I never have, so far. Not in cash, at least.
(And they've all been smaller and prettier than this one.)
(And they've all been smaller and prettier than this one.)
From $70K to food bank, one family's struggle....
- Thread starter Pablo
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
You have something against "full figured" women? She's very attractive. Pushing a couple of pups out can do a number on the figure. I'm glad I didn't have to ....hmm..then again ..I'd still have a centerfold and I'm butt ugly anyway.
Never mind
Never mind
ewe
Originally Posted By: MarkC
I never have, so far. Not in cash, at least.
(And they've all been smaller and prettier than this one.)
There are some in many countries that are quite difficult to decline. I'm just saying. Small too.
I never have, so far. Not in cash, at least.
(And they've all been smaller and prettier than this one.)
There are some in many countries that are quite difficult to decline. I'm just saying. Small too.
Ever heard of "Dine and dash"?
Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral
I read the story, prepared to find she'd been a feckless spendthrift and had bred irresponsibly -- i.e., had at least one kid since her job went away. But the story doesn't indicate that. (Though they'd have been much better off not having kids at all!)
Her problems were (a) ditching the husband -- something like 90% of all divorces are initiated by the wife -- and (b) buying, probably, more house than even the two of them could afford, and on an interest-only mortgage, too.
Personal responsibility ! no way. It is not her fault that she thought the housing prices would always go up.
I read the story, prepared to find she'd been a feckless spendthrift and had bred irresponsibly -- i.e., had at least one kid since her job went away. But the story doesn't indicate that. (Though they'd have been much better off not having kids at all!)
Her problems were (a) ditching the husband -- something like 90% of all divorces are initiated by the wife -- and (b) buying, probably, more house than even the two of them could afford, and on an interest-only mortgage, too.
Personal responsibility ! no way. It is not her fault that she thought the housing prices would always go up.
Originally Posted By: GROUCHO MARX
Originally Posted By: MarkC
I wouldn't pay that woman.
I wouldn't pay any woman, governor.
You always pay have to pay up sooner or later.
Originally Posted By: MarkC
I wouldn't pay that woman.
I wouldn't pay any woman, governor.
You always pay have to pay up sooner or later.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Quote:
Stories like Guerrero's are becoming more common as middle-class Americans feel the pinch of an economic downturn, rising gas prices and a housing crunch, especially in a state like California that has been rocked by foreclosures...
And why might this be? Evil lenders? Nasty Money Grubers?
Quote:
Guerrero is estranged from her husband and raising her two young children. She's already burned through her savings to help make ends meet, and is drawing unemployment checks. She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month.
From my favorite: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html
Has to be some one elses fault. This is the U.S.A.
Quote:
Stories like Guerrero's are becoming more common as middle-class Americans feel the pinch of an economic downturn, rising gas prices and a housing crunch, especially in a state like California that has been rocked by foreclosures...
And why might this be? Evil lenders? Nasty Money Grubers?
Quote:
Guerrero is estranged from her husband and raising her two young children. She's already burned through her savings to help make ends meet, and is drawing unemployment checks. She has had to take extreme measures to pay for her interest-only mortgage of $2,500 a month.
From my favorite: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/03/27/foodbank.family/index.html
Has to be some one elses fault. This is the U.S.A.
I hate to reveal personal info here, but our 3 places cost:
$23k
$54k
$35k
City, Country and a Rental.
I'm not embarassed, because they are worth $1m now and only one place has a small mortgage my wife used to pay off her debt from before we met. It took profound physical effort and engineering skill to overcome various structural and other issues with them, but, in a sense, it built character.
We maintain just the right blend of "stuff", and frankly do without in terms of fancy improvments and no junk like $500 handbags. fwiw, I never paid over $400 for a computer while my friends bought $3000 units that were (by their standard) obsolete by the time they were booted-up.
Ironicly, average schmucks would call me a "snob".
People who need material goods to satisfy themselves are really lacking in emotional and mental well-being. Our "society" encourages this connection they make between goods and their persona.
I have a link to a local housing story that will blow people's minds. It's late and I have to get the link from my woman. It's sad, but I don't really care. I think I am indifferent from dealing with so many looser renters who do nothing but [censored] people and take all they can get from others. Sub-primer whiners are not much different, only a slightly bigger budget.
$23k
$54k
$35k
City, Country and a Rental.
I'm not embarassed, because they are worth $1m now and only one place has a small mortgage my wife used to pay off her debt from before we met. It took profound physical effort and engineering skill to overcome various structural and other issues with them, but, in a sense, it built character.
We maintain just the right blend of "stuff", and frankly do without in terms of fancy improvments and no junk like $500 handbags. fwiw, I never paid over $400 for a computer while my friends bought $3000 units that were (by their standard) obsolete by the time they were booted-up.
Ironicly, average schmucks would call me a "snob".
People who need material goods to satisfy themselves are really lacking in emotional and mental well-being. Our "society" encourages this connection they make between goods and their persona.
I have a link to a local housing story that will blow people's minds. It's late and I have to get the link from my woman. It's sad, but I don't really care. I think I am indifferent from dealing with so many looser renters who do nothing but [censored] people and take all they can get from others. Sub-primer whiners are not much different, only a slightly bigger budget.
Stories like this irk me to no end!!!! It is national news when a person that earned $70,000 a year ends up at the food bank and does not qualify for food stamps. It is every day life when my minimum wage co-workers end up at the food bank regualarly even with food stamps.
I tend to look at these stories with a hard heart & feel little, or even no, sympathy. But, I was raised "Right"!!!! Fiscal responsibility and an extreme work ethic were drilled into my head from a young age. My parents both did without and worked 2-3 jobs to make sure that we had all that we needed and still put money away when I was growing up. My Dad was a retired Navy Veteran but I never remember a time that he did not have at least two jobs until he retired and could focus on his business.
The CNN story leaves too many questions unanswered and gives too few details. Yes, it is sad that anyone should feel the need to resort to going to their local food bank. But, in my opinion, this case (from the details offered in the story) does not lead me to feel any sympathy for Ms. Guerrero. Being estranged from one's spouse does not give anyone the privilege to overlook fiscal responsibility. If she is estranged from her spouse, especially in California, I am sure she receives child support above her unemployment income (or, she should - that is another can of worms indeed). Also, she has additional resources from her Mom living with her. If she could not afford the house she had two options - sell it or walk away from it and suck up the loss as a learning experience. Learn from the experience and either way get on with life. I don't feel that a piece of real estate is worth seeing my child do without.
I know that I come off as cold hearted, but I don't feel that I should feel the obligation to feel sympathy for her. I chose the fiscal responsibility route when I bought my house 12 years ago. It was 1/2 to 1/3 of what I would have qualified for - according to the financial institutions. It was foreshadowing when I gleefully announced that no matter what happened we would always be able to afford the mortgage payment.
Last year my husband qualifed for Social Security Disability last year due to a terminal illness. And, I will be able to hold on to my house no matter what happens even with me only working 12 to 20 hours most weeks. But as I stated earlier, I was raised right. I took out a second job working graveyard shift for a few months to get over the hard part. I am not going for the sympathy vote. I am just saying that I was smart enough to buy a tiny house on 3 acres for less than 1/2 of what some pay for an SUV or luxury car.
I was born with my Dad's gift of calling the cards as they may fall. I was not born with his tact. When one of my brother-in-law's lost his $600,000 interest-only loan house in a Denver suburb last year my response was, "It sucks trying to keep up with the big boys." Yes, my brother-in-law and I no longer communicate. But, dear husband overlooked my faux paux by agreeing that his brother did indeed get in way over his head and that sometimes the truth hurts.
Many on this list are living the fiscal responsibility lifestyle and feeling the crunch. My daughter is a senior in high school and a perfect example of this. Due to a high IQ, excellent grades and lots of hard work she qualified for a free ride scholarship at many universities/colleges across the US. She chose to go the local university 5 miles from our house & drive a 1979 Toyota Corona (thanks to an Easter gift from her Uncle and Grandmother).
The proud Mom in me comes out and has to brag that I think she was also raised Right!!!! She wanted to go to a University in Maryland at $45,000 a year. She was smart enough to know that the free education on her doorstep was the wise choice at this point in her life.
I do apologize for anyone reading this that may be in the same financial situation as Ms. Guerrero. This post is not intended to reflect on your situation. It is only written as a response to this specific article and situation. Also, it is jaded by watching too much HGTV and Fine Living Channel shows. It kills me to see people with moderate incomes looking at a first home & insisit that they MUST have granite counter tops (now out dated according to some shows), the spa tub in a 1000 square foot bathroom, and at least 1,500 square feet per person in the family. They decide to scrimp and do without luxuries and eating out. Why not go for 1/2 the house, moderate counter tops and and adequate bathroom and be able to afford the hot water heater and refrigerator going out in one week???? When I was younger, dumber, and first married I was happy to have a tv and an answering machine. Also, it is jaded by the fact that my house only cost 1/2 of her previous annual income.
I tend to look at these stories with a hard heart & feel little, or even no, sympathy. But, I was raised "Right"!!!! Fiscal responsibility and an extreme work ethic were drilled into my head from a young age. My parents both did without and worked 2-3 jobs to make sure that we had all that we needed and still put money away when I was growing up. My Dad was a retired Navy Veteran but I never remember a time that he did not have at least two jobs until he retired and could focus on his business.
The CNN story leaves too many questions unanswered and gives too few details. Yes, it is sad that anyone should feel the need to resort to going to their local food bank. But, in my opinion, this case (from the details offered in the story) does not lead me to feel any sympathy for Ms. Guerrero. Being estranged from one's spouse does not give anyone the privilege to overlook fiscal responsibility. If she is estranged from her spouse, especially in California, I am sure she receives child support above her unemployment income (or, she should - that is another can of worms indeed). Also, she has additional resources from her Mom living with her. If she could not afford the house she had two options - sell it or walk away from it and suck up the loss as a learning experience. Learn from the experience and either way get on with life. I don't feel that a piece of real estate is worth seeing my child do without.
I know that I come off as cold hearted, but I don't feel that I should feel the obligation to feel sympathy for her. I chose the fiscal responsibility route when I bought my house 12 years ago. It was 1/2 to 1/3 of what I would have qualified for - according to the financial institutions. It was foreshadowing when I gleefully announced that no matter what happened we would always be able to afford the mortgage payment.
Last year my husband qualifed for Social Security Disability last year due to a terminal illness. And, I will be able to hold on to my house no matter what happens even with me only working 12 to 20 hours most weeks. But as I stated earlier, I was raised right. I took out a second job working graveyard shift for a few months to get over the hard part. I am not going for the sympathy vote. I am just saying that I was smart enough to buy a tiny house on 3 acres for less than 1/2 of what some pay for an SUV or luxury car.
I was born with my Dad's gift of calling the cards as they may fall. I was not born with his tact. When one of my brother-in-law's lost his $600,000 interest-only loan house in a Denver suburb last year my response was, "It sucks trying to keep up with the big boys." Yes, my brother-in-law and I no longer communicate. But, dear husband overlooked my faux paux by agreeing that his brother did indeed get in way over his head and that sometimes the truth hurts.
Many on this list are living the fiscal responsibility lifestyle and feeling the crunch. My daughter is a senior in high school and a perfect example of this. Due to a high IQ, excellent grades and lots of hard work she qualified for a free ride scholarship at many universities/colleges across the US. She chose to go the local university 5 miles from our house & drive a 1979 Toyota Corona (thanks to an Easter gift from her Uncle and Grandmother).
The proud Mom in me comes out and has to brag that I think she was also raised Right!!!! She wanted to go to a University in Maryland at $45,000 a year. She was smart enough to know that the free education on her doorstep was the wise choice at this point in her life.
I do apologize for anyone reading this that may be in the same financial situation as Ms. Guerrero. This post is not intended to reflect on your situation. It is only written as a response to this specific article and situation. Also, it is jaded by watching too much HGTV and Fine Living Channel shows. It kills me to see people with moderate incomes looking at a first home & insisit that they MUST have granite counter tops (now out dated according to some shows), the spa tub in a 1000 square foot bathroom, and at least 1,500 square feet per person in the family. They decide to scrimp and do without luxuries and eating out. Why not go for 1/2 the house, moderate counter tops and and adequate bathroom and be able to afford the hot water heater and refrigerator going out in one week???? When I was younger, dumber, and first married I was happy to have a tv and an answering machine. Also, it is jaded by the fact that my house only cost 1/2 of her previous annual income.
Last edited:
This woman made her own bed. I have no sympathy for her. What ever happened to living within your means?
One thing we call relate to is that, when I look at a new car, instead of seeing the glossy paint and being enticed by the new car smell, I see a pile of brand-new car parts. Oooo, LOOK at that master cylinder!!!
Viewing the World from bottom-up rather than top-down is an asset we all share. That is, priortizing our needs not from how close we can get to the very very best, but how far we can get from the very basic functioning level, but without penalizing ourselves in the process.
When we were younger and the '80s "Yuppie" thing was becoming all the rage, we used to joke that if we made $100k a year, we could save 60-70% of that and easily live a decent life. Who needs a $200 tie?
I had a rough deal with education, not really a "good" student, so I found myself at a disadvantage. I was seriously worried that I would not end up with much in life. It ended up that I got lucky in some ways, finding a place in an excellent neighbourhood that I COULD afford. You know the saying though, you make your own luck. When I finally got into an educational setting that I could "fit into", it was at one of the top colleges in the country.
Not to talk about myself, but fortunately I never even had the chance to make the bad financial decisions of a house 3x what I could afford, it just was not offered to me. I viewed the World from bottom-up, and it became an asset in itself. That's a usefull construct in understanding what is wrong with people, they act just like their own sassy childern in demanding STUFF asap, without further consideration.
We talked about this all 5+ years ago on Bob's, and saw it coming. Heat the McMansion, fuel the SUV, maintain zero assets and savings, prepare for tax hikes and job loss. Those people all made fun of us while we made fun of them. Now who is laughing?
Viewing the World from bottom-up rather than top-down is an asset we all share. That is, priortizing our needs not from how close we can get to the very very best, but how far we can get from the very basic functioning level, but without penalizing ourselves in the process.
When we were younger and the '80s "Yuppie" thing was becoming all the rage, we used to joke that if we made $100k a year, we could save 60-70% of that and easily live a decent life. Who needs a $200 tie?
I had a rough deal with education, not really a "good" student, so I found myself at a disadvantage. I was seriously worried that I would not end up with much in life. It ended up that I got lucky in some ways, finding a place in an excellent neighbourhood that I COULD afford. You know the saying though, you make your own luck. When I finally got into an educational setting that I could "fit into", it was at one of the top colleges in the country.
Not to talk about myself, but fortunately I never even had the chance to make the bad financial decisions of a house 3x what I could afford, it just was not offered to me. I viewed the World from bottom-up, and it became an asset in itself. That's a usefull construct in understanding what is wrong with people, they act just like their own sassy childern in demanding STUFF asap, without further consideration.
We talked about this all 5+ years ago on Bob's, and saw it coming. Heat the McMansion, fuel the SUV, maintain zero assets and savings, prepare for tax hikes and job loss. Those people all made fun of us while we made fun of them. Now who is laughing?
"Now who is laughing?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone is laughing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone is laughing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/21/AR2008032103512.html?sub=AR
'My House. My Dream. It Was All an Illusion.'
Latina's Loss in Va. Epitomizes Mortgage Crisis
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 22, 2008; Page A01
Looking back, Glenda Ortiz can see she did everything wrong when she bought her house in 2005. In fact, to understand the housing crisis that has swept the country, one need only listen to the tale of the Ortiz family.
She looked at only one house and paid too much for it: $430,000 for a run-down, one-story duplex in Alexandria, triple what the house had sold for the year before, and $5,000 more than the asking price, according to real estate records.
She agreed to a high-interest loan that would cost her more than $3,000 a month, more than 70 percent of the $4,200 that she and her husband brought home monthly.
She signed papers in English that she didn't understand. One said she was married to a man she didn't know.
She placed her financial future in the hands of a woman she barely knew who sold cosmetics and jewelry door to door. She sought no one else's advice.
Her loan application sailed through an originator and was accepted by a mortgage company, both specializing in customers with "less than ideal" credit.
And so, in August 2005, Glenda Ortiz, a cook at a Best Western who lived in a cramped apartment in Arlington County, became a homeowner. By last March, the home was in foreclosure. The loan originator and mortgage company had gone out of business. And Ortiz was headed to court.
"It was all a mistake. One hundred percent," Ortiz said recently in Spanish. "I had such a burning desire to have my own house. I didn't think about anything else."
Ortiz and her husband, an air conditioner installer, are examples of what can happen when a hot real estate market collides with cheap credit, lax lending standards and little oversight. No one is free from blame in this tale.
Theirs is a story that Erick Gutierrez, housing director for the Washington-based Latino Economic Development Corp., said is all too familiar. Gutierrez blames the government for allowing so many subprime loans, such as Ortiz's, which required no proof of income. "You could say: 'You clean houses on weekends? Great!' And then put down that they made $1,000 a week," he said.
But by then, real estate agents would have made their commissions, mortgage brokers would have their closing costs, and the risky loans would have been repackaged and sold to Wall Street. No one cared as long as the housing market continued to boom.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, 40 percent of loans to Latinos are subprime, and it projects that one out of five of these loans made in 2005 and 2006 will go into foreclosure
"This is emblematic of people preying on their own and emblematic of bad brokers, but also emblematic of legitimate financial institutions either helping this happen or ignoring some facts so they can make a lot of money," said Alys Cohen, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. "The problem is the system and that no one cares until Wall Street stops making money. And that's what's happening now."
Glenda Ortiz, 40, had been struggling for nine years, since the day she fled Hurricane Mitch in Honduras and arrived in the United States to find her "own little piece of soil." She dreamed that owning a home would bring her scattered family together. She fantasized about being able to bring home the daughter she'd left behind as an infant. "I know her only from photographs," she said wistfully. "I wanted a future for my family, for my children."
Ortiz, who speaks little English, said she didn't know much about the U.S. banking system. So when a Mary Kay saleswoman, Maria Esperanza Salgado, came to her door and said she could help her buy a house, Ortiz said, she believed her.
Salgado had a business card with a blue Realtor logo identifying herself as a "sales assistant" to real estate agent Jorge Aguilar. Salgado is not licensed with the Virginia Real Estate Board. Aguilar said Salgado "was a very good sales promoter." He said he paid her $500 for every referral she brought him, although board regulations prohibit paying commissions or referral fees to anyone but a licensed real estate agent. Salgado said he gave her only "gifts." Aguilar said Salgado no longer works for him.
When Ortiz protested that she and her husband didn't have good credit and had only a few thousand dollars in savings, Ortiz said Salgado, whom she had known for less than a year, promised to help her.
Ortiz said she and Salgado came up with a plan. They would buy the house jointly, using Salgado's credit rating. Salgado also would pay half of the $11,000 down payment. The agreement is spelled out in court papers Ortiz has filed.
In a year, when the house had increased in value, as they assumed it would in the hot market, Ortiz would refinance. Ortiz said they had planned to take out $70,000 in equity, half of which she would pay Salgado for her share of the down payment and for allowing Ortiz to use her credit. Salgado would remove her name from the title, and Ortiz would own the house outright, according to the court documents.
But on the day of the closing in August 2005, Salgado's brother Saul Salgado Hernandez showed up to sign the papers. Ortiz said that she was surprised but that she figured Salgado knew what she was doing. She said she did not understand any of the papers in the thick stack of documents that she signed, not even the one that said she and Hernandez were married. "I signed the papers," she said. "I didn't notice." She also discovered that the woman handling her mortgage was Aguilar's wife.
Maria Salgado said she agreed to lend Ortiz the down payment money and use her brother's credit to buy the house because Ortiz was her "best friend."
"She wanted to buy a house. I wanted to help her," Salgado said. Her own credit was not good enough to help Ortiz, but that of her brother, a construction worker, was, she said.
"I asked my brother to help my best friend," Salgado said. She confirmed that she and Ortiz had planned to remove Hernandez's name from the title after one year. But Salgado said she did not agree to refinance.
Joe DiSalvo, a mortgage broker with Continental Mortgage and Investment Corp. in Arlington, reviewed Ortiz's housing documents at the request of The Washington Post and found them loaded with junk fees and an overpriced appraisal. The "excessive" closing costs, he said, were upward of $10,000
Blissfully unaware, Ortiz hung filmy white and maroon curtains in her home on East Reed Avenue. She put photographs of her family and the Sacred Heart of [censored] on the living room walls. She paid the mortgage every month, sometimes selling jewelry, forgoing other bills or taking out loans to do so. But she owned a home. She was happy.
So much so that she encouraged her niece Karla Ortiz to talk to Salgado. In September 2006, Karla, a Honduran immigrant who cleans houses for a living, was able to buy a half-million-dollar house in Springfield, and she paid $10,000 more than the asking price. Because her credit was poor, she used a friend's name and credit report on the mortgage application. No one blinked an eye.
Karla Ortiz, 30, said she worried that the house cost more than she could afford. Salgado maintains that she never showed houses to Karla Ortiz or anyone else.
Ortiz borrowed $8,000 for a down payment from an acquaintance at 20 percent interest.
She made three $5,000 monthly mortgage payments before the home on Middlesex Avenue went into foreclosure and her friend signed the house over to their mortgage broker.
* * *
The end of Glenda Ortiz's dream came swiftly. By February 2007, she and her husband couldn't pay the bills. Their power was about to be shut off because they owed Dominion Virginia Power $1,185. The city of Alexandria sent letters demanding the $7,215.88 they owed in property taxes.
She fell behind on the mortgage.
The refinance scheme she had worked out with Salgado fell through. The house had not appreciated as expected, and the bank would not help her with a payment plan. Although her name was listed on the deed, she was not listed as a borrower on the loan, records show. Ortiz said bank officials told her that they didn't have the authority to negotiate with her. When she called Hernandez for help, she said, he told her to leave the home.
With the home in foreclosure, Hernandez's attorney sent Ortiz a letter threatening legal action unless she turned it over to him as a gift. "You have caused Saul much damage by ignoring your duties and by taking advantage of his good faith," the letter read in Spanish. Maria Salgado said she borrowed $21,000 from a friend to bring the mortgage payments up to date because she didn't want to ruin her brother's credit. "It was all my fault," she said. "Saul didn't know Glenda."
Ortiz sought out lawyer Howard Woodson for help. In October, he urged her to sign an agreement to gift the house to Hernandez. Although she refused and asked for a hearing, a Circuit Court judge ordered Ortiz to gift the home to Hernandez. It includes a clause prohibiting Ortiz from suing Salgado and Hernandez for fraud, according to court records.
Hernandez, who sold the home in December for $380,000, according to Alexandria property records, did not return several phone calls seeking comment. His attorney, Don Haddock, said the judge's order corrected the "erroneous" housing document to clarify that Hernandez and Ortiz are not married.
"Is [what they did] illegal? I don't think it's illegal," Woodson said. "But you've knowingly induced people to enter a bad agreement."
Aguilar said he saw nothing amiss in the transaction. Ortiz wanted a house, and Hernandez wanted an investment.
"Everybody was fine. Everybody was happy. But now that the market's gone down, everybody's got a problem and wants to blame it on the realtor, saying we guided them to bad loans," he said. "Everybody's blaming everybody else. But everyone contributed to the housing bubble, the banks, the real estate agents, the appraisers. Everyone's to blame."
* * *
Glenda Ortiz is again living in an apartment off Glebe Road in Arlandria. She said she had become so depressed about losing her home that she stopped working for more than a year.
The family photos are back on the walls, as is the Sacred Heart of [censored]. Michael the Archangel sits atop the bookcase, little glasses of beer set in front of him, "because he likes it." The TV blares Spanish soap operas. It is not perfect here. It is not hers. But she's tired. And it will do. "You think you're doing something right, and it turns out all wrong," she said.
She no longer dreams of owning a home in America.
'My House. My Dream. It Was All an Illusion.'
Latina's Loss in Va. Epitomizes Mortgage Crisis
By Brigid Schulte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 22, 2008; Page A01
Looking back, Glenda Ortiz can see she did everything wrong when she bought her house in 2005. In fact, to understand the housing crisis that has swept the country, one need only listen to the tale of the Ortiz family.
She looked at only one house and paid too much for it: $430,000 for a run-down, one-story duplex in Alexandria, triple what the house had sold for the year before, and $5,000 more than the asking price, according to real estate records.
She agreed to a high-interest loan that would cost her more than $3,000 a month, more than 70 percent of the $4,200 that she and her husband brought home monthly.
She signed papers in English that she didn't understand. One said she was married to a man she didn't know.
She placed her financial future in the hands of a woman she barely knew who sold cosmetics and jewelry door to door. She sought no one else's advice.
Her loan application sailed through an originator and was accepted by a mortgage company, both specializing in customers with "less than ideal" credit.
And so, in August 2005, Glenda Ortiz, a cook at a Best Western who lived in a cramped apartment in Arlington County, became a homeowner. By last March, the home was in foreclosure. The loan originator and mortgage company had gone out of business. And Ortiz was headed to court.
"It was all a mistake. One hundred percent," Ortiz said recently in Spanish. "I had such a burning desire to have my own house. I didn't think about anything else."
Ortiz and her husband, an air conditioner installer, are examples of what can happen when a hot real estate market collides with cheap credit, lax lending standards and little oversight. No one is free from blame in this tale.
Theirs is a story that Erick Gutierrez, housing director for the Washington-based Latino Economic Development Corp., said is all too familiar. Gutierrez blames the government for allowing so many subprime loans, such as Ortiz's, which required no proof of income. "You could say: 'You clean houses on weekends? Great!' And then put down that they made $1,000 a week," he said.
But by then, real estate agents would have made their commissions, mortgage brokers would have their closing costs, and the risky loans would have been repackaged and sold to Wall Street. No one cared as long as the housing market continued to boom.
According to the Center for Responsible Lending, 40 percent of loans to Latinos are subprime, and it projects that one out of five of these loans made in 2005 and 2006 will go into foreclosure
"This is emblematic of people preying on their own and emblematic of bad brokers, but also emblematic of legitimate financial institutions either helping this happen or ignoring some facts so they can make a lot of money," said Alys Cohen, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center. "The problem is the system and that no one cares until Wall Street stops making money. And that's what's happening now."
Glenda Ortiz, 40, had been struggling for nine years, since the day she fled Hurricane Mitch in Honduras and arrived in the United States to find her "own little piece of soil." She dreamed that owning a home would bring her scattered family together. She fantasized about being able to bring home the daughter she'd left behind as an infant. "I know her only from photographs," she said wistfully. "I wanted a future for my family, for my children."
Ortiz, who speaks little English, said she didn't know much about the U.S. banking system. So when a Mary Kay saleswoman, Maria Esperanza Salgado, came to her door and said she could help her buy a house, Ortiz said, she believed her.
Salgado had a business card with a blue Realtor logo identifying herself as a "sales assistant" to real estate agent Jorge Aguilar. Salgado is not licensed with the Virginia Real Estate Board. Aguilar said Salgado "was a very good sales promoter." He said he paid her $500 for every referral she brought him, although board regulations prohibit paying commissions or referral fees to anyone but a licensed real estate agent. Salgado said he gave her only "gifts." Aguilar said Salgado no longer works for him.
When Ortiz protested that she and her husband didn't have good credit and had only a few thousand dollars in savings, Ortiz said Salgado, whom she had known for less than a year, promised to help her.
Ortiz said she and Salgado came up with a plan. They would buy the house jointly, using Salgado's credit rating. Salgado also would pay half of the $11,000 down payment. The agreement is spelled out in court papers Ortiz has filed.
In a year, when the house had increased in value, as they assumed it would in the hot market, Ortiz would refinance. Ortiz said they had planned to take out $70,000 in equity, half of which she would pay Salgado for her share of the down payment and for allowing Ortiz to use her credit. Salgado would remove her name from the title, and Ortiz would own the house outright, according to the court documents.
But on the day of the closing in August 2005, Salgado's brother Saul Salgado Hernandez showed up to sign the papers. Ortiz said that she was surprised but that she figured Salgado knew what she was doing. She said she did not understand any of the papers in the thick stack of documents that she signed, not even the one that said she and Hernandez were married. "I signed the papers," she said. "I didn't notice." She also discovered that the woman handling her mortgage was Aguilar's wife.
Maria Salgado said she agreed to lend Ortiz the down payment money and use her brother's credit to buy the house because Ortiz was her "best friend."
"She wanted to buy a house. I wanted to help her," Salgado said. Her own credit was not good enough to help Ortiz, but that of her brother, a construction worker, was, she said.
"I asked my brother to help my best friend," Salgado said. She confirmed that she and Ortiz had planned to remove Hernandez's name from the title after one year. But Salgado said she did not agree to refinance.
Joe DiSalvo, a mortgage broker with Continental Mortgage and Investment Corp. in Arlington, reviewed Ortiz's housing documents at the request of The Washington Post and found them loaded with junk fees and an overpriced appraisal. The "excessive" closing costs, he said, were upward of $10,000
Blissfully unaware, Ortiz hung filmy white and maroon curtains in her home on East Reed Avenue. She put photographs of her family and the Sacred Heart of [censored] on the living room walls. She paid the mortgage every month, sometimes selling jewelry, forgoing other bills or taking out loans to do so. But she owned a home. She was happy.
So much so that she encouraged her niece Karla Ortiz to talk to Salgado. In September 2006, Karla, a Honduran immigrant who cleans houses for a living, was able to buy a half-million-dollar house in Springfield, and she paid $10,000 more than the asking price. Because her credit was poor, she used a friend's name and credit report on the mortgage application. No one blinked an eye.
Karla Ortiz, 30, said she worried that the house cost more than she could afford. Salgado maintains that she never showed houses to Karla Ortiz or anyone else.
Ortiz borrowed $8,000 for a down payment from an acquaintance at 20 percent interest.
She made three $5,000 monthly mortgage payments before the home on Middlesex Avenue went into foreclosure and her friend signed the house over to their mortgage broker.
* * *
The end of Glenda Ortiz's dream came swiftly. By February 2007, she and her husband couldn't pay the bills. Their power was about to be shut off because they owed Dominion Virginia Power $1,185. The city of Alexandria sent letters demanding the $7,215.88 they owed in property taxes.
She fell behind on the mortgage.
The refinance scheme she had worked out with Salgado fell through. The house had not appreciated as expected, and the bank would not help her with a payment plan. Although her name was listed on the deed, she was not listed as a borrower on the loan, records show. Ortiz said bank officials told her that they didn't have the authority to negotiate with her. When she called Hernandez for help, she said, he told her to leave the home.
With the home in foreclosure, Hernandez's attorney sent Ortiz a letter threatening legal action unless she turned it over to him as a gift. "You have caused Saul much damage by ignoring your duties and by taking advantage of his good faith," the letter read in Spanish. Maria Salgado said she borrowed $21,000 from a friend to bring the mortgage payments up to date because she didn't want to ruin her brother's credit. "It was all my fault," she said. "Saul didn't know Glenda."
Ortiz sought out lawyer Howard Woodson for help. In October, he urged her to sign an agreement to gift the house to Hernandez. Although she refused and asked for a hearing, a Circuit Court judge ordered Ortiz to gift the home to Hernandez. It includes a clause prohibiting Ortiz from suing Salgado and Hernandez for fraud, according to court records.
Hernandez, who sold the home in December for $380,000, according to Alexandria property records, did not return several phone calls seeking comment. His attorney, Don Haddock, said the judge's order corrected the "erroneous" housing document to clarify that Hernandez and Ortiz are not married.
"Is [what they did] illegal? I don't think it's illegal," Woodson said. "But you've knowingly induced people to enter a bad agreement."
Aguilar said he saw nothing amiss in the transaction. Ortiz wanted a house, and Hernandez wanted an investment.
"Everybody was fine. Everybody was happy. But now that the market's gone down, everybody's got a problem and wants to blame it on the realtor, saying we guided them to bad loans," he said. "Everybody's blaming everybody else. But everyone contributed to the housing bubble, the banks, the real estate agents, the appraisers. Everyone's to blame."
* * *
Glenda Ortiz is again living in an apartment off Glebe Road in Arlandria. She said she had become so depressed about losing her home that she stopped working for more than a year.
The family photos are back on the walls, as is the Sacred Heart of [censored]. Michael the Archangel sits atop the bookcase, little glasses of beer set in front of him, "because he likes it." The TV blares Spanish soap operas. It is not perfect here. It is not hers. But she's tired. And it will do. "You think you're doing something right, and it turns out all wrong," she said.
She no longer dreams of owning a home in America.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Lesson of the exercise?
Learn to speak Inglese.
Learn to speak Inglese.
Were these "victims" citizens of the USA, or legal residents? If not -- and from the lack of English proficiency mentioned in the article, I suspect not -- they should never have been allowed to "buy" property.
(Predatory lenders + stupid/naive people) = no wonder we have a meltdown.
(Predatory lenders + stupid/naive people) = no wonder we have a meltdown.
Kestas
Staff member
Add the word "greedy" to your last sentence and it's a complete equation.
Quote:
She signed papers in English that she didn't understand. One said she was married to a man she didn't know.
She placed her financial future in the hands of a woman she barely knew who sold cosmetics and jewelry door to door. She sought no one else's advice.
I'm clearly calling this the fault of Republicans. We need free English classes for all open border people. We need training on how to get to know the guy that's humping on you. And those evil cosmetics and jewelry sales people - how are us peons not supposed to know they don't know shinola about lending money? And yeah I can get a loan for $500,000 but I can't have a $400 PC to search the web? We need free PC's for the poor.
When did the masses begin to think borrowing money for a house didn't have any strings? That's the partial root of it...somewhere in the 1980's or so - people forgot that your arse is owned when you borrow a huge chunk of change. My PITI is about $1300 (P&I under 1000) - my home cost plenty. I have a lot of money in the joint - but still my butt is owned. I can't forget that. When you buy a house with money that is not yours - you are trading more than just P&I and time for that money. Read the small print, people.
She signed papers in English that she didn't understand. One said she was married to a man she didn't know.
She placed her financial future in the hands of a woman she barely knew who sold cosmetics and jewelry door to door. She sought no one else's advice.
I'm clearly calling this the fault of Republicans. We need free English classes for all open border people. We need training on how to get to know the guy that's humping on you. And those evil cosmetics and jewelry sales people - how are us peons not supposed to know they don't know shinola about lending money? And yeah I can get a loan for $500,000 but I can't have a $400 PC to search the web? We need free PC's for the poor.
When did the masses begin to think borrowing money for a house didn't have any strings? That's the partial root of it...somewhere in the 1980's or so - people forgot that your arse is owned when you borrow a huge chunk of change. My PITI is about $1300 (P&I under 1000) - my home cost plenty. I have a lot of money in the joint - but still my butt is owned. I can't forget that. When you buy a house with money that is not yours - you are trading more than just P&I and time for that money. Read the small print, people.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Add the word "greedy" to your last sentence and it's a complete equation.
That's a given, so it's added at the end!
Oh but it's 2X!
Add the word "greedy" to your last sentence and it's a complete equation.
That's a given, so it's added at the end!
Pablo said:Quote:
I'm clearly calling this the fault of Republicans.
I'd say you're right! Here's a good example:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20080318/tbs-uk-usa-housing-fbi-4210405.html
"The opportunities for fraud existed all along the chain from mortgage origination to the investors in mortgage-backed securities. But the problems begin in loan applications that required minimal or no documentation, the officials said.
"That's the start of the fraud right there," said Mike Cuff, a supervisory special agent in the economic crimes unit.
The poorly documented loans then made their way through the securitization system, through brokers and appraisers, and into investments and corporate balance sheets.
"We're looking at all phases of the securitization," Power said.
Power said the mortgage crisis demonstrates a need for regulatory reform. But he said the industry's vulnerability to large-scale fraud has been known for years.
In 2004, when house values were soaring and the mortgage industry booming, an FBI criminal division official, Chris Swecker, sounded a prescient warning to Congress:
"If fraudulent practices become systemic within the mortgage industry and mortgage fraud is allowed to become unrestrained, it will ultimately place financial institutions at risk and have adverse effects on the stock market," he said."
The massive fraud and its implications were known for years but the big greedy gravy-train kept the lunacy going until the system started collapsing onto itself. And now we have taxpayers bailing out the wealthy:
http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds/reut...S-ANALYSIS.html
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Reserve walked into a political firestorm by pledging $30 billion in taxpayer money to guarantee Bear Stearns (nyse: BSC - news - people )' assets while struggling homeowners at the core of the financial crisis default on their mortgages.
To be sure, the central bank could hardly sit idly by while the fifth-largest U.S. investment bank collapsed, potentially dragging down other financial firms with it. But by throwing out a lifeline believed to be the biggest single Fed bailout on record, it opened itself up to some pointed criticism.
"As the Fed rides to the aid of Bear Stearns, there is a growing disconnect between the **** administration's willingness to help Wall Street and its willingness to aid the homeowners facing foreclosure," said Kurt Eggert, a professor at Chapman University's law school in Orange, California."
But let's the whole blame on the everyday working stiff, like the plumbers, janitors and welfare mothers - etc.
- Status