She was destroying a landmark in defiance of the law and a contract with the city. She's lucky she's not in jail.

"California law states if you fix something permanently to a structure, it becomes part of the real estate," she said. "For instance, if you install a garden trellis that's drilled into cement, it doesn't mean you can rip it out and take it with you because you paid for it. It becomes part of the property."

It's like this anywhere. Any basic intro to real estate class goes over this in the first couple of weeks.

Ontario, CA has an historic district?

But she said nothing historic was taken, which was built in 1935.

This newspaper needs a proofreader, stat.

FTA Kim Shewalter, 46, said she did remove some things she'd put into the house herself. That was after her mortgage payments adjusted to $6,500 a month. She said she couldn't get a fixed loan and decided to cut her loses


$6500 a month!?! for something a house that was assessed at $244K? then went Down to $139? did she never make a payment at all on this loan?

excuse me if I'm missing something here

Bgnome: $6500 a month!?! for something a house that was assessed at $244K? then went Down to $139?

The 244k to 139k was a break in the tax assessment.

She's not paying property tax on $105,000 of the value of the house.

Property tax in CA is around 1.1%

So, that saves her like $1000 a year.

/less than that, actually, since the $1000 put into state taxes is deductible on federal taxes :P

So she was ripping out whatever she could sell before the bank foreclosed, essentially stealing the stuff.

"I have to give my house back to the bank, and I want to be sure I recoup a little bit of my money," she said.

She seriously thinks that's okay? Yes, you have to give it back to the bank, so that means you don't get to rip half of the house out and keep it.

I would come in here and jump the state for violating her property rights, except that she did sign a contract with the state saying she'd preserve the property.

Of course, the contract was made under coercion (in exchange for less property taxes), but I'd still say the woman was a dumbass.

LordPistachio: She seriously thinks that's okay? Yes, you have to give it back to the bank, so that means you don't get to rip half of the house out and keep it.

The article says she was ripping out things that she had added to the house over the years.

"There were no lighting fixtures when I moved in except for the five I haven't touched," she said. "There's one light from 1895 that was my grandmother's. Of course, I'm going to take that."

But there are 2 problems with that.

1) In CA, you can't remove fixtures, even if you were the person that added them in the first place.

2) That the house is labeled historic. And because of that, she's not allowed to take anything out. Even if she added it to the house in the first place.

/I suppose she could have gotten away with removing the kitchen cabinets that she added. If she still had the original cabinets laying around and had those reinstalled. But that would have only appeased the bank, she would have still run afoul of the "historic" house thing.

It's her property that she's taking. But what else would you expect in KKKommiefornia?

1935 is historic? my car's almost that old!

lordargent: If she still had the original cabinets laying around and had those reinstalled. But that would have only appeased the bank, she would have still run afoul of the "historic" house thing.

Wouldn't this be the same for the fixtures, or other items she added? Say she intalled an alarm system, and took it out? Isn't that actually returning it to its "historic" state?

Stripping fixtures from a house and not replacing them, irrespective of the historic nature of the house, is a code violation and the bank would probably have taken her to court to recoup the damage done to the house.

And what kind of idiot gets a mortgage payment that balloons to 6.5K a month?!?!? Oh yeah, right. Quite a few idiots.

I don't feel sorry for this idiot at all. Live within your means, morans. Unless you had something catastrophic happen to you - hospitalization, etc - you have no excuse.

Unfortunately, it looks like the federal government is going to bail out these morans.

Shes a biatch... Kick her out.

I rent a townhouse, but my parents have a house that's currently appraised at a bit over $300k, and they have a mortgage for less than $1000 a month.

That's with a damn good credit history and a decent income, though.

Oh, and my parents aren't goddamn idiots.

if you fix something permanently to a structure, it becomes part of the real estate

This information could prove to be most useful.

SpaceyCat: And what kind of idiot gets a mortgage payment that balloons to 6.5K a month?!?!?

Well the last sale of that house is $460,000 on 4/30/03 (Thanks, Zillow). The only way she could have ended up with a monthly that high is if she rode the wave of greed and started hauling out equity.

Clearly she was trying to get as much as she could out of the place before the bank takes it back. I say throw the book at her.

retro128:
Clearly she was trying to get as much as she could out of the place before the bank takes it back. I say throw the book at her.

I say throw a bullet at her kneecap.

Penman: It's her property that she's taking. But what else would you expect in KKKommiefornia?

It isn't her property anymore after she violated the agreement she voluntarily entered into.

At least they didn't make her listen to crappy nicknames...

so let me get this straight...

i buy a home in CA...

i install an antique family heirloom chandelier in the home.

i can't remove said fixture and take it with me when i move????

ludicrous!

(of course...this woman seems like an eejit all around. i'm just stuck on that one point.)

So if I install my hanging glass lamp in my current house, I can't take it with me when I move? Not even if I replace it?

\Just asking because I love my lamp. Bought it in Germany and keep meaning to install it, but not going to do it if it means leaving it behind.
\\Just two more years in this state and I'm gone.

Danooli: so let me get this straight...

i buy a home in CA...

i install an antique family heirloom chandelier in the home.

i can't remove said fixture and take it with me when i move????

ludicrous!

(of course...this woman seems like an eejit all around. i'm just stuck on that one point.)

If you fail to replace it, then you can't take it.

If you replace it with a $4 fixture from Wal-mart, you're golden.

Timanous:If you fail to replace it, then you can't take it.

If you replace it with a $4 fixture from Wal-mart, you're golden.

ah ha! once again, Wal-Mart saves the day.

(thanks for that clarification. learned something new already today!)

does not see the funny here.
obscure?

Just because something is old doen't make it good or worthwhile keeping around anymore(e.g see Dom Deluise)

Heart of Farkness: retro128:
Clearly she was trying to get as much as she could out of the place before the bank takes it back. I say throw the book at her.

I say throw a bullet at her kneecap.

You'd get better results if you shot the bullet from a gun, instead of just tossing it.

Moral of the story? Don't touch an ARM with a ten-foot pole.

But what is going to happen when the bank takes the house back? Does anyone seriously believe that they will respect the historic nature of the house? I've seen what they do. They'll send a crew to empty the house. Those guys will bust in a door if they have to, strip everything they can out of the house and pile it in the front yard. They will leave it looking like a war zone and nobody will fine them and lock them out because they are the bank and the city won't be able to find anyone responsible for it anyway. They hide behind multiple loan repackaging and reselling and corporations, etc. They don't even know about the house, to them it's just a loan number on their screen. Somebody thousands of miles away will click a button on their screen and the house will be stripped clean. And then it will lay empty for months or years without any maintenance, slowly slipping into disprepair with windows broken, roof tiles missing, etc. etc. The bank will never send anyone to cut the grass, patch anything, etc.

remus: But what is going to happen when the bank takes the house back? Does anyone seriously believe that they will respect the historic nature of the house? I've seen what they do. They'll send a crew to empty the house. Those guys will bust in a door if they have to, strip everything they can out of the house and pile it in the front yard. They will leave it looking like a war zone and nobody will fine them and lock them out because they are the bank and the city won't be able to find anyone responsible for it anyway. They hide behind multiple loan repackaging and reselling and corporations, etc. They don't even know about the house, to them it's just a loan number on their screen. Somebody thousands of miles away will click a button on their screen and the house will be stripped clean. And then it will lay empty for months or years without any maintenance, slowly slipping into disprepair with windows broken, roof tiles missing, etc. etc. The bank will never send anyone to cut the grass, patch anything, etc.

then it'll turn into a drug house for high school students, a place for them to drink, do drugs and get pregnant. then someone will drag one of the underage whores on maury, and there'll be some big fight, and some bouncer on maury will become really prolific, and get his own tv talk show, which will enable him to buy a historic house.

such is the circle of life.

does not see the funny here.
obscure?

That was the funniest part of the movie.

remus: But what is going to happen when the bank takes the house back? Does anyone seriously believe that they will respect the historic nature of the house? I've seen what they do. They'll send a crew to empty the house. Those guys will bust in a door if they have to, strip everything they can out of the house and pile it in the front yard. They will leave it looking like a war zone and nobody will fine them and lock them out because they are the bank and the city won't be able to find anyone responsible for it anyway. They hide behind multiple loan repackaging and reselling and corporations, etc. They don't even know about the house, to them it's just a loan number on their screen. Somebody thousands of miles away will click a button on their screen and the house will be stripped clean. And then it will lay empty for months or years without any maintenance, slowly slipping into disprepair with windows broken, roof tiles missing, etc. etc. The bank will never send anyone to cut the grass, patch anything, etc.

No, the bank will try to re-sell it. They'll want to recoup as much of their money as they can. When I was house-hunting, I looked at a couple of them that had been in foreclosure. They were all at rock-bottom prices, but in various states of disrepair and outright vandalism from the previous owners. Doors torn off, holes punched into walls, sinks & toilets ripped out, graffiti spray-painted on the walls & carpets, etc.

The real-estate agent told us this was typical of foreclosures--the people trash the house so that the bank can't get as much money back for it, or just try to sell everything like this woman did.

Since the city has some vested interest in this house, I'm sure they'll be more discerning about its next occupants.

brigid_fitch: but in various states of disrepair and outright vandalism from the previous owners. Doors torn off, holes punched into walls, sinks & toilets ripped out, graffiti spray-painted on the walls & carpets, etc.

I understand what she said, but I watched the house down the street from my Mother... The crew sent by the bank ripped it clean and tossed everything in the front yard. They gutted it and left a huge pile of stuff in the front yard that then attracted everybody for miles to go "shopping" in the front yard. I even saw a guy in his motorized wheelchair driving away with stuff on his lap.

yes, I'm sure the previous owners do some damage, but I've seen the banks in action; their crews just rip and gut. Plus, I've seen stories from all over the country showing how poorly the banks are doing at maintaining their properties. The houses are falling apart because the bank doesn't do any maintenance either. Some communities are suing and fining them just to get the banks to mow the lawn once in awhile.

Yeah, you'd think the bank would want to maintain the property to resell it, but in practice, they don't a lot of the time.

RobbieS: Penman: It's her property that she's taking. But what else would you expect in KKKommiefornia?

It isn't her property anymore after she violated the agreement she voluntarily entered into.

At least they didn't make her listen to crappy nicknames...

If I was her, I would simply say that I was abiding by the contract that I signed into with the local government. I was supposed to preserve the historic nature of this house and violated that agreement by adding all these modern and non-historic fixtures. Removing them and returning the place to its original historic state as it was bought, brings me back into compliance and increases the value and is to protect the bank in its attempt to recoup its losses. Thank you and have a nice day. Later today, I will be entering my home which is still mine until foreclosure is complete and continue the work as required by my contract.

"The real-estate agent told us this was typical of foreclosures--the people trash the house so that the bank can't get as much money back for it, or just try to sell everything like this woman did."

In Michigan, where I live, we looked at several foreclosures before buying our home. The banks here actually strip the house and sell everything of value before listing it again. So between the evicted person pillaging and the bank finishing the job, the houses were pretty much empty of value.

In California this thing can get a little out of hand, though. Some people trying to move and take sculptures they owned from their yards have had them declared "historic" by local governments after neighbors who liked them decided they were part of the neighborhood ambiance.

Timanous: Danooli: so let me get this straight...

i buy a home in CA...

i install an antique family heirloom chandelier in the home.

i can't remove said fixture and take it with me when i move????

ludicrous!

(of course...this woman seems like an eejit all around. i'm just stuck on that one point.)

If you fail to replace it, then you can't take it.

If you replace it with a $4 fixture from Wal-mart, you're golden.

Best suggestion from my Real estate agent: Replace it before showing the house to perspective buyers. That way, they don't "assume" that it comes with the house.

/and they don't have to know it was ever there.

Downtown Dave: /It was her home. She should be able to do what she wants with it.

Including entering into contracts prohibiting her from doing what she did.

"Kim Shewalter, 46, said she did remove some things she'd put into the house herself. That was after her mortgage payments adjusted to $6,500 a month. She said she couldn't get a fixed loan and decided to cut her losses."

Never get an ARM. Always get a fixed mortgage. Always.

She was obviously too stupid to burn the place down.

fishrockcarving [TotalFark] Quote 2008-01-13 01:09:02 AM
Ontario, CA has an historic district?

Most probably, have not been out there to seee it. Oldest historical I know in that area is the Guasti town, which was built in the late 1800's. (you can see it if you ever seen the movie Seabiscuit)


As is for the lady, dumbass appplies.

Sid_6.7: I rent a townhouse, but my parents have a house that's currently appraised at a bit over $300k, and they have a mortgage for less than $1000 a month.

That's with a damn good credit history and a decent income, though.

Oh, and my parents aren't goddamn idiots.

THIS.
I have OK credit and an OK income, and I was able to put $50K down on my $135,000 house. I pay $900 a month and 85 of that is extra toward principle. Some people are just stupid.

But she said nothing historic was taken, which was built in 1935.

That's some damned fine writing there. Damned fine.

/ANTECEDENTS, people.

LadyMech Quote 2008-01-13 08:11:32 AM
So if I install my hanging glass lamp in my current house, I can't take it with me when I move? Not even if I replace it?

\Just asking because I love my lamp. Bought it in Germany and keep meaning to install it, but not going to do it if it means leaving it behind.
\\Just two more years in this state and I'm gone.


I suggest you just replace it before you put the house on the market. Take down anything you want to take with you before then. Buyers can even ask for the curtains if they want them.

I would have had a torch party and would have included the whiny neighbor.

LadyMech Quote 2008-01-13 08:11:32 AM
So if I install my hanging glass lamp in my current house, I can't take it with me when I move? Not even if I replace it?

Just make sure the listing describes any fixtures (things that are attached to the structure) that are not part of the sale. E.g., "The light fixture hanging in the dining room is not part of this sale and will be taken by the owner when she moves." That's how I've handled things in the past and it's been fine. If the buyer has a problem with it, you can negotiate a replacement fixture as part of the deal.

I'm surprised there hasn't been any references to this classic movie. (sorry no pop)

LadyMech: So if I install my hanging glass lamp in my current house, I can't take it with me when I move? Not even if I replace it?

Standard practice is that anything physically attached to the home is included in the sale unless specified otherwise. So a light fixture that is permanently wired would be included, but one that plugs in to a wall outlet would not. The simplest option is to replace it with something else *before* you put the house on the market. Alternatively you can write into the real-estate docs that the light is not included, but this will annoy potential buyers.

This woman's case was a little different b/c of her tax-lowering contract. Although if all she'd done was take the heirloom light, she would probably have been OK.

there shouldn't be state-decreed historic properties. none. if you buy it honestly, it's yours to do with as you will.

/not its business

Penman: It's her property that she's taking. But what else would you expect in KKKommiefornia?

No, it wasn't her property. As long as she still owes money on the house, the mortgage firm is the legal owner of the house and its name is on the title.

It wasn't her house to begin with, therefore ripping bits of it out to sell is theft and destruction of property. Even if she added the fixtures originally, the modification becomes part of the property as a whole under CA law (which is the way it should be).

Ral: No, it wasn't her property. As long as she still owes money on the house, the mortgage firm is the legal owner of the house and its name is on the title.

That's certainly not how my mortgage works (in California). Sounds more like a car loan.

Penman: It's her property that she's taking. But what else would you expect in KKKommiefornia?

Once it is attached to the house, it's part of the house. She also screwed the bank...prices out there are dropping like a rock, and a $6500 payment on a $240k house meant she also borrowed a couple hundred grand against the increased equity of the house before prices went down...and obviously pissed it away as she had no savings for payments.

She 'owned' nothing, and stole a good bit of money from some idiot lender. Since when is the prevention of theft a communist plot?