FTA: "Her sad plight serves as a warning sign for retirees who think a reverse mortgage may be an easy fix to their financial problems."

Jesus, Consumerist. She's homeless because her house deemed unfit to live in by the government. The only reason the government has any say is because it owns the property. And it owns the property because $7,000 in property taxes are owed on it (which is a remarkable amount considering the value of the property).

I don't know whether reverse mortgages are bad or not, but it has zip point shiat to do with this situation.

This is heartbreaking and outright shameful. It's not like there's a housing shortage. Is there no way to make sure a 101 year old woman has a place to live? I guess she better go find a job.

Babwa Wawa: I don't know whether reverse mortgages are bad or not, but it has zip point shiat to do with this situation.

It is relevant because she thought she never had to worry about housing again. The article isn't saying reverse mortgages are bad or good it's saying they are not proof against homelessness - which is how they are marketed. Also the government has a say because it is empowered to condemn structures - whether they own them or not. It probably is not fit to live in but that's no excuse for not having some sort of social safety net in place for a 101 year old human being.

The kind of reverse mortgage used here has a maximum payout. That makes sense if you know how long you will live. I think you can also get one where you have a revenue stream for life in return for the company getting your house when you die. That kind shifts the risk to the company.

quickdraw: It probably is not fit to live in but that's no excuse for not having some sort of social safety net in place for a 101 year old human being.

The free market strikes again!

quickdraw: This is heartbreaking and outright shameful. It's not like there's a housing shortage. Is there no way to make sure a 101 year old woman has a place to live? I guess she better go find a job.

I'm more curious about why the house was deemed unfit to live in. From the Detroit News article Consumerist links to, it sounds like she was a hoarder:

"We saw a house that was completely unsuitable for a person to live in," Sullivan said. "We can't allow someone to live in that (atmosphere) now that we are essentially the owners of the property.

"The home isn't safe; it's not sanitary. It's certainly not suitable for anyone to live in, especially not a 101-year-old mother."

If that's the case, I agree w/the HUD officials--get her the hell out of there. Hoarding's probably why she's not w/her son. I struggle w/a husband who's prone to hoarding--I know I wouldn't want to have a full-on hoarder w/me. But at least they're trying to find her someplace to live & are paying her friend to take her in.

How sad. Invisible hand likes crushing the little people.

quickdraw: It is relevant because she thought she never had to worry about housing again. The article isn't saying reverse mortgages are bad or good it's saying they are not proof against homelessness - which is how they are marketed. Also the government has a say because it is empowered to condemn structures - whether they own them or not. It probably is not fit to live in but that's no excuse for not having some sort of social safety net in place for a 101 year old human being.

Hmmm, according to comments in the Detroit News article, the son (who was apparently living with her) blew the reverse mortgage money. Link (new window)

So, it's less a matter of reverse mortgages being good or bad and more about her deadbeat son.

brigid_fitch: I'm more curious about why the house was deemed unfit to live in. From the Detroit News article Consumerist links to, it sounds like she was a harder

It's in Detroit.

Typical.

A woman I know had her power shut off, here in Vero Beach, Florida, one of the richest towns on the east coast. Being disabled but only able to get Social Security Income, she made very little a month. In a logical government way, after she could not afford to get the power back on in 60 days, the city warned her that without power, the place was unfit to live in and they would condemn it.

The power company wanted a fresh security deposit plus all back payments AND demanded to inspect the 60 year old wood frame house before reconnecting her. The inspection showed the power meter, added 60 years ago, was 'too high' for a meter reader to comfortably read it.

Adjusting it would cost, naturally, a couple of grand. So she poured a big concrete slab under it for the reader to stand on. She also had to redo some of the 60 year old circuit boxes, which had been just fine until the power got cut. That cost a few more grand. Luckily she had friends who worked construction who did the work for her for free. (I suspect the materials were kind of 'borrowed' from several construction sites.)

Now, if she did not pass final inspection and get her power on, the city would evict her from the unsafe house and make her live in the street, which, they assumed, was safer than living in 4 walls with a roof, lockable doors, functional bathroom and a kitchen with a gas stove.

Cardboard boxes on a back lot are so much better, you know.

It took her 6 months, but she managed to get the power restored.

Now her income was, back then was $442 a month. Plus $150 in food stamps. She had Medicare and Medicaid. She usually had to pay the 20% copay also. Now and then, she did a bit of prostitution to make ends meet.

She road a bicycle miles in the humid Florida heat to get around and now and then managed to get a car that a junk yard would probably refuse.

However, this meant nothing to the State, the city nor the Division of Family Services.

You may NOT live in an unpowered house in Vero Beach no matter what condition it is in. It is considered unhealthy. A tent or cardboard box in scrub brush behind some store or mall is preferable -- provided to keep everything out of sight.

BTW. I'm on disability and I am the sole care tender for my 84 year old crippled Mother. I do not qualify for any financial aid for taking care of her 24.7. It took years for us to find a low income medication program for her to get on, since even with insurance, her copayments were pretty big.

No one seemed to know what programs were available in Florida for the elderly disabled -- though I could find tons of them for other states -- especially NYC.

Governments, I long ago decided, can be staffed by morons.

stonicus: DaintySavage: you're a retard subby. OMG THE GUBMENT!!!!! HUD wouldnt let her live there because the house was unfit for her to live in. they are actively trying to find her housing and paying her friend for letting her live there

That wasn't mentioned in the article.

If you click on the Detroit News link in the Consumerist article, it's in there. After re-reading it, I realized she had 2 60+-yo sons living w/her. Now I want more info on which one, if not both, blew the mortgage money and hid the tax notices from her.

gregscott: So what would this say about the truthfulness of the ads that say you can have a reverse loan, and stay in the home for the rest of your life? I hated the smell of cognitive dissonance in the afternoon. Smells like dead justice.

1. One of her sons apparently spent all the mortgage money & ignored the tax bill for 7 years
2. She could have stayed if the house weren't unfit to live in

So, yes, you could conceivably stay in your home for the rest of your life with a reverse loan--as long as you don't have an asshole son who spends all your money and doesn't keep the house up to code.

Rik01: Governments, I long ago decided, can be staffed by morons.

I can easily believe you considering my mother-in-law managed to get a job as a social worker (and kept it for 4 years running.) and she is one of the most dumbest person I ever met.

She actually thinks you can get drunk from eating bratwurst. She avoids that but she is perfectly fine with bahama mamas from 7/11.

quickdraw: It is relevant because she thought she never had to worry about housing again. The article isn't saying reverse mortgages are bad or good it's saying they are not proof against homelessness - which is how they are marketed. Also the government has a say because it is empowered to condemn structures - whether they own them or not. It probably is not fit to live in but that's no excuse for not having some sort of social safety net in place for a 101 year old human being.

That's a little like saying I don't have to pay anything for a house once the mortgage is paid off. And TFA has the reverse mortgage in place since 2002. From my recollection, the taxes were supposed to be paid by the son, who ignored the notices.

In any case, the reverse mortgage company is the one who's out the most here. The government is looking for alternate housing for the woman, ownership of an uninhabitable (and therefore unsellable house). The reverse mortgage company appears to have no claim to the house for which they paid payments for the better part of a decade.

Painting the reverse mortgage company as the bad guy here is absurd and misleading.