Stop the Eviction of Bertha and William Garrett!

**ridgeabilly** · January-29-12, 07:05 AM

Stop the Eviction of Bertha and William Garrett!
The Garrett family fell behind on their mortgage when the daughter
was laid off and the father suffered a stroke.
William is blind and disabled and needs to stay in the single-story
house where the family has lived for 22 years.
Bank of New York Mellon will evict them as early as Monday...
Unless we act:
Monday, January 30 at noon: rally in downtown Detroit in the lobby
of 719 Griswold [[corner of Fort Street) and support the delegation
that will deliver our message to the bank’s ninth floor offices.
Tuesday, January 31 at 5pm: rally at the Garrett’s home, 7795
Pierson St. in northwest Detroit. [[Southfield Fwy. to 7 Mile, west 1.5
miles to Pierson St., left at the Dairy Queen.)

**ridgeabilly** · January-29-12, 07:07 AM

The Bank of New York Mellon — another bank that received billions
in taxpayer bailouts— repossessed the Garrett’s house at
foreclosure sale for just $12,000. After the redemption period
expired, the family scraped together what little they have and offered
to buy the house back for that amount. They had an apparent agreement
when the bank suddenly raised the price and announced that the
dumpster would arrive in front of their home this Monday.

**oldredfordette** · January-29-12, 11:59 AM

Name: StopTheGarrettEviction.jpg
Views: 945
Size: 55.9 KB

Flyer for event

**socks_mahoney** · January-29-12, 12:45 PM

Occupiers are foreclosure defense. In Detroit so far have a 100% record of three homes saved out of three defended. Four for four here we go.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-29-12, 11:34 PM

Isn't 7795 Pierson roughly around Tireman???? Why go up to 7 Mile? Are you advocating for folks you don't/barely know??

**j to the jeremy** · January-29-12, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

Isn't 7795 Pierson roughly around Tireman???? Why go up to 7 Mile? Are you advocating for folks you don't/barely know??

Would you ask this question if the address had been on Bagley or Commonwealth?

**Zacha341** · January-30-12, 06:53 AM

HMMM, That's a interesting point and I know just what you mean per the 'addresses' you reference.

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

Would you ask this question if the address had been on Bagley or Commonwealth?

**DetroitPlanner** · January-30-12, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by j to the jeremy

Would you ask this question if the address had been on Bagley or Commonwealth?

Because 7795 Pierson is a burned out hulk!! I amd trying to determine if the addresses are wrong or if someone has had the liberal wool pulled over thier eyes.
http://maps.google.com/maps?q=7795+P...=12,297.5,,0,0

**oldredfordette** · January-30-12, 07:51 AM

There is a 1 missing from the address at the top. Read the flyer.

**Crystal** · January-30-12, 07:58 AM

I think folks need a lot more information before folks can be expected to support this cause.

"They had an apparent agreement when the bank suddenly raised the price and announced that the dumpster would arrive in front of their home this Monday."

What was the agreement? If there was an agreement, maybe we should chip in to hire an attorney to enforce the agreement instead of forming a delegation to deliver a message.

How much money was "scraped together" to offer the bank?

What was the family's plan after the health problems and layoff, besides not paying the mortgage and staying in the house?

**Downriviera** · January-30-12, 11:21 AM

Moratorium Now is working with these people and they are saints. Lawyers that get little or no money helping people who have been victimized by the lenders. Since they are involved I can guarantee this fight is legit.

**Crystal** · January-30-12, 12:25 PM

Thank you for the additional information, Downriviera!

**socks_mahoney** · January-30-12, 08:36 PM

The "deal" was that the bank would offer the house at the $10,000 sale price to the family in the home. The bank then increased it to $12,000, then $15,000 the rescinded the deal altogether without explanation. The man who lives in the home is blind from a recent stroke, hence the aversion to moving to unfamiliar territory. Its a beautiful home, really.

We must Occupy the block dawn until dusk. A dumpster arrived today to use in the eviction, but was blocked from entering the street by young heroes and sheroes. The police were called, they declared it a civil matter and would not get involved.

The bank then declared this afternoon that "it did not actually own the home".

Tomorrow, they will be more ready for us than today. I will be out there at 6am well before the dumpster arrives, before I go to work.

And to DetroitPlanner...why would you not help a stranger in need? Is that not the Lord's work?

**ridgeabilly** · January-31-12, 09:23 AM

The struggle to stop the eviction of Bertha and William Garrett
continues!

The Garrett’s home is at 17795 Pierson St. in northwest Detroit.
[[Southfield Fwy. to 7 Mile, west 1.5 miles to Pierson St., left at the
Dairy Queen.)

For Tuesday:

People are needed at the Garrett home, 17995 Pierson St., Detroit,
beginning at 7 AM.

At 5 pm, please attend a rally at the Garrett’s home.

On Monday, we were able to send the dumpster away, delaying the
eviction by a day. This gives the Garretts more time to negotiate a
favorable settlement with the bank.

Call Trent Ross at Statebridge, the mortgage servicer, at
303-962-6753, and demand that the eviction of the Garretts be stopped
immediately.

**SWMAP** · January-31-12, 10:39 AM

I have no idea whether this occupy action is good or not - but very often a handicapped person living in unstable financial circumstances is better off moving to a senior residence where there are stall showers, raised toilets, emergency pull-bars and elevators - and people! There are tons of such being built in Detroit and many have subsidized rent. So sometimes proposed evictions like this can lead to something better for the financially-shaky people living in a house they can't support.

This is the back-story to the story of the 101-year old woman evicted from her home that everyone was so incensed about. She is way better off now that she is in a stable care situation than she was in her falling-down home with only her elderly and handicapped sons attempting to take care of her. Turns out she likes a clean, happy home. Its sentimental, but not always helpful to think that people NEED to stay in their homes of 22 years.

I vote for seeing this as a door opening to a better life for the Garretts - one simpler, cleaner, with more friends in an accessible building. That's what their supporters should be negotiating and working toward.

I would like to see more critical thinking when evaluating situation s like this.

**brandon48202** · January-31-12, 10:45 AM

I can answer your question- this is NOT a good occupy action. The Garrets have had 7 months AFTER the redemption period expired to do something about their situation.
They were not even the people the that took the mortgage out on the property! This fact is in the public records!
Also, the house is in disrepair. The boiler is not functioning and they have been heating the house with the fireplace!! They can not afford this property EVEN WITHOUT PAYING A MORTGAGE.

If you really want to help the Garrets HELP THEM MOVE TO SENIOR HOUSING, DO IT NOW!!!

**socks_mahoney** · January-31-12, 11:03 AM

Everyone seems to know whats best for these people. If they want to stay, let them stay. If their 6 kids want them to stay, let them stay. You try moving somewhere new with your eyes closed [[blind).

There's a very patriarchal attitude prevailing in this thread.

**SWMAP** · January-31-12, 11:09 AM

Just be sure you know what's best before you shut off all other avenues for them but an unheated house. I question your agenda here.

**socks_mahoney** · January-31-12, 11:11 AM

There is no agenda but keeping banks from kicking people out of their homes who do not want to leave. Where are you getting this idea that they have no heat? I have been there. It was quite toasty.

**brandon48202** · January-31-12, 11:22 AM

Are you paying on a mortgage? Do you think that people should be able to stop paying their mortgages without consequenses? Would you say that the Garetts have been doing a good job maintaining the property? How about the roof?

You are doing a great disservice to the Garrets by giving them false hope when they should be moving out.

**socks_mahoney** · January-31-12, 11:31 AM

The roof will bet better and the mortgage will get paid if the Garrets are kicked out. NOT

Do you think that people should have to keep paying their ARM mortgages after having a stroke? Have you no empathy?

We all know what happens to foreclosed homes. I'm sure some bank officer in New York is really concerned about the house's condition right now. Just sweating beads over the roof.

Keeping people in their homes is always preferable to kicking them out. Always.

If the Garret's wanted to leave, or should leave, they would have by now. Keeping them in their home will protect their neighbors property value and protect them. The block they live on is one where people look out for eachother. Do we need to lose another one of those?

I think not, have a heart. Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the earth.

**SWMAP** · January-31-12, 11:33 AM

keeping banks from kicking people out of their homes who do not want to leave

i did not want to pay my mortgage either - but i did because I didn't want to leave.If I had gotten sick I would have made other arrangements because I know that there is a pact that society relies on that people will pay back the mortgage money that they borrowed. Its one of the key ways that society works.

Its so bad to take little snippets of scripture out of their context and use them to shut down arguement - but let me offer this since you started it:

The synoptic gospels state that hostile questioners tried to trap Jesus into taking an explicit and dangerous stand on whether Jews should or should not pay taxes to the Roman authorities. The accounts in Matthew and Mark say that the questioners were Pharisees and Herodians, while Luke says only that they were "spies" sent by "teachers of the law and the chief priests".
They anticipated that Jesus would oppose the tax, as their purpose was "to hand him over to the power and authority of the governor" [[Luke 20:20). The governor was Pilate, and he was the man responsible for the collecting of taxes in Roman Judea. At first the questioners flattered Jesus by praising his integrity, impartiality, and devotion to truth. Then they asked him whether or not it is right for Jews to pay the taxes demanded by Caesar. In the Gospel of Mark [[12:15) the additional, provocative question is asked, "Should we pay or shouldn't we?" Jesus first called them hypocrites, and then asked one of them to produce a Roman coin that would be suitable for paying Caesar's tax. One of them showed him a Roman coin, and he asked them whose name and inscription were on it. They answered, "Caesar's," and he responded
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's"The questioners were impressed [[Matthew 22:22 states that they "marvelled", ἐθαύμασαν) and satisfied with the answer, they went away.

**DetroitPlanner** · January-31-12, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

Everyone seems to know whats best for these people. If they want to stay, let them stay. If their 6 kids want them to stay, let them stay. You try moving somewhere new with your eyes closed [[blind).

There's a very patriarchal attitude prevailing in this thread.

Where are you getting this idea that they have no heat? I have been there. It was quite toasty.

Okay so they have six kids and keep thier home too hot, but can't afford to pay thier bills??

If this was a priority to the family, why have none of the six kids been able to pay off what is owed? Don't any of them have jobs? Six kids should be able to pool thier money and pay this off in no time.

Why is the heat on so high? I keep my heat at 66 degrees and use the extra money to pay off my mortgage.

**jolla** · January-31-12, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by socks_mahoney

There's a very patriarchal attitude prevailing in this thread.

You mean the thread saying "please help these people who can't take care of themselves"?

**SWMAP** · January-31-12, 02:16 PM

Socks - maybe look up Bertha Garrett on the Wayne County Land Records site and see that she also appears to own two properties on Chicago: 13137 and 13133. Both oof them have been forclosed on several times by the Wayne County Treasurer for non-payment of taxes and then redeemed.

I've just been around a long time and have come across a lot of people who solicit public sympathy when they are really gaming the system. Not sure that these people are like that but still holding to my thought that they would be happier in the end if they go to housing more suitable for senior citizens.