Living in a dead person's house, it's in a Reverse Mortgage

Murrmurr

Murrmurr

SF VIP
Location
Sacramento, California
I need information and I hope someone here can help.

I know this lady named Jackie; known her for years; her mom and my mom were next-door neighbors. Jackie is my former foster son’s grandmother and she’s going to try to get custody of him and his younger siblings, but I doubt she’ll succeed. I think she's just going to mess that relationship up, and here's why...

Jackie lives in her parents’ house. They got a reverse mortgage about 12 years ago. The Mr died a decade ago and the Mrs died last March. Jackie hasn’t told the bank that her mother died. So question #1; Isn’t the bank gonna find out the Mrs is dead and evict Jackie?

Jackie thinks her brother somehow took out a $400K loan on the house about 5 years ago. Question #2; Is that even possible?....can someone borrow against a house that’s in a reverse mortgage?

Jacki pays $450/mo to the bank. She says it’s because of that loan, which makes no sense. I think she’s paying homeowner’s insurance and property taxes through the bank, like her parents did. She has no paperwork about a loan.

If Jackie takes her daughter to court for custody of the grandkids, her daughter might bring up the crap about the house in court, and Jackie would lose her case based on an unstable living situation. Then the whole thing would just further alienate Jackie and her daughter, and her daughter wouldn’t let her ever see the kids again, I’m sure of that.

Anyway, if anyone has any idea about what the bank will probably do, please comment. Thanks!
(Jacki doesn’t make much money so there’s no way she could ever buy the house.)
 

Jackie is not allowed to live in this house. There have been cases where the widow was kicked out because the mortgage was only in husband's name. The house belongs to the bank. DEFINITELY
 
Pepper said:
Jackie is not allowed to live in this house. There have been cases where the widow was kicked out because the mortgage was only in husband's name. The house belongs to the bank. DEFINITELY
Click to expand...
Plus, I'm thinking the bank could sue her. The property was last appraised at $400K, but not for the house. The house is old and in disrepair. The property is an acre of prime land in a growing city. The bank would sell it to a developer, I'm sure, and I'm thinking it's a financial loss for the bank as long as she's living there.
 
The bank wouldn't waste it's time suing a poor old woman like her. They just want her out. She did commit fraud in knowingly not telling them. She's out.
 
Pepper said:
The bank wouldn't waste it's time suing a poor old woman like her. They just want her out. She did commit fraud in knowingly not telling them. She's out.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right.

I think you know she had a drug problem for a whole lot of years. She's worked really hard getting her life straight but she doesn't have much common sense. I'm trying to talk her out of trying to get custody of Collin and the twins. It's going to backfire big time. And, honestly, Jackie's still learning how to take care of herself.
 
Ceege said:
I wonder if they could start charging her rent?
Click to expand...
Hi Ceege.

They've been charging her $450/mo, and she pays it. She says the payments are for a bank loan that her brother secretly took out against the house. But I don't think you can borrow against a house that's in a reverse mortgage. I think she's paying through the bank for home insurance and annual taxes, like her parents did.

I don't know if the bank will be willing to work with her on...idk, some sort of arrangement. Maybe let her keep living there for the $450/mo until they sell the property. I just don't know, but I'm sure it'd be temporary.
 
There isn't whole lot of this story that makes sense. You didn't mention why Jackie wanted custody of her daughter's kids. And $4,,000 seems awfully cheap for taxes on a appraised $400,000 property? You can't secure a loan on property you don't own- so the brother's story is fishy, even more if he did get a loan. The bank's interest is getting repaid, not having a broken down property. So arrangements can be made. Of course. if there is a loan, which nobody is too sure of. What about the parents will? Did they have one? That makes a huge difference-who are legal heirs. If Jackie's name is not on the deed, this is all moot. I don't know enough about reverse mortgages, and child court proceedings, and from the sounds of it, neither does Jackie. She needs to see a lawyer, now.
 
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy said:
There isn't whole lot of this story that makes sense. You can't secure a loan on property you don't own- so the brother's story is fishy, even more if he did get a loan. The bank's interest is getting repaid, not having a broken down property. So arrangements can be made. What about the parents will? Did they have one? That makes a huge difference-who are legal heirs. I don't know enough about reverse mortgages, and child court proceedings, and from the sounds of it, neither does Jackie. She needs to see a lawyer, now.
Click to expand...
Jackie's the one who thinks her brother took out a loan. I agree with you; I think she's wrong. So thanks for that confirming vote.

The parents didn't have any kind of will. The house was their only asset, they borrowed against it twice within 15 years of buying it, then got the reverse mortgage when they were about 30 years in and still paying those off. So I guess they figured they didn't have anything to bequeath.

Jackie says she has a lawyer. He's the friend of a friend and lives in another state. She has no disposable income or savings so he's probably helping her pro-bono or something, idk.

I wish I could help her but I don't think I can. I mean, I don't know much about reverse mortgages, either. I have gotten to know her daughter pretty well, and I have zero doubt that if Jackie tries to take her kids, Jackie will lose, and she'll never see her grandkids again. She's a nice lady, she works hard, and she totally, totally loves her grandkids, but she's her own worst enemy.
 
Murrmmurr. If Jackie's name is NOT on the deed. She doesn't own it. And if you die without a will, you die "intestate", and legalities take over as to who owns what. Jackie can't just move in.
Murrmmurr, this is not making much sense. How much of this can you really prove?
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Murrmmurr. If Jackie's name is NOT on the deed. She doesn't own it. And if you die without a will, you die "intestate", and legalities take over as to who owns what. Jackie can't just move in.
Murrmmurr, this is not making much sense. How much of this can you really prove?
Click to expand...
She's been living in the house for years.

I know it's not making sense, and I've told her that. She doesn't have any paperwork about the loan she thinks her bro took out. imo, there never was one. She pays the bank $450/mo. She thinks she's paying toward this invisible loan. I told her she's either paying thru the bank toward homeowner's insurance and the annual taxes, or on money her parents owe - when they set up the reverse mortgage, they took the option of a lump sum over a monthly stipend, so maybe that has something to do with the payments Jackie's making, idk.

Bottom line is, I think the bank will evict Jackie when they realize her mother died back in March. And that's going to come into play if she files for custody of her grandkids. She's going to lose the house and the custody case, and her daughter will never let her see the grandkids again.

I just hate to see it happen.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
There isn't whole lot of this story that makes sense. You didn't mention why Jackie wanted custody of her daughter's kids. And $4,,000 seems awfully cheap for taxes on a appraised $400,000 property? You can't secure a loan on property you don't own- so the brother's story is fishy, even more if he did get a loan. The bank's interest is getting repaid, not having a broken down property.
Click to expand...
Sorry Fuzz, I forgot to answer that part.

3 years ago Jackie's daughter, Tara, had her kids taken by State Child Protective Services; the oldest one first, and then twins born 10 months later; because the babies tested positive for meth. I took the oldest child into foster care; I was his foster dad. 2 1/2 years later, Tara finally completed a drug rehab program and the court gave her custody of her kids. Jackie wants the grandkids because she knows Tara is drinking again (but she doesn't think she's using drugs) and is abusive toward the oldest child, the one I fostered for 2 1/2 years. So, basically that's what's going on with that.

As for the property taxes, I don't know anything about that. If the bank takes the house, I'm sure they'll sell it to a developer and a developer would just tear the house down. It's very outdated and in disrepair. It's not even on the sewer line; one of the few houses there that's still got a septic tank. The property is 1 acre in a quiet neighborhood in Orangevale, CA, which isn't a city but a township. It's fast becoming a very desirable area; subrural but near 2 major freeways, a large mall and trendy restaurants.
 
I think this woman has some legal wrangling's in her future. I think that if she was smart, she would consult an attorney ASAP. I have no definite knowledge of a situation like this, but even if I suspected that I may be arrested, I would at the very least get some legal counseling. Banks are notorious for not backing down when it comes to their entitlements. They don't play games.
 
From my understanding, if you don't leave your home to an heir when you die......then the bank takes back your home.

I don't understand how she's still living there. The bank must know that the original owners have passed away??

Eta: i see where you say that the mother passed in March...so Maybe the bank isn't aware yet.
 
911 said:
I think this woman has some legal wrangling's in her future. I think that if she was smart, she would consult an attorney ASAP. I have no definite knowledge of a situation like this, but even if I suspected that I may be arrested, I would at the very least get some legal counseling. Banks are notorious for not backing down when it comes to their entitlements. They don't play games.
Click to expand...
She got in touch with an attorney who's the friend of a friend and lives in another state. He happens to be an estate attorney, or so she says. Jackie is not smart. She's clever, but not smart. She just doesn't do things the way most people do, and it's usually not a great idea. If that attorney is for real, he'll tell her she's gonna have to look for another place to live, right?

That's what I'm hearing. She's outa there. Soon as the bank realizes the mother is dead.

Crazier still, Jackie keeps putting money into that place. Not really fixing anything, it's mostly cosmetic. Like she just put in new countertops in the kitchen. She didn't like the old ones. I guarantee she'll rip those suckers out and take em with her when she gets evicted. She'll walk down the street with 8 feet of countertop under her arm and 5 names in her head of people she thinks will say "Oh, yeah, sure I'll store those for you indefinitely."
 
dobielvr said:
From my understanding, if you don't leave your home to an heir when you die......then the bank takes back your home.

I don't understand how she's still living there. The bank must know that the original owners have passed away??

Eta: i see where you say that the mother passed in March...so Maybe the bank isn't aware yet.
Click to expand...
You'd think the mother's social security number would be flagged or something. The mother died in a hospital, so soc-sec knows. Jackie's not getting her mom's soc-sec checks or anything. But I wonder how the bank would know she's deceased?
 
It does not matter if Jackie's family lived in the house since 1756, if her name is not on the deed, she does not own the house. PERIOD. If Jackie's mother died in March, with or without a will, there has to be a settling of her mother's estate. If, as you say, her mom died without a will, the estate is divided by certain laws, after paying off ALL creditors.. Her brother would be also be an heir, unless he gives up his rights. If there was a lien on the house, heirs can make arrangements to carry on the loan. To be honest, Jackie doesn't sound like she went through any of these legalities. She's sending the bank $450/month for something? How do you know it's not her mom's credit card debt? I'm not an attorney, but even I know some of this. I can't believe a real attorney is involved with Jackie.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
It does not matter if Jackie's family lived in the house since 1756, if her name is not on the deed, she does not own the house. PERIOD. If Jackie's mother died in March, with or without a will, there has to be a settling of her mother's estate. If, as you say, her mom died without a will, the estate is divided by certain laws, after paying off ALL creditors.. Her brother would be also be an heir, unless he gives up his rights. If there was a lien on the house, heirs can make arrangements to carry on the loan. To be honest, Jackie doesn't sound like she went through any of these legalities. She's sending the bank $450/month for something? How do you know it's not her mom's credit card debt? I'm not an attorney, but even I know some of this. I can't believe a real attorney is involved with Jackie.
Click to expand...
Yeah, she knows that. It's like she thinks the bank is just gonna let everything slide, or work with her or whatever. Not going to happen. It isn't the Bank of Kind Souls, it's freaking Wells Fargo.

It's in reverse mortgage so the bank basically owns it, holds the deed or whatever. There's no credit card debt. She doesn't actually know what the $450/mo is for, she's just satisfied thinking of it as cheap rent. She isn't paying for homeowners insurance and doesn't get a property tax bill, so I'm pretty sure the bank covers that, and she gets charged $450/mo by their home finance dept. She's never given me a clear explanation for this.

"I can't believe a real attorney is involved with Jackie."
Me too. She just sent the guy a bunch of documents a month ago. Don't know if she's heard from him since. He's probably still scratching his head, if he's legit.
 
Here in Texas you can go online and see if property taxes have been paid or not. I imagine every state has some form of this. I know because I looked up an address for a friend who was looking at a property to buy but did not know if the taxes were current or not. He did not feel he could trust what the owner was saying about them. The taxes were in arrears and had all kinds of fees attached. Therefore he did not trust anything the owner was saying.
 
terry123 said:
Here in Texas you can go online and see if property taxes have been paid or not. I imagine every state has some form of this. I know because I looked up an address for a friend who was looking at a property to buy but did not know if the taxes were current or not. He did not feel he could trust what the owner was saying about them. The taxes were in arrears and had all kinds of fees attached. Therefore he did not trust anything the owner was saying.
Click to expand...
That's a good idea. I'll give her the web address for Calif. If they're current I'll tell her to see if she can access payer info.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top