Saving homes with a ‘right to rent’

From the Los Angeles Times


Saving homes with a ‘right to rent’

The plan would help owners facing foreclosure and preserve neighborhoods.

By Dean Baker

August 12, 2009

Less than 10% of homeowners facing foreclosure have benefited from the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program, according to a Treasury Department report this month. This plan is the third federal mortgage modification plan in the last two years, but the foreclosure rate continues to skyrocket, with the country now on a path to 2 million foreclosures this year.

It’s time to try a new route for helping homeowners. There is a simple alternative: Congress can pass legislation that gives homeowners facing foreclosure the right to stay in their home as renters. This “right to rent” policy would require no taxpayer money, no new bureaucracy and could immediately benefit homeowners facing foreclosure.

The basic idea is simple. In recognition of the extraordinary crisis, Congress would give families that took out mortgages at the peak of the boom and are facing foreclosure the option to remain in their homes as renters for a substantial period of time — five to 10 years — while paying the market-rate rent. Earlier this year, Freddie Mac launched a similar policy, giving former homeowners the option to lease their recently foreclosed properties, but on a month-to-month basis. That was a positive step, but it does not give families the housing security they need.

In the markets affected most by the housing bubble bursting, the current rents would be 30% to 50% less than the monthly mortgage payments for homes purchased near the peak of the bubble. This means that many families that cannot afford their mortgage payments would likely be able to afford the market rent.

Although they would lose ownership of their homes under “right to rent,” the residents would be able to stay in their homes, neighborhoods and schools. This would provide families facing foreclosure with needed stability and housing security.

Further, “right to rent” would enable more families to stay in their homes as owners, by giving banks an extra incentive to pursue mortgage modifications. Currently, in spite of the various government programs, most banks have little incentive to pursue modifications. In fact, the Treasury Department reported that as of July, Home Loan Services Inc., with more than 30,000 delinquent loans, was among those that had yet to initiate a single modification under the government’s “Making Home Affordable Program.” While a bank would still be able to sell a home after a foreclosure, the “right to rent” would attach to the home, so that a new owner would have to honor it. This could deter the sale of a home, because a home is much less marketable if it comes with a long-term tenant. If lenders know that they could get stuck with a tenant for five to 10 years, foreclosure would be a much less attractive option.

By keeping homes occupied, “right to rent” also would be a boon to communities that have been especially hard-hit by foreclosures. Often foreclosed homes are abandoned, with unkempt lawns, broken windows and other property damage. Such homes can attract squatters or become havens for drug use and other crimes, which endangers the neighborhood and brings down property values.

“Right to rent” even could slow the general decline in home prices by reducing the volume of homes that are foreclosed and resold on the market. The current rate of almost 2 million annual foreclosures is equal to almost 40% of demand for new and existing homes. If this plan helps reduce the supply of foreclosed homes coming on the market, it would help to stem the slide in home prices.

There is no doubt that the banks would hate “right to rent” legislation. They will likely use all their political power to defeat any bill — and banks are incredibly powerful on Capitol Hill. But we should remember that it was the banks’ greed and incompetence that got us into this mess in the first place.

“Right to rent” is a simple but important break for homeowners who are bearing the brunt of the collapse of the housing bubble. It’s time the banks offered these families a little help.

Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

23 Responses

  1. Question.

    If an attorney alleges to be “attorney In Fact” for the plaintiff (pretender lender) I would assume then that the plaintiff would have to give the alleged Attorney In Fact a Power Of Attorney in order to represent the Plaintiff right?

    And if the alleged Attorney in Fact is in direct violation of the law.
    (In my case alleged attorney for the plaintiff is in violation of F.S. 454.20, Rule 2.060(f) and posted the Non-Resident Cost Bond as “Attorney in Fact as Surety” on behalf of the plaintiff.)

    Then wouldn’t it be fair to say that since the alleged attorney in fact is in conflict and violation of the law that the attorney for the plaintiff should not be allowed to represent the plaintiff?

    here is the law.
    454.11 Powers of attorneys.—Every attorney duly admitted or authorized to practice in this state shall have the right to appear before any court of the state, or any public board, committee, or officer in the interest of any client, and may appear as amicus curiae when so permitted. All attorneys shall be deemed officers of the court for the administration of justice, and amenable to the rules and discipline of the court in all matters of order or procedure not in conflict with the constitution or laws of this state.
    History.—s. 11, ch. 10175, 1925; CGL 4189; s. 7, ch. 22858, 1945.
    454.20 Attorneys not to be sureties.—No attorney shall become surety on the official bond of any state, county, or municipal officer of this state, nor surety on any bond of a client in judicial proceedings.
    History.—s. 20, ch. 10175, 1925; CGL 4198.

    in a recent motion to dismiss hearing, Judge Selph in Bartow, FL Did not care that the attorney was in violation of F.S. 454.20, Rule 2.060(f) (amongst other reasons to dismiss) and allowed the attorney to get away with it.

    after the Judge Denied my Motion To Dismiss I filed a motion for sanctions against the attorney and plan to appeal the MTD as well.

    I would love to hear every ones opinions and ideas or recommendations on this matter. reply to this post + email me if you have time. Thank you!

  2. Dear idiot: If you are a homeowner with a mortgage you have taken a position that shoots yourself in the foot. If you are not a homeowner, you have even more to worry about because of the money that was stolen from millions of people through deceptive and fraudulent practices and which is now being “covered” by the Federal government by simply adding to the illicit profits the banks made with a gift from YOU. Does that make you feel better? If you don’t pay taxes and you have no assets, we will take your comment in context. You obviously have very little information about what is going on. The court decisions are not throwing out the foreclosers because they like deadbeats. They are throwing out these cases because the foreclosers are not lenders and the lenders have been paid. If you think that’s wrong, then maybe someone should tell you that you should stop making your car payment to whatever finance company you used and to start paying them.

  3. So you signed on mortgages and now can’t or will not pay. The banks are supposed to lower your mortgages to what… Something you fell you can afford? I the tax payer am supposed to subsidize you? I say pay up or move out. Playing games with the banks just ties up the courts. They loaned you the money you wanted..quit crying.. Oh yeah this idea being discussed is a delay tactic.. in the long run all dead beats will be out the houses and someone else will buy it. GET REAL!!!

  4. Ny,

    I just answered my own question. The statute reads:

    “On failure to file such bond within 30 days after such commencement or such removal, the defendant may, after 20 days’ notice to plaintiff (during which the plaintiff may file such bond), move to dismiss the action or may hold the attorney bringing or prosecuting the action liable for said costs and if they are adjudged against plaintiff, an execution shall issue against said attorney.”

    My interpretation is that the bank has 30 days from the commencement of the foreclosure action to post bond, if they do not, and I love this part, the attorney bringing the action may be held liable.

    In my case, the bank did not post bond. I filed a Motion to Dismiss and 5 months later, the bank posted bond. So, if I read the statute correctly, that means that if I prevail, I can execute a judgment against the foreclosure mill attorneys.


  5. Ny,

    If the bank posts bond after you file a Motion to Dismiss, are they still in violation of the Fla. statute? In other words, is posting a bond a condition precedent? Or something that a bank can do when it has been brought to their attention?

  6. Make all them pieces of **** post bonds. cost them money. Their lawyers would probably charge them $1000 for it.

  7. Circuit Court Judge in Florida dismisses mortgage foreclosure case for failure to comply with posting of non-resident cost bond.
    August 5, 2009 —
    Trying to defend your mortgage foreclosure
    case? If you review the applicable laws and know how to present your arguments to the judge, then you can prevail against the bank.

    At the hearing on May 26, 2009, Clay County Circuit Court Judge John Skinner granted the borrower’s Motion to Dismiss the pending foreclosure case for failing to post the statutorily required non-resident cost bond.

    Kevin L. Hagen, Esquire of Hagen and Hagen, P.A.
    in Ft. Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida, represented the borrower, Aurel Bumbu, in his mortgage foreclosure case against Citigroup.
    After reviewing the court registry and Mr. Hagen’s Motion to Dismiss, the judge granted the dismissal based upon “the Plaintiff’s failure to have posted the requisite non-resident cost bond….” The Florida Statutes require that a foreign corporation instituting legal action in the State of Florida post a bond with the clerk of court prior to moving forward with the legal action.

    Reviewing initial, minor details, such as Florida Statute 57.011 in Mr. Hagen’s successful motion, may lead to similar results and force the lender to comply with all conditions prior to the court hearing the merits of the case.

    The case may be found at Citigroup Global Markets v. Bumbu, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 737a (Fourth Judicial Circuit, Clay County, June 2, 2009) and Mr. Hagen may be contacted at (954)987-0515 or via electronic mail at

  8. Robert Tapia: An excellent thought. I would consider the county recorder’s office for failure to enforce recording fees and failure to file against nominees like MERS demanding an accounting for the unrecorded transactions and for allowing MERS deeds to be filed which creates an immediate cloud on title, a mortgage that is satisfied at closing but nonetheless recorded as a continuing encumbrance on the land, the county clerk, clerk of the courts for failing to require foreclosers to sue in foreclosure instead of abusing the privilege of non-judicial sale, the attorney general, the banking commission for failure to enforce existing rules and regulations against unregulated entities acting as bankers or lenders within the state, the insurance commission (for failure to regulate credit default swaps), the State Treasurer and the Governor for failure to enforce the state’s recording laws and failure to enforce income tax within the state for all those derivative and CDS transactions that represented profit made on the mortgage, which is an interest in property contained within the state.

  9. An offensive alternative:

    File Recall Petitions against Public servants working for Private cartels.

    Recall is a procedure that allows citizens to remove and replace a public official before the end of a term of office. Historically, recall has been used most frequently at the local level. By some estimates, three-fourths of recall elections are at the city council or school board level. This brief, however, focuses only on the recall as it applies to state officials.

    Recall differs from another method for removing officials from office – impeachment – in that it is a political device while impeachment is a legal process. Impeachment requires the House to bring specific charges and the Senate to act as a jury. In most of the eighteen recall states, specific grounds are not required, and the recall of a state official is by an election.

    Eighteen states permit the recall of state officials:



    New Jersey
    North Dakota
    Rhode Island

  10. today law & justice do not really have anything to do with each other.
    the law[s] nothing more then civil guide lines.
    the RULES of law today allow for the corporate structure[$$] to manipulate the judiciary to their advantage.

    so for non corporate america [ ¢ ] this leaves ..JUST US

    we must persevere to find the weakness in the defense[s] they rely & apply .
    notice the term defense[s] .. this means we must bring THE OFFENSE.

    funny [coincidental] how this is applied term [offense] is applied to our [homeoners ] situation.

    offense |əˈfens| ( Brit. offence)
    1 a breach of a law or rule; an illegal act : neither offense violates any federal law. See note at sin .
    • a thing that constitutes a violation of what is judged to be right or natural : the outcome is an offense to basic justice.

    2 annoyance or resentment brought about by a perceived insult to or disregard for oneself or one’s standards or principles : he went out, making it clear he’d taken offense | I didn’t intend to give offense.

    3 |ˈôfens; ˈäf-| the action of attacking : [as adj. ] reductions in strategic offense arsenals.

    and last but not least

    the example PHRASES
    no offense – informal do not be offended.
    take offense – be offended; feel resentment.
    ORIGIN late Middle English : from Old French offens ‘misdeed,’ from Latin offensus ‘annoyance,’ reinforced by French offense, from Latin offensa ‘
    a striking against, a hurt, or displeasure’ ;
    based on Latin offendere ‘strike against.’

  11. It still amazes me, that though for much of the part, there is crime involved in the way the Banks etc have duped us, that we can’t find justice, since it seems Justice may be blind, but she can still smell money. Without money and with all of these GREAT IDEAS coming from our GOVT. we certainly have our obstacles to find Lady Justice.

    I had seen a clip on this idea of charging us Rent on our own … My thoughts…And, well theirs….

    I know, how bout this creative idea, (anchor labled this Rent your home idea, Creative) this might cut out many of the foreclosures. In many cases, there were predatory loans, mortgage fraud, other illegalities, in these cases, we could PROSECUTE the those responsible, and, or a least, help the homeowners who have spent there last dime, tens of thousands, trying to defend robs you, you can, call the police, prosecute, if threatened, you can even defend your family physically, you can tackle them, throw something at them, in some cases people have even used a gun to protect their home and family. (Of course you would never even consider violence in any way in a Mortgage Scenario such as I am explaining, I use this ONLY as allegory, analysis, emphasis on the devastation) But, when someone comes into your home and uses financial intelligence, education, knowledge, greed, disregard, and a cold dead heart to pull one or two, even three over on you, well, you are just out of luck. No, you cannot (nor should you even consider violence) use any kind of violence. You can not prosecute them, you can take them to court, but you need a bucket full of money. Most cases, you won’t win, cause they will bleed you dry with their endless lawyer funds. You are on your own.

    Having said that, “most cases…etc” I feel myself trying to erase that statement, because so many people just give in, this is what they bank on. In my case, I am presenting the best case I can, 3 years of hard work and sleepless nights, and tears aside, it is the only way I could manage to deal with this. Met several opportunistic, pretentious, and overly secure of their understanding or ability in this area. Wasted money on the wrong attorneys. This can be an impressive motivator for some, me included. I am not finished until I win the case, or they pry my fingers that grasp the front door with all my might as they pull me from my feet.

    The challenge has taught me persiverence, and how credit little I gave myself. So much more, not that I wouldn’t love to have back the irreplacable time lost with my children, spent focusing on the task at hand. In addition to the many other devastating consequences to the fraud, and misrepresentation, etc have resulted.

    Most people in this position don’t have the funds to use the judicial system. All you can do is fight your hardest, hopefully, when you have the law, as it is written, on your side, you can rescue your life. The injustice is infuriating. The thieves who have perpetrated these crimes are defended by our Government. Bailed out, what a surprise it didn’t work. The foreclosed on MANY have been pegged as either those who have lost their jobs, or individuals trying to out smart the financial stability of the Mortgage and Banking Industry, as well as the American Economy.

    The Govt could make it easier to legally pursue justice, in court if necessary, or better laws on Mortgages, or Modification if this is what the owner wants. Some could be time framed. Modification of $X amount, which will increase monthly amount based on this time frame until you are at a comfortable financial state again. Dependent on finance rate available.

    Greed. From the initial decision by our Government to push loans, ok provide, on any and everyone, I imagine in an effort to flow more money into the market. Our Government was so remiss, careless, and so on, they encouraged the people to buy, buy, buy on credit. A materialistic society is a result of that. Then there comes the GREED of the Politicians, the Banks, Wall Street Financial Wizards, Mortgage lenders, Executive Employees, it trickles down to the Underwriters, the Appraisers, the Mortgage Brokers, Compliance Officers, Insurance Companies, Credit Assesors, Risk Management Company owners, and workers, and on and on. Oh, go on, everyone is doing it, it’s not really steeling from people, no you’re not robbing them of their home, your just making an extra buck, just like the others. Of course not everyone was, is doing it, but enough.

    Because the Banking and Financial Industry is incestuous, they blur the lines and cover for one another to the point they are so incestuous you cannot determine who is who. The paper trail is all but lost, it is disguised so only they can see it.

    Now Pres Obama wants to buy the foreclosures and rent your home back to you, “at fair market value” Wonder what that means? Especially since, in my case I have an appraisal from the Appraiser hired by the Broker, says my house is worth $575,000. then one short year later they said in documents they didn’t think I’d ever see… They had someone asess the amount they could get, this figure was $245,000. Hmmmm!!!! This is one more reason for the Mortgage company to FORECLOSE ON YOUR HOME! More incentive. The President is going to pay for them. Maybe the Mortgage companies or the Government, whomever ends up actually owning your home, can find investers for your home, before you know it they’re serving slices of Apple Pie again, oh yeah, that Deed of yours, it is now fragmented, not so much like pie, rather a shattered mirror. Like a Chicken Fight, they placing bets on which Chicken will croke first. How quick will the homeowner lose? The homeowner is shouldering an out weighed abundance of the risk, where as the lender has ittle, even on risk.

    It would just be a new way to scam people, well intentioned or not.

    Who could have guessed? We are right back where we started.

    I wonder who will pay the property taxes? Riiiiiight! You’re a quick study.

    And one more thing, with all the foreclosures coming, and yes there will be more unless people refuse to leave, stand tall to the broken system, where in God’s name, where will all the people live? Government Housing?

    There needs to be an alternative, for those legitimate cases you suggest, but too for the individuals, families who have been scammed, in one of many ways. Wait, I have one more, if the market ever regains and homes go up to a fair market value, you won’t be able to sell and settle your debts and maybe buy something more affordable. Get all that equity you put in, back out. People do pay their homes off. What happens to the home if the owner, now renting dies? There is no equity to settle things up, to leave to their children. I guess the Goverment would take that.

    It really is more appropriate to say Own to Rent. Not only for the homeowner, but soon in all areas of our lives. The Government is essentially taking over our lives, not bit by bit, but in huge chunks. Our Homes, our cars, our healthcare, well hopefully we can maintain controll over our lives and our homes.

    The law is on my side, now it will have to speak to an honest and thoughtful, just Judge.

    Against obstacle and discouragement, with diligence and perseverance we hold the key to life’s reward.

  12. So we should let the pretender lender banks foreclose ( STEAL ) our homes , then ” allow us ” to stay as a renter !

    Dean Baker is a fool and a tool of the banks.

    Mr Baker crawl under the rock you came from.

  13. Finally perhaps Dean Baker needs a new job. If Baker does not understand that the Banks perpertrated this fraud and the way they were going to “make it right” was to STEAL the homes to support the BAD PAPER they created.

    If you don’t get it, ask any homeowner. And Dean Baker, you should get a forensic audit on YOUR mortgage. Devastation of this magnitute can not be the result of defraduing only minorites and the elderly, a few mucky mucks got got too, ya just don’t know it, or won’t admit it.

    Sad and pathetic.

  14. I agree with Angry. Ridiculous. The BANKS must be held accountable for the down fall of the WORLD economy, and to the people of this once GREAT nation that they so boldly and blatantly defrauded.

    These Banks are being allowed to “reorganize” in bankruptcy and if a homeowner files bk, they get dismissed before the ink is dry.

    They do illegal transfers of property and we should pay for this? So I steal your car then DEMAND you make me a monthly payment to keep it?

    Crack is a helluva drug and some of these idiots must be smoking it. If I don’t hear: Principal Reduction; market or below interest rate and 30 year fixed – with the past due 100% forgiven, we will box it out in Court.

    If the bank has grossly and blatantly defrauded you, then you need to fight for FREE and CLEAR.

    Hard work but we can get it done. Perhaps we need to start a petition to the White House so we can GET somthing DONE, in our lifetimes.

  15. I have to agree with the majority of posts here. The Right to Rent Idea is RIDICULOUS and does not deserve further discussion.

    How about REGULATING THE BANKS? How about PENALTIES for the Banks for their BAD FAITH subprime actions?

    Banks got TARP funds, used them for several months WITHOUT supervision or regulation, interest or taxtation. Some banks returned the funds, WITHOUT paying interest or penalties for the use of OUR money. If U get a loan today and decide tomorrow to return the funds, the BANKS will DEMAND an interest payment of some kind. Why does this not apply to the BANKS.

    Finally, MOST subprime loans were NOT for NEW homes. Most were designed to STEAL any and all equity that a home owner had in their homes. Many were refinancing, not first time homebuyers. Many were ELDERLY and HANDICAPPED not to mention minorities.

    A single alottment of TARP funds to a single bank would be sufficient to offer REASONABLE and REAL relief to many homeowners.

    How bout this, if you have 3 violations and can prove your lender provided you with a bad loan on the onset, and defrauded you, you get your home FREE AND CLEAR and they pay you say $250,000 for your troubles. Done Deal. How bout DAT???

  16. who is this guy?
    “Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.”
    for) all intents and purposes seems mr. Dean Baker must a bank brown-nose anal appendage [aka bank-roid]

    smalz said it well… let them eat dog shit.. dean baker included
    homeowners can have da cake!

  17. RIGHT TO WHAT ? ??

    This is nonsense.

    I was denied my right for a due process and decent hearing in violation of the Constitution thanks to the bank filing a fraudulent foreclosure as they are doing with thousands of homeowners all over the United States.

    This must be a joke, to let the bank be owner of my illegally foreclosed house and let them rent it back to me, and still get more profit.


  18. “Right to Rent” is like exercising your Right to get molested. What kind of nonsense is this? The Banks would rather evicting American Tax payers than tell their Chinese Slave Labor Investors that they’re really insolvent and they’re no way to pay them back.

    So in return, people should accept “renting” for stability? Stability of what? Bank balance sheets? Or should I say “imbalance” sheets.

    This is akin to telling Blacks in the 60’s that, “you may now sit in the front of the bus”, like that was some feat of stupendous generosity when all the while it was bogus value was artificially inflated by the act of racism itself. In other words, this old civil rights era mentality proved that if you want to get black people’s money: INSULT THEM. And this is exactly what this proposition smells like. A back handed compliment; “Let them eat dog shit, the cake is for me”

    How about you fraudulent lenders prove you own the debt you’re trying to collect or go to hell.

  19. This provision would play right into the banks’ hands. Instead of writing down a bad loan, they would reclassify the investment and artificially write up the value— holding on to the house only as long as it needs to wait for the house prices to rise through inflation. In the meantime, they will collect some money instead of none… which will also help their bottom line. For homeowners who were in a bad state with an ARM or negative amorization loan, it might be a decent option for a place to live, but this is really a dodge by the banks to avoid responsibility for their bad practices, allowing them to keep the homes until they can get a good price, and collecting income throughout.

  20. Well the support of this article seems to be in conflict with the opinion that most foreclosures are void and homeowners still have ownership interest in property

  21. I believe being able to rent your home is a great idea. Yes, people may lose “ownership” but they can stay in their homes. I fought for 8 onths to get a mondification, I was denied and now the bank is paying me to move out. Of course I will take the money, little that it is, but I would much rather rent my home than move out of a place my children grew up and we have lived in for almost 18 yrs.
    Obama is a joke no matter how you cut it. His program to save our homes was a bag of S… and so is his health plan. Who the hell voted for this guy.

  22. “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,”

    Is it time to get a roommate and have them sign a lease???

    Tucked into the recently enacted Public Law 111-22, signed by President Obama on May 20, 2009, is a provision with far-reaching consequences for the default servicing industry. Entitled “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,” the law requires, in effect, that the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale steps into the shoes of the current owner and becomes a landlord. Ultimately, this will have a dramatic effect not only on timelines, but also on the way assets are handled when transferred to the REO department.

    The new federal law gives tenants much greater rights than they had under the old law. Because of the new law, the investor must now give tenants at least a 90-day notice informing them they face eviction from the property. Furthermore, if the tenant is a bona fide tenant with a bona fide lease agreement, written or oral, entered into before receipt of the notice, then the purchaser at the sheriff’s sale assumes the rights and responsibilities of the landlord, and must honor the terms of the lease.

    For example: if the investor purchased the property, and the current tenant has a one-year lease agreement (oral or written) that was entered into prior to receipt of the notice required under the new law, then the tenant can remain in the property for the remainder of the length of the lease, assuming the tenant continues his obligations under the lease terms, including payment of rent.

    There is a special provision concerning Section 8 tenants. That provision specifically indicates that the purchaser at a sheriff’s sale takes subject to the terms of the Section 8 lease. This includes all responsibilities incumbent upon a Section 8 landlord.

    The lease and the tenant must both be bona fide, which means that the tenant cannot be the mortgagor, or a child or spouse or parent of the mortgagor. The lease must be the result of an arms-length transaction, and the rent cannot be substantially less than the fair market rent for the property.

    The major exception to the new law is for third-party purchasers who intend to occupy the property as their primary residence. If these persons purchase the property to live in, then they are not required to assume the lease agreement, if any, with the current mortgagor; but they are still compelled to provide the tenants with a 90-day notice, prior to commencement of eviction proceedings.

    The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 certainly goes a long way in its aim of protecting otherwise innocent tenants from being evicted without prior notice. However, in doing so, investors will find themselves in the property management business in a manner not previously seen; collecting rents, fixing leaky faucets, and conducting other duties implicit in the landlord-tenant relationship.

    How this will affect HUD properties, where HUD directives require vacant properties in order for HUD to accept conveyance remains to be seen. Time and litigation will tell, but no matter what the outcome, it will delay the sale of REO properties and put a substantial burden on some property management.

  23. hahaha
    “It’s time the banks offered these families a little help.”
    this guy make a funny..

    help!? HELP? yea help to get your wallet out so the banks can take the $ from you faster while your going down for the 3rd time… this is the help you can expect.

    just as with the securitization model… they screwed everyone as fast as they can to collect $$ because its betting on the sure loser covered by the 2nd great american fraud – another scam created by the banksters..
    im f@#KIN sick of em

Contribute to the discussion!

%d bloggers like this: