Roland, 02.14.12: Roland S. Martin Daily Podcast, Civil Rights Activist Helen Bailey And JPMorgan Chase Reach Agreement On Home

Occupy won. Chase Mortgage backed down last week to avoid a public-relations
disaster and agreed to allow Helen Bailey to stay in her home for the remainder
of her life. With over 80,000 signatures to an on-line petition and coverage in
the Huffington Post, MSNBC and other news outlets, I assume Chase thought it in
their best interest to let 78-year old Helen Bailey just remain in her home the
rest of her life and then foreclose upon her death.  The settlement was reached a week ago last
Friday  but the terms of the agreement
are being kept confidential.

While no one wants to see a 78 year old women become homeless. that is no
excuse for the press never investigated this story.  Sure, they reported it but they never asked questions. They just accepted without
question the Occupy version of this story as truth. The Tennessean’s reporting
by Nancy DeVille was so one-sided that one could believe she was a spokesman
for Occupy.  What she did was not
reporting at all; it was propaganda.   Unfortunately,
the reporting by Nashville’s smaller newspapers and TV stations was not much
better.

There were so many red flags that just screamed out
for answers that it is hard to believe that none of the local media asked
questions. Below are a few of the unanswered questions:

Why
were there two quit claim deeds recently filed on Ms Bailey’s home? 

One was dated 05/27/2011 and the other was from
Meriel Bailey dated 5/9/2011.  The
newspaper says her two daughters recently moved out of the property. The original
warranty deed dated April 1999 transferred the property to Kimberly F. Bailey,
Helen Bailey, and Meriel Fulton. Is Merial Fulton the same person as Meriel
Bailey? Were the parties giving a quit
claim her daughters? Did someone give up their ownership interest in the
property so Ms Bailey could qualify for a reverse mortgage? Is Ms Bailey the
only person on her mortgage? If other parties are on the mortgage they are
still responsible for this debt. When one gives up an ownership interest in a
property, one does not escape their obligation to pay the debt. I don’t
know the facts but a real reporter would have found this interesting and found
out the facts. I found this public records in a few minutes. This is not that
hard.

Why
did the daughters abandon their mother?
The Tennessean report says, “She fell behind on her mortgage in April after her
two daughters moved out, leaving her with a mortgage just under $1,000 to pay
alone.” Why did her two daughters move
out?  Am I the only one that
thought The Tennessean should have pursued this line of inquiry?  Why did someone not interview the
daughters?  Are either or both of the daughters on the mortgage note? Are the two
daughters not more responsible for their mother’s well-being than Chase?

If
Chase would have written down the debt, could indeed Ms. Bailey have gotten a
Reverse Mortgage?
The news reports said Ms. Bailey could get a reverse mortgage if Chase would
have simply write off $9000.  Without
knowing how much she currently owes on her property and other factors, one cannot
know if that is true or not, however I never believed it. Revere mortgages are
not as automatic to get as they once were. Reverse mortgage companies have been
having a problem with borrowers who would get a reverse mortgage and then still
not be able to keep up the home, keep it insured, and pay the taxes. The
newspaper story says Ms Bailey only has $700 a month income. In considering Ms.
Bailey for a reverse mortgage, the reverse mortgage company would have to be determine
that she is financially able to provide for home upkeep, taxes and insurance
and still have money to live. I am not so sure she could have qualified for a
reverse mortgage. Why did the media never ask if she had a conditional approval from a reverse mortgage lender? That
would be a logical question to ask. That seems like a very basic follow up
question.

Is keeping
this home in Ms Bailey’s best interest?
A Tennessean report said, “She receives less than $700 a month in Social
Security.” Think about that. Even if she has no mortgage payment, I still
wonder if she can she stay in her house on $700 a month? The home is a
4-bedroom, three-bath, 2720 square foot house. That is a lot of house to heat
and maintain.  No one ever asked if it was in Ms Bailey’s best interest to
stay in this big house.  Did no one ever
ask her if she had considered downsizing?

Why not let
Occupy pay the $9000 shortage?
If 80,000 people think Chase should forgive the $9000 in order for Ms Bailey to
stay in her home, then do the math: $9000/80,000= 11.25 cents each.  Why did the media never ask why supporters of
Ms. Bailey did not pay her mortgage?

I know that newspapers have fewer reporters now and
often reporters are not allowed to commit the time necessary to investigate a
story and superficial reporting is all they can do. Also, sometimes the
reporters have limited knowledge of the issue they are covering and do not know
the questions to ask. However the questions I have asked are not that
complicated. I think this story was not investigated because when it comes to a
liberal group wanted to keep an old lady who marched with Martin Luther King in
her home, the reporters biases cause them to lose all objectivity.

The New York Times has the slogan, “All the
News that’s Fit to Print;”  maybe our
local newspaper  should adopt the slogan,
“All the News that Fits (our biases).” The National Inquirer has a
slogan, “Inquiring Minds Want to Know”; maybe a local media outlet
should adopt a slogan, “We Know no Inquiring Minds.”