Movers, deputies *refuse* to evict 103-year-old woman

reply to post by xxcalbier


103 year old woman can't work? How do we know this woman had this house her whole life.

What if she bought it ten years ago, and for some reason her funds dried up?

reply to post by Skewed


The bank will have the movers and deputies do it again.

After that they will most likely file against both.

This has actually helped the bank, they just went from a house that they will probably lose money on, to a house and lawsuits that they will make money on.

*golf clap*

Well played.

reply to post by peck420


There is a little more to it than that.

As long as the bank has the title and there is money owed on it, the bank is loosing money every day until they can get the place vacated and new tenants or someone else buys it. There is some intangible loses that will accrue that the bank will not be able to recover.

reply to post by Skewed


Absolutely there is more to it than that.

But, the deputies (if there was a valid warrant) have directly violated their duties, and I have yet to see a civil suit that will pay out less than that house is worth.

The deputies have just cost the tax payers far more than that house was ever worth.

Moral victory = 1, Logical victory = 0

Hence the golf clap.

reply to post by Jason88


She gave the glory to God as was right for her to do, he didn't let her down and he won't.

"Give to Caesar what is Caesar, give to God what is God's"- Jesus the Christ

Translation: Caesar doesn't even own the ground he is buried in, God made all, and he owns all and if God wanted her house he'd come down and repossess it himself and it's obvious that he doesn't want it.

S+F

The story clearly states they can pay however Chase Bank is not accepting the payment.
Smells a story here.
Just an added note for all the Troll posters in this thread condemning the old lass for being scamming the bank. You did not read the whole argument/article. By not doing so you have come across ignorant in your jump to attack these people. You are negative trolls and you are unmasked.
Deny ignorance ATS

reply to post by Shirak


You took the words right out of my mouth!

Now WHY is'nt the bank accepting payment on the loan in full? Packs of bastards.

reply to post by Shirak


I think some of these home loans are the same scam as life insurance policies. Meaning, if you miss a payment you forfeit your investment to your home or life insurance policy... over the course of a lifetime you will miss a payment, the math says you will, so these companies always profit. I really like that the cops and movers used their heads rather than their authority... we can all use more people like that, thinking on their feet.

Edit: I'm taking a stab at why the bank is refusing her payments, but in no way defending it. They are treating money as more important than life, which will surely put them on the freight train to hell (coming from a semi-religious person).

Originally posted by xxcalbier
well now i know what you need to be in order to be judged by you guys as a ooo we should be nice to them.
103 years old .
what is the difference between 103 and 83 and 53 and 33 and 23 if i may ask? why is it you guys all flip out when its a 33 year old saying they have troubles paying and shouldn't have to leave but when its a 103 year old hey dont pay no problem?
after all this woman had a 103 YEARS to pay off this home if she couldn't do it in that time why the pity party?
just asking because you all say I am a loser because of the economy and would just love to finish me off instead of giving me a job

In this case she has the money and can pay but the bank won't take it.

There is a difference between this and a working age person borrowing money and then wanting to have a free house when they cannot pay the money back. It is dishonest at the highest order to say if you took out a loan for more than you can pay you should get a house for free, while honest folk make the payments as promised.

The idea everyone is owed a free house because they knowingly took out a loan they could not afford is so wrong on its face as to label those who think that way as nearly common thieves. My response is please loan me every penny you earn and I'll take your advice and never pay you back. If you believe as you say you have no choice but like it when I don't pay you back because dishonesty is simply OK with you.

What troubles me most here is her church members did not step in and help her. Must be a strange church. I've never belonged to one that would not help their elderly? One pass of the hat and problem solved. The church I grew up in would have bought the loan in fact.

Lot's of back story here I'm sure.

As to you, why not get student loans and get a skill? People with degrees are only at 4.5% unemployment and if you get a math or science degree it drops to about 2%.

In an honest legal system, if payment is refused then a debt is no longer owed.

But then again, where is the proof that the bank has lost anything?

The principal borrowed is not owned my the bank itself, it is from the Federal Reserve. And just numbers on screen to and from various accounts at that. All Federal Reserve Notes are fiat currency, no tangible asset backs any of it.

The interest is usury and is at best an investment gamble. Stocks can go down in value, you can go over 21 while playing backjack. So why is it that the banks have investment insurance beyond that of a common mafia loan shark?

And speaking of which, why is a monopoly given to banks and the Federal Reserve over such loans? The land contractor or construction firm cannot enter into such protected loan agreements with say a housing project that is whole independent of banks and financial lenders nor would they be permitted to charge such an interest rate over the lifetime of the loan despite it becoming residual income and subject to income taxes?

Are banks not afforded the same profit and loss deductions that other businesses are permitted when it comes to taxes? If so, they could give her the house as an advertising promotion and deduct the market value over 5-7 years.

But bringing up interest rates...most every bank can issue credit cards with rates ranging for 17%-29% which are nothing more than signature loans with a 30 day (sometimes 28 day) same as cash term. No bank could legally charge such rates on a standard signature loan.

While I certainly disagree with OWS for various reasons, I am at a loss to understand why the Federal Government has not revoked the Federal Reserve's charter due to economic monopoly procedures. The short term would tank the dollar, but in the long run the US would become stronger and more stable than ever.

reply to post by Ahabstar


Don't give Fannie, Freddie and old Barney a pass. Thanks to Barney (Franks) the banks were not only doing something legal, they were more or less forced to make the bad loans. I think old Barney stepped aside for other than his age. He did not want to face a changed district full of people who knew his part in the collapse. You can only lie for so long.

I'm not 103, and likely will not live that long. I am not 83, and likely will not live that long. If my house weren't paid in full, but I for any reason cannot pay my taxes, I, at 65, would be put out on the street. I am on Social Security and Medicare. I haven't been able to work for 19 years due to crippling arthritis. I cannot imagine ANYONE who has lived in a house for any length of time, who cannot go to work (if there were any jobs available!) having to be put out on the street, or into a homeless shelter, and then a nursing home (where these two would likely be placed against their wills) where they will be drugged, have their incomes confiscated to where they can't even buy chewing gum because none of their income is theirs, any longer, and feeling this is fair.

At younger ages, you still have hope. What do any of us who can no longer work and are too old to BE employed, have to look forward to, except to die in our own homes?

You younger, selfish, compassionless people need to get a grip on humanity.

Originally posted by Skewed
reply to post by peck420

 

There is a little more to it than that.

As long as the bank has the title and there is money owed on it, the bank is loosing money every day until they can get the place vacated and new tenants or someone else buys it. There is some intangible loses that will accrue that the bank will not be able to recover.

There is a lady that is in the same situation and she doesn't pay anything for her home.
The bank claims they hold her title and when she ask to see it all they can produce is a certificate of title and apparently is not the same yet a real title doesn't exist.

online.wsj.com... 0047766.html
Ms. Campbell's foreclosure case has outlasted two marriages, three recessions and four presidents. She has seen seven great-grandchildren born, plum real-estate markets come and go and the ownership of her mortgage change six times. Many Florida real-estate lawyers say it is the longest-lasting foreclosure case they have ever heard of.

Just for the record I am not suicidal

At just three weeks shy of her 104th birthday, Vinia Hall has shared her home on Penelope Road in Northwest Atlanta with her daughter for 53 years.

53yrs and this loan isn't payed off? Maybe it is some type of reverse mortgage. If this is a normal loan, this Bank should be demolished. A nice story for a change.