TERRELL OWENS IS LOSING HIS CRIB(S)!!!!!!!!!

I guess making it rain ON them ho's AND making it rain IN them ho's is bad for your dwelling situation.

http://bossip.com/549275/...sip.com%29

When The Checks Stop Coming In… Two Of Terrell Owens’ Condos Up On Foreclosure Auction Block

Two Dallas condominiums less than three miles apart with Terrell Owens listed as the owner are both slated to be auctioned in March, 6, 2012, according to data posted on RealtyTrac. Owens is delinquent on a $360,000 loan serviced by JPMorgan Chase for a condo in the ultramodern Azure high rise in Dallas, according to the foreclosure record.

A second Dallas condominium owned by Terrell Owens is also slated for the foreclosure auction block. Located at 3701 Commerce Street, the second Owens condo is also scheduled for a trustee’s sale on March 6, 2012. Foreclosure records show that Owens is delinquent on a $295,920 mortgage serviced by Deutsche Bank for this second property.

T.O. played 15 NFL seasons as a wide receiver but sat out last year with a bum knee and a bad attitude. Image and video hosting by TinyPicHis antics on the field and off have given him a bad reputation. He didn’t play in the NFL in 2011, and the 38-year old former wide out is currently playing for the Allen Wranglers of the Indoor Football League. Over the years, Owens played for the Dallas Cowboys, the San Francisco 49ers, the Philadelphia Eagles and the Buffalo Bills.

Owens was one of the highest paid wide receivers in the NFL. In 2007, the Cowboys signed Owens to a four-year $34 million deal. The Cowboys released Owens in 2009, and the Buffalo Bills signed the controversial and outspoken athlete to a one-year $6.5 million contract.

IT'S ALRIGHT BABY...YOU STILL GOT YOUR FOOTBALL CAREER. SORT OF.

[img:$uid]http://wildpitchsports.com/wp-content/uploads/Terrelle-Owens-Crying.gif[/img:$uid]

These days, a forclosure might not mean you're broke, it might just mean that the place is not worth half of what you owe for it.

...much as I would love to laugh at him being broke!

HotGritz said:

TERRELL OWENS IS LOSING HIS CRIB(S)!!!!!!!!!

I guess making it rain ON them ho's AND making it rain IN them ho's is bad for your dwelling situation.

http://bossip.com/549275/...sip.com%29

When The Checks Stop Coming In… Two Of Terrell Owens’ Condos Up On Foreclosure Auction Block

Two Dallas condominiums less than three miles apart with Terrell Owens listed as the owner are both slated to be auctioned in March, 6, 2012, according to data posted on RealtyTrac. Owens is delinquent on a $360,000 loan serviced by JPMorgan Chase for a condo in the ultramodern Azure high rise in Dallas, according to the foreclosure record.

A second Dallas condominium owned by Terrell Owens is also slated for the foreclosure auction block. Located at 3701 Commerce Street, the second Owens condo is also scheduled for a trustee’s sale on March 6, 2012. Foreclosure records show that Owens is delinquent on a $295,920 mortgage serviced by Deutsche Bank for this second property.

T.O. played 15 NFL seasons as a wide receiver but sat out last year with a bum knee and a bad attitude. Image and video hosting by TinyPicHis antics on the field and off have given him a bad reputation. He didn’t play in the NFL in 2011, and the 38-year old former wide out is currently playing for the Allen Wranglers of the Indoor Football League. Over the years, Owens played for the Dallas Cowboys, the San Francisco 49ers, the Philadelphia Eagles and the Buffalo Bills.

Owens was one of the highest paid wide receivers in the NFL. In 2007, the Cowboys signed Owens to a four-year $34 million deal. The Cowboys released Owens in 2009, and the Buffalo Bills signed the controversial and outspoken athlete to a one-year $6.5 million contract.

IT'S ALRIGHT BABY...YOU STILL GOT YOUR FOOTBALL CAREER. SORT OF.

[img:$uid]http://wildpitchsports.com/wp-content/uploads/Terrelle-Owens-Crying.gif[/img:$uid]

I'm no fan of the guy but this pic is just

WRONG

Hope this guy gets it together for life after.

NDRU said:

These days, a forclosure might not mean you're broke, it might just mean that the place is not worth half of what you owe for it.

He's what Khia would call a "fuck ass ninja".

WTF.

One $360,000 mortgage and another for $300,000.

Why the fuck wouldn't this fool just pay cash?

Each of those two mortgages is literally ONE SINGLE GAMES PAY. If not less.

My mind boggles.

i don't know what football players make but I know that the banks in America are RAKING it in.

NDRU said:

These days, a forclosure might not mean you're broke, it might just mean that the place is not worth half of what you owe for it.

I'm not sure I understand why the value of the house would matter in this context? If you keep up your mortgage payments there wouldn't be a foreclosure, right?

I´m not into football but....dude is 38...isn´t he a bit too old to play football?

retina said:

NDRU said:

These days, a forclosure might not mean you're broke, it might just mean that the place is not worth half of what you owe for it.

I'm not sure I understand why the value of the house would matter in this context? If you keep up your mortgage payments there wouldn't be a foreclosure, right?

Yes, it would, but people are choosing to walk away from places that are worth much less than the loan

Should've just stuck to one house then he wouldn't have had this problem.

NDRU said:

retina said:

I'm not sure I understand why the value of the house would matter in this context? If you keep up your mortgage payments there wouldn't be a foreclosure, right?

Yes, it would, but people are choosing to walk away from places that are worth much less than the loan

"Yes it would", as in yes it would matter? Or as in yes there would be a foreclosure?

My point is that if you have money you can keep up your payments and then you can wait out the market until it gets back on its feet before you sell. If you don't have any money - i.e. you're broke - and can't make the payments, that's when the foreclosure happens. So foreclosure is usually a sign that someone is broke.

I guess if you have money and your house has dropped drastically in value you could refuse to make the payments and let it go into foreclosure but that seems to be an unlikely scenario to say the least, not to mention stupid.

Like I said if he was really looking out for his money, he wouldn't have done what he done so I don't feel sorry for his ass.

XxAxX said:

Walking away and jingle mail are common terms used to describe the process of voluntary foreclosure. A person faced with losing his home because of job loss, illness or any other reason can explore many alternatives to actual foreclosure, one of which is voluntary foreclosure. On its face, this can seem like a quick and painless option for those stuck in a desperate situation. Know what voluntary foreclosure is, its effects on the homeowner and lender and alternative methods of preventing foreclosure.

Read more: About Voluntary Foreclosure | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about...z1nniN0dW8

From the link you posted:

"A voluntary foreclosure is one option available to homeowners who have fallen far behind on mortgage payments and realize that they can no longer afford to make the payments on their home."

That's my point. You wouldn't let your home go into foreclosure unless you were broke and couldn't make your payments.

retina said:

NDRU said:

Yes, it would, but people are choosing to walk away from places that are worth much less than the loan

"Yes it would", as in yes it would matter? Or as in yes there would be a foreclosure?

My point is that if you have money you can keep up your payments and then you can wait out the market until it gets back on its feet before you sell. If you don't have any money - i.e. you're broke - and can't make the payments, that's when the foreclosure happens. So foreclosure is usually a sign that someone is broke.

I guess if you have money and your house has dropped drastically in value you could refuse to make the payments and let it go into foreclosure but that seems to be an unlikely scenario to say the least, not to mention stupid.

LOL I was not using my words well. "Yes it would" clearly means nothing, here.

I think people ( even those with money) are realizing that the market is not going to return any time soon, and some of them are choosing to just walk away rather than keep up high payments so that 10 years from now their homes are back at the value they started at.

Not saying it's what people should be doing, especially those who can afford the payments, but I think they are doing it.

retina said:

XxAxX said:

Walking away and jingle mail are common terms used to describe the process of voluntary foreclosure. A person faced with losing his home because of job loss, illness or any other reason can explore many alternatives to actual foreclosure, one of which is voluntary foreclosure. On its face, this can seem like a quick and painless option for those stuck in a desperate situation. Know what voluntary foreclosure is, its effects on the homeowner and lender and alternative methods of preventing foreclosure.

Read more: About Voluntary Foreclosure | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_4569340_voluntary-foreclosure.html#ixzz1nniN0dW8

From the link you posted:

"A voluntary foreclosure is one option available to homeowners who have fallen far behind on mortgage payments and realize that they can no longer afford to make the payments on their home."

That's my point. You wouldn't let your home go into foreclosure unless you were broke and couldn't make your payments.

well actually, lots of rich folks who bought high-end homes are doing the same. they don't need money, they just don't deem their homes worth paying too much for. this is actually a widespread thing, i'm surprised you have not heard opf this before

XxAxX said:

retina said:

From the link you posted:

"A voluntary foreclosure is one option available to homeowners who have fallen far behind on mortgage payments and realize that they can no longer afford to make the payments on their home."

That's my point. You wouldn't let your home go into foreclosure unless you were broke and couldn't make your payments.

well actually, lots of rich folks who bought high-end homes are doing the same. they don't need money, they just don't deem their homes worth paying too much for. this is actually a widespread thing, i'm surprised you have not heard opf this before

I still don't get the idea of folks who buy homes like that or even those who buy more than one house. You don't need more than one house, I don't care how rich you are. Especially if the market's all fucked up, settle on one house where you won't have to worry about making mortgage payments.

XxAxX said:

retina said:

From the link you posted:

"A voluntary foreclosure is one option available to homeowners who have fallen far behind on mortgage payments and realize that they can no longer afford to make the payments on their home."

That's my point. You wouldn't let your home go into foreclosure unless you were broke and couldn't make your payments.

well actually, lots of rich folks who bought high-end homes are doing the same. they don't need money, they just don't deem their homes worth paying too much for. this is actually a widespread thing, i'm surprised you have not heard opf this before

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

retina said:

XxAxX said:

well actually, lots of rich folks who bought high-end homes are doing the same. they don't need money, they just don't deem their homes worth paying too much for. this is actually a widespread thing, i'm surprised you have not heard opf this before

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

Well, rich athletes are not known for sound financial decisions.

But selling is iffy when you owe more than the place is worth. Of course a short sale is better than a foreclosure, but again, when you are a superstar multimillionaire athlete, you don't always worry about your credit rating or, for that matter, what is your moral obligation to fulfil a contract you entered into with a bank

retina said:

XxAxX said:

well actually, lots of rich folks who bought high-end homes are doing the same. they don't need money, they just don't deem their homes worth paying too much for. this is actually a widespread thing, i'm surprised you have not heard opf this before

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

here is more regarding strategic default, as it's being called, if you're interested http://www.nytimes.com/20...wln-t.html

excerpted:

And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.

[Edited 2/29/12 12:24pm]

NDRU said:

retina said:

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

Well, rich athletes are not known for sound financial decisions.

But selling is iffy when you owe more than the place is worth. Of course a short sale is better than a foreclosure, but again, when you are a superstar multimillionaire athlete, you don't always worry about your credit rating or, for that matter, what is your moral obligation to fulfil a contract you entered into with a bank

Therein lies the problem.

NDRU said:

retina said:

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

Well, rich athletes are not known for sound financial decisions.

But selling is iffy when you owe more than the place is worth. Of course a short sale is better than a foreclosure, but again, when you are a superstar multimillionaire athlete, you don't always worry about your credit rating or, for that matter, what is your moral obligation to fulfil a contract you entered into with a bank

Sometimes a bank will not work with you... at all!

NDRU said:

retina said:

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

Well, rich athletes are not known for sound financial decisions.

But selling is iffy when you owe more than the place is worth. Of course a short sale is better than a foreclosure, but again, when you are a superstar multimillionaire athlete, you don't always worry about your credit rating or, for that matter, what is your moral obligation to fulfil a contract you entered into with a bank

Fair enough, but even though he doesn't care about his credit rating or the purely finacial hit that foreclosure means, it can't be too much fun to read articles about yourself like the one in the OP (or on a friggin Prince site for that matter, lol).

XxAxX said:

retina said:

It might be widespread in the US but here (in Sweden) it's basically unheard of. Foreclosure here is not financially beneficial in any way. It means that the bank will sell your house for whatever price they can get, no matter how low, and they'll slap you with lots of charges. Plus your credit rating will take a huge dive. If there's any way for people to avoid that from happening, they will. In every single case it would be much better to simply sell the house yourself if you want to get rid of it so badly, even if it takes a long time.

here is more regarding strategic default, as it's being called, if you're interested http://www.nytimes.com/20...wln-t.html

excerpted:

And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.

[Edited 2/29/12 12:24pm]

Again, it's not shame or scare stories or delusion that make people try to avoid foreclosure here. It's that foreclosure will be financially disadvantageous in every single way. If that's not the case in the US system, I think you have a problem. Without a system that rewards people who take responsibility for their loans, how can you ever expect them to want to take that responsibility?

retina said:

XxAxX said:

here is more regarding strategic default, as it's being called, if you're interested http://www.nytimes.com/20...wln-t.html

excerpted:

And given that nearly a quarter of mortgages are underwater, and that 10 percent of mortgages are delinquent, White, of the University of Arizona, is surprised that more people haven’t walked. He thinks the desire to avoid shame is a factor, as are overblown fears of harm to credit ratings. Probably, homeowners also labor under a delusion that their homes will quickly return to value. White has argued that the government should stop perpetuating default “scare stories” and, indeed, should encourage borrowers to default when it’s in their economic interest. This would correct a prevailing imbalance: homeowners operate under a “powerful moral constraint” while lenders are busily trying to maximize profits. More important, it might get the system unstuck. If lenders feared an avalanche of strategic defaults, they would have an incentive to renegotiate loan terms. In theory, this could produce a wave of loan modifications — the very goal the Treasury has been pursuing to end the crisis.

[Edited 2/29/12 12:24pm]

Again, it's not shame or scare stories or delusion that make people try to avoid foreclosure here. It's that foreclosure will be financially disadvantageous in every single way. If that's not the case in the US system, I think you have a problem. Without a system that rewards people who take responsibility for their loans, how can you ever expect them to want to take that responsibility?

yes, america DOES, indeed, have a problem real estate market. the origination of this problem, however, does not lie with those who choose to walk away from the mortgages which represent unrealistically inflated real etsate prices. there are a lot of people not wanting to take responsibility for loans that were sold to them fraudulently, in violation of every single real estate broker and mortgage lender's ethical and legal fiduciary duty to the americans who were buying said loans.

moreover, our legal system is currently unable to process the amount of litigation commencing from these actions. moreover, our legal system has yet to redress the loopholes which gave rise to this mess. those same banks which perped this fraud, the same mortgage lenders, were bailed out by the american people, who can ill afford that. so yes, they are walking away. and, to sum up, yes indeed we have a problem.

retina said:

NDRU said:

Well, rich athletes are not known for sound financial decisions.

But selling is iffy when you owe more than the place is worth. Of course a short sale is better than a foreclosure, but again, when you are a superstar multimillionaire athlete, you don't always worry about your credit rating or, for that matter, what is your moral obligation to fulfil a contract you entered into with a bank

Fair enough, but even though he doesn't care about his credit rating or the purely finacial hit that foreclosure means, it can't be too much fun to read articles about yourself like the one in the OP (or on a friggin Prince site for that matter, lol).

you can see the tear rolling down his cheek!

XxAxX said:

retina said:

Again, it's not shame or scare stories or delusion that make people try to avoid foreclosure here. It's that foreclosure will be financially disadvantageous in every single way. If that's not the case in the US system, I think you have a problem. Without a system that rewards people who take responsibility for their loans, how can you ever expect them to want to take that responsibility?

yes, america DOES, indeed, have a problem real estate market. the origination of this problem, however, does not lie with those who choose to walk away from the mortgages which represent unrealistically inflated real etsate prices. there are a lot of people not wanting to take responsibility for loans that were sold to them fraudulently, in violation of every single real estate broker and mortgage lender's ethical and legal fiduciary duty to the americans who were buying said loans.

moreover, our legal system is currently unable to process the amount of litigation commencing from these actions. moreover, our legal system has yet to redress the loopholes which gave rise to this mess. those same banks which perped this fraud, the same mortgage lenders, were bailed out by the american people, who can ill afford that. so yes, they are walking away. and, to sum up, yes indeed we have a problem.

Well it seems to me that the beneficial foreclosure laws you apparently have are an attempt to address the other underlying problems that you mention. The government wants to flush out the debt and restore the balance, which is understandable. But I still don't think it's good in the long run to make foreclosure a preferable option. It will lead to a different set of problems down the line.

Here we have a different problem, and that is that people don't amortize. Not because they couldn't but because it's seen as a privilege to be allowed to only pay interest, and as a result the debt remains year after year. It's really an odd situation that could have dire consequences if the interest rates would go up or the valuations would drop.

I get the feeling he had these two cribs for his ho's and baby mommas.