Judge OKs decision to sell widow's home over $6.30 debt

page: 2
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to: samkent

There are plenty of people in the same government that took this woman's house that have a much harder time paying much larger tax debts yet they can keep their property. Charlie Rangel comes to mind first. Why should the laws not apply to everyone equally if they want to play hardball?

She may have buried her head in the sand after losing her husband but there is no argument that will convince me that selling a woman's house because she didn't cough up $7 bucks was the right thing to do. I doubt anyone here would make a fuss about her house being taken had she owed thousands in back taxes. People are upset because there is an apparent lack of common sense and simple humanity running amok throughout the entire system. They are upset because the same laws do not apply to everyone.

And yes. Had I known of her situation, I would have gladly given her the $7 if she needed it even though I am not well off enough myself. Even if I did it for the greedy need to be able to lay my head down in peace that night... I would have done it. We don't know her situation and maybe she did have some kind of psychological break when her husband died. It is ludicrous to kick anyone out of their home over such a paltry sum regardless IMO.

ETA - that empathy is not such a hard thing. Would you want your mother tossed out of her house had your father died and she (for whatever reason) didn't pay $7? My guess would be no. Anybody can wind up in a situation like this, when we forget this fact it may come back to haunt us one day. I have seen times where I would have literally cried had someone handed me $5. I had a house and a car at the time, but not much else. Life's circumstances can change as quickly as the weather at any given time. It's easy to be unforgiving if you have never been there.
edit on 4/29/2014 by Kangaruex4Ewe because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: samkentyes I would. why wouldn't I? that is such an inhumane question in of itself. there is right and wrong. there is no grey. from infancy the human knows right from wrong. that's right, even babies know the difference. so everyday people go about their lives and THEY KNOW, you can feel it inside, if what you are doing or about to do, is right or wrong. you can feel it in your bones from infancy. so as I see it, I am surrounded by people who very well know right from wrong, but most still choose to do the wrong. decline is imminent.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: samkent
What I read was that it was proven in court that she ignored multiple notices of this debt.
Plus she ignored the tax sale notice of her property.

Some people are horrible at financial matters.
It was thought that her husband had taken care of most of her financial affairs before his death. She just stuck her head in the sand over the notices. Feeling they must be wrong.

The local governments have exacting steps they must follow for every debt. Be it large or small. The process is the process.

Ask yourself this:
Would you take $6 out of your pocket to pay the debt for someone who lives in a $280K house in a nice neighborhood?


If I had understood that she was unable to respond adequately due to her not having read the County's correspondence, or because she was suffering from severe depression due to the death of her husband, or some such...then yes - and would have offered to contact her lawyer, or another family member to help her through the crisis.

I think the more proper question is...would it have been too much trouble for somebody from the County to have gone over to her house, knocked on the door and said, "Have you been getting our mail saying that if you don't pay us $6.30, that we are going to sell your house? Do you understand that this is a serious situation? Can you just write me a cheque today to take back to the County"


Wow the thought of simple human interaction to solve what should be a simple problem. That's a novel idea sir. Sadly I don't believe this sort of simple problem solving will happen anytime soon, we are too far down the rabbit hole.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   
edit on 29-4-2014 by Backbiter2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Ah, good old Pennsylvania...I've lived in a few different regions in a handful of states, but PA's courts and criminal justice system are about the most screwed up ive ever seen. Cash for Kids, the Sandusky cover-up, this story, not to mention anecdotal stories collected from numerous people since living here...
Collusion and corruption done so smooth and quietly that it goes under the radar.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Why didn't she just pay the $6.30? If she was so far out of it that she couldn't comprehend the letters and notices, where was her family?



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale




I don't think that your "evil" characterisation is an over-reach here. And I would even go a little further in saying that this was some form of collective evil. In order for this to go forward,

I think you said it best! If I worked in that office I would have paid the 6$ bill and put it in the paid files...people are really lacking.

Most of these guys will go to churches on Sundays.Pray with all the rest.

James 1:27



New Living Translation
Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: Nucleardoom

Exactly how they are going to sell a $280k dollars house for a $6.3 problem, a big mac cost me more than that, there must be more to this but come on this is just crazy. does judges think? does anyone involved is able to think?


If I could buy the house for $6.3 I would buy it and give it back to the lady. This country is going down the crapper very fast, time to move to Canada aye !



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Is there no limit to the just how completely idiotic bureaucrats can behave...and just how utterly devoid of common sense that lawmakers and judges can be?


A widow was given ample notice before her $280,000 house was sold at a tax auction three years ago over $6.30 in unpaid interest, a Pennsylvania judge has ruled.


Um...what...$6.30?

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how much money Beaver County spent on registered letters, lawyers, court costs, selling costs, etc. in order to enforce the recovery of this overdue $6.30. Why, under circumstances such as this, does a County Administrator not have some kind of discretion to waive the interest...or simply add it to her next year's tax bill...?

Even more disturbing is that the County obviously stood up in court and defended its actions.


Joe Askar, Beaver County's chief solicitor, said the judge got the decision right, based on the law.


Sure Joe...or as the County's chief solicitor, you might have wanted to suggest to the County that there were some aspects of the current law that ought to be changed so that such drastic actions, over paltry sums, would not occur in the first place.

www.foxnews.com...



This is a obvious fix. This is how lawyers legally steal from vulnerable people. The judge was no doubt in on it. The woman was probably never notified. This is done all the time. It's being done to my tenant right now.
Of course the county administrator could have had discretion in the matter, unless he wanted the house for himself or a family member which is likely what happened here.
There needs to be civilian review boards set up to oversee police and government enforcement actions. They have proven time and time again they will not do it themselves.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

This is why the legal system is invalid. Any system that forcibly evicts a human being over such a trivial matter isn't worthy of respect. Rather than do the decent thing and fish out a $10 spot of his overpaid wallet a judge ruled and made it legal but wrong.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
That is really stupid, But why didn't the lady just pay the darn 6.30$....it's beyond me.

This reminds me of my buddy that received a check in the mail a few years ago (2006 I think) for a tax refund of.......drumroll........ 0.02$. He showed it to me during the holidays as he did not cash it becauue the transaction fees would be 100 times the amount deposited. It is actually framed in his house!

We had a good laugh at that one!



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: VinMan



The judge was no doubt in on it. The woman was probably never notified. This is done all the time. It's being done to my tenant right now.
Of course the county administrator could have had discretion in the matter, unless he wanted the house for himself or a family member which is likely what happened here.
There needs to be civilian review boards set up to oversee police and government enforcement actions. They have proven time and time again they will not do it themselves.


You appear to know nothing about the facts of this case.

The judge is bound by law. How can you say the judge is 'in on it'?
It was shown in court that the lady WAS NOTIFIED on several ocassions.
No the county Admin does NOT have discretion in these matters. You can't set a legal precedent.
You don't need civilian review boards because these county admins are elected officials.

Someone else said some one should have driven out to the house and personally talked to the lady. Well that again falls under legal precedent.

I have personally seen notifications from the county reguarding my decesed mothers property being sold for taxes.
You can't mistake the intent in these notifications.
They clearly state YOUR PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD AT AUCTION IF YOU DO NOT PAY.
She played the game with the county betting they wouldn't follow through.
But the process is the process. They cross all their 't's' and dot all their 'i's' every step of the way.
Don't think you are going to pull a fast one on them.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
More facts:

The $6.30 was interest on a unpaid taxes from 2009.
The house was sold in Sept, 2011.
She has been allowed to stay until the proceedings are finished. Close to 3 years free.
She will get only $108K out of the $116K from the sale because of aditional unpaid taxes.

So it was NOT JUST $6.30.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 04:03 PM
link   
This has to be bull# or more to it.

Who cant just borrow 7 bucks from a naybour? "Hey could you lend me 7 bucks or when i get kicked out you could have anyone living next door"

@ guy above ahhhhhhhhhh there we have it.
edit on b0404411 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
What is wrong with this people? all the militia that went to Bundy ranch should protect this house now.

why people don't riot over things like this???

The only way i see this possible is the one that make this happen had a personal grudge against the woman or her late husband, this is sick.


The property sold for about $116,000, and most of that money will be paid to Battisti if further appeals are unsuccessful. An attorney for the purchaser did not return a phone message on Monday.


So they sold the house less than half the value so she even get less of what is hers...


They know that if the house gets auctioned, the city council and taxpayers get an extra $116,000 to spend on services. No-one is going to stand up for her because it will be union rules that no-one opposes the city in attempting to maximize revenue.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
There needs to be some Bundy ranch style action over this.

IF a rancher with some cattle is worth fighting for,

Surely a Widow and her home ....



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Simple solution: Find out where the judge lives and draw up plans for a proposed shopping mall. Make sure that his property is marked for the parking lot storm sewer. And file paperwork for eminent domain based on your proposal.

Judge will get an absolute education of the system in action.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   


They know that if the house gets auctioned, the city council and taxpayers get an extra $116,000 to spend on services. No-one is going to stand up for her because it will be union rules that no-one opposes the city in attempting to maximize revenue.


Severe lack of knowledge here.

The house WAS auctioned to a private individual.
The county cannot keep excess proceeds. Only the outstanding balance they are due.
She owed another $8K in taxes so she only recieved $108K.




Find out where the judge lives and draw up plans for a proposed shopping mall. Make sure that his property is marked for the parking lot storm sewer. And file paperwork for eminent domain based on your proposal.


Once again wrong.
Eminent domain cannot be used for commercial reasons.
Norwood Ohio learned that the hard way a few years ago.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Norwood learns many lessons the hard way, as due many suburbs of Cincinnati.

Change shopping mall to public restroom then.



posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Sounds like something Harry Reid would do to make a quick buck.





new topics
top topics
 
38
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join