« Wait, so we aren't mistreating detainees at Gitmo? | Main | Times Is Tough... »

Cha-Ching - Donna Hanks' mortgage equity ATM exposed

Kim's excellent post earlier today perfectly illustrates why so many of us are angry about the government meddling with mortgages. But there is another similar story that Michelle Malkin has been following, and today she did the work that the mainstream media so far has failed to do -- she posted a lengthy document drop concerning Donna Hanks.

Last week, ACORN engaged in a publicity stunt by breaking into Hanks' foreclosed Baltimore home and telling the news media that the home still rightfully belonged to Hanks. ACORN then announced that they were "willing to go to any means necessary" to stop home foreclosures around the nation.

Donna Hanks' story is complicated and stretches over a number of years, but this is all you really need to know:

According to real property data search information, Hanks bought the two-story home in the summer of 2001 for $87,000. At some point in the next five years, she re-financed the original home loan for $270,000.

Well, this is pretty important too:

In September 2006, the bankruptcy court ordered Hanks' employer to deduct $340/month from her salary as a bartender to pay down the debt ... Hanks did not comply with the plan. In December 2007, the servicer issued a notice of default on nearly $7,000 past due.

In February 2008, Baltimore City Circuit Court records show a second foreclosure action was filed.

She had two years to pay what she owed. She failed to comply.

When she told local TV station WJZ that her evil bank raised her mortgage by $300 ("The mortgage went up $300 in one month"), she's talking about the amount in arrears that she agreed to pay back.

Cha-ching. Cha-ching. Hanks cashed at least $175,000 out of her home (assuming of course that she paid off her first mortgage's principal in full, plus interest owed).

Where did the money go?

How could anyone be so stupid as to borrow $270,000 against a home worth only 1/3 of the loan amount? (For that matter, how could a bank be so stupid as to approve such a loan?)

She has been flirting with foreclosure for over two years. This isn't something that just popped up unexpectedly. And it's not the bank's fault, either.

Why in God's name should the government (that's you and me, folks) get stuck paying for Hanks' stupidity?

It's difficult sometimes to find humor in these situations, but right now I'm chuckling about the fact that the Democrats and the news media (please excuse the redundancy) keep picking "human shields" who actually reinforce our reasons for opposing their plans. As with the infamous Frost family, used by Democrats to attack President Bush after he foiled their first attempt to massively expand Federal SCHIP insurance funding, the stories of Donna Hanks and Minta Garcia actually bolster the arguments against the additional Federal spending demanded by Democrats and President Obama.

Once again, let me make this perfectly clear -- due to our current faltering economy, there is a compelling reason to offer assistance to those who have suffered from unforeseen tragedies (sudden death or crippling injuries, layoffs, etc.) that truly place their financial security in jeopardy. But bailing out irresponsible people who knowingly bought more house than they could afford, or who used home equity as an ATM to fund reckless spending, is another matter entirely.

The courts, the banks, and the real estate market are already equipped to handle the Donna Hanks' and Minta Garcias of the world. That's what bankruptcy, foreclosure, and auctions are for. There is simply no reason for taxpayer dollars to be involved.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34566.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cha-Ching - Donna Hanks' mortgage equity ATM exposed:

» Pursuing Holiness linked with Pure Genius

Comments (13)

Liberals are as good at pic... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Liberals are as good at picking "victims" as Obama is vetting potential cabinet members.

Popcorn?

Great post, especially this... (Below threshold)
ECM:

Great post, especially this:

The courts, the banks, and the real estate market are already equipped to handle the Donna Hanks' and Minta Garcias of the world. That's what bankruptcy, foreclosure, and auctions are for. There is simply no reason for taxpayer dollars to be involved.

That should be repeated, ad nauseam, to anyone that thinks subsidizing these reckless clowns--with our tax dollars--is a reasonable course of action.

Point being as long as WJZ ... (Below threshold)
glenn:

Point being as long as WJZ is with Barry on this, or even too lazy to go get the facts, he'll skate. How many people read this blog, or Michelles for that matter, and how many get their news from hacks like like the staff at WJZ.

(For that matter, how co... (Below threshold)
Brian:

(For that matter, how could a bank be so stupid as to approve such a loan?)
...
And it's not the bank's fault, either.

It isn't? Didn't you just say they were "stupid"? Yes it is their fault, at least partially. You're quick to condemn the homeowner for trying to extend herself and make a buck, but you excuse the bank for doing exactly the same thing.

But bailing out irresponsible people who knowingly bought more house than they could afford, or who used home equity as an ATM to fund reckless spending, is another matter entirely.

What about bailing out irresponsible banks who knowingly sold more loans than they knew they could afford? Even if you believe that the banks didn't deceive the homeowners, you at least must concede that the banks knew the homeowners would likely default. The banks took the chance, and they lost too.

All of this is to say that if you're going to favor bailing out the banks for failed gambles, then you should have no problem with bailing out the homeowners, too.

Of course, you might favor letting the banks AND homeowners go bankrupt, which would be a different argument.

Brian demonstrates how the ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Brian demonstrates how the left never sees a lack of personal responsibility. All are victims. Of course, banks do want to make money, I believe that is why they are in business. ww

Brian, Here, let me fix th... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Brian, Here, let me fix this for you:
"What about bailing out irresponsible banks who were forced by the government to knowingly sell more loans than they knew they could afford?"

"Even if you believe that the banks didn't deceive the homeowners, you at least must concede that the banks knew the homeowners would likely default."

Yes, the banks did, anyone with any business sense knows that loaning money to people with poor credit risks raises your chances of defaults. But when you're a bank and the government says you gotta make stupid loans to people who are going to default, or we won't approve your (merger, services, etc) plans, then I don't blame the banks for making stupid loans to people. Especially when the government also says we'll back those stupid loans through Fannie and Freddie.

Brian...this lady lives in ... (Below threshold)
John:

Brian...this lady lives in Maryland...all levels of government are run by liberal Democrats...it should be a utopia here...but this state is broke, corrupt, crime ridden...and no relief in sight...

This piece of garbage shows exactly the bullshit fluff pieces that are trying to generate sympathy and agreement to what happens. If you can't see that, go help that self-serving piece of crap...ya...didn't think you would be inclined to...

There is simply no... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
There is simply no reason for taxpayer dollars to be involved.

That sentiment is the flaw in that whole line of reasoning. Because the government guaranteed many of these home loans through the VA or FHA the taxpayers' dollars ARE involved. Even if the loan wasn't guaranteed directly by the government, if the mortgage holder has been or will be bailed out, the taxpayers' dollars ARE involve. It's already too late for taxpayers to not be involved.

Allowing the property to be foreclosed means a loss for taxpayers. Finding a way for people to refinance SAVES taxpayers money. Even taking a partial loss by marking down the mortgage to market value SAVES taxpayers money.

The more homes that go into foreclosure the lower the value of all our homes. If someone gets laid off and can't make their mortgage payment they can't even sell their house if the market value is less than the mortgage unless they can pay the difference. Thus, they are forced into foreclosure, not because of something they did, but because they got laid off and the value of their house has dropped below what they owe on it.

The real deadbeats are the ones with underwater mortgages who purchase a second house at a bargain price and finance it under the pretense that they are going to use it as income property. They then move into that house and allow the first house to go into foreclosure. Basically they dump the loss from the first home into the laps of taxpayers while moving into an even better home. Yes, their credit rating takes a hit for a while, but they already have their other mortgage and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars ahead of where they would have been had they stayed with their underwater mortgage.

Bottom line is that anyone who says taxpayers shouldn't be involved doesn't understand that taxpayers got involved in home mortgages more than 50 years ago. Not understanding that fundamental point seems to negate the value of anything else they might say on the subject.

Don't forget <a href="http:... (Below threshold)

Don't forget Henrietta Hughes and her son Corey!

Brian, Here, let me fix ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, Here, let me fix this for you:
"What about bailing out irresponsible banks who were forced by the government to knowingly sell more loans than they knew they could afford?"

Ah, you're one of those uncritical thinkers who buys whatever right-wing myth happens to be floating around. Let me help you with that:

In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money?


The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. ... In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened.

Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. As the University of Michigan's Michael Barr points out, half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves. (With affiliates, banks can choose whether to count the loans.) Perhaps one in four sub-prime loans were made by the institutions fully governed by CRA.

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households."

Brian demonstrates how t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian demonstrates how the left never sees a lack of personal responsibility.

Gee, Willie, nice to see you're keeping up with your habit of making unfounded statements.

Of course, banks do want to make money, I believe that is why they are in business.

And people want to make money. I believe that is why they have jobs. Did you have an actual point to make?

GarandFan-Good one... (Below threshold)
BluesHarper:

GarandFan-

Good one!
But Obama promised me ice-cream. I want ice-cream.

What she doesn't tell us is... (Below threshold)
Sherry:

What she doesn't tell us is that she owned at least 3 properties from 2006 to 2008. Poor woman.

She has owned a condo at 6001 Arlington #721, Falls Church, VA since 1999.

She purchased 3438 Charles Street, Falls Church, VA on 1/05/05 for $510,000 and sold it on 6/10/08 for $429,000.

Her current home - 1920 N. Dinwiddie Street, Arlington, Va -was purchased with her husband (Luis Guillermo Flores) on 11/16/06 for $800,000.

Looks like they just got greedy. Are these the poor people that we're supposed to help????




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy