Shouldn't this be in the crime blotter?

I know that they have the right intentions. But is this legal? Bankruptcy is always a option if you loose income and need to catch up on past mortgage payments. This video is moving. But, is this practice legal?

Henry - Technically speaking, the owner (i.e. the bank, not the criminal now living there) will either need to file criminal charges of trespass against the criminal now living there or file for eviction (which seems the more likely route as many local police and or prosecutors don't like to run this through the system). The absurdity here is that the criminal now living there has already (at least from the reporting) been legally evicted back in December.

The "Occupy" crowd probably will make a claim of adverse possession of the house, which extremely disingenuous in this case because they clearly know that who the owner is and probably know the steps they could take to legally possess the house (possibly including entering into a short term lease at a monthly payment the criminal/squatter could afford). Ultimately all this does is make some attorneys some money to run it BACK through the legal system while costing us money to have it re-heard on a court docket and time/money to have the eviction papers served and the eviction executed.

One other thing - my long post before was based on the assumption that she was legally foreclosed and evicted. If there were issues with either of those actions, then she should be able to live there until they are resolved. If they were done legally then she should be treated like the criminal she now is and the Occupy folks that aided in her crime should also be arrested and prosecuted.

Leslie, please ask Mr. Franzen to cite the laws (specific annotations from the OCGA are fine) which allow a homeowner to "reclaim" a foreclosed upon property. It might also be helpful if he defines "Reclamation" as he understands it, and how it differs from eith Criminal Trespass or Adverse Possession both generally and in this specific instance. Also, an overview of what her legal claims are would be a nice addition. Thanks

It would be great to know her grounds for this action. Is there a loophole somewhere in the law that allows this? Is this legal? Can other homeowners do this?

It's sad that in this day and age, after our economy was crashed, that folks still wanna side with the institutions that have been treating our communities like their ATM with no regard or respect. The crime folks should be concerned with is the mass felonly fraud perpetrated at the hands of the big banks. The foreclosure mills they set up around the country, one of them being in North Atlanta, cost over 10 million Americans their homes. Mildred was one of those. Wrongly foreclosed, then wrongly evicted. I'm grateful that she had the courage, and her community had the backbone, to right that wrong by moving her back in.

I'm also grateful that we in the south have a tradition of doing whats right even when that pushes laws that aren't for the people....of course there were those that said Rosa Parks wash brash, or the students that refused to leave the woolworths lunch counters were too radical, but the folks that doubted bold creative action then were wrong.

Here is a link with more on Mildreds fight:
http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-usa/atlanta-housing-activists-retake-house-senior-evicted-after-needless-foreclosure

The "Occupy" crowd probably will not make a claim of adverse possession of the house fyi

...and PLEASE consider signing and sharing Mildred's online petition:)
http://start2.occupyourhomes.org/petitions/bank-of-america-rescind-the-foreclosure-and-keep-mildred-in-her-home

the eviction of a sick 65 year old woman is an example of an economic system, predicated on 'every man for himself' will benefit the greater good......gone wrong.

Great Job Occupy Our Homes Atlanta..glad that Mildred could reclaim her home

The mortgage crisis presents a complex problem -- so complex that, for people safely ensconced in their homes, it's too much to think about. It's easier and simpler to take a rigidly partisan position, to say either "wow, those banks sure are evil," or "wow, those activists sure are radical," which allows people to simply dismiss the system as broken rather than do the hard work fixing the actual problem.

I was a supporter of Occupy Atlanta before vocally breaking away last year out of concern for the effectiveness -- and tenor -- of the activities. I'm not particularly fond of campus-grade radicalism for its own sake.

I'm also about a 15 minute walk to Mildred Garrison-Obi's house, if I decide to cut through the back woods of Pine Lake.

The legal rationale for "reclaiming" the house is flimsy. It appears that Obi has filed a motion for the judgment to evict to be vacated and re-entered. Because they're a case pending before the court, the policy would be to allow her to retain residence while that's sorted out. That doesn't speak to whether there's any legal basis for vacating the decision, though.

Obi challenges the identity of the actual lien holder, and whether the right party served her default notice. Was the title held by US Bank? Countrywide? Bank of America? Perhaps Fannie Mae?

It's complex.

And that's the point. P.J. O'Rourke wrote about Enron, "Beyond a certain point complexity is fraud." Complexity defines the mortgage crisis. So does fraud.

Plainly, Occupy Our Homes Atlanta is engaged in an act of civil disobedience. But I think there's merit to the hijinks, if it causes us to revisit the essential policy question around the mortgage crisis: is the law, as it stands, fair? Does our policy actually serve our values, as a practical matter?

Georgia is deal last in mortgage modifications. It may be the easiest state in the America for banks to foreclose on a home. As a result, it ranks third in home foreclosures. The number of bank failures in this state is a running gag -- wait for the markets to close Friday night and hold your breath. We're closing in on 100 bank failures since 2008.

"The failed banks also had often pursued aggressive growth strategies using nontraditional, riskier funding sources and exhibited weak underwriting and credit administration practices," wrote the GAO in a report about the causes of bank failures. Which is to say -- they lent money with little regard for the long term consequences.

It's easy enough to look at a case like Mildred Obi's and say, "well, she lost her job and couldn't keep up the payments. These things happen."

But we've taken extraordinary, market-breaking steps to protect financial institutions from collapse. We still are -- the FED discount window is still wide open, lending money at next to nothing to the same institutions holding loans like Obi's.

The social harm involved by occupying this home is small, if it results in re-occupying this debate.

(I plainly need an editor.)

I am trying to understand how someone could just re-occupy a home that was foreclosed on. Are you saying that if the bank illegally forecloses or does not follow a set of rules that the homeowner can just re-occupy. Would the deed still be in her name at that point? How long would she be able to stay there? This is interesting. Would she be protected by a certain law or legal council?

It is an interesting thing, indeed, Henry.

There appears to be a definite strategy at play with the home occupation tactics. I'm not privy to their planning strategy, but I can guess at it.

The lending model accounts for a loss percentage -- an expected rate of foreclosure -- that is predicated on certain foreclosure costs being predictable. The time and expense necessary to foreclose on a home in Georgia can be calculated against an average. Those costs are relatively low because the law here is terrible.

Perversely, I suspect that has meant in the past that the banks were operating with a fairly limited financial reserve to manage unusual legal issues. Like, for example, 20 activists wrapping a house in colorful banners and refusing to leave.

By raising the cost of an eviction, both in financial terms by throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the bank's lawyers and in public relations terms by drawing attention to particularly egregious examples of the system's intransigence, the Occupy folks hope to drag lenders back to the negotiating table to work out something reasonable.

The longer strategic goal then becomes obvious. Individual banks will act, case by case, in their own self interest. If Occupy Our Homes Atlanta can then demonstrate a pattern of successes to the public -- as they're starting to do -- then these individual capitulations become a playbook for everyone to use.

Something don't add up here. Is more to this than what I read here? Why could I live in my house if I can't afford to. Is that anybody's fault but my own? Even if I got sick? I know I have been offered to buy insurance should the day come when I could not afford to live in my house. Maybe I don't need any insurance like other people fork up. I can just call Occupy Our Homes Atlanta. I sense a bit of attitude or a "lack of sense" from OOHA maybe like the expelled DeKalb school board members that screamed foul because they were losing their jobs... because they hadn't been doing their jobs. Where's the sense in any of this?

George,

Very well thought out post. I agree with most of what you said, and I definitely think that Occupy is carefully selecting "victims" with sympathetic stories to further their cause (which is not an unheard of strategy). Each lender that chooses to bow down to the pressure of Occupy serves to embolden them, and serves to weaken the private property we have enjoyed in this land for almost 250 years.

I have researched the claims and found the following timeline:

Ms. Obi-Garrison purchased the house in December of 1998
She obtained mortgage financing through Countrywide for said purchase
Fixed Rate loans at that time were pricing around 6.75%
She initialed every page of the security deed, including pages where it clearly states that she has borrowed the money, is required to pay the money as agreed for 30 years, and is subject to foreclosure (and eviction) if she does not pay the money as agreed.
She was foreclosed on in 2009, although it is unclear from the article or the legal documents whether she was immediately evicted, entered into a lease and subsequently failed to make lease payments, or any other data. I am going to presume she was immediately evicted, but maybe Teresa can provide details in a follow up interview
She filed an affidavit essentially asserting adverse possession in May of 2012 (sorry "yoster", I guess you were misinformed, or maybe you meant they weren't going to try this tactic again if it had already failed?)

She subsequently filed her motion to vacate the eviction and thereby reclaimed her house.
Now, if no clear chain of transfer can be proven by the deed holder, then she is absolutely entitled to her due process, and should be allowed to live in the house until a court determines one way or another (i.e. for her claim or for the lenders claim). I hope that Leslie continues to monitor and update the case so we know one way or the other what the resolution is.
But here is my overarching concern with this as a microcosm for society. She knows she borrowed the money from SOMEONE in 1998 to buy the house, knows she agreed to pay in order to stay in the house, and yet is knowingly challenging the authority to be evicted (despite clear evidence she signed the aforementioned documents).
I am not sure how most people were raised, but I was raised that if I borrow money to repay that money. If I allow a lien to be placed on the property I use the money to buy, I do it knowing that it can be taken back if I fail to live up to the obligations. Ms. Obi-Garrison and the Occupy movement seem to dispute this as a moral thing to do, essentially saying that the moral obligation to house a sick woman trumps HER MORAL OBLIGATION to repay the debt. That, my friends is a slippery slope to go down, and if successful you will see a contraction of the banking industry much worse than what we have seen because then there will be no security behind any loans.

I appreciate the research.

I've found that the Occupy folks rarely have the ideal example for the home occupations, the Rosa Parks of unjust home foreclosure. I would hope that a model case wouldn't be necessary to demonstrate the point. For example, Ernesto Miranda wasn't exactly a member of the Rotary Club when he was arrested 50 years ago, but that was hardly an excuse for Arizona police to intimidate him into signing a confession without a lawyer. From such things better policy emerges.

I am choosing to focus on the bigger issue, because every time I get into the specific details of a particular case I get bogged down in the weeds. I question the assertion that a moral obligation to stay current on a mortgage trumps society's moral obligation to shelter the sick.

I also think there's a tremendous market and policy failure in play right now. There are neighborhoods in DeKalb where every other property is vacant. A single vacant property on a block artificially lowers the property value of the surrounding homes. If enough of those surrounding homes fall underwater, a cascade of foreclosures can occur. The idea that we can have acres of empty properties in the same place I see homeless people wandering the streets is a failure of public policy.

The public provided BofA with a crazy bailout. We asked in return that the banks offer reasonable modifications to home loans for distressed borrowers. I suggest that this is a form of accountability for that deal.

George,

Sorry to take the discussion so granular. To blow back out to your larger perspective, I would offer the following:
1) There has been a systemic failure in housing the homeless. Having served on the board of a homeless housing provider for over 4 years, I know this is a fact and continues to be a problem.
2) There was a systemic failure in the lending environment that required a large bailout, and still has not been completely solved. There have been attempts to put programs in place (HARP I, HARP II, etc.) but often times the execution of these missed the most needy, or the needy were not in a position to take advantage.
3) There was fraud and predatory lending in the mortgage arena, and in these cases priority for the modification programs should be given. I am not sure this is currently the case, and did see that Occupy Atlanta is advocating for this at the state legislature (which is the appropriate way to effect change, though obviously sometimes slower than desired)
4) Your "cascade of foreclosures" seems a little bit of a stretch. Houses don't go into foreclosure because the value drops below the mortgage amount. People may elect to stop paying their mortgage at this point, but that is a decision they make. Foreclosures happen because people don't pay (for whatever the reason).

5) It seems like you are suggesting that allowing homeless people to occupy the foreclosed and empty homes is a solution to homelessness. First, I am not sure how this stabilizes a neighborhood (and maybe that wasn't your intent but it is tacked into the same point). Second, I am not sure how good an understanding of the root causes of homelessness you have. Giving them a home to live in often times does not solve the root cause of the homelessness, and isn't the solution.
6) You write "I question the assertion that a moral obligation to stay current on a mortgage trumps society's moral obligation to shelter the sick." I am not sure I asserted that point. My point is that there is a moral obligation to pay your mortgage if you want to continue to live in a house that has a mortgage on it. Society's responsibility to shelter the sick is a completely different topic in my opinion, and you can argue there are policy failures on this front as well. But the fact that this lady (or any other person who holds a mortgage, or for that matter rents a house or apartment) is entitled to pay less than they have agreed to because they get sick is where I have the issue. Should society provide adequate shelter for her based on whatever her income was? ABSOLUTELY. But providing adequate shelter and that person living in private property are mutually exclusive debates with different solutions.

I would like to know if there is any help for my family. We have been renting a house for 5 years paying every month on time when a few weeks ago a man knocked on the door and said he had bought the house at a forecosure sale. He was extremely rude asking questions about our lease and when I wouldn't tell him my personal information he said he'd send out the marshall. We had our first court date where the judge said we'd have 90 days and we'd need to make rent payments to the court until then. The new owner doesn't want this because he has already put an ad online to sell the property as a "buildable lot". So what can we do as people who HAVE been paying our bills? The real kicker is that we've been looking to buy and would have considered buying the house ourselves if we'd known. Anyone have any resources we can look into? Thanks so much

So much conversation on this topic and then not even a one response to my post.........

@m check out occupyourhomesatl.org contact us!