Woman pays debt on foreclosed home, only to have it sold out from under her anyway. [Newsday]


Edit Your Comment

  1. trollkiller says:

    Wow it sucks to be her. Do the right thing and get screwed by an unethical, greedy lawyer. I hope she comes out on top of all this.

    On a side note: I am so frickin tired of the Single Mother Syndrome.

    “I jumped through as many hoops as I was supposed to,” said Beck, 43, a registered nurse and single mother of three grown children.

    Give me a f*cking break, the kids are grown and have no relevance to the story. I think my breaking point on the Single Mother Syndrome was a story that identified a lady as a temporary single mother because her husband was deployed overseas. Does this mean my wife is a temporary single mother every time I go to work?

    Ok you can have the soap box back now.

  2. timmus says:

    Good catch, Trollkiller. I hope Ms. Beck doesn’t take too much crap from her son when he takes out the Six Million Dollar Man lunchpail at his law firm and it has raisins instead of cookies.

  3. Buran says:

    Uh, what right does this asshole have to HER HOME? He doesn’t. The debt was paid before it was due. He hasn’t lost a thing.

    He deserves to lose every penny. If you “buy” something that isn’t legally for sale, and it isn’t because she paid before the due date (as the bank’s own letter admits!), it’s hers.

    She should sue him for whatever the equivalent is to illegally claiming something that is not yours.

  4. mac-phisto says:

    wow. talk about a string of unfortunate events. i hope the judge in this case has some sense. technically, if m&t received the payoff at 9:40am & the home sold at auction “minutes before” 10am, they had no right to sell it.

    the lawyer representing the investors sounds like a real jackoff. if i were hearing that case, i’d make him prove that his time preparing for the auction was worth $20,000. a penny short & i’d give him nothing. maybe even fine him for wasting the court’s time with ludicrous claims.

  5. kc2idf says:

    Well, since Jackson (the buyer) offered to vacate the sale for $5000, he clearly knows the state of things. When he upped it to $20,000 when she offered to pay the $5000 is the point where he lost whatever minuscule quantity of sympathy he may have had with me. Clearly Beck (the rightful owner) got fucked by her bank, and I think any judge in his right mind will see it that way.

    As for me, I now intend to re-evaluate whether or not I should allow M+T to continue to hold my mortgage. Many refi offers have been made over the last several years. I need to know that my home is safe from them.

  6. ceejeemcbeegee is not here says:

    @trollkiller: On a side note: I am so frickin tired of the Single Mother Syndrome.

    My sis is NOTORIOUS for pulling this card. I want to yell at her, “If you’d kept your knees together, you wouldn’t be a single mother.”

    totally irrelevant to the original post, just venting ;-)

  7. Buran says:

    @ceejeemcbeegee: I personally think it’s just the reporter giving a bit of background about their subject and much ado is being made about nothing.

  8. GearheadGeek says:


    I don’t know the New York standard, but in Texas I think the standard penalty would be 3x damages (perhaps 3x the value of the home?) if she wins a judgment against the bank. I have a feeling that if she makes it clear to the bank and the “group of investors” that she’s going to court, especially if she demands a jury trial, they’ll back off and do the logical right thing that should have been done in the first place, vacate the sale, return the investors’ money and get off without losing too much money in the process.

    If the article is accurate, I find it unlikely that a jury would find for the group of investors over the woman who’s been living in this house for years and has caught up her mortgage debt payments.

    Also in Texas, her acceptance of the sleazebag..er..lawyer’s offer of $5,000 to vacate the sale transformed that offer into a verbal contract between them, so the lawyer would be guilty of breach of contract when he demanded $20,000 instead. High-quality lawyer I’m sure.

  9. Crymson_77 says:

    That asshat Jackson should be forced to pay this poor woman $20k for doing what he did. If his initial offer of $5k wasn’t good enough then he shouldn’t have stated that as an option for the vacating of the sale. And, in addition to that, the original bank should be the one to pay that cost, not the woman they screwed. KC2IDF…M&T was the one trying to help her so you may want to stick with them…

  10. Crymson_77 says:

    @GearheadGeek: dang right

  11. derobert says:

    @GearheadGeek: Under the Statute of Frauds, contracts for the transfer of interest in land must be in writing. I suspect that applies in Texas (varies from state to state). So I doubt the $5k is a valid oral contract.

  12. speedwell (propagandist and secular snarkist) says:

    @derobert: That’s assuming the property legally became his in the first place. If it was never his, then there is no transfer and no need for anything to have been in writing.

  13. humphrmi says:

    I agree with others; if there was any sympathy in the fact that the bank screwed Jackson just as much as the owner of the house, it was lost when he upped his demand for doing absolutely nothing from $5K to $20K. I hope he gets raped in court.

  14. jessecoug says:

    Re: Single Mother Syndrome

    While I understand that her kids are grown, single moms do make a lot of sacrifices that married mothers don’t have to. My mother skipped college, didn’t get child support, went into debt and got out of debt while working 2-3 jobs to raise me and my brother because my father was a deadbeat.

    She only just broke out of debt within the past 5-10 years and would not even have a house/mortgage if it weren’t for coupling her finances with her fiance. I can’t imagine raising 3 kids on my fairly decent salary (and I have a BA) *and* paying a mortgage.

    So, I *do* understand why the differentiation is still there – although I suppose some women milk it for all its worth. The single mothers who really do hustle rarely ask for help and are pretty self-reliant, although they end up way behind their peers financially. (Think about compounding interest!)

  15. trollkiller says:

    @jessecoug: Your mother is one of the few that the “single mother” tag was made for.

    The tag was not made for women with grown children, it was not made for those with the baby daddy living with them, it was not made for those who can’t keep their legs closed, it was not made for those that drop a kid every time the welfare payments are close to getting cut, and it was not made for those whose husbands are overseas.

    Nothing bugs me more than to hear someone say “I’m a single mom” when the kid is 3 and they have been shacking up with the baby’s father for 5 years.

    Take the time to make a mental note whenever you see or hear “single mother” in the news, then ask yourself how relevant it is to the story. I will bet after a couple of weeks you too will be tired of the “Single Mother Syndrome”