Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
Mixed feelings... (207.4) - Mark's Journal
Mixed feelings... (207.4)
This story about sheriff's deputies and movers refusing to carry out the eviction of a 103-year-old Atlanta woman and her 83-year-old daughter is sweet, and makes for an awesome feel-good story, but I have trouble feeling that it's really ultimately a victory for "the 99%."

Even though I'm in the weird and uncomfortable position of not knowing where my March 1st mortgage payment is going to come from, I have to believe that people who can't (or just don't) pay their mortgages shouldn't be allowed to stay in their homes indefinitely. That would make the bank the victim, not the villain.

There was just a story in USA Today Travel about freeloaders crashing free hotel breakfast buffets, and as one of the comments there says, those kinds of thefts aren't just sticking it to a big corporation -- they're stealing from what's most likely a small business owner who owns the hotel franchise, and they're creating an expense that can only ultimately raise costs (or reduce service or quality) for paying guests. The same has to be true for mortgage freeloaders, too. Even if it doesn't directly affect the mortgage rates for people who already have mortgages, it can only affect future would-be borrowers as well as other customers of the lending institution.
3 comments or Leave a comment
jccohen From: jccohen Date: November 30th, 2011 04:31 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, I was kinda wondering about why they hadn't paid, myself. I feel a great deal of sympathy for them, but was it medical bills? A bad mortgage? Something else? They had lived there 53 years - surely its not the original mortgage.
sskipstress From: sskipstress Date: November 30th, 2011 04:48 pm (UTC) (Link)
I want more details. If they bought the house when they first moved into it, were 30-year mortgages the norm? And if so, shouldn't that have been paid by now or shouldn't they have been kicked out ages ago? Apparently there's been a court case about it for a number of years, maybe carrying out the eviction was the culmination of proceedings started 20ish years ago when the mortgage term should have ended. Or maybe the house was used as security for some other loan. Or maybe they rented it before they bought it.
From: dblaser_ca Date: November 30th, 2011 05:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
I agree... not enough information in that article about why they were supposedly fighting the bank.
3 comments or Leave a comment