Man Occupying Foreclosed Home with Family Asks Sheriff Not to Arrest Him
Thursday, January 26th, 2012
Issue 04, Volume 16.
RIVERSIDE - A Riverside man occupying a home from which he and his family were evicted in a foreclosure said today that he's trying to negotiate to get the property back and hoped that, in the meantime, Riverside County sheriff's deputies wouldn't arrest him.
"But if I get arrested, at least it'll be making the point that the bank is messing up," Arturo de los Santos told City News Service.
Since Dec. 6, de los Santos has been staying in a three-bedroom house in the 3700 block of Layton Court that he, his wife Magdalena, and their two boys and two girls called home for eight years. The entire family has been back together in the residence since Christmas Eve.
De los Santos, 46, was one of 30 people who took part in last month's "National Occupy Homes Day," a spinoff of the Occupy Wall Street movement intended to spotlight alleged abuses in the mortgage industry.
Former property owners whose houses were repossessed went back to the places to reside, effectively trespassing.
De los Santos said he has received an eviction notice from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. -- universally known as Freddie Mac -- which holds the note to the foreclosed Layton Court property.
During a hearing today at the Moreno Valley Courthouse, lawyers for Freddie Mac were expected to seek a judicial writ ordering de los Santos and his family out of the house under threat of arrest. But according to the former U.S. Marine, errors in court paperwork led a judge to vacate the hearing.
De los Santos said he doesn't know what's next.
"I wanted to speak with the sheriff to tell him, please, don't evict us," de los Santos said.
He presented a letter outlining his case to a sheriff's representative. The sheriff's department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
De los Santos said he is continuing to attempt contact with representatives from Chase Advertisement
[ The Tutoring Center ] bank, from which he obtained his original mortgage for the house, in the hopes of working out a loan modification that would allow him to reacquire the house. But he's heard nothing back.
The longtime metal worker sued Chase, alleging deceptive lending practices, and filed for personal bankruptcy, in an attempt to prevent the foreclosure. However, both legal actions have since been abandoned.
Francisco Perpely with Alpha One Group, a Riverside brokerage firm that is managing the property on behalf of Freddie Mac, told CNS that all decisions regarding the disposition of the property are coming from "the bank," but declined to say anything more.
The Occupy Homes campaign is backed by a number of groups, including ReFund California, The New Bottom Line, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, Take Back the Land, SOUL, the Service Employees International Union and New York Communities for Change.
De los Santos purchased the Layton Court house, which sits on the edge of a cul de sac in Riverside's La Sierra neighborhood, in 2003 but fell behind on his loan payments in 2009 after business plummeted at the Santa Ana factory where he's employed as a supervisor.
He applied for a loan modification to pare down his monthly principal and interest costs, but he alleges that representatives of Chase refused to accept the proposed terms and initiated foreclosure proceedings, forcing him and his family to vacate the home last June, at which point they relocated to an apartment in Orange County.
"We're glad to be back in the house," de los Santos said. "My kids are happy. They have a place to ride their bikes and play. Their school is just around the corner. They don't understand what's going on."
He said the atmosphere at the house remains "tense," not knowing when there might be a knock on the door and a deputy escorts them out.
"Hopefully that won't happen," de los Santos said.
Comment #1 | Thursday, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:06 pm
"Hopefully that won't happen," de los Santos said. Hopefully that WILL happen. Perhaps they can stay with one of their socialist comrades at the SEIU.
Comment Continued : The comment above was written from the same location.
Comment #2 | Friday, Jan 27, 2012 at 6:12 am
Connect the dotes and prepare to find another home. The children will adjust. The banks have no regard. It happen to my family, and we had to move, and it was tough to endure, the sudden change and the effect is only for a small while, (about a year).
Brace yourself/be prepared, because it's going to happen.
Best of luck, stay focused!
Comment #3 | Friday, Jan 27, 2012 at 6:14 am
Correction: Connect the dots and prepare to find/locate another home.
Comment #4 | Friday, Jan 27, 2012 at 9:54 am
Move. Move. Move. Move into a home that you can afford long term or it will keep happening. Live within your salary means. Quit trying to live above you income level. Gone are the days of bank handouts of loans. You should of never gotten the loan to begin with! Even if you do stay there will be property taxes, hoa fees, keep up of house expenses........... LIVE within you salary income people!!!
Comment #5 | Friday, Jan 27, 2012 at 11:27 am
The bank doesn't see "your family" . To them you're invaders. They don't care about anything but $ There's is coming though and they no it. Obama has an attorney general ready to actually make many of them pay out. If you're thinking of getting in a private or class action suite, do it now. Cause your day is coming ,when the banks will be sending you a check.
Comment #6 | Friday, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Another Obama failure! This is 100% Obamas fault.
Comment #7 | Sunday, Jan 29, 2012 at 2:29 am
David... really the banks fault? I get a ten dollar loan, 10% interest. I can only afford to pay back 5 dollars. Its everyone elses fault that I took the loan? What has happend in america that we are all victims, and can fall for obamas traps? He has all union votes now to go after those left behind, acting like he cares about any of you? Give a mouse a cookie... give the man a fish... how about work hard for yourself, rising costs, big banks/corporations? Or here's an idea the cost of unions and taxes being passed on to all? Forget the fair share, grow up and just do what you can, we are all taxed how about less spending and more freedom. Scared as .... for my two boys, I'm only 26 and can tell we are screwing their future with the debt. Do you know how much obama has cost us? And you want to cry about banks and nonsense? Open your eyes. Oh wait you voted him in, in the first place, because he had so much prior experience. Haha find a brain, wait nevermind he will choose for you, he just needs to find the right handout for you.
Comment #8 | Sunday, Jan 29, 2012 at 3:05 am
People who blame the housing market problems on Obama have very short memories.... like who deregulated the banks to prop up an already inflationary market. You can thank George Bush for that.
Comment #9 | Sunday, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:37 pm
predatory, fraudulent loans only lead to fraudulent foreclosures. they've been caught. they can't hide anymore. too many complainants bearing evidence. too many judges catching on to the fraud. the banks and their firms have made a mockery of the judiciary system. the judges will no longer stand for it. sorry folks. the tide is turning for the defrauded homeowners. finally. we're all taxpayers. and the taxpayers are all paying for it via the Treasury paying and buying the bonds with fiat money. pay the rentiers with fiat money. Fannie Freddie/TARP losses and the losses in pension funds/stocks like former blue-chip bond insurers are all borne by the taxpayer eventually. they can't "blame the borrower" anymore.
Comment #10 | Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012 at 11:53 am
The comments are excellent debate, but don't find much common ground. Yes, some took on unwise amounts of debt. OTOH, banks changed their guidelines to allow folks to purchase who had increased risk of default, then profited or attempted to profit from these while taking gov. handouts to stay afloat when the whole system collapsed like a house of cards. In addition, as in De Los Santos story, there are charges that the banks used deceptive and fraudulent tactics to get Mr. De Los Santos out (It's alleged that the banks instructed him not to pay so that he could get into foreclosure status so they could help him, then they just foreclosed.).
What's missing from all of this is a set of guidelines to decide who deserves to be helped to retain their home and who needs to move on to another owned home or rental. For me, the case discussed here doesn't pass the smell test. Ex-marine, family man, who tried to comply and moved out, only to figure out that the big guys were gaming him. It makes sense to give him a loan at current rates and let him continue there.
I think we've all gotten educated about mortgages. Banks need to be responsible in who they lend to and more transparent about lending practices. If some mortgages came with a clear set of foreclosure processes and alternatives that would help folks stay in their homes, that would end up being the preferred type of mortgage. Banks need to consult with some social workers who specialize in giving people a hand up and not a handout and develop programs that 1) make foreclosure less of a financial problem for banks and 2) help homeowners with problems stay in their homes.
What the hysterics on both sides seem to miss is that it is easy to renegotiate a loan and the financial cost of this, if reasonable, can be borne by the lendee. It's done all the time. Homeowners bought what they couldn't afford and banks got greedy because they were caught with their pants down and needed to recoup. I don't know about you, but I've slept since then, let's start over and work on renegotiating these loans where possible and let's have a fair set of guidelines for doing so. Yes, it will be "more regulations" but let's make them simpler and easier to follow. Get a commission up for that. Put bankers and consumers on it and let them duke it out and come up with something workable. then we'll debate that and tweak it instead of huffing and puffing about each individual case.
Comment #11 | Wednesday, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:36 pm
When has this become a "Its not my fault" countary?
It dosnt take a genious to figgure out that you can or can not afford a certin home. the banks are in the business of making money. Thats it... they dont care how much money you make or dont make.. they say If I dont make money on this deal I wont do the deal
WAKE UP SHEEP!!!
|Layton Street Coalition|
Comment #12 | Tuesday, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Arturo De Los Santos is a victim of foreclosure, unfortunately he forgot to tell the public that he repeatedly cashed out the equity from his since, ever since he originally purchased it. From PUBLIC record his history is below, herre is a synopsis of his repeated cash out:
Purchase 10/08/2002, VA Loan 100% Financing $209,100. 11/10/2003 Loan $27,350 second loan cash out. 05/28/2004 $258,000 Cash Out. 12/03/2004 $35,000 took 2nd loan Cash Out. 07/13/2006 took $106,000 Cash out Second, wrapped in the existing Second. 03/10/2010 Refinance $264,100 with Chase.
So lets be clear here, because this is the story you NEVER get from these Grand Theft, Loan Fraud committing theives: Arturo De Los Santos cashed out well over $150,000 CASH MONEY, in pocket, and did it all the while living in the home, his first cash out only 5 months after purchasing the home with no monday down. He cashed out over $150,000 - A HUGE savings, and obviously lost all of the money. But now it is the Banks fault for not allowing him to live payment free, after raping the equity from the home. If a professional licensed person did this it would be loan fraud, conspiracy to commit a fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, and a host of other collateral charges.
Comment #13 | Monday, Feb 27, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Layton "Street" Coalition is an interesting name for a coalition concerned with Layton "Court." Do New York bankers know anything about Riverside homes other than their profit potentials?
Article Comments are contributed by our readers, and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Valley News staff. The name listed as the author for comments cannot be verified; Comment authors are not guaranteed to be who they claim they are.
Comment #14 | Saturday, Jun 2, 2012 at 9:00 pm
all you anti's are totally confused in both economics and law. let me use some caps here-
ALL FORECLOSURES PROCEED IN REM.
if you dont know what "in rem" means, you have no right to any opinion or to post comments.
for the rest of you, with more honest hearts, there are 2 ways to sue on a claim: "in personam", against the person; and "in rem", against the thing.
All foreclosures are "in rem", it is a lawsuit about a house not a debt, what you did or did not do, socialism, taxes or anything else. ita just a claim that the security has become insecure, and the matter is best settled by public auction.
which of course the matter is almost never best settled at auction; especially since the mortgage or title itself is worth 50 cents on the appraisal dollar. again, if you dont understand what im talking about, close this window and do not return, you have no right to read or post on this subject.
All banks are economically better off putting rather than calling. the security is a valuable asset all by itself. it has nothing to do with "being allowed" or "payment free", its already allowed and payment free. we dont pay because there is a mortgage. any claims against the property are already satisfied by the mortgage itself. a mortgage is NOT A DEBT, it is a kind of property ownership. why should i buy your mortgage? its yours, keep it or sell it on the secondary financial market. No bank has any right legal or equitable to foreclose unless the place is condemned or abandoned- if the business principle is not functioning. This is the PLAIN LANGUAGE in every mortgage indenture.
if you dont get it, go away.