Why Did Mayor Murray Bash a Veteran's Family After Intervening to Stop Their Eviction?

Comments

1
He can't say anything more because of privacy issues? Could he legally say whether or not they availed themselves to any services in the first place?
2
How does someone who owns and inherits a home outright rack up $400,000 of debt on it? That's the question a real journalist might also ask.
3
@2
This matter has been covered in comments on Slog in earlier posts and it sounds like the Bartons are either scammers or extremely poor money managers.

Ansel should be reporting on the underlying facts of the foreclosure.
4
Man, I wish I could cash out on a couple hundred thousand dollars - and then not pay it back.

Funny how the Stranger keeps ignoring what ALL the other news services have reported concerning the Bartons shady money dealings.
5
Quit interrupting Ansel's tee-ball game, guys.
6
Maybe the Mayor acknowledges the shades of gray in this story, unlike your fundamentalist black and white worldview?
7
While the Bartons may have been stupid with their money they didn't break the law like the banksters. Let them stay put until the courts have their say. If they did do something illegal let charges be brought.
8
Ansel, you need to learn more about Journalism 101. There is a difference in reporting a story, to making wide firm judgments on a pretty innocuous matter of a fact statement by the Mayor's office. Whether your judgement i based is true, with other material showing bias by the Mayor to the Property Firm, you have to do a much better job in your reporting...

You got a good story, but you blew it in how your blow things out of proportion, and make the story about the Mayor's office statement, rather than the policy itself. Whoever is your editor, should be read the riot act as well..
9
Thank God all these people were here in the comments to **splain it to us.
10
#9: Better than having Ansel 'spain it.
11

Why aren't they moving into a tiny home on wheels, parked in their neighbors driveway?

More importantly, when's the last time they used transit?

12
So what do they contend was illegal about their foreclosure? Surely it's not that hard to explain to the class.
14
Mayor Murray, Mr. Holmes, and City Council Members:

I represent Byron and Jean Barton on their legal claims regarding the foreclosure of their home and subsequent eviction. My position is that because courts have invalidated and set aside trustees' sales that have already occurred, and halted unlawful detainer actions, the Bartons should not be removed from their home until the court can rule on these legal claims since these issues are currently in dispute and are the subject of litigation in King County Superior Court. The following legal analysis provides support for my position:

Washington courts have voided and rescinded trustees’ sales where the Trustee failed to abide by the Washington Deed of Trust Act. In Albice v. Premier Mortgage, the Supreme Court validated the lower court's ruling that failure to comply with the statutory requirements was reason to set the sale aside and that factually, the purchaser did not qualify as a BFP (bona fide purchaser). The court also held that the homeowner did not waive their rights to legal challenge even after a sale had taken place, despite the fact that they did not attempt to obtain a restraining order (Albice v. Premier Mortgage Servs. Of Washington, Inc., 174 Wn.2d 560, 276 P.3d 1277 (2012)).

Where the lending institution or servicer told the borrower to stop making their payments during the course of the loan modification discussions, then proceeded with a foreclosure at the same time (known as dual-tracking) courts have voided and rescinded the trustee’s sale. The court stated in Bradburn v. ReconTrust, “Absent a valid waiver of the protections under the DTA [Deed of Trust Act], the failure to materially comply with that statute renders a foreclosure sale pursuant to it invalid. While Mr. Bradburn did not avail himself of the ability to seek to enjoin the sale, I felt the failure to strictly follow the requirement of the DTA required setting aside this foreclosure sale, particularly the appointment of a trustee that was not independent.” (Bradburn v. ReconTrust, et al., Snohomish County Superior Court No. 11-2-08345-2 (Order of Jan. 30, 2014)).

The court would not allow an unlawful detainer action to go forward where the beneficiary and MERS failed to produce evidence that they ever held the note secured by the deed of trust, and that the trustee failed to act impartially between the borrower and beneficiary. In that case, the court found that "[Quality Loan Service] QLS violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing with regard to Brevick required by RCW 61.24.010(4)...; and therefore was not entitled to rely upon the Declaration of Nationstar that it was the note holder...As a result of the material failure to comply with requisite requirements of the Deed of Trust Act, the waiver provisions of the Deed of Trust Act were inapplicable to the transaction...It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that: 1. The Deed recorded by QLS conveying the property to Plaintiff is null and void; 2. Plaintiff is denied a writ of possession..." (Federal National Mortgage Association v. Brevick, Snohomish Co. Superior Court No. 12-2-05605-4 (Order of June 13, 2014)). In the court's oral decision in Brevick, Judge Bowden stated that because the DTA was not strictly followed, even though a trustee's sale took place, "It has to be set aside. It's not just a matter of monetary damages to be resolved."

The court stayed an unlawful detainer case where the homeowners came forward with proof that the trustee’s sale was not in compliance with the Deed of Trust Act. (Conner v. Everhome Mortgage et al., Snohomish County Superior Court No. 12-2-02860-3).

--
Jill J. Smith, Attorney
Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC
​2217 NW Market St., Suite 27
​Seattle, WA 98107
15
@9, that's one way to express the fact that you have no argument to make nor anything meaningful to add to the conversation.
16
Because Ed Murray is a fucking idiot, that's why.
18
Is there some reason Ansel refuses to mention that they inhertied the house already paid for, took out hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt from the value of the house, and now are simply not paying it back? Did the bank do anything illegal? If so, what?

Why are there no facts here, only emotional appeals and quotes that elucidate nothing?
19
well number fourteen, in some cases juries did not find a breach of contract or negligence, and in some cases, the accused robber was found not guilty. so that means someone possibly can win a court case. but to convince us YOUR client should, you need to say what the bank here did that was wrong.

someone said the so called victim didn't break any laws. ahem. he didn't pay back a loan that told him he must pay. he took money, and didn't pay it back.

that's breaking his contract. when does that become part of the super duper legal analysis?
20
the critics of ansel here are right on. it's exactly this kind of stupid knee jerk reporting and emotionalizing that prevents real solutions -- there's no actual reporting of anything the lender or foreclosure buyer did that's wrong. citing what other banks did in other cases is pure guilt by association. it's like saying "the american govt. tortured someone else! therefore, my claim they tortured ME is valid!" it's incredibly STUPID way of thinking totally like the birthers and hannit but from the left. next point. jackasses like this raise housing costs for EVERYome. despite ansel's naivety, money isn't free and doens't grow on trees and lenders DO have to have reserves make a profit and set rates as per how many peopl ejack them around like this morons are doing. people like this are like shoplifters. you think they're stealing from the MAN? how incredibly stoopid. the costs are passed on to us, the ones following the rules. besides, let's say there was a mistake by the bank. how's that mean it's worth $400K penalty and these people alone get to live mortgage free, get off the hook? don't they have to pay back at least ...oh, $300K nope, ansel thinks bank equals bad and evil punish them like a little child. why can't these people just go get an apartment like oh about HALF the folks in seattle do? why do they get to live in a home palace that WE pay for through the pass on I described? this kind of sympathy is like carrasco being taken in by the faux native americans. it's so knee jerk, it's for gooey liberals to moan over and have ecstatic feelings of empathy, take that banks! because obama didn't make you pay us a fair price for the bailouts (eg, total public ownership and mega mega mega profit to get out when they are restored, wiping out all prior shareholders) THEN the only retribution we have is stopping foreclosures. ansel, grow the fuck up and find some real heros why don'tcha. these people are loafing scum bags. many of us lost homes too and the responsible thing to do is just fucking short sell it, pay the bank as much as you can that way and hello the debt is wiped clean through the magic of our trust laws and you're off the hook, isn't that enough grace to get, you borrow 400K only pay back 300K and you're off the fucking hook? why more largesse to these grifters?
21
I agree that there have been shady practices by banks and that there are many homeowners who need protection. Unfortunately, this particular case is not one of them, and the more they cry foul (when their case has already been found by the court to be without merit) and try to get people riled up, you know what happens? The people who truly are victims of criminal practices will find it that much harder to get help. Thanks a lot, Ansel.
22
@18 is there a reason you and others keep repeating that claim without anything to back it up? Links or it didn't happen
23
Wow... how many of you have been paid to trash Ansel? because anyone can tell from your comments that you didn't read the story.

When Jean Barton showed up for court the most recent time, she assumed that the social worker from adult services who was responding to a claim of unsafe conditions for Byron had been called by Triangle Properties. Instead, she found out that it was Mayor Murray's people who had complained of unsafe conditions. The social worker found a safe and sanitary house, with a happy, if stressed out Byron Barton in it and left, finding no cause for alarm.

The question to Murray is valid: Mayor Murray, why did you send adult protective services to the Barton home and why did you feel it necessary to comment to the media on sanitary and safety issues that you have not seen in person, nor had yet been investigated by a qualified social worker?
24
@22: Since I am at work, there are issues with downloading and linking to random PDFs and like documents, but being public records, they are accessible here:

http://146.129.54.93:8193/results.asp?pg…

I mean, do you think the bank was just going down their evil checklist and had to put a mark in the "evict Vietnam vet from a home he already owns" box?
25
Evicted this morning. Check out the West Seattle Blog. So Murray did nothing but a press opportunity.
26
#16, Doug is quite correct, of course, and

#24, Teddyboy, is either joking or a complete effing idiot also.

Now, since Chase is involved, let's examine the history of the JP Morgan Chase Fraudclosure Machine:

ttp://4closurefraud.org/2011/12/14/fl-4th-dca-fraudclosure-reversed-mclean-vs-jp-morgan-chase-bank-the-record-lacked-any-evidence-that-chase-had-standing-to-foreclose-at-the-time-the-lawsuit-was-filed/

http://ohiofraudclosure.blogspot.com/201…

http://infotofightforeclosure.com/?p=110…

http://www.loansafe.org/forum/threads/ho…

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jpm-fra…

http://adask.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/fr…

http://mydebtrelease.com/debt-news/liz-c…

http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com/2013/09…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrxSViQ7…

http://thepatriotswar.com/index.php/acti…

http://anchoraa.com/index.php?p=1_148_Fr…

http://www.dailykos.com/news/fraudclosur…

http://www.senseoncents.com/tag/fraudclo…

http://www.city-data.com/forum/foreclosu…

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/11/don…

(Sorry, don't have the time to list the many thousands of other sites/stories on Chase Fraudclosures.)
27
The criticism of Ansel here is pretty valid... It's not like anyone following this story isn't aware of all the questions. So, why won't the Bartons tell us where they spent all that money? Do they still have it? Did it have to be spend on medical bills? And, while Byron is a vet and is disabled, why do we need to keep making it sound like he fought and was injured defneding our country? Could it be because he makes a better poster boy for foreclsoure abuse? Might we point out that City workers are trying to provide resources and services to help them out if they have to move? Or that Triangle Properties offered them money and resources to help them move?

Bottom line... NOTHING about this story seems to fit the frame of an evil banking corporation preying on a sweet innocent family who were just trying to live in their home. Maybe we should focus on countless other people in the City who are victims of eviction? Folks who have no resources to fall back on?
29
@28, so they're evicted now.
“There are no winners in this situation, not the least of which is Mr. Barton, who is gravely disabled, and was living in extremely unsanitary and therefore dangerous conditions”, said Sheriff John Urquhart. “But Triangle Property Development, the lawful owner of the home, is a victim of bureaucratic inaction and back-and-forth finger-pointing between the City of Seattle and the Sheriff’s Office. That is inexcusable and that’s why I ordered today’s action. When politics is allowed to ride roughshod over the rule of law, everyone suffers. I was not willing to let that continue,” Urquhart added.
30
These eyes. Cry every night. For you.
31
I'm glad my comment was pulled for "trolling" - that means that the Stranger staff is actually reading the feedback about little Ansel Herz. He's a hack and bringing the Stranger down a notch with his reckless, immature attempts to be a journalist.
32
@22

Shut the fuck up you moron. The information is out there on every single fucking news channel. The links were also posted when this story first came out.

dumbass socialists like you need a boot to the side of the head.
33
@27 The refinancing activity started shortly after 2003, when Byron and Jean Barton were bequeathed a house from a living trust. Said activity was four mortgages and two secondary mortgages.

It's unclear to me what the money was spent on. Reports elsewhere imply that the Bartons operated a home remodeling business in the mid 2000s.

One Promissory Note in 2007 was for $456500, granted by Washington Mutual. JP Morgan Chase acquired Washington Mutual's assets, including the Barton's Promissory Note.

On August 24, 2011 Jean Barton sent a notarized formal written request for the validation of Chase's Proof of Claim for her Promissory Note.

On September 14, 2011 Jean Barton made a notarized declaration that she sent by certified US mail, a notice of security interest and charged that Chase failed to provide Proof of Claim for the Promissory Note. Chase's response is unknown to me.

$478K was owed according to the last Notice of Trustee Sale document from King County Records Division. Byron Barton's debilitating stroke happened in 2012.

All of this is available to the public. If you want to look at recorded entries for liens, judgements, and torts pertaining to Byron and Jean Barton prior to 2005, they're available at the link in comment #24. To look at the actual scanned Deeds of Trust (except for the Notice of Trustee Sale, and Adjustable Rate Promissory Note, part of OPR20110919001034-1-12.pdf), you need to visit the King County Administration Building downtown.
34
@33,

So, basically, they got in over their head with debt and then unsuccessfully tried to use a legal loophole to get out from under it. There have been many shenanigans involving the actual ownership of mortgages over the past several years, but the transfer of ownership from Washington Mutual to Chase seems pretty seamless to me.
35
Ok, they fell into medical debt. They didn't spend money willy-nilly. Saying that they made a "bad money decision" is fucking disgusting.

What are you going to do if you were in their situation? Let your husband die if he gets sick because you can't afford it?
36
wish someone would ask where the money goes when "eastside funding" DLG " vestus and cascade trustee(and now triangle property's) shuffle paperwork after thousands of foreclosure sales.??
37
@35,

I'd sell the house and move into cheaper housing rather than rack up debt I could never hope to pay back.
38
@35

If I were in their situation, I'd be in debt to the tune of $450k, borrowed against assets worth at least $600k.

What I would do if I were in their situation is sell the home, pay the debt, and wind up with more than $100k in hand. I'm pretty sure I'd be able to find an apartment to rent with a security deposit a bit lower than that.
39
triangle has a contractors license and lists Mitchel daher as the owner.
will the home be torn down before the lawsuits are heard?
40
According to KOMOTV Murray would stand up for them as long as they worked towards finding a solutions through various city state and federal programs. They did not.
41
"Court records show the Bartons mortgaged their home in 2007, then subsequently refinanced the loan and took out a home equity line of credit, with loans totaling over $650,000. "

Wow, he's a practically a member of the 1%. Glad Anushole has his back.