Couple lose their home over $120 debt

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

[DelaWhere]

Couple lose their home over $120 debt By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.

[sauropod]

"They chose to violate their contract with their neighbors (the HOA). They must pay the price of their choice."

Please point out where they chose to violate their contract. I don't see this in the article at all.

Where precisely did they choose to "violate their contract?

[sauropod]

Yes. I did indeed say moral blindness.

Conscience tweaking you a bit?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Please point out where they chose to violate their contract. I don't see this in the article at all.

You've given me a great idea. The next time I receive a property tax bill, I'll simply forget about it. Then, when the sheriff shows up to foreclose, I'll just tell him that my cat was sick and I was so worried about her that I forgot. Its not that I CHOSE not to pay the taxes, I just forgot! Its brilliant!

Didn't Steve Martin do a riff on this back in the '70s?

[sauropod]

It is so much fun when life is as simple as you are trying to make it out to be.

[sauropod]

PS. I don't make decisions on what Steve Martin did or did not say back in the '70s.

[Mark was here]

Notice in the story how once all the liens were paid off the now-homeless family received a check for 60 grand.

Property taxes started out as liens placed upon the property by the property owners as a way to pay for government infrastructure, such as the police station, courthouse, morgue, forestation etc. stuff necessary for a society...

The problem with property taxes is that non-property owners got to vote on them, just as non-smokers vote to raise taxes on cigarettes.

In theory anyway property taxes could expire if the voters failed to tax themselves and let the millages expire. If the millages expired the government would have no claim to your property.

I would favor a system where everyone who voted to raise a tax was faced with the same liability. The reality of the property tax is not that you are paying the government rent, but that as a group the voters decided to place liens on their property to support their government.

[Mark was here]

forestation = firestation

[Johnny_Cipher]

I disagree - life ain't simple at all at times. But I do know one thing - when I sign a contract, I'm expected to live up to it to the best of my ability. And I know not to whine about it or blame others for my failure when I don't.

[Mark was here]

Where precisely did they choose to "violate their contract?

Maybe it was in the kitchen... :)

[Johnny_Cipher]

Maybe it was in the kitchen

Mr. Mustard, with the candlestick :)

[kittymyrib]

Legislation reining in the power of HOAs was passed by the Texas legislature after the case of the 80 yr. old woman in Houston who lost her paid-up home to her HOA in a similar situation. The people of Texas were outraged that HOAs were now in the business of "robbing widow's houses," in Jesus's words. The HOA had to buy it back from the man who had bought it at auction (he made lots of money on the deal), paid all court costs, and tradesmen from all over Houston donated materials and labor to improve her property. That's how we fixed this problem in Texas.

[JudgemAll]

That is obsene to the utmost and legal theft behind pretzel mumbo jumbo. Who is the judge allowing this nonsense?

The truth or any other alibi are no reason to do such evil thing.

Some people have the wrong idea about what true persecution and legal redress for that is all about.

[ovrtaxt]

Yeah, I know all about CJ. She's a fruit to the max.

I still haven't gotten a cogent answer concerning the border issue, and the cavalier attitude with which she dismisses the sovereignty of a just nation, and the just laws which protect it.

She actually used Thoreau as an example of civil disobedience in the face of unjust law. (Yes, the anti-libertarian quoting Thoreau-- go figure.) Apparently, we have a diametrically opposite opinion of what law is just and what's simply the spewings of big government control freaks.

[biffalobull]

don't care what the reason, if anybody tried to take away my home, they'd be looking at the wrong end of my .45 ACP!

I the smart thing to do, would be pay the HOA the 150.00, keep your house, and file a small claims action against the HOA. IMHO

[Johnny_Cipher]

An interesting approach. I looked up the law in question, and I believe it mandates that a lien be placed on the property by the HOA instead of allowing the HOA to foreclose on the property in such a situation. I don't think I would have much of a problem with that approach.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Also, Texas has a strong homestead exemption law, providing further protection against foreclosure.

[ovrtaxt]

Okay. You guys are all quoting contract law and real estate law to justify your position. Let's remove the property aspect and insert the life aspect, or the liberty aspect. (Life, liberty or property...) Is it lawful and binding to sign a contract enslaving myself to another? Literally contractually signing away my liberty? How about a blood oath, payable by death, enumerated in a contract?

If my property is a result of the wages earned by my agreement with an employer, I have given up a portion of my life for those wages. I then exchange those wages for said property. This makes my property as valuable as my life.

Where's the difference? And please don't tell me what the courts have said. Big deal. I'm talking about the actual intrinsic rights given to us by God, not the government.

[biffalobull]

I'd rather be an irritant for the next 20 years. Lawsuits, injunctions, discovery, investigation, et. al. Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Year after year.

Laz. Your right on the money. These people must have known when they signed the HOA contract that they were responsible for their dues.

Why can't people anymore, accept their reponsibilities.

I'm sure someone would of staked them to the 120.00.Instead they get stupid and blow the house.

[Mark was here]

I'm talking about the actual intrinsic rights given to us by God, not the government.

The way the concept of natural rights works is that they are by definition as you say intrinsic or inherent in your being. You cant sign them away much as congress cant pass a law repealing the concept of the number 2. You can ignore your rights or the rights of others if you choose, and you are merely not buying into the game. You can ignore the number two if you want but you will just be lousy in math.

You can agree to squander your life away if you choose, is that what you are asking?

[Lazamataz]

Why can't people anymore, accept their reponsibilities. I'm sure someone would of staked them to the 120.00.Instead they get stupid and blow the house.

I think you have the idea I have the opposite take on it that I do.

I think that forfeiting a house for $120.00 is really unfair.

It's such a measly amount that I question the owners mental state and competence. And, if that is the case, do we want people taking advantage of the incompetent?