(May 24, 2008, further text and audio) -- Using publicly available documents, LBReport.com learned on Friday (May 23) that two properties owned by Congresswoman Laura Richardson (D., Carson-LB) -- one in Central LB, another in San Pedro -- were the subject of notices of default recorded by lenders on both properties with the L.A. County Registrar/Recorder over the past year.

On three occasions between May 2007 and March 2008, notices of default were filed by the lender on the LB property, after which each of the defaults on that property were subsequently rescinded by the lender.

The San Pedro property appears to gone beyond the notice of default stage and reached the point where the lender (a different lender) filed a notice of upcoming auction sale for mid-May...which has now apparently been rescheduled for mid-July...but Cong. Richardson provided us with a letter indicating a modification of the loan terms (details below).

County property taxes were timely paid and are current on both the Long Beach and San Pedro properties.

At midday Friday, LBReport.com advised Cong. Richardson's DC office that we were working on this story and invited comment. At late afternoon, Cong. Richardson [who we subsequently learned was here in LB] contacted us. She indicated she had documents that she would be citing with specificity and said she'd fax them to us and did so.

About thirty seconds into our conversation, we realized that the Congresswoman planned to speak at length...and we asked if we could record her and she agreed. LBReport.com provides that audio in extended form below.

We began by asking about the LB and SP properties.

[Others were independently working this story. Daily Breeze reporter Greg Maddaus, who followed up on the original Capitol Weekly story, has his own piece in Saturday morning's (May 24) Press-Telegram.]

Our independent check of public records indicated the following among L.A. County filings:

And what about that Sacramento house? A May 20, 2008 report in the Sacramento-based Capitol Weekly, followed-up by Daily Breeze reporter Maddaus, indicated that Sacramento property's lender filed a notice of default on that property in December 2007 which went to an auction sale and was purchased by a new buyer in May 2008. Did Congresswoman Richardson walk away from this, and isn't that May 7 auction sale a done deal?

Among the documents faxed to us by Congresswoman Richardson is an April 17, 2008 letter to her regarding the Sacramento property. It indicates it's a debt collection letter [typed signature line indicates the lender], refers to loan reinstatement figures in an enclosed document not provided to us, invites remittal of the reinstatement amount to the lender's address, and states:

"We have placed a sixty day hold on all foreclosure sale or actions; the hold will expire June 4, 2008."

Cong. Richardson also provided us with a May 22, 2008 email to her from a third party [name blacked out, but she identified it in her conversation as her lender] which includes an unsigned consent form it says is needed to release an attached letter to a third party purchaser "to facilitate the rescission of foreclosure sale."

Congresswoman Richardson described what took place as follows:

Cong. Richardson: The [May 22 document] asks me to provide consent to provide this document to the third party mortgage company who was involved with this on May 7 [reads the consent form]...Prior to April 14, I had had several conversations with this lender, but on April 14 we came to a final agreement of what my payment program would be for this property. On April 17, they sent me this letter [refers to reinstatement amount, sixty day hold and June 4 expiration date]...

So what this demonstrates to you and to everyone else we've been talking to is that at the time of May 7, I had an agreement in hand, I had reinstatement figures and I had began to pay on those reinstatement figures and was operating in a reinstatement loan modification.

Now how their departments communicated that a reinstatement was on file, I can't speak to, but what I can say is my lender agrees that I had an agreement. I know I had an agreement, and we now taking the appropriate process to have this prior, pre preliminary sale to be rescinded.

[We offer no presumptions on what will happen next from this.]

So what about the San Pedro property, which on publicly filed documents indicates a scheduled auction in July?

The documents provided by Cong. Richardson include a March 21, 2008 letter from the lender on the San Pedro property which refers to a modification of its loan on the property (modified loan terms, etc.) [The name on the notice of sale is different but we presume it's the lender's collection rep].

In sum, Cong. Richardson said: "I do have an active, viable loan that I am responsible for to make payments for that [San Pedro] property [and] for all three pieces of property."

As previously reported by LBReport.com, Congresswoman Richardson issued two prior written statements regarding the Sacramento property, reported in full by LBReport.com.

In her discussion with us, Congresswoman Richardson opened with the following:

Cong. Richardson: These eight to ten months, and particularly the last couple of days, have really opened my eyes to what thousands of Americans are facing right now. In our area of Long Beach area, there are 38,000 people who are having these same discussions about personal finances and how they're going to survive in this housing crisis...It's been a difficult time for me but I intend to use this, one, to fix and improve what I'm doing, and also to use what I've learned to help others.

Realizing that she was about to speak at length, we requested the Congresswoman's consent to record, which she gave us...and here's what followed.

To launch this audio click here (MP3, 8.6 MB, may take a few moments to download even on high speed connection).

Cong. Richardson also said that she intends to request an opportunity to testify before the U.S. Senate on this issue:

Cong. Richardson: ...requesting to testify as a representative of the people and to say: "Look. Look at me. Look at what I've experienced. These are serious issues. People need the assistance, and the lenders need the assistance, oh by the way. I don't think that they foresaw that so many people would have difficulties meeting their financial obligations.

And so I'm going to use this that I've learned to now be very engaged in what's happening in getting [current pending] legislation signed, and then I think the added benefit that I can provide, that is not covered in the [pending] legislation, is the process things that I've learned...How long legally should a person have to be on hold or to wait to get a response, or what departments should have to get certain sign-offs before they authorize an auction sale. There are many things that can be done to eliminate these nightmares that many American people are facing today.

And I think the best thing that I can do is what people expect me to do: is to be responsible for my obligations, which is what I've done, and I have for every single property that I'm responsible for, I have a document to show you that. And I think they expect me to take what I've learned, what I see, not only for myself but what I see that they're doing and figure out how to fix it, and that's what I intend upon doing.

To launch this audio segment: click here

We asked for clarification on some of the items and incorporated that into our text. We didn't have the faxed documents at hand when we spoke with the Congresswoman but that was our foul-up, not hers. She called us over an hour earlier (seeking our fax number) and we missed her call. When we did link up the second time, we provided her staff with our fax number...and the documents to which the Congresswoman referred arrived shortly after our conversation.