To All Those Concerned with the Property at 1960 S. Maple Rd., Ann Arbor, MI:
I believe it is important for me to dispel the myths and half-truths surrounding the
aforementioned property and our dealings with Mr. Peter Beal. It is not my intent to provide a
tit-for-tat response; rather, I think a few simple facts are all that are required to enlighten the
general public.
First, the foreclosure of the subject property was completed in May-2004 through a legal
process that ensured Mr. Beal of all of his rights and opportunities to protect his property.
Specifically, Mr. Beal was served a notice of foreclosure by the Sheriff on February 6, 2003 and
had until the May-2004 date to pay his taxes that were delinquent from 1995. We were in regular
contact with Mr. Beal and he knew that he had to redeem our tax lien in order to avoid
foreclosure when instead he decided to pay more recent taxes.
During the three years since the foreclosure, there have been numerous negotiations and
lawsuits between the parties in order to settle the matter.
Mr. Beal was given at least two attempts to repurchase his property for reasonable sums after
the foreclosure.
The first settlement offer was for $50,000, less than 1/3rd of the value of an offer we had from a
third party buyer.
Mr. Beal has spent three years living free in a home he didn’t own due to a gratuitous
attorney who worked pro-bono. Mr. Beal has not been without opportunities or the generosity
of others, including our client which afforded for him to live there for free. It is only at the end of
this free ride that Mr. Beal has taken actions to rally public support.
Second, in his public statements Mr. Beal contradicts himself as to the value and quality
of the property. In several statements and pictures he shows the property as antiquated and in
disrepair. In another proclamation he states that he has spent 30 years restoring the property.
Mr. Beal is a fine woodworker and I believe he would agree that the property is far from a
“restored” condition. The truth is that the property has value only in the land, as evidence by
the $180k cash offer mentioned above, not because of any actions of Mr. Beal,.
In fact, Mr. Beal has allowed the property to degrade continuously, including the septic system
that he frequently allowed to overflow. It most certainly is in violation of building codes and its
habitability is questionable. It is this same attitude toward his finances that has put him in this
situation.
Finally, Mr. Beal has failed to mention that he had numerous IRS income tax liens (over
$100,000) that attached to the property over the years. At one point, the IRS had seized this
same property and sold it to an investor. Somehow, Mr. Beal convinced them to reverse that
foreclosure. At the time of our foreclosure, the IRS was waiting in the wings to again seize his
property. Our foreclosure removed the IRS liens from the property. In the end, Mr. Beal would
have never owned this property; a reversal in our foreclosure would have enabled the IRS to
take the property.
(Note: it is difficult to comment on the preceding paragraph since all aspects of it are incorrect,
misinterpreted or a fabrication. Gale seems to have never acquainted himself with the
information sent to him concerning the IRS, the origins of the liens, their history, status,
significance or state of action:
-I did not convince the IRS to "reverse that foreclosure"; the purchaser of 1960 at the
foreclosure auction threatened to bring legal action against the IRS if they did not rescind the
sale. His judgment, after inspecting the property, was that it had no market value and should
not have been seized in the first place. Doug Gale had been informed of all of this.
-It is simple prevarication for Gale to assert that the IRS was "waiting in the wings to seize his
property". To the contrary, they had taken the position that I was uncollectable for the debt,
that the property had no realizable equity (as established at the time of seizure, sale and
rescinding of same), and were willing to allow the liens to expire at the end of their term. That
"Our foreclosure removed the liens from the property" is only true to the extent that, by
dispossessing me of the property, the liens were automatically redirected. They were against
my assets, not the property per se. The liens have all since tolled (expired).
It is only Doug Gale's distortions and misinformed ignorance that allowed him to conclude that
"Mr Beal would have never owned this property", an odd statement considering that, the IRS
liens notwithstanding, I owned the property essentially free and clear at the time he decided he
could make a windfall profit by seizing it himself.)
Even under the new delinquent property tax laws, the property would have been foreclosed by
the state and sold to an investor just like my client. Again, the end result would be
the same. The only difference is that under the actual scenario, we funded his delinquent taxes
and the legal expenses that would now be funded by honest tax payer’s dollars under the new
system.
(Note: again, Gale's assertions are distorted and insinuating unwarranted conclusions:
-The County (not the State) was NOT in the process immanent foreclosure, nor were they going
to. By the time Doug Gale/Destiny-98 began foreclosure, I had paid off all back taxes with the
sole exception of Destiny-98's 1995 lien
-Gale, as Destiny-98, paid a total of $6,153.28 in taxes in order to be in a position to foreclose.
Only the 1995 portion ($2104.46) were "delinquent taxes," the balance being currently due
taxes Destiny-98 had to pay in order to foreclose.
Gale fails to point out, during the same time frame (1995 to 2005), I paid $31,329.79 in property
taxes. I think that qualifies me as an "honest taxpayer")
A relevant question might be: do you want your tax dollars going toward schools, roads,
police, and fire departments or do you want it consumed by financing properties (what, exactly
does/can this mean?) like 1960 Maple Road with owners who dodge their civic responsibilities?
For the record, it is and always has been our corporate policy to allow responsible and
able parties to redeem (repurchase) their property, even after foreclosure, at significant
discounts to the market values. We followed this policy throughout our dealings with Mr. Beal.
While it is unfortunate that he never took advantage of his many opportunities to recoup his
property, we hope that the property will end-up in the hands of responsible owners who will
care for its beauty and be responsible for their obligations.
(The above paragraph is simply a lie. There were no "many opportunities" "even after
foreclosure" for me to redeem 1960 S Maple "at (a) significant discount(s) to the market value."
Instead, Doug Gale/Destiny-98/REO America would not even engage in a forthright, good faith
sales negotiation, insisting always that 1960 was worth - and I should pay - far more than any
reasonable market valuation or, ultimately, what the final sale price was.)
Sincerely,
Douglas Gale
President
REO America, Inc.
I believe it is important for me to dispel the myths and half-truths surrounding the
aforementioned property and our dealings with Mr. Peter Beal. It is not my intent to provide a
tit-for-tat response; rather, I think a few simple facts are all that are required to enlighten the
general public.
First, the foreclosure of the subject property was completed in May-2004 through a legal
process that ensured Mr. Beal of all of his rights and opportunities to protect his property.
Specifically, Mr. Beal was served a notice of foreclosure by the Sheriff on February 6, 2003 and
had until the May-2004 date to pay his taxes that were delinquent from 1995. We were in regular
contact with Mr. Beal and he knew that he had to redeem our tax lien in order to avoid
foreclosure when instead he decided to pay more recent taxes.
During the three years since the foreclosure, there have been numerous negotiations and
lawsuits between the parties in order to settle the matter.
Mr. Beal was given at least two attempts to repurchase his property for reasonable sums after
the foreclosure.
The first settlement offer was for $50,000, less than 1/3rd of the value of an offer we had from a
third party buyer.
Mr. Beal has spent three years living free in a home he didn’t own due to a gratuitous
attorney who worked pro-bono. Mr. Beal has not been without opportunities or the generosity
of others, including our client which afforded for him to live there for free. It is only at the end of
this free ride that Mr. Beal has taken actions to rally public support.
Second, in his public statements Mr. Beal contradicts himself as to the value and quality
of the property. In several statements and pictures he shows the property as antiquated and in
disrepair. In another proclamation he states that he has spent 30 years restoring the property.
Mr. Beal is a fine woodworker and I believe he would agree that the property is far from a
“restored” condition. The truth is that the property has value only in the land, as evidence by
the $180k cash offer mentioned above, not because of any actions of Mr. Beal,.
In fact, Mr. Beal has allowed the property to degrade continuously, including the septic system
that he frequently allowed to overflow. It most certainly is in violation of building codes and its
habitability is questionable. It is this same attitude toward his finances that has put him in this
situation.
Finally, Mr. Beal has failed to mention that he had numerous IRS income tax liens (over
$100,000) that attached to the property over the years. At one point, the IRS had seized this
same property and sold it to an investor. Somehow, Mr. Beal convinced them to reverse that
foreclosure. At the time of our foreclosure, the IRS was waiting in the wings to again seize his
property. Our foreclosure removed the IRS liens from the property. In the end, Mr. Beal would
have never owned this property; a reversal in our foreclosure would have enabled the IRS to
take the property.
(Note: it is difficult to comment on the preceding paragraph since all aspects of it are incorrect,
misinterpreted or a fabrication. Gale seems to have never acquainted himself with the
information sent to him concerning the IRS, the origins of the liens, their history, status,
significance or state of action:
-I did not convince the IRS to "reverse that foreclosure"; the purchaser of 1960 at the
foreclosure auction threatened to bring legal action against the IRS if they did not rescind the
sale. His judgment, after inspecting the property, was that it had no market value and should
not have been seized in the first place. Doug Gale had been informed of all of this.
-It is simple prevarication for Gale to assert that the IRS was "waiting in the wings to seize his
property". To the contrary, they had taken the position that I was uncollectable for the debt,
that the property had no realizable equity (as established at the time of seizure, sale and
rescinding of same), and were willing to allow the liens to expire at the end of their term. That
"Our foreclosure removed the liens from the property" is only true to the extent that, by
dispossessing me of the property, the liens were automatically redirected. They were against
my assets, not the property per se. The liens have all since tolled (expired).
It is only Doug Gale's distortions and misinformed ignorance that allowed him to conclude that
"Mr Beal would have never owned this property", an odd statement considering that, the IRS
liens notwithstanding, I owned the property essentially free and clear at the time he decided he
could make a windfall profit by seizing it himself.)
Even under the new delinquent property tax laws, the property would have been foreclosed by
the state and sold to an investor just like my client. Again, the end result would be
the same. The only difference is that under the actual scenario, we funded his delinquent taxes
and the legal expenses that would now be funded by honest tax payer’s dollars under the new
system.
(Note: again, Gale's assertions are distorted and insinuating unwarranted conclusions:
-The County (not the State) was NOT in the process immanent foreclosure, nor were they going
to. By the time Doug Gale/Destiny-98 began foreclosure, I had paid off all back taxes with the
sole exception of Destiny-98's 1995 lien
-Gale, as Destiny-98, paid a total of $6,153.28 in taxes in order to be in a position to foreclose.
Only the 1995 portion ($2104.46) were "delinquent taxes," the balance being currently due
taxes Destiny-98 had to pay in order to foreclose.
Gale fails to point out, during the same time frame (1995 to 2005), I paid $31,329.79 in property
taxes. I think that qualifies me as an "honest taxpayer")
A relevant question might be: do you want your tax dollars going toward schools, roads,
police, and fire departments or do you want it consumed by financing properties (what, exactly
does/can this mean?) like 1960 Maple Road with owners who dodge their civic responsibilities?
For the record, it is and always has been our corporate policy to allow responsible and
able parties to redeem (repurchase) their property, even after foreclosure, at significant
discounts to the market values. We followed this policy throughout our dealings with Mr. Beal.
While it is unfortunate that he never took advantage of his many opportunities to recoup his
property, we hope that the property will end-up in the hands of responsible owners who will
care for its beauty and be responsible for their obligations.
(The above paragraph is simply a lie. There were no "many opportunities" "even after
foreclosure" for me to redeem 1960 S Maple "at (a) significant discount(s) to the market value."
Instead, Doug Gale/Destiny-98/REO America would not even engage in a forthright, good faith
sales negotiation, insisting always that 1960 was worth - and I should pay - far more than any
reasonable market valuation or, ultimately, what the final sale price was.)
Sincerely,
Douglas Gale
President
REO America, Inc.
From:"Tiffany Cone" <tcone@reo-america.com>
[Add to Address Book]
To:<heidikraepel@comcast.net>
Subject:RE: Washtenaw, MI - 1960 S. Maple Rd. - Peter Beal
Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:52:22 PM
[View Source]
Heidi,
I am checking to see if you had any questions on the email that I sent. I hope I
was able to answer any questions that you may have had. If you have any
additional questions please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Cone
Asset Manager
REO America, Inc.
[Add to Address Book]
To:<heidikraepel@comcast.net>
Subject:RE: Washtenaw, MI - 1960 S. Maple Rd. - Peter Beal
Date:Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:52:22 PM
[View Source]
Heidi,
I am checking to see if you had any questions on the email that I sent. I hope I
was able to answer any questions that you may have had. If you have any
additional questions please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
Tiffany Cone
Asset Manager
REO America, Inc.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: heidikraepel@comcast.net [mailto:heidikraepel@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:26 PM
To: tcone@reo-america.com
Subject: RE: Washtenaw, MI - 1960 S. Maple Rd. - Peter Beal
Hi Tiffany,
Thanks for reminding me---I've been busier than usual this past week---but yes, I do
have a few questions. I forgot how our lives change when summer arrives--
suddenly we are hardly ever home. Hopefully I will find some time to call or
compose an e-mail to you soon.
Thanks again, Heidi
From: heidikraepel@comcast.net [mailto:heidikraepel@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:26 PM
To: tcone@reo-america.com
Subject: RE: Washtenaw, MI - 1960 S. Maple Rd. - Peter Beal
Hi Tiffany,
Thanks for reminding me---I've been busier than usual this past week---but yes, I do
have a few questions. I forgot how our lives change when summer arrives--
suddenly we are hardly ever home. Hopefully I will find some time to call or
compose an e-mail to you soon.
Thanks again, Heidi
-------------- Original message: --------------
From: heidikraepel@comcast.net
To: <tcone@reo-america.com>
Subject: RE: Washtenaw, MI - 1960 S. Maple Rd. - Peter Beal
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:46:41 +0000
Hi Tiffany,
I would like to find the time soon to go over your breakdown of events and compile any
questions resulting specifically from that e-mail. Meanwhile, one question does persist
since our initial phone conversation. When you said you would be sending an
"itemized" e-mail, I somehow interpreted that to mean a financial itemization, such as a
list of your expenditures associated with this dispute. Is there any way you could
provide such a breakdown? For example: legal fees, the total amount of taxes paid to
the county, hiring a realtor, and so forth. Those were the expenses I was initially
wondering about, and your letter did add one more to the list, which is the sum of the
IRS taxes that your company was forced to take care of. The people who initially
suggested the fundraiser to me have only a vague notion that there must be some
significant expenses involved. A concrete itemization of what they actually are would
be extrememly helpful in understanding the situation.
Thank you. I hope your summer is going well. I am really hoping ours doesn't fly by
quite as fast as it did last year.
Sincerely, Heidi
From: heidikraepel@comcast.net
To: <tcone@reo-america.com>
Subject: RE: Washtenaw, MI - 1960 S. Maple Rd. - Peter Beal
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:46:41 +0000
Hi Tiffany,
I would like to find the time soon to go over your breakdown of events and compile any
questions resulting specifically from that e-mail. Meanwhile, one question does persist
since our initial phone conversation. When you said you would be sending an
"itemized" e-mail, I somehow interpreted that to mean a financial itemization, such as a
list of your expenditures associated with this dispute. Is there any way you could
provide such a breakdown? For example: legal fees, the total amount of taxes paid to
the county, hiring a realtor, and so forth. Those were the expenses I was initially
wondering about, and your letter did add one more to the list, which is the sum of the
IRS taxes that your company was forced to take care of. The people who initially
suggested the fundraiser to me have only a vague notion that there must be some
significant expenses involved. A concrete itemization of what they actually are would
be extrememly helpful in understanding the situation.
Thank you. I hope your summer is going well. I am really hoping ours doesn't fly by
quite as fast as it did last year.
Sincerely, Heidi
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Tiffany Cone" <tcone@reo-america.com>
Heidi,
Summers are very crazy…. Sounds like business is good though!! J
I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks.
Tiffany Cone
Asset Manager
REO America, Inc.
From: "Tiffany Cone" <tcone@reo-america.com>
Heidi,
Summers are very crazy…. Sounds like business is good though!! J
I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks.
Tiffany Cone
Asset Manager
REO America, Inc.
Doug Gale's memo attached to Tiffany
Cone's e-mail of 06-14-07:
Cone's e-mail of 06-14-07:
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Last revised 05-27-09
All blue highlighted text links to
additional notes and information
All blue highlighted text links to
additional notes and information
"Just because something is
legal, doesn't mean it's
right..."
legal, doesn't mean it's
right..."
Here is why...
This page is
incomplete and still
being worked on...
incomplete and still
being worked on...
Flickr site of photographs of
1960 S Maple by John Baird:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jo
hnbaird/491830437/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jo
hnbaird/494269401/
1960 S Maple by John Baird:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jo
hnbaird/491830437/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jo
hnbaird/494269401/
For a brief
summary
go to this
link...