Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

New S.F. condo owner gives 81-year-old longtime resident 3 days to clear out

An 81-year-old woman whose $1.4 million condominium in the Upper Haight was auctioned for half its value now has three days to leave.

“Notice is hereby given that Eugene Gardner has purchased the property at a trustee’s sale and title to the property has been duly perfected,” read a notice posted on the door of Rosemarie Benter’s home, an upstairs unit in a cream-colored Victorian on Page Street.

“Within three days after service of this notice on you, you must vacate the premises and deliver possession of them to the owner or to the undersigned who is authorized to receive the same,” continued the note, which was signed by Gardner’s attorney, Joanna Kozubal.

Benter had unwittingly used the home to secure a $9,519 loan in 2021 to help pay her property tax bill, not realizing that she was at risk of losing it if she defaulted. By last October, the loan, bloated by fees and an 8% interest rate, ballooned to more than $11,000.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108May 25, 2023 11:05 PM

I don't understand this scam

by Anonymousreply 1April 22, 2023 4:54 AM

This is so infuriating. I can't read the article because it's behind a paywall (that's not what's frustrating me) so I don't know the full story, but losing a $1.4 million condo over an $11,000 debt IS a scam. And I hope now that it's in the news, someone gets her some legal help and get this bullshit undone.

by Anonymousreply 2April 22, 2023 5:01 AM

[quote]An 81-year-old woman whose $1.4 million condominium in the Upper Haight was auctioned for half its value now has three days to leave.

“Notice is hereby given that Eugene Gardner has purchased the property at a trustee’s sale and title to the property has been duly perfected,” read a notice posted on the door of Rosemarie Benter’s home, an upstairs unit in a cream-colored Victorian on Page Street.

“Within three days after service of this notice on you, you must vacate the premises and deliver possession of them to the owner or to the undersigned who is authorized to receive the same,” continued the note, which was signed by Gardner’s attorney, Joanna Kozubal.

Benter had unwittingly used the home to secure a $9,519 loan in 2021 to help pay her property tax bill, not realizing that she was at risk of losing it if she defaulted. By last October, the loan, bloated by fees and an 8% interest rate, ballooned to more than $11,000.

When Benter failed to pay it back, the lender foreclosed on her property and Gardner bought it at a trustee’s sale in March. Two nonprofit organizations, the San Francisco Community Land Trust and Legal Assistance to the Elderly, had tried intervening to keep Benter in her home, and district Supervisor Dean Preston said he might seek city funding to help.

The 81-year-old longtime San Francisco resident has survived a stroke and suffers from severe arthritis, and faces an uncertain future if she gets displaced. She has a daughter in Seattle, though her two sons died of AIDS.

“I don’t know what to do,” said Benter, who went to the door Friday afternoon to take down the notice after a reporter informed her about it. “I don’t know what’s going to happen. Are they going to show up on Monday morning with a truck to take me out?”

Kozubal did not return multiple phone calls or an email on Friday, and an attempt to reach Gardner by phone was unsuccessful.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3April 22, 2023 5:04 AM

I will be looking at bank employees for facilitating this scam

by Anonymousreply 4April 22, 2023 5:06 AM

COULD BE YOU ONE DAY

by Anonymousreply 5April 22, 2023 5:06 AM

9 grand is not enough money to lose valuable property. 90 grand? Maybe. 9 grand, no.

by Anonymousreply 6April 22, 2023 5:08 AM

there's only one thing to do about the state of the US

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7April 22, 2023 5:14 AM

There should be laws to protect consumers against things like this. I mean, I understand taking out a loan and not being able to repay it will incur a penalty, but it should be something like "you have to sell your $1.4 million home" instead of "we're taking your $1.4 million home".

by Anonymousreply 8April 22, 2023 5:15 AM

No, I don't understand why someone purchased a 1.4 million dollar home for half its value when the owner defaulted on a loan less than 10 grand

by Anonymousreply 9April 22, 2023 5:20 AM

This bank accepted an offer that is half of the value of a property worth millions and that will only increase in value? Why?

What is this scam?

by Anonymousreply 10April 22, 2023 5:26 AM

This is so wrong. It's inhumane and disproportionate. A nation that allows such cutthroat practices is failing its citizens.

Reading stories like this, especially coming out of CA (the sanest state for my European sensibilities), is slowly convincing me that the US are turning into a dystopian hellhole.

by Anonymousreply 11April 22, 2023 5:35 AM

This is a routine grift. Grifters get a lot of help to successfully pull off a scam.

by Anonymousreply 12April 22, 2023 5:40 AM

its called collateral?

by Anonymousreply 13April 22, 2023 5:43 AM

Please say this can be contested and reversed. This is so wrong.

by Anonymousreply 14April 22, 2023 5:47 AM

The bank will evict an octogenarian from her home of five decades for a defaulted loan of 9 grand.

But will accept a purchase price for less than half of the homes 1.4 million dollar value?

Huh?

by Anonymousreply 15April 22, 2023 5:49 AM

Isn't the bank losing money on this transaction. 10 grand vs 700 grand? Why did the home not sell for its true value

by Anonymousreply 16April 22, 2023 5:59 AM

[quote]But will accept a purchase price for less than half of the homes 1.4 million dollar value?

It was worth $1.4 million but she bought it 40 years ago for probably $50,000. She paid off her mortgage. The bank isn't losing any money. They're getting $700,000 for the $11,000 she owed.

by Anonymousreply 17April 22, 2023 6:03 AM

I'd say the other criminal thing here is that she probably did $50,000 for it 40 years ago. And now the city assesses it at $1.4 million and her taxes are so high she can't even afford them. That's not right.

by Anonymousreply 18April 22, 2023 6:06 AM

She's paid her mortgage and is 81 years old? She doesn't belong in the street.

by Anonymousreply 19April 22, 2023 6:06 AM

[quote]Why did the home not sell for its true value.

Because it was auctioned. And someone got it for a steal. They literally stole it from her.

by Anonymousreply 20April 22, 2023 6:08 AM

Find out what relationship the new owner has with the bank. If the auction price is near the value of the property there would be fewer red flags.

by Anonymousreply 21April 22, 2023 6:13 AM

I'm totally not placing blame on her, but at 84, with a home worth $1.4 million, she should've sold it and moved into a senior community. Somebody should've helped her do that. She was 84. Did they expect she would be able to pay taxes and HOA fees on a $1.4 million condo on her Social Security?

I'm sure she wanted to live in her home for the rest of her life. But the way the game works, that's just not possible. And it is a game. It's a shell game. It's meant to make 84 year old women on fixed incomes losers because the game is fixed.

by Anonymousreply 22April 22, 2023 6:14 AM

Straightup bullshit. 9 grand is 700 dollars PER MONTH or 175 dollars a week. What is this?

by Anonymousreply 23April 22, 2023 6:18 AM

[quote]Find out what relationship the new owner has with the bank. If the auction price is near the value of the property there would be fewer red flags.

I am sure that there's no relationship between the buyer and the bank. People buy houses at auction for way less than their value all the time. During the housing bubble burst, when thousands of people lost their homes, the rich swept in and bought their properties for pennies as investment properties.

by Anonymousreply 24April 22, 2023 6:19 AM

The victim didn't lose her home, she's being grifted out of it.

by Anonymousreply 25April 22, 2023 6:23 AM

The sad part is, I can't tell you how many times I've heard stories about people with modest houses that were assessed by the city at outrageous prices that were way above anything they would be able to sell for. And then were responsible for outrageous tax bills.

And at the same time, millionaires get their houses reassessed for a lower value than they're worth, and pay next to nothing in taxes.

by Anonymousreply 26April 22, 2023 6:27 AM

That notice posted on the door means nothing unless it is issued by the court.

by Anonymousreply 27April 22, 2023 6:32 AM

Another thing that pisses me off about the whole real estate scam industrial complex: appraisals.

If you're buying, you need your appraisal to come in above the selling price so that your lender doesn't back out. But at the same time, you don't want to appraise so high that your taxes are that high. When I had my current home appraised before I bought it, the appraisal came back at about $1500 higher than the selling price the seller and I had agreed on. The ridiculous part is that the appraiser knew and the appraisal came in with the agreed-upon selling price listed on it! So my appraiser did me a huge favor and appraised it just high enough so I could get my loan and just low enough to keep my taxes low. In what way is that a fair and unbiased appraisal? I mean, he did me a huge favor. But the fact that he knew the selling price meant he was going to appraise it so I could buy it and also avoid higher taxes. And I bought my place that I was renting from my landlord and we did it without a real estate agent. So he agreed to an extremely fair price, but Zillow and Redfin both had it listed at $40,000 higher than I purchased it for. I basically had $40,000 in equity when I signed the contract. And I was telling a friend who has bought three homes oabout that and she said, yeah that's basically the way it works. All of her appraisals came in just about $1000 to $2000 above what she was buying.

The flipside of that is that when you're selling your home, you want it to appraise as high as possible. And there are stories out there that are true nightmares. I just read an article the other day about a Black family that had their house appraised, and it came in lower than they expected. So they whitewashed their house. They took down all their family photos and put up photos of generic white people they printed off the Internet, anything that resembled African art, anything that would indicate to anyone looking that the owners were Black. And then they had their house re-appraised. And it was re-appraised for $100,000 more than it was originally.

That's just fucked up.

by Anonymousreply 28April 22, 2023 7:11 AM

R11 California is the most insane state in this country.

by Anonymousreply 29April 22, 2023 7:22 AM

[quote]R11 California is the most insane state in this country.

Have you never heard of Florida? 😂

by Anonymousreply 30April 22, 2023 7:30 AM

I wish Eugene had gotten in an argument with Mimo instead of the tech bro.

by Anonymousreply 31April 22, 2023 8:05 AM

[quote]Benter had unwittingly used the home to secure a $9,519 loan in 2021 to help pay her property tax bill, not realizing that she was at risk of losing it if she defaulted. By last October, the loan, bloated by fees and an 8% interest rate, ballooned to more than $11,000.

Wittingly or unwittingly she secured a loan against a property she owned in full for an amount quite inconsequential relative the property's full value. I don't know where she thought the money came from that she wouldn't have to pay it back. Even the fees and interest rate which the article suggests are extortionate "swelled" in 2 years by $1500 -- not a huge surprise if you take a loan for which you don't have the money to pay it back.

The crime is in extending to someone a sort of reverse mortgage loan when they evidently had no means to repay the loan, or no demonstrated ability to make sound financial decisions. Selling ti the owner a loan that she lacked money to repay and any prospect of money to repay is the crime.

Of course a maybe $1.4M condo inhabited by an 83-year-old woman is going to sell -- sight unseen and at auction-- for less than it's estimated full value. A lot less is the usual outcome.

There are unscrupulous lenders who target elderly people especially in neighborhoods where property values have risen while residents have lived in houses with paid off mortgages for years. Gentrified/ing neighborhoods are often targeted and older residents for their lack of financial wariness.

But even stopping predatory lenders who know that their clients don't have long term solutions to paying off small loans and will end up in some horrible position doesn't stop the problem altogether. The owner still owes back property tax, or still has no other means of paying for ongoing expenses, and lacks good counsel from relatives and friends and lenders.

The condo owner was old and naive and unclear in thinking through a solution. As many people like her are. It doesn't always take a financial wizard and dark magic to confuse an elderly home owner. It happens all the time and and much lower stakes in poorer neighborhoods. Someone makes a small profit selling them a financial "vehicle" that will lead to ruin of one sort or another. Someone else steps in with a big check at the end and buys a property for half or less of its value.

Reverse mortgages can be helpful in some cases. They can be ruinous in others. How do you protect old people against signing on for things that they shouldn't, or shouldn't except in a few instances with a good plan in place?

by Anonymousreply 32April 22, 2023 8:10 AM

I feel for her BUT she should have had a lawyer look over the contract before signing it. Doesn’t matter if she’s young or old, it’s still a contract.

by Anonymousreply 33April 22, 2023 8:11 AM

R32 are there mis-selling regulations that could be used against the loan provider?

by Anonymousreply 34April 22, 2023 8:12 AM

[quote] California is the most insane state in this country.

R29, insanely beautiful, wealthy, and well-regulated by European standards? I agree!

by Anonymousreply 35April 22, 2023 8:33 AM

I FF all posts containing articles that are paywalled.

by Anonymousreply 36April 22, 2023 8:38 AM

Let’s get something straight here —

Let’s say you loan $10,000 secured by a $1 million house. The person doesn’t pay you back. So you foreclose on the house and have a foreclosure sale.

Let’s say you sell the house for $500,000 in the foreclosure sale. You’re only allowed to keep the principal and interest of the loan, plus the foreclosure costs. The rest has to go to the property owner whose house got foreclosed on.

So this old woman should be getting most of the money that the house sold for.

by Anonymousreply 37April 22, 2023 8:49 AM

Here in the UK there are these annoying "release equity in your home" ads on all the time, aimed at the elderly on cosy daytime TV channels (along with ads for life insurance, stair lifts, assisted bathing installations and funeral plans). They may sound good in theory but surely will always advantage the lender.

I know they're only doing their job but the bank who seemingly wanted to make a quick buck out of an old lady and this lawyer who thinks it's ok to scare someone out of their home with 3 days notice ought to be ashamed. And do should the shark who bought it up and intends to evict.

by Anonymousreply 38April 22, 2023 10:18 AM

This is sad, and poor estate planning that should’ve been done over 20 years ago. Also, several red flags should’ve gone up when you have to borrow money to pay taxes. All of this paperwork doesn’t come with identifying photos or age.

I would blame the daughter, but unfortunately have been in her shoes. Perhaps the woman is stubborn, mentally ill, or has dementia and the daughter gave up trying.

The government needs more shoring up of elderly protection- a legal, “undo” mechanism for cases like this where the entire estate would fall under an umbrella of protection and to unravel situations and shield older people from lawsuits etc.

by Anonymousreply 39April 22, 2023 10:27 AM

Oh god AND her two sons died of AIDS the article said.

by Anonymousreply 40April 22, 2023 10:33 AM

I'd be interested in how much the bank did to ensure she fully understood the consequences of defaulting on the loans and what support they offered over the last 2 years to get the loan repaid?

From the outside it sounds like they anticipated she wouldn't repay on time.

by Anonymousreply 41April 22, 2023 10:34 AM

I wonder if the daughter even knew. Presumably she'd inherit the condo

by Anonymousreply 42April 22, 2023 10:49 AM

[quote]Reading stories like this, especially coming out of CA (the sanest state for my European sensibilities), is slowly convincing me that the US are turning into a dystopian hellhole.

It may be, but I don't think this nasty bit of capitalism is a sign of it -- this kind of thing has been going on for generations.

by Anonymousreply 43April 22, 2023 11:53 AM

I flag and flame take over bitches who think they are in charge of an anonymous message board.

I don't have an account with the chronicle and can access the content.

by Anonymousreply 44April 22, 2023 12:54 PM

Yeah if she had a good lawyer from the start none of this would have happened.

by Anonymousreply 45April 22, 2023 1:11 PM

I would pay my moms tax bill with the anticipation of inheriting a property worth millions

by Anonymousreply 46April 22, 2023 1:12 PM

I would move my Mom into my home and sublease her 1.4 million dollar condominium for a market rent.

by Anonymousreply 47April 22, 2023 1:15 PM

Where is the $1.4 million valuation coming from? I’m guessing that’s an imaginary number. It’s probably based on sales of renovated condos that closed prior to interest rates ballooning and SF getting hit by COVID and the aftermath. The 81 year-old has probably been in her unrenovated unit since the building was converted to condos. Does the article explain how they came up with $1.4 million?

As R37 points out, she is going to keep the balance of the proceeds after her debt is paid off. So the politician suggesting financial help for her is weird. Can’t wait to spend taxpayers’ money on a problem that wasn’t caused by a lack of money. She needed financial counseling a year ago, not cash now.

Nonetheless, I think it is possible that there is some grift going on her. She’s 81. The apartment is worth somewhere between $700k and $1.4 million. At some point a much larger reverse mortgage should have been suggested. She was capable of initiating and accepting the original loan two years ago. If that was above board and not exploitation of an incapacitated elder then presumably she would have understood the process.

by Anonymousreply 48April 22, 2023 1:24 PM

Who is this piece of shit moving in and forcing an elderly widow out of her home?

Or is it some investor property manager that will never set foot in the place?

by Anonymousreply 49April 22, 2023 1:42 PM

He should move in with her and become the Odd Couple. Or maybe she can squat her own home since squatters seem to have a lot of rights.

by Anonymousreply 50April 22, 2023 1:43 PM

If this property had auctioned at or above its current value, I would tick this off to "just business", cold and callous. But because it sold for half of the current value for a debt less than ten thousand dollars and there is a phony notice attached to this victims door threatening to evict her in 3 days?

Grift. It sounds like a grift.

And for all you grifters reading this, it takes months to evict someone, not days.

by Anonymousreply 51April 22, 2023 1:51 PM

[quote] COULD BE YOU ONE DAY

Oh honey, I'll never own anything pricier that pup tent.

by Anonymousreply 52April 22, 2023 1:54 PM

The new owner really did leave their heart in San Francisco.

by Anonymousreply 53April 22, 2023 1:55 PM

[qoote]Let’s say you sell the house for $500,000 in the foreclosure sale. You’re only allowed to keep the principal and interest of the loan, plus the foreclosure costs. The rest has to go to the property owner whose house got foreclosed on.

[quote]So this old woman should be getting most of the money that the house sold for.

She wasn't foreclosed on. She lost her house in a writ of seizure and sale. The bank seized and sold her house. They get all the profits. She gets nothing.

This applies to your comment too, r37.

by Anonymousreply 54April 22, 2023 1:58 PM

I’m sorry for this lady but WHY THE HELL DON’T THESE PEOPLE MOVE TO GODDAMN FLORIDA OR ARIZONA

The San Francisco real estate market is so inflated she could have sold it years ago and lived very comfortably on the profit in Del Boca Vista.

by Anonymousreply 55April 22, 2023 2:00 PM

R55 - Have you checked the housing markets in Florida and Arizona? They might not be at San Francisco levels, but most major markets in those states are hardly affordable. She'd be better off in Alabama, Louisiana or South Carolina -- and HURRY!

by Anonymousreply 56April 22, 2023 2:03 PM

I know we should feel sorry for this woman but this was a white woman of means who lived in the most expensive city in America, this is not a black family struggling to make ends meet In Oakland.

by Anonymousreply 57April 22, 2023 2:04 PM

Well she's broke ass poor now so really more of a distinction than a difference. Besides, aren't we all about equity now? Wouldn't that extend to poverty and homelessness?

by Anonymousreply 58April 22, 2023 2:06 PM

R58, are you advocating she should be homeless and poor?

by Anonymousreply 59April 22, 2023 2:08 PM

I was being facetious, clearly. Perhaps a little mocking too.

by Anonymousreply 60April 22, 2023 2:09 PM

Oh FFS an elderly woman with 1.4 million in equity will still live quite well in Florida or Arizona. Obviously someone in her condition should be in assisted living, not living in an outrageously inflated high rise condo in Brickell.

by Anonymousreply 61April 22, 2023 2:11 PM

Sadists fapping

by Anonymousreply 62April 22, 2023 2:13 PM

My lease states that I would have 60 days to vacate if my apartment is sold. 3 days is absurd!

by Anonymousreply 63April 22, 2023 2:17 PM

[quote]I was being facetious, clearly. Perhaps a little mocking too.

Thanks. People on this website can be so fucking judgmental and flat out cruel and it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between facetiousness and someone's honest to God opinion.

by Anonymousreply 64April 22, 2023 2:23 PM

Is this story viral yet? Plaster it all over social media and maybe a legal expert will step forward to help her.

by Anonymousreply 65April 22, 2023 2:26 PM

This is a typical story in urban areas and this happens all the time.

by Anonymousreply 66April 22, 2023 2:27 PM

This ⬇ is paywalled, not the original story

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 67April 22, 2023 2:42 PM

[quote] She wasn't foreclosed on. She lost her house in a writ of seizure and sale. The bank seized and sold her house. They get all the profits. She gets nothing.

She might get something if there is anything left over after the debt is subtracted as well as the fees for the writ of seizure and the auction. IOW, after creditors get their cut the former owner gets the remainder.

NEVER use you house as collateral even to pay property taxes. If you can't afford property tax the only solutions are to sell your house or find a reverse mortgage, although this woman doesn't sound like she has the income to qualify for one. Even with a reverse mortgage you have to pay property tax and you can lose your house if you don't.

by Anonymousreply 68April 22, 2023 2:43 PM

[quote]She might get something if there is anything left over after the debt is subtracted as well as the fees for the writ of seizure and the auction. IOW, after creditors get their cut the former owner gets the remainder.

It sounds like this victim will receive nothing. Because the property sold for half the value and the bank will claim additional loss.

by Anonymousreply 69April 22, 2023 2:52 PM

[quote] I FF all posts containing articles that are paywalled.

Instead of being a pissy little bitch about it, you can read it in an archive.

Like this.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 70April 22, 2023 3:16 PM

Dude, it is not paywalled. I specifically linked to a non-pay walled website. I don't have an account with SFCHRONICLE.

by Anonymousreply 71April 22, 2023 3:21 PM

R71, maybe it's not pay walled on a computer, but on my phone, when I clicked on the link, I see the whole front page of the SF Chronicle, and when I click on the link, get a big pop up that says "pay to read the full story or click here to return to the main page".

by Anonymousreply 72April 22, 2023 3:35 PM

THAT'S A DIFFERENT SCENARIO. MY FRIEND THAN THIS: See below

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 73April 22, 2023 3:39 PM

It's paywalled.

by Anonymousreply 74April 22, 2023 3:46 PM

On a mobilephone you dumb bitch

by Anonymousreply 75April 22, 2023 3:48 PM

This is all I can see on my phone.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 76April 22, 2023 3:54 PM

RIGHT.

ON A FUCKING MOBILE PHONE, ACCESS TO CONTENT IS RESTRICTED TO SUBSCRIBERS. JFC, I WAS GIVING YOU FUCKING BRAIN DEAD BOTTOM FEEDERS TOO MUCH FUCKING CREDIT.

by Anonymousreply 77April 22, 2023 4:00 PM

R77 Quit screaming, jackass. It's paywalled on my computer.

by Anonymousreply 78April 22, 2023 4:03 PM

Jesus. R77. Calm down! Do you not own cell phone? Do you not realize people access the Internet from their cell phones? Did you post at OP that the link only worked on desktop and laptop computers?

by Anonymousreply 79April 22, 2023 4:18 PM

I used to look like a grizzly bear. Now I look like a polar bear. One of the ones trapped on an iceberg, floating in the Arctic, that starved, and is all skin and bones.

by Anonymousreply 80April 22, 2023 4:25 PM

^ that's fucking weird. I swear I posted that in the thread about bears, not here.

by Anonymousreply 81April 22, 2023 4:28 PM

Fucking dumb cunts, worse than females

by Anonymousreply 82April 22, 2023 5:52 PM

Well. I blocked OP for his "dumb cunts, worse than females" comment.

Good bye, OP.

May we never meet again! Unless I run you over with a car. In which case I hope your death is quick and painless.

Because I'm kind.

by Anonymousreply 83April 22, 2023 9:01 PM

Thanks cunt. I can't add your dumb ass to my blocked list, it's full.

by Anonymousreply 84April 22, 2023 9:15 PM

An 81-year-old woman is suing to keep her $1.4 million condominium in San Francisco’s Upper Haight district, saying she fell victim to a “deceptive, fraudulent and predatory scheme” that caused her to lose her home.

[quote] Rosemarie Benter filed a fraud and elder financial abuse complaint Sunday night against Redwood city mortgage adviser Laura Biche and San Carlos real estate broker Michael Bruno, accusing them of an intricate conspiracy that led to the foreclosure of an upstairs unit she purchased in 1991, in a cream-colored Victorian near the Panhandle. Benter said she lost the home after failing to pay a loan worth less than $10,000, unaware that she had used the condominium as collateral.

She submitted the lawsuit to San Francisco Superior Court three days after the new owner of her condominium, Eugene Gardner, taped a notice to the door, giving Benter three days to clear out.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 85April 26, 2023 10:23 PM

R18, her taxes would be based $50,000 level (although I doubt it was that cheap, maybe around 250,000 or more), not on the 1.4 mil. 1978's Prop 13 froze increases at 1% a year. My parents bought their house in the 60s for $35,000 and it sold in about 10 years ago for close to one million. The taxes were based on $35,000 with a 1 per cent annual increase from 1978 today. property tax would be about $1600 annually, give or take some.

If she brought the property in 1991 she paid a lot more than $50,000, Possibly around $270,000 at that time.

Anyway, this is beyond cruel. It's smells like elder abuse to me.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 86April 26, 2023 10:46 PM

R86 again, I don't know how many years back taxes the $9,000 is based on, but the tax man gets a big bonus on the new current assessment if the sale & eviction goes forward. It the value is $1.4 million the new tax is now $16,500 annually.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 87April 26, 2023 11:15 PM

This is disgusting. This Has to be made into a BIG story and not just disappear. It's just WRONG, and the scumbag who loaned her 9k and let her put her house on the line is a bastard and needs exposing. Did he/she try everything they could before selling her house from under her? A Gofund me wud have sorted this woman out...and could Still help. Hopefully the journalist who first ran the story stays on the case. This is too sad and needless.

by Anonymousreply 88April 26, 2023 11:16 PM

"Redwood city mortgage adviser Laura Biche and San Carlos real estate broker Michael Bruno"

by Anonymousreply 89April 26, 2023 11:18 PM

16,500 is 317 USD per week. 9 grand is 173 per week. Don't lose your home for a small sum of money

by Anonymousreply 90April 26, 2023 11:24 PM

Curious what hoa fees the victim is responsible for

by Anonymousreply 91April 26, 2023 11:31 PM

This could have been avoided with a GoFundMe.

by Anonymousreply 92April 26, 2023 11:41 PM

[quote]This could have been avoided with a GoFundMe.

81 year old ladies that get scammed into losing their houses to capitalist crooks generally aren't well versed in Gofundme.

She needed an advocate way before the house went to auction and sadly didn't have one. I'm not blaming her for not having one and I don't even know that her daughter can be blamed. Parents are notoriously secretive about problems and discussing them with their kids because they still think they're the grown up who has to protect their children and won't ask their kids for help.

by Anonymousreply 93April 26, 2023 11:48 PM

I knew the home owner was targeted for a grift because the numbers looked wrong.

by Anonymousreply 94April 26, 2023 11:49 PM

They weren't really being facetious r64 if you ask me . They got called out.

by Anonymousreply 95April 29, 2023 10:13 AM

R95 - Stop making assumptions. It makes you sound stupid.

by Anonymousreply 96April 29, 2023 2:04 PM

I saw you and now you mad haha...r96

by Anonymousreply 97April 30, 2023 6:29 AM

I feel sorry for her. No one seemed to be advising her. You can’t take out a $10K loan with no way of paying it back. It also sounds like she can’t even pay the yearly property taxes on her home.

But the sale for half price and eviction are harsh even by heartless SF standards.

by Anonymousreply 98April 30, 2023 6:56 AM

Any updates on this? I'm curious if she was forced to leave and if someone helped her find a new place.

by Anonymousreply 99May 4, 2023 6:46 PM

She's suing

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 100May 4, 2023 7:33 PM

[quote]What is this scam?

The conflict of interest I told my buddy about the property, he's lucky I work for the bank scam.

by Anonymousreply 101May 4, 2023 8:34 PM

Ok, you helped a friend out.Did you go further?because the property sold for half of the value

by Anonymousreply 102May 4, 2023 9:43 PM

[quote]but losing a $1.4 million condo over an $11,000 debt IS a scam

There was a story in the Washington Post about poor/marginal elderly people losing their for failing to pay taxes that they didn't understand, causing it to snowball and they'd end up losing their homes because they didn't have the $$ to pay the fees and didn't have the clarity to get a lawyer involved before it was too late. I can't remember the specifics, but it was this kind of predatory banks+government conduct causing these people to lose the only thing they had that had any value. Truly despicable, but not that uncommon.

by Anonymousreply 103May 4, 2023 11:12 PM

R93 She did not need to be well versed in tech.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 104May 5, 2023 1:54 AM

People should not require a fundraiser to pay basic bills.

by Anonymousreply 105May 5, 2023 4:37 AM

[quote] losing a $1.4 million condo over an $11,000 debt IS a scam

Amateurs

by Anonymousreply 106May 5, 2023 11:44 AM

r105 But many do, Blanche. They do!

by Anonymousreply 107May 5, 2023 1:06 PM

She sold her $1.7 million Bay Area home for a third of its value over margaritas.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 108May 25, 2023 11:05 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!