Tuesday, June 10, 2008

D-Day. Decision, decision, decisions...

So today is the day—because as of today Ann Awad is, by her own hand, a resident of 4 Jewett Lane, South Hadley. And thus, disqualified from her high-ranking Amherst elected Select board position (with its $300 annual salary).

The FDIC backed mortgage, signed on April 10 under pains and penalties of Federal Law, clearly states: “Borrower shall occupy, establish and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days after the execution of the Security Instrument and shall continue to occupy the Property as Borrower’s principal residence for at least a year after the date of occupancy”

And my friends in the legal profession tell me that US Attorney Michael J. Sullivan frowns on bank fraud—even for a petty, egotistical reason such as this.

Tomorrow night Amherst Town Meeting will discuss spending $400,000 to preserve two Main Street lots, a stone’s throw from Miss Emily’s Homestead. Last week in a procedural move designed to enhance the probability of passage the motion passed by almost exactly a two-thirds vote.

So one or two votes (and Hubley and Awad always vote the same) could decide the difference on this important issue.


Mark said...

There are 2 different rules.

Voter registration - you can only be registered in one place.

Banking - primary residence is your first house - you can have more than one.

So, they can live in South Hadley 5 days a week (primary residence)and in Amherst on weekends (voter registration).

LarryK4 said...


If they wish to admit to the voters of Amherst (or at least the majority of the 15% or so who turned out during those elections) that they are going to rely on such an obvious loophole then so be it.

But I'm sure if the media calls today to ask, they will hide behind the "No comment, it's a personal matter" excuse.

And you have to wonder where they are going to live "on weekends" in Amherst once the condo is sold?

Anonymous said...

She will hold out until January.

Even if it is only $300, she does qualify for retirement, and if she works one day in January, she will have an entire YEAR in the state retirement program. Then she can get a good state job for 3 years and have a pension based on that.

Like Bulger did...

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to see where her vehicle(s) are registered, as South Hadley is going to have cheaper insurance rates.

That would be interesting, wouldn't it....

Anonymous said...

Larry, although I love your blog, what you are calling "bank fraud" is not in any ways illegal.

The mortgage is a contract between the two private parties, the bank and Awad. If the bank chooses not to adhere to the strict language of the contract, ans Awad agrees, then there is nothing illegal about it. The principal residence language is just a cookie cutter clause found in almost all mortgages.

However, I do agree with you on everything else. It stinks. They should resign immediately, or as soon as the condo is sold.

LarryK4 said...

No, I'm not so sure it's a "private" thing as Florence Savings Bank is an FDIC bank and as a result if they ever fail because of shady business practices it is the taxpayers who come to the rescue.

And on the very last page off all those "cookie cutter" clauses appears the WARNING that all statements made are true and if not subject to Federal prosecution.

Remember Clinton was impeached not because he had an affair but because he lied about it under oath.

Come to think of it their defense that they only live in South Hadley five days per week and in Amherst on weekends (at least until the Condo sells) is sort of like Clinton claiming oral sex is not the same as "sexual relations." Yikes!

Anonymous said...


I heard on the radio that you had filed a suit to have them removed, but I don't see anything here.

Is this and Anti-SLAPP suit that is being threatened? Seems a bit strange that an Anti-SLAPP suit could be successfully mounted by town officials, when the point of that law is to protect community members who are sticking up for their public participation rights.

Xenos (who is having blogger trouble today)

LarryK4 said...

Hey Xenos,

No, I have not (yet) filed a suit about having them removed, but I have—twice now--contacted the Attorney General to have her do it.

My pro-bono attorney read my post about them considering a SLAPP suit against me and went ballistic. He essentially quoted the combative line President Bush is now apologizing for: “bring ‘em on!”

He also said the ultimate irony is I would easily win the counter-suit and could end up owning their home in South Hadley as the Homestead protection Mr. Hubley filed on April 10 would be ruled invalid since they claim Amherst is their “primary residence.”

Anonymous said...

Sorry Larry, you are wrong on the fraud deal. Banks are insured by the FDIC, but they are still private entities. If they want to, they can change the amount or the interest rate with agreement from the other party, or any other term of the contract.

Ultimately, it is a private matter. The bank uses the mortgage, or the lien, in case the person giving the mortgage does not pay. Most residential mortgages have that clause.

Remember, they are not swearing that it IS their primary residence. There is no perjury. The only recourse is through the bank, which could take action against the Awads.

Just the same as if the Awads missed a monthly payment, the bank doesn't HAVE to start foreclosure proceedings after one missed payment. It is the bank's judgement.

Anonymous said...

Sure, there is a contractual relationship between the borrower and the Bank, but the real issue here is that mortgages of this type are not available for rental/investment/business property. This loan was only set up on these terms because the borrowers told the bank that they were buying a new home to live in, i.e. owner-occupied.

If they told the bank they were buying a rental property, the loan would have been processed through the commercial division (at a higher rate and less generous terms) and not through the residential division on the more favorable owner-occupied terms.

The Bank is not 'obligated' to call the Note just because they are not in the new house today, but the way they are approaching their problem is just asking for trouble. They still have agreed, in writing, to make S. Hadley thier home. I surmise that they have already told the Bank they are not yet ready to move in to S. Hadley because thay have not yet sold their Amherst condo, and that the Bank has agrred to give them more time. That is between them and the Bank.

But now we come to the core issue - why can't they give the citizens of Amherst the courtesy of a straight answer to the queestion of where they plan to live (or already are living)?

LarryK4 said...

Yeah, the "core issue" is they don't have a freaken core.

Unfortunately, I'm not getting a Hell of a lot of help from all the heavy hitters in town (including the "watchdog" media) who now plainly know that.

But then, they are getting WAY less support.

Open Government said...

Why can't they give the citizens of Amherst the courtesy of a straight answer to the queestion of where they plan to live (or already are living)?

LarryK4 said...

Because they are conceited, arrogant and overflowing with hubris.

PLUS, the local bricks-and-mortar media is a toothless watchdog; and other ‘Powers That Be’ don’t have the Balls—or Vaginas as the case may be—to call them on it.