Meet Danielle And Jim Plus 9: The Squatters Who "Reclaimed" Their Foreclosed Home Over The Weekend

Tyler Durden's picture

Unfortunately, surreal stories like this will very soon become daily news. As was pointed out yesterday, Simi Valley has just seen the first case of a forced reclamation of a foreclosed home, after Jim and Danielle Earl took their nine (9!) children, ages 9-23, and a locksmith and broke into the six-bedroom house that had been foreclosed upon for lack of payment, and on which the couple owed $880,000! And where would such brilliant advice originate from? Why, the couple's lawyer of course, who will one day be seen as the prophetic visionary who stole the bankers wealth from underneath them and handed it out to America's millions of starving lawyers, one billing sheet at a time: "The move was recommended by their lawyer" as the WSJ suggests. Already in process: millions of cases identical to this one, billions in legal fees, and hundreds of billions in lost market value of associated equity and credit instrument, not to mention very unpleasant days for LPs in "Recovery" funds.

More on the family:

The Earls paid $500,000 for the house in 2001 and then refinanced to pull out cash. They fell behind on their mortgage and at the time of their eviction they owed about $880,000 on a no-interest mortgage.

Investors at Conejo Capital bought the house for $697,000 at a lender’s trustee sale and put $40,000 of work into a remodel, replacing carpeting and appliances, as well as upgrading the kitchen. They flipped it to new buyers for $800,000. Those buyers were supposed to move in this week; those plans are on hold.

The Earls claim that they were working with GRP Financial Services to catch up on payments, but discovered a $25,000 difference between what they believed they owed and what the bank said they owed. They then stopped making payments.

“This is only the beginning of this,” the Earls’ attorney, Michael Pines tells KABC News. “I chose this family because we needed to get back in before the investor and the real-estate broker defrauded a new family by having them move in, which would have created a bigger mess. (The Earls) have done absolutely nothing wrong.”

So there you have it: people who owe $880,000 on their mortgage believe it is their right to reclaim homes. We will avoid any ethical commentary on this, suffice to say that it is the bankers who in the greed and stupidity have managed to dig themselves into what could be a hole so deep not even TARP 2-XXX can dig them out of.

For a clip of this surreal harbinger of things to come, click below.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SRV - ES339's picture

Did "Atlas" just "Shrug?"

Missing_Link's picture

No, because "Atlas" refers to all the productive, hardworking people who make capitalism work (in those times when it does work, this not being one of them).  None of the parties in this farce fall into that category -- not the bankers, not the hopelessly underwater squatters/thieves, not their lawyer.

Oh, maybe you're referring to the cops who were sitting there shrugging in their police cars.  Yeah, could be.

kaiserhoff's picture

+1  Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave over that one.

Dont Taze Me Bro's picture

Spin in her grave? This is more like mission accomplished.

This mess was brought to you by one of her closest disciples: Alan Greenspan

He was the editor of her newsletter "Objectivist Periodicals" for many years. The two were very close; in fact, she regularly accompanied the bachelor to formal events.


cossack55's picture

Road to Roota, Bro.  Just sayin.

tmosley's picture

So?  He betrayed her ideals when he became Fed Chairman.  He's Judas and Pontius Pilot's bastard son.

Dont Taze Me Bro's picture

That's wishful thinking.

There was no betrayal. His philosophy didn't change after he became fed chairman.

He simply took her ideas and put it in practice.

This guy had his tongue deep in her kooch. He knew the lady well and was one of her disciples.

What else do you need to be convinced that Rand's destructive form of individualism may be the culprit behind the mess that we are in now?

WaterWings's picture

As someone that has actually read Atlas Shrugged I disagree - and we are in it.


SRV - ES339's picture

WW, you may want to "actually read" the link in DTMBs comment.

Nader (of all people) nailed it... and that was 10 years ago!

LowProfile's picture

I actually read it.

I don't see what point was trying to be made, other than Nader thinks G-span doesn't believe in regulation.

What this has to do with his being a disciple of Rand, I have no idea.

There is IMO a slim possibility he did what he did on purpose, I rather think he's just an incompetent boob, willing to do whatever he needs to do for his masters approval and continuing admission to fancy black-tie parties.

SRV - ES339's picture

Government regulation is not an alternative means of protecting the consumer. It does not build quality into goods, or accuracy into information. Its sole contribution is to substitute force and fear for incentive as the 'protector' of the consumer. The euphemisms of government press releases to the contrary notwithstanding, the basis of regulation is armed force. At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.


I have read, and admire, Ayn Rand as one of the greatest authors and philosophers of the 20th century. The quote above represents the views of Rand and Greenspan... he was a champion of de-regulation (how did that work out?) and Rand's DNA is all over the push to remove regulation from corporations, as the "incentive to succeed" would protect society from the inherent moral hazard in unfettered corporate power (in fairness to Rand, she could not have predicted the evolution of today's corporate structure, or the capacity to put the world at risk).

chopper read's picture

he was a champion of de-regulation (how did that work out?)

to be fair, firstly, our financial institutions are not deregulated 'free markets'.  we have centralized money planning where interest rates are left too low for too long allowing for prolonged excessive risk-taking (via the 'Greenspan Put').  secondly, FDIC Insurance (regulation!) created an ongoing moral hazard which allowed for the privatization of profits in times of (artificial) boom, and the socialization of losses in times of (long-overdue) bust.

our 'money' system is so rigged from the start, it can hardly be compared to anything resembling free trade/barter between free people.  We are not free.  Our 'money' is not free.  This is not a free market.  In fact, it is a monopoly that was gained through a political process (via the Federal Reserve Act of 1913) that was only possible due to excessive centralization of power in Washington D.C. at the expense of freedom.

...for the record.  

StychoKiller's picture

In a world of swift justice and unappealable jury awards, there would be no need for most Federal regulations.  Of course, no Progressive/Socialist would ever allow such a world to come into existence!

WaterWings's picture

As a disciple of Ayn Rand, later as an economic guru for the Republican Party, and still later as a lobbyist for financial corporations, Greenspan has disagreed with regulation as a tool to protect consumers and the well-being of a free enterprise economy.

Hmm. Do as I say, not as I do? Nuff said.

redpill's picture

How exactly do you think inflationary central banking (forgive the redundancy) and Objectivism are compatible in any way?

tmosley's picture

You are one ignorant fuck.

Read Atlas Shrugged and get back to me.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  Greenspan's actions were always diametrically opposed to the proposed reforms clearly laid out in Rand's books.

Show me one fucking place in the entirety of human existance or experience where fucking Ayn Rand said the GOVERNMENT should set interest rates below market values.  SHOW ME.

Also, Nadler is a liar through and through.  Anything he says is immediately suspect, and not to be believed under any circumstance.

chopper read's picture

tmosley, you are throwing pearls to swine. 


The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to 

give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the “common good,” but it always ends in a police state. 

This is called preventive justice. 

Control is the key concept.  Read carefully: 

1.  Abolition of private property. 

2.  Heavy progressive income tax. 

3.  Abolition of all rights on inheritance. 

4.  Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5.  Central bank. 

6.  Government control of Communications & Transportation. 

7.  Government ownership of factories and agriculture. 

8.  Government control of labor. 

9.  Corporate farms, regional planning. 

10. Government control of education. 

WaterWings's picture

Society has a just claim on our fortunes and that claim goes by the name estate tax.   - Bill "Noblesse Oblige" Gates, Sr.

Just what is in it for these guys?

Hanauer, one of the earliest investors and founder of the online ad company aQuantive, sees the economics differently. In his judgment, the kind of wealth at stake in the initiative could do far more good for the economy by bankrolling public school teachers and other vital services.


"If you look at the money that somebody like me - or Jeff Bezos or Steve Ballmer - where our cash flow goes, it's crazy to assert that the highest and best use is in our bank accounts, or in the hedge funds that we've parked it in, or as jet fuel in our private planes," Hanauer said. "It's just nuts."

It's scary what passes for harmless talk. And public skool is part of the problem!

chopper read's picture

...working on one's 'legacy' (only after wealth is created) by promoting big government taxes and solutions, the ultimate final act of selfishness at the expense of freedom for others. 

JonNadler's picture

leave me out of this, am just a shill for JPMorhan, paid to lie about gold not real estate, although if the NAR would like to pay me to pump up real estate....he he.  Anyway didn't he say Nader not Nadler


for any shill services e-mail me at

Temporalist's picture

INDIVIDUALISM?!?!?!  What is less of a form of individualism than manipulating markets and currencies and circumventing the rule of law for corporations than what has been in practice since before Greenspan was Fed Chairman?  Are bailouts for corporations on the backs of taxpayers individualism?  Allowing corporations to "regulate" themselves is also not Randian.  When honesty is removed from the system and the game is rigged it can no longer be objectivism.  Even someone that knows little about Rand can understand that when the system favors only one side and is abusive, oppressive and unjust it is not a system that can be sustained.  Rand's protagonists were makers and doers and industrialists not "service sector" employees that made money from fraudulent products and policies; they were not gaming the system nor were they dishonest, unjust, or morally reprehensible.  The fraud is more apparent in the government, financial institutions and corporations that pass the buck and are never responsible or accountable and maintain their power.

ertyqway's picture

Maybe. Or maybe this is Rand's Revenge.

duo's picture

+30 pieces of silver (worth $750 as of today)

JonNadler's picture

Judas' pieces were not one ounce piece

kaiserhoff's picture

He went over to the dark side.  It is customary to actually read authors before commenting on their philosophies, but that wouldn't be the twitter approach, would it? 

Ripped Chunk's picture

Bachelor being the key word. What an ugly fuck. And he sure fucked the rest of us didn't he? 

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle's picture

They did more than that together.  It's widely known that he was her bottom.  You really didn't think she limited her sexual freakiness to her books, did you?

Trial of the Pyx's picture

holy shit, really?


that is freaking me out man

Ferrari's picture

So by this line of reasoning Nietzsche is responsible for Hitler, Jesus is responsible Bernardo Gui & the Crusades? I think not. Like them, Rand said what she had to say, and other misinterpreted it. Greenspan thought her teachings were groovy for a while, but then found there was a fortune to be made going down the opposite path, which happened to look the same. It's a shame that people would try to hangthis mess around Rand's neck. This is not capitalism. This is not a free market.

chopper read's picture

pearls to swine, fellas. pearls to swine. 


The Communist Manifesto represents a misguided philosophy, which teaches the citizens to 

give up their RIGHTS for the sake of the “common good,” but it always ends in a police state. 

This is called preventive justice. 

Control is the key concept.  Read carefully: 

1.  Abolition of private property. 

2.  Heavy progressive income tax. 

3.  Abolition of all rights on inheritance. 

4.  Confiscation of property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5.  Central bank. 

6.  Government control of Communications & Transportation. 

7.  Government ownership of factories and agriculture. 

8.  Government control of labor. 

9.  Corporate farms, regional planning. 

10. Government control of education. 

straightup411's picture

Greenspan, a bachelor?  Ever?

Good thing he was scooped up by Andrea Mitchell of NBC news fame.  By that time he was a toss-off of Barbara Walters.  No matter, Al and Andy (20 years his junior)  stepped into happily ever after when  they were married by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 

Wonder if all these places they work for are somehow connected and work together?  Of course not!  They're just bumping into each other and hooking up like everyone else.

Silly to think otherwise.


Missing_Link's picture

Oh, and way to set an example for your NINE KIDS, squatter bitch.

Owe $880k in back payments followed by an act of illegal breaking-and-entering just so you can avoid having to tell your kids, for just a few more days/weeks, how horribly you've failed at life  ...  and eventually see your kids ripped away from you and put in foster care, Elian Gonzales-style.

redpill's picture

Don't forget about the part where you grin smugly on TV about the whole matter, as if you've done something admirable!

The Earls may startingly discover that "my lawyer made me do it" is not the best argument in court.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

If they couldn't pay their mortgage, how are they going to pay their lawyer?

redpill's picture

Who said they couldn't pay?

Hephasteus's picture

The mess began, according to Danielle Earl, when she discovered a discrepancy between what she thought she owed in mortgage payments ($10,000) and what the bank claimed was due ($25,000). Earl said she made a $12,500 payment.

"After I made the payment, they said I owed $25,000," she said.

So Earl did some research and learned the note on the property was being assigned from lender to lender with what she believed were falsified documents, so she decided to stop making payments "because they clearly didn't want us to catch up," she said.

Big Corked Boots's picture

I'm sure he's getting his fee in advance.

Besides, think of all the $ they saved on mortgage payments.

FEDbuster's picture

This has reality show written all over it.  Squatters + Nine, explore the trials and tribulations of Jim and Danielle and their nine kids as they reclaim their homestead....  A new series on HGTV.

Misstrial's picture

Nah. Simi is in Ventura County. Home to law enforcement galore.

They will be escorted out by police. Give it about a week.


The Alarmist's picture

A prudent attorney would have advised the client to place the money in escrow, usually in that attorney's escrow account.  When the matter is finally settled out of court, as most of these things are, one of the first checks written against the escrowed amount will be to the attorney.

nedwardkelly's picture

The parents apparently think they're victims... Assuming they actually believe it, then they probably think they're teaching their kids a valuable lesson about standing up against being victims. I can't help but think there's a couple of roos loose in the top paddock, we can't be dealing with the sharpest tools in the shed here.

And before anyone gets all high and mighty and tells me that they really are victims, save it, you wont convince me. Just because the bankers are scumbag assholes doesn't mean these people aren't deadbeats... Bought it for $500k, refi'ed to turn their house into an ATM with an interest only loan. Wtf did they think was ultimately going to happen.

rawsienna's picture

They fit in well with Obama's vision of America - no fault of their own, the took out 300k in equity and now cant pay it back. Blame the bank. 

Truth to told most of the bill for this mess will be the taxpayers - as most of these loans are guaranteed by the GSE's.  THey are not screwing the bankers, they are screwing us. If the story is true and they had a legitimate disagreement, they should have continued to pay the freakin mortgage and worked it out.

If you think bankers are scum, just wait and see how scummy these lawyers will be.

pan-the-ist's picture

"Banksters are OKAY cuz they are not as scummy as Lawyers."

rawsienna's picture

They both suck but the reality is that the bank and GSE's got scammed by scummy mortgage brokers.  The banks deserved it because in many cases they turned a blind eye so they got a taste of their own medicine. Never said banks were "okay" but have to point out that it is the tax payers who pay for the GSE losses.

Edmon Plume's picture

I've said before that this will likely culminate in a class-action, in which a trillion dollar settlement will yield $950B for the attorneys, a couple million each for the first one or two in the class action door, and the rest of the booty will get split among several million nobodys, at $1000 per nobody.

Banks will then collect bailout funds (taxpayer/obligation money), and on top of that will get to write off the lawsuits as legal expenses, which means tax revenues will fall.  The big winners?  Banks and attorneys.  The big losers?  Citizens.

Misstrial's picture

A $1000 per nobody?

No way.

More like each will get a coupon worth $50.00 towards the purchase of a flat-screen at Walmart.