OOT and BDC

[buzz]

all that moolah and they still can't pay a freakin' water bill !

[Ted]

all that moolah and they still can't pay a freakin' water bill !

Well, if it is the city of Berwyn or the BDC that now owns the property, maybe that's why they don't care about the water bill (if indeed the water bill has not been paid).

  Justme, how do you know that the water bill hasn't been paid??

[justme]

all that moolah and they still can't pay a freakin' water bill !

Well, if it is the city of Berwyn or the BDC that now owns the property, maybe that's why they don't care about the water bill (if indeed the water bill has not been paid).

  Justme, how do you know that the water bill hasn't been paid??

From someone I know "on the inside".  Oh and sorry my mistake, Steve also owns a 2 flat in Berwyn and hasn't paid the water bills on that either so the thousands that he owes the city is from both properties.

[Ted]

  Ted I'm pretty sure you can use property as collateral on other property. Actually some borrowers I believe can request it as added security to recover the loan in case of default. If the BDC or the city requested it in order to make the loan it was a very smart move on their part. Especially with the mortgage lender having first position.

Mustang54, I thought about this some more and this is NOT the same situation as you describe.

This is NOT a situation where the borrower is putting up another property that the borrower owns as colleteral on the loan.

In this situation, it is THE LENDER who is putting up another property in the lender's portfolio to secure the loan for the borrower.

That seems very wrong to me.  It is not the owner of OOT (the borrowers) who have ownership interest in Seneca.  It is the lender (the BDC) that owns the building.  The people who own OOT have no ownership of Seneca.

  The equivalent would be for you to go into a bank to get a mortgage on a house and, as collateral, the bank uses another mortgaged house in its portfolio as the collateral for your mortgage, not the house you are trying to buy.

  That seems very very wrong to me. It is the borrower who should be putting up another property as the collateral, NOT the lender.

  Yet, in this situation, it was THE LENDER who put up another property in its portfoliio to secure the loan (if I understand what happened correctly).

[mustang54]

  Ted it sounds to me like there is some missing information or wrong information on this topic. The scenario you just gave makes no sense to me at all.

[Roger]

"The scenario you just gave makes no sense''   what else is new.   lol

[MRS. NORTHSIDER]

"The scenario you just gave makes no sense''   what else is new.   lol

I find it amazing that you just said that on your 666th post.  LOL

[Bonster]

  Ted it sounds to me like there is some missing information or wrong information on this topic. The scenario you just gave makes no sense to me at all.

I agree.  I believe much is missing here.   


Also, the BDC is not a bank, so I think the whole lender/collateral scenario is not correct.

[Ted]

Also, the BDC is not a bank, so I think the whole lender/collateral scenario is not correct.

  According to the document, it is the City of Berwyn extending the loan to the borrowers:

WHEREAS, The City of Berwyn (the "City") wishes to extend to Borrower a loan in the amount of Ninety Two Thousand Sixty Two and 52/100 Dollars ($92, 062.52) (the "Additional Loan") which along with the Original Note will be secured by the Mortgage and the Assignment of Rents, as modified by this Modification; and

[Ted]

  Ted it sounds to me like there is some missing information or wrong information on this topic. The scenario you just gave makes no sense to me at all.

You may be right, Mustang54.  Maybe the lawyer put the wrong address (6544 W. Cermak) in the document that was filed and no one noticed.

  The signatures of the three parties involved are on the document (Anthony Griffin, Martin Medicino, Jim Gay) so I assumed they read the document before signing it.

  But, maybe they didn't. 

[Ted]

I believe much is missing here.   

  Well, approval of the additional  loan by the city council seems to be missing here.

[Good Time Charlie]

"The scenario you just gave makes no sense''   what else is new.   lol

I find it amazing that you just said that on your 666th post.  LOL

Creepy.

[Bonster]

Also, the BDC is not a bank, so I think the whole lender/collateral scenario is not correct.

  According to the document, it is the City of Berwyn extending the loan to the borrowers:

WHEREAS, The City of Berwyn (the "City") wishes to extend to Borrower a loan in the amount of Ninety Two Thousand Sixty Two and 52/100 Dollars ($92, 062.52) (the "Additional Loan") which along with the Original Note will be secured by the Mortgage and the Assignment of Rents, as modified by this Modification; and

Like I said, they are not the lender.




As to council approval question, no idea!

[Ted]

Like I said, they are not the lender.

  Mark, I don't understand your point.   The document was signed by Anthony Griffin as a representative of the BDC.  The Berwyn Development Corporation is identified in the document as the Mortgagee.  It was the BDC who was lending the money to the OOT owners on behalf of the city.

   That means the BDC and the city were the lenders.

In addition, collateral was involved because the document refers to a lien to secure the loan.


  Why do you believe they were not the lenders?  And, why do you believe this was not a lender/collateral situation?

[buzz]

FWIW.... That claim by rfischer that $93K was owed in back taxes, guess what, totally wrong.
$9783 was owed previously for 2009.
I stopped there, didn't want to waste more time.

[Ted]

FWIW.... That claim by rfischer that $93K was owed in back taxes, guess what, totally wrong.
$9783 was owed previously for 2009.
I stopped there, didn't want to waste more time.

  Buzz, according to the Cook County Treasurer portal, the 2009 taxes were $18,176.31, not $9783.

http://www.cookcountypropertyinfo.com/Pages/PIN-Results.aspx?PIN=16311250070000


The total from 2009 through 2012 was around $78,000 in property taxes.  If you add in 2008, it was around $93,000.

  The strange thing about this loan was that it was down to the penny (i.e;. 52 cents).  Most loans are in round numbers and are not down to the penny.

[buzz]

I last one I worked off was a Life publication from Wednesday June 15, 2011.
"Delinquent Tax List for the Townships of Berwyn, Cicero, Lyons, Proviso, Riverside"
I got that (2009) $9K number from there.  I was only chceking "delinquent" but you're saying they owe $93K ?  I stand corrected.

[Ted]

  I was only chceking "delinquent" but you're saying they owe $93K ?  I stand corrected.

No, I am not saying they were deliquent by $93K.  I added up the years where a tax buyer "bought" the taxes (2009 through 2012) and it added up to $78K.  Adding in 2008 would bring it up to $93K.

I am not sure (I would have to go downtown to find out) what the total deliquent taxes were for those years.   I think it would be less than $93K, unless the interest was $15K.

[Ted]

Sounds like some Berwyn-grade shit stirring...

It may be Berwyn-grade shit stirring but I think RFischer has gone public with something that should raise suspicions about this loan of $93,062.52 from the Berwyn Development Corporation (on behalf of the city of Berwyn) to the owners of the building that houses the bar Olive Or Twist:

1. City Council approval - This loan of $93,062.52 was apparently never approved or voted on by the Berwyn City Council yet the Recorder of Deeds document indicates that it is the City of Berwyn extending the loan.

2. $385,000 limit - According to the minutes of the first city council meeting in June, 2010, the original mortgage loan given to OOT by the city of Berwyn was not to exceeed an amount of $385,000.  Those are the words in the minutes.

    The BDC violated that limit by adding on an additional loan of $93,062.52 on top of the original mortgage of $385,000.

3. Seneca property - The Recorder of Deeds document indicates that a first lien involving the property at 6544 W. Cermak is involved in the loan.  It is the lender (the BDC) who has or had ownership claims on the property at 6544 W. Cermak, not the borrowers (the owners of OOT).


  All of those are legitimate reasons to raise suspicions about this loan.

[mustang54]

  Ted I have some questions for you because your constant posts say the same thing over and over just creating more questions and no answers. Here are some scenarios since no one seems to really know whats going on.
1. Council approval. Maybe certain lower amounts do not need to be approved in public? Whoever typed or took that meetings minutes left it out?
2. 385,000 limit on a loan. Not the total of more than one loan but the limit on a loan?
3. Seneca property. Someone at the county screwed up! The BDC is not the lender for one thing the City of Berwyn is the lender aren't they? It's not the BDC's money its the City of Berwyns.
  Could it also be the newspaper has some wrong info to start with? No I doubt it not our local paper.LOL!!
Happy hunting Ted hope you figure it out.