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.

[hopespringseternal]

I'm lost. Why didn't they pay the $120?

I don't know about this situation, but HOAs tend to play a little game with people. If you miss getting your payment in on time, they send you another notice for the same amount, and then quickly start tacking on more fees and penalties. When they get your check, it doesn't match the fees and penalties that keep mounting so they reject it and take their time telling you.

Short of you walking into their office and demanding a full payment amount, they can and do keep this circus going until the HOA president gets to sell your house to his brother-in-law for 1/20th its value.

[sauropod]

Let me give you a better answer. As I am sure you know, the Pharisees were folks that insisted on the letter of the law, not the spirit of righteousness. Hence my post to you last night.

As was pointed out by another poster, the person that bought the house promptly did a inter-marital deed transfer.

Why would he need to do that if he adhered to the letter of the law?

[Johnny_Cipher]

If this was all "above board" why would he have needed to do this?

Why does anybody "need" to live anywhere other than a one-bedroom apartment in the city? Or have firearms? Or drive a nicer car than their neighbor? Or have more than a UN-mandated amount in their bank account?

If you believe that the buyer has violated the law, you should contact the authorities with your information.

[BSunday]

I have issue with this more than anything

I find that statement simply incredible. Supposing Mom and Dad refused on principle. Still, you believe a son not giving proper aid to their parents is more disturbing than a bunch of people not even related to you having the power to steal your home ??????

[sauropod]

Pharasaiacal.

[Johnny_Cipher]

As was pointed out by another poster, the person that bought the house promptly did a inter-marital deed transfer. Why would he need to do that if he adhered to the letter of the law?

See my previous response. Are inter-marital deed transfers illegal?

[Johnny_Cipher]

I don't know about this situation, but HOAs tend to play a little game with people. If you miss getting your payment in on time, they send you another notice for the same amount, and then quickly start tacking on more fees and penalties.

Makes a pretty compelling argument for getting your payment in on time, doesn't it?

[Poohbah]

As was pointed out by another poster, the person that bought the house promptly did a inter-marital deed transfer.

Why would he need to do that if he adhered to the letter of the law?

That's the logic that says: "Why does anyone "need" an EE-vil 'assault weapon?' He must be some sort of criminal."

It's his property, he can do with it as he wishes.

Bottom line: if your house is pledged as security on your HOA payment, make the frickin' payment.

[sauropod]

How about officers giving speeding tickets? Pure revenue raisers and generally has nothing to do with "public safety."

[Johnny_Cipher]

How about officers giving speeding tickets?

An irrelevant comparison to this situation.

Pure revenue raisers and generally has nothing to do with "public safety."

Then don't speed.

[sauropod]

Not worth a response. I have explained my reasoning.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Bottom line: if your house is pledged as security on your HOA payment, make the frickin' payment.

"Lack of preparation on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on my part."

[sauropod]

I wonder if perhaps the haste for how he did this legal transaction matters to you?

[Johnny_Cipher]

Not worth a response.

Which is of course why you responded to it. That makes sense ...

I have explained my reasoning.

And I mine.

[Johnny_Cipher]

I wonder if perhaps the haste for how he did this legal transaction matters to you?

Not in the slightest. His property, his rules. Again, I might get a bit more exercised about it if you can show me which law it broke.

[BSunday]

Why? Is making a profit immoral now?

Of course not. But are you telling me that you wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about it? No prick of the conscience? No twinge of remorse at bedtime?

[sauropod]

Then we must agree to disagree agreeably.

I prefer to want our legal and court system to have some discretion on application of the law. I have a peculiar distaste for a police state.

[sauropod]

I guess you were all in favor of the Campaign Finance Reform bill or Roe vs. Wade? They're laws or judicial precedent too.

[Johnny_Cipher]

But are you telling me that you wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about it? No prick of the conscience? No twinge of remorse at bedtime?

No. I blame the couple's three strapping sons for not helping them and I blame the couple for essentially flushing their life savings down the toilet because they couldn't pay a $120 bill. Stupid actions have consequences.

[Poohbah]

Why? Is making a profit immoral now?

Of course not. But are you telling me that you wouldn't feel the slightest bit guilty about it? No prick of the conscience? No twinge of remorse at bedtime?

If it's not immoral, why should the person making the profit feel these things?