Update: L.A. Land, 'Condoblue' on CBS Evening News
Update: Here's a link to the video of the CBS story, and here's a text-only version.
Previous post: If you want to see the controversial "condoblue" on TV, rush home from work today to watch the CBS Evening News. "Condoblue," who blogged here about possibly walking away from her mortgage, is featured in a story scheduled to run tonight on CBS. I was also interviewed, so you are forewarned that I might also show up in the story.
The subject is "jingle mail," which we have discussed here often. I blogged, briefly, about it today at the CBS Evening News blog.
Thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com.

Am I the only one who wonders why "condoblue" wants to call all this attention to herself? Isn't this just screaming for the lender somehow get word of this and to sue and do a judicial foreclosure on her 1st condo? Just because lenders haven't used this option doesn't mean they won't want to make an example out of someone...
Posted by: Thiswillbefun | February 12, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Her 15 minutes of fame still are not up? Some people just have no dignity.
Why would you want to keep going on television and radio to brag that you are a deadbeat and wont pay your bills?
Next stop: Big Brother 12.
Posted by: Ace | February 12, 2008 at 12:01 PM
If condoblue wants to go public as a poster child for the subprime end game, then bless him. Good targets are hard to find. I'm lookin' forward to Peter's smilin' face as a voice of reason and staunch defender of our right to free expression and the overall wisdom of responsible public opinion.
Perhaps "lefty" can offer an opposing view.
Posted by: Michael Snyder | February 12, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Im still waiting for the lender of the loan she just got to sue her for fraud. There is no way she filled out that loan application truthfully.
Posted by: Cal | February 12, 2008 at 12:21 PM
I am surprised she hasn't interviewed Khufu's Great Pyramid.
"So, how's ilke to be a pyramid?"
"Are you concerned at all that a great power, in fac, the greatest the world has ever known, is building one even bigger than you beyond that great ocean?"
Posted by: MyLessThanPrimeBeef | February 12, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Maybe she's smoking hot and sees this as her big break- that's all it takes in this pathetic society to cash in some real $$$. For examples, see the woman who was almost thrown off a Southwest flight, and the three bikini-clad Packer fans who all seem to be cashing in.
Posted by: dwr | February 12, 2008 at 12:31 PM
ThisWill: Probably because CA is not a judicial foreclosure state.
Posted by: LeavinLA | February 12, 2008 at 12:44 PM
Peter,
Shifting gears here.
Next time you get hold of one of these talking heads, can you please expunge from them a rational as to why they keep regurgitating drivel by groups like the NAR? Maybe suggest sending the 60minutes crew into Lawrence Yun’s office to get us a “real story”…
Posted by: Rob | February 12, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Amazing how many of you are completely missing the point. You all want housing prices to go back to normal. Well, what better way than by encouraging the ones in over their heads to use jingle mail and increase the pressure on prices by adding inventory?
I say, GO CONDOBLUE! Spread the gospel. Tell all those homeowners they can send the keys back to the banks, we need to counteract the damage that Paulson and the Fed are doing to our economy when they prop up this bubble instead of letting it deflate as it should.
Posted by: Arti | February 12, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Just saw the piece -- lookin' good, Pete!
She laid out a logical argument. It's a contract that BOTH sides entered into, with remedies for each to follow in the event of default. If she can't or doesn't pay, the lender agreed to take the property back as full settlement of the contract. Property Law 101. Agreement. Performance or not. Remedies.
And to those wondering how she bought the other property with telling anyone about the first, her lender on the second home found out about the first the instant they checked her credit. And they made her the second loan anyway.
I now give the floor to the furious, hotheaded and holier-than-thou...
Posted by: LeavinLA | February 12, 2008 at 04:06 PM
I saw the piece too. She did not seem too bent over her credit rating or anything else. Just a business decision.
Too much of this and no one will be able to get or afford credit.
For all the one’s supporting blue, you can be sure that you, I, Peter Viles, and everyone will pay for blue’s actions through stricter credit requirements and higher interest rates. This isn’t a victimless decision. And yes, blue is a deadbeat.
Posted by: 1 | February 12, 2008 at 05:18 PM
Just saw it - good job, Peter!
From the story, I gather that Condoblue bought a condo in San Ramon as a second residence and it dropped in value by $165K. She doesn't need the place since she owns another house (maybe she bought it because she occasionally has to work in SR?). So it was more of an investment than a primary residence. She looked like she might be on the downhill side toward retirement (like me). I think she's making the correct decision. San Ramon will probably recover before places like the Central Valley or IE, but maybe not before she's ready to retire. Mail in the keys.
Posted by: anon1137 | February 12, 2008 at 06:14 PM
"For all the one’s supporting blue, you can be sure that you, I, Peter Viles, and everyone will pay for blue’s actions through stricter credit requirements and higher interest rates." --1
You make that sound like a bad thing. The bubble is largely a result of bankers being out of touch with reality. The sooner banks start applying stricter credit requirements and higher interest rates the better.
Posted by: Roger Moore | February 12, 2008 at 06:39 PM
I'm with Arti -- I congratulate condoblue aka Karen (we all know her real name now) for standing up to tell her story. I share Cal's concern that she is taking a risk of lenders coming after her for fraud, but it sounds like Karen was straightforward with lender #2 about her first loan, and lender #2 either didn't care or failed to do its due diligence. Either way, it's the lender's fault, not Karen's.
If I were Karen, I admit I'd be a little afraid to tell my story on national TV, with my real name and real face visible to the scrutiny of millions, as opposed to here in the safety and anonymity of the blogosphere. She's got courage and she is doing us all a service by educating underwater borrowers that there are options other than continuing indentured servitude to mortgage companies.
Posted by: Tex | February 12, 2008 at 07:13 PM
Movie Announcer Voice:
IN A WORLD, WHERE BUYERS SCREW THEMSELVES BUYING HI PRICED HOMES WITH SUB PRIME LOANS, ONE WOMAN IS WALKING AWAY AND MAKING IT EVERYONE'S PROBLEM BUT HER OWN..
CONDOBLUE: STICKIN' IT TO THE MAN!
Starring Marie Antoinette & Tiny Tim
Coming to a theater nearest you - Proceeds to pay off Condoblue's second home and gas her Hummer.
Homeowners will not be admitted without proof of shirking their responsibilities. Free popcorn if you've walked on your child support or dumped your pets.
Posted by: Hula Girl | February 12, 2008 at 07:40 PM
I notice the part about getting another home in plans to default on the current home was left out. It was more "I have another home", so luckily the sticky details could be avoided.
I cant see anyways that the Uniform Residential Loan Application section entitled "Schedule of Real Estate Owned" wasnt filled out fraudently.
Posted by: Cal | February 12, 2008 at 09:25 PM
She still has to drive a long way to work which was the first reason why she bought the condo, to be close to work, it is to bad that she way over paid.
Another example of an honest american with good decent morals getting screwed by the man. Is'nt that what the super rich teach their kids, these lessons ?
I know a few kids of the super rich and there is no way they would fall for a scam like that.
They either pay cash or get a loan if the deal is 60-80 percent below list no matter what the appraisers say.....
btw it looks like the stock market is going back up for a while that is until they run out of bail out money...... I wonder when the truth will finally be accepted as we are all still in denial
Posted by: Producer08 | February 13, 2008 at 05:12 AM
Cal: Did it ever occur to you that she put the first residence in there, but the lender made the loan anyway? All the lender had to do was to run her credit -- it would have appeared there. Don't automatically assume that she lied, unless you have proof.
Posted by: LeavinLA | February 13, 2008 at 06:04 AM
Saw Peter Viles on the news last nite. Nice to see him in the flesh. He's a hottie! His picture here on the blog doesn't do him justice. Too bad he's married.
Posted by: Gina | February 13, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Condomble - that's the voodoo religion from the Bahia region of Brazil, I believe.
Do you capoeira, Condoblue?
Posted by: MyLessThanPrimeBeef | February 13, 2008 at 08:48 AM
Can't believe she paid half a million dollars for that cruddy condo! It's amazing what people would do at the height of this recent RE market.
Posted by: California Dreamin' | February 13, 2008 at 09:31 AM
I'd rather see a piece on Kate in the Valley. I have a feeling that she looks a lot better on camera than this irresponsible borrower.
Speaking of on camera, Peter, do you plan the evil villain 'Ben' on LOST? If not, you guys could be twins!
Posted by: vultur | February 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Wow, I never realized how popular this blog was until I typed 'condoblue' into Google when I was trying to find a like to yesterday's TV show.
Hundreds of websites (including a bunch in Chinese) picked up Peter's story. Pete - I hope that you are getting P-A-I-D.
It is also pretty easy to find condoblue's actual name. It would be pretty easy for someone to spend a few hours digging through public records and finding every detail of her two house purchases.
If there is fraud... there is no way that she is going to avoid getting sued.
Posted by: Ace | February 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM
"I cant see anyways that the Uniform Residential Loan Application section entitled "Schedule of Real Estate Owned" wasnt filled out fraudently."
I don't think that she needs to fill it out fraudulently in order to get the loan. If she was completely candid about her current finances and the lender STILL GAVE HER MONEY, well, that's the lender's problem, not her problem.
Obviously, she could have lied, but assuming she didn't, it's the 2nd lender that's greedy (stupid?). But then again, it was this stupidity that got all the lenders into this mess in the first place.
Posted by: TrojanDLA | February 13, 2008 at 12:25 PM
LeavinLA:"Don't automatically assume that she lied, unless you have proof."
Read the 1003 http://tinyurl.com/ywpegr
It asks the disposition of the previous home, "enter S if sold, PS if pending sale or R if rental being held for income". What code would you put in there? It doesnt have a F for foreclosure or B for back to the bank.
I've asked repeatedly what she has put in that section and got silence in return. I think the silence is deafening.
Posted by: Cal | February 13, 2008 at 02:29 PM
I've asked repeatedly what she has put in that section and got silence in return. I think the silence is deafening.
Posted by: Cal
This is America. If it bothers you so much, why don't you just do us all a favor and waterboard her?
Condoblue said in the very first exchange on this blog that she is current on the mortgage on her first property, refuses to lie about having a hardship to qualify for a refi and is considering mailing in the keys due to the banks rigidity and because it makes plain financial sense.
Yet, because she didn't respond to your slanderous claims of fraud or simply missed your hopes for her lenders to sue, you now have all the evidence you need to damn her?
Cal, you are just hating right now, and its ugly. Don't assume. Nothing on that form proves condoblue did not factually declare the real estate she previously owned.
Posted by: ProblemWithCaring | February 13, 2008 at 03:14 PM
ProblemWithCaring :"Cal, you are just hating right now, and its ugly. Don't assume. Nothing on that form proves condoblue did not factually declare the real estate she previously owned."
Tell me how you could fill out the Schedule of real estate owned non-fraudulently?
I didnt PROVE it, I cant prove it without seeing the form. But its a reasonable assumption since the form doesnt have a spot to fill in "im letting my old home go back to the bank" that she didnt exactly inform her new lender of this. Omission is fraud as well. I can not tell you a house was built on a toxic waste dump and be guilty of fraud. NOT saying something doesnt mean you didnt lie.
If she said "Oh its my second home/vacation home" and knew she was letting it go back to the bank. Again, fraud.
She knew she is letting the old home go, she didnt inform her new lender of this fact because she knew if would stop her from getting the loan. It is fraud. Plain and simple.
Posted by: Cal | February 13, 2008 at 03:32 PM
Cal: So you're talking out of your a$$, then? Making assumptions you can't prove? That's typical of so many of the "if anyone I don't agree with doesn't boil in oil then there is no God" posters here. This was an interesting blog once. Now it's a venom-filled septic tank for a bunch of illogical haters who think they live perfect lives. Legends in their own minds. Karma's gonna get you all, and it's gonna slap you so hard your children's children will feel it.
Posted by: LeavinLA | February 13, 2008 at 06:54 PM
Hey LeavinLA, if you can come up with a scenario where you are planning to default on your current mortgage and apply for a new one withholding that material fact without committing fraud. I for one would just love to hear it. Lay it on me.
It all sounds well and good and honest until you get down to the nitty gritty details.
If I can "hate on" people going stated income for income they dont make or filing for a OO loan but planning on being a NOO flip then I can "hate on" this lady for committing fraud. It is the exact same thing that was happening during the boom in a different form. I fully support the decision to walk away from the mortgage, I dont support committing fraud to do so. She wants her cake and eat it too. Lower housing price, not renting, and not have to worry about the damage to her credit.
Posted by: Cal | February 13, 2008 at 09:27 PM