Oh No She Didn’t

Posted April 18th, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

foreclosure would be preferable to the distressed property conveyance.

Dear Rob,

As you know, Representative Patricia Lantz sponsored HB 2791, the Foreclosure Rescue Act.

I think I see the problem.

Did she really just say that?


The world according to Pat – discussing removing the “loophole” involving the consumer’s right to waive the five day rescission clause the new law requires (here in Washington State we don’t believe in giving consumers rights, apparently) . . .

The consumer may waive the five day right of rescission if it is within five days of the foreclosure act. This would induce purchasers to swoop in in the last instance . . . should be removed because foreclosure would be preferable to the distressed property conveyance.

Better that the homeowner receive the equity in the house through foreclosure than lose it all through the scam. — Rep. Patricia Lantz
26th Legislative District


She didn’t really say that, did she?

. . . foreclosure would be preferable to the distressed property conveyance.

Losing the home in foreclosure is better than doing a leaseback deal with an investor and hoping to be able to buy it back down the road?

You folks actually believe that?

I don’t know Pat, and I’m sure she’s a wonderful gal with a big heart, but that “foreclosure is better” statement has got to be the most ridiculous thing ever spoken.

How much further disconnected from reality could your office be?

Exit strategy?

And you base this “foreclosure would be preferable” notion on your belief that the homeowner losing his home in a foreclosure gets paid?

Better that the homeowner receive the equity in the house through foreclosure than lose it all through the scam.

Foreclosure, as an exit strategy to receive equity?

Does your office not understand that receiving equity in a foreclosure sale happens, like, almost never?

And do you seriously think homeowners should risk rolling the dice and hope people bid on their homes at auction? That, to you, is a safer bet than doing a leaseback deal with an investor?

Is this a joke?

Completely BassAckwards

Pat is concerned that if homeowners are allowed to waive the rescission clause, purchasers will “swoop in,” and she considers that a bad thing.

Oh, Pat was so close.

Causing investors to show up when little time remains gives people in foreclosure more options, more possible ways to solve their problem, more competitive offers from more investors to choose from, and more opportunity to avoid foreclosure.

Pssst . . . that’s a good thing.

Arguing it’s something to be avoided demonstrates how completely twisted the thinking in your camp surrounding foreclosure investing has become.

And, equally important, explains why you’ve sued me.

Rob knows best

You purposely create laws designed to eliminate options and force homeowners to lose their homes because you’ve decided that’s preferable for them?

You’ve decided?

And this is based on your belief these owners are better off because they’ll “receive the equity in the house through foreclosure?”

On what planet, exactly, does this take place, Rob?

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser

11 Responses to: “Oh No She Didn’t”

  1. Leon responds:
    Posted: April 18th, 2008 at 6:16 am

    What can you say…monkeys and their football.

    Where were these people when the real problem was occurring? Not that it would have made any difference.

  2. Curt Dalton responds:
    Posted: April 18th, 2008 at 6:58 am

    She’s obviously knows nothing about the business world as is the case with most Democrats.

  3. Drew Hitt responds:
    Posted: April 18th, 2008 at 8:03 am

    New Homeowners don’t bid at auctions, most of the time you have to close in 15 days (Joe’s Note: Here in WA we have to pay on the spot, in full).

    Investors are at these auctions, and we pay just the defaulted balance, there are no overages. If we don’t bid, it goes back to the bank. Sometimes then the banks go for a judgement to recover their losses (Joe’s Note: Here in WA the lender choosing to foreclosure via a trustees sale cannot then sue for a deficiency). Can you say clueless?

    Out of about 750 auctions last year, only 2 had overages. They were posted in the paper and I doubt those persons ever received it, because you can’t find them any longer! They are long gone and moved in with family a few states away or whatever. How horrible!

    You’d rather see a foreclosure ruin someone’s credit, then a few delinquent payments? Utterly ridiculous. Misunderstanding is the problem here! Learn what you are talking about people!

    Joe, it’s amazing what you are finding, clearly you’re the professional in all this, everyone else is grossly misinformed…

  4. Vlad responds:
    Posted: April 18th, 2008 at 8:25 am

    With all due respect, Ms. Lantz would do more good taking her grandchildren to Disneyland or knitting sweaters for them.

    One may see my comment as stereotyping women of a retiree age….

    Stereotyping it may be … and so is Ms. Lantz’s qualification of investor involvement as “..THE scam”…..

  5. DaveD responds:
    Posted: April 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Again, it was a shame they didn’t invite you to testify regarding the law they just passed. I’m sure you would have happily made the road trip to Olympia to help out.

    You could have brought some friends along as well. Best guess is there are more than a couple happy homeowners still pinching themselves over their good fortune in having done business with you. After all, they got to keep their house instead of losing it to foreclosure. I’m thinking they would tell Pat a thing or two about her sadly mis-informed grasp of reality, being they would be speaking from the trenches.

    Then again, proving them wrong would simply re-focus the spotlight on why this lawsuit is going on. Silly me, maybe that’s why they were not interested in your professional opinion on such matters. How could a scammer have anything legit to add, or how could any of his victims?

    The dirty little secret is once someone in “authority” dismisses the legitimacy of his opposition, that opposition has an impossible climb to regain his reputation. More to the point, once you have been dismissed, they don’t feel compelled to actually engage your argument… because their own argument will fall apart.

  6. David Alexander responds:
    Posted: April 19th, 2008 at 1:20 am


    How do they get their knowledge….

    Have they ever attended an auction…. do they realize the banks get most of the properties back….

    Do they realize they are making this legislation in an economy where the prices of houses are going down not up…

    Do they realize that most folks with equity refinanced and pulled out their cash and/or bought houses with no money out of pocket therefore there is no equity left….

    Do they realize that the banks don’t wont the properties back either… that it is a liability on their books…. and a huge risk…

    In Louisiana banks stopped foreclosing and there are a ton of vacant properties owned still by the residents who left… Why? because the banks don’t want the risk and liability.

    People that are uneducated on the matters should not be allowed to vote or have a say until there is a certain amount of education for that piece of legislation other than at the water cooler saying, hey bob is votin’ for it and if you help us out…

    well…. we can help you….

    I guess just like a driving test… it’s as if they are all out there driving… with no license…. and I don’t won’t to be on the road with them….

    They are reckless and dangerous and driving our economy further down….. without thought to their actions.. or the consequences..


    Sadly… I can see this and I’m just not that smart…

  7. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: April 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

    Psssst…the lawyers still get paid.

  8. Davido responds:
    Posted: April 23rd, 2008 at 10:49 am

    Sent this day to; lantz.patricia@leg.wa.gov

    Dear Ms. Lantz,

    Your work on HB 2791 is going to result in more people losing their homes and losing any chance to save what equity they did have.

    You have effectively removed most private investors from even attempting to cash them out. Neither the lenders nor your legislature will offer them cash. And now, thanks to you, Washington residents in foreclosure, have lost their former last hope.

    How could you work on any legislation without at least seeking out and understand opposing views?

    Such as, http://pushedtoshove.com/2008/04/foreclosure-is-better/

    Even if you were well intentioned you have created a disaster for Washington residents who have the misfortune to go into foreclosure. They will now have dramatically less choices in resolving foreclosure. Shame on you.

    Davido of Olympia

  9. Bruce responds:
    Posted: April 24th, 2008 at 12:07 am

    It just gets better and better, doesn’t it….

    This old lady legislator knows nothing about what happens on the courthouse steps, obviously. What does she think, that owners in FC are walking away with big checks????

    Her comments are almost unbelievable.

  10. Lance Van Winkle responds:
    Posted: June 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm

    I had been wondering what created all the fuss that generated this new law. I have seen what appeared to be equity skimmers. I do not think it happens to much. I read on another blog that the AG had 5 cases reported in the last 5 years.

    With the current market condition and so many short sales how much equity is there to skim anyway. I was under the impression that negotiating with a lender to accept less than owed and keep the foreclosure off someones credit report was a benefit to a homeowner,that it made it easier to recover from this devastation. Where were our lobby’s that we pay for? Why is the Re agent the only party not exempt?

    Beyond all that I believe that it requires becoming an expert in this newly created niche and not be afraid of it.

    Lance Van Winkle

  11. Joe Kaiser responds:
    Posted: June 4th, 2008 at 5:10 am


    How can you not be afraid of it when you now have no defense to claims you acted inappropriately?


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.