Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-01-2014, 01:37 PM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Indeed. And the "deal" was that the bank made a business decision to make a loan using the home value as the primary security if the borrower stopped making payments. It's a good bet when prices are rising (most of the time) and a bad bet when home prices fall--that's just the cost of doing business.
The borrowers who chose not to make payments anymore need to be held to the terms of the deal--all of them. But they aren't crooks. "This isn't personal, it's just business".

For most parts of the country the deal also is that the person will pay what is owed... all of it.... sure, the loan is secured by the home, but unless the loan says that if the bank takes the house then the loan is forgiven.... it is still outstanding and due.... some banks pursue the balance and some do not....

It appears that IF the person has other assets to pay, then the bank wants their money.... if you are still poor, you are safe...
__________________

__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-01-2014, 02:17 PM   #22
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
When the price is high, it is the seller who is getting the bucket load of money.... not the bank.... maybe a little bit more in fees, but the big winner was the person who owned the property and sold it....
Sure. I am thinking this: people "strategically" default and the bank takes the hit. I am thinking if the property value goes up instead, the seller who thinks strategic defaulting is only fair should also think giving some of the profit from that profitable sale to the bank is also fair. I know it doesn't make sense

Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_LNIP View Post

...

Keep in mind, these are the folks that would re-arrange transactions to stack NSF fees over the weekend, participated in a massive amount of perjury/fraud to foreclose on people's homes, swapped financial documents at the closing table, mandatory binding arbitration, bankruptcy "reform" etc...

I think if we are going to compare a few smart consumers that maybe got over on the banks, vs the long, long list of misdeeds done by the banks to consumers, and who benefited the most, I don't think anyone can argue the banks have come out way, far ahead of consumers.

Guilt is a wasted emotion. I sleep like a baby on a pillow every night.
I guess you are one of these smart consumers. I had to look up NSF as I am not personally familiar with what that is, but I wonder how a "smart consumer" ended up in a position to choose to strategically default.
__________________

__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 02:40 PM   #23
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 103
And I would never do business with someone who doesn't keep their word. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me.

So you have no accounts with any of the major banks? Cool!

Funny how you rationalize what you did my blaming the lenders.

I don't blame the lenders, per se, but I'm just saying I'm not going to be the only honest guy at the table. The lenders aren't as pure as the driven snow or boy scouts either, generally speaking, so I'm just saying I wouldn't feel bad for them. At all.

Do you live in a recourse state?

Yup. No issues with deficiency judgments. Don't believe the hype they tell you to keep consumers in line.
__________________
bad_LNIP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 02:53 PM   #24
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_LNIP View Post

At the end of the day, folks it's just business. Never personal. For those morally conflicted over the whole thing, believe me, the banks have no shame in their game, and neither should you.

Keep in mind, these are the folks that would re-arrange transactions to stack NSF fees over the weekend, participated in a massive amount of perjury/fraud to foreclose on people's homes, swapped financial documents at the closing table, mandatory binding arbitration, bankruptcy "reform" etc...
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_LNIP View Post

I don't blame the lenders, per se, but I'm just saying I'm not going to be the only honest guy at the table. The lenders aren't as pure as the driven snow or boy scouts either, generally speaking, so I'm just saying I wouldn't feel bad for them. At all.

Do you live in a recourse state?
Without comment on the merits of your choice, I would point out that "the banks" were most often not "the lenders". The banks were usually intermediaries, a few were originators. The banks that did most of the originating went bust, their shareholders and employees are mostly SOOL. The lenders left holding worthless mortgage were (and are) primarily pension funds and retirees.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 03:02 PM   #25
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 103
I had to look up NSF as I am not personally familiar with what that is, but I wonder how a "smart consumer" ended up in a position to choose to strategically default.

Because my crystal ball has a crack in it and is no longer under warranty.

if you are still poor, you are safe..


or if they just can't find you.

As far as the nsf fees, they would essentially re-order transactions to trigger a wave of nsf fees where they would have possibly only received one.

For example if you say $600 in your checking account and multiple transactions on Friday and sat, say 10 transactions for a total of $200, but then have a big transaction for $500 on sunday Afternoon, if the transactions were entered in the order of when they occurred, you would have one NSF for the one $500 transaction on Sunday.

What the banks would do is re-arrange the $500 transaction to hit first, even though it was done after all the other transactions, send the $500 through and say 3 of the smaller transactions until you run out of money then tag you for NSF fees of $35 on the remaining 7 transactions.

Wells Fargo ordered to pay $203 million in overdraft case | Reuters

Big banks have been gaming your overdraft fees to charge you more money - The Washington Post
__________________
bad_LNIP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 03:06 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
The lenders left holding worthless mortgage were (and are) primarily pension funds and retirees.
Mortgages they bought after receiving assurances of the gilt-edged nature of these securities. These assurances proved to be wrong/fraudulent. The folks who did that also bear some of the blame.

Be that as it may, the borrower owes the bank exactly what was in the contract, subject to the enforcement measures in force at that locale. IMO that's all they owe--but they do owe it. This wasn't a loan from a family member or a charity, it was a loan from a business that was making a business decision.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 03:23 PM   #27
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Mortgages they bought after receiving assurances of the gilt-edged nature of these securities. These assurances proved to be wrong/fraudulent. The folks who did that also bear some of the blame.

Be that as it may, the borrower owes the bank exactly what was in the contract, subject to the enforcement measures in force at that locale. IMO that's all they owe--but they do owe it. This wasn't a loan from a family member or a charity, it was a loan from a business that was making a business decision.
I agree, on both points. Banks were / are not always innocent bystanders or sorrowful intermediaries. However, they also are not primary lenders nor mortgage holders. Getting back at them for their bad behaviour elsewhere may sound like a justified enterprise but the reality may be otherwise for mortgage default.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 03:26 PM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
Sure. I am thinking this: people "strategically" default and the bank takes the hit. I am thinking if the property value goes up instead, the seller who thinks strategic defaulting is only fair should also think giving some of the profit from that profitable sale to the bank is also fair. I know it doesn't make sense ...
But that is the contract the bank made with you. Yes, you pay the mortgage and if the house goes up in value, the gain is yours, they have no claim to the home as long as you pay the mortgage.

If you don't pay, the bank can take the home back. Now, consumer protection laws can make that difficult if the 'home owner' makes it so. And the banks know that too. Their interest rates reflect what they expect on average.

There's really nothing 'unethical' about letting the contract play out and stop paying and let them take the house - even if you have the funds to pay that mortgage. If that is 'unethical' then the contract itself was 'unethical', because it allows for that case.

OTOH, I don't think there is a punishment too extreme for the people who wreck the house to sell off the copper plumbing and wiring while in foreclosure. That is illegal, it is stated in the contract that you must maintain the home, and that behavior is unethical.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 04:56 PM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
imoldernu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Peru
Posts: 4,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
But that is the contract the bank made with you. Yes, you pay the mortgage and if the house goes up in value, the gain is yours, they have no claim to the home as long as you pay the mortgage.

If you don't pay, the bank can take the home back. Now, consumer protection laws can make that difficult if the 'home owner' makes it so. And the banks know that too. Their interest rates reflect what they expect on average.

There's really nothing 'unethical' about letting the contract play out and stop paying and let them take the house - even if you have the funds to pay that mortgage. If that is 'unethical' then the contract itself was 'unethical', because it allows for that case.

OTOH, I don't think there is a punishment too extreme for the people who wreck the house to sell off the copper plumbing and wiring while in foreclosure. That is illegal, it is stated in the contract that you must maintain the home, and that behavior is unethical.

-ERD50
Yeah... it really gets interesting when the discussion involves LAW and MORALITY... and never the twin shall meet!

#1. You loan $100,000 to cousin Charlie... He can't pay it back. Who loses?

#2. You loan $100,000 to cousin Charlie... He can't pay it back. You bundle the loan with the bad $100,000 you loaned to uncle Jake... and sell it to Fannie Mae. Who loses?
__________________
imoldernu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 08:15 PM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_LNIP View Post
And I would never do business with someone who doesn't keep their word. Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice, shame on me.

So you have no accounts with any of the major banks? Cool!

Funny how you rationalize what you did my blaming the lenders.

I don't blame the lenders, per se, but I'm just saying I'm not going to be the only honest guy at the table. The lenders aren't as pure as the driven snow or boy scouts either, generally speaking, so I'm just saying I wouldn't feel bad for them. At all.

Do you live in a recourse state?

Yup. No issues with deficiency judgments. Don't believe the hype they tell you to keep consumers in line.
My only accounts with major banks are credit cards. They allow me to buy things on credit and I pay the bills when they send them to me, after all... a deal is a deal. I've never had a problem with them and vice versa. They have done what they said they would do and I have too.

Let me ask you this... what bad things did the lender do to you? You decided you wanted to buy the property, asked them to lend you the money to buy the property and they agreed to lend it to you. Right?

The deal with a mortgage is that they agree to lend you the money to buy the property and you agree to pay them back. If you are unable to pay them back then they can take the property and it isn't worthwhile to go after you for any more because you can't draw blood from a stone. However, you were able to pay them back but chose not to so in addition to taking the property they should be able to take any other assets you have to make them whole. Bottom line... you cheated and so far have got away with it.

And by the way, as others have pointed out to you, you didn't cheat the bank. They are just an intermediary who got a fee for writing the mortgage and servicing it. The people who you stiffed are investors like me and others on this forum.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 08:35 PM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
My only accounts with major banks are credit cards. They allow me to buy things on credit and I pay the bills when they send them to me, after all... a deal is a deal. I've never had a problem with them and vice versa. They have done what they said they would do and I have too.

Let me ask you this... what bad things did the lender do to you? You decided you wanted to buy the property, asked them to lend you the money to buy the property and they agreed to lend it to you. Right?

The deal with a mortgage is that they agree to lend you the money to buy the property and you agree to pay them back. If you are unable to pay them back then they can take the property and it isn't worthwhile to go after you for any more because you can't draw blood from a stone. However, you were able to pay them back but chose not to so in addition to taking the property they should be able to take any other assets you have to make them whole. Bottom line... you cheated and so far have got away with it.

And by the way, as others have pointed out to you, you didn't cheat the bank. They are just an intermediary who got a fee for writing the mortgage and servicing it. The people who you stiffed are investors like me and others on this forum.
The strategic defaulter just changes the line to if you choose not to bpay them back, then they can take the property. Of course on the commercial side this happens all the time all be it the entity goes into chapter 11 or 7.
Of course if that became the attitude in general the down payment requirement might go to 40% or more.
__________________
meierlde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 09:43 PM   #32
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,035
It's not the lender's or the lendee's fault. A bad situation was created by repeals of the very laws created in the depression to prevent it. Banks are expected to be as greedy as rhe law allows, as are citizens. We all need the proper regulation, even if we dont understand it, to keep a balance.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
dallas27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 09:50 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by meierlde View Post
The strategic defaulter just changes the line to if you choose not to bpay them back, then they can take the property. Of course on the commercial side this happens all the time all be it the entity goes into chapter 11 or 7.
Of course if that became the attitude in general the down payment requirement might go to 40% or more.
I'm not sure what your first sentence means. Please elaborate.

I don't think anyone has an issue with a residential or commercial borrower who is unable to pay, defaults and gets foreclosed. That is a known risk and reflected in underwriting and the interest rate. What many have issue with is those who are able to make payments but chose not to because the value of the property that they decided to buy has declined dramatically and they want to push the economic consequences of that bad decision onto the lender. Given the borrower a put option is the value of the property declines is not part of the deal so if the lenders go after such borrowers I'm fine with that (which is what the OP referred to).
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 10:13 PM   #34
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 103
Of course if that became the attitude in general the down payment requirement might go to 40% or more.

Nah, I doubt that. Mortgage volumes would drop off a cliff and then the banks wouldn't make money, and we know they can't have that.

what bad things did the lender do to you?

Committed perjury and fraud in an effort to steal the property from me. Yeah, it was part of the national mortgage settlement. They refused a cash payment also, which voided that payment under the concept of legal tender. They also weren't very helpful in the modification process either. Their proposal increased the loan payment each month.

you cheated and so far have got away with it.

Between the bank and I, one of us committed perjury and it wasn't me.

The people who you stiffed are investors like me and others on this forum.

Really? what % ownership of the MBS did you have? I'll write you a check for what I owe you. BTW, the original lender didn't lose a dime on the deal...

My only accounts with major banks are credit cards.

Oh so despite your rightious indignation, you do actually do business with unethical crooks. Gotcha. A deal is a deal, but I thought you didn't do business with someone who doesn't keep their word, so do you close your account if they change the T/C on a whim, which they do frequently?
__________________
bad_LNIP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 10:35 PM   #35
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
semi-rant:There are many comments by many posters in this thread about 'business is business'. No wonder our country is in bad shape. Personal ethics can not be compartmentalized like that. Business is part of life. One can not separate the ethics of how they individually behave in life and behave in business. They are the same thing. If a person makes a deal with the devil or banks are whoever, they are accountable for that. IMHO
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 10:50 PM   #36
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
heeyy_joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Madeira Beach Fl
Posts: 1,403
Urban Dictionary: Teaching a pig to sing
__________________
_______________________________________________
"A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do" --Bob Dylan.
heeyy_joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 10:58 PM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,571
Quote:
semi-rant:There are many comments by many posters in this thread about 'business is business'. No wonder our country is in bad shape. Personal ethics can not be compartmentalized like that. Business is part of life. One can not separate the ethics of how they individually behave in life and behave in business. They are the same thing. If a person makes a deal with the devil or banks are whoever, they are accountable for that.
Tell that to "Business". They can compartmentalize anything. During the worst of the crash when they started talking about "jess plain foak" starting to engage in "strategic default" it was mentioned (over and over again, that I recall) that businesses do that all the time as part of their business model and book keeping. They don't all do it all the time but if it suits them it is always a tool at their disposal.

Both, lenders & borrowers, were stupid. But who owns the mucking funny? The BANKS. They have all the expertise. All the accountants. All the statisticians. They said "Yes". In business back when I was studying accounting they called it "Allowance for Bad Debts". Eat it. When businesses do it it's The Free Market". When some schlub who bought too much house that the Bank Experts said was not too much house we all have to be Monks and Saints and pay the man. These same bakers and their pilot fish are the same half-men who go around pimping that only the evil Government is f'ked up.
Bring out the piano wire. As some one said earlier, why should the public be the only honest player at the table?
__________________
razztazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2014, 11:48 PM   #38
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
Tell that to "Business". They can compartmentalize anything. During the worst of the crash when they started talking about "jess plain foak" starting to engage in "strategic default" it was mentioned (over and over again, that I recall) that businesses do that all the time as part of their business model and book keeping. They don't all do it all the time but if it suits them it is always a tool at their disposal.

Both, lenders & borrowers, were stupid. But who owns the mucking funny? The BANKS. They have all the expertise. All the accountants. All the statisticians. They said "Yes". In business back when I was studying accounting they called it "Allowance for Bad Debts". Eat it. When businesses do it it's The Free Market". When some schlub who bought too much house that the Bank Experts said was not too much house we all have to be Monks and Saints and pay the man. These same bakers and their pilot fish are the same half-men who go around pimping that only the evil Government is f'ked up.
Bring out the piano wire. As some one said earlier, why should the public be the only honest player at the table?

Yes. Banks will stab you in the back and charge you for cleaning the knife. But knowing that, why would you believe a banker when they say you can loan up to some ridiculous $ amount. Just because a bank will give you a loan for a huge house doesn't mean you have to go for the trap. Some people are naive enough to take the bait, and others figure they will just bail on the deal later. When the banks give you too much for a loan, it's not free money. Everything has a cost. What about not taking the deal and just borrowing the minimum amount possible, even if it means no McMansion for you? To me, that is where the ethical behavior starts, and it may avoid having to do things in self-defense against the banks later, like strategically default.
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2014, 05:29 AM   #39
Recycles dryer sheets
Maenad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Posts: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
When businesses do it it's The Free Market". When some schlub who bought too much house that the Bank Experts said was not too much house we all have to be Monks and Saints and pay the man.
I don't think timo2 was saying this in the original semi-rant. "Business" needs to be ethical as well. Those decisions were made by people. People who let their greed overcome their ethics, and they excused it (and continue to excuse it) by saying "Business is business".

You can't force someone else to actually develop a decent sense of ethics, but you can enforce it in yourself, and protect yourself from the bastards.

But ultimately, we need to all hold each other accountable, and that means businesses as well. Make unethical behavior less attractive*, and even if someone is a bastard, they won't bother.

* Please don't ask me how to do this, I'm just philosophizing.
__________________
Maenad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2014, 05:57 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
Tell that to "Business". They can compartmentalize anything. During the worst of the crash when they started talking about "jess plain foak" starting to engage in "strategic default" it was mentioned (over and over again, that I recall) that businesses do that all the time as part of their business model and book keeping. They don't all do it all the time but if it suits them it is always a tool at their disposal.

Both, lenders & borrowers, were stupid. But who owns the mucking funny? The BANKS. They have all the expertise. All the accountants. All the statisticians. They said "Yes". In business back when I was studying accounting they called it "Allowance for Bad Debts". Eat it. When businesses do it it's The Free Market". When some schlub who bought too much house that the Bank Experts said was not too much house we all have to be Monks and Saints and pay the man. These same bakers and their pilot fish are the same half-men who go around pimping that only the evil Government is f'ked up.
Bring out the piano wire. As some one said earlier, why should the public be the only honest player at the table?
Strategic defaults and strategic bankruptcies by business are by far the exception and not the rule. Commercial mortgages are generally non-recourse, so a strategic default is possible... but those mortgages generally require bigger down payments than residential mortgages to mitigate the additional risk of non-recourse debt over recourse debt.

While I concede that some lenders encouraged residential borrowers to buy more house than they could afford since they didn't own the risk of default and were just getting a commission for making the loan, shouldn't the borrowers know what they can afford and what they can't afford? Anyway, those borrowers who bought more house than they could afford are not the strategic defaulters we are being critical of - they defaulted because they had a change in circumstances and could no longer afford their home.
__________________

__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I think I'm FI...maybe not, maybe so...um I dunno! panhead FIRE and Money 18 11-19-2012 12:40 PM
Hussman Strategic Total Return lawman FIRE and Money 5 11-04-2008 05:28 PM
Strategic petroleum Reserve, has it been re-filled ? Lakewood90712 Other topics 13 10-22-2006 09:32 PM
Strategic Asset Allocation Olav23 FIRE and Money 15 07-30-2005 11:09 AM
Nords-Q on Strategic Role of Nuclear Subs haha Other topics 21 12-14-2004 04:25 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.