meh

report 6 likes, 15 dislikes   like  dislike

Nah this is sick. Screw the banks.

report 19 likes, 5 dislikes   like  dislike

The banks have thrown millions out of homes without blinking an eye. It's time to fight back for the Pittmans and all the other families who have lost homes or are on the verge of losing their homes. We need to see more of this!

report 16 likes, 9 dislikes   like  dislike

Good, im glad people are actually doing something about the bullshit these banks try to pull.

report 13 likes, 7 dislikes   like  dislike

I'm sorry. I'm not cold hearted, but regardless of your circumstances, banks (or any other business for that matter) that lend you money have every right to expect you to pay it back. They are a business, like any other and can't be expected to let their 'accounts receivables' off the hook because times are tough. This is another example of 'sense of entitlement' getting out of hand.

report 19 likes, 21 dislikes   like  dislike

"Sense of entitlement." Oy.

Big Red, here's some background: a shady mortgage broker talked Eloise Pittman, a 62-year-old black pensioner in the 4th Ward, into repeated non-beneficial refinancings of her home mortgage a few years ago. The $300,000 mortgage, with a double-digit interest rate, is twice as much as the house is worth. Even at the time of the last mortgage, the home value was substantially overinflated at the time ... and the broker simply lied about the income attributable to Eloise Pittman.

It's classic predatory lending, with some mortgage fraud sprinkled on top. If you look up the legislative history around Georgia's predatory lending law passed in 2002, you'll see case after case just like this one.

Chase says that they're not responsible for originating the shady loan -- they bought it on the secondary market. I say that dog doesn't hunt. If that was a reasonable defense, then all a criminal has to so is get their illegal loans into collateralization and they're safe. Chase needs to void the loan, then sue the folks who sold it to them for fraud.

Georgia actually has a predatory lending law, don't you know. Georgia -- a bright-red, business-friendly, we-love-banks state -- has a predatory lending law. Big Red, if you can argue that this case just stems from a "sense of entitlement," then don't fool yourself: you're farther outside of the mainstream of thought about what's right and wrong in business than the people who got arrested today, because you're in disagreement with the legislation of one of the more conservative political bodies in the country.

I'll say it again: Where the hell is Georgia's Attorney General, Sam Olens, on this one? Sir, please, take an interest here. It's a slam-dunk case.

report 28 likes, 5 dislikes   like  dislike

The multi-billion dollar settlement worked out with the banks will teach them.....Teach them that they can screw people over, get bailed out, pay a small amount of profit in fines and not face criminal charges.
Nice to see that the administration and politicians from both sides of the aisle (including state AG's) finally found something they could agree on.
The wonderful thing about it is that 90%+ of citizens are firmly against it, but who really cares about what they think.

report 7 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Yeah baby..occupy that shit!

I hate to be the one to tell you, but banks are not interested in repossessing your house, or anybody's house. They need it like a big hole in the head. It's nothing but a big hassle to them. They do it because that's what's left to do when you stop paying. It sucks if you got there by taking on a loan that's no good, but you signed it.

Life is hard. If you're stupid, it's real hard.

report 14 likes, 17 dislikes   like  dislike

Sounds to me like the police are arresting the wrong people. Shouldn't the police be arresting the bankers, who screwed everyone over with crooked loans and subprime mortgages and brought the entire country to a financial collapse? It is chronicled pretty well in the movie 'Inside Job', where the bankers resell these crooked loans to Wall Street, and everyone makes out so well except for the American public. Instead of investigating, Bush gives these morons an 800 million dollar bailout. It'll take years for Obama to clean up Bush's mess.

report 13 likes, 4 dislikes   like  dislike

The old lady was pretty dumb if you ask me .... for one if you don't want to pay back the monies then don't get a loan ..
Did she not read the fine print ?

report 8 likes, 8 dislikes   like  dislike

@George Chidi - Yes, Mrs. Pittman was definitely offered a series of predatory loans but what's being left out is that Mrs. Pittman actually consented to the loans to give the proceeds to her church, as they made a plea for funds and she was a faithful member. I do sympathize with the plight of her heirs to keep this home, but there are a lot of villains in this story as well as a cautionary tale for those who have elderly relatives that own property.

Georgia does indeed have a predatory lending law, but the damage was done far before its passage. In addition, Gov. Perdue weakened the original law that Sen. Vincent Fort and Gov. Roy Barnes had passed (along with a little help from the credit-rating agencies who said that ) to shield investors from liability which basically rendered the existing law toothless.

Subprime lenders bugged out of the state anyway, but they left their crap behind. One only need to look at the foreclosure announcements to see who the players were.

The banks don't want the houses; they never did. They want the property they stand on and they stand to make a nice piece of change with many of the areas with a high rate of foreclosures are now slated to fall under the Beltline, the Ft. McPherson redevelopment, etc. The fix was in a long time ago.

What I'd like to see more of is not only a defense of homeowners, but also work towards legislative fixes as well as a movement to call for a moratorium on foreclosures in Georgia to force the banks to prove they actually hold title to these properties; invalidation of the MERS system of transfers; mandatory principal reduction of all underwater loans (which will cost far more that the $10B proposed in the recent settlement) and criminal prosecutions of the rogue loan officers, appraisers and underwriters who helped make this all possible along with the lenders who most definitely knew what was going on. I should know; I worked for a few of them and it haunts me almost every day.

Camping out and acting a fool at a bank might make for good publicity and raise awareness to the problem and I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing at all, but care must be taken to select cases that are a better representative of the problem. I'm not so sure the Pittman case is that and won't solve the actual problem at hand.

report 12 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Let me also add the perspective of one who actually worked in the industry. I used to be a closer (I drew up the paperwork used in closings) once upon a time and let me tell some of you what I saw at closings:

I saw people who when I would try to explain the terms of the loan prior to closing and its ramifications, if it was a purchase, all I was asked was "When can I get the keys, the moving van is in the parking lot" or if a refinance, where you had by federal law three days to examine your loan, its terms and had an opportunity to cancel, "When and what's the earliest can I pick up my check?" Those loan applications that were signed by borrowers at the table? Not many objected to the false information (if that was indeed the case) provided. Discrepancies in the Good Faith Estimates and final closing docs? Never was a problem as long as the cash to close or amount to borrower was what was wanted. As long as the money was flowing and no questions were asked by anyone, it was all good for a LOT of people; some who are now crying foul and I can't muster too much sympathy at this point. I'm not cruel-hearted, but I am pragmatic as well as having the advantage of watching this all go down in real-time.

Don't get me wrong, the lenders knew what was going on and pushed loan officers to originate more loans and became the new hustle for many (it was better than dope money and less the hassle) and that in turn opened the floodgates for pimps and hustlers in the supporting areas of real estate lending to get in where they fit in and if they fit, they fit. The greed we saw wasn't just contained solely to the lenders. Sure, some borrowers were financially unsophisticated to understand the ramifications of what they were signing, but rarely did I see someone walk away and rescind a loan; they signed. The borrower has control until the moment they sign and control the deal; NO ONE in the chain gets paid until they did and after the signing, there was little to no incentive for anyone other than the title company or the closing attorney to care afterwards, but even they got paid once you close.

Am I apologizing or sympathetic to the banks? Hell no, but some of us have to take a hard look in the mirror and not deny our own complicity in matters.

report 14 likes, 3 dislikes   like  dislike

good comments, stacy.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

That was a balanced and measured response, Stacey, and I appreciate it.

My interest in the predatory lending and mortgage fraud issues in this state began when I reported for the AJC in 2005 on a huge mortgage fraud problem in Wolf Creek, a Dacula subdivision that was riven with fraudulent sales. This state has a real problem, obviously, given the foreclosure rate here. And you're right -- it's been a problem for a long, long time. The tide went out in 2008, and we got to see who was swimming naked.

I agree that there's a lot of soul-searching to go around. Clearly, borrowers needed to have the presence of mind and the legal acumen to, you know, read their loan documents and understand what they're getting into. But I find myself wondering what kind of financial doubletalk, emotional coercion and obfuscation accompanied the loan process for Eloise Pittman. I wonder how she was pressured, by her church, her broker or both. I wonder if she was lied to. Because a reasonable person wouldn't have signed papers on a loan like hers.

Lenders, and the industry professionals, are by nature going to be substantially more sophisticated than even the typically-informed, perfectly-competent borrower. The law is structured to protect unsophisticated borrowers from unscrupulous lenders.

Some folks here have raised a good point, though, about where the money went. While we're fighting to save the Pittman home, and pounding on Chase for their malfeasance, some of the proceeds for this loan went to support her church.

Where the hell is her church?

Why am I suspicious, all of a sudden, that some storefront church minister is driving around in a Bentley on the Pittman's dime? I don't even know what congregation it is. I don't know if it still exists.

I -- or another enterprising soul -- needs to dime out the religious institution that would take hundreds of thousands of dollars from this woman, then leave her family struggling like this. There's a big part of the story missing, and I am growing more curious about it the more I think about it.

report 7 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@George - One line stood out for me and is the question more people concerned about the Pittman family need to ask:

"Where the hell is her church?"

That's a damn good question but one thing I'll bet my last dollar on, that money's spent. The church may offer a prayer or two, but they have no intention of helping anyone. I don't recall the name of the church offhand, but you'll have to search Google as it's certainly in one of the articles put out on this story or someone from Occupy Atlanta may know the name. The way I see it, that's who they need to occupy and get them to put up the money so the heirs can have the house back.

It's a pity as this woman was taken advantage of first and foremost by her church who set this whole tragic episode into motion. Had they not asked and her being a dutiful member of her church, this whole thing would have never happened in the first place. Personally, I hope God shows up and asks them for the all money collected in His name... and that they have it covered because I wouldn't want to explain to Him that I'm a little short right now and He'll have to come back. Mrs. Pittman appears to have been fully cognizant as to what she was doing and took out the money on her home to give to them and that pretty much eradicates any defense the family might have in declaring the loan null and void. Besides in Georgia, overturning a foreclosure is rare and difficult to achieve.

They say you can't take it with you; apparently, you can. Someone needs to put this church on blast if they still exist; you sound like just the person to do that! I'll be more than happy to assist you with that effort.

However; yes, perfectly reasonable people DID sign those papers. You have no idea how many times I risked my job or was threatened to shut up and just close the loan when I tried to alert borrowers to the terms of interest-only, ARM, balloon and simultaneous HELOC (home equity line of credit) loans that were being done. Most folks simply were not trying to hear it.

You can reach me at sahopkins63@gmail.com, if you'd like.

report 6 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Let's go ahead and assume that fraud was involved in the processing of this mortgage. What are the damages to the family? They received the money...as a matter of fact, they received more money than the value of their house. If the family were kicked out today, they have a net gain on the whole deal (they received $300K from Chase, they give up a $150K house for a net gain of $150K.) I would take that deal in a heartbeat (ofcourse if I recieved $300K, I would spend it on something a little more practical than eternal salvation). The only party that is coming out worse off as a result of this deal is Chase. The family's misfortune is the fault of Eloise and her church. Chase did not have control over what granny did with cash.

report 4 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

@tired1 - Thank you, but I just like to call 'em like I see 'em. I just have a harder time seeing some people as victims due to what I saw. I think there's a lot of dirty hands on this particular case, sad to say. I don't think the family themselves are total innocents in this, but that's just my personal interpretation of the situation. It's not that Chase isn't willing to work with the family, but you can't get something for nothing. I'm not sure how much they received in life insurance proceeds, but most people only have enough to send them off decently. If they did get something substantial, they certainly could have worked with the bank.

I have much more sympathy and willing to fight for those who were making their payments, didn't take out these problematic loans or didn't watch one too many episodes of "Flip This House" and try to play real-life Monopoly. For those who are losing their homes because of unemployment due to the economic collapse, had catastrophic medical issues or military deployment and who got caught in the maze of loan modification. Predatory loans are a bit trickier to defend as no one made them sign and unless you can prove fraud on behalf of the lender by forged loan closing docs, what can one really say? Just because the money was offered, you didn't have to take it but it highlights the real need for financial education for certain areas. Also, folks need to stop thinking they can live like the Jones' when they are actually living like the Simpsons.

However, the Pittman case seems to be one where a good person tried to do a good thing and was taken advantage of by many. Was it morally wrong? For sure. Was it illegal? No, as she wasn't coerced and there was no fraud.

report 5 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

And that's the first question to answer, Stacey, right before naming and shaming the church involved in this debacle. Was there fraud, and who is responsible for that fraud? It sure looks like fraud occurred.

The way this has been described to me, broadly, is that Eloise Pittman's pastor approached her in need of urgent funds, and asked her to take a mortgage out on her house to help. Miraculously, he just happened to have a mortgage broker on hand to help her. The broker essentially signed over the equity in the house to the pastor, and inflated the value of the house and her income on the paperwork to boot. I bet the good reverend sat between them at the closing, telling her that she was doing God's work the whole time, and not to sweat the details.

But I'm guessing. I think the family needs to describe how this went down fully, in public.

As I understand the predatory lending statutes, it doesn't matter if Eloise Pittman consented to the loan or not. If the terms of the loan are plainly usurious and destined to inevitable default, then it's a predatory loan and it doesn't matter if Eloise Pittman thought it was marvelous. The mortgage originator bears the greater legal duty to prevent this from happening.

Sure, Chase didn't originate the loan -- it bought it on the secondary market. But that's the point: we have no idea at what price Chase bought this loan.

It's a clever con for Chase -- and against the mortgage originator -- if you think about it. The mortgage originator takes a bath on the loan. It writes a check for $300,000 that vaporizes, and they're left with a $140,000 house. They sell the note for whatever it's worth, given the market and the fact that the loan is going to go splat -- say, $20,000. Chase's vulture fund picks it up knowing they're going to foreclose -- they know what the mortgage payment is, and how likely that's going to keep getting paid -- with the intent of flipping it eventually in the Beltline construction, or just holding it as a speculative bet.

Stacey, normally I would agree with you, and say that banks don't want the property. The book value on a foreclosed home generally sucks. But Chase is special in some pernicious ways, particularly in the matter of their internal hedge-fund behavior. And if Chase picked this loan up off the mortgage-backed security garbage heap for a small enough amount, they'll view it as a greater asset than a liability.

So that's the third question to ask: When did Chase buy this loan, and for how much?

report 4 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

this is the kind of conversation that it (outwardly, to me, anyway) appears Occupy is incapable of having, and why the need to refocus or dissolve.

report 6 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

@ George - True, there are plenty of questions and without looking at the underwriting file and closing file, it's hard to really say definitely what went on in this specific case. but I can hazard a guess.

If this loan worked like the others, it was sold to Chase at the time it closed at the price of the note plus any premium. The original lender (whom the broker worked for) was more than likely a warehouse lender who provided the funds to the closing attorney to close. That lender, in turn, received their funds plus any premium agreed upon when the loan was locked in at a particular rate, once Chase received the closing documents (copy of original note; first and last page of signed deed; Truth In Lending; signed deed, if a purchase). This is why there was intense pressure on what is called the post-closing department to ship these loans to Chase or whomever the purchaser was as they were already part of a bundle to be sold on Wall Street who used these loans as casino chips. These loans were basically bought and sold a few times over before you hit the closing table.

I don't see these these loans as fitting the definition of usurious, as they weren't done at interest rates that would qualify as such. Instead of dealing with that problem, they just artificially inflated home prices by using rogue appraisers and any fees charged would be in line of the original loan amount. You see, everyone got theirs up front and the ones holding the bag would be the investors.

I still stand by my theory that the banks don't want the houses, they want the land underneath them as they knew what was coming down the pipe developmentally wise. Lending all the sudden exploded in areas and if you compared the areas of the highest foreclosures with what's now in development, a troubling picture emerges.

Chances are the good pastor and the loan broker worked hand in hand and there may be more Mrs. Pittman's out there.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@zedsmith - I was involved with Occupy Atlanta in the very beginning and unfortunately, it just wasn't for me. I'd like to hope they are having this type of dialogue internally, but I just know I can't do it with them. My philosophy and views aren't quite in line with the mindset of the group in general.

I'm trying to learn to take the paths of least resistance in my advancing years!

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Let's not shed a tear or the banks, they're doing quite well due to the largess of government:
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/10/banks_get_…

And before you claim it was all Bushes fault (obviously much of it was), Obama has been just as complicit. His appointment of 'Government Sachs' to lead up his economic team should have dispelled any notion of him be a popularist President, despite what many of us hoped for when we voted for him.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Voxpopuli - Who's shedding any tears for them? I certainly am not. Also, who has mentioned Bush or Obama in this conversation?

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Well the monies do say In God We Trust .... but I never trust ANY church of any kind ......

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

OK guys, here's the REAL story. Eloise Pittman had a total of 6 mortgages. The last one was for over 300,000 dollars at over 10% interest. This last mortgage paid off the previous one. There was no money left over. The church and pastor is a rumor started up by an occupier who misinterpreted a piece of paper with Eloise Pittman's signature on it. The family did not learn of the mortgage until the week of Eloise Pittman's death. The granddaughter Carmen Pittman has lived in that house all of her life and Carmen's mother for most of her life. After so many years, the home should rightfully be Carmen's and Valerie's (the mother of Carmen, daughter of Eloise Pittman). I hope this clears up the rumors. That's the straight story; I know all of this because I'm involved and the real story needs to be out but some in the occupation do not want it to.

report 5 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Robert: While the final mortgage paid off the second-to-last mortgage, what happened to the money generated from that second-to-last financing (or whichever mortgage generated cash)?

report 1 like, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Question Man, there was no money from the second to last financing left over. You don't get it. Her credit rating was getting worse and worse after each new loan. So she paid off the previous loan. To be honest, if any of the mortgages had any actual cash left over we cannot detect that and we wouldn't know where it would have gone. It's not that we don't want to, but if that money existed there is no way of knowing and so I leave that to the nether. Your concern is legitimate; trust me, myself, as well as others, have contemplated these things. Bottom line is: yes Eloise Pittman was irresponsible and the bank was irresponsible. But now she is dead and here family is losing a home that has been theirs for decades. That's wrong and the bank always knew the mortgage was not payable because god does not write checks. Banks have done this to millions of families and it's time people stood up and said enough is enough. If you disagree with the idea of the bank giving up the deed because you think its a handout to those who do not deserve it, then you need to remind yourself of the billions Chase received gratis from the American Federal Government and Federal Reserve (who gave out trillions of interest free money to banks all over the world).

report 3 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

@Robert - Thanks for the information, but it still leaves a lot of questions and some of them you might be able to answer and some can only be answered by Mrs. Pittman. It's unfortunate that some one decided to put that rumor about the pastor and her church out there, as it has been picked up on and is being spread throughout the Internet.

1) Why did she take out a loan in the first place? Was it for needed repairs or just cash out? Where did the proceeds of the first loan go to? I get that there were subsequent refinancing; were these refinances solicited by the original loan broker or a loan officer with Chase? Were they designed to lower the rate or monthly payments? This type of refinancing practice was done, not so much to take the equity out of homes, but to provide the generate the maximum amount of fees to the loan broker AND the mortgage company making the loan. The equity thing was a bonus, but I think in the Pittman case it definitely helped that the area was going through revitalization and a default on this property would still benefit them.

2) If both the daughter and granddaughter lived there, how did they not know of the refinancing going on? At some point, certainly during the initial loan taken out, there would have been an appraiser at the house. Granted, not every is privy to their elderly relative's finances, but I could understand ignorance if they didn't live there -- they did. You mean to tell me, no one knew what was going on or saw Mrs. Pittman hustling hard to make that house note every month?

3) Is there proof that Mrs. Pittman was coerced or that the broker committed fraud in the any of the documents found in her loan package?

Yes, rightfully Mrs. Pittman's heirs should be entitled to inherit a piece of property that has been in their family. However, if there are liens on the property, they also inherit that as well. If Mrs. Pittman willingly and knew she was taking a loan out on her home, then I'm sorry, they have to chalk this one up to the game.

Both of my parents own homes with outstanding mortgages on them that they signed for; I am to inherit one of them one day should I survive them. Should I ask the mortgage holders to forgive the loan because I don't like or can't afford the terms my parents agreed to? I realize I may sound callous to some and really, I'm not, but you have to pay what you owe. At some point, SOMEBODY got some money out of this house.

The fact that the terms of the loan were egregiously wrong to be offered to Mrs. Pittman may be true but can Occupy Atlanta show the terms were indeed illegal or jut claim them to be immoral? Was it fraud or was she coerced? Only Mrs. Pittman can answer the second and it seems unlikely the family would know if they didn't even know about the loan to begin with. In order to claim fraud, you have to pull the original loan documents signed at her closing that would have a signed copy of Mrs. Pittman's loan application to determine if her income was falsely stated and if so, there's a bigger problem that isn't in the Pittman's favor if she signed it, as it's against federal law to do so. The banks could very well turn around and claim fraud against them.

The law isn't about what's right morally or in the eyes of society, it's about whether there's a violation of it as its written. I don't see giving the deed back to the Pittman's as a handout, but I know of a few people who DIDN'T take out such loans when offered to them. I also don't agree with the bailouts of the banks but there comes a time where some hard realizations need to be faced, even in light of the actions of the banks, Wall Street and the housing industry.

I applaud Occupy Atlanta for taking such actions, even if I don't agree on its effectiveness alone or choose to participate in the tactic. However, one has to ask themselves just what the return of investment is when doing something like this? Can Occupy Atlanta truly say that they are changing the conditions that actually allowed this to happen in the first place? If they are, then God bless 'em and that would do wonders to helping far more people.

As for those in Occupy Atlanta who don't want the whole story to come out, that's not very comforting, unfortunate and sounds like something that needs to be addressed internally. As long as it's truth, there's never anything to fear or any reason to withhold as it affects all the parties involved credibility and gives reason to question their sincerity.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@Occupy a classroom - It was never the intent to "shutdown more of the moronic diatribe" of Occupy Atlanta. Regardless of whether one agrees with their tactics and yes, they may need to do some better examination of issues before jumping to champion a particular cause, what they are trying to address are issues where solutions and remedies are definitely needed and aren't about to be until people get informed and pissed off enough to do something about it. Some folks may find Occupy Atlanta the outlet to do that; I don't. However, they aren't the only ones doing so and I urge people to seek out and work with groups or organizations that fit them. No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. I can't hate on them because at least they are trying. My problem lies with the appearance of them acting on issues on emotion and not really thinking issues through thoroughly and considering actual solutions to the problem. It makes them look bad and drive those who may be helpful in fighting this fight, into further apathy.

I wouldn't be so quick to speak out against Sen. Fort either. He led the fight back in the early part of the 90's to bring forth the original predatory lending bill; he's definitely on the side of the people on this one and caught a lot of hell in the process.

report 0 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

@tired1 - Oh, so I see they still haven't solved the problem with internal division with the anarchist/nihilist faction. The black bloc tactics preferred by some in Occupy Atlanta appears to be one of the causes of their recent PR problems. Chris Hedges wrote about this element recently and I hope they have a serious internal discussion about it.

The Cancer in Occupy
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_ca…

report 0 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Stacey, I explained the mortgage deal. Eloise Pittman used the money from each mortgage to pay off the previous mortgage. I believe their is a disconnect here. People don't understand mortgages or banking in general. The deceased Eloise Pittman did not tell anyone; she was secretive and irresponsible, essentially a gambler. However, these banks we keep discussing have absconded with the wealth of the nations, nay the world and I am NOT exaggerating. If you don't get this fact and somehow believe its not ok or smart to stand up to a heartless entity such as Chase then there is nothing to be said to or be done for you.

report 1 like, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Easy to follow: Each mortgage paid off the previous one, 6 or 7 mortgages in all. So the last mortgage paid off the second to last, the second to last paid off the third to last, etc..........The original mortgage could have been for 50 or 100 grand. We dont know for sure, but we do know the bank gave her a 300k loan (again, this money paid off the most previous loan, which would have been almost as bad and ballooning of course) knowing she had a low income by any standards. Banks should know better. And they do, but they don't care. Why? The bank made money by making the loan and they have insurance policies on mortgages like these. Oh, and the Federal Treasury and Federal Reserve at their beck and call.

report 0 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

@Robert, you claim to have explained the mortgage deal, but you have left us with more questions than answers. If each mortgage paid off the prior mortgage and assuming the first mortgage was not for $300K (depending on when she bought the house I would guess it was for between $50K and $100K) then she got some money out of the refinancing at some point. Compounding interest is a bitch, but you cannot refinance if you are not current on a mortgage, so the value of the loans did not grow to $300K on interest alone. Where did that money go? It seems to me the only people with a lack of understanding on how mortgages and banking work are the ones living in tents over on Glen Iris. I also can not fathom how the grand daughter and daughter are entitled to the house because they have lived there there whole lives. Are you talking squatter rights or something? Giving the house to them because people think it is the moral thing pisses on the private property rights that are central to the security of our economy.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

I love all the judgemental commentary from people who have no idea how finance and securitization markets work. Once again, this whole occupy movement is targeting the wrong people, thus making their basis comepltely disregardable. This is the adult equivalent of a hissy fit.

report 2 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Sparkle, you are the person without the knowledge of mortgages. When Eloise Pittman got her first few mortgages you could indeed refinance without being current. Back then anyways. The 300k is from the last mortgage, and the Pittmans owe over 400k according to the bank.

report 0 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

Hey AtlantaAdvocate, who do you advocate for? Ever been to dispossessory court? I have; its a prime example of the things wrong in this country. Kicking people out of their homes should be a last resort, not a first. I know securitization and mortgages, bonds, equity markets. I'm not a fool and neither is Occupy Atlanta. We ARE targeting the right people and INSTITUTIONS. The banks are thieves, if not for taking this home then for taking TRILLIONS while America suffers. Millions of homeless, while that number isdwarfed by the number of empty homes and buildings. 20% child poverty. 8 percent official unemployment. A few million former workers now not on the labor rolls because they have lost hope. Lowest participation in the Labor market for almost 50 years. And you say we are wrongly focused? We are occupying at AT&T today which is laying people off right here in Atlanta. How about you advocate for those people, with families and lives. Come and join us.

How about occupying a Iraqi War Veteran's home in Riverdale who is on 90% disability and trust me, she is in bad shape. She lost half her income and the bank refused to work with her for over a year. We got her a 1% fixed rate mortgage over 30 years. After two weeks with those silly tents in her front yard. Come and advocate, you obviously (AND THIS GOES FOR EVERYONE WHO COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE) HAVE NOT SEEN THE OTHER SIDE OF AMERICA.

report 2 likes, 2 dislikes   like  dislike

If we assume that she could refinance a mortgage on which she was not current then you are saying the family is entitled to a house that was never paid for in the first place. Either way you have failed to explain a good reason that the family is entitled to the house.

report 1 like, 1 dislike   like  dislike

Tired1, the 'blac bloc' or anarchists have been involved in the occupy movement from the beginning. The creator of the wallst.org website is an transgendered anarchist. The occupiers at glen iris are largely NOT capitalists. All of you commentators on this article seem to assume that capitalism is a founding principle or requirement of the nation. That's nonsense; nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence is capitalism mentioned. Why let anarchists mingle with us? Are you serious? Grow up, like I will tell other adults to stay away from a protest. Get real or try to tell the anarchists to leave the movement. Most of the people in this movement, from the beginning and now, are socialists, marxists, or anarchists or something in between they can't define or label. There I said it, we are radicals and proud of it.

report 2 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike

I'm not sure I would concede Robert's assertion. I'm involved in the movement, tangentially for the moment, and I am manifestly not opposed to capitalism. There are many like me. We don't show up for "actions" much anymore, because we can't stomach the Marxist garbage. My advocacy tends to be quiet ... and effective.

The fact that most of the people showing up to protest here oppose capitalism is a limiting factor to the growth and legitimate influence for the movement. There ain't gonna be any Marxist revolution in this country. And the more that the movement is defined by anti-police, anti-capitalist nonsense, and not the bread-and-butter political and economic issues that drew a thousand people to Woodruff Park five months ago ... well, that will define what Occupy really is: the means to draw attention, so that saner heads can get the work done.

But the underlying impetus for my interest remains -- this country's tax policy is stupid, the amount of influence business has on regulation is corrupting, there are people on Wall Street that should be in jail and aren't, and the financial system needs fixing.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

"Most of the people in this movement, from the beginning and now, are socialists, marxists, or anarchists"

'Nuff said.

report 3 likes, 0 dislikes   like  dislike

Hey Tired1, how do you like gentrifying Old Fourth Ward? Us being at Glen Iris has NOTHING to do with you? Are you in foreclosure? In danger of losing your shelter? No, of course not. Yeah, those blac boc people are scared little kids. Just ask the oakland blac bloc, or the athens, greece blac bloc. Oh, that's right, they would probably beat the living hell out of you. You're not grown up, despite what you say. I know your concern; glen iris makes your home look bad. And not just the tents there. YOU don't like the people who lived there before, or the people next door, or on boulevard...

We are not losing support, you are looking into the wrong crystal ball. Occupations are planned at Universities across the nation. I know this personally, it's not bullshit. The movement is hardened. And what's the bigotry against anti- or non-capitalists? Again, I repeat, where in the hell is it mentioned in the founding documents or by the founding fathers so many adore that capitalism is established?

Marxist garbage? George, I've met you and you ought to be ashamed. Your good friend Sara Amis is an anarchist. So is Tim Franzen, by the way.

The occupation at Glen Iris makes the neighborhood look like a homeless camp, Tired1? You ever been homeless? Ever been addicted to crack or been seriously mentally ill? Try it sometime, see what happens and maybe you won't post such ignorant and stupid comments afterwards.

report 1 like, 8 dislikes   like  dislike

I know we've met, Robert. And I am not ashamed of my views. Sara and I disagree profoundly about the value of anarchism, just as you and I likely disagree, profoundly and fundamentally, about the value of Marxism.

Whatever the ills of capitalism -- and they are many -- they compare favorably to every actual expression of Marxism over its 100 year history. Defense of Marxist or Communist views ultimately rests on a No True Scottsman logical fallacy, since it would require an explanation for the human catastrophe of the Soviet Union, eastern bloc, Communist China, and elsewhere.

But the fact that I even feel a conversation like this is necessary speaks to a fundamental problem in Occupy. This movement was sold to the public as representative of "the 99%" Mr. Derenthal, Marxism and anarchism are as far on the fringe in this country as the Klan, the John Birch Society, Lyndon Larouche's mob and the Birther or Truther movements. I have a hundred years of empirical evidence of Americans repeatedly rejecting these views, through hell and high water.

You can't have it both ways, sir. Occupy is either a mass movement seeking wide popular support, or it is a recruiting tool for Marxists and anarchists, with the attendant limitations. Marxists and anarchists can either be a minority within a movement they created, or a majority ... of a tiny group.

Or, I suppose you can assert that the country will, finally, uncharacteristically and for the first time, erupt into popular anarcho/Marxist revolution, because THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT and that it would happen without mass slaughter because THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT and that somehow we'll escape a devolution into Stalinesque tyranny or the horrors of The Great Leap Forward if we do because THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT. I would find these claims to be dubious at best.

report 7 likes, 1 dislike   like  dislike