Nevato, CA: city pulls bait & switch on Sr citizens

[1srelluc]

Residents of a retirement community took out a 30 yr loan to buy the property they live on, but in order to qualify, they needed a cosigner, so they enter into an agreement with the city to cosign the loan. Residents pay all the bills with the agreement that they will outright collectively own the property when the loan is paid in full.

FF 28 yrs in, & it's discovered that, somehow, the city was able to list itself on the loan as the sole borrower, even though it never has made any payments. Thus, when the loan is paid, the city will take possession.

I have no idea how this deal was handled, but obviously there was too much trust & not enough oversight. As the presenter points out, there's no value exchange here, so likely the city's claim would be invalidated. Also possibly - as pointed out by a commenter on the channel - this situation means the residents have effectively been squatting for 28 years, so possibly adverse possession applies.


Reminds me of how CA treated folks with solar panels on their homes.....At first they got a retail credit for their unused energy sent back to the grid, CA saw that and said "oh hell no" and changed the law so they only got the wholesale rate credit which, in most cases zeroed-out any savings on their electric bill their solar panels provided.
Bottom line: as usual, never trust government. NEVER. EVER.

 

[odanny]

What happens if you leave the property unoccupied for a year and squatters move in.

Who owns the property then, the government, or the squatters? Maybe you could have family posing as squatters to get the government to sign over your property to them.

 

[1srelluc]

What happens if you leave the property unoccupied for a year and squatters move in.

Who owns the property then, the government, or the squatters? Maybe you could have family posing as squatters to get the government to sign over your property to them.

LOL....I guess in the city's mind, "squatters" is what they already are.

 

[Independent thinker]

Residents of a retirement community took out a 30 yr loan to buy the property they live on, but in order to qualify, they needed a cosigner, so they enter into an agreement with the city to cosign the loan. Residents pay all the bills with the agreement that they will outright collectively own the property when the loan is paid in full.

FF 28 yrs in, & it's discovered that, somehow, the city was able to list itself on the loan as the sole borrower, even though it never has made any payments. Thus, when the loan is paid, the city will take possession.

I have no idea how this deal was handled, but obviously there was too much trust & not enough oversight. As the presenter points out, there's no value exchange here, so likely the city's claim would be invalidated. Also possibly - as pointed out by a commenter on the channel - this situation means the residents have effectively been squatting for 28 years, so possibly adverse possession applies.


Reminds me of how CA treated folks with solar panels on their homes.....At first they got a retail credit for their unused energy sent back to the grid, CA saw that and said "oh hell no" and changed the law so they only got the wholesale rate credit which, in most cases zeroed-out any savings on their electric bill their solar panels provided.
Bottom line: as usual, never trust government. NEVER. EVER.

All I can say is, "It's California".

 

[odanny]

Squatters rights in California might be one of the craziest things I've ever heard of. Could you imagine that shit down south? You got 5 minutes to get off my property before I get my shotgun.

 

[Thinker101]

Residents of a retirement community took out a 30 yr loan to buy the property they live on, but in order to qualify, they needed a cosigner, so they enter into an agreement with the city to cosign the loan. Residents pay all the bills with the agreement that they will outright collectively own the property when the loan is paid in full.

FF 28 yrs in, & it's discovered that, somehow, the city was able to list itself on the loan as the sole borrower, even though it never has made any payments. Thus, when the loan is paid, the city will take possession.

I have no idea how this deal was handled, but obviously there was too much trust & not enough oversight. As the presenter points out, there's no value exchange here, so likely the city's claim would be invalidated. Also possibly - as pointed out by a commenter on the channel - this situation means the residents have effectively been squatting for 28 years, so possibly adverse possession applies.


Reminds me of how CA treated folks with solar panels on their homes.....At first they got a retail credit for their unused energy sent back to the grid, CA saw that and said "oh hell no" and changed the law so they only got the wholesale rate credit which, in most cases zeroed-out any savings on their electric bill their solar panels provided.
Bottom line: as usual, never trust government. NEVER. EVER.

Interesting, who's insured? May be time to light this sucker up.

 

[jknowgood]

Squatters rights in California might be one of the craziest things I've ever heard of. Could you imagine that shit down south? You got 5 minutes to get off my property before I get my shotgun.

I live down here, and they wouldn't last a day.