Published: May 07, 2008 02:08 am      

CITY OF LOCKPORT: Debtors tagged for problems at vacant houses

Lockport City Court is laying down the law on responsible home ownership.

Judge Thomas M. DiMillo sentenced a former homeowner to fines and community service Tuesday for his part in the deterioration of an Elmwood Avenue property that he lost to foreclosure. DiMillo also warned the former occupant of another vacated home that she, too, faces consequences for walking away from title-holder’s responsibility.

David Stewart, formerly of 31 Elmwood Ave., was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and perform 60 hours of community service within 60 days to avoid jail time on his guilty plea to four building code violations.

When he moved out of the house he’d lived in for 17 years, he left behind a structure with foundation, exterior and sanitation defects. Even though the property technically belongs to Investors One Corp., which started foreclosure proceedings on Stewart’s defaulted mortgage three years ago, the court said the violations are Stewart’s problem.

The bank never completed foreclosure by taking back the property title, suggesting it didn’t want the house. When Stewart’s case came to court earlier this year, court officials tried to get the bank to relinquish its claim and let Stewart pay only $9,000 past-due taxes to get the property off the city’s annual tax foreclosure list.

Stewart never contacted the bank to work out a deal, Prosecutor Matthew Brooks said, and the city seized the property April 30.

Stewart said he is unemployed and does not work because he suffers from a severe back problem.

Brooks said he still wanted Stewart held responsible for the violations as a matter of principle. He asked Stewart to either plead guilty to the charges or try his luck with a non-jury trial.

“Word has to get out that you can’t just abandon property,” Brooks said. “You have to do something to get out from under it, not just stick your head in the sand.”

DiMillo, while expressing some sympathy for Stewart’s hardship, agreed.

“At some point three years ago you had an obligation ... that you couldn’t afford to do anything about, so you abandoned it,” he said. “(That’s) a crime in itself.”

Stewart’s sentence, technically, is 120 days in jail — 30 days on each guilty plea — conditionally discharged. If Stewart pays the fine and performs community service within 60 days, the case will be closed.

Also Tuesday, Judith Northcliffe, owner of 162 Monroe St., reported to the court that she has no means to make needed roof and drainage repairs at her vacated house. Brooks said he will look into initiating city seizure of the property under state abandoned housing law.

Northcliffe, a senior citizen, asked the court’s help to get out from beneath the burden of owning a house she bought sight unseen 14 years ago and has regretted ever since.

Northcliffe moved from California to give her elderly mother, a Lockport native, the chance to come home. The house was described to her verbally by a family member as decent enough, she said, but after she moved in, a series of repair and sanitation calamities erupted. On a sparse income, she qualified for federal financial assistance to make some repairs, but the issues continued. She later stopped paying her mortgage and moved out.

Indicating how little it values the property, Brooks said, Northcliffe’s Texas bank turned over her $40,000 debt to a collection agency instead of foreclosing.

While Brooks said the bank was willing to cut its lien to $16,000, Northcliffe said that won’t help. She told the court that her only income is $856 a month from Social Security — and she’s just taken a job, ironically at a collection agency, because she needs the money so badly.

Northcliffe promised to keep the property mowed and cleaned up but said she cannot afford to fix the violations that brought her to court. Brooks said he still has to press the violations because they’re in her name.

Northcliffe is supposed to return to court June 3 for another pre-trial conference. She could elect to plead guilty to two code violations at that point.

While Northcliffe has offered to simply turn over the property to the city, Brooks said that’s not permissible. In formal seizure process, any party with a claim to the title, like the bank, has to relinquish the claim in court first, so that it isn’t transferred to the city.