Forum Post: help if you can. the family could use it.
Posted 12 years ago on Feb. 19, 2012, 9:27 p.m. EST by TakeBacktheBlock
(0)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
https://www.wepay.com/donations/79214
Eloise Pittman bought her home at 404 Glen Iris Dr in 1953. After working in the education system for years, she finally settled in to a life of retirement. At 62 years old, Chase approved her for a $312,000 loan. This loan would have cost her a million dollars to repay. As a senior living on a fixed income she never should have been offered this loan in the first place. The bank gave her this predatory loan knowing she wouldn’t be able to pay it back.
Mrs. Pittman passed away in November of 2011 and with her the debt. However, chase is now threatening to take the home based on the predatory loan given unless the family responds to their options which are either buy the house back at current market value (price wont be provided until the house is assessed) or accept the $2,500 cash for keys offer. These are not acceptable options. We will continue to take offensive action against Chase Bank until a situation forms that doesnt set the Pittmans up to fail in the future.
This is their home. We plan on keeping it that way, but as we fight this long and intense battle, the Pittman family needs your financial support. While struggling to pay off a predatory loan at 10%+ interest, Mrs. Eloise Pittman also fell behind on everyday bills. The Pittman family is continuously paying off expensive bills while also raising money for a headstone for their grandmother.
Thank you for reading. Thank you for helping.
--The pittman family, the occupiers of 404 glen iris, occupy atlanta.
that's horrid
So this was a reverse mortgage? Who knows the details?
[Removed]
Did a google search on this and got a 404 error.
it isnt thier home.. it was hers.. as is her bills.. no one is obligated to pay the bills of a deceased family member. i do not understand wht this fight is about?
Probably, Chase has a lien against the house and all other assets. Until Mrs. Pittman's debt is paid, they have claim to her assets. All of her assets can be sold until debt is paid. Then what is left over will be given to her benefactors.
Why did she take out such a big loan in the first place?
What do you mean, "in the first place"? People need a place to live! Don't be so incensitive.
No, the loan was not for the house, it said she bought it in 1953. Then at the age of 63 she took out this loan.
So what. She probably needed cash because the republicans cut her social security benefits or a corporation decided they needed her money. Don't be so quick to judge people and decide they don't need the things they have.
I am not judging, I am just saying that this article is missing facts. If she took out that loan to buy a new boat and then could not make the payments then I really wouldn't feel bad for her.
I don't think you get it.
There are people in this world with ten boats. The problem is not that she outspend the money that she "had", the problem is that she overspent the amount given to her by people with more.
See what happened there? You assumed that she didn't deserve the luxuries she wanted, even though other people get to enjoy them. That, my friend, is being a mental slave.
Don't try to make money that is already yours. Try to get back money that has been stolen from you.
regardless.. she died. now her debt is clear. she doesnt care if the house is paid for or not.. she probably lived well on that money during the time she had it. are you saying that all she had should be handed over to relatives regardless of how much is owed on it?
I don't care what happens to what she had, I'm saying it's relative because she really had a lot more than that. She deserved her fair share of the GDP and was deprived of it... She really didn't die in "debt", because she was still owed a lot more from the rich.
well then.. now that she is dead.. the question becomes moot. still dont know what the fight is about
Your logic is astounding. Mrs. Pittman took out a loan against her house and she was unable to pay it back before she passed away. Now the bank wants to be paid and will go after the assets. No judgement, just facts. Now if she did buy luxury items with it, then she was being foolish. If she was paying for something of necessity, then there is another discussion. Unless we know more about her story, we cannot judge why she took out the loan, just that it was probably a risky gamble and her family could now lose the house.
It doesn't matter if she took out a $50 million dollar loan. The fact of the matter is, there are people with this kind of money in the world. You think it's fair that she had to take out a loan just to get a few thousand?
That, my friend, is astounding logic.
I am curious about your thinking. I understand that you believe in redistribution of wealth. That if someone has more, then I should have a right to have some of it. Mrs. Pittman had a house that was paid for free and clear. (Before she took out the loan against her home) It would seem fair then, that she should have to share this home with someone that did not have a house. Just following your logic. Am I correct?
Sharing starts with others. You're basically saying, "I'll stop abusing puppies when you become a vegetarian" It doesn't work that way. The greater evil must be solved before the lesser, it is the way the world works. Don't you dream of a world in which people get the things they need and deserve? You probably don't. You and your Republican't friends probably wish for a world in which people who work are rewarded for it. I have pity.
[Removed]