Lady almost loses home to real estate vulture over $6.30

[EVT1]

Chalk one up for the little people

news.yahoo.com/court-lets-pennsylvania-widow-keep-home-sold-over-225432510.html

     Eileen Battisti, who is in her early 50s and lost her husband in 2004, was unfamiliar with managing her finances and did not understand in 2009 that she owed the $6.30 late fee, which subsequently accrued $234.72 in interest, prompting the tax sale of her home in 2011, said her lawyer, Ed Santillan

     A reasonable tax claim bureau would have responded to Taxpayer’s payment on the 2008 taxes with an invoice for $6.30, and it would have invoiced Taxpayer in 2010 for the 2009 shortage of $234.72," the judge wrote in her ruling.

     She has remained in the home with two of her three adult children since it was sold by the Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau to S.P. Lewis, a man who buys tax delinquent properties and sells them back to their former owners for a profit, according to court papers.    

     The home, which is worth between $250,000 and $280,000, was sold to Lewis for $113,000. He offered to sell the property back to Battisti for $160,000, Santillan said

Wonder if the guy will appeal?  Sounds like one of the 'midnight cable' scumbags Dave Ramsey is always talking about. 

[andi9899]

I have never been delinquent on taxes, so maybe I just don't know, but wouldn't she have been warned of the impending sale of her home? One would think that she would have been sent multiple notices and maybe even a registered letter. Baby Daddy was behind on his taxes and they sent someone to my house with a registered letter for him, even though he hadn't lived at my address for 10+ years. And would the $6.30 not just be taken from the following years taxes every year keeping her forever $6.30 in the hole until it is paid? I'm gonna call BS.

[NoNamePerson]

Maybe the adult "children" living with her hid the mail

[jkapp]

Sounds more like a confiscatory government problem than a shyster real estate guy...interesting way in which you read that article

"since it was sold by the Beaver County Tax Claim Bureau "

And this: www.beavercountypa.gov/collection-process-tax-claim-bureau-pursuant-pa-real-estate-tax-sale-law

Consequently, property taxes, (county, municipal or school), not paid to the local tax collector by December 31 of the year in which they are levied, may be filed with the Tax Claim Bureau for specific collection procedures as follows:

Year One
•Taxing authorities file with the Tax Claim Bureau all unpaid and delinquent real estate taxes no later than the 3rd Monday in April of the year subsequent to the year of levy. The unpaid tax claims are each assessed a fee of $15.00.
•Notices of the claims for unpaid taxes are mailed to the owner of record no later than July 31. The notice advises the taxpayer that a one year grace period is given in which to fully pay the claims, interest accrual (9% per year) and costs, otherwise the property will be advertised and subject to an Upset Tax Sale. The cost of mailing is assed against the parcel.
•If the owner of record does not claim the certified mailing, the property is physically posted and the posting fee is assessed against the parcel.

Year Two
•If the claims for delinquent taxes, interest and costs remain unpaid, notice of pending Upset Sale is mailed to each record owner, by certified mail, restricted delivery, no later than July 31. The cost of mailing is assessed against the parcel.
•The sale notices advise the delinquent taxpayer that the property will be exposed to public auction, scheduled no earlier than the second Monday in September, unless the tax claims, interest accrual and costs are paid or the taxpayer requests to enter an agreement to make payments in four equal installments, with the first installment remitted at the time of agreement and the other payments to be made quarterly all with one year. A $25 fee is assessed against the parcel.
•Absent an agreement a notice of the pending sale is advertised in both the Beaver County Times and the Beaver County Legal Journal at least 30 days prior to the scheduled sale. Costs of advertising are assessed against each parcel advertised.
•A notice of sale is again mailed to each individual record owner by 1st class mail at least 10 days before the sale with the costs of mailing and sale preparation assessed against the parcel.
•The notice of sale must also be posted on the property and personal service to the owner, must also be performed by the Sheriff upon owner occupied parcels. The costs of posting and personal service are assessed against the property.
•If the property owner fails to satisfy and discharge the claims for delinquent and unpaid taxes or does not enter into a formal payment plan for quarterly installments, the property will be exposed to Upset Sale.
•The Tax Claim Bureau will publicly auction the property at a minimum price established by the delinquent tax claims, interest accrual and costs of the Bureau, as well as, the current year taxes. The sale is made subject to the existing liens of record. Successful bidders will be responsible to also pay transfer taxes and recording fees.

So she had TWO YEARS to pay that $6.30 and ignored it.  How much leeway do we give irresponsible homeowners for Christ's sake?  She could have avoided all of this by paying the damn money.  She received a certified letter (according to tax bureau policy) so she can't say she never saw any notices. 

If you don't want to see shit like this happen to the little guy, than call for property taxes to end - thereby allowing people to actually OWN their f'ing property.  Otherwise, we're all just renting from the county, and that means they can take your home away at any time.

Oh, but no, we need confiscatory government hanging over all of us at all times...its for the "greater good"
 

[haapai]

Here's the conclusions that I drew. 

The judge seems to have ruled that the tax authorities cannot prove that they made every required notification. 

If only a fraction of the required notifications were made, it takes a pretty dysfunctional household not take action. 

The amount for which the property was sold at tax auction is interesting.  My first reaction was "Other bidders?" but then it occurs to me that the "vulture" might have bid an unnecessarily high price.  Presenting the occupants with a very high offer definitely gets their attention.  It also creates a pretty high hurdle to re-buying the house.  Getting the house for resale, instead of shaking down the occupants might have been the strategy here. 

 

[haapai]

I'd love to know how the journalist who wrote the story determined its present value.  Were tax assessments and a margin of error used?  Has the property been assessed? 

We don't even know when Ms. Battisi or her deceased spouse bought the property.  The article mentions that she was widowed in 2005 and encourages us to think that she once shared the place with her husband, but doesn't give us any dates, which is odd.  It's usually pretty easy to look up when someone acquired a property and at what price.  My city and county let me look up that information for free, at home, without any sort of registration, or at the courthouse for a nominal fee.  It's also a bit of information that would almost certainly be found in the documents related to this case.  I find the omission of such a inexpensive detail quite strange. 

[EVT1]

Dec 13, 2014 9:42:28 GMT -5 jkapp said:

Sounds more like a confiscatory government problem than a shyster real estate guy...interesting way in which you read that article

So she had TWO YEARS to pay that $6.30 and ignored it.  How much leeway do we give irresponsible homeowners for Christ's sake?  She could have avoided all of this by paying the damn money.  She received a certified letter (according to tax bureau policy) so she can't say she never saw any notices. 

If you don't want to see shit like this happen to the little guy, than call for property taxes to end - thereby allowing people to actually OWN their f'ing property.  Otherwise, we're all just renting from the county, and that means they can take your home away at any time.

Oh, but no, we need confiscatory government hanging over all of us at all times...its for the "greater good"
 

It's both- a government problem and a scumbag problem- and sometimes the two are mixed up.

You do not know she ignored anything- no proof of that was there? Does it make sense to you someone would let this happen over couch change?

So instead of tacking on the enormous late fee onto the next years bill- they mysteriously find a way to end it with an auction and suddenly a vulture shows up and being such a fine human being offers to flip and sell their home back to them pocketing a quick 50K for doing next to nothing.

As far as fixing it I am fine with ending property taxes or at the very least allow an exemption of up to a certain value or maybe for seniors once they start on SS. 

Maybe another way is to prohibit a tax sale of a personal residence and attach a lien that will settle when the home is transferred or sold. 

What we do not need is a way for these immoral real estate scumbags to operate with the help of the government.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Eileen Battisti, who is in her early 50s and lost her husband in 2004, was unfamiliar with managing her finances and did not understand in 2009 that she owed the $6.30 late fee, which subsequently accrued $234.72 in interest, prompting the tax sale of her home in 2011, said her lawyer, Ed Santillan


This makes absolutely NO sense.  After 5 years of learning to manage her own finances after her husband died, she couldn't figure it out that she owed money?

What did she do in the following years about her mortgage, her cable bill, her phone bill, her water, electric, gas bills?  If she managed them successfully in those intervening 5 years, wouldn't she notice that she underpaid by $6.30 and pay it?  Which makes me wonder if she was even notified about this.....

[Deleted]

did not understand in 2009 that she owed the $6.30 late fee, which subsequently accrued $234.72 in interest, prompting the tax sale of her home in 2011

What kind of interest turns $6.30 into $234.72 in 2 years?

[EVT1]

The opinion: www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1079CD12_8-19-13.pdf?cb=1

So the facts are this:

She paid 2008 taxes 6 days late incurring the $6.30 late fee

She paid 2009 taxes in full (around $4000)

She claims she was not notified about the late fee or the tax sale

And on quick read through the lower court pretty much gave no opportunity to dispute whether the proper notice was given via evidentiary hearing violating due process- so it was a situation where the taxing agency said we complied with the law so case closed- kind of hard to digest on one reading

 

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Who gets the money for the sale of the home in the example above?  If the home was paid off, does the homeowner get the difference between what is owed and the sales price?  It doesn't really matter either way, because IMO it isn't right.  I was just curious.

I think the issue with property taxes in general is that a person can never really own the land. It's crazy to think to a person can "buy" a piece of land, pay to build a home on it, and then have to pay more in property taxes because the property was upgraded. What makes the issue more insane is that if the homeowner wants to upgrade anything in the home, in many areas that homeowner is required to purchase a permit...so the homeowner has to pay for the privilege of upgrading the home, and then pay more if the upgrade increases the value of the home and property. So a person can own the home, but not the property the home is on...and if a person doesn't pay the property taxes (no matter how much they've paid to build/purchase/upgrade the home) they can still lose it because of property taxes.

The idea that the person in the OP could lose a home worth that much over $6.30, or even a few hundred dollars is insane. Another issue is the idea that the person can owe a few hundred, or even a few thousand in property taxes and the home could be sold for $100,000+.  How does that even make sense?  It is pretty shady for the buyer to "offer" to sell the home back for a profit.  If anything, wages should probably be garnished before the sale of a home, just like if somebody owes the IRS money.

Nobody can ever truly own a home if they are always at the mercy of what the government feels they should pay for privilege to stay on it.

The issue is how to pay for the services that are covered by property taxes without property taxes.

[EVT1]

The way I understand it- and this is a paid for home- is that the government auctions the property to recover the $6.30 plus the interest and fees (so $250) and the overage goes to the homeowner.

But- since this is a 250K+ appraised home- the former owner's equity goes to the purchaser. I am also under the impression that these auction buyers are a small group that have to pay cash- and they are not going to pay near what it is actually worth if it was on the market for people actually looking to buy a home.

So in this case the vulture went for a quick flip- and could have held out for more but it is so much easier to just pocket some quick profits then go through eviction, resale and all of that.

This is happening a lot in some places because the governments are strapped for cash.

The new scam is seizing homes over drugs- I recall a story that because a couple's kid got busted selling dope at the residence the parents lost the house- which I am sure was sold to the same real estate vulture types- might have even offered a similar buyback deal.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Dec 15, 2014 12:09:16 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

The way I understand it- and this is a paid for home- is that the government auctions the property to recover the $6.30 plus the interest and fees (so $250) and the overage goes to the homeowner.

But- since this is a 250K+ appraised home- the former owner's equity goes to the purchaser. I am also under the impression that these auction buyers are a small group that have to pay cash- and they are not going to pay near what it is actually worth if it was on the market for people actually looking to buy a home.

So in this case the vulture went for a quick flip- and could have held out for more but it is so much easier to just pocket some quick profits then go through eviction, resale and all of that.

This is happening a lot in some places because the governments are strapped for cash.

The new scam is seizing homes over drugs- I recall a story that because a couple's kid got busted selling dope at the residence the parents lost the house- which I am sure was sold to the same real estate vulture types- might have even offered a similar buyback deal.

Thanks for the clarification...it seems wrong either way and the issue does seem to be about government overreach and personal property rights.  I don't understand why property taxes are different from other taxes that person owes.  Why is considered to be perfectly acceptable to garnish paychecks for income taxes, but for property taxes this does not seem to be the case?  Instead, it is considered to be acceptable to sell something way more valuable for well under value and really stick it to the homeowner.  If a person or corporation did this, the news would be all over it...but since the government does it, it somehow makes it acceptable business practice?

What's really absurd in this situation is the same guy could theoretically buy the property for $1000 and still try to resell it back to the couple for almost $200K...but it's ok to screw over these people who had to work to pay off the house as long as the government gets its few hundred dollars. 

Kind of off subject, but I also have an issue with banks foreclosing on homes, and then selling them for well under market value...while sticking the previous owner with the balance of what is owed.  So the bank doesn't really care what the home sells for, because it gets its money either way.