Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Why the low starting bid on Larchmont?


I sure hope that our daily visits from Countrywide and Pinkertons are documenting the fact that Casey never intended to pay his $50k note and now disavows the debt entirely.

Casey was surprised at the $216k starting bid. Nothing surprising. The bank had an outstanding balance and costs of $266k minus his $50k note.

59 comments:

The Original Kevin said...

Ob my morning commute to Hell this am, I sat right next to a woman who waw the spitting image of Casey....

notme said...

Wasn't CS supposed to make the first payment on that note around now?

Cased! said...

Casey has decided that he shouldn't have to pay the note, so he doesn't have to pay the note.

Besides, he doesn't have any money - do you know how much murses cost these days?

The Original Kevin said...

Wow - It appears I can't spell in the am...

When FFCers Attack said...

The #75 / #129 Sean SISB drama over at IAFF is pretty entertaining if anyone is interested.

Cased! said...

Besides, paying the note back would mean that Casey would have to pay back the sweet cash back he got under the table when he closed on the Larchmont house.

No Deal! - remember Larchmont is now "just memories" to Casey...

lawnmower man said...

As I said on AIFF, he'd have been less surprised if he'd actually read the foreclosure notice; it explicitly says that the starting bid may be lower than the indebtedness due.

The speculation on the $50K note is sweet, but doesn't quite add up; the foreclosure notice states that the outstanding balance, interest, and costs are $281K, not $266K. Sorry dawg.

Oh, and this is new in Casey's header:

"Are you facing foreclosure? Email me for help."

*boggle*

Ogg the Caveman said...

@ lawnmower man

"Are you facing foreclosure? Email me for help."

He's probably looking for more sweet deals with distressed sellers. Too bad he can't get a loan. Given his track record of overpaying, it could be a sweet deal indeed -- for the seller.

lawnmower man said...

@Ogg: yes, that's my read too. He likes to position himself as providing education to others in the same situation; but his history shows him as considerably more predatory.

A couple of comments on IAFF suggest he will have a tax liability on the foreclosure -- is this true? Does anyone actually *know*? My fear is that a lot of the outcomes speculated on here and there are based in hater wishful thinking rather than fact.

notme said...

@ lawnmower man:

http://www.wwlaw.com/forecl.htm

I've been trying to figure this out at the above link. From what I can gather Casey's is a recourse loan. I think he would have taxable profit under the 'relief from debt' income. If the value of the loan from CW was 280K and they didn't even get 216K then Casey looks to be on the hook for taxes on 64K. I could be wrong, though. I am not an attorney.

Stephanie J. said...

@Original
Was your kneejerk reaction to get out of your car and bitch-slap her/him?

Some Guy From Colorado said...

"Are you facing foreclosure? Email me for help."

My guess is that he has hooked up with some scammer operation that takes advantage of people that are about to lose their homes.

That being said, there's only one real way to find now, isn't there??

lawnmower man said...

Check out today's IAFF post. The juice is a troll, obviously, but the comments are gold:

* Casey and Galina had a *huge* fight after the auction: "heavy conversation about personal conflicts/money"; leading of course to the inevitable nap "to recover energy and distress".

* Casey can't afford to fix VDub's busted tire; or even to buy gas for Yulia's car.

* Mysterious "business partners", both local and distant.

* Utah "still unresolved"; "kind of ignoring this problem"; "late fees are stacking up".

* Casey is visiting Utah this weekend. Sweet followup comments from haters: "with what money?" "the UT buyer is gonna break your kneecaps".

It all smells *very* fishy to me.

The Original Kevin said...

Steph - I would've, but I was distracted by her chin hair. Seriously, stubble like Casey (okay a little on the peach fuzz type, but still).

Stephanie J. said...

GET FORECLOSURE HELP BY DRINKING JUICE????

That is the trolliest statement he's ever made... purposefully to raise the ire of haters like me.

Success Casey... I'm in kill-mode.

Thank your lucky stars I don't live there; you'd be all over my brush bar.

Stephanie J. said...

@ Kevin
Ew. ::shudder::

Pseunami said...

When FFCers Attack,

Yes, that was a curious comment. So many mini-dramas circling around Casey…

lawnmower man said...

More gold: in IAFF comment #21, Nigel gets snarky:

You know what relieves the pressure of foreclosure and collection calls better than juice? That’s right, a job and money.

Yes Nigel. Give into your hate. Join us on the dark side.

The Original Kevin said...

Is Casey just addicted to house shopping? Is he just depressed??

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/15/debt.overspender/index.html

Freudian Flip said...

Anyone care to armchair psychiatry speculate on the reasons for Nigel's miraculous changeover (and combover)? Does he feel that he has been burned due to his credibility being besmirched by hitching his lips to Casey's anus? Or is he merely linkwhoring as always and trying to appeal to the hater crowd?

And did anyone else notice that Brian S. Nick hasn't shown his self-righteous face around there again?

Stephanie J. said...

@Kevin
Early on in his blog, I posted about his addictive behaviour. Look up the symptoms and behaviour of gambling addicts; and you'll see classic Casey...

R-Boy said...

I was re-reading some older posts, in Nov 2006 Casey posted "I guess I need a real job"

Boy, he sure is proactive. Also, when he got his first foreclosure his wife went nuts on him.

Remember, the conversation was from 1:30-5:00. That's a very long fight.

lawnmower man said...

Are you facing foreclosure? Email me for help.

Gone. Still in the page source, but commented out.

Anonymous said...

Nigel wants to meet up with him.

Hey, Nige, Bring the money and the KY...

dsw said...

Freudian Flip:

I'll bite...

Nigel will become a most fervent hater for the same reason Galina will (she's already well on her way). If I stuck my neck out to try to be nice to someone, even if I were a bit of an attention-hungry whore myself, I'd get even more mad when I got burned. It's that much more personal.

Pseunami said...

Well, making his own juice rather than drinking Jamba’s suggests some degree of progress. “Small wins” as that debt article states. I wonder how much the juicer cost though…

notme said...

~90 at Amazon.

Freudian Flip said...

@ dsw
I think you're right. But I also wonder if Nigey doesn't look at the stat meter over here and realize that Rob's blog blew through the roof and his enjoyed a mild surge at best.

There just ain't no money in cheerleading, Nigey. Hatin is where it's at. Enjoy your marginalization.

@ Pseunami
I'm pretty sure Casey has had that juicer since the Earth Mission days.

Sue Notme said...

Post #18 “What do I do all day” is entertaining.
I assume that was someone around here?

A Hopping Mad Stephanie J. said...

10 Reasons Why Casey Should Be Shot Into The Sun:

1. It takes him an hour to juice up some veggies, drink the crap, and then clean it up. He then takes another hour to make a list of his INactivities to post on his blog.

2. His entire day consists of self-serving, pleasure-oriented, mindless crud. He accomplishes jack squat and expects to continue living this way somehow without lifting a bloody finger.

3. He thinks himself a talented investor; only victimized by a declining market. He is absolutely blind to the fact that his impulsive decisions and efforts to cheat the system are the principle reasons why he’s in trouble. The bubble is only incidental; even without the plumetting housing market; he’d probably *still* be in deep shit.

4. He doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong.

5. He clings to, and takes advice *only* from people as deluded and stupid as he is. Everyone else who disagrees is a hater.

6. He thinks he’s a victim; call the Pope, let’s get him canonized.

7. He’s more concerned about his appearance and his digestive tract than he is about his failing marriage and his financial future currently swirling down the toilet.

8. He ignores things that are even the slightest bit challenging; trying to pawn it off on other people. That’s what his blog is really about--a sucker-search to take the burden off him.

9. He says he takes responsibility for his mistakes, and then pretends that the consequences of his mistakes don’t exist. What promissory note? What house in Utah?

10. He’s short(for easy drop-kicking); he’s effeminate, he’s lazier than molasses in January, he’s stupid and he and his wife look like twelve-year-olds. He’s a total narcissist and thrives on all of the attention he gets, even ours.

GOD I HATE CASEY! He makes my blood boil. What a fucking waste of humanity.

Anonymous said...

@lawnmowerman

Larchmont Debt:
When a property is foreclosed through Trustee Sale in CA the lender cannot seek any kind of deficiency judgment. Bids are sometimes lowered to either the current market value of the property(as determined by a Broker Price Opinion), or to a bid amount low enough to entice a third party bidder. The difference between the outstanding debt and the bid received is uncollectable.

The second loan still exists, but no longer has the property as security. In effect, it's now similar to the CC and CashCall debt.

3500 Coyote Dr said...

What is the significance of the 3500 Coyote property shown in the jjuice flkr stream? Also there, who or what is the "homage to Conal?"

UncleC

Ogg the Caveman said...

anon @ 11:02:

The second loan still exists, but no longer has the property as security.

Now that I did not know. So if I understand correctly, Casey is still on the hook for $116k ($66k 2nd mortgage plus $50k CW unsecured note) on the Larchmont property.

So much for "One less house to worry about".

Freudian Flip said...

@ Ogg
Plus tax on the $65k 1099.

ratlab said...

The 3500 property was linked to Casey via some data mining by Homey. It is a brand new house in West Sac that is not occupied, has no furniture, and looks like a flipper house gone bad.

Conal = Robbie Conal

Anonymous said...

I'm getting an erro on his site that references this:

mysql.iamfacingforeclosure.com.

Gee, I wonder what might have caused that!??

R-Boy said...

Speaking of Homey, where is he?

Freudian Flip said...

Hi, I'm not a real-estate mogul, but that won't stop me from posting my CS post foreclosure debt estimate:

G's cards and lines: $26.3k
CS's cards, lines, and loans: $148.4k
Larchmont 2nd: $66k
Larchmont CFC promissory: $50k
Larchmont 1099: $65k x 0.35 = $22.7k
Muncy 2nd: $64k
Muncy 1099: none
Burdett 1099: $59.7k x 0.35 = $20.9k
Guadalajara 2nd: $85.4k
Guadalajara 1099: none
Other liabilities: $8.1k
Total: $491.8k

Assumptions: Utah stays wrapped, Muncy, Burdett, Guadalajara foreclose, actual foreclosure sale value of properties is 98% of Casey's spreadsheet estimate (like Larchmont), 2nds are recourse in NM, no 1099 from Dallas, 1099 income is enough to put him into the 35% bracket and not long term capital gains (rate would then be 15%), Casey's spreadsheet is remotely accurate.

Looks to me like Casey and Galina will jointly be on the hook for about a half mil after the houses are gone. BK anyone?

Admittedly, my calculations are not necessarily correct as I am neither an ass-kicking forensic accountant or a championship-losing champion Navy near-SEAL.

Precious Roy said...

"When a property is foreclosed through Trustee Sale in CA the lender cannot seek any kind of deficiency judgment."

Snowflake likes to fall back (forward?) on this point a lot - seems to think that he is off the hook after the foreclosure. But didn't someone once post here that actual statute that _does allow_ the CA lenders to seek deficiency in cases of fraud?

Also, Re: 1099-Misc on the forgiven debt, several have noted that Snowflake will not be taxed if he is insolvent (which he certainly appears to be). I'm not a lawyer or a tax professional, but I suspect that he will have to prove his insolvency (but I could be wrong). Given his lack of initiative and follow-through on all things that stand up to common sense, I suspect the IRS will still be a headache for him even if he has no assets.

Ogg the Caveman said...

That half a mil is within sneezing distance of how much several people, including Tim MBA, figured Casey was in the hole by.

Freudian Flip said...

The bummer is that it will all go away in BK.

Rob Dawg said...

I figger it closer to $600k at this point as I assume top tax bracket; 31.5% Fed + 9.3% CA, that no-recourse does not apply because of fraud, he isn't finished, and he isn't telling the whole truth.

Earlier it was also pointed out that $216k + $50k didn't equal the accumulated $281k but I was assuming Countrywide was just going after their exposure not their profits. If they got the $216 thay could erase the loan and call it a wash for their books and send the "B Team" in to try for a little more.

The Invisible Middle Finger said...

I'm not a tax expert, but it seems to me that most people here are double counting the 1099 and the promissory note. Seems to me that the promissory note counts against the forgiven debt, so the 1099 would only be for $15K or so.

Anonymous said...

Ogg@11:58

I don't know any specifics about the CW $50k note, it may or may not exist.

@Precious Roy
The lender potentially COULD have sought a deficiency through judicial foreclosure and yes, it is sometimes done in CA.
The Trustee Sale process desn't allow it. You can probably find some background by searching for "California one action rule"

There are at least two IRS publications regarding foreclosure and BK
IRS Publication 544
IRS Publication 908

Asking either IRS forgiveness of debt or a Bankruptcy Trustee to disharge debt will certainly be interesting given the public admissions of fraud.

Precious Roy said...

From the State of California's Department of Real Estate webpage. Take note of the second line:

"Deficiency judgments are not available when the non-judicial foreclosure method is utilized. However, collateral actions (a separate judicial action) for fraud, waste, or malicious destruction of the Property may still be possible."

http://www.dre.cahwnet.gov/trust.htm

Again, I'm not a lawyer. But given that Snowflake as admitted to mortgage fraud in a public forum, the non-judicial foreclosures may not be an end to his housing debt. I don't know if his cases qualify under the "may still be possible" statement, but I wouldn't be napping easily if I were in his shoes.

Anonymous said...

@Precious Roy

http://www.maldonadomarkham.com/california-foreclosure-law.htm
might provide some interesting reading for you.

Even in the case of the second, who could seek a judgment, they probably will not incur the expense for something that appears to be uncollectable.

Jade said...

I wonder if the Utah buyers read the blog

Precious Roy said...

"@Precious Roy

http://www.maldonadomarkham.com/california-foreclosure-law.htm
might provide some interesting reading for you."

It is an interesting webpage, but I did not see where it addresses the issue of mortgage fraud.

I have seen a number of references stating that in CA, the lender cannot pursue a deficiency judgment after a non-judicial foreclosure. But these references do not address circumstances involving mortgage fraud.

I have also seen a number of references - one of which I provided above - stating that in CA, that prohibition does not apply in cases involving fraud. As I recall, this is consistent with the actual statute sitting on the books in CA which someone had posted a while ago.

What I have not seen is a reference which _explicitly_ states that even in cases of mortgage fraud, a CA lender is prevented from suing a borrower for the deficiency after a non-judicial foreclosure.

walt526 said...

Wow, ~$500-600k in the hole.

You know, back in September if he had just kept his mouth shut and declared bankruptcy, he probably could have quietly shed nearly all of this debt. But by starting the blog, doing the interviews, signing the promissory notes, delaying BK, etc. he has greatly increased his exposure to both criminal charges while decreasing the amount he'll likely be able to discharge via a bankruptcy filing.

And he was warned many, many times by many, many different people to just shut up, declare bankruptcy, and hope that he gets lost in the shuffle of the very many flip-floppers throughout the country. Instead, the self-deluded narcissist has done imaginable to limit his options and very possibly find himself in legal hot water.

Going back to where Casey was in September 2006, if you were going to intentionally try to ruin your life, is there anything else that you could have done to worsen the situation? Aside from cheating on Galina or otherwise pissing her off to the point where she'd testify against him (although she very well might wind up doing this anyway), he's pretty much done everything conceivable to dig a very deep hole for himself and Galina.

-walt526

Anonymous said...

@Precious Roy

Code of Civil Procedure Section 726

The foreclosure is done and there is admitted, but not proven fraud at this point. If the lender wanted to seek a judgment for whatever reason, they'd proceed judicially rather than the quicker non-judicial process.

Anonymous said...

Two questions:

1. I thought that he wriggled his way out of that $50K note?

2. If (when?) he declares bankruptcy, then what? He starts out at zero with a horrible credit rating and that's it? Would he face any wage garnishments in the future? Someone said he is about $490K in the hole, how much of that could be discharged?

Okay, that's more than two ?s, sorry.

Legion said...

@anon 5:27pm

1. yeah you know how he wriggled his way out of that note? He just wiped it off his spreadsheet and pretends it disappeared.

2. Not all debts are discharged in bankruptcy, particularly when it involves fraud, using credit when it is obvious they were never going to repay, and taxes. also as stated most of the 2nd lenders can go after him for everything since otherwise they would lose everything.

walt526 said...

"1. I thought that he wriggled his way out of that $50K note?"

No. He claims that he doesn't have to pay it because the short sale never went through. However the note does not provide an escape for that contingency; in fact, it explicitly says that the promissory note is enforceable regardless of the sale. So its another unsecured debt that he will have difficulty discharging through BK because its so recent. In short, its one of the worst financial decisions that he could have made last month.

"2. If (when?) he declares bankruptcy, then what? He starts out at zero with a horrible credit rating and that's it? Would he face any wage garnishments in the future? Someone said he is about $490K in the hole, how much of that could be discharged?"

There seems to be differing and conflicting opinions on how much of the debt he'll be able to discharge given the fraud involved. At this point, it doesn't really matter--its going to be more debt than he can ever hope to service given his limited earnings potential. If he gets a decent BK lawyer, he can probably discharge at least 2/3rds of the debt (although probably not keep himself out of jail). And whether he ultimately has to pay back $600k or just $200k, its going to be very painful for a very long time.

I don't have any personal experience with them, but I believe that CA law limits wage garnishments to 25% of your gross pay. In addition, his creditors can seek to satisfy judgments by liquidating any asset that he cannot protect via bankruptcy.

I really can't see this ending any other way than him going underground, killing himself, or fleeing the country. All of his options at this point are terrible and there's a very good chance that he'll wind up divorced and in jail, in addition to being completely broke and a sub-500 FICO. If I were in his shoes, I'd take one of those three options.

-walt526

Freudian Flip said...

Invisible Middle Finger-
You're right, the lender would probably have to deduct the promissory note amount from the forgiven debt.

Walt526-
Is the conclusion that the note is still enforceable a definite? I recall him posting most of the note, but not the whole thing. Do we know for sure that there was no escape clause?

Anonymous said...

@Pseunami said...

The little drama's not really that interesting when you know the truth.

www.fuckedcompany.com used to have a very busy and almost completely unmoderated messageboard. Sean posted there for a long time, and when FC closed he and a lot of the other people moved to another board called FFC, which later got sold and renamed.

http://www.whofailedtoday.com/newbbs/viewforum.php?id=1

At annnnnnnnnny rate, Sean owned the living hell out of a lot of people over the years, and others pop in and try to take little swipes at him. IAFF is a very popular topic on the various FC spinoff messageboards.

The "James Marks", "Lep", and "pud" posters on IAFF are also old FCers, and they're trolling with names of other FCers.

SISB-Sean, however, is the real Sean.

At any rate, if you want to come troll with the rest of the psychopaths, feel free to drop by.

UncleC said...

Because the size of his debt is so large, I think Casey will have to file for chapter-13 BK instead of the easier chapter-7. This means a much more rigorous financial examination by the BK trustee is required. This must be spooking him into the long delay in filing.

walt526 said...

"Is the conclusion that the note is still enforceable a definite? I recall him posting most of the note, but not the whole thing. Do we know for sure that there was no escape clause?"

I'm nearly certain at some point the entire note was posted by Casey, although its just the abbreviated version now. What was the Casey archive site?

In any event, if that language did exist, why wouldn't he post it just to shut the "haters" up? He's gotten plenty of grief over it for the past month.

-walt526

Anonymous said...

@ walt526
I haven't seen specifics on that note, video captures of parts of it don't mean much.

As I think I've referenced already, the lender can seek one action as part of their foreclosure process, they can't say "Hey, we foreclosed the property, but you still owe us on this note you signed".

I am unsuited for repeated coverage of the same topic.

Anonymous said...

According to my understanding "one form of action" and contract law concepts such as "consideration" do NOT apply to a note or draft.

Just as when you write a check, you are obliged to honor that check regardless of whether you received anything in exchange or not.