Fortunately, the meltdown hre appears to be that of Mr. Canseco's judgment, and not that of the greater mortgage market for once. Ill-advised bar brawls, and not resetting interest rates appear to be the root cause in this case. Interesting story nevertheless.

Well, it'll be good for the local newspaper. Another foreclosure notice sold!
[impatientsufferance.com]

"I do have a judgment on my home and it to me is very strange because it didn't make financial sense for me to keep paying a mortgage on a home that was basically owned by someone else."

umm.... until you pay off your mortgage it is owned by someone else.

Apparently steroids do more than just make your muscles bigger...

The lien would have made me do it too. I would have done my best to pay for it, but when people/government start putting liens on your house, thats bs. Let it go.

@metrophage: Hmmm, I think your snarky remark misses Canseco's logical point. The liens are more than the value of the house, so if he were able to settle the mortgage, the lien holders would technically reap the rewards.

@That-Dude: Yes, but for me, its also principal. I know in my neighborhood, if you dont pay the yearly association fee, which is $60, they will put a lien on your house. It's like, really? There has to be better ways to collect. The only people who should have the ability to effect you and your home, would be your mortgage company.

@Bladefist: Well I think there are some other situations that may warrant liens, but 60 bucks is a little extreme.

@metrophage:

That is not correct. You always own the house. But until you pay off your mortgage, your lender has a first lien against it.

@Bladefist: Evil HOAs. It's surprising that someone who has frequently expressed very libertarian views on here would live with a deeded HOA. I made that mistake once, and hope never to have to deal with one again. It would have to be a perfect house that looked like I designed it myself to get me past my aversion to mandatory HOAs.

@loganmo: That is incorrect. Due to taxes, you never own your house.

@That-Dude: No, I get his point. But I also get that he signed a contract and then decided that it wasn't worth it to him to do that.

How would he feel if some team decided that his contract had them upside down and decided to just walk away. I'll bet he wouldn't be happy about that, now, would he?

What I was commenting on, however, is that he seemed surprised that there was a judgement on his house and his comment that it didn't make sense to make payments on a house that was owned by someone else - which is exactly what a mortgage is: you make payments on a house owned by a bank (or other lender or a mortgage servicing company) until such time as you have payed for the house. Then it's yours.

That's all :)

@Bladefist: Well, at my university they with-hold your DEGREE if you even have a single unpaid parking ticket (from the University Parking Authority, of course).

It says on the bottom of each parking ticket... something along the lines of...."Unpaid tickets will result in degrees, paychecks (Staff and Faculty), stipends, etc being suspended and held indefinitely. Please dispute any parking ticket in writing within two weeks of date received."

@loganmo: That's right. I confuse "owning the mortgage" with "owning the house" because, in the end, it's almost the same thing. My bad... :/

@metrophage: When do we get to edit posts? After loganmo's comment to me, I want to revise my post. Bleh.

Anyway, with the exception of "owning" the house, I still stand by my post. :)

I shouldn't post on 4 hours' sleep...

@Concerned_Citizen:
Am I the only one waiting for the first "Government use of emminent domain leaves homeowners with no house and $$$$ left on their mortgage after government forces them to sell" story?

Oh no! Where he'll host his next steroid party? [www.theonion.com]

this is a tax scheme - government gets their money first when the house is sold, so this is clearly a method for canseco to get someone else to pay his taxes.

of course, when the lender reports the cancelled debt as income, the cycle starts again, but he'll only owe ~1/3 of what he did before.

& depending on how his trust is set up, he could be facing tax fruad charges.

@Bladefist: Well, if you were a hormone-drunk, alcohol-infused idiot picking bar fights that cause riots, and were found guilty - regardless of the phalanx of high-priced legal talent representing you - and still refused to man up, step to the plate and admit responsibility, sure.
But you're not that guy.
I feel bad for the poor bar owner, who's screwed because some celebrity jackass can't hold his liquor and thinks that's the world's problem, not his.
Comparing association fees to that doesn't seem cricket.

And even there, if you agree to something and sign it, doesn't your sense of personal responsibility mandate that you meet your obligation? Or, is integrity for suckers? I get it - you're Republican, it comes natural - but it's odd seeing you being so bald-faced about it.

What a dirt bag! Canseco should live up to his agreements and obligations.

Once a scumbag, always a scumbag. Nice going roid-moron.

That-dude: My old HOA foreclosed on two homeowners for the annual $110 HOA fee.

@ConsumerAdvocacy1010: my college does the same crap.

@GearheadGeek: oh I tried to avoid HOA like the plague. But in the end the best house for the money had a 60$ HOA. So what do you do?@Trai_Dep: So I'm a republican, so I have no integrity? The more comments I read from you, the more I think you need serious help. I mean hey- I'll knock on liberals all day and night, but to make huge generalized statements, ie liberals hath no integrity, would just make me look even more like a pompous ass, kinda like, hmm, you.

@Bladefist: sweeping generalizations like here? --> [consumerist.com]

[W]e're talking about New York here, so I mean, no surprise here. Liberals want their taxes anyway they can get them.

no sweeping generalization there, now is there? when do we get to start calling you a pompous ass?

@mac-phisto: I dunno... comparing integrity with a party, or taxing policies with a party...gee, what makes sense here

I think judgements/liens other than property taxes and mortgages follow the person rather than the property. Walking away from the property will not "free" Canseco from the judgement resulting from the brawl, income tax liens, parking tickets. etc.

@Juggernaut: I think you're right. I'm not sure in the case of a foreclosure though. But in order to sell your house, you have to pay off all the liens.

Why does everyone hate this guy so much? I'm not a fan of steroids, but, you know, the American people have created this. The competition to win, the massive amounts of money that flow into professional sports. Is it that surprising? He did it for your entertainment.

I up this morning thinking "I need a new reason to hate that scumbag Jose Canseco."

Thank you Consumerist, you fulfilled my day. What a scumbag.

I woke up, I mean.

@Bladefist: $60 a year? Dude, that's nothing. Some close relatives are currently paying $800 a month to their HOA.

@modenastradale: They must live next door to bill gates. 800 a MONTH? I'd be curious to know what they get from that money.

I get snow removal, minus they never remove the snow. Assurance neighbors will mow their yard, yet some just don't. And unfair regulations about what I can and cant do to my yard. I have to submit requests to build anything. I have a wood fence. If the fence breaks, I have to submit request to fix it. It's some nazi bs. But I love the house. I'll deal.

It's not just a mathematical decision. He obviously has no integrity. HE needs to pay his taxes and his mortgage and stop being a bum.

@Bladefist: The property taxes take precedence even in a foreclosure. Whoever takes the house, even if it's the original note holder(mortgagee/bank/lender), would assume the overdue property taxes.

Canseco's douche factor is one of the highest ever recorded (if there were one and they were recorded). It's a lot like TO, great talent ruined(?) by perception more than anything else.

The thing with Republicans is that rules are always meant to be enforced. To the point of absurdity (Zero Tolerance, Presidential blow-jobs an impeachable offense, "The American Taliban", Three Strikes pizza thieves...).
Unless it's them. Then all of a sudden, they whine about moving the goalposts, how it's unfair, how it shouldn't apply to them. Consistently.
With Rush, O'Reilly, Shrub, Haggard, et al., you'd think they get laughed into irrelevance yet they aren't. And they're not since their base suffers from the same sense of over-entitlement: Conseco or Bladefist.
Bladefist is the paragon of Personal Responsibility™, until it's his personal responsibility. He doesn't like paying dues he not only agreed to, but signed a contract to pay, and - predictably - out comes the excuses, the redefining of "is", the whimpering about how unfair it is when McMansion deadbeats find themselves liened when caught cheating their neighbors.
If you don't like being a Stepford Wife, don't move to Stepford. If you do, stop whining, strap the apron on and smile vacantly. End of story.

@Bladefist: It's a nice community, but not super-upscale or anything.

Basically the $800 gets community resources -- landscaping, pools, a couple of private parks, fitness facilities, etc. I also think some of the funds go into a community insurance pool of some sort -- the community is subject to a unique natural disaster risk, and a pool was the only way to get insurance for it IIRC.

@Bladefist: Conservatives and Liberals are alike in that they both demand programs. The difference is that Liberals pay as they go rather than borrowing from yet-unborn children to enrich Wall Street.
Again: they want the benefits but funding them is some other suckers' problem. Rules apply, but not to them.

For people with significant cash on hand, I could see how a decision like this could likely make sense. Think about it -- why would someone who has enough money to pay cash for their next house care if their credit is ruined by a foreclosure? Having cash to pay for something doesn't require a good credit history.

If you were buying my house with a cash offer, I wouldn't care how many foreclosures or bankruptcies you had in your past!

@Trai_Dep: The redefining of "is" came from Clinton.

And I pay all my bills, but you're saying I cant complain about it? Why not. Why cant I do my civic duty and yet, not agree with it?

What is this soap box you are on man? And Clinton was not impeached due to the blow job, it was lying under oath. I don't know why you have to bring politics in it. Other then defending myself above, this is not a political debate.

And Republicans do not demand programs. We demand less programs. Maybe some republicans, but by definition, less.

You are so full of hate and contempt. Stepford? Am I really that rich? Last time I checked I lived in a modest middle class house with a house payment within the normal percentage of monthly income.

Don't hate people who have it better then you, someone will always have it better.

Also, in your arguments, dont use 'the children' as a way to win. Everything, economy, global warming, taxes, deficit, everything we do, "oh our grand children, oh no." It's fear mongering. They've been saving the unborn children for years and years.

I'm in an HOA too. With 2 separate set of dues for it. 1st one is about $260 every six months. 2nd one is around $500 per month.

And yes, it is some serious nazi shit. If I can ever manage to get out of it, I'll never get into another one. They currently have a lien on my house for an unpaid fine stating that "I allow my cat to escape regularly."

I don't have a cat. I'm not paying the fine. They've received dozens of letters from me explaining this, and they refuse to budge on it.

They can add all the interest, late fees, penalties, and liens they feel they need to, but I'm still not paying some bogus nazi fine.

@Dakine: You might consider taking the HOA to court, or at least threatening to do that. I wouldn't just sit back in protest and let the lien remain on your property -- if a certain amount of time passes, you may waive your right to contest the validity of the lien.

@Dakine: Yea. I didnt mention earlier, but I also have a neighborhood tennis court and pool.

And when they built it, it was an optional deal. Well the guy who owned my house before me, wanted in. So they put the contract on my deed. So anyone who ever owns my home again, has to pay $32 dollars a month for access to that.

It's really stupid. I mean I pay for these services year round, yet can only use them 3-4 months a year.

I cant swim, nor have any interest in learning or playing in the baby pool. My tennis skills are laughable. The pool is not in walking distance. So I'm stuck paying for that as well.

I mean come on, on my deed? Who does that.

@Bladefist: So you've reconsidered your rash opinion that if deadbeats don't pay what they owe, reasonable measures to ensure they don't walk away from their debts (liens) are kosher? Or in Canseco's case, tax and lawsuit liens?
Yeah, sure Clinton as all about stopping pols from lying. Because, y'know, there's WMD percolating in Iraq as we speak. Whoops: sorry. That didn't involve oral sex, so it doesn't matter.

@Trai_Dep:
"Whoops: sorry. That didn't involve oral sex, so it doesn't matter."

Y'know, it continues to amuse and sadden me that Americans will make such a fuss over BJs and toe-tapping, yet so few can be bothered to care about, say, telecom amnesty.

@Trai_Dep: No, but I don't like liens. When you purchase a home, its your home. It's the biggest purchase you'll ever make. And I don't think anyone should be able to put a lien on your home. Other then the mortgage company.

There are many other ways to make people pay, and screw up their life if they dont. But I just equate it to, me walking into your house, grabbing your microwave, and saying, "you get this back when you pay me what you owe me"

Lawsuits, etc is fine with me.

As for politics, I'm done with you. You're a nut case. It's not your views that are bad, it's your nut case presentation.

@Bladefist: I have to say, I am a little confused here myself. Since most people have little or no assets outside of their home, how else would third parties enforce their claims against those people?

You said lawsuits are fine with you. But, you know, it's not as if the court writes you a check after you get a judgment. You have to enforce the judgment yourself, which means, yes, determining what property the defendant owns and putting a lien on it.

@modenastradale: I'm not going to claim a ton of logic on this, its more of a gut feeling. So there are definitely some holes in my logic. I just feel like a house, is truely yours. And others shouldnt have the right to touch it. I whole-heartedly see your point, and I too have no answers, but it just feels wrong to me.

@Bladefist: Ah. Well, I don't have any problems with your position. Makes sense to me -- losing one's home is quite a hardship.

That said, I'd point out that your belief seems inconsistent with your stated conservative principles, since you're effectively proposing a government-mandated "safety net" for homeowners, at the expense of creditors who have claims against them.

Again, I have no problem with your premise, but please recognize that it's a socialist proposal. :-)

@mac-phisto:

"Liberal" means "more of", that's a generalization??

hmm.. so liberals want LESS taxes????

Man.. I'm so confused..

Where is a socialist when you need one? (In the White House)

Oh yeah! Conseco!

@Bladefist: I'm not sure why the bar owner doesn't file for the courts to simply dip into his bank accounts. I'm sure, however, that because he is rich, he uses some loopholes in the law to protect his assets.
I personally have no issue with valid liens. I do however think there should be limits on claims and such.