Has Stockton Run Out?

Poor Stockton, CA.

We saw 60 Minutes, we read all the news, everyone knows or has heard that Stockton IS the

Foreclosure Capital of the U.S.

Is that because the good people of Stockton all got together and decided to call themselves that? No.

Maybe there was a contest, poll or election? Nope.

It was the media that planted the moniker on the city. I always assumed it was based on raw numbers. Maybe it was. I can't tell.

Yesterday I was working on a project and pulled the entire current list of Notice of Default filings for the entire State of California. It was dated Feb 5th.

As I was compiling numbers I noticed something strange.

Stockton, and it's county (San Joaquin) seemed lower than what I expected to see.

By City: Antioch: 85 Bakersfield: 143 Elk Grove: 63 Fontana: 107 Hayward: 99 Modesto: 149 Oakland: 171 Sacramento: 326 Stockton: 110 Tracy: 50 Vallejo: 63

By County:Alameda: 460 Contra Costa: 339 Orange: 334 Sacramento: 512 San Joaquin: 212 Santa Clara: 174 Sonoma: 273 Stanislaus: 276

If the title wasn't bestowed upon them based on sheer numbers, maybe it was something else.

Was it Per Capita?
Per Capita would make perfect sense. The number of foreclosures per person? Maybe it was per household?

Stockton has an estimated 290,141 people (2006) according to CityData,
while Sacramento sits at 453,781 according to the same site.

Sacramento is slightly less than twice the size of Stockton, yet our state capital had 3 times the number of filings!

I realize this is only a one week sampling. I can pull a new list later today.

Is it just because the media thinks they are the proverbial Red Headed Step Child of the central valley? There is a finite number of homes that can be foreclosed on. That leads me to wonder...

Is Stockton actually running out of homes to foreclose on?

Just thinking.

Real Estate "GURU" Caught Skimming

Here's a trail of stories to read dealing with Equity Skimming.

I started at this article in BusinessWeek by Dean Foust about Foreclosure Rescue Scams.

It's a good article and worth the read.

"... in which unscrupulous individuals or groups approach homeowners facing foreclosure and promise to help them save their homes. In many instances, they convince the troubled homeowner--who is desperate to save their homes--to transfer the deed over to them with the promise that the investor will make the mortgage payments going forward, and the previous owner can rent while they try to rebuild their savings and repair their credit."

In the comment section I saw a link that led me to this page:

"The Home Equity Theft Reporter"

"a blog dedicated to informing the consumer public and the legal profession about Home Equity Theft issues. This blog will consist of information describing the various forms of Home Equity Theft and links to news reports & other informational sources from throughout the country about the victims of Home Equity Theft and what government authorities and others are doing about it"

Which then led to to an article in The Kansas City Star entitled

"Real estate's market crash ensnares guru"

Of course that grabbed my interest. Just to help decipher the quote below, Smolec was the homeowner, Ledman was the Real Estate Guru, and Sargent the Buyer.

"Smolec was about $35,000 in arrears on her mortgage, and the bank was bearing down. Smolec said she thought she was signing a lease with Ledman that would allow her to stay in the house for two years while she made arrangements to pay off what she owed using a pension that was due her.

Asked whether she understood she was signing away all her rights to her house, Smolec testified, "No, I did not... I didn't understand because I was told differently."

Smolec said Ledman never explained the complex papers she signed.

"He said I was too old and he would take care of me like a grandma," she said.

Instead, Ledman sold the house to real estate agent Susan Sargent for $500,000, said Tom Gottschalk, a former investigator who testified at the court hearing. Gottschalk said that in signing away all her rights, Smolec lost the equity she still held in her house. He said that after expenses, Ledman would make a $130,000 profit.

Sargent said at the hearing that when she told Smolec she was the home's new owner, "She broke down." Sargent said Smolec was never aware until then that her house was sold.

Sargent said because of problems with the deal, she got Ledman to buy the house back. The house was remodeled and sold last year, this time for $600,000."

Please, please - read all three sites and if you are in trouble - DO NOT sign your Deed over to Anyone - Don't allow yourself to be "Smolec'd"

Also Posted at THE FORECLOSURE REPORT

Share this post :