Stephen Baldwin Losing Home to Foreclosure

27 Comments so far

1. Charles Richey on June 14, 2009 2:11 pm

   I guess his brother isn’t going to help him out. I wonder what it will appraise for now.

2. BJ on June 14, 2009 5:00 pm

   Another guy living way beyond his means.
   Guess he went “stated income” like the rest of the saps who are losing their homes to foreclosure.

3. Kb on June 14, 2009 6:44 pm

   When is the Government going to get it,

   TAXES are killing everyone. Not saying Baldwin is not in error here, but these taxes are ruining America.
   We let NY because there were so many socialized programs , business laws and regulations it was not worth the hassle to try to make it there.

4. Betsy on June 14, 2009 8:55 pm

   BJ,

   Must be a realtor or banker, I would assume who sold those usurous loans, and also failed to disclose in order to push sales on unsuspecting buyers - which has been left out of the picture.

   Arizona is the one of the highest foreclosure states, and part of it is due to the property taxes that also skyrocketed for most during the boom, and also homeowners insurance. You must live in a lower cost state, as it appears also those who are ignorant in what truly caused this problem are.

   And there is no “choice” in loans anymore, and a great many were based not on prime, but on the European LIBOR rates and sold out of states that have little regulation. What a sap, and most likely in a related industry.

   By the way, appears not much truth in reporting here either. How can you owe “thousands” in taxes to the feds for your home, when the property taxes are state determined?

   What a bunch of loan sharks the bankers are, and what a bunch of used car salesman the realtors are who were looking simply for higher commission and sold out of their own greed. And I hope you can read your mortgage loan, since they are written with absolutely no buyer protections whatsoever. And don’t live in a non-judicial foreclosure or judicial foreclosure state - since you just may be next unless Washington and the states stop protecting industry, and start protecting the American people and their victims.

5. Betsy on June 14, 2009 9:00 pm

   KB,

   And with respect to banks and financial institutions, and realtors, there aren’t enough business regulations, as it quite apparent. Nor is there enough oversight on the Federal Reserve, who manipulated this crisis to begin with along with their lackeys in Washington.

   New York is a “liberal” state, and that liberalism is what has caused its socialism, just as in California, and now they want the more “fiscally conservative” states to bail them out.

   Talk about hypocricy.

6. Definitely Not A Ditto Head on June 14, 2009 11:20 pm

   Betsy,
   I agree with your first paragraph. Most of the financial crisis was caused by the deregulation of the financial industry which over-leveraged itself sometimes 30 to 1.

   Your second paragraph however, makes absolutely no sense. The so-called “liberal” state’s so-called “socialism” as you claim doesn’t exist in the terms you describe and has nothing to do with anything– especially this crisis.

   The financial crisis was caused by 30 years of laissez-faire economics starting with Ronald Reagan and culminated to its ugly pinnacle with George W. Bush. Capitalism is grand, but when left to its own vices, it will cannibalize itself, as has been demonstrated over the last year or so and almost identically back in the late 20’s. And all that has nothing to do with socialism or liberalism, it has to do with conservative’s lust for no regulations. Socialism is not an ideal political system as a whole, but when Capitalism starts to implode due to unregulated greed (which is and always will be human nature when left unchecked) then Socialism is…quite ironically… the only thing that will save Capitalism. It’s what successfully rebooted and saved Capitalism in the 30’s and 40’s (New Deal and the “socialist” government “stimulus spending” of WWII) and it’s what will probably help save the current global financial crisis. Once the dust settles, the proper course would be to allow the government programs and nationalization to expire and let appropriate companies and industries settle back into the private sector.

   Based on that obvious slant of your comments and what I guess can be considered “logic” I know that’s probably disturbing caveat for you to read or even contemplate without a knee-jerk reaction. I also realize all my typing is in vain because you’ll probably neither read this comment nor be able to digest its practical truth.

   The only thing that is hypocritical is the right-wing outrage to the mess they created. Unfortunately most right-wingers are too misinformed to really understand that. Think I’m wrong? Read up on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. Bill Clinton definitely had his hands in this rancid pie too, so it’s not completely the right-wing’s fault, but George W. Bush just about successfully bankrupted this nation with the help of Republican-controlled Congress.

7. Definitely Not A Ditto Head on June 14, 2009 11:24 pm

   Oh, and the irony of Stephen Baldwin’s personal politics really provides an amusing contrast to the right-wing hyperbole in the comments of this article.

8. newt on June 15, 2009 2:59 am

   Get it right stupid, it was your uncle Barney Frank,and your aunt nancy.

9. Chris on June 15, 2009 6:41 am

   It’s all about character or lack of it! Doing the right thing not what you can get away with is the problem world wide. Caveat emptor! People know what they can afford! We never should have gone off the gold standard and NAFTA is killing the United States.

10. Laura on June 15, 2009 8:13 am

    I agree completely, Chris. The foreclosure timeline in New York is 18-24 months. That means that Baldwin wasn’t paying for at least a year and a half before this auction. He didn’t even try to sell. But, really, who denies a Baldwin due to credit? Sad.

11. Laura on June 15, 2009 8:16 am

    And here’s an article that may surprise “Definitely Not A Ditto Head”:

    September 30, 1999
    Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
    By STEVEN A. HOLMES
    In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
    The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets — including the New York metropolitan region — will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
    Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
    In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates — anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
    ”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. ”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
    Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
    In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.
    ”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”
    Under Fannie Mae’s pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 — a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
    Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
    Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
    Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990’s. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
    In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
    Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
    In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
    The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

12. Just on June 15, 2009 8:51 am

    It started with Jimmy Carter and the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Later, it was reformed to add regulation by Bush Sr. and then by Clinton. Frank and Dodd were being paid under the table to fight further regulation under Bush Jr. Pelosi was/is on her own crusade to bring socialism to America.

    Anyone who thinks the banks were the ones that caused this mess or even had a hand in it, is extremely naive. If you make $35,000/year and you think you can afford a $400,000 home, you are mathematically bankrupt and deserve to have your money taken from you. Everyone who signed on to a toxic loan knew exactly what they were doing. It’s common sense for crying out loud. These “poor” homeowners just need an excuse. Banks were just doing their jobs. Creating revenue. And to think Reagan was anything but great for this nation is just flat out dumb. Dems caused this mess, but there’s no way in hell they are ever going to admit it. They just deny, deny, deny and then make counter accusations. I honestly can’t fathom an American touting socialism or even thinking socialism is okay. However, it is America and we are a free nation. I just hate to see our soldiers, current and past, fighting for our freedom only to have it fudged up by left wing socialism. Obviously, ditto head is neither logical or politically astute. I would suggest you do some research and then return with more reasonable explainations.

    As for Baldwin, I don’t know his financial situation, but it seems he can no longer afford the home he is in. He may have been able to afford it at one point, but his flow of income has come up short. Being that he bought it in 1997, I highly doubt he had a toxic loan. It happens and now he must move on. It is a nice home. I don’t know why he thought he could well it for 3 and a half mil, though.

13. Definitely Not A Ditto Head on June 15, 2009 11:49 am

    Ha, you right-wingers are idiots frothing at the mouths about “socialism” this and “socialism” that. Social Security is a form of socialism, so is Medicare. Republican congressmen and senators enjoy what amounts to socialized medicine, paid for by your tax dollars, and they are all part of the right wing noise machine talking trash about the very thing they enjoy. Talk about hypocrisy.

    No one is advocating pure unbridled socialism in America, but there are programs like the ones I mentioned above that are enjoyed probably by at least half of you that are spouting this nonsense or friends and close relatives.

    Are you saying when you retire you are going to reject your Social Security or Medicare because it is socialistic and that’s evil? Get real.

    As for the financial crisis, there was indeed a lot of people who could not afford these loans… but that again speaks to the point that is what banks are suppose to do is ferret out who is a legitimate loan recipient and who isn’t, and when the banks have no regulation and are left to their own pure greed, look what happens.

    Really, what it comes down to is this… Right-wingers are just frothing at the mouth because the country soundly rejected the horrible policies of the conservative movement. Twice.

14. Darius Cochran on June 15, 2009 12:32 pm

    I hope he can keep his home.
    Good Luck.
    Realestate in Fort Myers Florida is the best value around right now. There is a Buying spree going on right now. The Volume of Home sales is higher then in the boom of 2006 & 2007.
    Thanks

15. Amazed on June 15, 2009 12:57 pm

    Darious, put the crack pipe down. What’s the average selling price? The “volume” are REO’s and short sales being bought by vulture funds and speculators. They still don’t cash flow positive for rentals.

    Tell us why house prices are still not overpriced based on any fundamentals. Take a look at the HPI and see where prices are headed.

    http://www.housedata.info/FL/CapeCoral.FortMyers/

    Shocking that a realtard like yourself is still claiming to BUY NOW.

    Shocking I tell you.

    HAHAHAHAHA

16. World traveler on June 15, 2009 2:35 pm

    Definitely Not A Ditto Head - You have the right idea,
    Just to hard of an approch with a spoiled society.
    Unfortunatly you live in a narrow minded society.
    Some social programs are good and some arent. Social Security and Medicare for example are good, As you know these programs were modled after the type the europeans have enjoyed for 100 years, but In my opinoin without more medical regulation these programs will fail.
    When an office visit costs $195.00 for 3 minutes with a doctor - you should be outragged!!!
    The U.S. has the opportunity to learn from everyone elses mistakes, history has dictated what social programs will work and which ones dont.
    Yes, it is a delicate balance!
    Remember the 70’s when the metric system was introdused to the U.S. public - NOT received well to say the least. Are you aware all U.S. government building are designed and built using the metric system? I can only assume that change came about in the 70’s as well.
    The european continent got together and changed their entire finacial structure and combined.
    These are contries that have been in existance for 2000 years. The U.S. is a young country and has grown to super power statis quickly - “Fantastic”
    It shows the resolve of this blended society.
    Now why cant the blened society get together you might ask? - Unbridled Capitalism. Let the goverment do a little house cleaning, you might be surprised what they find.

17. Curious Math on June 15, 2009 2:52 pm

    I don’t get the numbers here. It says he purchased the home 12 years ago for $515k, listed it 2 years ago for $3.4 million, and is being foreclosed for an unpaid debt of $825k. How do you buy a home for $515k and owe $825k 12 years later? Did he take out a huge home equity loan or something? I would say that’s the mistake. Well, Proverbs (from the bible) does warn of the dangers of taking on debt, so at least Stephen (he’s a Christian, for those who don’t know) will be able to come away from this experience wiser than he was before and hopefully able to use his celebrity status to teach others of the dangers of debt too.

18. Jen on June 15, 2009 2:59 pm

    I was a loan officer for many years, most during the Bush admin. I can tell you without a doubt those were the years of “everybody rides.” No income verification? No problem! No history of where you’ve lived? No problem! I’m actually ashamed to say we pushed through loans that I knew would never float - but it was not a choice for me if I wanted to keep my job.

    By the way, don’t kid yourselves that things have changed at all. My sister who has no business refinancing for more cash just did - no problem!

19. Dee on June 16, 2009 4:30 am

    How come no one mentions the obvious? He is a no good greedy bum. He bought the house 12 yesrs ago for $516,000 and after only 9 years of owning it tried to sell it for $3.4 million. The historical average on realestate values is a gain of 100% over 10 years. This dirtbag wanted a 6000% gain. He has always been a mess - drugs, alcohol, violence, egotism, just like his brothers. He now hides behind GOD. What a hipocrit. Did GOD tell him to be greedy? Does GOD stand by hos irresponsible selfish ways? Lower the price of the damn house all the way down to where it should be and it will sell. But, NO, it is easier to foreclose and let the rest of us pay the price. I say, he is a nothing. No longer a Celbrity, but get him out of here anyway!!!

20. Amazed on June 16, 2009 6:22 am

    Amen brother. He bought the house for $516,000 and most likely extracted more than that in cash out refi’s. Then he thinks he is entitled to a 600% gain, and rather than taking less, he walks away.

    Dirtbag.

21. Barb on June 18, 2009 10:20 am

    This house looks like it has been well taken care of and I wonder how much money he invested in updates to the home.

22. Lisa on June 18, 2009 6:42 pm

    To all of you who are so quick to judge Stephen Baldwin and everyone else going into foreclosure - WAKE UP! Have you forgotten about all of the people who have lost jobs due to the economy? I was laid off of my job of 15 years, was unemployed for 10 months, and am now earning 60% less than before. I blew through all of my savings to try and keep my home. Now I am in foreclosure, through no fault of my own. The banks could care less. They aren’t working with anyone, don’t let them fool you. You want to talk about greed? Look at the banks.
    So don’t judge Stephen Baldwin or anyone else until you are going through the same thing, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.

23. Loan Modification on June 24, 2009 8:41 am

    Lisa, I’m not going to begin to attempt to judge our dear Mr. Baldwin for going through foreclosure, although I can’t imagine why his lender wouldn’t want to work with him; having a celebrity advocate for a bank’s commitment to helping homeowners during this time of crisis would really go a long way.

    Horrible actor, but I wish him the best.

24. bitki derman on June 27, 2009 4:46 am

    Not saying Baldwin is not in error here, but these taxes are ruining America.

25. Jesus Christ on June 27, 2009 5:38 pm

    Many of you posting here are judgmental SOBs. Focus on the mental. Why the hostility for Baldwin? So what if he tried sell his house for an inflated rate–no one bought it anyway.

    Many of you remind me why I’m a misanthrope!

26. Real Estate News - Baldwin Declares Bankruptcy, Saving Home from Foreclosure on July 22, 2009 5:29 pm

    [...] Stephen Baldwin, whose property at 71 Old Mountain Rd S, Nyack, NY was in foreclosure and was to go up for auction today, has instead filed for bankruptcy, according to ABC [...]

27. Fresno-Bankruptcy-Lawfirm.com on September 2, 2009 7:02 pm

    [...] Stephen Baldwin Losing Home to Foreclosure | Zillow Blog – Real … – Stephen Baldwin, whose property at 71 Old Mountain Rd S, Nyack, NY was in foreclosure and was to go up for auction today, has instead filed for bankruptcy… [...]