A city in California has locked a homeowner out of her own home. Why? Because the house is a historic Mediterranean Revival home and the owner was stripping the historical fixtures and selling them online.
The reality is a little different:
Kim Shewalter, 46, said she did remove some things she’d put into the house herself. That was after her mortgage payments adjusted to $6,500 a month. She said she couldn’t get a fixed loan and decided to cut her losses.
But she said nothing historic was taken, which was built in 1935.
“I have to give my house back to the bank, and I want to be sure I recoup a little bit of my money,” she said. “I’d understand if I was destroying the historic integrity of the
home, but nothing I’ve taken was original to the home … I have nothing to hide.”
Shewalter entered into a Mills Act contract with the city in 2003, which reduces property taxes on the home in exchange for the property’s preservation and rehabilitation.Walstrom said, as a result of the contract, the house went from an assessed value, for tax purposes, of $244,746 in 2003 to $139,000 in 2004 – a substantial tax savings for the homeowner.
So the city was in essence paying for the rehabbing that Shewalter did, and is undoing. And she seems to be clueless as to why they’d have a problem with her undoing:
“They changed the locks on my home. I have things in my home,” Shewalter said. “Until the bank takes it away, that’s my home … The city thinks they own you when you have a Mills Act contract. Where does it stop?”
When greedy people like you quit signing contracts, I guess. Is it heavy-handed? Sure. But morally she hasn’t a leg to stand on. In essence she sold that house to the city in return for a tax break. And given that it’s in foreclosure, her ownership is a bit murky anyway.
