News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #25 on: August 21, 2009, 08:48:42 AM »
I don't see any meaningful change in Tilly's ideas in the 1930's.

Having read the items posted by Phil and Tom, the point isn't how many bunkers were removed during the PGA tour, but the reasons for their removal or retention. I don't see any fundamemtal change in Tilly's design philosopy about that. As I read him, Tilly's argument was that there are good design reasons to remove things like DH's and, as a bonus, you will save money on maintenance. His argument was not the reverse.

Bob

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #26 on: August 21, 2009, 09:49:17 AM »
Bob
What do you make of the Duffer free zones at set yardage off the tee...isn't that a departure from his previous design philosophy? I'm not aware of Tilly, or any architect, proposing such a thing, including Simpson and Mackenzie.

Phil
What is the story with Tilly's home?

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #27 on: August 21, 2009, 11:13:49 AM »
Tom -

Virtually all strategic architects thought placing bunkers for the purpose of trapping foozles was the wrong way to place bunkers. They thought - as did Tilly - that bunkers ought to be located to achieve other, better purposes.

I see nothing in the record that indicates that Tilly changed his views about those basic issues.

Bob


Phil_the_Author

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #28 on: August 21, 2009, 11:21:33 AM »
Tom,

You asked, "What is the story with Tilly's home?"

This is what was written about it in the section on Tilly & Money:

Why then has it been reported that he went bankrupt just a few years later and even lost their home in a tax sale?

When Tilly bought his house and property he did it in a sloppy manner as was typical of him. He purchased the home directly from the family he had leased it from in 1927. They, in turn, carried the mortgage and all tax payments were to be made by them through the monies he gave them.

Tilly never saw that the family he bought the house from might have their own financial difficulties during the Depression. They began not paying Tilly’s taxes on the property. When he and Lillian left on the PGA Tour they had no inkling that this was occurring. They were on the opposite side of the country when they were informed that their property, house and furnishings were being seized by the government for non-payment of taxes. They hurried home and arrived in the middle of the tax sale and were able to save some of their furnishings including some extremely valuable antiques.

Now in addition to the above, he was able to save the furnishings by PURCHASING THEM for cash. He didn't borrow money to do this, he had it. That is the tragedy for Tilly in this as it was other's actions and problems that cost them. The proof that he wasn't  bankrupt, in additioon to proof provided by different family members, is that in addition to being able to buy back the furnishinmgs he was also able to pay for shipping it to Minnesota to be stored at his daughter's home, that he had a steady income from a very forgotten source... the TILLINGHAST Rubber Goods Company, his father's business which he owned since his passing in 1918 and that would remain as an entity unti 1947, 5 years afrter his death. He had a number of other liquid & non-liquid financial resources. That he was destitute is am myth...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #29 on: August 23, 2009, 12:32:23 AM »
Tom -

Virtually all strategic architects thought placing bunkers for the purpose of trapping foozles was the wrong way to place bunkers. They thought - as did Tilly - that bunkers ought to be located to achieve other, better purposes.

I see nothing in the record that indicates that Tilly changed his views about those basic issues.

Bob



Bob
You see nothing in the record that indicates Tilly changed his views? What about the many bunkers he placed in his duffer zone at Bethpage, San Francisco, Brook Hollow, Fresh Meadow and other courses?

Mackenzie often placed bunkers in Tilly's duffer zone in order to give the average golfer pleasurable excitement. There are a number of other architects who did the same thing, including Tilly, and I think it is great feature.

TEPaul

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #30 on: August 23, 2009, 08:00:56 AM »
Tom MacWood:

It seems you're of the opinion that once any golf course's bunkers have been initially built they should never be touched again under any circumstances. Is that an accurate reflection of your opinion?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #31 on: August 23, 2009, 09:52:07 AM »
Tom,

You asked, "What is the story with Tilly's home?"

This is what was written about it in the section on Tilly & Money:

Why then has it been reported that he went bankrupt just a few years later and even lost their home in a tax sale?

When Tilly bought his house and property he did it in a sloppy manner as was typical of him. He purchased the home directly from the family he had leased it from in 1927. They, in turn, carried the mortgage and all tax payments were to be made by them through the monies he gave them.

Tilly never saw that the family he bought the house from might have their own financial difficulties during the Depression. They began not paying Tilly’s taxes on the property. When he and Lillian left on the PGA Tour they had no inkling that this was occurring. They were on the opposite side of the country when they were informed that their property, house and furnishings were being seized by the government for non-payment of taxes. They hurried home and arrived in the middle of the tax sale and were able to save some of their furnishings including some extremely valuable antiques.

Now in addition to the above, he was able to save the furnishings by PURCHASING THEM for cash. He didn't borrow money to do this, he had it. That is the tragedy for Tilly in this as it was other's actions and problems that cost them. The proof that he wasn't  bankrupt, in additioon to proof provided by different family members, is that in addition to being able to buy back the furnishinmgs he was also able to pay for shipping it to Minnesota to be stored at his daughter's home, that he had a steady income from a very forgotten source... the TILLINGHAST Rubber Goods Company, his father's business which he owned since his passing in 1918 and that would remain as an entity unti 1947, 5 years afrter his death. He had a number of other liquid & non-liquid financial resources. That he was destitute is am myth...

Phil
This is a slightly different story than the one you told in your book. In the book you wrote that for many years Tilly had been having a difficult time financially. You said that by the time of the Bethpage project (circa 1934) his daughters had moved to Minnesota and Ohio, he had almost no work and he was desperately fighting off the pack of ravenous 'wolves howling at the door' (by the way where does that quote come from?). I will add he lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935 when the magazine went under.

In the book you wrote they only learned they owed back taxes in the spring of 1936, when it was already on the verge of being too late. I read that as almost too late, but not too late. Whatever the case Tilly did not pay the back taxes and he lost his home. Based on all the circumstances one can assume he did not have the money. The fact that he acknowledged the wolves were howling at the door in 1934 would seem to indicate troubles were brewing before the spring of 1936.

As far as Tillinghast Rubber being a source of income, I have my doubts. Tilly's grandson wrote, "So after B.C. died in 1918, the company began to wither and as I recall mother closed out the dismal remnant of it in the 1950’s." If the company began withering in 1918 it is very doubtful it was doing well in the heart of the Depression.

One gets the impression you are trying to paint a rosier financial picture for Tilly in order to help support your position on the Bethpage and PGA projects.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 03:09:38 PM by Tom MacWood »

Phil_the_Author

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #32 on: August 23, 2009, 08:10:22 PM »
Tom,

Let me explain a few things so that you understand better.

First of all, every time I have written about Tilly's financial situation it has been consistent and always with the same conclusion. There have been times where, depending on the reason for the piece that some of the many facts involved have been included or not. In no case have the facts or how they have been presented ever changed.

Let's consider your understanding of what I wrote, "Phil... In the book you wrote that for many years Tilly had been having a difficult time financially. {Difficult, yes; bankrupt no. I have pointed out NUMEROUS times that if they were near destitute as some have alleged then how was he able to build a house, pay for it, give it to his daughter & her family and let them keep the money from the sale when they moved to Toledo during the years 1930-34? The "difficulty" that he was having financially was caused by a combination of things including cash flow and lack of work. He had many resources upon which to fall back on when liquid cash was needed and quickly.}

"You said that by the time of the Bethpage project (circa 1934) his daughters had moved to Minnesota and Ohio, he had almost no work and he was desperately fighting off the pack of ravenous 'wolves howling at the door' (by the way where does that quote come from?)..." {Tilly himself used that phrase a number of times in writings through the years going all the way back to the teens. He always used it in connection with cash flow problems rather than lack of funds.}

"I will add he lost his job as editor of Golf Illustrated in 1935 when the magazine went under...} This is incorrect. Tilly did not lose his job, he RESIGNED and QUIT his job as editor and THEN the magazine went under. Would it have gone under anyway if he stayed? Most assuredly so. Was he FIRED from his job? NO.

"In the book you wrote they only learned they owed back taxes in the spring of 1936, when it was already on the verge of being too late. I read that as almost too late, but not too late. Whatever the case Tilly did not pay the back taxes and he lost his home. Based on all the circumstances one can assume he did not have the money..."

{Boy did you ever miss a few details! Yes, it was already on the verge of "being too late" but that was CLEARLY said in the context of their LOSING EVERYTHING; they DID NOT! I guess that you still haven't read what I wrote about Tilly and Money in the In My Opinion piece. It contains the following which is what is also contained in my book:

"Tilly never saw that the family he bought the house from might have their own financial difficulties during the Depression. They began not paying Tilly’s taxes on the property. When he and Lillian left on the PGA Tour they had no inkling that this was occurring. They were on the opposite side of the country when they were informed that their property, house and furnishings were being seized by the government for non-payment of taxes. They hurried home and arrived in the middle of the tax sale and were able to save some of their furnishings including some extremely valuable antiques... Unfortunately they were unable to save their beloved dream house"

The reason that it was not TOO LATE was because they were able to save their furnishings! How did they do this? They actually purchased them at the sale in CASH! How did they manage that neat little trick if they were destitute as you would have us believe? they couldn't save the house because that had already been sold.}

"As far as Tillinghast Rubber being a source of income, I have my doubts. Tilly's grandson wrote, "So after B.C. died in 1918, the company began to wither and as I recall mother closed out the dismal remnant of it in the 1950’s." If the company began withering in 1918 it is very doubtful it was doing well in the heart of the Depression."

{Sorry, but Dr. Brown was wrong about that. First of all you must realize that Dr. Brown only saw his grandfather on either infrequent visits from Minnesota or when Tilly would stop out there. he was in no position to be aware of the status of the Rubber Goods store business and neither was his mother from whom he received that information. My information on that comes from many sources within the family. I interviewed all four living grandchildren, each of whom knew Tilly personally. I also interviewed many of the great-grandchildren including one who lives in germany and several of the Great-great-grandchildren as well. NO ONE EVER DID THAT! Among these included several members of his other daughter's family, the Wordens. They lived in the same area as Tilly did from the time they were married until they moved into the house that Tilly built for them on the property behind his home in Harrington Park. By the way, some of the monies used to pay for that house was from proceeds from the Rubber goods store. In addition, the Browns were not involved in the running of the chain at all at any time from when Tilly's father died in 1918. First Tilly's mother did, then when she was no longer able to, both Tilly & Lillian did. It was Lillian who closed the last store in 1947.

Since you are quoting Dr. Brown, how about if I quote him? He sent me a letter in response to my sending him the finished Tillinghast biography manuscript prior to its publishing:

"Dear Mr. Young, I read your bio of AWT and thought it quite good. Your recitation of his life events and attitudes seemed to be as close to accurate as one can get, from the distance of many decades..."

Other members of the family expressed similar thoughts by letter, email and on the telephone. In fact several thanked me for helping to correct a number of misunderstandings and misinformation that they had about Tilly. They agreed that for many years each hadn't really spoken of what they knew to each other and simply supposed the others were in agreement when the reality was that each had only pieces of the whole and often weren't fully informed of details that others knew. Simply put, a typical family.

"One gets the impression you are trying to paint a rosier financial picture for Tilly in order to help support your position on the Bethpage and PGA projects." I hate to quote Tom Paul, but that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post on GCA. It deserves no response...
« Last Edit: August 23, 2009, 08:16:55 PM by Philip Young »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #33 on: August 24, 2009, 02:45:52 PM »
Phil
The magazine was going under, what difference does it make if he resigned or not?

Your new story about the home makes no sense. They purchased their own furniture at the time of the house auction. He didn't own his own furniture? Please explain.

If Tilly got there during the auctioning, why didn't he purchase the home? Being in the middle of the Depression no doubt it sold for pennies on the dollar, and a fraction of what he paid a few years earlier in the 20s. 

Phil_the_Author

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #34 on: August 24, 2009, 04:15:35 PM »
Tom,

I am SERIOUSLY concerned about your apparent inability to be able to understand what you read. You certainly didn't do a good job of it based upon your response.

You wrote:

"Phil, The magazine was going under, what difference does it make if he resigned or not?"

It doesn't. What does matter is the TRUTH of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED which, by the way, I have posted on site several times including the scanned copy of the front of the September 1935 issue of Golf Illustrated where Tilly clearly wrote "I RESIGNED as Editor last month..." You have recently made a big deal on several threads by stating that you only "seek the TRUTH." Why, instead of downplaying my correction of you with the TRUTH of what happened do you criticize me for doing so? Why NOT simply admit "OOPS, I was mistaken." Why is that so difficult for you?

You continue, "Your new story about the home makes no sense. They purchased their own furniture at the time of the house auction. He didn't own his own furniture? Please explain..."

How can this be so hard for you to understand. The government SEIZED their HOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS INCLUDING THE FURNISHINGS for the back taxes that weren't paid on their behalf! As they were out on the PGA Tour when they learned of this they came back home immediately to try and stop it only to arrive DURING the AUCTION! They couldn't stop the sale by paying the back taxes owed nor could they repurchase their house BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD! You would have known that if you actually read what I wrote!

You continue, "If Tilly got there during the auctioning, why didn't he purchase the home?"

See above!

You finish with, "Being in the middle of the Depression no doubt it sold for pennies on the dollar, and a fraction of what he paid a few years earlier in the 20s..." That would be true for everyone except Tilly. The "furnishings" contained MANY very valuable museum-quality antiques and collectibles. Tilly was both a well-known antiques collector but had an antiques store during the 1920's on up until he went out on tour right there in Harrington Park that was also furnishing them with funds. The house was filled with its inventory when they left as well as Tilly's large collections of Civil War memorabilia, autograph collections, Presidential memorabilia collection and rare book collection in his library, JUST TO NAME A FEW! These had a greater value than his house even in those days. I suggest you spend a few dollars and look up Tillinghast in the New York Times archives. There you will find, as I have in the past, a number of notices of major antique sales during the 1920's-30's featuring his collections as the primary part of the auction. When he went to California and ended up opening the antiques store on Rodeo Drive with Nedda Harrigan they used this inventory as the stock for original sales.
Now what obviously also DON'T APPRECIATE is that Tilly would have had to pay back ALL OF THE BACK TAXES OWED FIRST before he could buy back the furnishings. That is the greatest irony in all of this.

Tom, there are things you simply don't know and this is clearly one of them. Its time to stop giving me a hard time and begin acknowledging it...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #35 on: August 24, 2009, 07:45:51 PM »
Tom,

I am SERIOUSLY concerned about your apparent inability to be able to understand what you read. You certainly didn't do a good job of it based upon your response.

You wrote:

"Phil, The magazine was going under, what difference does it make if he resigned or not?"

It doesn't. What does matter is the TRUTH of what ACTUALLY HAPPENED which, by the way, I have posted on site several times including the scanned copy of the front of the September 1935 issue of Golf Illustrated where Tilly clearly wrote "I RESIGNED as Editor last month..." You have recently made a big deal on several threads by stating that you only "seek the TRUTH." Why, instead of downplaying my correction of you with the TRUTH of what happened do you criticize me for doing so? Why NOT simply admit "OOPS, I was mistaken." Why is that so difficult for you?

Thats like the captain of the Titanic resigning after the ship hit the iceberg.

You continue, "Your new story about the home makes no sense. They purchased their own furniture at the time of the house auction. He didn't own his own furniture? Please explain..."

How can this be so hard for you to understand. The government SEIZED their HOUSE AND ITS CONTENTS INCLUDING THE FURNISHINGS for the back taxes that weren't paid on their behalf! As they were out on the PGA Tour when they learned of this they came back home immediately to try and stop it only to arrive DURING the AUCTION! They couldn't stop the sale by paying the back taxes owed nor could they repurchase their house BECAUSE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD! You would have known that if you actually read what I wrote!

They would not have seized his furniture and belongings, they would have no claim on these things. Tilly would have been free take them. Your story makes no sense!

You continue, "If Tilly got there during the auctioning, why didn't he purchase the home?"

See above!

You finish with, "Being in the middle of the Depression no doubt it sold for pennies on the dollar, and a fraction of what he paid a few years earlier in the 20s..." That would be true for everyone except Tilly. The "furnishings" contained MANY very valuable museum-quality antiques and collectibles. Tilly was both a well-known antiques collector but had an antiques store during the 1920's on up until he went out on tour right there in Harrington Park that was also furnishing them with funds. The house was filled with its inventory when they left as well as Tilly's large collections of Civil War memorabilia, autograph collections, Presidential memorabilia collection and rare book collection in his library, JUST TO NAME A FEW! These had a greater value than his house even in those days. I suggest you spend a few dollars and look up Tillinghast in the New York Times archives. There you will find, as I have in the past, a number of notices of major antique sales during the 1920's-30's featuring his collections as the primary part of the auction. When he went to California and ended up opening the antiques store on Rodeo Drive with Nedda Harrigan they used this inventory as the stock for original sales.
Now what obviously also DON'T APPRECIATE is that Tilly would have had to pay back ALL OF THE BACK TAXES OWED FIRST before he could buy back the furnishings. That is the greatest irony in all of this.

Tom, there are things you simply don't know and this is clearly one of them. Its time to stop giving me a hard time and begin acknowledging it...


Phil_the_Author

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #36 on: August 24, 2009, 08:04:17 PM »
Tom,

As is so typical of you, if you don't think something happened it didn't.

"They would not have seized his furniture and belongings, they would have no claim on these things. Tilly would have been free take them. Your story makes no sense!"

You are WRONG! It isn't a story, it is the Tillinghast family history confirmed by several members of the family. As you simply refuse to believe anything that anyone saysand have done so withouteven making an attempt to verify yourself or with any knowledge of what happened whatsoever, you are once again showing yourself to be a fool.

As with the other two threads, I am also dropping off this as well. I'm sure you'll miss me...  ;)



Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #37 on: August 24, 2009, 08:55:36 PM »
Phil
May I suggest you talk to someone who knows something about property taxes and mortgage law. Your story makes no sense.

TEPaul

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #38 on: August 24, 2009, 09:10:22 PM »
Phil:

Having been in real estate for about twenty years I know something for sure about property taxes and mortgage law but something tells me if my opinion on Tillinghast's property problems doesn't square with Tom MacWood's uninformed opinions he will automatically discount it which he does with anyone who doesn't agree with his uninformed notions. You are definitely right when you said the man is not interested in an intelligent discussion; he never has been.

I will caution you, though, that property tax and mortgage law very much does vary from state to state still today and it certainly did when Tillinghast had whatever property tax and mortgage problems he had in the 1930s.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #39 on: August 24, 2009, 09:21:10 PM »
TEP or Phil
If you'd like you can call my wife. She began as a foreclosure analyst for Chase Manhattan about decade ago, and after attending law school is now an Assistant VP in the legal department of JP Morgan Chase Mortgage. She is very familiar with the NYC metro and particularly NJ. I don't care what area you are discussing they are not going to seize his belongings. If he abandons his belongings they will deal with them eventually, but not at the time they are proceeding with a tax sale. The story makes no sense.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2009, 10:12:18 AM »
Just so people aren't misled by Tom MacWood's views about tax liens, I refer everyone to I.R.C. Section 6321. Tax liens apply to all property of the taxpayer. As in all.

I have litigated cases where houses, furniture, fixtures, cars, papers, securities and cash were seized.

Federal tax liens are not limited to real property or any other type of property. They extend to all property.

Tom MacW - Please be more careful about the tax advice you so freely offer. In a public forum like this one, it can do real harm to the gullible.   

Bob

TEPaul

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2009, 10:26:41 AM »
"TEP or Phil
If you'd like you can call my wife. She began as a foreclosure analyst for Chase Manhattan about decade ago, and after attending law school is now an Assistant VP in the legal department of JP Morgan Chase Mortgage."


Tom:

I would say go for it----eg call your wife about property tax and mortgage law but only provided you are considerably better at listening to your wife and understanding what she is saying to you than you are with the contributors to this particular website! I'm just still concerned that when she explains to you the details of property tax and mortgage law you might think it makes no sense at all and somehow interpret it all to mean that Tillinghast sold out his architectural principles in the mid 1930s.  ;)

TEPaul

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2009, 10:47:27 AM »
Bob:

You make an excellent point there. I must admit I sure can't read all the details of this property tax and mortgage law argument of Tillinghast's between Tom MacWood and Phil Young, but I did notice one or both of them did mention Tilly was in tax arrears to some "government."

For starters, which government?  ;)

What most call "property taxes" (real estate taxes) are generally local real estate taxes that go towards the funding and running of local or county municipalities for things like schools, police departments and other municipal services et al. Depending on the assessed value of real estate (and sometimes personal property) and what we in Pennsylvania call the millage rate "real" property taxes can be substantial.

But it ain't the Federal Government. In America the Federal Government generally taxes "income" during anyone's lifetime and not personal and "real" property until someone dies (Estate or Death tax). But that's in America----in Canada, for instance, they do it quite differently.

This isn't exactly rocket science but nevertheless I do hope it makes SOME sense to Tom MacWood.  ;)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2009, 09:08:49 PM »
Just so people aren't misled by Tom MacWood's views about tax liens, I refer everyone to I.R.C. Section 6321. Tax liens apply to all property of the taxpayer. As in all.

I have litigated cases where houses, furniture, fixtures, cars, papers, securities and cash were seized.

Federal tax liens are not limited to real property or any other type of property. They extend to all property.

Tom MacW - Please be more careful about the tax advice you so freely offer. In a public forum like this one, it can do real harm to the gullible.  

Bob


Bob
I'm not giving tax advice although I did stay in Holiday Inn Express last night. Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black, going to a copyright attorney for tax advice is like going to proctologist for a stigmatism. No local government today or in Tilly's day is going seize your personal property (beyond the property in question) for delinquent property taxes. I would assume your example has something to do with the IRS, and probably is saved for drug dealers and Enron types.  

During the Great Depression local, state and federal government were trying to do everything in their power to prevent foreclosures, much less take individual's personal property. In 1933 and 1934 the majority of States instituted a moratorium against foreclosures, although NJ was not one of them. In 1933 NJ passed a law that gave home owners who were in foreclosure due to delinquent property taxes two-years to pay up and regain possession. So if there was tax sale on Tilly's home in the Spring of 1936, his home actually went into foreclosure in 1934. Tilly was broke.

I will repeat Phil's story make no sense. The other part of his story that makes no sense is the story that Tilly was making his mortgage payments to the previous owner, and that person failed to pay the property taxes. Please explain to me how that worked.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2009, 09:10:22 PM by Tom MacWood »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2009, 10:21:43 PM »
Just so people aren't misled by Tom MacWood's views about tax liens, I refer everyone to I.R.C. Section 6321. Tax liens apply to all property of the taxpayer. As in all.

I have litigated cases where houses, furniture, fixtures, cars, papers, securities and cash were seized.

Federal tax liens are not limited to real property or any other type of property. They extend to all property.

Tom MacW - Please be more careful about the tax advice you so freely offer. In a public forum like this one, it can do real harm to the gullible.   

Bob,

In all fairness to Tom MacWood, you can't equate a federal tax lien to a tax lien a homeowner faces for not paying their local property taxes.



BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2009, 08:54:38 AM »
Tom MacW -

You baffle me.

You say that Tilly's family is "lying" about having to buy their furniture back at a foreclosure auction. You offer no plausible motive for their lying.

You then try to prove they must have been lying because it was "impossible" that someone would be foreclosing in furniture. There are three scenarios where that might possibly happen.

- Unpaid federal taxes. See above
- Unpaid mortgage. Mortgages take liens in real property and personalty. That is, furniture, etc.
- Local ral estate taxes are typically limited to realty. But - and this is key - all mortgages are x-defaulted with tax lien foreclosures. If the problem originated as failure to pay realty taxes, it almost always ends up as a full blown foreclosure of the mortgage in which personalty is part of the collateral sold. Look at the mortgage on your house.
- Lots of naive people occupy homes in which other people are expected to pay mortgages and taxes and then have their home foreclosed upon. I have represented - on a pro bono basis - a nurse to whom that happened last year.
 
This all all pretty basic stuff and that is how it usually plays out.

It is clearly not "impossible" that Tilly's furniture was part of a foreclosure that originated with unpaid realty taxes. It happens all the time. It is entirely possible that Tilly's family misunderstood the technical aspects of the foreclosure. Frankly, most people do misunderstand the details of what goes on in those situations.

But the larger question is why you would accuse an eye witness to a historical event of "lying". That is not something reputable historians normally do without providing a motive.

So tell us, why would Tilly fabricate a story that is deeply embarrassing to himself and his family? Why would he dream up a story in which he comes out looking naive and pretty dumb about about basic financial matters? What was to be gained by "lying" about such things?

Bob
   
 

TEPaul

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2009, 09:26:10 AM »
"Tom MacW -

You baffle me."




Bob:

Welcome to the rapidly expanding club!

It seems to be automatic if someone, anyone, does not agree with his increasingly logic-stretching notions they must be mistaken, engaging in the nonsensical or lying. This now includes some significant clubs and their boards of directors and committees---eg Merion, Myopia, and now perhaps the White Bear Yacht Club and apparently Tillinghast and his family and a rather long list of assorted others. This goes back a long way so we should probably throw Pine Valley in there too!   :P

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2009, 01:01:10 PM »
Bob
Where did I say anyone was lying? It was a nice try on your part, but even you have to admit the the story makes no sense.

Not only was no one having their personal items possessed because of delinquent property taxes, there were laws enacted to limit foreclosures period. More than half the states had a moratorium on foreclosures beginning in 1933/34, and although NJ was not one of them, in 1933 NJ passed a law that said in the event someone's home was to subject to a tax sale due to delinquent property taxes, the defaulting owner had two years to pay those taxes and regain possession. If the house was sold in a tax sale in the spring of 1936, the house went into foreclosure in the spring of 1934. The question is why didn't he pay the back taxes?
« Last Edit: August 26, 2009, 01:53:18 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #48 on: August 26, 2009, 03:25:11 PM »
"The question is why didn't he pay the back taxes?"

Do you mean why didn't he pay the taxes in the first place or why didn't he pay the back taxes when his home and furnishings went into foreclosure and was auctioned? It seems to me Phil Young answered that but you responded that his answer (a story he says was confirmed by Tillinghast's family) makes no sense. I have no idea if Phil's answer and the Tillinghast story of his house and perhaps some of his furnishings being sold or repurchased at a tax lien or foreclosure auction is true or not but I certainly don't see why it makes no sense to you. If the house had been sold to someone else at auction when Tilly got there then obviously he couldn't buy it back from the government entity that put a tax lien on it and sold it in a foreclosure auction.  As for paying his back taxes, at that point the government entity got the money owed them back from the auction sale to someone else and Tilly lost his house. As for the furniture that was apparently encumbered by a tax lien, if that hadn't been sold in the foreclosure auction Tilly could have paid the tax lien monies owed on it and gotten it back.

That's the answer it sounds like Phil gave that he says is the story from the Tillinghast family. I'm not sure why you think those answers or that story makes no sense at all. As Bob Crosby and others mentioned that kind of thing happened and happens all the time.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tilly's Curious Transformation
« Reply #49 on: August 26, 2009, 06:03:31 PM »
Tom MacW -

I repeat the question.

What possible motive would someone have for dreaming up a story that shows them in an extremely embarrassing light?

Bob

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back