Report: Odds against Rep. Richardson reclaiming foreclosed house

The latest on the triple-default woes of Rep. Laura Richardson, from Gene Maddaus at the Daily Breeze: "Rep. Laura Richardson will face an uphill fight as she tries to reclaim her Sacramento house, which was sold in a foreclosure auction three weeks ago."

Why the uphill fight? "It's gonna be very, very hard - even if the sale itself was improper - to get the sale reversed," Richard Timan, an attorney who has handled similar cases, told Maddaus. "People who don't make payments are not beloved by judges."

Richardson, for those just joining us, is a Democrat from Long Beach who was reportedly in default on three separate California houses earlier this year. She lost one of those houses, in Sacramento, to foreclosure, but has maintained the foreclosure sale was "improper" because she had reached a loan modification agreement with her lender.  She has yet to release details of the loan modification.

Elsewhere on the Richardson beat: Jared Allen of The Hill matches Maddaus' work, reporting Richardson's office has now confirmed she was in default on three separate California home loans earlier this year. When the story broke eight days ago, her office wouldn't confirm any defaults.

Allen also picks up the trail first blazed by Anthony York at Capitol Weekly, raising the question of whether Richardson borrowed against her homes to finance her campaigns. Allen: "... ethics watchdogs were crying foul over Richardson’s personal finances and questioning how she was able to lend her campaign to Congress $77,500 in the midst of multiple home loan defaults."

More: "Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that Richardson loaned her campaign a total of $77,500 — in three installments — between June and July of 2007.... (Richardson spokesman William) Marshall was unable to immediately answer questions about whether Richardson borrowed against any of her home equity — from homes she defaulted on — to finance her House campaign."

Analysis: There are a lot of interesting questions here. An e-mailer familiar with the business of loan modifications questions why Richardson's lender would agree to modify the Sacramento loan, pointing out that it would be rare for a lender to modify a loan when:
a) The borrower does not live in the house, and has no plans to live there.
b) The borrower has multiple additional mortgages and is not current on them.
c) The borrower has not tried to rent or sell the property.
d) The loan is significantly underwater -- that is, the property is worth less than the outstanding loan amount.

Your thoughts? Comments? E-mail story tips to peter.viles@latimes.com
Photo Credit: L.A. Times

Comments

[Cal]

Milla:"7.5 is pushing it, don't you think? "

Try find a 2nd mortgage up to 95 or 97% CLTV for 7.5%. You have higher risk because you have a junior lien and thus the higher interest rates. The only cushion for 2nd liens is equity, and you had low equity going in and it's a falling market.

Milla:"if you expect a big ROI on every dollar you pay in taxes, maybe you should write a few letters to your representative about all the tax dollars wasted ..."

It isn't about ROI at all, you were saying that you were paying your mortgage so we don't have to...

The point is that isn't true, you are using tax dollars to pay your mortgage. We are paying for your mortgage. There is no reasonable scenario in the world you can come up with where tax dollars weren't used to subsidize your house.

Milla:"I should indeed thank you for your donation. it made all the difference when i was choosing between the terazzo and laminate countertops."

You're welcome, I'm used to it. And at least we got you admitting we are paying for your mortgage now.

[Geri Mander]

Cal: keep an eye on her. She's still trying to figure out a way to get someone to mop her floors. (Who mops floors anymore???)

[Milla]

Cal: my next mortgage payment is on sunday. feel free to overnight your check to my home address. i also accept paypal.