$36,000 property tax

Baller barry is no longer ballin.

In California, a "purchase money mortgage" is non-recourse to the borrower. However, refinance mortages and second mortgages are full recourse. Which means that the bank will be coming after BG personally to collect the full amount of any short sale default.

Why anyone buying into high stakes games even has a mortgage is beyond me.

I know less than zero about BG's personal finances but I do know that he was at Borgata a few weeks ago and was playing the highest limit games that were running. A few dealers mentioned he had been there for a couple of weeks already grinding out big $$$

If BG is broke where do I sign to be that poor???

He shouldn't have given away all of those free books.

Hasn't part of the problem been that loans of all sorts were bundled up, chopped into pieces, and sold on the secondary market, and oftentimes nobody really knows who owns a particular loan?

Yes. I can discuss it with you more offline if you are interested. I have significant first hand experience in this regard.

He lives in Cali

This is correct but only for the 1st mortgage and only in an environment where the market is not falling like it has.

When the 1st mortgage assesses the true market value of the property it is pretty standard to use the "tax assessed value." The tax assessed value may not fall for years after the price of the property drops due to the fact that the tax man has no incentive to drop it since they collect more when it stays high.

I had a property foreclosed that was tax assessed at $117K. The property sold for $59K in REO auction. I owed the bank $110K. They were not legally able to peruse any debt due to the tax assessed value at the time of the sale being higher than what I owed them. The second mortgage on the property was $27K. I settled it for $3K and the whole thing was done.

zero

This is not true due to the reasons I just stated in a previous post. I also live in a full recourse state and can tell you that "full recourse" is still in some ways limited.

zero

If for example BG has a bank account in his wife's name, that is not "his asset" legally. Same with investments. If he has no lines of credit (which if he was smart he would have shut down any he had prior to this) he has no way of borrowing, and if he has "variable income" from poker, he can just claim he has no income. If he has significant investment losses he can claim an inability to pay due to hardship.

My guess is that on paper BG has no assets, credit, or income. In reality he is obviously still ballin. Going to be hard for a bank to prove it in court though and everyone including the bank will know that. In the end they will settle for peanuts since really all these loans don't hurt the bank, they hurt the investors and the bank just tells them that they got the best deal possible, then moves on.

zero

Generally good finance to not pay off your house.

Edit

Generally good finance to have a mortgage on your house at current interest rates and make the monthly payments and invest the money elsewhere. Not to hard to make more then current mortgage rates.

Not if you're a poker player / gambler.

i guess he went south on the house

Actually that's not quite true. Everyone thinks the wave of foreclosures started in 2008 but it happened well before that. People took notice in the rise in foreclosures years earlier. It was so bad that in around 2001-2002 states like Georgia, New Jersey and New York created laws that would curtail predatory lending practices.

Banks were giving out loans not caring, or maybe even expecting, the home to go into foreclosure. When it did go into foreclosure there were many reports that the bank's attorney would not let the property sell at the foreclosure auction for less than market value. Normally they would let it go for an upset price that would cover the losses and fees. They would quickly be able to turn around and sell it. Making money in origination fees and then reselling the mortgage after securitizing it.

They had a steady stream of buyers because they were the ones that were loaning out money. As long as people had loans they could sell the house. The banks made sure everybody that wanted a loan had a loan. Didn't matter if you had little or no income and I remember reading even people in prison were buying houses.

A more appropriate analogy is that you're a backer who can back as many players as you want because it's not your money and you have someone literally printing money for you when you need it. You don't collect a portion of the winnings but you get something from the rake and you make money when they bust.

2+2, where you can get answers to all your mortgage and forclosure questions.

Yes its Schadenfreude but Barry is a sponsored pro on Stars and presumably still owes Full Tilt a lot of "borrowed" money. Fair game therefore imo.

Cant wait for the next thread on "Fulltilt Pro Gus had black pudding for breakfast"

Why would you presume this? From Barry's last post I would presume he has paid by now.

If you catch him ballin out and droppin 20k cash at a bar on tape multiple times, is this admissible court evidence to sway the jury/judge with? It's kind of a silly question, but am pretty curious how people who ball out in public get away with being poor on paper when the debt recoverer is dealing with multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Howard Lederer gets to keep his house and Barry Greenstein loses his.

Seems about right.

I entirely echo this sentiment. Best of luck to Barry in getting out of whatever hole he's in, if he's in one at all.

+1

What did you learn this on... the A&E channel?