On 2015-06-30 20:01, wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:58:01 -0400, Dave Smith

>> Maybe he isn't doing it well enough because there are still people here
>> to are replying to her occasionally as if she were sane and keep finding
>> themselves in her maze of reasons for rejecting advice.
>
> I reply to Julie because it's entertaining and I get further
> bemusement on what Julie will come up with next. Not for any of the
> child-like reasoning the 'bruce' troll seems limited to.
>

After a while it is sort of like having a battle of wits with an unarmed
person. It is moderately amusing to see her lie about something and then
to change the story. I got fed up with her crap and made a point of
exposing the personality disorder that is at the root of her compulsive
posting and pathological lying. Some people here dumped on me for
dumping on her, but some of them are now her biggest critics. My job is
done.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:08:00 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-06-30 20:01, wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:58:01 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>> Maybe he isn't doing it well enough because there are still people here
>>> to are replying to her occasionally as if she were sane and keep finding
>>> themselves in her maze of reasons for rejecting advice.
>>
>> I reply to Julie because it's entertaining and I get further
>> bemusement on what Julie will come up with next. Not for any of the
>> child-like reasoning the 'bruce' troll seems limited to.
>>
>
>After a while it is sort of like having a battle of wits with an unarmed
>person. It is moderately amusing to see her lie about something and then
>to change the story. I got fed up with her crap and made a point of
>exposing the personality disorder that is at the root of her compulsive
>posting and pathological lying. Some people here dumped on me for
>dumping on her, but some of them are now her biggest critics. My job is
>done.

That's fair enough. I think I'm done with answering or explaining my
reasons for replying to Julie at this point, since it's only the
hypocrites and trolls that have a problem with it anyway.

On 2015-06-30 22:16, wrote:

> That's fair enough. I think I'm done with answering or explaining my
> reasons for replying to Julie at this point, since it's only the
> hypocrites and trolls that have a problem with it anyway.
>


I am left scratching my head over why any normal person would even try
to defend her. At the very least they are acknowledging that they think
the nutty narcissist if too stupid to defend herself.

On 6/30/2015 9:50 PM, Janet B wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:37:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>>>
>>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>>> that situation?
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
>> $800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
>> when you move to Arkansas.
>
> I believe he meant within the same community.
> Janet US
>

Elsewhere means "some other place"

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote
>
>>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>>> worth
>>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>>> down.
>>>>
>>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
>>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
>>>> not
>>>> apply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>>> outstanding balance on the loan.
>
>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>> paid.
>
> Absolutely incorrect.

Tell MN Real Estate that.

http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house

"Janet B" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:37:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>>>
>>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>>> that situation?
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
>>$800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
>>when you move to Arkansas.
>
> I believe he meant within the same community.
> Janet US

Still not necessarily true. One city could have better parts and different
types of houses. I was told that in this area, a house with only one
bathroom will not sell very quickly. The same for a two bedroom house.
People don't want those.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 6:14 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>> A strange story... anywhere I've lived a house couldn't be sold unless
>>>> it meets local code or the town clerk wouldn't approve/record the
>>>> sale. Also no bank would give a mortgage for a house that doesn't
>>>> meet local code, nor could it obtain homeowners insurance and no bank
>>>> would lend without it being insured. People contract to purchase
>>>> trashed foreclosures all the time but there'd be no closing without
>>>> all the repairs made and the house meets code, and those are inspected
>>>> even more critically, same for a GI mortgage.
>>> snip
>>> Sheldon, All of what you said applies here as well.
>>> Janet US
>>
>> Ours is financed through Navy Federal and it's a VA mortgage. Despite
>> it not being up to code, it did pass inspection.
>
> Depends on what code you are talking about. Most houses must meet the
> code in effect at the time it was built. If the code was changed last
> week you won't see homeowners rushing to upgrade because they don't have
> to.
>
> Simple example is toilets. New houses and new installations have to be
> 1.6 gpf or less, but your old house with 5 gpf is still OK.

Well this house was remodeled and I suspect that the problem came in that
when they did remodel, they didn't do much of anything properly. Our roof
is now up to code. I do know that in order to sell her house, my mom had to
do a few specific things, one of which was putting in a new electrical
panel. Our toilets should be fine. Got new ones within the last 5 years.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-06-30 21:23, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote
>>
>>>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>>>> worth
>>>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>>>> down.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to
>>>>> owing
>>>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
>>>>> not
>>>>> apply.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>>>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>>>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>>>> outstanding balance on the loan.
>>
>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>> paid.
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>
>
> And absolutely incredible stupid of her to say she is pretty sure about
> what if means without bothering to do a little research. In Boveworld, her
> thinking something makes it true for her.

I did look it up. I was correct.

http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 6:22 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>
>
>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>> worth less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be
>> upside down.
>
> Not exactly. By your definition every car owner would be upside down
> (save a few collector cars) It means you owe more than what it is worth.
> Car owners that finance with little down payment are upside down. For
> housing it was rare up to a few years ago as the market was steadily
> rising.

Cars are a different matter. They usually do not go up in price.

But in this area, for a period of about three years, houses did go down in
price. I know of elderly people who wanted to sell but could not for this
reason.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-06-30 20:01, wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:58:01 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>> Maybe he isn't doing it well enough because there are still people here
>>> to are replying to her occasionally as if she were sane and keep finding
>>> themselves in her maze of reasons for rejecting advice.
>>
>> I reply to Julie because it's entertaining and I get further
>> bemusement on what Julie will come up with next. Not for any of the
>> child-like reasoning the 'bruce' troll seems limited to.
>>
>
> After a while it is sort of like having a battle of wits with an unarmed
> person. It is moderately amusing to see her lie about something and then
> to change the story. I got fed up with her crap and made a point of
> exposing the personality disorder that is at the root of her compulsive
> posting and pathological lying. Some people here dumped on me for dumping
> on her, but some of them are now her biggest critics. My job is done.

My personality disorder? What exactly is that? And when did you become a
psychologist?

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-06-30 22:16, wrote:
>
>> That's fair enough. I think I'm done with answering or explaining my
>> reasons for replying to Julie at this point, since it's only the
>> hypocrites and trolls that have a problem with it anyway.
>>
>
>
> I am left scratching my head over why any normal person would even try to
> defend her. At the very least they are acknowledging that they think the
> nutty narcissist if too stupid to defend herself.

There aren't many normal people here Dave. That is obvious.

On 6/30/2015 11:06 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>


>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>> paid.
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect.
>
> Tell MN Real Estate that.
>
> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house

Note the comment about paying off the mortgage.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 23:05:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/30/2015 9:50 PM, Janet B wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:37:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>>>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>>>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>>>> that situation?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
>>> $800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
>>> when you move to Arkansas.
>>
>> I believe he meant within the same community.
>> Janet US
>>
>
>Elsewhere means "some other place"
certainly true. I was going by what I felt was the context. No
problem
Janet US

"Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2015-06-30 21:23, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote
>>>
>>>>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to >>>>> owing
>>>>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> apply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>>>>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>>>>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>>>>> outstanding balance on the loan.
>>>
>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>>> paid.
>>>
>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>>
>>
>> And absolutely incredible stupid of her to say she is pretty sure about
>> > what if means without bothering to do a little research. In Boveworld,
>>> her > thinking something makes it true for her.
>
> I did look it up. I was correct.
>
> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house

Did you actually read your link?? She says, "the term upside down refers
to a scenario where the owner of a home owes more on that home in the house
would be worth if it were sold." OWES. Not the same as less than was
paid.
--
jinx the minx

On 6/30/2015 11:06 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:

>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>> paid.
>>
>> Absolutely incorrect.
>
> Tell MN Real Estate that.
>
> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house

First line:

The term €œupside down€� refers to a scenario where the owner of a
home actually owes more on that home in the house would be worth
if it were sold.

When it says the owner owes more on the home than it's worth, it
means on a mortgage.

Upside down does not mean you paid more than the house is now
worth. It means you OWE more than it's worth.

nancy

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:35:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-06-30 22:16, wrote:
>
>> That's fair enough. I think I'm done with answering or explaining my
>> reasons for replying to Julie at this point, since it's only the
>> hypocrites and trolls that have a problem with it anyway.
>>
>
>I am left scratching my head over why any normal person would even try
>to defend her.

I don't get it either, but there you go. It's like they have selective
blindness when reading posts or something.

>At the very least they are acknowledging that they think
>the nutty narcissist if too stupid to defend herself.

I don't presume to know their reasons, other than the trolls looking
for their raison d'être for being here at all. And we do have at least
a couple of those on RFC.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:15:07 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 21:21:48 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Nellie" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> And FOAD to you!
>>>>
>>>> Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
>>>> necessary things to do to get ready
>>>> for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before, but
>>>> it
>>>> is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
>>>> crowd
>>>> pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I think
>>>> that
>>>> speaks volumes.
>>>>
>>>> So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and laughs
>>>> and
>>>> to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
>>>
>>>Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
>>>carcinogens.
>>>We don't eat BBQ here.
>>
>> 10 cans of diet soda per day.
>
>And it's not a carcinogen!

So the $$$ have proven.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:21:06 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-06-30 5:38 PM, wrote:
>
>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>> that situation?
>
>
>My cousin in in the real estate business in the Georgian Bay area of
>Ontario. There is a boom in the local market and lots of big luxury
>homes being built in what used to be mostly cottages and and ski
>chalets. Most of his clients are newly retired couples who sold their
>city homes, but larger, nicer homes up there and still ended up with
>cash in their pockets.

Too bad for the locals who live there, I'm sure the new residents will
be welcomed with open arms

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:37:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
>
>>>
>>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>>
>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>> that situation?
>>
>
>Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
>$800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
>when you move to Arkansas.

Yep. I did assume that the real estate market in the U.S would be
somewhat similar to ours in Australia in the sense that it's a big
country with a wide range of prices and locations. It would be
relatively easy here to sell and buy something else of equal quality
if you pick the right locations. The converse is also true, of course.

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:50:10 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:37:30 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 6/30/2015 5:38 PM, wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
>>>> homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
>>>> loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>>>
>>> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
>>> that situation?
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily, but it is a matter of degree. Take a 30% hit on your
>>$800,000 home in Cambridge MA and you will still have a pile left over
>>when you move to Arkansas.
>
>I believe he meant within the same community.

Not necessarily, local or even interstate was what I had in mind.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 11:06 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>>> paid.
>>>
>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> Tell MN Real Estate that.
>>
>> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house
>
> Note the comment about paying off the mortgage.

Yes but it also talks about purchasing when the price is high. What would
that be called then?

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/30/2015 11:06 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>>> paid.
>>>
>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> Tell MN Real Estate that.
>>
>> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house
>
> First line:
>
> The term €œupside down€� refers to a scenario where the owner of a
> home actually owes more on that home in the house would be worth
> if it were sold.
>
> When it says the owner owes more on the home than it's worth, it
> means on a mortgage.
>
> Upside down does not mean you paid more than the house is now
> worth. It means you OWE more than it's worth.

What then is the term for house being worth less than you paid for it?

"jinx the minx" > wrote in message
...
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2015-06-30 21:23, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>>>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to
>>>>>>> >>>>> owing
>>>>>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term
>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>>>>>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>>>>>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>>>>>> outstanding balance on the loan.
>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what
>>>>> was
>>>>> paid.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And absolutely incredible stupid of her to say she is pretty sure about
>>> > what if means without bothering to do a little research. In Boveworld,
>>>> her > thinking something makes it true for her.
>>
>> I did look it up. I was correct.
>>
>> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house
>
> Did you actually read your link?? She says, "the term upside down refers
> to a scenario where the owner of a home owes more on that home in the
> house
> would be worth if it were sold." OWES. Not the same as less than was
> paid.

That is said further down.

On 2015-06-30 11:54 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2015-06-30 21:23, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
>>>>>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
>>>>>>>> down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to >>>>> owing
>>>>>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
>>>>>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
>>>>>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
>>>>>> outstanding balance on the loan.
>>>>
>>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
>>>>> paid.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And absolutely incredible stupid of her to say she is pretty sure about
>>>> what if means without bothering to do a little research. In Boveworld,
>>>> her > thinking something makes it true for her.
>>
>> I did look it up. I was correct.
>>
>> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house
>
> Did you actually read your link?? She says, "the term upside down refers
> to a scenario where the owner of a home owes more on that home in the house
> would be worth if it were sold." OWES. Not the same as less than was
> paid.
>


Sad isn't it. If I can quote the very first line of the article she linked:
"The term €œupside down€� refers to a scenario where the owner of a home
actually owes more on that home in the house would be worth if it were sold"

She was incorrect in her claim about it referring to a the house being
worth less than the owner paid for it. I suggested that she check the
meaning of the term "upside down", then she comes back with a claim that
she had researched it and provided a link, the very first line of which
says exactly what we told her and which she had disagreed with her.

It can't be ignorance because she claims to be a writer but doesn't even
know the meaning of ignorant, and it insists it is not important to know
that.

On 2015-07-01 1:17 AM, wrote:

>> My cousin in in the real estate business in the Georgian Bay area of
>> Ontario. There is a boom in the local market and lots of big luxury
>> homes being built in what used to be mostly cottages and and ski
>> chalets. Most of his clients are newly retired couples who sold their
>> city homes, but larger, nicer homes up there and still ended up with
>> cash in their pockets.
>
> Too bad for the locals who live there, I'm sure the new residents will
> be welcomed with open arms
>


Indeed. Their rural landscapes have been transformed into residential
developments. Their property values have been driven upward. Thanks to
market value assessment, their property taxes have soared. Their
peaceful lifestyle is gone.

On 2015-07-01 1:20 AM, wrote:

> Yep. I did assume that the real estate market in the U.S would be
> somewhat similar to ours in Australia in the sense that it's a big
> country with a wide range of prices and locations. It would be
> relatively easy here to sell and buy something else of equal quality
> if you pick the right locations. The converse is also true, of course.
>

My niece and their husband sold their house in Toronto about 10 years
ago and moved to Europe. Their two bedroom semi detached home there
sold for about $450. The next year, our neighbours sold their house for
$355,000. It is a three bedroom house with granny flat, a large living
room and a dining room and a really big family room, a double garage and
it sits in 10 acres of land. Anyone moving from a low end house like
that in the city to a nice house on a large chunk of land upgrades and
makes a tidy profit.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 13:33:04 -0400, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�us wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
> >>>
> >>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
> >>
> >>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
> >
> >May not be any mortgage, lots of people ready to retire own their
> >homes free and clear but in this market would have to take so large a
> >loss they couldn't buy a comparable home elsewhere.
>
> But wouldn't homes 'elsewhere' be equally or similarly devalued in
> that situation?

Not necessarily. Suppose you wanted to move into a neighborhood
with less crime and better grocery stores. A comparably sized
house might be more expensive.

Cindy Hamilton

On 7/1/2015 1:42 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote

>> First line:
>>
>> The term €œupside down€� refers to a scenario where the owner of a
>> home actually owes more on that home in the house would be worth
>> if it were sold.
>>
>> When it says the owner owes more on the home than it's worth, it
>> means on a mortgage.
>>
>> Upside down does not mean you paid more than the house is now
>> worth. It means you OWE more than it's worth.
>
> What then is the term for house being worth less than you paid for it?

A bad investment.

nancy

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 6:22:45 PM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Jeßus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 04:24:09 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 7:13:16 PM UTC-4, Je�ż�us wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015 21:01:28 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >Because we own this house and we can't sell it.
> >>>
> >>> You own it but can't sell it. Perfectly rational and understandable.
> >>
> >>She might be upside-down on the mortgage. Lots of people still are.
> >
> > Oh well, they don't own the house in that case.
>
> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is worth
> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside down.

Upside down means that you owe more on the mortgage than the house
is worth. If you sell the house, the proceeds won't be enough to
pay off the mortgage.

If you own the house outright and sell it for less than you paid
for it, then that's a capital gains loss.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 6:58:05 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-06-30 2:21 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
> >
> > Isn't it characteristic for a troll that they know they're trolling?
> > Jebus probably honestly thinks he's doing a good thing by warning the
> > world for Julie.
>
> Maybe he isn't doing it well enough because there are still people here
> to are replying to her occasionally as if she were sane and keep finding
> themselves in her maze of reasons for rejecting advice.

That's why I gave up on "I can't sell my house because it's not
up to code". It's just bullshit.

Cindy Hamilton

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 11:06:37 PM UTC-4, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 6/30/2015 8:58 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >> "Dave Smith" > wrote
> >
> >>> On 2015-06-30 7:30 PM, jinx the minx wrote:
> >>>> "Julie Bove" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Why would you say that? Upside down simply means that the house is
> >>>>> worth
> >>>>> less than you paid for it. You could own it outright and be upside
> >>>>> down.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is completely incorrect. Being "upside down" only refers to owing
> >>>> more than you can sell it for. If you own it outright, the term does
> >>>> not
> >>>> apply.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Add that to the list of things she doesn't know about and refuses to
> >>> look up before further insisting that she is right. "Upside down"
> >>> means there is negative equity, the property is less than the
> >>> outstanding balance on the loan.
> >
> >> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what was
> >> paid.
> >
> > Absolutely incorrect.
>
> Tell MN Real Estate that.
>
> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house

This link states exactly the opposite of what you are claiming it does:

The term "upside down" refers to a scenario where the owner of a home
actually owes more on that home in the house would be worth if it were sold.

"owes more". That means the outstanding principal balance on the mortgage
is greater than the net proceeds that would be realized from the sale
of the house.

Nothing to do with a house that is owned free of a mortgage.

Cindy Hamilton

On 7/1/2015 1:41 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/30/2015 11:06 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what
>>>>> was
>>>>> paid.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>>
>>> Tell MN Real Estate that.
>>>
>>> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house
>>
>> Note the comment about paying off the mortgage.
>
> Yes but it also talks about purchasing when the price is high. What
> would that be called then?

Stupidity? People were bidding higher than asking in some places a few
years back. Others were taking home equity loans against the increased
paper value of their homes. When the market crashed and the value was
less than what they owed, they were under water. Then they cried for
bailouts from the mess they made.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:35:28 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I am left scratching my head over why any normal person would even try
> to defend her. At the very least they are acknowledging that they think
> the nutty narcissist if too stupid to defend herself.
>
>
Not true at all. There are some who rush to her defense
at every opportunity and every lie La Bovine pecks out and
ready to pounce on the first person who dares call her down
on her incessant lying. But they are far too stupid to realize
she's using them. They still kiss her ass at every opportunity.

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:07:03 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/1/2015 1:41 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 6/30/2015 11:06 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>> I am pretty sure that it also means that it is worth less than what
> >>>>> was
> >>>>> paid.
> >>>>
> >>>> Absolutely incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> Tell MN Real Estate that.
> >>>
> >>> http://greatminnesotarealestate.com/...own-on-a-house
> >>
> >> Note the comment about paying off the mortgage.
> >
> > Yes but it also talks about purchasing when the price is high. What
> > would that be called then?
>
> Stupidity? People were bidding higher than asking in some places a few
> years back. Others were taking home equity loans against the increased
> paper value of their homes. When the market crashed and the value was
> less than what they owed, they were under water. Then they cried for
> bailouts from the mess they made.

Shoot, some people in Ann Arbor are getting more than the asking
price right now.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2015-07-01 11:04 AM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:35:28 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> I am left scratching my head over why any normal person would even try
>> to defend her. At the very least they are acknowledging that they think
>> the nutty narcissist if too stupid to defend herself.
>>
>>
> Not true at all. There are some who rush to her defense
> at every opportunity and every lie La Bovine pecks out and
> ready to pounce on the first person who dares call her down
> on her incessant lying. But they are far too stupid to realize
> she's using them. They still kiss her ass at every opportunity.

It is just too puzzling to that they would bother to try to defend the
indefensible. IMNSHO, if they had any respect for her intelligence they
could leave it to her to defend herself. I guess they don't see the
entertainment value of calling her on her bullshit and then trying
ineptly weasel her way out of her lie. The most recent is her
misunderstanding of the upside down mortgage issue, not bothering to
check the real meaning before insisting she was right and then linking
to an article that proves her wrong. In the past she had tried to deny
her previous lies. One of the funnier series of lies was on the issue
of her being a writer. First she said she was a writer. Then she said
she wasn't, said she never said that she was a writer, and when
confronted with previous posts where she said she was, she claimed not
to remember ever having said that she was.

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 3:21:48 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 6/30/2015 7:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >> "Nellie" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 9:21:59 PM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>> "Nellie" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>> > On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 12:26:46 AM UTC-7, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> ---
> >>> >>
> >>> >> And FOAD to you!
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
> >>> > necessary things to do to get ready
> >>> > for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before,
> >>> but > it
> >>> > is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
> >>> > crowd
> >>> > pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I
> >>> think > that
> >>> > speaks volumes.
> >>> >
> >>> > So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and
> >>> laughs > and
> >>> > to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
> >>>
> >>> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
> >>> carcinogens.
> >>> We don't eat BBQ here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you don't. We all know that carcinogens and BBQs are not the
> >> issue here, LOL. "Pump people
> >> full of carcinogens,"says she whose family is constantly sick. To the
> >> point that you lay in sacks of (cheap) rice for those occasions. I
> >> can't remember when the last time any of us were sick, at least five
> >> years, probably more. But that's not the point is it?
> >>
> >> Anyhow, it has been fun parrying with you. Have a good week!
> >>
> >> Nellie
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I lay in sacks of cheap rice? Hardly. I did say that when someone was
> >> sick as in stomach issues, I will make them cheap rice. Probably none
> >> of you have food intolerances either.
> >>
> >> Once again, Nellie, you are just trying to prove that you are superior.
> >
> > When it comes to food I think Nellie is this so-called "superior". I
> > doubt she lives on rice and beans even if she isn't feeling well. I'd be
> > willing to bet she handles raw chicken and makes actual chicken broth or
> > stock from the real deal rather than opening a carton or a can.
> >
> > Nellie probably doesn't have constant issues with buying bread or produce
> > that doesn't mold or rot or is somehow otherwise funky. It's true: most
> > "superior" people don't have those issues.
>
> Nellie also puts green bean casserole outside. Once I heard that, I don't
> care to hear anything else of what Nellie does with food. That was
> disgusting enough. She likely eats the mold and doesn't care.




Bwahahaha, says she whose family won't eat won't she cooks and who end up puking.

Nellie

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 1:24:57 PM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
> On 6/30/2015 7:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

> >> >> ---
> >> >>
> >> >> And FOAD to you!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Aw, Julie, I won't be able to F*&@ off and die today. I have too many
> >> > necessary things to do to get ready
> >> > for our annual Fourth of July bbq. I've mentioned it here before,
> >> but > it
> >> > is one of four biggees that we have here and I love to cook lots of
> >> > crowd
> >> > pleasers. Everyone has a good time and they keep coming back, I
> >> think > that
> >> > speaks volumes.
> >> >
> >> > So many lazy, juvenile people will be here to have some fun and
> >> laughs > and
> >> > to enjoy each others' company (and not a Lego in sight) : )
> >>
> >> Isn't that lovely. You go right ahead and pump people full of
> >> carcinogens.
> >> We don't eat BBQ here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Of course you don't. We all know that carcinogens and BBQs are not the
> > issue here, LOL. "Pump people
> > full of carcinogens,"says she whose family is constantly sick. To the
> > point that you lay in sacks of (cheap) rice for those occasions. I
> > can't remember when the last time any of us were sick, at least five
> > years, probably more. But that's not the point is it?
> >
> > Anyhow, it has been fun parrying with you. Have a good week!
> >
> > Nellie
> >
> > ---
> >
> > I lay in sacks of cheap rice? Hardly. I did say that when someone was
> > sick as in stomach issues, I will make them cheap rice. Probably none
> > of you have food intolerances either.
> >
> > Once again, Nellie, you are just trying to prove that you are superior.
>
> When it comes to food I think Nellie is this so-called "superior". I
> doubt she lives on rice and beans even if she isn't feeling well. I'd
> be willing to bet she handles raw chicken and makes actual chicken broth
> or stock from the real deal rather than opening a carton or a can.
>
> Nellie probably doesn't have constant issues with buying bread or
> produce that doesn't mold or rot or is somehow otherwise funky. It's
> true: most "superior" people don't have those issues.
>
> Jill



Thanks, Jill. You are right, I don't have any issues with food. You know, she just has to say something.

As far as superior, most people here can cook circles around me and I am in awe of them. I learn so much.

I do know what people like and I know what will go over well. I come here and to RFC on Facebook to get ideas and I do get lots of them. I get much happiness and joy from cooking and serving and getting people together. People have mentioned the lack of joy in her life and I totally agree. Lots of hate, no joy.

Nellie

On 7/1/2015 12:03 PM, Nellie wrote:
> Bwahahaha, says she whose family won't eat won't she cooks and who end up puking.
>
> Nellie


Bitch Nellie...dump!

____.-.____
[__Sqwerty__]
[___Marty___]
(d|||TROLL|||b)
`|||TRASH|||`
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
`"""""""""'
\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//

On 7/1/2015 12:13 PM, Nellie wrote:
> People have mentioned the lack of joy in her life and I totally agree. Lots of hate, no joy.
>
> Nellie


Bitch Nellie...dump!

____.-.____
[__Sqwerty__]
[___Marty___]
(d|||TROLL|||b)
`|||TRASH|||`
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
|||||||||||
`"""""""""'
\\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~//

On 6/30/2015 5:21 PM, Julie Bove wrote:

> Nellie also puts green bean casserole outside. Once I heard that, I
> don't care to hear anything else of what Nellie does with food. That
> was disgusting enough. She likely eats the mold and doesn't care.

Well, crud! Somehow I missed the green bean casserole comments. What's
the deal with putting it outside?


--
DreadfulBitch