Couple lose their home over $120 debt

The Sacramento Bee ^ | January 24, 2004 | Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

RACIST ARACHNIPHOBE! You should be sent to spider sensitvity training ;)>>>

And whatever you do, don't EVER use the word 'chigger'.

[MaryFromMichigan]

It could be that the Mrs. had a hard time handling the finances when her husband was ill.
She may simply have put things aside in her confusion.
Its quite possible that the couple didn't let on to their friends and family that they were in a bind financially.

[cupcakes]

She said the husband was ill. My bet is hubby handled most of the bills and she was a bit lost on what was supposed to be paid and when. It took my grandmother about a year or two to adjust after my grandfather's death, but fortunately she had children to get her through that transitional phase.

[nwrep]

Seems to me the right to life, liberty and property trumps EVERYTHING else.

It obviously does not trump "everything else" . You could be deprived of any of these "rights" in a minute if the circumstances are correct. For instance, if you are convicted of murder and sentenced to the death penalty, your so-called "right to life and liberty" is out the window. Similarly, if you violate a written contract, such as a loan, you lose whatever property is covered by the terms of the contract. One of the basic functions of the government is to enforce contracts. If it failed to do so, anarchy would result.

The only guarantee the Constitution gives you about these "rights" is fair and due process. But every legal document you sign could restrict some of your rights. You just don't know it.

[Johnny_Cipher]

H.O.A.s should have no power to even exist.

Then you have a problem with people voluntarily entering into contracts with each other then?

[ovrtaxt]

You don't HAVE to submit yourself to a weekly buffalo-raping by the Home Owner Nazis. You can either move or not move there in the first place.

But my overarching point is the fact that you can do it in the first place. When a free American buys a piece of property, private property rights should be the ultimate and final authority, as long as nobody else's rights are infringed upon. Forgive me for sounding Libertarian, but where am I wrong? The HOA seems to be the one in violation of the Constitution. They don't own the property.

[alrea]

"One of the unfortunate things about people is when you get a little power, it goes to their heads,"

If there is anyone out there that still needs information on the corrupting influence of power, visit your local home owner's association. We all know that they do good things, as does our wonderful government. But without safeguards, you are looking down a mean barrel.

[thinking]

yea, just stop paying your property taxes, and I guarantee that you be on the street, within 3 yrs.

[Lazamataz]

Perhaps! But also painting a bullseye on one's center-of-mass seems less than rational.

Agreed. However, should America continue to travel this road we are on, to total tyranny -- a place I can see us getting to in 10-20 years -- I will attempt to leave the country. And if I am forbidden to do so, as in the old Berlin Wall days, I will be pushed to extremes myself.

Of course, by then, I'll be all old and stuff so I'll be an easy target. :o)

[alisasny]

but the 3 sons all carpenters and painters were there building said house daily with their father....surely they knew what expenses were going in and out regarding the house building....

Did the 3 sons ( my 3 sons LOL comes to mind) not notice their father got ill?

[cupcakes]

Buffy, that is the type of thing we have too--deed restrictions. One of them is a setback in the back and the front so it limits how much you can add on to the house--it is still pretty generous though.

[Lazamataz]

yea, just stop paying your property taxes, and I guarantee that you be on the street, within 3 yrs.

Yeah, and isn't that totally messed up?

Property taxes, I feel, are the very worst form of taxation of them all.

[alisasny]

They overextended themselves by putting their entire retirement savings into their dream home according to the letter they wrote to Senator Boxer. How is this the HOA's fault?

[Salgak]

Well, since the HOA is not a Government, the bylaws are the highest authority extant. . .

[ovrtaxt]

Similarly, if you violate a written contract, such as a loan, you lose whatever property is covered by the terms of the contract. One of the basic functions of the government is to enforce contracts.

If said contract violates an inherent right to property, why isn't it an illegal contract? You can't legally contract your rights away, can you?

[wimpycat]

I agree with what you said, in principle. In practice, if I had been on the HOA (God forbid!) I would have suggested a personal visit to their house BEFORE the foreclosure process started, and notified them, face-to-face, that they were in real danger of losing their house. I then would have held off on the foreclosure as long as they paid at least something towards their HOA dues every month--like $10/ month. You can't tell me they couldn't come up with $10 a month.

Yes, this could have been avoided if the homeowners in question had paid the dues like they had knowingly signed on to when they got the house. But at the same time, the HOA could have taken the time to speak in person with these people and at least made an honest attempt to work something out before throwing the book at them.

[alrea]

Severe damage to freedom has occurred and most folks don't even know it.

This is much like annexation. Cities just annex and send the PROPERTY OWNER a bill for thousands of dollars.

[Lazamataz]

They overextended themselves by putting their entire retirement savings into their dream home according to the letter they wrote to Senator Boxer. How is this the HOA's fault?

Certainly you aren't defending a foreclosure for a mere $120.00?

[alisasny]

No, just stating now that there is more to this story then 120 bucks....

[Cowboy Bob]

...sold at a foreclosure auction in December for $70,000.

The Radcliffs bought the three-acre lot in 1999 for $30,000. When the two-bedroom, 1,728-square-foot home was completed last March, it was appraised at $258,000, the family said.

Looks like the new owner will make a killing on this deal!