Was it really saving so much paint/effort to write "2" instead of "to"?

Why wouldn't the bank want to take advantage of this? Is it just the fear of a repeat down the road, since he's already in foreclosure?

You might want to clean you backyard up if people are going to be filming from above. That said, I applaud this guy for not going overboard and surrendering to the deputies when he finally got his message heard. Some people take it too far and hurt their cause more than help it. He'll probably get a slight slap on the wrist, so he can keep working and not be in jail. Bravo Sir!

@Saboth: At least the rest of it is spelled right. It could have said "I wnt 2 B herd" or something. His chances of being heard are significantly better than if he had written the words in "text"

@downwithmonstercable: This may sound paranoid, but in some cases the locals who review this information don't have the bank's best interests in mind. I believe there have been instances of the "banks" selling the houses to people they know off the market for way under value. I'm sure I'm not getting it entirely right, and someone else will be able to chime in and give a more accurate representation, but this is really just a continuation of the corruption with local brokers that helped to establish this situation in the first place.

He says the bank loses, but really, they are just thinking short term. Sure this guy would give them more than they could sell the house for, over the course of 20 more years perhaps. This way, they get cash for selling the house cheap, and have less outstanding debts they are looking to collect.

It's like "a bird in the hand is worth two int he bush".

@Saboth:

A can of spray paint only covers so much.

I fear his next step... He seems to be pretty desperate and creative. If this doesn't work then what are the bets that he burns the house down? Holding the house hostage implies that if he doesn't get what he wants then the hostage is going to die. Isn't that why you hold hostages? I don't know myself... I'm new to the whole housing terrorist thing...

@Saboth:

LOL, I was thinking the same thing.

The other question is... When did he write this? Barricading oneself inside a house precludes going outside, climbing on a ladder, and painting on the roof...

@Saboth: I thought that too, but then decided that I was impressed enough with the neatness of his writing that I would let it slide.

@SparkleMotion_GitEmSteveDave:

He didn't have time to clean up - he barely had enough time 2 write his message, and had to abbreviate "2" for "to" (See previous post)

@downwithmonstercable: i'm sure that's the excuse, but i think it's more a case of banks lacking the ability (or willingness) to work with people.

i recently had to deal with the servicer that bought my mortgage regarding proof of insurance - that fiasco lasted 3 months & i had to call 4 different departments before i found someone that was able to help. i can only imagine what it would be like to go thru trying to reaffirm or modify a mortgage on a home that's in the foreclosure process.

@nataku83: I remember reading an article (I think here) where the homeowner had enough money to buy the house from the bank, and was given a date that the home would go on sale...but it was sold before that date to someone else at a lower price.

I don't understand why banks do this...wouldn't it be more profitable for them to let him keep the home and start up payments again?

Hey at least he spelled the message right.

There ought to be a law that gives the owner the right of first refusal to buy back a property in foreclosure like this.

I don't know what the bank hopes to solve here... what- are they gonna sell the house on the open market in Carson, CA? I doubt it.

@Saboth: 2 fast 2 furious to spell.

@AlteredBeast: I remember the same article. That was a terrible thing.

@ocdetails: If he's actually creative, he will think of something besides burning the house down.

This is not "housing terrorism." If this is terrorism, then any aggressive action or propaganda is terrorism, and then the word is useless. He was not making any kind of political point, he was just trying to get the bank to act rationally.

@nataku83: I have seen similar situations. We had a local Realtor get her license pulled not that long ago for participating in a scheme sort-of like this. But it was a foreclosed house she was trying to sell under market, I think to front company owned by herself and her husband, and she didn't provide the bank with all the bids that came in (which were higher than her front company's) ... it was all very shady.

@downwithmonstercable: "Why wouldn't the bank want to take advantage of this?"

In addition to any possible shadiness, probably the bank is running numbers through a machine and obeying the machine's dictates. They don't know who he is, and they don't really care. He may get lucky and get a CSR who feels like helping him, but he'll probably just keep getting shunted around a system that HAS ways to help ... but feels like using them is too much work.

@downwithmonstercable: It sets a weird precedent. It's possible the bank may be fearing another foreclosure....perhaps justly; we don't really have the whole story. But more likely, banks today just seem to be on the absolute other side of the spectrum from what they were a year ago. Rather than give everyone and their dog a nice fat ARM, now, no one gets anything (without the third-degree at least).

I suppose it could be argued that's a good thing...better safe than sorry, right? Well...uh...is it really better safe than sorry when trying to save the economy? ie, the consumerist story AlteredBeast is referring to. Just because the banks screwed up doesn't mean no one should be trusted anymore.

Shoot the hostage.

@Saboth:perhaps it was a spacing issue. the words "be" and "heard" have more emphasis when placed seperately. the only other options i can think of are:

to show banks how hip he is

or he desired two items of "be heard" which is apparently the name of an album by Barricade [www.google.com]

This man is probably an example of a someone who received a subprime loan for a house he couldn't really afford.

Now, he wants a "creative solution", which is probably similar to the creative solution he found when he bought a 200K house with nothing down and a 25k/yr salary in the first place.

It is sad that people have to give up their homes, but its likely he couldnt afford it then, and he cant afford it now. The government needs to help where it can, but that help should not be bridging the simple gap between what people want and what they can actually afford.

@JGKojak: I think such a law would be very important. It would prevent banks from making sweet heart deals with third parties to buy up houses cheap. The home owner should get a last chance opportunity to buy the house for the price it goes for at auction.

The same should go for all debt. Any time debt is being sold to a third party, the loanee should always get a last chance opportunity to buy it out for the price the 3rd party is paying. It makes no sense that a bank will sell a loan for a loss while the new loan owner gets to enforce the full debt.

I don't really think anyone who took on adjustable rate loans "deserves" to stay his or her house if he or she can't pay for it now. So, I don't really feel bad for the man. And what kind of person would give out a loan to a person who has defaulted on you before? That's just common sense for the bank to look for other buyers. Who knows when Mr. Torres will be out of a job again and take the house hostage.

@philmin: Doesn't the article say he's got work now and wants to buy the house back?

@philmin: Why not read the article before jumping to conclusions about what he "probably" did or didn't do? The article says, "The Torres family said they bought their house in 2002 for $280,000. Last year work was scarce for the oil-refinery worker. But Torres said he's now working full-time and has the down payment to buy his old house back."

Why is there so much animosity toward consumers from commenters on this site? People seem to be willing to jump through all kinds of logical hoops to blame the consumers while holding corporations entirely blameless.

If he gets a "second chance" I am sure he will be kicking himself for using paint instead of sidewalk chalk.

@Blueskylaw: True, but then it would say "I want to be hear" because he would have ran out of paint on the last d. How would he have been able to predict that he would have run out of paint, thus spelling "to" as "2"?

@SparkleMotion_GitEmSteveDave: it says he lost his home last year, and now wants it back. I would assume that means he hasn't been in residence there for a while.

@MonkeyButt:

Monkey, lets be real. If he couldnt really afford the home price before, he cant afford it now. It says he wants to "work out a loan" because he doesnt have the means to get a real loan that a bank should actually be giving.

Think about it... if the bank is going to sell the home "under the home price" (which is a false concept, the price is the price), then he could just make an offer on that. However, it's unlikely he can realistically afford that.

The bank wants a better buyer then him. Please stop with these "creative loans", its one of the things that got us in trouble in the first place.

@Ajh: Because some of the banks here in CA want to make a quick dollar as fast as they can. In my area people are being turned away when they try to talk to the bank and work things out, because the bank has people from out of the country lined up to buy the property straight up.

The banks would rather get a full payment at below market from a Chinese firm than refinance or work out a plan for the people that are already living there.

This is a prime example of what cities have to do all over California, all over the nation," said Carson Mayor Jim Dear.

Excuse me, Mr. Mayor, what does city government have to do with anyone's mortgage?

@a5un: I strongly disagree with you. When banks sold adjustable rate mortgages, they did so by telling the consumer that they would be able to refinance in several years to a fixed rate mortgage. It sounds like this guy was able to afford the house under the original terms in 2002, but then with the economy tanking, credit markets freezing, and him unable to find sufficient work last year, he started having trouble. If he was a reliable customer for 5 or 6 years, why does he "deserve" to lose his house the one year he has trouble? He's got the money now. There is no reason for them not to work with him.

@OwenKlient:

He may have the down payment to buy the house back, but that means he's still going to need a mortgage. I can certainly understand why the bank would be reluctant to hand a mortgage back to someone who has already demonstrated having trouble making payments in the past.

@Canino: The city pays law enforcement, law enforcement enforces evictions. At gun point. We did 3 over the weekend.

I agree this is stupid, and I'm certain there were stories on here similar - a few missed payments in financial stress, but then when back on their feet the banks would rather take a HUGE loss then actually get their money back from the original owner. Totally, totally doesn't make sense.

I understand that there is an assumed risk - hike up their interest rate, then. But let them keep the damn house.

@OwenKlient:

Im definitely blaming the bank as well. There is key information missing from the article: what were the terms of his 2002 loan? Down payment? Credit level? Income? I am making assumptions, I admit, but one of those assumptions is that this family simply could not afford a 280k home, and based on the foreclosure it doesnt look realistic that they put anywhere near 20% of the home value as a down payment.

Show me numbers in this article, and Ill believe Mr. Torres pleas more. But now it just looks like a human interest puff piece.

I know I'm going to get smacked in the mouth for this but I gotta...

So there should be no consequences for all these people who bought houses they couldn't afford? They should just all get a pass? I'm not saying they all need to be put out on the street, but c'mon.

@madanthony: It sounds like he's had trouble one year out of the six he's been a customer. I don't think it's unreasonable at all for the bank to work with him. He obviously seems dedicated to keeping his home, and it doesn't sound like he's trying to get something for nothing.

@philmin: Under the home price usually means auction. So that is correct.

But what does the banki really have to lose here, if the would just reinstate his loan, he should be able to start paying again, he and the bank wins.

IF he does not continue to pay the bill, then he loses and the bank can still sell off the house, just later.

@philmin: I have a home and I am paying my bill. But If I were to lose my job, I would have to work something out with them. I even have a few months salary saved up in case I could not find a job quickly, but who really know how long someone could be out of work. Between Unemployment and my savings, I could probably make all my bill payments for about a year, but I think people are going almost 18 months trying to find jobs.

@SonicMan:

Sonic, but it is just prolonging the issue. It is NOT smart to reinstate the loan: lets first assume the house is no longer worth 280K, lets also assume, since there was a foreclosure, the Torres family had very little equity in the home.

So now, Mr. Torres who is in an industry that doesn't neccesarily have steady work, wants to reinstate the loan that brought him to foreclosure in the first place? This leads to my main point... the loan was bad in the first place. He should have never gotte in, which is probably the banks first. He shouldnt get it back now.

@OwenKlient: My sense is that it's a hostility towards people who appear to be working class or not formally educated.

@m4ximusprim3: If you can write on your roof, you can at least tidy up a little. ;)

@Corporate_guy: Of course it would also allow me to "refinance" by bailing on my mortgage and scooping it up after the inevitable price drop. My credit rating would be pretty pissed off, but 40% my home price might make that OK.

@FriarJohn:

that's exactly what is happening and will continue to happen. free passes all around. (unless you make over $75k a year, then you're public enemy #1 to the government)

I applaud this man! clap clap clap