Page 1, Paragraph 3

Posted May 6th, 2008 by Joe Kaiser

Can we also agree that either way, some family is out on the street?

Dear Rob,

Well, we’re now up to paragraph #3 of the Foreclosure White Paper, and for a moment there I thought we’d get all the way through that sucker.

No such luck.


A loss is a loss is a loss

Here is the last sentence of paragraph #3 . . .

Ordinarily, the scam artist poses as a person seeking to earn a reasonable fee by helping the borrower avoid the foreclosure and preserve the home and the equity, but the scam artist then engineers a transaction whereby the homeowner loses both the home and the equity – but to the scam artist, rather than the foreclosure sale. — The Foreclosure White Paper
Page 1, Paragraph 3

My issue?

Losing the house ” . . . to the scam artist, rather than the foreclosure sale.”

Huh?

As someone who’s lost a house or two in foreclosure, I can tell you with absolute certainty that whether I lose my house to foreclosure or to some scam artist, either way, I no longer have a home.

In the long run, do you really think it matters all that much how I lost it, or two whom?

Once I’m homeless, I’ve got bigger problems to deal with . . . like where my family sleeps tonight.


On the street

Yes, I recognize getting scammed is no fun and something that must be avoided. We agree on that.

And I agree that 1 in 50 times, there will be bidding and a surplus created (don’t hold your breath).

Can we also agree that either way, some family is out on the street?

And can I make a suggestion?

Instead of focusing on how they lose the house (as if that matters in the end), why don’t you instead focus on figuring out a way to keep that from happening?

You know, like I do.


All for now

As to paragraph #4?

I think I’m pretty much done with the NJP’s Foreclosure White Paper. It’s clear to me attorney Eric Dunn spent a lot of time putting it all together, but he did so without any real understanding of the problem.

And, for the moment at least, I am done with Dunn.


No merit

One last thing . . .

Can we please stop the ridiculous “foreclosure is better” nonsense?

It’s a really bad idea.

In the arena,

Joe Kaiser


One Response to: “Page 1, Paragraph 3”

  1. Leon responds:
    Posted: May 6th, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    Possibly “foreclosure is better” if you are the county hoping to increase your chances of an overage. I really doubt that is their motive but why else would anyone ever say “foreclosure is better.” That makes no sense whatsoever. It appears the intent is to crush people who buy houses in foreclosure regardless of whether or not it is good for the people in foreclosure.

    How can the government tell me what the value of my credit rating is? It may be worth $50k in equity TO ME. To some people saving their credit rating may be their last hope of ever having a future or starting over. Avoiding that foreclosure could be crucial but I guess that’s not something the people of Washington need to worry about anymore…in this market it’s a done deal.

    I would hate to be living in the state of Washington if I had a looming foreclosure of my home. As I see it, Washington is not a homeowner friendly state anymore.


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.