If you choose to consider that bit of thuggery as having "nailed" us, congratulations, because you did just that.
Well, I was wrong.
Yesterday’s post mentioned the audio on your website describing how 82% of the seller’s equity in a rescue deal belongs to the seller.
I suggested what you’d intended wasn’t 82% of the equity, but 82% of the property’s market value.
My bad, and once again the lunacy of this thing rises to the surface and is in plain view for all to see.
It’s clear you wanted the 82% provision in the new law to be calculated against the seller’s equity. I described that as “absurd,” thinking there’s no way your office could get things that out of whack.
Well, you did, and here’s the video where you talk about it . . .
So, in other words, if you have a mortgage for a hundred thousand dollars, but you’re in foreclosure and you sign an agreement with a rescuer, so called, and they let the property go to sale anyway, and they sell it for two-hundred thousand, you would get at least eighty-two thousand of the hundred thousand in equity. — Rob McKenna
WA State Attorney General
Again, Rob, this is completely nuts.
Sellers listing their $200k properties and getting full price offers do not net $182k from the sale. Closing costs alone are roughly 10%, meaning a net of approximately $180k, at best.
And on that same $200k house, with the owner owing $150k, investors according to your logic would be required to pay $191k?
Are investors now required to pay a premium whenever dealing with folks in foreclosure?
It’s embarrassing to see you and your office promoting this fuzzy reality of yours. It shows you have no concept of even the most basic real estate fundamentals and exposes you as nothing less than inept.
Who comes up with this stuff?
If it was your “think tank,” you need to rethink that think tank.
There are more than a few other things wrong with your press conference.
Much of it makes no sense. You’ve got concepts jumbled up and so confused it’s clear you have no idea, more often than not, what you’re talking about.
But rather than get into all of that, I’d rather focus on just this one particular bit of nonsense . . .
Already, in 2007, we’ve gone after three companies and associated individuals in King County and Pierce County who were running these kinds of mortgage foreclosure scams. We were able to nail them under our state’s consumer protection act statute . . . — Rob McKenna
WA State Attorney General
Not true, as you well know.
You didn’t really go after three companies. These were all my companies or my partners’, so in actuality it was just us. You make it sound like a bunch when it fact there was only the one investigation and one lawsuit.
And, you said we’re running “mortgage foreclosure scams.” The “scams” thing is bad enough, but how do you not know by now that we’re not even in the mortgage foreclosure business?
We dealt exclusively with tax foreclosures. Again, you’ve tried to stuff us into the tiny foreclosure rescue scam box your office understands, and we don’t fit.
We never will.
And, you claim you’ve nailed us. That’s outrageous.
Under the threat of total financial ruin you sufficiently terrorized my partner into settling. Having done nothing wrong and admitting no wrong-doing, he paid your office nearly $300k just to get his life back.
If you choose to consider that bit of thuggery as having “nailed” us, congratulations, because you did just that. You extracted $300k from my partners. Whoopee. I hope that makes all of you in the Consumer Protection Division proud, as I’m sure it does.
I noticed you didn’t mention I still have my day in court scheduled with you for later this year.
It’ll be interesting to hear how you spin things when I prove this entire foreclosure rescue scam case of yours to be the complete farce we all know it is. What then?
At some point, sooner than later, Rob, you’re going to have some explaining to do. The free ride ends, as will the foreclosure rescue scam your office is running.
And, btw, I’d rather be a hammer than a nail . . .
In the arena,