It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 08:38 PM
a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

Wow that's pretty stupid, her fee may be a bit more then the $6 that is owed. Me thinks Somebody got a deal on a house now, or some pocket change, that or it was done just because its part of the process. Funny no having to pay contentiously and for ever, and ever, even in death to a make believe created construct, for something which you and your family have put your time and sweat to help built and paid for your whole life's, of which they did absolutely nothing but some words on paper and now they own it. Its like having to pay for the privilege of existing on the land you and every single other ancestor of yours was born on, to a construct which only exists on paper and in peoples heads.

The land of indentured servants sure has progressed to farther reaches of new and complex ways of serfdom.

posted on Apr, 29 2014 @ 11:41 PM
I imagine with this level of public outrage she will get her appeal and have the whole case thrown out. Every hand that touched this case and prosecuted her should be disbarred. There is no gain on either side of this case. No one can debate that to a higher court.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 04:08 AM
Not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, interest on a loan needs to be repaid, if it's not all repaid the item goes back to the loaner. Just because she paid 99.999% of it doesn't get her out of this.

On the other hand, going by the story it sounds like the response was "she should know she owes this amount" there was never an actual offer to follow up and inform her that she owed some money. It comes across to me like they simply wanted to catch her on a technicality and that's wrong.

It really all depends on what actions the tax office took.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 05:55 AM
a reply to: Aazadan

there was never an actual offer to follow up and inform her that she owed some money.

There was three notifications to her that she still owed money.
Including one that told her the house was going to put up for auction.
She ignored them.

This next is speculation on my part:
Since she is only recieving $108K of the $116K selling price ($8K for additional taxes).
It sounds to me like she was perpetually behind in her taxes.
She may have brought her 2009 indebtedness current except for $6.30, but she didn't pay anything towards 2010 or 2011. Then when she recieved the sale notification, she ASSUMED it was pertaining to 2010 taxes. And just blew it off figuring she had time.

The news media like to make the story out to be BIG BAD GOVERNMENT.
When it was simply another person who couldn't afford the house she was living in.

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 10:51 AM
I just read this on RT..and there must be more to this story, this just doesn't make sense? maybe only in America.. But 6.30$ debt, they want to sell her house under market..116,000$ when it's worth 280k..then the Ahole guy who buys it, will sell it back for 260k..When he pays peanuts for it..

Just ridiculous, if she has to buy it back or any of that crap..I just don't see any justifacation to sell someones house over 7$ debt.. I'm sure if she was aware of it, she would of paid a measly 7$..

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 12:37 PM
I am not trying to defend the actions of the government as I think this is absolutely ridiculous but why the hell didn't she just pay the $6.30 initially? They do not do this without sending multiple notice after notice... why the hell didn't she just pay the interest charge? As everyone has said, this is less than a fast food meal...

posted on Apr, 30 2014 @ 06:42 PM
I'm not sure what kind of neighborhood she lived in. I don't live in a ritzy neighborhood myself and 280,00 would barely buy you a barn around here.a reply to: samkent

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 03:15 AM

originally posted by: mobiusmale

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"

This is the thought that occurred to me when I first read the story. How could they take such valued personal property without ever making physical contact with the owner? How can the judge force the sale without first asking the owner "Will you or will you not pay the $6.30?" Something seems very unreasonable about their 'legal' process.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 03:40 AM
Perhaps there are cold blooded lizards that look human, I cannot see a brain that is different to a human brain thinking the same way, just not natural.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:04 AM

originally posted by: samkent
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.
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.

Oh you must be right Sam. She sure must have deserved that. It really does seem she was trying to pull a fast one.
You sound like a cold hearted government apologist. Do you draw a government paycheck?
A few years back I had a chance to get in on foreclosures and auctioned properties.
I quickly found out how controlled it was. People with gov and bank connections end up with a lot of properties on technicalities.
After touring several properties and witnessing first hand the broken pieces of peoples lives I decided I couldn't profit of others misfortunes. But many do. I always wonder how they look at themselves in the mirror.
There are always other options. A reverse mortgage might have helped this woman. Government pretends constantly that it's function is to help its citizens when it's mostly looking to grab anything it can from them.

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:16 AM
a reply to: VinMan

It would certainly be very interesting to learn more about who ended up purchasing this property...and what (if any) connections they have to "the process".

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 09:21 AM
There's money to be made from most ignorant fools, and the people that took her house absolutely knew it was wrong whether or not they felt they were in the right for doing so.

I know people here, I work for one, who do absolutely nothing for their money but work on people's insecurities and fears to sell them insurance and get paid royalties forever for making the sale of a policy that one will be dropped from as soon as a claim against it is made.

However anyone would justify such things is irrelevant if they are so willing to take advantage of people regardless of how they see themselves or what they do to get by.

Whether she was being obstinate or just ignorant is not covered in the half baked story.

I have dealt with these government scumbags, the only way to protect yourself is to be so small they don't care about you.

Considering the source, who the heck knows what is going on....

As far as precedence as a previous poster stated, there is precedence if one does the research but it only serves as a delay tactic to buy time to prepare for a change of living arrangements.

All the judge has to do is declare your filings and claims irrelevant or frivolous.
edit on 1-5-2014 by MyHappyDogShiner because: frivolous

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 04:24 PM
This is horrible and ridiculous...but...why did she never pay the $6.30 after being warned multiple times..? I's $6.30...which makes throwing her out so ridiculous...but also makes one wonder why the hell she didn't just get that paid...
edit on 1-5-2014 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 1 2014 @ 05:59 PM
This is insane...

I work for one of - if not the - most detested financial institutions in the UK - possibly the world and even my most brutal colleagues would not stoop so low.

Absolutely disgusting and actually makes me want to cry.

I hate our species.


posted on May, 2 2014 @ 04:44 AM
a reply to: mobiusmale

This is of course plainly wrong, but it is a problem some other members and myself have been trying to point out for a long time.

This happened not just because they wanted this poor woman out of her house, but it is a precedent, and be sure that there will be more, and more cases like this one.

These taxes on already PAID property is how these people have been circumventing the "right to property" as guaranteed per The United States Constitution/Bill of Rights.

Millions of Americans have thought that they own the property they are paying, or have already paid in full but still must pay taxes on it. All you need in the equation is an "economic crisis" to make it impossible for Americans to pay the taxes on their property, just ONCE, and voila the United Nations Agenda 21 is in full force and no American will be able to own private property... At least not the regular Americans...

These tax laws on property are ILLEGAL as per the U.S. Constitution, yet most Americans have been asleep for too long and haven't been able to understand the severity of such laws and what it means.

This is simply a precedent for those in power to "legally" ban the "right to property" Americans have.

If only Americans would for ONCE unite and protest against this as AMERICANS, we could stop them from taking away every American's right to own private property... Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

edit on 2-5-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on May, 2 2014 @ 05:23 AM

originally posted by: samkent

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.

just because you have no compassion does not mean everyone else are as another poster stated a robot....yes the cogs need to keep turning in the name of "progress" but to what end ?....the whole human race will fail miserably unless people band together and make it segregate one another over such trivial things will only add to our demise

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 02:51 AM

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Aazadan

there was never an actual offer to follow up and inform her that she owed some money.

There was three notifications to her that she still owed money.
Including one that told her the house was going to put up for auction.
She ignored them.


I am sorry but you have no idea of what you are talking about. Bank institutions these days are more devious than ever, and they use several dirty tactics trying to not only squeeze as much money as possible, but to repossess as many properties back as they can. I know this because something similar happened to my parents, and Bank of America didn't respond to my parents inquiries or even to my parent's lawyer, they (Bank of America) just allowed the time frame in which my parents had to respond to pass by. No matter how many letters my parents, or their lawyer made and sent to the bank, Bank of America kept claiming they didn't receive anything...and this happened for over a year...

What happened to this woman was obviously a setup. BTW, all she really owed was $6.30 and this amount increased to $235 because of "other taxes, bank fees and interests."

In fact, here is an interesting part from the article mentioning what she owed.

She had previously owed other taxes, but at the time of the sale she owed just $235, including other interest and fees.

The above statement starts by mentioning that "she owed other taxes", but it doesn't specifically mention that it was for that property, and it doesn't mention for what exactly she was owing that amount. Then it states that at the time of the sale she owed $235, including other interest and fees.

Other interests and fees owed by her could be for other reasons and not for the real/original amount that she owed. For example it has been common for banks/financial institutions to sell their mortgages to other companies, or even hire different companies which then charge the customers (owners of the property) not only for the original amount they owed, but they add new charges on top of the original amount which leaves the owners/renters with new fees they must pay for.

edit on 4-5-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in