Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 27, 2001 at 13:11:03:

Hi JT,

Thanks again for another thoughtful response.

Perhaps you’re correct. Perhaps its the volume of these
unfair cases that drives me crazy. Perhaps I’m just
looking to see a more level playing field.

And yes, I agree… leasing a $400/month SUV without
taking care of the basics first, like health insurance,
is nuts.

You’re right again… “survival of the fittest.” I just
wonder if that’s the best we can do in America. Seems
to me we can do better than that… and in general,
its a lousy way to operate. The burden on consumers
today is overwhelming… but I’ll save that thought
for a future rant.

Savings rates are dropping, credit debt keeps
increasing. Part of the American Condition. (sponsored
in part by your favorite lending institution)

Let’s not forget that it was the banking industry that
lobbied (paid off and granted favors to) Congress to
reduce restrictions (for their benefit) that brought
us to the S&L crises in the '80’s. I’m sure most in
the industry still have their jobs… no significant
loss to them. Yet, because of one industry’s greed, it
ended up costing you and me (and everyone else), $506
Billion (with a BIG “B”).

I wonder if a banker who received a dehumanizing,
insulting call from some snot-nosed punk threatening
to foreclose if he didn’t pay up… would have a
slightly different view on the matter?

I’m all for capitalism and corportate profits. Perhaps
I just get tired of the incredible imbalance in the
effect and negative consequences that the consumer
alone seems to shoulder.

You are aware I presume, that the industry now has
proposals in front of the Fed Reserve and the Dept of
the Treasury to allow banks into the real estate
brokerage business? Like it or not… it will happen.

Just my opinion, but there are a couple of areas in
American life that are just disgusting… like banking.

ATM’s weren’t created for your convenience, they were
created to reduce the bank’s expenses, less labor, etc.
Once we got hooked on them, they started charging fees,
claiming again they take losses on the upkeep. Well,
what’s it going to be… savings or losses? The answer
apparently, is whatever is convenient for the bank at
the time. Did you know that some banks charge you to
walk into their branch to make a deposit? Let me say
that again… they Charge You to make a Deposit in
their bank!! Think about how insane that is. Or how
about you select a bank to deposit your hard-earned
money in… but before you can open an account, they
want you to agree to a credit check! What’s with that?
A credit check to deposit your funds in their bank?
That’s down right insulting!

Like I said before… it seems only the banking
industry gets to whine about their losses. For the rest
of us millions of people in business, we just have to
suck it up.

Meanwhile, I’m done ranting. Just one remaining
question. What are you doing gabbing with me over
issues like this, when you should be enjoying your
beautiful vacation?

Thanks again,

trel

Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 23, 2001 at 16:56:21:

Assuming we all understand that foreclosure ends the rights
of possession of the borrower as stipulated in a trust deed
or mortgage… etc.

And assuming the lender either is the successful bidder or
is outbid at auction and effectively cashes out…

… what happens with PMI for example? Does the foreclosing
lender also receive the benefits of this insurance policy?

… what about FHA insured or VA guaranteed loans? While
only portions may be covered, can the lender cash in on
these policies?

Does in fact, the lender sometimes make a profit through
the foreclosure process?

Thanks

Re: Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by Dave T

Posted by Dave T on July 24, 2001 at 20:37:50:

No, foreclosures are not a profit center for the foreclosing lender. All funds from the foreclosure sale first pay the costs of foreclosure then the mortgage balance(s) in order of position. After all mortgages are paid, any money left over goes to the defaulting borrower.

In most cases, there is a shortfall. That is, the funds from the foreclosure sale are insufficient to cover the foreclosure costs and the defaulted mortgage balance(s). In this instance, if the loan was either guaranteed or insured, the lender can file a claim to recover the amount of the shortfall as long as that shortfall is recoverable under the loan insurance (guarantee) program. If the shortfall (or any portion thereof) is unrecoverable from the loan insurance program, the lender can seek to have a judgement issued against the borrower for the unrecovered amount of the shortfall. The judgement will specify the amount of money owed and the rate of interest that will accrue until the judgement is satisfied.

Re: Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by Stew(NE)

Posted by Stew(NE) on July 24, 2001 at 10:02:49:

In the case of the VA Loan, the VA pays the bank the money it said it would guarantee and now the VA owns the House. They get to sell it to recover their cost: www.firstpreston.com is a subcontrator that gets rid of these houses and they list what was recovered. This is how I understand it. I don’t see how this would be a big money maker for a lender.

Re: Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 24, 2001 at 20:45:10:

Hi Dave,

Agreed completely. Please see my response to JT
below: “No Profit,” for an explanation about my
questions.

Re: Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 24, 2001 at 14:03:58:

Yes, I understand this. The question remains: Can the
lender cash in on the VA Guaranteed portion of the
loan, after a successful auction whereby the lender
ends up cashing out completely? If so, isn’t the
consumer getting screwed and the bank taking unfair
advantage?

Whether HUD, VA or PMI… are these insurance policies
perhaps more than what they appear to be?

On several newsgroups, including my own, we constantly
hear about several lenders, like Ocwen, Advanta, The
Money Store and Fleet Bank… that appear to be in
a hurry to foreclose.

Banks have but one goal… to make money. Therefore,
it seems there is an additional motivation behind the
behavior to foreclose quickly, as in there may be some
hidden or additional benefits (money) for the lender.

What am I missing here?

trel

Re: Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by Dave T

Posted by Dave T on July 24, 2001 at 22:03:10:

Now that you understand that a foreclosure is not a profit opportunity for a direct lender, let me explain (as I understand it) some of the foreclosure motivation factors both for direct lenders and for Ocwen Financial Corporation.

Once a loan goes into default, the loan itself is no longer an asset but instead becomes a liability on the lender’s books. One way to recover their investment, and convert that liability to an asset is to foreclose on the collateral securing the loan then sell the collateral. For the direct lender, foreclosure is a process for mitigating a liability – not another means for making a profit.

After all you wouldn’t give someone a loan without expecting to be repaid. If you weren’t repaid, you would seek to foreclosure on the collateral to recover your money. Now, let’s say that you don’t want to go to the trouble and expense of foreclosure and paying the holding costs on the collateral until it can be sold.

One solution to get around this is to sell the non-performing note itself to a foreclosure specialist, then make the foreclosure (and the holding costs and the sale of the collateral) someone else’s problem. Someone like me comes along and offers you 40 cents on the dollar for that non-performing loan. I am not just buying the note; I am buying the right to foreclose on the collateral securing the note. Because I am taking on the costs of foreclosure, the holding costs of the collateral, and the risk of an incomplete recovery, I am only willing to pay you 40% of the principle balance of the non-performing note to offset that risk. I now will only get my payday when I foreclose and resell the collateral for more than I paid for the note plus all the costs incident to the foreclosure. My profit is the difference between the mortgage balance plus the foreclosure costs (or the net proceeds of the foreclosure sale, whichever is less) and the price I paid for the note in the first place.

Ocwen is engaged in the acquisition, management and resolution of troubled loans. Ocwen is the foreclosure specialist in my previous example, only on an institutional scale.

If this does not answer your questions, perhaps you will find more knowledgeable souls on the finance board.

NO Profit - Posted by JT - IN (St. Barths, FWI)

Posted by JT - IN (St. Barths, FWI) on July 24, 2001 at 14:34:48:

Trel:

Either a lender can buy the property back in, at Sheriff Sale and collect the ins, assuming VA, FHA, or PMI, etc., or they can be outbid at auction, by an arms-length buyer, and the lender is made whole, not being able to file an ins claim, but not both.

Some of the lenders that you mentioned, have loans that are seriously overdue, and shorten up filing time, so as to minimuize the losses on their loan portfolio. The lender must manage the loss within certain guidelines, and not let the loan go too long overdue, or else their entire loss may not be insured.

The most ideal situation for any lender, owuld be to not ever have a loan in foreclosure, as this would be the most profitable. Foreclosure costs all of us who borrwo money occasionally, as any lender losses are passed along as a cost of doing business to all borrowers. Does a lender occasionall make more money from a property going to forclousre?? Seldom… but does happen, but this is not their objective.

Some of the lenders that you mentioned are the larger C and D lenders, which stands to reason that they will ahve many loans in default, but foreclosure is NOT a profit center for them.

Just the way that I view things…

JT - IN (from St. Barth, FWI)

Re: Are banks profiting from foreclosure? - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 25, 2001 at 12:16:49:

Thanks Dave…

… but again, I understand very well that in the
normal course of business, foreclosures are not profit
centers for lenders.

Let me get to the larger point and the motivation for
my research.

Perhaps I’m just sick and tired of reading about
stories like the following:

Family is 12 years into a 30 mortgage. The husband
gets hit by a drunk driver and can’t work for 18
months. The family uses all of its savings for medical
and other regular expenses including mortgage payments.

Family realizes it won’t be able to meet its
obligations and soon ends up in default. The husband
returns to work and can start playing catch up.
Meanwhile, the lender sells the distressed note to
Ocwen (or someone else).

The husband makes arrangements with an Ocwen rep to
get caught up… sends his payments in as agreed…
only to find them returned and the property near
sale date, if not sold already. (We hear this all the
time)

No, I’m not talking about those who are seriously
irresponsible, no savings, constantly unemployed, etc.
I’m talking about salt-of-the-earth families trying to
do the right thing, who for whatever reason have fallen
victim to illness or some other matter beyond their
control.

So Ocwen buys the note at a discount because the lender
doesn’t feel like dealing with it? Ocwen derives its
profits from the difference of the sale price and the
price they paid for the note, correct?

This raises a bunch of new questions I won’t get into
now… but supports my theory that the Ocwen types are
in a hurry to foreclose. After all, if they don’t, they
don’t make theirs. This might explain the dehumanizing
behavior demonstrated by so many of their reps when
dealing with the borrowers.

If a borrower puts $20k down on a $100k property and
gets and $80k loan… pays off another $20k over the
years… faces a situation like the example above…
ends up in default and now owes $65k with expenses…

…then an Ocwen type buys the note for, let’s say
$45k… either initiates or continues the foreclosure
process at the $65k amount… but for whatever reason
the sale only brings $60k… the Ocwen type makes out
just fine and the borrower could end up facing a
deficiency judgment and additional tax consequences!

In addition, can’t the Ocwen type cash in on any
insurance policies, PMI, etc., for the deficiency not
realized at the sale?

Many laws are written for the protection of the lender.
Many are also written for the protection of the
borrower. Does the example above skirt in anyway state
laws written to protect the borrowers rights/equity?
(just curious)

In this case, a simply loan modification agreement
could have saved the loan. That’s good for the lender
and the borrower. But because the lender sold the note
to an organization motivated to foreclose, that
opportunity wouldn’t exist. Particularly disgusting
when the borrower regains the ability to make payments
again.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m certainly not against note
buying or real estate investing… I’m just trying to
research and discover if the borrower is getting
unecessarily screwed.

I look at home loans as a long term relationship
between lender and borrower that requires more effort
cooperation and communication… and not to be treated
as a one-time transaction. Can you imagine what the
relationship would be like if Martin-Marietta told
NASA to go screw after the o-ring failed on the
Challenger? It was NASA’s fault… they shouldn’t have
launched in that weather. Ultimately however, that’s
besides the point. For the relationship to work on an
ongoing basis, both parties have to work at it.

I don’t think most lenders work hard enough on the
lender/borrower relationship. Lenders get to take
deductions and write-offs… borrowers get booted out
of their homes, left with bad credit and a more
stressful future. The effects of the failed
relationship are significantly more harmful to the
borrower than to the lender, perhaps unjustly.

Somehow, that just doesn’t sit right with me.

Thanks again,

trel

Re: NO Profit - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 24, 2001 at 20:40:51:

You’re absolutely correct JT… and that’s the way it
should be.

Let me explain my questioning: It’s apparent that some
lenders have a bias to foreclose. The question is why.
What is the motivation? A lender’s sole motivation is
to make money. I’m trying to connect the dots.

This newsgroup, my newsgroup and many others are
riddled with complaints about Ocwen and Advanta, for
example. Typical complaints are fast foreclosures and
deals broken. Agreements reached but not honored, etc.

(And yes, we can get in to a whole debate about the
negotiations… and did the buyer have a signed
document or agreement, etc. Let’s skip that for the
moment.)

Typical example is an agreement to accept payments,
borrower sends payments as agreed, payments are
returned, property is either to be sold soon, or in
some cases, has already been sold at auction. What’s
with that?

Ocwen seems to buy distressed mortgages/loans from
other lenders, whether just in default or foreclosure
action has been initiated.

Ocwen is a lender. “Lenders” are businesses driven to
make money. Where is the financial gain for Ocwen to
buy a distressed mortgage and immediately foreclose it?

We’ve discovered that the lender with a VA guaranteed
loan must report the results of the sale to the VA.
That’s good. Let’s assume HUD has a similar device in
effect. Therefore, we can remove these two sources as
possible additional revenue for the lender.

Let’s also assume there is no fraud in these agencies.

What about PMI? Any opportunities for the lenders
there? Aren’t these insurance companies? What are the
relationships between these two institutions? What do
they have to report and to whom?

Assume there are no opportunities through the PMI.
What’s next? What other opportunities exist? Could it
be as simple as Ocwen buying distressed notes at a
discount, then initiating or continuing the foreclosure
action? Is there profit in between the court awarded
judgment (using a judicial example), and the discounted
amount Ocwen paid for the note… and if so… isn’t
this horribly unfair to the borrower with equity in
his property?

Like I said, I’m just trying to connect the dots. A
lender does not engage in activities that aren’t
profitable. This bias to foreclose quickly is an
activity some lenders are heavily engaged in. Why?

That is for Charities… - Posted by JT - IN (St. Barth, FWI)

Posted by JT - IN (St. Barth, FWI) on July 26, 2001 at 15:27:06:

trel:

I have read this post (response), just after replying to your other thread, so I will add a little something here, about these specifics.

Yes this is an unfortunate case, where a drunken driver etc., has rendered this family unable to pay. Due to the abuses by most borrowers who end up in foreclosure, Banks, such as Ocwen, have blinders on, in a situation like this one. They will not bend as they see this as someone elses problem. I think that a case such as the one you described is one that should be managed thru Bankruptcy, to stave off the creditor, and mangage these unfortunate circumstances. However, all the dead-beats, using every available law known to mankind, have “used-up” these Banks, and there is nothing left; meaning they have heard every sob story in the book, and they have no compassion, cause they have been played too often.

The case that you describe is one for charity and the likes of a church or close friends to manage. I have been involved in several cases, with different circumstances, but with ppl that do deserve a break, and there is help out there, but not from the bank. It seems that your example would be a fit for this type if intervention. Too bad it didn’t happen, as there should have been a solution there…

JT - IN (from St. Barth, FWI)

Unfairness of Foreclosure … - Posted by JT - IN (St. Barth, FWI)

Posted by JT - IN (St. Barth, FWI) on July 26, 2001 at 15:11:35:

Trel:

Let me address some of your points of this post, as I think that we are looking from different sides of the equation here. You seem to think that things are terrribly unfair to the borrower, by the gist of your post, I couldn’t disagree more!! Here’s why:

You mention "Bias to 4CL quickly"
The most unfair behavior that I observe in FC, (which I work almost exclusively the FC market, buying 15 to 20 homes per yr, at FC, mostly at Sheriff Sale), is from the borrower to the mtg company. The laws of bankruptcy, etc. are pro borrower, and allow for great discretion on behalf of the borrower, and lenders come in a distant second here. As for FC quickly, there is nothing quick about FC, except in a few states, but usually a borrower can be in a home, without making pymt for a period of 8 to 12 months, before a judicial 4CL. I, for one, think that if an owner doesn’t do a better job of protecting their equity than that, they should get the boot; and much faster would suit me on this issue.

Yes, Banks are in this game to make money. Ocwen and Advanta, to name a few, operate in the C & D markets, usually dealing with “dented/damaged” credit. It stands to reason that they will have a higher default rate with this crowd, doesn’t it? As for buying paper in default, there are lenders that just don’t want the hassle of FC on a defaulted mtg., and these type of Banks aren’t afraid of the FC process, in fact are agressive in the market. Buying a mtg at discount, then FC on it, provided it is in default is perfectly within the rights of the contract. This practice may reduce soem of the losses that these Banks are realizing due to some of the off-centered advantage that the borrower has, over tha Bank. The Bank can dabble in the paper market of defaulted mtg, and recoup soem of their losses elsewhere. Perfectly sane and rational business, as far as I see it. As for making an agreement with a borrower, then not honoring it, I am sure this must happen, but for every one tinme the lender does not honor an agreement, it would be matched 100 fold, for the borrower not keeping their end of the bargain. How do I know this ? Because I work with these same lot of individuals, who say that they will do something, and never follow through. They are mostly dead-beats, trying to buy time, and time is money to the lender. The lender is not sympothetic, becaquse they have heard this line-of-crap before, from hundreds of other dead-beats. Sorry for the lack of compassion, but I hear ti way too often, out on the firing line, at the kitchen table of the same sould that is being 4CL on. Granted, many of them have real problems, that are out of their control, but this is not the fault of the Bank.

Yes, unfortunately, this is a business, and the Bank is in it to make money, and most of them do; not all, you see, because they are at severe risk if not manged properly. From your tone, I almost think that you are suggesting that the banks should give these ppl several more chances, but this would not work for the Bank, in th long run. I am quite sure, if you were sitting in the “hotseat” of the Banker, trying to connect the dots, you would see this much differently.

I can’t imagine what it might cost any of us, who occasionally borrow motg. money, if things were any more slanted in the favor of the Borrower. We would all be paying an even higher price for mtg in this relatively lost-cost financial mkt, which is due to the default rate now, and would be even higher if more leniency were applied.

You almost seem to say that these banks are 4CL quickly, as if this is a matter of weeks, or so. In most cases, with Judicial 4CL, which is what I am most familiar, it is sometimes a year or more. I hardly think that this is pulling the rug from someone!!

Just the way that I view things…

JT - IN (from St. Barth, FWI)

Re: That is for Charities… - Posted by trel

Posted by trel on July 26, 2001 at 20:09:46:

Hi JT,

Thanks for the great responses.

I agree with 97% of what you say. There should be
no tolerance for deadbeats, those who abuse the system,
those that are always irresponsible. No arguement from
me.

While I honestly don’t know the numbers, I suspect one
in ten of these deadbeats Ocwen deals with, are no
deadbeats at all. There may be one million loans going
into default per year. One in ten is 100,000 families
a year that will have their lives ripped at the seams
needlessly, too quickly, on top of their other recent
devastation… like death, medical emergencies, etc.

And remember, a lot of those “C” people are right
around the corner from “B.”

Just to be clear, I’m not talking about those running
to the BKY attorney or the irresponsible. I understand
that many fit that category, and one could argue that
they burden society as a whole, not just the banking
industry.

A typical example of a post like that goes: “Help, I’m
about to lose my house to the bank… I’m unemployed
due to my drug addiction… filed Ch 13 twice and just
file a Ch 7… borrowed everything I can… sold
everything I had… am 8 months behind… can anyone
please lend me some money?”

(In the words of one of my favorite comedians… “you
can’t save everyone folks… just try not to be living
next door to one when they go off!”)

I argue that this is not a one-time, but an ongoing
relationship. A 30 year mortgage is a 30 year ongoing
purchasing transaction that requires better and easier
communication and understanding between buyer and
seller. The inability to meet one’s obligations due to
significant circumstance beyond their control, should
not be a sufficient reason to cause the loss one’s
home.

No problem with the lender selling his note, as long
as it doesn’t adversly effect the borrower.

Kind of like you buying a product from me, you’re
disastisfied with it and return it… but I tell you
to go see Russ Whitney or Ron LeGrand to work out your
problems.

I’m not satisfied with the lenders selling notes
because "they don’t feel like dealing with them."
That’s part of what we all have to do in business. You
return a product to me… I give you a refund. It’s a
cost of doing business. It’s an expense line item in
my chart of accounts called "returns and allowances."
I don’t get to turn my customers away if I don’t feel
like dealing with them… and I can’t think of too
many industries that can do that. (other than selling
receivables, etc.)

No, my heart is not bleeding for lender losses… it’s
all factored in. You don’t hear anyone else ever making
an issue over it. They know where their ratios need to
be. And remember, while they take losses on some
properties, they breakeven or make a profit on the
rest. They made a profit originating the loan, and
probably make a profit servicing it.

I’ve argued before, that there should be some
intermediate steps in place for some of these cases. In
our example… the guy is back to work… has the
ability to pay… sent $5k of the $7k requested and
could have made up the difference within months. Nope,
eighteen years of hard work down the drain. On top of
that, he could be facing a deficiency judgment, a bill
from the IRS and now has a foreclosure on his credit
report along with uprooting the family. All this
because the lender didn’t feel like dealing with it
and because an Ocwen type needs to make its profit.
Just my opinion… but that’s over the top.

Perhaps loss mitigation could use some improvement. I’d
be curious to know the percentage of short sales,
forebearance plans and loan modifications achieved as
a percentage of the 1 million loan defaults annually.

I think its still part of the original lender’s
responsibility to go the extra mile in a case like
this, not a case for charity. Clearly, it would benefit
all parties if they did.

There is more pressure on consumers today then ever
before. Naivety is not criminal… but taking advantage
of it should be. Homebuyers could use more assistance
in the area of education. How about something small
but mandatory?

You need a license to sell real estate, why don’t you
need one to buy it? You need a license to hunt/fish in
most states… and a license to drive a car whether
you own it or not.

Worried about lender losses? They should be required
to give a half day course to all first time buyers
discussing the benefits of home owernship, pitfalls,
loan responsibilities and the consequences of default.
That would save them a lot!

Let’s see… save 100,000 decent families from losing
their homes (keeping the loans performing)… save
another 50,000 loans a year that shouldn’t be written
in the first place… who knows… get those 1 million
defaulting loans a year down to about 850,000… maybe
you’d be paying a half point less right now on your
loans!

Even if my numbers are off by half… lenders could do
a whole lot of good for their customers and themselves
with a more proactive attitude… and stop whining
about their losses.

Thanks for letting me rant.

trel

Re: That is for Charities… - Posted by Ronald * Starr

Posted by Ronald * Starr on July 26, 2001 at 15:52:38:

JT - IN -------------

I liked your response to this question. I hope you are enjoying your vacation.

Good Going Guy.

Good Investing and Good VacationingRon Starr****

Re: That is for Charities… - Posted by JT - IN (St. Barths, FWI)

Posted by JT - IN (St. Barths, FWI) on July 27, 2001 at 11:00:17:

trel:

IMHO, your estimated numbers of ppl that HAVEN’T created their own charleton, are way too high, as a percentage of those that meet the foreclosure maker. I can’t substantiate this, but I think we are both guessing here, however, form my own observations, that have occured over the past 3 yrs of working 4CL sales, I run into almost exclusively folks that are working the system, as opposed to those that are in the category you describe. I would put the numbers at 1 to 2% vs. 10%. And, unfortunately, the other 98 or 99% have demonized the system for the ones that really are desserving of the true break from the Bank.

The folks that truely fall into the crack of medical or other uncontrollable event, are also in several categories, in my estimation. I repeatedly run into people that have run aground due to medical costs, that they are unable to pay. This is unfortunate for them, but on closer review, find many of them who have chosen to exploit that market, and have jsut lost. Meaning, most of these folks, have chosen NOT to purchase medical/health insurance, due to the cost of it, and when they have a catostrophic event, such as heart surgery, or a compi9cation with a new born, then heck yes, they cannot afford it, but by their own doings. I find many of these folks living completely on, or over the edge, and it is just a matter of tiem until something goes astray, and they are presetned with circumstances that they are unable to handle. It is common for ppl today, to choose to have a new car, with a $ 400 mo. pymt, vs. spending that same $ 400 on health ins. What a “bone-head” decision! And yet it will be the same family that will cry foul that they lost their house due to medical bills; dah!!!

I’m sure that I sound a bit cynical over this, but I see all too often, every month, several cases that were completely avoidable. No sorrow here.

For those cases that are truely a matter of bad breaks, and no amount of self-preservation would have helped, then I say, use the system, and every legal loophole that exists, to save the equity, and whatever else. There are avenues for these ppl to pursue, but again I find ppl just “not thinking” about how to take care of themselves. It is truely a world of “Survival of the Fitest” today…

Just the way that I view things…

JT - IN (from St. Barth, FWI)

Vacation is GREAT… - Posted by JT - IN (St. Barths, FWI)

Posted by JT - IN (St. Barths, FWI) on July 27, 2001 at 11:03:35:

Ron *:

This makes all the headaches that I have endured heretofore, all worth the endeavor. Life is beautiful on St. Barthelemey, FWI.

JT - IN (from St. Barths, FWI)