Privacy — Michael Jackson
The Irvine Housing Blog has an unwritten policy concerning privacy that needs to be stated.
- We do not use names. We do not have an ax to grind with any particular homeowner. The stories we convey are representative of many faceless owners and borrowers in Irvine and around the country. We uncover the microeconomic factors that underpin the major macroeconomic problems facing the country and the world today. There is no need to reveal names, although since these names are in the public record, we could do so if we chose to.
- We post information from the public record. All the sales and mortgage information is a matter of public record. There is no expectation of privacy concerning this information. If the owners of the properties we profile have a problem with that, I suggest they take it up with the state legislature. Of course, that will not go anywhere because our entire real property transaction system operates on the public nature of this information. Up until the real estate bubble, there weren’t any real stories found in these public records, so very few people bothered to write about it. Now there is, so now we do.
- The information is accurate. There may be instances where the public record is in error, but not very often. I occasionally read about bloggers being threatened with libel lawsuits. This is crazy. First, for the printed word to be libelous, it must be inaccurate. What we post is not. Second, the inaccuracy of this information must be reasonably known to the person printing it. Since we post only what is in the public records it is either accurate, or there is no way we could have known it was inaccurate. Either way, we are not being libelous. If someone wants to bring suit anyway, I suggest they read California Civil Code Section 425.10-425.16: the anti-SLAPP legislation.
I can understand that some people find this information embarrassing. Of course, they should have thought of that before they did something that they might find embarrassing later on. Those who are obsessed with “keeping up with the Jones” and worried about what the neighbors think are the most prone to abuse their HELOCs and pretend they are rich. These are the people who feel the most embarrassment because they obsess on what they believe other people think about them. There is an old adage which says, “you wouldn’t worry about what other
people think about you if you realized how little they did.” I cannot control people’s reactions to these posts, nor do I want to. Quite honestly, I don’t give them a second thought after the post has had its day. I am certainly not going to stop blogging because someone might be embarrassed if their illusion of wealth and prosperity is exposed for what it is.
I am not trying to embarrass people. If these stories could be told in a way so nobody was embarrassed, I would do so. Unfortunately, there is no other way to tell these stories, and the lessons these stories teach to individuals and society are important. If these stories are not told, another generation might be tempted to abuse their HELOCs and refinance themselves out of their homes. If these stories are not told, another generation of lenders may repeat the mistakes of the bubble and risk a catastrophic implosion of our financial system. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Today’s featured property was purchased right at the peak with 100% financing. Of course the owners are walking away now, and the lender is absorbing the loss. For those keeping score, this on is being offered for 27.6% off its peak purchase price.
Asking Price: $445,000
Income Requirement: $153,750
Downpayment Needed: $123,000
Monthly Equity Burn: $5,125
Purchase Price: $615,000
Purchase Date: 11/21/2006
Address: 14212 Utrillo Drive, Irvine, CA 92606
| Beds: | 3 |
| Baths: | 2 |
| Sq. Ft.: | 1,224 |
| $/Sq. Ft.: | $364 |
| Lot Size: | 5,500
Sq. Ft. |
| Property Type: | Single Family Residence |
| Style: | Ranch |
| Year Built: | 1972 |
| Stories: | 1 Level |
| Area: | Walnut |
| County: | Orange |
| MLS#: | S552132 |
| Source: | SoCalMLS |
| Status: | Active |
| On Redfin: | 3 days |
floorplan. Cozy fireplace in vaulted ceiling living room. Corner lot
with private back yark. Kitchen has been upgraded. Property is Bank
owned REO. Bank is deciding what if any work they will complete.
If the kitchen has been upgraded, why now show a picture of it?
This property was purchased on 11/21/2006 for $615,000. The owners used a $492,000 first mortgage a $123,000 second mortgage, and a $0 downpayment. One very interesting thing about this property is that the bank did not bid up to the amount of the first mortgage. Instead they bid almost 15% less at $425,475, and they won the auction anyway. The bank was willing to take a loss of $189,525 at the courthouse steps.
{book}
Ain’t the pictures enough, why do you go through so much
To get the story you need, so you can bury me
You’ve got the people confused, you tell the stories you choose
You try to get me to lose the man I really am
You keep on stalking me, invading my privacy
Won’t you just let me be
‘Cause your cameras can’t control, the minds of those who know
That you’ll even sell your soul just to get a story sold
I need my privacy, I need my privacy
So paparazzi, get away from me
Privacy — Michael Jackson
This would be a great starter home if only it was $200k less. I’m surprised at the HOA fees for that area, $257 per month.
The HOA is $257 quarterly which is $85 per month.
They have a volleyball court, basketball court, olympic swimming pool and a nice park right in the middle of the complex.
Not bad for $85 per month and no mello roos.
Have you been threatened with lawsuits IR? Amazing! Shame on them! We have become a culture of people that don’t take responsibility for their actions. As a school teacher, I am fighting this.
These pathetic people should be greatful that we no longer have debtor’s prison. We the taxpayers are paying for this spending orgy, and all most of these people are going to get is bad credit…
Maureen:
As a schoolteacher, you’ll see immediately upon a recheck that you have coined a new word–“greatful”–when you instead seem to have meant to use “grateful.”
It may be a typographical error–but I suspect it is not. Please consult a dictionary if you are in doubt as to the spelling of a word.
In any case, prufreed Bfore poasting!
kurtyboy,
cut her some slack dude, she posted at 6am on a blog… most people are in REM during that time.
get uh lif
Like–OFMG–somebody transposed two characters–in a w–o–r–d.
kurtyboy–tool of the day.
Sorry Kurtyboy,
I was still waking up. Do you mean to tell me that this is the first post on a blog you have ever seen with a misspelled word?
Get a life…
No, I have not been threatened yet. I know other bloggers who have, and with my name being public now, I would not be surprised if someone tries.
I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t the plaintiff also have to prove that being profiled anonymously on a blog had caused them financial and/or punitive damage? I don’t think that personal embarassment rises to that level.
Maybe a seller could scoop up a local sheister in your area to stink and fog up the courtroom with some smoke and mirrors claiming that you are hurting the market value of the houses that you profile and causing the sellers emotional distress.
Maybe send the sellers off to a crony shrink to diagnose the ‘patient’ with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Claim that the sellers could not sell the house for as much money because potential buyers were scared away by your profiles. Maybe throw in some punitive damage bluffs just for some gravy on top to obfuscate the lawsuit a little more.
Request a jury and make sure at least half of selected citizenry are debt-junkie baboons who are underwater on their mortgages looking for someone to vent their anger toward.
I can see the daytime commercials already. Some slick greasy haired ghoul in a suit ‘Have you been the victim of a drive-by IHB blogging? CALL 1-800-JUNK-SUIT We fight for you! (Habla Espanol)’
Fortunately, the laws on defamation are generally broad enough to include anything that might give a person/organization a negative image.
That said, IR’s defense, especially in California with the SLAPP law, is very easy. The easiest defense in a defamation suit is telling the truth.
It’s not the judgment that’s the problem. It’s defending the slander/libel suit that could be. Both parties could spend thousands before the case is dismissed and/or adjudicated in defendant’s favor.
The litigation attys win. 🙂
(c) In any action subject to subdivision (b), a prevailing defendant on a special motion to strike shall be entitled to recover his or her attorney’s fees and costs. If the court finds that a special motion to strike is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff prevailing on the motion, pursuant to Section 128.5.
As long as IR has a good attorney, won’t cost him a cent to defend one of these.
But yes, the litigation attorneys win.
:red:
I would think that a plaintiff would have to show some kind of ‘damage’.
Common sense makes me think that you can not just walk into court and say “He gave me a bad image” and then put the burden of proof on the defense to prove they did not.
Wouldn’t you have to substantiate that claim with proof of the ‘negative image’ (i.e financial or punitive damage)?
Do any lawyers read this blog?
Yes. Guilty. But the better question is do any tort attys read this blog?
Guilty here, as well.
You guys are getting too hung up on “the facts,” e.g. defense of truth, evidence, damages, etc. Perspective is right, it’s the cost of defense in getting “the facts” in front of a jury. “Question of fact” = jury decision, and a long, expensive road to get there. Anti-SLAPP/special motion to strike, as IR linked above, is brought right at the beginning of a suit, and is a question of law for a judge. Depending on the particular circumstances and allegations, the motion might get the case booted right away.
I confess. I tell all of my colleagues (and anyone else who will listen) about this blog, so I imagine there are quite a few lawyers amongst us 🙂
All of the above responses are correct. Perspective hit the nail on the head, though. It is highly unlikely that an insurance company would pay for the defense of a defamation suit. This means that the cost of defending a lawsuit would have to come out of a defendant’s own pocket. Litigation costs can be overwhelming, and there is no guarantee as to when, or if they will be reimbursed.
And, although I write a mean anti-SLAPP motion, there are always those blockhead judges who will deny the most proper and brilliant motion for some bassackwards reason. Of course, one could appeal, but this costs more money, and again, no guarantees. Yes. The litigation attorneys win.
That being said, I couldn’t think of a better factual scenario for bringing an anti-SLAPP motion against the moronic waste of flesh that would dare file a lawsuit against IR.
Maureen, I’m assuming you don’t teach spelling in the Irvine school system. 8-/
But if they did have debtor’s prison, virtually everyone in California (fuck, the U.S.) would be in it, all vying to be Donald Trump’s prison BEE-YOTCH
http://www.housingwire.com/2008/10/27/the-innocent-borrower-again/
Time and time again, we’ve seen the so-called “innocent borrower” — the borrower who had NO IDEA that their adjustable rate mortgage could adjust, had no idea that a 1.5 percent interest rate wasn’t what they’d be paying for 30 years, had no idea that their home could lose so much in value. Such borrowers are regularly trotted out for us to see, as proof of the need we have to put a stop to the foreclosures.
The latest example is one Luis Flores, per Bloomberg. Here’s the lede:
For almost a year, Luis Flores has been lobbying mortgage lender IndyMac Federal Bank FSB to cut his house payments. They have doubled since he refinanced his home loan in 2005 and he can’t afford them, Flores says.
“Every time I call them they say they can’t help,”said Flores, 31, a graphic designer and bartender in Contra Costa County, California, where one in every 146 homes is in foreclosure. “They tell you the solution is that they take Visa or MasterCard.”
Now Flores has a new ally: the Antioch, California-based Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization, one of a growing number of religious and community groups pushing lenders to renegotiate troubled loans so owners can stay in their homes.
And why won’t big, bad IndyMac — even the IndyMac now run by the FDIC — help? Those pesky details are relegated to later in the story, lest they ruin a great opening about the plight of the borrower:
Flores refinanced his mortgage through IndyMac, the Pasadena, California-based company that was seized by the FDIC in July. Two months after his loan was issued near the end of 2005, it adjusted from 1.5 percent interest to about 9 percent, Flores said. That lifted his monthly payment to $3,700 from $1,700 and covered only the interest. He said his home is worth $255,000 today and he owes about $480,000.
“I want a payment that I can afford, and I want to feel like I’m making payments toward the house,” said Flores. He’s told the bank in e-mails and phone calls that he can pay $2,300 to $2,500 a month, he said.
So the dude took out a $480,000 interest-only loan with a two-month teaser at 1.5 percent at the end of 2005 — on a refinancing effort. His timing was clearly as horrible as they come. While we don’t know the details of his refinancing, I’d hazard a guess he wanted to pull some of that cash out of his home ATM. Maybe he got a nice new truck. Or a waterski.
And while we can bicker about how a guy who moonlights as a bartender was likely qualified at the teaser rate — which he never should have been — he’s now in a situation where he has been performing on his note for roughly two years or longer.
Yet he really only began complaining about his note one year ago, per the start of the story — which means he spent the better part of a year performing as agreed. We don’t hear in the story that he’s lost a job or that his own financial situation has somehow changed, only that he’s spent a year calling his servicer while continuing to perform on the note. The real kicker here, of course, is that he’s seen his property value fall from $480,000 to $255,000 — and he can’t refinance his way out of a paper bag at this point.
Flores now wants the bank to take the $225,000 hit on his loan, while he gets to stay in the home. It’s ironic, don’t you think, that we have to hear people complain about how only Wall Street wants to socialize losses?
I think we should allow all mortgages to be rebought at the current face value.
And then, when we’re all done with that, we look at the median amount of $$ that was settled, and cut a check for every OTHER man, woman, and child who was RESPONSIBLE for that amount.
If they’re gonna get a bailout for being irresponsible, I want cash for being a good boy.
That sentence came out wrong: cut a check to every person who was responsible during this bubble and didnt go refi so they could get cash.
Also, I want a median cut for the zip code I live in, not the US median writedown.
So long as the taxation to cover the cost of this occurs entirely within your zip code then this makes sense. But if your zip code population would like to use dollars from North Carolina, New Hampshire or Montana, this arrangement is silly. Besides, it isn’t going to happen anyway. But I salute the impulse to design a mechanism for financial justice for the prudent. An easier one would be to send everyone zero dollars.
Giving our tax dollars to Wall Street is NOT socialism as your statement would imply. These are hard working people that have made the country as great as it is today. It’s time we gave back to those who have given us so much. I can’t believe how many Americans lack any compassion whatsoever.
If you want to see an example of socialism then just look at Obama. That one wants to take your hard earned tax dollars and give them to every family making $250,000 OR LESS! Do you want your hard earned money going to these bottom feeders? The fact that they couldn’t even reach middle class status tells me that they will just waste the money on crack or whatever drug of choice these welfare types use nowadays.
Yea, I only make 150K and I do crack every day. I want Joe’s money……..I am so poor I can’t even afford a home in irvine.
“Giving our tax dollars to Wall Street is NOT socialism as your statement would imply. These are hard working people that have made the country as great as it is today. It’s time we gave back to those who have given us so much. I can’t believe how many Americans lack any compassion whatsoever.”
hahaha.
Man, I love your posts. You should have a tv show.
Glad to have old Kirk back in Troll Trim. Where’ve ya been, Kirk?
Awesome Kirk,
I’ve missed your witty reparte recently. Glad to see your back and firing on all cyclinders.
Dejnov.
Obama really wants to give it to every family making 25,000 or less…. forget 250K…
According to the socialist leeches in DC and Sacramento, those of us making more than $100K are related to the Rockefellers.
Hell, we poor sops making $250K are so taxed that we can no longer afford vintage Moet, I have to do with Two Buck Chuck sauvignon blank mixed with Albertson’s soda and a bit of sugar ( forget 7UP, can’t afford name brands anymore).
Thank God for Spam… the one meat we can still afford. Next will be Soilent Green…
I’m really tired of the innocent borrower meme.
IndyMac? I bought 60,000 (“sixty thousand”) shares at 6-cents. Talk about betting on the come!!
Well I think all of you should go and check out the Hope for Homeowners post at Jim the Realator’s site:
http://www.bubbleinfo.com/
Here’s the short note — basically the govt. will now through FHA go in and forgive principal down to the amount the current owner can pay based on his / her income or 90% of the loan value. And all the govt gets is to share in any future upside that this home victim eventually earns — and furthermore if the vicitim re-finances out the new govt. guaranteed loan (why the lenders want this — they avoid another foreclosure and while they have to write down some princpal they get to have a new, govt. guaranteed loan on their books), they don’t have to give the govt. any portion of the equity.
And just so you are all clear, John McCain is also proposing similar types of action — so let’s be honest and admit both candidates are really socialists who are bailing out these vicitims at the cost of us prudent folks.
I don’t think there is a chance to get rid of this stupid Hope for Homeowner program — but what I think we could all do is write our senators and insist any new cram downs on these amounts MUST be recorded in the local MLS as new sales and the previous sale of these homes MUST be removed from comps. At least that way those of us with cash on the sidelines may be rewarded by lower home prices.
Write your senator / representative — it’s easy — just google them, find their site and send an email.
What was missed is this part.
In order to avoid a windfall to the borrower created by the new 90% loan-to-value FHA-insured mortgage, the borrower must share the newly-created equity and future appreciation equally with the FHA. This obligation will continue until the borrower sells the home or refinances the FHA-insured mortgage. Moreover, the homeowner’s access to the newly created equity will be phased-in over 5 years.”
“Before participating in this program, all subordinate liens must be extinguished. This will have to be done through negotiation with the first lien holder.”
I saw that part — and it says “or refinances the FHA insured mortgage.” So my read is this, I paid 600k for a home. I purchased with 100% loan. I now go to Hope and get it crammed down to 360k (I assume value has dropped to 400k). And in five years I refinance this 360k and now the house is worth 420k. I as the homeowner get a 60k windfall because I refinanced and then sold.
It’s in my view a loophole that is huge.
The must share the windfall equally. So the “homeowner” gets to keep 30K and the FHA gets 30k.
Still not the best scenario but this only applies to the first Mortgage.
There can be no Heloc’s or seconds on any of these homes in order to quailify.
That leave most of the big ticket markets like California out.
That is a sad looking tree. I would expect better from a 35-year-old property.
Its a Cycas revoluta. It hasn’t been well-cared for is the problem. Well cared-for and properly sited, they are a beautiful plant.
IrvineRealtor, the last sentence in that house description, “Bank is deciding what if any work they will complete,” is the message of the future. I’m not just talking about upgrades and repairs that were halfway finished when the owners realized that they had to sell and sell now. I’m talking about the houses that are going to be on the market for so long that they’re going to need extensive repairs just to make them fit for human habitation. If you think the banks are taking a hit now, wait until they have to decide if it’s more cost-effective to pay for repairs to a house that’s been sitting for two years or more, or if it makes more sense to drop the price even further and sell the place “as-is”.
I heard an interview with a woman whose company cleans up foreclosed homes for sale as REOs. She had an interesting suggestion. To minimize damage to the home and maximize the resale price, the former owner should live in it until they receive an eviction notice.
While it seems odd that she would encourage people to live rent free, it was if it was in exchange for keeping out vandals and making sure things didn’t break or leak.
Malibu, this is not what many want to hear.
Many of our commenters want, first and foremost, for these fools and deadbeats to be thrown out of the house. But what is the cost to the rest of us when it happens?
House vacant. Landscaping dies. Vandalism. Neighborhood appearances suffer. New owner has to discount off the price to pay for transaction fees, carpet, paint, repairs, landscaping, etc.
This discount that is taken by putting a new person in the house comes out of the market value for all surrounding homeowners, pushing neighbors farther upside down and with foreclosure the only alternative if you have to move.
And the bank? This discount comes out of their pocket (now OUR pockets).
So for everyone NOT wanting someone to stay in the house or get a mortgage renegotiation? I hope you get a half dozen REO’s on YOUR street too.
I guess that someone living in what used to be their own house (that’s how they thought of it anyway, in spite of the mortgage debt) and knowing that in weeks or months they will be out, will not be all that careful about the carpet, paint, stone and woodwork. Nor will they do repairs and maintenance past the point of keeping necessities running for another week or 2. Unless they love gardening as a hobby and the bank is paying all the bills, forget yardwork as well. They might come up with a good plan for how to sell/strip everything possible before they go.
I do think it would keep the place from being vandalized (by unknowns) or squatted, but in no way would it be equivalent to buying from a willing seller in a “normal” market.
It would give them some chance to liquidate as many of their possessions as they can or want to in yard sales or on ebay, so a little bit of a help for them along with free rent for an indeterminant time. Some net good in the plan.
Well if the banks just sold these empty homes quickly, then the houses wouldn’t be a plight on the neighborhood. Good families would enter the neighborhood and fix up these neglected homes. Instead, the banks and govt are extending the misery for all, homeowners and homeseekers.
How would you like to be:
14291 Utrillo – Same floor plan purchased for $644k on 11/21/2006. That is a 34% loss in 2 years.
Or
3722 Provincetown Ave – Same floor plan purchased for $612k on 06/13/07. That is only a 28% loss in a year and four months.
They are both in the Colony with the same exact square footage.
Ouch
“Unfortunately, there is no other way to tell these stories, and the lessons these stories teach to individuals and society are important. If these stories are not told, another generation might be tempted to abuse their HELOCs and refinance themselves out of their homes. If these stories are not told, another generation of lenders may repeat the mistakes of the bubble and risk a catastrophic implosion of our financial system. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we are doomed to repeat its mistakes.”
Exactly !
“No one is blameless,
but we’re all without shame.
We fight the fires,
while we’re feeding the flame.”
Finally, a random Peart-quote! Kudos!
; ) I was trolling for common ground.
Cool man.
Best. Band. Ever.
I think scientists pursuing the existence of a perpetual motion machine should study those three.
IR, you used to mention who the lender was on some of your posts but now seem to just put “the bank” or “the lender.” Is that part of the privacy policy as well?
No, many times the owner of the loan is not the original lender, but instead it is some ABS trust put into a CDO. When it looks like a portfolio loan, I still put the lender on there.
Just wait folks Cali is next!
Some states have actually frozen foreclosures, but this offers only temporary respite, as Massachusetts recently found out. After imposing a 90-day notification period before foreclosures can be initiated, a quiet summer was followed by foreclosures shooting up 465 percent in September.
Can someone tell me why a bank would bid less than the first amount on the mortgage at the courthouse? Is this simply a case of taking the loss now vs. later? Either way they get the house back.
The number crunchers in their loss mitigation departments are telling them it is less costly to take a big discount at the auction rather than buy the property, hold it, and resell it later. They will bid up to the lowest amount they believe they can get out of the property after expenses. This is a change from the normal procedure of bidding up to the value of the first mortgage.
So if nobody else is around they will still only bid up to what they think it’s currently worth? Perhaps gauging who else is around isn’t easy.
Also, is that to say $1 above the bank offered price would have guaranteed a win for a third party (i.e. the bank offered price is what someone could have gotten the property for at the courthouse)? Or do the banks bid differently if someone bids vs. nobody bids?
I doubt the banks pay any attention to the bidding. They have a number on a piece of paper that tells them how much to bid. When the bidding starts, they make this bid right away, and the hope and pray someone outbids them.
We have documented a few quick flips from REO auctions. It is not easy money. You must get out quickly in a falling market.
You know you have to have cash for the full amount at the courthouse steps, right?
Yep, that is why there are opportunities for flips. Very few people have that kind of cash lying around.
The Federal Government is trying an interesting thing when auctioning some of its land. It allows people to submit bids below the minimum. That won’t get you the property, but it helps them price other properties at upcoming auctions.
IR,
In support of your efforts to openly discuss the challenges we face in the housing market, I would offer the following:
In the 90’s, on two separate occations, unsophisticated pyramid schemes entered my extended family. The result, as you can imagine, was years of “bad blood” and mistrust.
A few years ago, as my children reached their mid-teens, I was thinking about discussing these schemes with them and explaining how people can be drawn in by the allure of fast, easy money. However, I hadn’t seen any in so long that I put the conversation off.
After spending time on this blog, I realized that the biggest pyramid scheme ever imagined was being played out in my own community right in front of my “open” eyes.
The lesson I learned was to be vigilante and attentive to these easy money schemes for they come in many forms and are not merely perpetrated on the young or under-educated among us.
Thank you for your comment. I can remember different pyramid schemes floating around when I was younger. Mostly these were easy to spot. I never thought I would see one created with residential mortgages. Millions of people are going to lose their homes because of this.
So how come no one’s commented on that ugly cinder block 3 sided wall on the patio. I can only guess it was built for a BBq and never finished. Looks like something that belongs in Santa Ana, not Irvine. If Irvine starts looking like Santa Ana, watch out below!
Ugly below median house. Being in Irvine is the only thing that saves it. If it were in Anaheim/SA/GG, it would be a $250k house.
Median HI in Irvine is say $80k, so will this small below median house sited 250yds from the 5 fwy eventually sell for $240k?
We will need to find a new home to rent. How do you suggest to check out potential landlords?
What information is available re: mortgage/foreclosure status and how do we get to that information?
Leery renter in Irvine.
Another poor home owner is being foreclosed on. But this woman is fighting back.
http://obrag.org/?p=1782
Read the comments that follow the article and click on the links. It seems she has an interesting history.
I wonder what the next major asset bubble (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) will be for the US public. There was the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, then the dot-com technology stocks of the 1990s, and most recently the housing fiasco.
Each of these assets dealt with financing a perceived human need, thus drawing in a significant portion of the public, with the most recent one being shelter. Perhaps some asset associated with education or healthcare will be the next one. I do not know.
Is there a simple way to detect such an asset bubble in its infancy?
If so, can we avoid another megaboom-bust cycle?
Ref: “…I wonder what the next major asset bubble (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) will be…”
Trust me on this one… REVERSE MORTGAGES “guaranteed by the Federal Gov’t”. RM’s are unique in that (except for the homeowner) all-players are working to get as much out of the (financial) hide of the homeowner as possible.
The “bailout” will be either to the “defrauded homeowner” or the lenders who (for whatever reason) cannot stay liquid.
“Irvine Housing Blog has an unwritten policy concerning privacy…”
IR: You could always amend your noted Disclaimer that this Blog reports Housing News in the Irvine area and all authors are volunteer Reporters. In either case, you’re well protected because I see no examples of any person being “disparaged” here since the topic is always about property.
Also, love this Blog. I’m hooked. Been reading since April this year. Will you have books available for purchase/sign at the book signing on Nov. 12th?
Thanks for all your analysis and love the jib-jab humor, AZDavid’s humorous photos, and everyone else’s comments.