Associated Press finds a "Trump voter" in California with a beef about him.Bob Juch wrote:Here's how Teena Colebrook feels: https://apnews.com/0f1305c8742547df9bcf ... -secretary
She failed at a business and she blames the bank. Typical. No personal accountability.
And a well written article, if you want to hide the facts that might make this person look like the fool she may be.
1998 - Purchases triplex for $248,000
- what is not reported is how much equity she put in. Any? None?
???? - Refinances to renovate property and buy additional homes
- We don't know how much "equity" she pulled out but to buy additional homes, but we must assume that. We are told her refinance with cash out was interest only. Not smart.
But, interest only, $2,000/month, at 6% (a rate that is within the rates range of the time periods) it would be about a $400,000 loan. If her rate was lower, she got more money out (that the bank never got back).
- We also don't know if she actually purchased additional homes, how much she invested back in the tri-plex and if she also spent some or all of that cash out equity on personal expenses (car, vacation, clothes, other living expenses)
"Monthly payments ran as high as $2000"....for a minimum of three living spaces in California? That's pretty darn low. So she may have been collecting and spending the cash in excess of the $2,000 for a period of time. But we do not know this, either. Remember, at this point we also don't know how many other places she has to rent out beyond the 2 of 3 in the triplex because we aren't told how many additional homes she purchased. But my guess is none. But, she could have had a $4,000/month income, paying the bank only $2,000/month for 10 years.
"...caused her loan balance to balloon"...."the payoff balance totaled $517,662".
See, we are supposed to think her loan went from $248,000 all the way up to $517,662 due to the bank's fault. But we aren't told what the actual outstanding balance was after the re-fi. She could have had an un-realized appreciation of 50% on that property from 1998 to 2004 and borrowed $400,000, or more, with no equity, taking out $150,000 cash that the bank never got back.
In summary, as far as we know, she put nothing down in 1998, re-fi'd, took out cash on the appreciation, lived rent free when her tenants were covering the interest only payments (and if they were covering more she got to spend that as well), and then she was forced to move out of the building when she couldn't make a $2,000/month note to keep a roof over her head. I guess she didn't "work outside the home" she didn't have any equity in in the first place. So she may have lived rent free, with extra cash to spend for groceries, for 10 years and it was the bank who took a loss on the ultimate sale of the property. Sounds like she could have gotten a good deal.
Also sounds like she may have gone to one of Don Lapre's seminars and bought his books.
In the end, she probably did better than the bank. But she's not happy with Trump.