Melonie Griffiths-Evans was in the news this week. Maybe you heard a little about it?

The Dorchester mother of three was facing eviction from her two-home because she had failed to make payments to her lender, back in late 2006, early 2007.

A group of committed individuals took up her cause and staged a media circus event protest when the constable came to evict her.

I have to say, even I was taken aback by the virulent attack this woman took on the Globe and Herald message boards.

Man.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention a couple of things you may not have heard, because of course, she was in the news one day, but then gone, the next, as we all moved on to other topics of equal importance (what was Mary Kate wearing when she got the call from the maid?).

Ms. Griffith-Evans was on Greater Boston (with Emily Rooney), last night.

Here’s what I learned:

* She was current on her loan until her husband left her, after the loan was taken out;

* She says her monthly mortgage loan payment varies, between $3,500 and $4,200 per month. She says it began at $3,500, so it’s not clear exactly when or why she started having trouble with the loan payments;

* Somewhere it was reported that her loan reset in December, 2006, and, separately, that her lender started foreclosure proceedings in January, 2007. As an astute observer noted, it’s not likely that her loan had already reset before she stopped making her loan payments; lenders usually wait 90-days (are required to wait) before initiating foreclosure;

* As I had previously discovered by looking at the public record, she didn’t become a real estate agent until after she closed on the house; therefore, those who screamed, “She should’ve known better!” don’t have much of an argument. Ironic, though, is the fact that she started working for the agency that sold her the house, in the first place.

My conclusion? We have a situation where a person was unable to make his / her loan payments because a change in life events, not because of loan resets or “predatory lenders”.

Based on the limited knowledge I (and others) have of this case, it seems as though she was able to pay her loan, at one time, but wasn’t able to, after her second means of income disappeared.

That’s really unfortunate for her.

Comments

comments

Call Now