Onerous my Asserous, Part II

Posted September 2nd, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

I tell everyone, "To me it's just an investment. To you, it's your home. I'll let you decide how you want it to play out."

Dear Rob,

Once again, I’m left to ponder your take on this whole “onerous” bit.

I guess that’s what you’re left with when you can’t actually find anyone who’s been victimized by our so-called foreclosure rescue scam.

Me, rather than just make it up as I go along . . . I’d rather focus on results.

trusted partners

Try as you might to re-characterize our actions as somehow sinister, you fail at every turn when faced with our undeniable results. Reasonable people look at what we’ve done with our partnerships and say, “Remarkable!”

Unreasonable people look and say . . .

All that the former property owner is left with is a tenuous right to buy back his home or receive some proceeds if he can comply with the onerous obligations imposed by the many complex documents Defendant had him execute as part of the scheme.— Amended Complaint
presumably by AAG David Huey


Good one, Huey.

tossed to the street

We view our roles as protectors of our partners. We understand they’ll have issues and hardships and we step in when needed to make their lives better. We fix the problems they’re unable to fix. We keep them out of future trouble.

We have to because our own interests are at risk if we do not.

As a result, we are their trusted partners and are proud to be thought of as such. We recognize with their trust comes responsibility, and we accept this responsibility without complaint.

Look around, Rob.

See those two dozen families who weren’t tossed out onto the street?

We did that.

Two dozen families still in their homes, having a much valued partner willing and able to look after them and when needed, step up and write the big checks.

selling on contract

Our agreement states that we all agree to put the property on the market within 12 months, and if the seller wants to buy us out, he’s certainly free to do so.

At what price?

Whatever the market deems it worth.

Does that sound onerous to you?

We even tell sellers if they’re unable to finance the purchase with a new loan, we’ll be happy to carry financing by selling to them on an owner contract.

Again, onerous?

And anyone of these folks, at any time (even today), can simply say they’d like to become 100% owners again and we’ll make that happen.

That puts them on title all alone, with no out of pocket costs whatsoever (we’ll even pay closing costs), and just like that they’re “restored” to full ownership.

Pssst . . . they never ask to do it.

secure and protected

And do you know why that is, Rob?

They never insist on being “restored” because unlike AAGs who’ve demonstrated a total lack of understanding (and refuse to even consider understanding), our partners value us as their partners.

Having us around is vital to their well-being. Without us, in all likelihood, they’re right back in trouble within a few months.

The reason they don’t insist on 100% ownership is they understand having us around is a very good thing. They value our presence and feel secure knowing as long as we’re around, their interests (read: their homes) are protected.

When we’re around, there’s zero chance they lose their homes.

It’s an extraordinary service we provide, Rob.

It’s foreclosure rescue at it’s finest, with us taking charge and getting foreclosure nightmares (and any other property problems) once and for all resolved.


My asserous.

What about that 12 month thing?

We’d love them all to decide to sell and instantly split the proceeds from the sale, 50/50. That never happens.

We know it never happens.

We accept it never happens.

But still, per our agreement, we have the right to insist we put the property up for sale so we can receive our share of the profits in a timely manner, as agreed.

We never do.

We never will.

I tell everyone, “To me it’s just an investment. To you, it’s your home. I’ll let you decide how you want it to play out.”

And so if it goes beyond the 12 months, or as some are now, into their fourth year (without payments), we don’t care. We view it as a long term investment and are happy to play the role of protector to help them through a rough spot in their lives.

We only hope they’ll pay enough so we don’t have to continually come out of pocket and can cover the expenses (property taxes) when they come due.

They rarely do, but we figure it out anyway.

extraordinary service

The results are right in front of you, Rob, with some two dozen families still in their homes today.

And while nearly every one of them has probably breached our agreement, how many times have we declared a partner in breach of contract?




And how many have we evicted?




The only conclusion a reasonable observer could arrive at is this: we’ve provided an extraordinary service to people, (some of whom are now our friends), who at one time were at risk of losing their homes.

Instead, today, they’re likely on the back porch, eating a turkey sandwich or two.


Heck, some haven’t made a payment in over three years.

What’s the exact opposite of “onerous,” Rob?

Whatever it is, there you go.


Joe Kaiser

One Response to: “Onerous my Asserous, Part II”

  1. Davido responds:
    Posted: September 4th, 2007 at 9:44 pm

    Well Said. Thnks.

Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:

You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:

Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.