Couple lose their home over $120 debt

The Sacramento Bee ^ | January 24, 2004 | Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer

[DelaWhere]

Couple lose their home over $120 debt By Michael Kolber -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m. PST Saturday, January 24, 2004 Get weekday updates of Sacramento Bee headlines and breaking news. Sign up here.

COPPEROPOLIS -- A retired couple's dispute with their homeowners association has spiraled out of control in this Calaveras County community -- and now they have lost their home less than a year after failing to pay $120 in annual dues.

[lawdude]

"You'd have to be NUTS to live in a development with an HOA."

I am preparing to sell my home and move to full-time RV lifestyle. One of the BIG selling features of my house is that there is NO HOA.

I have lived in the Phoenix area for 42 years and all of the new construction is with HOA. Breaking them is nearly impossible.

Most people love them to begin with and then after they see that it is Nazi like, they get unhappy. UNLESS they are on the board. Then they become part of the problem!

[pamlet]

That is how it should be! The key being human communication... it's amazing how just the simple question of "is there a problem" can help, not to mention opening up a level of comfort on both parties!

[Wissa]

Sounds like an excellent way to operate your business. And thanks for the well thought-out reply.

[wardaddy]

You and me both. I own self storage and parking facilities.

My serious delinquency runs about 5%....I could cut that to maybe 3% if I was a hardass.

I have 25/month late fees. Somebody is 6 months late and owes 6 lates...maybe they pay 3 of them depending.

If they are nasty. I'm nasty.

I do think there is more to this than the writer is telling.

[Mark was here]

Yep and only self righteous purist try to pretend the 5th Amendment prevents Double Jeopardy. The “Civil Rights” laws proved what a sham the Double Jeopardy protection really is. The point is “Civil Rights” laws trump the Constitution. The fact that you use them to trump property rights is no surprise.

Yep, according to your logic only self righteous purist would claim that the Constitution mattered.

Two wrongs do not make a right. “Civil Rights” laws are wrong when they trump the protection of Double Jeopardy and they are wrong when they trump property rights. That being said, I did not say nor imply or remotely suggest that people should not be fair in their dealings with others, so do not try to twist it.

If you own property it is yours. You can give it away or sell it to who ever you want because it is yours and not the Kings nor the States. If you believe all the possessions you own belong to the state, then I suppose the “Civil Rights” laws makes sense to you, and want the government to tell you what you can do with your stuff.

[Mark was here]

Just because something is legal does not make it right.

This is why lawyers are held in disrepute.

[BigBobber]

Who are you to impose conditions on the way this particular HOA/county/taxing authority conducts business if they're doing so legally? Don't like the rules? Then don't live there.

Oh, yeah. I forgot. We citizens have no right to question our legal system when a sick old couple gets robbed out of $200,000 because of a $120 bill. Who are we to impose conditions on the taxing authority.

King George was well within the letter of the law when he taxed the colonies. The Founding Fathers should have just moved!

Get a clue, the people do have a say in these matters, which is why the Republican assemblyman is considering legislation to put a halt to this kind of "justice".

[MaryFromMichigan]

The theme song for some of our little group...

When a man's an empty kettle,
He should be on his mettle.
And yet I'm torn apart.
Just because I'm presumin'
That I could be kind-a human,
If I only had a heart...

LOL!

[Johnny_Cipher]

We citizens have no right to question our legal system when a sick old couple gets robbed out of $200,000 because of a $120 bill.

Strawman. I am not questioning anybody's "right to question" anything. And your use of the word "robbed" in this context is both inflammatory and inaccurate. THE COUPLE WILLINGLY SIGNED A VALID CONTRACT!

Who are we to impose conditions on the taxing authority.

Who are we to poke our outsider noses into a legal contract between two willing participants?

King George was well within the letter of the law when he taxed the colonies. The Founding Fathers should have just moved!

You're comparing apples and oranges. To equate people not paying their taxes and unilaterally breaching a contract to the Founding Fathers is ridiculous hyperbole.

Get a clue

I have one. YOU get a clue and stop desperately trying to drag strawmen into this discussion.

(T)he people do have a say in these matters, which is why the Republican assemblyman is considering legislation to put a halt to this kind of "justice".

So the assemblyman is going to try to void legal contracts between willing parties? He's certainly welcome to try, but no court in the land will uphold the resulting anti-freedom of association legislation.

[sauropod]

You'll have to excuse CJ. She's entirely comfortable not limiting the power of gubbermint.

She would much rather refer to people like you and i as "uberconservatives" rather than think critically of any issue.

She won't look at Bush's programs critically. She also won't answer the four questions I put to her some time ago asking her to defend four, just four, of them.

She might as well work for the New Yawk Times because she sure sounds like them.

[sauropod]

I agree with your last post. I would say, however, that just as in posting here on a conservative forum, I am not "in the majority."

The majority of people in a particular geographic area are generally not as well read or as educated as you and i. If the "majority" decides something is good when it is not, you or i are screwed.

Sometimes, something is right whether or not the majority agrees with it.

[sauropod]

And common sense is tossed by the roadside.

[Canadian Outrage]

Financial Terrorism indeed!! This is beyond ludicrous.

[sauropod]

Your suggestion is a kind and gracious one. One that I would espouse.

Instead of some here that rear up on their hind legs and bleat about following the letter of the law.

The moral blindness of some here is quite frightening.

[af_vet_1981]

I have a simple solution. Allow the HOA to garnish their retirement checks instead of taking their home when they are either unwilling or too incompetent to pay their own bills.

[jimkress]

If the Radcliffs wilfully disregarded

LOL. So if the Radcliffs casually disregarded all the notices they're not in violation?

Pullleesse, give us a break!

The law has no requirement for willful vs casual vs accidental vs existential vs whatever lame excuse people give disregard of legal notices. They chose to violate their contract with their neighbors (the HOA). They must pay the price of their choice.

It's called the Rule of Law. If you don't like the law, change it.

[sauropod]

Are you sure about what you are posting? Do you own property?

There is no way to not pay property taxes in almost all of the US unless you do some kind of funky conservation easement (which is another bad idea).

Property taxes trump property rights every time. Don't pay them and you lose "your" property.

I don't like them but that is what is. Don't try and pretend they do not exist.

[cinFLA]

I don't care what the reason, if anybody tried to take away my home, they'd be looking at the wrong end of my .45 ACP!

Another libertarian who doesn't believe in paying their contracted debts?

[jimkress]

moral blindness

Expecting people to keep their promises and obey the law is moral blindness?

Only in the great Liberal state of Clintonia.

[sauropod]

See post #214. To paraphrase Charles Dickens "Sometimes the Law is an Ass."