property tax bill in 2011 for $20.31. She says she was able to drive to the assessor's office and pay the taxes in full and on time.
In April 2012, the assessor's office informed her that her home was valued at $60,743 and that her taxes were estimated at $46.87, according to the complaint.

Ridge says she did not receive a tax bill, but later received a receipt stating that $49 in taxes were paid in late 2012.

"She assumed that the receipt meant she was again exempt from property taxes," the complaint states. "She did not call the tax office to see why she had received a receipt without having received a bill."

This confusion, which has every indication that it was created by an outside party, gave an opening for Nutter & Co. to pounce via the "acceleration clause."


In January this year, Nutter's attorneys told Ridge her reverse mortgage had been accelerated, and that she had to pay off the entire loan "or the lender would exercise its right to enforce the lien on her home."

Ms. Ridge's home officially went into foreclosure Jan. 30th, 2013.


more: http://www.activistpost.com/2013/03/bank-forecloses-on-elderly-woman-over.html

h/t: http://sgtreport.com/2013/03/bank-forecloses-on-elderly-woman-over-49-in-unpaid-taxes/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[BAllen]

Unreal. This is why all property taxes should be eliminated.
Banks have been buying and selling houses so many times, that they sometimes lose track of the deeds. There have been cases where the mortgage company couldn't produce the deed, so the homeowner wasn't required to pay.

[banditontherun]

One wonders if Nutter & Co. might have been involved with this receipt she received for a tax bill that was never issued situation.

This confusion, which has every indication that it was created by an outside party, gave an opening for Nutter & Co. to pounce via the "acceleration clause."

I hope Ms. Ridge is shown leniency by the court for the understandable confusion in the very least and that the county office that issued a receipt for payment is called to task over how this happened. IMHO whoever wrongly issued this receipt needs to assume a degree of responsibility for this error resulting in Ms. Ridge losing her home.

Considering that foreclosure happened at the end of Jan 2013 for a 2012 tax bill this Nutter & Company really did pounce quickly and heartlessly.

Hope Ridge has a good lawyer.

[DamianTV]

Paperwork, it seems to some, is more important than the peoples lives it destroys.

[KrokHead]

Banks usually do what they can to recover their money from restructuring loans, to temporarily dropping the rate. They wouldn't go balls out for $49 when there are scores of people owing way more than that if it weren't for some mistake.

[angelatc]

Banks usually do what they can to recover their money from restructuring loans, to temporarily dropping the rate. They wouldn't go balls out for $49 when there are scores of people owing way more than that if it weren't for some mistake.

She owed them more than that. She owed the government $49. She owed the Reverse Mortgage people whatever the roof repairs cost. I note the article made it a point to yammer on about Jamie Dimon and crab about the banks, when JCMC has nothing to do with this woman's eviction what so ever. In fact, there are more paragraphs crying about the banks foreclosing on people than there are paragraphs about the actual story. That raises the red flag of selective reporting to me.

[sailingaway]

She owed them more than that. She owed the government $49. She owed the Reverse Mortgage people whatever the roof repairs cost. I note the article made it a point to yammer on about Jamie Dimon and crab about the banks, when JCMC has nothing to do with this woman's eviction what so ever. In fact, there are more paragraphs crying about the banks foreclosing on people than there are paragraphs about the actual story. That raises the red flag of selective reporting to me.

As I read it the amount due on the reverse mortgage wasn't in default. She got a reverse mortgage specifically to pay for the roof, otherwise she didn't need it. Then as a requirement of the loan she had to keep taxes up. She GOT paid under the reverse mortgage, she didn't have payments due. They accelerated the loan to immediate repayment when she 'didn't pay her taxes'.

[angelatc]

As I read it the amount due on the reverse mortgage wasn't in default. She got a reverse mortgage specifically to pay for the roof, otherwise she didn't need it. Then as a requirement of the loan she had to keep taxes up. She GOT paid under the reverse mortgage, she didn't have payments due. They accelerated the loan to immediate repayment when she 'didn't pay her taxes'.

Like I said, the story seemed intentionally slanted, and I was right.

If you read the Austin-American Statesman story (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/woman-74-in-danger-of-losing-her-home-of-45-years/nWxsT/), it isn't just the taxes. A condition of the loan was also that she pay homeowner's insurance...something all mortgage holders require. She's had the loan since 2007, and the company has had to pay the insurance all this time. I doubt very seriously that she didn't receive any letters or warnings. She just ignored them.

She has family coming out of the woodwork to help her find a lawyer to sue somebody - where were all these people when she needed her damned roof fixed?

[angelatc]

Hazel said the mortgage company gave Ridge a lump sum of about $39,000. Ridge understood that she could remain in the home as long as it was her permanent residence. If she ever got too sick to live at home, a family member could purchase the house for the loan amount and value, about $66,000.

I am not sure how to read that. The loan amount plus value = $66,000 buyout price, or loan amount ($39,000) + value ($66,000) = buyout price? Either way...a $39,000 roof? Tod, tell me your opinion on that, because my friend here is a doctor who lives in a $500,000 home with a crazy-weird pitch roof line over 6500 sf, and her roof cost $15,000.

I haven't had much coffee, but my bullshit detector seems to be working ok this morning.

[sailingaway]

I am not sure how to read that. The loan amount plus value = $66,000 buyout price, or loan amount ($39,000) + value ($66,000) = buyout price? Either way...a $39,000 roof? Tod, tell me your opinion on that, because my friend here is a doctor who lives in a $500,000 home with a crazy-weird pitch roof line over 6500 sf, and her roof cost $15,000.

I haven't had much coffee, but my bullshit detector seems to be working ok this morning.

I'm guessing that the reverse mortgage started for the roof replacement - that was the reason she got it, but then it advanced her money as reverse mortgages do, and that together with the roof was the $39,000 number. It might have had a clause permitting it to be paid off in full by a family member who didn't want the house forfeited for the loan amount.

But I didn't read any but this article, so if a different article has different facts, then it may indeed be slanted. By this one it was a trivial cause for loan acceleration.

[angelatc]

I'm guessing that the reverse mortgage started for the roof replacement - that was the reason she got it, but then it advanced her money as reverse mortgages do, and that together with the roof was the $39,000 number. It might have had a clause permitting it to be paid off in full by a family member who didn't want the house forfeited for the loan amount.

But I didn't read any but this article, so if a different article has different facts, then it may indeed be slanted. By this one it was a trivial cause for loan acceleration.

Yes, and because it was from a site called "activist post" I read it with my skeptical glasses on from the onset. This is how the left spins crap around the internet faster than the truth can catch up. I'm sure they appreciate your help.

[sailingaway]

Yes, and because it was from a site called "activist post" I read it with my skeptical glasses on from the onset. This is how the left spins crap around the internet faster than the truth can catch up. I'm sure they appreciate your help.

Well, but looking at your other article, it looks like until the loan officer said it was for insurance the woman only knew about the tax she had actually paid. I'm thinking her kids looked at it after she got a foreclosure notice, and they didn't know anything about the insurance so couldn't address it. Then when reporters asked, only then did the insurance get brought out. I'm also thinking if she has a hard time seeing, she may not have opened her mail, so may not have realized about the insurance regardless of how many notices she got (not that that would have been the bank's fault). But the original story doesn't look wrong, it was based on the notice she actually received. It just didn't have the bank's changed story about the insurance.a

Activist post or New York times either one would be justified putting out a story based on the actual notice the bank sent and the receipt she had for payment

[phill4paul]

I am not sure how to read that. The loan amount plus value = $66,000 buyout price, or loan amount ($39,000) + value ($66,000) = buyout price? Either way...a $39,000 roof? Tod, tell me your opinion on that, because my friend here is a doctor who lives in a $500,000 home with a crazy-weird pitch roof line over 6500 sf, and her roof cost $15,000.

I haven't had much coffee, but my bullshit detector seems to be working ok this morning.

Depends on the type of roofing material. It's been about 7 years since I've done any estimates but I'd say around $3-$5 per sq ft for asphalt shingles. Removal and disposal of old will be around $5 per sq ft. Also need to figure in any damage done and replacement of sub roof. Without the actual sq footage and knowledge of existing damage it would be hard to tell.

[sailingaway]

Depends on the type of roofing material. It's been about 7 years since I've done any estimates but I'd say around $3-$5 per sq ft for asphalt shingles. Removal and disposal of old will be around $5 per sq ft. Also need to figure in any damage done and replacement of sub roof. Without the actual sq footage and knowledge of existing damage it would be hard to tell.


the subroof - particularly if there was asbestos, might have been part of it.

[angelatc]

Well, but looking at your other article, it looks like until the loan officer said it was for insurance the woman only knew about the tax she had actually paid. I'm thinking her kids looked at it after she got a foreclosure notice, and they didn't know anything about the insurance so couldn't address it. Then when reporters asked, only then did the insurance get brought out. I'm also thinking if she has a hard time seeing, she may not have opened her mail, so may not have realized about the insurance regardless of how many notices she got (not that that would have been the bank's fault). But the original story doesn't look wrong, it was based on the notice she actually received. It just didn't have the bank's changed story about the insurance.a

Activist post or New York times either one would be justified putting out a story based on the actual notice the bank sent and the receipt she had for payment

So you're saying that the New York Times is totally unbiased and reliable, too?

Of course nobody in the family would spin the woman's story to be sympathetic. No reason for a reporter to think that might happen. No way should we expect ALL reporters to ask for the other side of the story. No, as long as we can get one side that makes an emotional case for the way we think the world should be, then it's ok to only print half a story. In fact, opening a story by talking about banks that have absolutely no relation to the story but are known emotional triggers is an excellent way to fool the sheeple into believing the first thing they read.

[sailingaway]

So you're saying that the New York Times is totally unbiased and reliable, too?

Of course nobody in the family would spin the woman's story to be sympathetic. And no way should we expect ALL reporters to ask for the other side of the story. No, as long as we can get one side that makes an emotional case for the way we think the world should be, then it's ok to only print half a story.

No, I am saying no standards of journalism were ignored in the 'activist post', which seems to have been based on fairly reliable information. The only missing facts are a result of the bank's own error in the notice.

[phill4paul]

the subroof - particularly if there was asbestos, might have been part of it.

There is that also. And I'll just add that the sq footage of the house really has no bearing on the sq footage of the roof.

[angelatc]

There is that also. And I'll just add that the sq footage of the house really has no bearing on the sq footage of the roof.

Sure, but I also used to work for a roofing company, and I know damned well that a roof on a big fancy house with lots of steep peaks, valleys and dormers costs a helluva lot more than one on a small house worth $69k in Texas.

I also used to live in Travis County.

Give me a few minutes, and I'm sure I can find her house on Google maps, then I'll sit back and incredulously watch you guys spin new ways to justify $39k as a reasonable price for what I'll wager is a 900 - 1200 sf house with 1 peak right up the middle.

Wait - here's a spin! Maybe the roofing people were dishonest, and charged her far more than they should have. ( That one actually makes sense, since we already know that she's not a rich person living in a big house with an expensive tile roof. She's a little old lady who is old and confused - the type of people that predator contractors prey on. )

[sailingaway]

Sure, but I also used to work for a roofing company, and I know damned well that a roof on a big fancy house with lots of steep peaks, valleys and dormers costs a helluva lot more than one on a small house worth $69k in Texas.

I also used to live in Travis County.

Give me a few minutes, and I'm sure I can find her house on Google maps, then I'll sit back and incredulously watch you guys spin new ways to justify $39k as a reasonable price for what I'll wager is a 900 - 1200 sf house with 1 peak right up the middle.

I'm not saying it was reasonable, but that that might have been up front loan costs and interest and other advances on top of the roof amount. I also think an old woman who can hardly read might not get the best deal in the world, and might have been ripped off.

[phill4paul]

Sure, but I also used to work for a roofing company, and I know damned well that a roof on a big fancy house with lots of steep peaks, valleys and dormers costs a helluva lot more than one on a small house worth $69k in Texas.

I also used to live in Travis County.

Give me a few minutes, and I'm sure I can find her house on Google maps, then I'll sit back and incredulously watch you guys spin new ways to justify $39k as a reasonable price for what I'll wager is a 900 - 1200 sf house with 1 peak right up the middle.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not trying to spin anything. You asked a question and I was trying to answer to the best of my ability. Crikies!

[angelatc]

Here's the house: https://www.diigo.com/item/image/2xn5w/47ny

[sailingaway]

yeah, there had better have been other advances in there, or she got a really poor deal. I have no idea what fees etc are on reverse mortgages, just that people are warned to stay away from them if they can.

[angelatc]

I'm not saying it was reasonable, but that that might have been up front loan costs and interest and other advances on top of the roof amount. I also think an old woman who can hardly read might not get the best deal in the world, and might have been ripped off.

Sure, and we all wish the world wasn't like that. I'm nowhere near her age, and I'm already quite weary of the never-ending paperwork. It would be a wonderful utopian thing to have a society where the elders could sit on porches and watch birds at the feeders without worrying about the mundane, but that's not the way life works.

As libertarians, we expect people to be responsible for their own decisions, and we expect family to assume responsibility for family.

The Statesman article says that they will stop foreclosure if she pays the insurance. The family says she can't.

I do feel bad for her, I really do, but I don't blame a business for acting like a business. I do, however, blame reporters for not acting like reporters.

[ClydeCoulter]

I also expect others not to violate the NAP with pressured tactics that take advantage of others and hide details. It goes both ways. It becomes hard to make good decisions if you don't have all of the information needed to do so. (speaking from that utopian point of view).

[sailingaway]

Sure, and we all wish the world wasn't like that. I'm nowhere near her age, and I'm already quite weary of the never-ending paperwork. It would be a wonderful utopian thing to have a society where the elders could sit on porches and watch birds at the feeders without worrying about the mundane, but that's not the way life works.

As libertarians, we expect people to be responsible for their own decisions, and we expect family to assume responsibility for family.

The Statesman article says that they will stop foreclosure if she pays the insurance. The family says she can't.

I do feel bad for her, I really do, but I don't blame a business for acting like a business. I do, however, blame reporters for not acting like reporters.

I just don't say any evidence of that. They quoted the notice the bank sent out, it wasn't their fault it was inaccurate. I agree that if the insurance was long unpaid and she had notice that was a different story, but in that case the bank's notice was faulty. They will have to give notice of what is actually wrong and she will have that much time to come up with the insurance premiums.