Comments

1
"sold the home to a condo developer"

I thought you guys liked density?
2
Unfortunately this practice is absolutely true. If you are current on your payments it is difficult to get a refinance without a qualifying event like a job loss. So, you might try falling back on your payments, but then the bank has the option of either refinancing or foreclosing.

There are a great many homeowners who are current on their mortgages, have no financial problems, but would like to refinance to take advantage of lower interest rates. With their homes "under water" the banks refuse to negotiate.

The best bet is simply to walk away. Move into a rental first and let the bank do what it wants with the house. Their experts appraised the house. Let them take the loss on it.
3
@2,

She wasn't underwater, so presumably Chase wasn't going to lose money on it.
4
It seems that per King County records Ventura last owned the property around 1998. http://info.kingcounty.gov/Assessor/eRea…
5
The first Notice of Trustee Sale given to Ms. Ventura was in 2010.
The second Notice of Trustee Sale given to Ms. Ventura was in 2012.
Both NoTS documents referenced a 2003 Deed of Trust with outstanding balance of $100747, so she didn't make any principal payments from 2010 to 2012, who knows what principal payments she made after the second Notice of Trustee Sale.
She bought the house for $91900!

Still, yes, Chase Bank sucks, but so did Washington Mutual between 2002 and 2008. A lot of financial institutions sucked donkeydick between 2006 and 2010, and some will suck forevermore.

If you don't want your mortgaged property payments to be botched by global entities run by psychopaths, go with a credit union.
6
" she didn't make any principal payments from 2010 to 2012"

Wow, and that was a problem? Maybe I should read the fine print on my mortgage?
7
She gets arrested for trying to keep a house she's been making payments on for 20 years.

Remind me again how many bankers have been arrested for causing this mortgage crisis? Oh, that's right... zero.

This is not what justice should look like.
8
The Developer was after this woman for a long time to try to buy her house from her so they could build more of the units they had put up next door. She did not want to move as she had lived in the house for decades - this place was her HOME not just a number on a spreadsheet. As she refused to sell, the bank was just looking for a way to get her out of the house to get it into the hands of that developer. This is wrong in every way.
9
Of course Chase isn't losing money. I'm sure they purposely foreclosed so they could sell the property to the condo developer, just like the adjacent home.
10
@8 wow, any citations for that fantastical supposition? Because a few minutes looking at public records show she didn't pay her mortgage for two entire years. Where's your proof?
11
@9 citation ?
12
@8. Ahh, she should have sold then.

Houses are difficult investments because we get so emotionally ties to them. I should walk away from my mortgage but instead I overpay and continue to install heat pumps and things. I'd sell in a heart beat if somebody offered me a reasonable price.
13
I wonder if any of the cops felt bad arresting her. You can give a citation for Trespassing or was The Seattle City Council giving one last huff and puff before they blew her house down.
14
Another asset grab, care of the mortgage "crisis". In this case, the land on which a new house will be built.
15
Ms. Ventura had her home for sale 10/12 and I had a signed accepted offer for 182K. Her realtor Nick Upshaw phoned my realtor begging me to withdraw my offer. I did. Ms. Ventura bought her home in the 90s for 91K and it was foreclosed for 160k in 11/12. Nothing is adding up here...
16
"Ms. Ventura had her home for sale 10/12 and I had a signed accepted offer for 182K. Her realtor Nick Upshaw phoned my realtor begging me to withdraw my offer. I did. Ms. Ventura bought her home in the 90s for 91K and it was foreclosed for 160k in 11/12. Nothing is adding up here..."

Anzel is an advocate for these morons, not a journalist.
17
Is it true that homeowners are accepting verbal instructions, and not getting everything in writing, simply because they are so much in need of refinancing? It seems particularly unfortunate that this could be overlooked so often.

@16 Incidentally, how much work have you been doing legitimately to look into the facts of these matters and prepare a story that's fit for publication? What an admirable critique you've provided, without the reassurance of any journalistic experience of your own.
18
And yet, the biggest fear of the city police force every year is that some anarchist might throw a brick through a bank window.
19
@Ansel - per the title, it's not her home being demolished, it was foreclosed away first so it's actually someone else's home now.

@17 - there's a big difference between saying "the only borrowers we consider modifications are those that have missed 3 payments" and saying "you should totally miss 3 payments".

It is unclear why she didn't just sell her not-underwater home and rent something she could afford, instead of pleading victimhood and getting arrested.
20
19 - Can't respect anyone who doesn't give their real name when they are criticizing others difficulties. Would you have the courage to stand up as Dana did and do what you think is right?
Why should she give up her home of many years to the banks and developers and rent? Its gotten so most people can barely afford to live in Seattle anymore.

They stole her house. She made a stand. Nothing she did was illegal. The bankers should be arrested. She was wrongly arrested. This is a plutocracy plain and simple. Power to the people. Ivy R. N. Williams, SAFE member.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.