U.S. Rep. Laura Richardson, the Long Beach Democrat who lost her Sacramento house to foreclosure in May, gets the house back after Washington Mutual decided to rescind the foreclosure, according to the Press Telegram.
Here’s a clip:
Richardson has argued that Washington Mutual made a mistake in allowing the foreclosure to go forward on May 7. She said she had previously agreed to a loan modification and had begun making payments, and that the bank had agreed to postpone the sale until June. … At the time of the foreclosure sale, Richardson owed $578,354.52 on the home, which she had purchased in January 2007 for $535,000.
A real estate broker bought the house at auction for $388,000. He sued Washington Mutual after it rescinded the foreclosure, claiming the bank was giving special treatment to Richardson because she was a member of Congress.
He’s now agreed to settle the suit. Terms weren’t disclosed. “I think you guys can figure out what happened,” he told the Press-Telegram. “I only make business decisions and nothing else.”
Related topics…
- Mapping foreclosures in O.C.
- Foreclosure threat spreads in O.C.
- Nearly 80% of Calif. homeowners lose home after first warning from bank
- June foreclosures top 1,000 for a second month
- 2 of 5 subprime borrowers who got help defaulted again
- Shift in loan delinquencies — prime up, subprime down
- Early foreclosure filings dip in June in Orange County
Haha… the irony of a corrupt Congress person giving a payout to a private business and individual for special treatment, instead of the other way around. I mean, it’s a sad kinda funny, like “how did we get this bad as a country”, but at some point, the absurdity of the magnitude of corruption has to be kinda funny, right?
good job, congresswoman
stand for the president
Shocker.
She owes more than she bought if for? What a shock! Wonder where all the money went to.
some one should file a court case against this transcation
“In a statement, Richardson’s lender, Washington Mutual, said the litigation had been “resolved,” but that the terms are confidential.”
It looks like either the buyer, James York, negotiated a profitable price with WaMu and they paid it, or was told to just hand over the deed at cost.
I’ll guess the first option, despite my cynicism. However, if that’s correct, then I suppose that just hastens the day that we taxpayers will be bailing out WaMu.