Texsox Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-09-13-17-20-42 DETROIT (AP) -- A 101-year-old woman was evicted from the southwest Detroit home where she lived for nearly six decades after her 65-year-old son failed to pay the mortgage. They should have plenty of time to walk south before it gets too cold there in Detroit. Maybe they could find a nice spot on a beach somewhere in Florida. Obviously Obamacare and Obamastimulus has not worked for this woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 "She didn't pay her bills? Let her die!" /tea party rant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandy125 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Her son, Warren Hollis, said he didn't pay the bill for several years and disregarded eviction notices. "I kept it from her because I didn't want to worry her," Warren Hollis told WXYZ-TV for a report that aired Monday night. "I was just so sure it wasn't going to happen." Can her son be kicked out of his own house instead of her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 I feel bad for her, but I don't see anything wrong with evicting her. Her son hasn't paid the mortgage in years and was given a forclosure notice ten months ago. What the f*** did he think was gonna happen? He is the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 05:46 AM) http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_...-09-13-17-20-42 They should have plenty of time to walk south before it gets too cold there in Detroit. Maybe they could find a nice spot on a beach somewhere in Florida. Obviously Obamacare and Obamastimulus has not worked for this woman. So what is the cutoff age for having to pay your mortgage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSox05 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Not my problem. She should get a job. If not have fun on streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 Depending on how this worked... if the son was conducting financial dealings for the property that were either not communicated clearly to the property owner, or if he did anything otherwise illegal, he should be prosecuted. The other thing is, this is a good argument for making sure foreclosures are seen and reviewed by an actual judge, not just someone at a desk signing papers. Because once in a while, when you have a situation like this, I think a judge should have some power to grant temporary stay - with the condition that the mortgager gains possesion of the home in the event of the death or moving out of this resident. A 101 year old woman isn't going to be in that house forever, and this would even help the bank in some ways not look like the "bad guy" (even though they really aren't the bad guy at all, the son is). In other words, I am OK with the occasional exception being enforced by the authorities, within strict bounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:51 AM) Depending on how this worked... if the son was conducting financial dealings for the property that were either not communicated clearly to the property owner, or if he did anything otherwise illegal, he should be prosecuted. The other thing is, this is a good argument for making sure foreclosures are seen and reviewed by an actual judge, not just someone at a desk signing papers. Because once in a while, when you have a situation like this, I think a judge should have some power to grant temporary stay - with the condition that the mortgager gains possesion of the home in the event of the death or moving out of this resident. A 101 year old woman isn't going to be in that house forever, and this would even help the bank in some ways not look like the "bad guy" (even though they really aren't the bad guy at all, the son is). In other words, I am OK with the occasional exception being enforced by the authorities, within strict bounds. The problem is that even a judge won't hear all of these facts because the only person in front of him/her explaining what happened is the attorney for the bank. Obviously the son had every right to be there and explain the situation, and I have no doubt that any judge in cook county would have looked at the attorney for the bank and said "seriously?" and continued the matter for a few months so that a deal could be worked out. But, the son is an idiot, and ignored the notices. I dunno what else the bank is obligated to do in that scenario. Foreclosure and eviction is incredibly pro-tenant, so it's not like he was given 2 seconds to find alternate housing. He was given months and months of notice, multiple opportunities to stay the foreclosure in the court system, but didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) The problem is that even a judge won't hear all of these facts because the only person in front of him/her explaining what happened is the attorney for the bank. Obviously the son had every right to be there and explain the situation, and I have no doubt that any judge in cook county would have looked at the attorney for the bank and said "seriously?" and continued the matter for a few months so that a deal could be worked out. But, the son is an idiot, and ignored the notices. I dunno what else the bank is obligated to do in that scenario. Foreclosure and eviction is incredibly pro-tenant, so it's not like he was given 2 seconds to find alternate housing. He was given months and months of notice, multiple opportunities to stay the foreclosure in the court system, but didn't. The obvious question then is...should there be no safeguards for a case like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 The obvious question to me is how do you live in a house for nearly six decades and not pay it off? Rhetorical question I assume somebody got over their skis refinancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 12:06 PM) The obvious question then is...should there be no safeguards for a case like this? There are. The son chose to ignore them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted September 14, 2011 Author Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (vandy125 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:16 AM) Can her son be kicked out of his own house instead of her? My reading of the article made it seem like the kid was living with her, or she with him. The liberal media is playing up the 101 year old woman angle and not the 65 year old son. Makes for a better story. QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:19 AM) I feel bad for her, but I don't see anything wrong with evicting her. Her son hasn't paid the mortgage in years and was given a forclosure notice ten months ago. What the f*** did he think was gonna happen? He is the problem. Exactly. She raised an idiot kid. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 09:20 AM) So what is the cutoff age for having to pay your mortgage? 100 or with less than 12 months to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) There are. The son chose to ignore them. This is absolutely correct. The article indicates (and every single shred of work I have done on the bankruptcy and foreclosure side of the law supports this fact) that the son received notices AND the son did not pay his mortgage for years before the bank started the foreclosure process. That is years of the bank not getting paid a dime on this loan. Is it sad and regrettable that this 101 year old woman is out of her home? Yes (though we should note that the article indicates she moved in across the street - she isn't living under a bridge). Is this the bank's fault? No. If the son failed to respond to notices, demand letters, complaints, etc. for years, are you going to make the bank go knock on the door to ensure the homeowner isn't old or infirm (and probably violate the FDCPA in the process)? No one is denying that banks have abused the FC process and wrote loans to people who should not have received loans, but that does not make the bank the bad guy any time an elderly person is foreclosed upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:36 PM) There are. The son chose to ignore them. But the son is not the one we're talking about here, now is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:07 PM) But the son is not the one we're talking about here, now is he? Really? So how far removed should you be able to have a homes ownership before you can foreclose on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:10 PM) Really? So how far removed should you be able to have a homes ownership before you can foreclose on it? And there's my question...about whether there should be any safeguards for that issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:11 PM) And there's my question...about whether there should be any safeguards for that issue? There are safeguards. If the son chooses to willfully put his mother out onto the street, there isn't much anyone can do about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:13 PM) There are safeguards. If the son chooses to willfully put his mother out onto the street, there isn't much anyone can do about that. Should there be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) Should there be? A safe guard for stupid? Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:16 PM) A safe guard for stupid? Good luck with that. We have lots of fairly effective safeguards for stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:17 PM) We have lots of fairly effective safeguards for stupid. Then again this wasn't stupid, this was willfully ignorant. And no, you can't safeguard against a person who is willfully putting their mother on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:18 PM) Then again this wasn't stupid, this was willfully ignorant. And no, you can't safeguard against a person who is willfully putting their mother on the street. The issue there though is that there is a 2nd human life involved who is impacted, and it is possible to safeguard against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) The issue there though is that there is a 2nd human life involved who is impacted, and it is possible to safeguard against that. So the reality would be, if someone wanted to never pay for their house, they could just put it into a relatives name, and ignore everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 02:21 PM) So the reality would be, if someone wanted to never pay for their house, they could just put it into a relatives name, and ignore everything. Is it a problem if a 101 year old woman is foreclosed on and evicted from her home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 14, 2011 Share Posted September 14, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 14, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) Is it a problem if a 101 year old woman is foreclosed on and evicted from her home? Again, at what age do you get to not have to pay your mortgage, and who exactly is supposed to pay for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts