Thanks to you, dickwad, I had to inform a seventy two year old man that, yes, the goverment can take his house. You just had to have your student loans to go to college, but never explained to him that he was ultimately responsible for them.
I hope your proud of yourself, that your father was there to help your sorry ass, and then you go and screw him out of everything that he has. I bet it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I hope and pray that he finds you, and beats you with his cane.
Some ungrateful sono-fabitch (em phasis on the wrong syl lable) is allowing his co-signing father’s house to be foreclosed upon in order to avoid proper loan repayment?
Does he not realize that all of this involves future amounts of hot sand and whole unpeeled walnuts being crammed up his willing and gaping ass?
The word is “you’re”.
And the ungrateful asshole deserves to be fried.
Not that the kid’s not an ass, but don’t they send a few letters before foreclosing on property? I mean, did the father not receive some mail addressed to him at his house stating he was responsible for this debt before some one showed up to evict him?
Not to mention, isn’t it on the paper he originally signed? Doesn’t the poor fool know better than to sign something without reading it? Particularly when large sums of money are involved?
The kids and ass, and deserves a sound smacking, but the father is an ijit.
The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree …
Typos fixed by me in Beelzebubba’s quote above.
Wow, great “blame the victim” mentality here. The guy was just making sure his son had the opportunity to go to college. He probably was 100% sure that his son would repay the loans. Who here wouldn’t co-sign a loan for their kid to get a higher education? And if you did and they decided to screw you over wouldn’t you feel like a victim even though you knew exactly what you were getting yourself into?
You’ve got a great “blame shifting” mentality there.
Whether or not he ‘was sure’ his son would repay the loans is not the point. The point is he didn’t understand he was ultimately responsible if his son defaulted. That it had to be explained to him that, as co-signer, Da Man could come and take his stuff, after it was too late for him to do anything about it.
I don’t care how he feels about it. His house is forfeit because he didn’t know his responsibilities, and because he apparently didn’t bother looking into the matter when he began getting ‘payment better be made soon or else’ notices.
If it turns out he was somehow never notified of the delinquency or default while he still had time to do something about it, then I’ll retract my statement that he’s an ijit. But, I doubt it happened that way.
Yeah, Amp, you’re way wrong here. The father took a risk that something bad would happen, and now the “something bad” sure has happened.
I wouldn’t say that he’s an idiot, and the sone is definitely not a very nice guy for letting this happen, but I also wouldn’t say that the father is just a hapless victim of circumstances beyond his control. For whatever reason (presumably to put his son through college) he decided to take an X% chance of losing his house, and that chance has happened.
Th
Joe Wapner, familiar to millions as the first judge on “People’s Court,” wrote a book called “A View From The Bench.” In it, he describes his judicial career before “People’s Court,” which was quite distingusihed and included at least one case that made law and was oft-quoted by law students for years afterward.
One of the stories he tells was about a woman whose house had been purchased by a speculator; she was being evicted and the action ended up in his court. The woman’s property had been auctioned to satisfy deliquent tax liens, and the speculator was in the business of buying distressed properties like that and selling them for a quick profit.
The speculator made his case. He had abided by all the rules - paid his money to the city and received the title to the property legally. The law was on his side.
The woman, a widow, testified that her husband had always handled the financial matters. Shortly after his death, the city had sent a special tax assessment to cover road repairs to the property owners in her area. The husband had used his business address and the city’s notice went there. A second and third notice were also delivered there. The city’s final notice was delivered to the home, and the widow did read it, but was almost immediately thereafter hospitalized for several weeks. When she got out of the hospital, her property had been sold.
The widow testified that she couldn’t understand the notice the city sent. Wapner wrote that when he, a trained lawyer and sitting judge, tried to read the notice, he too had trouble wading through it.
Wapner found that although the speculator was, in a sense, an innocent victim here, the widow was more of an innocent victim. He found that the mishmash of legalese sent to the widow and to wrong addresses did not constitute a meaningful notice of the seizure of her property, and that she was denied her due-process rights.
I tell this long, and not particularly on-point, story to illustrate that things are not always as they seem. I don’t know about the world of student loans, but several firms in my area have come under fire for predatory loan practices, in which they misrepresent the terms of a home loan, or deliberately lend to people that will likely be unable to meet their obligations, and then quickly force a foreclosure through.
Bricker, Bricker! How long do you think you’ll last here, being the voice of reason? 