Do I have any other options here? Sister conned my dad into buying a trailer and has stopped making payments.

[NotUrsula]

If the trailer is in your father's name, and you have his POA, you can try to sell it for what it is worth, rather that whatever it will bring at auction; you might be able to get an amount that is much closer to the actual value from a buyer. Won't make it go away, but you might be able to get the lender to accept that much as final payment, because it would probably be more than it would bring at auction. (If it was new and financed through a dealership, you might be able to get them to just take it for their used inventory, instead of getting the repo company involved and them getting pennies on the dollar. After all, they did sell it to someone who was incompetent to enter into a contract (assuming you have paperwork to prove that much.)

 

[goofyernmost]

I would turn in the trailer to the bank. At this point of his life your dad doesn't need to worry about his credit. Although I am curious how he qualified for a loan for something he didn't have the money for.

Mostly because he probably had a fairly good credit rating and the item was worth more than what they were asking for it. Just last January I bought out my lease on my car. I am 75 and am basically living on SS and whatever I take out of my rapidly depleting retirement account but my credit rating is around 810. Because of the economic thing during the pandemic the value of used cars jumped up and my payoff was $7K less then the book value of the car. They fell all over themselves trying to give (loan) me money. Even then it won't be paid off until I am 80. Seems pretty risky to me, but as usual the economy tends to create these bubbles now and then that come back to bite all of us in the end.

​

 

[TCRAIG]

I have spoken with an attorney and she advised we really couldn’t pursue anything because my dad’s mental status at the time was disputable. He refuses to acknowledge that what he did was a mistake. The stress is almost unbearable at times. He will likely have to surrender it, it will be sold at auction, he will be on the hook for the difference, and it will have to be paid out of his estate when he passes away.

The whole thing stinks I know but in truth - it’s still the best solution - unless you want to spend a ton of money suing your sister to the same end…

 

[tvguy]

Mostly because he probably had a fairly good credit rating and the item was worth more than what they were asking for it. Just last January I bought out my lease on my car. I am 75 and am basically living on SS and whatever I take out of my rapidly depleting retirement account but my credit rating is around 810. Because of the economic thing during the pandemic the value of used cars jumped up and my payoff was $7K less then the book value of the car. They fell all over themselves trying to give (loan) me money. Even then it won't be paid off until I am 80. Seems pretty risky to me, but as usual the economy tends to create these bubbles now and then that come back to bite all of us in the end.

​

I start drawing SS next month. We are fortunate in that our expenses are low. My SS will be almost exactly what we have been living on per month for the past 2 1/2 years pulling it out of savings. A few months later, my wife starts drawing her SS and will can stop pulling money out of savings and have twice as much money to spend.

 

[goofyernmost]

I start drawing SS next month. We are fortunate in that our expenses are low. My SS will be almost exactly what we have been living on per month for the past 2 1/2 years pulling it out of savings. A few months later, my wife starts drawing her SS and will can stop pulling money out of savings and have twice as much money to spend.

Unfortunately, I had just my SS and man I do so realize how much that extra amount would help. I had more than I thought I would ever need 12 years ago when I retired, but it does seem to go fast. I'm not broke but it isn't any where near as as pretty as it was 12 years ago. When you hit 70 you have to take money out of a 401 account anyway, it is required, but I was hoping I would never need it.

I hate to bring up bad things but you also have to plan on the possibility that you might not always have that second SS amount coming in. Sounds like you have things planned out and I apologies if you have already planned around that. Many people don't.

 

[tvguy]

When you hit 70 you have to take money out of a 401 account anyway, it is required, but I was hoping I would never need it.

I hate to bring up bad things but you also have to plan on the possibility that you might not always have that second SS amount coming in. Sounds like you have things planned out and I apologies if you have already planned around that. Many people don't.

They changed the age you have to start taking money out of an IRA/401k to 73. You don't have to spend it, you just have to take the money out of the tax deferred plan, and pay taxes on that amount, you can just put it in a regular savings account. At least those are the rules now, and boy do they keep changing. My mom started her minimum distributions when she turned 70. That was back in 1993 and back then you could use your beneficiaries age to average with your age to reduce the amount you had to take out. That also meant the beneficiary had the option of cashing in the IRA when the account holder died, or continuing the distributions. The latter is what I did so I have been drawing from my mom's IRA for 10 years. That money goes towards our long term care insurance policy.

Yes, married couples need to plan for the reality that they won't die at the same time and that they need to think about replacing one of those SS checks. That is what our life insurance is for. Although, since two of us have been living on the amount of money for the past 2 1/2 years, just one SS check may be enough.

 

[lanejudy]

He had a stroke last month and we are looking at moving him out of his house.

This is the part that makes me suggest getting some good financial advice paired with legal advice. Assuming he owns his house, and you would be looking to leverage that value for his ongoing care - you need to be sure he won’t lose a big chunk of the house sale to the trailer loan or balance. Your local/county/state agency on aging should be able to point you towards those professionals who specialize in elder needs.

 

[VFL]

If you have POA start eviction proceedings and sell the trailer.

 

[barkley]

He refuses to acknowledge that what he did was a mistake.

It is very difficult to help a person who doesn't want help or doesn't think they need help.

it is vital you get adult protective services involved. is your POA revocable? if so and things are not handled in a particular manner your sister could convince your father to sign a new one that leaves her with control over everything (i had this happen with someone taking financial advantage of a family member). unless you have an iron-clad irrevocable power of attorney all it takes is your sister printing off from a website a new p.o.a. form and taking your dad to a local notary (or hiring one for less than $100 to come to his home) to shut you out. in my case i'm certain one of the ways used to convince my family member was being told that my 'plate' was too full dealing with my disabled child and that it was a kindness to put the responsibility on someone else.

tread carefully, document everything.

 

[Jangles]

U.K. perspective, so perhaps different, but did your Father see a doctor who tested his capacity to manage finances before the loan was taken out? If so, obtain proof of that and armed with it, contact the creditors in writing and formally advise them that your Father lacked capacity to enter into the contract. I would also ask for all records they hold in file, copies of forms/application and voice recordings.

 

[tony67]

Most of my family did this to my grandmother, and we were left to clean up the mess.

She did not have much so not much they could do and there was no estate they could wait for.
She would not press charges - so again not much we could do.
Not all of it was on the Up and Up and a checkbook was taken as well.

They had store charge cards in here name, credit cards and even a motor bike loan.
We let them know what happened and she was not going to pay for any of it and feel free to repo the vehicle.
Got letters and calls and pretty much just ignored it all.

Since there seems to be a house you may not have it so easy.

Try elder services that is the best bet.
Getting a lawyer involved sooner than later is always a good idea and elder services may be able to assist with someone that specializes in that and that is reasonable.

Disgusting people, my family even left us to deal with the tombstone and funeral - and of course they showed up for the free food.

 

[Kathryn Merteuil]

OMG that is so sad to hear

I would turn in the trailer to the bank. At this point of his life your dad doesn't need to worry about his credit. Although I am curious how he qualified for a loan for something he didn't have the money for.

The short answer is loan officers are desperate to hit lending goals and will do anything to reach them.

If you have POA and the trailer is in his name, sell the trailer and pay off the loan.... or a voluntary surrender of the collateral to the institution. It WILL damage his credit though (if it is surrendered).

 

[goofyernmost]

They changed the age you have to start taking money out of an IRA/401k to 73. You don't have to spend it, you just have to take the money out of the tax deferred plan, and pay taxes on that amount, you can just put it in a regular savings account. At least those are the rules now, and boy do they keep changing. My mom started her minimum distributions when she turned 70. That was back in 1993 and back then you could use your beneficiaries age to average with your age to reduce the amount you had to take out. That also meant the beneficiary had the option of cashing in the IRA when the account holder died, or continuing the distributions. The latter is what I did so I have been drawing from my mom's IRA for 10 years. That money goes towards our long term care insurance policy.

Yes, married couples need to plan for the reality that they won't die at the same time and that they need to think about replacing one of those SS checks. That is what our life insurance is for. Although, since two of us have been living on the amount of money for the past 2 1/2 years, just one SS check may be enough.

I didn't mean to sound like a fatalist and I agree. I don't have a castle or a villa in France, but I am able to live comfortably with what little I had for back up monies.

When I was younger, sometime near the beginning of time, there were no 401K accounts, the only way you could have any amount put away was if the company you worked for had a pension plan and they were few and far between.

Starting out as a family every nickel we had went toward food and shelter. There was no extra to throw into an account for tomorrow. That is the way most of us lived until we became established and then we probably got caught up in keeping up with the Jones's and debt from the early years.
I was in my late 40's before retirement plans replaced pensions and even then it was tough to think past the day.

My SS covers about 2/3rds of my basic expenses for food and shelter and my retirement plan has to cover the rest. The remaining 1/3rd is pretty much just taking care of vehicle payments, vehicle insurance, vehicle maintenance and fuel to run it. Someday, and I'm not looking forward to that day, I will no longer have the need or ability to have a car and then SS will have to keep me afloat, if it's still there.

 

[tvguy]

I didn't mean to sound like a fatalist and I agree. I don't have a castle or a villa in France, but I am able to live comfortably with what little I had for back up monies.

When I was younger, sometime near the beginning of time, there were no 401K accounts, the only way you could have any amount put away was if the company you worked for had a pension plan and they were few and far between.

Starting out as a family every nickel we had went toward food and shelter. There was no extra to throw into an account for tomorrow. That is the way most of us lived until we became established and then we probably got caught up in keeping up with the Jones's and debt from the early years.
I was in my late 40's before retirement plans replaced pensions and even then it was tough to think past the day.

My SS covers about 2/3rds of my basic expenses for food and shelter and my retirement plan has to cover the rest. The remaining 1/3rd is pretty much just taking care of vehicle payments, vehicle insurance, vehicle maintenance and fuel to run it. Someday, and I'm not looking forward to that day, I will no longer have the need or ability to have a car and then SS will have to keep me afloat, if it's still there.

Well, one think I have learned on the DIS is the wide difference of life experience as to what is "normal" from an income and expense standpoint. Some say a middle class income is $150,000 a year for an individual. It may be in NYC or a handful of the highest cost cities, but for most Americans, that's an upper class salary. And yes, I realize in some cities property taxes on a typical home can run $10,000 a year. I have no idea how governments can justify taxes that high. They tried that in California and the voters said NO loud and clear.
Pensions are not common in my industry. The IRS shutdown my first employer's plan in 1975, two years before I started. Every went with either a weeks pay into your IRA, or later, 401ks. I was entitled to a pension at my last employer. 16 years got me a $28 a month pension!!!!! If I had been with the company 30 years, it steps up to about $1,700 a month. But I would have had to continue working until I was 80!.
But I am a lot like my mom. Priorities have always been avoiding or paying off debt. I paid her bills the last year of her life. He Social Security was $1,250 a month. Her expenses were $650 a month. But she and my dad had downsized 53 years before and paid cash for the house. She paid cash for her car 10 years before, which she could do because she kept her previous car 27 years.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

And yes, I realize in some cities property taxes on a typical home can run $10,000 a year. I have no idea how governments can justify taxes that high. They tried that in California and the voters said NO loud and clear.

It really doesn't matter about the property tax measure you're speaking of because so few of people can actually afford a house in CA. Those who are fortunate enough to purchase a home obviously are in favor of keeping it at a ridiculous low level meanwhile the vast majority of the state suffers.

The people who were voters back in 1978 have either passed away, aged out of their homes, or are getting up there in age in the 45 years since its passed. In addition the end result of this has harmed many of the state's population due to their socioeconomic level as well as minorities many of whom I'm not even sure were the represented well enough in 1978. I wonder what the result would be now when faced with all that is happening including people in enough numbers leaving CA or choosing not to live there.

An article in August of this year lists that in 2nd quarter of this year only 16% of households could afford a median-priced-single-family home in CA. That's not something to be proud of.

 

[tvguy]

It really doesn't matter about the property tax measure you're speaking of because so few of people can actually afford a house in CA. Those who are fortunate enough to purchase a home obviously are in favor of keeping it at a ridiculous low level meanwhile the vast majority of the state suffers.

The people who were voters back in 1978 have either passed away, aged out of their homes, or are getting up there in age in the 45 years since its passed. In addition the end result of this has harmed many of the state's population due to their socioeconomic level as well as minorities many of whom I'm not even sure were the represented well enough in 1978. I wonder what the result would be now when faced with all that is happening including people in enough numbers leaving CA or choosing not to live there.

An article in August of this year lists that in 2nd quarter of this year only 16% of households could afford a median-priced-single-family home in CA. That's not something to be proud of.

55.3% of all Californians own their home.
A major reason Prop 13 passed in 1978 was senior citizens were being asked to pay more each year in property taxes than they had paid for their home. That was just wrong.
We can't control Real Estate prices, so that has NOTHING to do with Prop 13. But I am proud of how voters stabilized property taxes. It made it possible for my son and his wife, and my daughter to own their own homes despite high sales prices. And looking at my street, all the home sales are to couples around age 30 starting families.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

55.3% of all Californians own their home.
A major reason Prop 13 passed in 1978 was senior citizens were being asked to pay more each year in property taxes than they had paid for their home. That was just wrong.
We can't control Real Estate prices, so that has NOTHING to do with Prop 13. But I am proud of how voters stabilized property taxes. It made it possible for my son and his wife, and my daughter to own their own homes despite high sales prices. And looking at my street, all the home sales are to couples around age 30 starting families.

I said 16% could afford a home. That has nothing to do with existing homeowners. Prop 13 even has a very salient point of keeping people as homeowners of the exact house (so no moving from house to house) for as long as possible due to when and how much the property tax is even assessed.

So much research has been done to refute your opinion about real estate pricing. It has even had a large impact on the rental market.

The exact wording from the information is "Only 16% of households could qualify to purchase a median-priced single-family home in the second quarter, the California Association of Realtors reported Friday. That’s down from 19% in the first quarter and 17% a year earlier." Furthermore "Nationally, more than a third of households could afford to purchase a $402,600 median-priced home, according to the report. For an existing single-family home at California’s median price of $830,620, buyers in the second quarter needed a minimum annual income of $208,000 to qualify for a 30-year mortgage after a 20% down payment. Loans on condos and townhouses, with a median $640,000 price, required a minimum $160,400 income."

This was an old snapshot overview of the impact from 2005 but it says "As a result of Proposition 13, there are obvious distortions in the real estate marketplace. In 2003 financier Warren Buffett announced that he pays property taxes of $14,410, or 2.9 percent, on his $500,000 home in Omaha, Nebraska, but pays only $2,264, or 0.056 percent, on his $4 million home in California. Although Buffet is known as an astute investor, the low property taxes on his California home are not attributable to his investment prowess, but rather to Proposition 13."

My comment about proud was because of how you choose to talk about it. No one in this world likes to pay property tax but for decades people have been talking about the negative impacts to prop 13. In addition it would have been one thing if this was in the 1980s as in physically but we're in the 2020s, what might have been viewed as a "stand up to the man" voter decision does not mean it would be the same now.

 

[tvguy]

I said 16% could afford a home. That has nothing to do with existing homeowners. Prop 13 even has a very salient point of keeping people as homeowners of the exact house (so no moving from house to house) for as long as possible due to when and how much the property tax is even assessed.

So much research has been done to refute your opinion about real estate pricing. It has even had a large impact on the rental market.

The exact wording from the information is "Only 16% of households could qualify to purchase a median-priced single-family home in the second quarter, the California Association of Realtors reported Friday. That’s down from 19% in the first quarter and 17% a year earlier." Furthermore "Nationally, more than a third of households could afford to purchase a $402,600 median-priced home, according to the report. For an existing single-family home at California’s median price of $830,620, buyers in the second quarter needed a minimum annual income of $208,000 to qualify for a 30-year mortgage after a 20% down payment. Loans on condos and townhouses, with a median $640,000 price, required a minimum $160,400 income."

This was an old snapshot overview of the impact from 2005 but it says "As a result of Proposition 13, there are obvious distortions in the real estate marketplace. In 2003 financier Warren Buffett announced that he pays property taxes of $14,410, or 2.9 percent, on his $500,000 home in Omaha, Nebraska, but pays only $2,264, or 0.056 percent, on his $4 million home in California. Although Buffet is known as an astute investor, the low property taxes on his California home are not attributable to his investment prowess, but rather to Proposition 13."

My comment about proud was because of how you choose to talk about it. No one in this world likes to pay property tax but for decades people have been talking about the negative impacts to prop 13. In addition it would have been one thing if this was in the 1980s as in physically but we're in the 2020s, what might have been viewed as a "stand up to the man" voter decision does not mean it would be the same now.

You can transfer your property tax base to another home if you are age 55. So you are not stuck in your current house. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm


I'm sorry, I am not seeing any link between how property taxes are limited, and what houses actually sell for. Apples and oranges.
We'll find out next year how the voters feel today about limiting property taxes as it is on the ballot again.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/08/ballot-proposal-court-tax-proposals/

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

You can transfer your property tax base to another home if you are age 55. So you are not stuck in your current house. https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/prop60-90_55over.htm


I'm sorry, I am not seeing any link between how property taxes are limited, and what houses actually sell for. Apples and oranges.
We'll find out next year how the voters feel today about limiting property taxes as it is on the ballot again.
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2023/08/ballot-proposal-court-tax-proposals/

You might want to do a big more digging around and even listing information from the Economic Research from nearly 20 years ago isn't enough I guess. Even as early as 1992 the Supreme Court was talking about prop 13 as far as upholding it or not which means there was opposition even back then. The stats over decades (1970-1990 and 1970-2000 for one figure) put it as it delayed the younger generations transition from renting to buying and was more evident for Blacks and migrant individuals.

A report from a 1997 California Budget Project discusses various impacts "One of the most significant and perhaps ironic effects of Proposition 13 is its influence over local land use decisions. Two types of development have suffered. Housing, which produces limited revenues under Proposition 13’s constraints, but which creates significant demand for schools, public safety, and other services, came to be seen as a drain on local coffers. Low and moderate cost housing, yielding the least property tax revenue per parcel, became particularly unattractive to localities and the least profitable to homebuilders. Fees and assessments required as a condition of development pushed home prices out of reach for many low and middle income families."


https://edsource.org/2022/californias-prop-13s-unjust-legacy-detailed-in-critical-study/674412
Granted this is just the flashy headline but you can read on if you want in the source "A new analysis of the enduring impact of Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that voters passed as a backlash against rising property taxes, concluded it has contributed to a widening wealth gap, a severe housing shortage and, for decades, inadequate funding for public schools."

Further on down "Apart from education funding, the report documents other inequalities from Prop. 13. The limit on property tax increases encouraged homeowners to hold on to their properties longer than in other states, resulting in fewer houses on the market. Owners were able to factor in market scarcity in setting the price of a home and, until recently, were able to pass on the house at the same assessed value to children and grandchildren, as an inheritance.

Because of redlining, exclusionary zoning and racism, Black, Asian and Latino Americans for decades were unable to obtain mortgages or buy into many neighborhoods where they could build the same kind of intergenerational wealth that high-income white families have been able to achieve, in part through Prop. 13, the report said.

As the report noted, many factors — large-lot zoning, high land costs, government fees — contribute to the high cost of housing. By limiting property taxes, Prop. 13’s contribution was to encourage cities and counties to zone land for retail and manufacturing rather than housing, in order to get sales tax and business revenues. Cities fought each other for big-box stores and ignored housing needs."

As many of us know less homes on the market can generate higher sales prices due to limiting of choices.

There's a lot more of where that came from. I also found information in another source relating to discussing in 2018 how prop 13 impacted vacant lots with an "unintended impact" of prop 13 with respects to what gets built there and how long lots stay vacant.

There's an increasingly worried frantic nature to how people are talking about CA's economic state with companies and people leaving in what is becoming a significant amount due to the high cost of living. It was great for your children to get a home but that does not mean there aren't some really negative things with it or that it hasn't prevented millions from obtaining a home by the mere means of their socioeconomic status due to decisions made by those who with a much higher status.

I understand you've got a belated Thanksgiving dinner/get together to get to so I'll leave you to enjoy your festivities with your loved ones have a great time with them!

 

[tvguy]

You might want to do a big more digging around and even listing information from the Economic Research from nearly 20 years ago isn't enough I guess. Even as early as 1992 the Supreme Court was talking about prop 13 as far as upholding it or not which means there was opposition even back then. The stats over decades (1970-1990 and 1970-2000 for one figure) put it as it delayed the younger generations transition from renting to buying and was more evident for Blacks and migrant individuals.

A report from a 1997 California Budget Project discusses various impacts "One of the most significant and perhaps ironic effects of Proposition 13 is its influence over local land use decisions. Two types of development have suffered. Housing, which produces limited revenues under Proposition 13’s constraints, but which creates significant demand for schools, public safety, and other services, came to be seen as a drain on local coffers. Low and moderate cost housing, yielding the least property tax revenue per parcel, became particularly unattractive to localities and the least profitable to homebuilders. Fees and assessments required as a condition of development pushed home prices out of reach for many low and middle income families."


https://edsource.org/2022/californias-prop-13s-unjust-legacy-detailed-in-critical-study/674412
Granted this is just the flashy headline but you can read on if you want in the source "A new analysis of the enduring impact of Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that voters passed as a backlash against rising property taxes, concluded it has contributed to a widening wealth gap, a severe housing shortage and, for decades, inadequate funding for public schools."

Further on down "Apart from education funding, the report documents other inequalities from Prop. 13. The limit on property tax increases encouraged homeowners to hold on to their properties longer than in other states, resulting in fewer houses on the market. Owners were able to factor in market scarcity in setting the price of a home and, until recently, were able to pass on the house at the same assessed value to children and grandchildren, as an inheritance.

Because of redlining, exclusionary zoning and racism, Black, Asian and Latino Americans for decades were unable to obtain mortgages or buy into many neighborhoods where they could build the same kind of intergenerational wealth that high-income white families have been able to achieve, in part through Prop. 13, the report said.

As the report noted, many factors — large-lot zoning, high land costs, government fees — contribute to the high cost of housing. By limiting property taxes, Prop. 13’s contribution was to encourage cities and counties to zone land for retail and manufacturing rather than housing, in order to get sales tax and business revenues. Cities fought each other for big-box stores and ignored housing needs."

As many of us know less homes on the market can generate higher sales prices due to limiting of choices.

There's a lot more of where that came from. I also found information in another source relating to discussing in 2018 how prop 13 impacted vacant lots with an "unintended impact" of prop 13 with respects to what gets built there and how long lots stay vacant.

There's an increasingly worried frantic nature to how people are talking about CA's economic state with companies and people leaving in what is becoming a significant amount due to the high cost of living. It was great for your children to get a home but that does not mean there aren't some really negative things with it or that it hasn't prevented millions from obtaining a home by the mere means of their socioeconomic status due to decisions made by those who with a much higher status.

I understand you've got a belated Thanksgiving dinner/get together to get to so I'll leave you to enjoy your festivities with your loved ones have a great time with them!

Yes, there are lots of opinions and the voters will have a chance to speak again next year.
All I know is it was good for my parents when it passed. It was good for my wife and I when we bought our house 5 years after it passed. It was good for my son and daughter in law when they bought their first house in 2017. It was good for my daughter when she bought her house in 2019. And it was good for my son and daughter in law when they bought their second house in 2022.
Not sure how the vote will go, The pandemic changed how people view government, for better or worse.