NOW AVAILABLE: THE FIRST



BIG VICTORY: Civil Rights Activist Helen Bailey And JPMorgan Chase Reach Agreement On Home

Roland Martin talks with Nancy DeVille about civil rights activist Helen Bailey’s fight to keep her home from being foreclosed on by JPMorgan Chase. Bailey and Chase have reached an agreement on her home and will be allowed to stay in her house.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Tags:

Follow Roland Martin Reports on Twitter

Follow Roland S. Martin's Timeline On Facebook

Get Roland Martin Reports in your inbox!
Sign up for Roland Martin Reports Daily News Update powered by FeedBurner

  • http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com/ Rod Williams

     

    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.”

WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien