From -- where else? -- the San Fran Chronicle:
Joann Gardner sat forlornly on her living room floor, waiting for the final step in her home's foreclosure process. The lender's representative was due any moment to give her "cash for keys," a transaction in which she would deliver her family home vacant in exchange for an incentive payment."I'm glad it's done," Gardner said wearily. "I just want to sit down and have some Hennessy."
Only days earlier, the house had been jammed with boxes and bags holding the worldly goods her family had accumulated during 54 years in the cramped Oakland bungalow.
Now it was entirely empty, the possessions in storage or donated to the Salvation Army. Gardner's elderly parents, both suffering from dementia and other ailments, had moved a week earlier to a local board-and-care home whose cost would be covered by their Social Security and pension checks. Gardner, who has been her parents' full-time care provider for the past 18 months, planned to move in with her boyfriend in Vallejo and look for a job, perhaps something at Costco.
Highlighted are what should be some red flags. But hey, another "feel sorry for me because I'm being foreclosed on" story, right?
Wrong.
For example, how could the mortgage not have been paid off in 54 years?? Here's why:
Joann's parents, Johnnie Gardner, 87, and Estelle, 88, bought the two-bedroom in the Sobrante Park neighborhood in 1954 for $11,500. His salary as an electrician at the Oakland naval shipyard allowed them to make the payments.But in recent years, Joann and her brother refinanced it several times for increasingly larger amounts.
The final refinance at the end of 2006 left the family owing $454,000. The monthly payments of $3,362 exceeded the household income of $3,144.
Over $400K?? Now, what in the hell was happened to all that money?
Gardner can't quite say. Some went to paying off credit cards; some was eaten up in huge loan fees.
And perhaps some went to buying a lot of Hennessy? Or something a little "harder?"
At least Gardner realizes -- somewhat -- that she bears some responsibility for her predicament:
"This is it; I can't come back here no more," she said as she walked down the front steps. "I hope it helps somebody to read about this; they won't be boo-boo the fool like I was."
Maybe Gardner could have emphasized this to the Chronicle so that they'd find something much more worthy about which to write.
(h/t: Malkin.)
ha, durable POA, it can be a good thing or it can be used by people who only care about themselves.
Posted by: arthur at August 12, 2008 11:23 AMPOA? Is that "Point of Attack?"
Care to elucidate on your comment, arthur?
Posted by: Hube at August 12, 2008 11:24 AMYou highlighted two quotes from Gardner: one you placed too much emphasis on, the other not enough.
Miss Gardner does not seem to be trying to elicit any pity, and takes full responsibility for her own foolishness.
Yes, this is her fault, but implying that she's a drunk or a druggie belies the class that I know you have, Hube.
Posted by: Joe M at August 12, 2008 11:42 AMJoe: I think it's pretty clear that I criticize both Gardner AND the Chronicle.
And until the paper (or Gardner) reveals just where over $400K went, one is free to speculate all he wishes -- especially since alcohol/drugs is a very common "expense" in such situations.
Posted by: Hube at August 12, 2008 11:51 AMPOA...power of attorney. meaning her kids had the ability to do what they wanted with their parents assets. basically, her and her brother stole a half a million from their parents. the chronicle did such a great job of tracking what they actually spent it on.
Posted by: arthur at August 12, 2008 11:59 AMAh. Thanks, arthur!
Posted by: Hube at August 12, 2008 12:05 PMExcellent article by the SF Chronicle to point out sad cases of the mortgage foreclosure crisis (snark alert).
Joe M:
Hube suggested she was a drunk because the article quoted her as saying she was going to go drink a little Hennesseys (cognac I think).
And I don't see her taking "full responsibility" when she can't even say where the money went except for credit cards and blaming "high loan fees". A better reporter would have pinned her down and gotten a more precise dollar figure. The story left the door open to assign blame to the bank which is not fair IMO. The bank lost a couple hundred thousand dollars on the mortgage so it was not a predator in this case just a bad business loan.
BTW - this very liberal newspaper has led all others in losing circulation - about 30-40% in the last 3 years.
"And until the paper (or Gardner) reveals just where over $400K went, one is free to speculate all he wishes -- especially since alcohol/drugs is a very common "expense" in such situations."
I didn't say you weren't free to speculate, I said that your conclusion lacked class.
"And I don't see her taking "full responsibility" when she can't even say where the money went except for credit cards and blaming "high loan fees"."
Seems to me that "I hope it helps somebody to read about this; they won't be boo-boo the fool like I was." is taking full responsibility. She didn't say she was foolish to trust the bank, she simply said that she had managed her money foolishly.
Posted by: Joe M at August 13, 2008 03:24 PM