Calif. congresswoman's home threatened with repo

[democracy1st]

Source: Yahoo/AP

Calif. congresswoman's home threatened with repo By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 36 minutes ago


SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Rep. Laura Richardson has an unusual perspective on the housing foreclosure bills moving through Congress: One of her own homes was threatened with repossession after she failed to pay the mortgage.

Richardson, a Southern California Democrat, bought a two-story home in a leafy, upper-middle-class neighborhood of Sacramento in January 2007, just months after winning a seat in the state Assembly.

She bought the three-bedroom, 1 1/2-bath home in the state capital for $535,500. The bill collectors started knocking soon after, according to records reviewed Wednesday by The Associated Press.

The city utility department placed a lien on her property in June 2007 for $154 in unpaid bills, according to documents at the Sacramento County recorder's office. In December, she received a default notice on the mortgage from the collection agency of Washington Mutual Inc., her lender. At that point, she owed $18,356.

At the time, she had left the Legislature after a quick rise from the Long Beach City Council and moved to Washington after winning a special election to fill a vacant congressional seat. Richardson on Wednesday blamed the frequent job-shifting for financial problems related to the Sacramento property.

A default notice in March this year put the "unpaid balance and other expenses" at $578,384 and said her 1,639-square-foot house would be auctioned at a trustee sale.

County records show the property was sold to a company called Red Rock Mortgage Inc. of Sacramento for $388,000 — although the county assessor's office continues to list Richardson as the owner. No listing could be found for Red Rock.

That sale was officially recorded Monday, according to the records. But Richards said the home was not in foreclosure and had not been seized.

"I have worked with my lender to complete a loan modification and have renegotiated the terms of the agreement — with no special provisions," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday. "I fully intend to fulfill all financial obligations of this property."

Richardson's chief of staff, Kimberly Parker, told the AP that the mortgage on the home had been sold but that the house had not. The collection agency referred inquiries to Washington Mutual, which did not return a call.

A real estate agent's lock box hung Wednesday from the front door of the 1926-vintage house.

Records at a Sacramento County tax office also show Richardson is delinquent in paying $8,950 in property taxes.

Richardson moved from the Long Beach City Council to her Assembly seat in 2006, and the next year won a special election to represent a heavily Democratic congressional district that includes Long Beach.

Congressional records show Richardson did not cast votes May 8 on three bills related to the Foreclosure Prevention Act. In her statement, she said she was away from Washington because of her father's funeral.

"I understand that these homeownership issues are a reflection of what many Americans are going through as they fight to keep their homes and to remain financially stable," Richardson said in her statement.

___

Associated Press writers Erica Werner in Washington and Samantha Young and Rich Pedroncelli in Sacramento contributed to this report.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080522/ap_on_re_us/congresswoman_s_house

---

Interesting isn't it

[TomInTib]

1. She's an idiot

I am on a friend's computer. or I would provide a link.

Check out what wonkette has to say about this.

Meanwhile, back to porn...

[geiger]

2. Washington Mutual is beyond contempt.

[BigDaddy44]

4. Why is that?

Did they twist her arm? Make her take the loan? She's a congresswoman. Surely she's smart enough to read a loan document. If she's not, I sure as hell don't want her making decisions that will impact me.

[geiger]

5. it takes months for the right person to get back to the borrower

by which time automatic foreclosure proceedings can begin.

Options then become very limited and inflexible, esp. if you're trying to sell, due to the foreclosure status. It's scam.

[Dreamer Tatum]

8. What the hell does that mean?

She risked foreclosure "waiting for someone to get back to her?"

Ridiculous. She borrowed the money, she was given the disclosures, and she's not keeping up her end.

ps - know who else thinks it's a scam? Washington Mutual. They think THEY'RE being scammed.

[geiger]

9. not if she suddenly decided she needed to sell, and they didn't want her to.

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. The only time the lender is involved in the sale is when they get the loan repaid

Come on.

[geiger]

12. and if they get an offer they dont like, they can dismiss it summarily

[seriousstan]

13. They like any offer that pays off the loan. You obviously rent.

[geiger]

14. nope.

[seriousstan]

15. Could you explain why they wouldn't? If I sell one of my houses and pay off the loan, it's over.

Try answering with a little more detail.

[geiger]

16. in a depressed market, with an offer of only less than $1,000 on the owed amount.

vacancy rates also, local foreclosure rates one of the highest in the nation.

[seriousstan]

17. You NEED to pay off the loan. The bank ALWAYS takes a full payout.

Otherwise you have not satisfied the terms and agreement you read and signed.

[geiger]

18. never mind. one would think we were on a Republican website.

Every case is so complicated. I wish I had never started this. Unless you have been in someone else's shoes, don't judge is all I can say.

Bottom line, the rules are not written for unique circumstances for borrowers, only lenders. eom eot (for me).

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. I thought I was on Incorrect Underground, actually

Every case is NOT "complicated." Despite the large number of papers you sign at closing, you are borrowing a
certain amount of principal. When you sell your home, the bank is entitled to the balance of the principal due.
If you make $1,000,000 on the sale over and above what you borrowed, that's your money (it's also called equity).

If you sell for a $100,000 loss, you owe the bank the difference between the sale proceeds and the loan.

It is exactly that simple.

You seem to think you need to consult the lender when you sell the house? Um, no.

UNLESS, of course, you can't make the payments, and you ask the bank to accept a short sale. That generally means
you sell it for less than the amount of the loan. In many instances, however, you still owe the amount you are
short.

[geiger]

22. like I said, never mind,

you have no idea.... bye. bye.

[Dreamer Tatum]

19. Could you *maybe* be talking about a short sale?

The lender is involved at that point. As for houses changing hands in the everyday market...the lender wants principal due plus accrued monthly interest.

[geiger]

23. nope, they want more than that, plus that begs the point if everyone

involved is "supposedly" losing money on the transaction.

The banks don't lose nothing. Period. They are covered at every corner.

[Dreamer Tatum]

24. On and of this specific topic, you are ignorant nt

[geiger]

25. not sure if there is a typo here and there,

but maybe things are different in Ohio than in California.

Best wishes to you.

[slackmaster]

26. Actually banks do lose money on REOs

Unless they can turn around and sell them quickly for a good price. It costs money to keep a vacant house in sellable condition.

[ohio2007]

6. in order to gain votes,redlining issues were played by Bushco in 2004

four years later, the chikens have come back to roost



'Redlining' rules may be weakened
Oct. 20, 2004


David W. Chen, New York Times

Federal banking regulators in the Bush administration are poised to weaken the nation's primary law requiring small banks to serve low-income residents in their own back yards through housing investments and development projects.

Since 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act has required banks with assets of more than $250 million to satisfy stringent tests gauging their banking services to low- and moderate-income residents. Because of that obligation, housing groups say, banks have channeled $1.5 trillion into housing, medical clinics and other projects. But many small banks have also complained about being sapped by the resources needed to comply.

So in recent months, two of the nation's four bank regulators -- the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. -- have proposed reducing the number of banks subject to the law.

snip

http://syracusethenandnow.org/Redlining/NewRedlining/RedlineRulesWeakened.htm


Obama should make this a campaign issue
http://syracusethenandnow.org/Redlining/Redlining.htm

[LeftyMom]

10. What does that have to do with this case?

She was given a big loan for a house in a good neighborhood (another article says the house is in Curtis Park, which is a good older neighborhood, and a short drive into downtown,) so it doesn't appear she was redlined.

[ohio2007]

3. zero down...zero a month payments....do the math

[dmosh42]

7. Probably was planning on big bribes and payoffs....

but didn't realize most of that goes to the committee chairs and Pelosi & gang.

[slackmaster]

21. Either she is a complete idiot, or there is something big missing from the story

I'm looking at the public record data right now. Everything in the article checks out as far as I can see, except the alleged sale to Red Rock. I see no sign of that. Richardson is still the owner of record as of a month ago.

It appears that she bought the house on 1/10/2007 for the amount stated. She probably stopped making payments about September 2007. The property tax is delinquent as of 2006 (in other words, she has never made a property tax payment!). The previous owner was paying just over $1,000 per year in property tax due to Proposition 13. I find the non-payment of property tax more troubling than missing a few mortgage payments.

With a $165,200 salary, she should have had no trouble keeping up with the payments and taxes on that house. She owns no other property.

CORRECTION - She owns a home in Long Beach. She owes about $450,000 on that one. Unless she is renting out the Long Beach home, that plus the mortgage on the Sacramento home may be more than she can afford. (And she should have known better than to buy the place in Sacramento.)

[olddad56]

27. it is so sad to hear about a politican losing ONE of her houses.