Couple lose their home over $120 debt

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

[cupcakes]

I hear you. Don't like those or the aggressive Wolf Spiders. I swear a giant one in Phoenix chased a friend of ours was trying to kill it.

[TN4Liberty]

Things like this shouldn't happen and the creep that bought it for $70,000 & plans on selling it for a profit, should have something *really* bad happen to him.

I understand this sentiment. But from a business perspective, SOMEBODY was going to buy this house for $70,000. Knowing that, I can understand why a guy might say it may as well be me.

Clearly, the people who started this process are the ones who are out of touch with common sense or decency (assuming we have all the facts).

[Lazamataz]

Bottom line: these homeowners agreed to lose their home if they did not pay their dues. They have nothing to b*tch about.

Only if you ignore the innate sense of fairness all of us possess.

Losing your home for $120.00? That doesn't cause that sense to tingle just a little?

[wimpycat]

I'm just going by what's in the article. I realize we're only getting one side of the story. If it turns out that they were indeed spoken to in person by members of the HOA to let them know what they were up against and to try to work out some reasonable solutions, then of course, it would change my opinion.

[PackerBoy]

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.

And this is whose fault? I guess we should just suspend all of the rules for those who are having a tough time. Ran a stop light? That's okay; we understand you are suffering from reflux. Sold drugs to school kids? That's okay; we know you are short of cash and trying to make ends meet. Sheesh.

[Thor_Hammar]

Homeowners' Associations are La Cosa Nostra of the Twenty-first Century. It's time state legislatures reign them in.

[alisasny]

That too is not the fault of the HOA.

I have a big problem with everyone working on the dream house and then shocked to hear their parents are in debt.

[Lazamataz]

Don't like those or the aggressive Wolf Spiders.

At least Wolf Spiders don't leave gunshot-sized holes in you.

OTOH, since I am not an etymo entoym etymi entymo bug professor, I don't take a chance. I kill 'em all.

[alisasny]

Although the 3 sons could have been just looking the other way so happy that Mom and Dad were not coming to live with any of them...LOL

[HairOfTheDog]

Myself, I vote for common sense. I think the HOA should be sued for financial terrorism.

To actually have lost foreclosure without the couple being advised to pay the relatively paltry sum is ridiculous. Did they ~want~ to lose their home and be martyrs to some principle? Common sense would have been to pay the $120, or later, $1,900 before it ever came to anything like this. ~Anyone~ pressed can come up with that much rather than lose everything.

[PackerBoy]

Losing your home for $120.00? That doesn't cause that sense to tingle just a little?

Not even a little bit, sorry. Looks to me like these people, having sunk ALL of the money into the house, were bound to take a fall sometime anyway. They were behind in their taxes, too, and the taxing authority could have instituted collection proceedings that could have led to a public sale, too.

[ovrtaxt]

So I can sell a car to someone and make them sign a contract stating that they will wash it every saturday, plus they will pay $10 a month to the clean car association? That's not right. Property owners should have final authority over what they own.

[wimpycat]

BOO!

[Tax Government]

The problem here is with deciding what constitutes adequate notice.

- To the owners, a few letters in mail were not enough notice. A sign posted by the sheriff on the property or front door should have been required.

- To the potential buyers, a small ad in the Legal Notices section was not enough, to ensure the public was informed of the sale. There should have been an open listing in the MLSes for 30 days, which would have given all real estate agents an opportunity to sell it.

[sweetliberty]

"You'd have to be NUTS to live in a development with an HOA"

Amen to that. As if there aren't enough people who believe they have license to meddle in your business as it is.

[wimpycat]

No, but if you buy a car, as a resident of your county and state, you are agreeing to pay taxes, registration fees, and get it inspected. The state is just like one big HOA.

[tutstar]

NO HOA should have the right to foreclose on a home. Sounds like the MOB!!

Vinnie, pay ya dues or we comin' ta getcha!!

[PackerBoy]

So you're saying that people should be freely able to disregard their contracts? What an interesting world this would be if that were the case.

[Alouette]

NEVER overload an electric circuit. It could start a fire!

I read somewhere about a woman who, just before moving out of her cheating boyfriend's apartment, stuffed raw shrimp into the hems of the living room draperies.

[Wissa]

So I can sell a car to someone and make them sign a contract stating that they will wash it every saturday, plus they will pay $10 a month to the clean car association?

It would be enforceable if you could find somebody that would buy your car with those conditions in the contract. Trouble is, how are you going to make them sign the contract?

In the case of this home, the couple voluntarily signed the contract in order to have a home in this neighborhood.