2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift

Dark Knight · Nov 21, 2006

A church that wanted to do something special for Hurricane Katrina victims gave a $75,000 house, free and clear, to a couple who said they were left homeless by the storm. But the couple turned around and sold the place without ever moving in, and went back to New Orleans.

"Take it up with God," an unrepentant Joshua Thompson told a TV reporter after it was learned that he and the woman he identified as his wife had flipped the home for $88,000.

Church members said they feel their generosity was abused by scam artists. They are no longer even sure that the couple were left homeless by Katrina or that they were a couple at all.

"They came in humble like they really needed a new start, and our hearts went out to them," said Jean Phillips, a real estate agent and member of the Temple of Deliverance Church of God in Christ. "They actually begged for the home."

The church was also shocked by an ungrateful interview the couple gave with WHBQ-TV in Memphis.

"I really don't like this area," said Delores Thompson. "I really didn't, and I didn't know anybody, so that's why I didn't move in and I sold it."

Thompson, reached at a New Orleans phone number by The Associated Press on Tuesday, thanked the church for its generosity but said she saw nothing wrong in selling the three-bedroom, two-bath house.

"Do I have any legal problems? What do you mean? The house was given to me," she said. "I have the paperwork and everything."

She refused further comment and hung up.

The church had decided that it would do something special for one Katrina-displaced family, in addition to its other efforts to help evacuees. The church set up a committee to find the right family and conducted several dozen interviews.

Much more at link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_on_re_us/katrina_gift_house&printer=1

KrisNine · Nov 21, 2006

What a shame. It's people like this that cause people to think twice before lending a hand in the future.

Karole28 · Nov 21, 2006

KrisNine said:
What a shame. It's people like this that cause people to think twice before lending a hand in the future.

No kidding. The "husband" actually indicated he believes the church had done something wrong.

what asshats.

Beyond Belief · Nov 21, 2006

There should have been some kind of stipulation in the agreement to protect the church's interest. A good lawyer would have handled this better from the start.

windovervocalcords · Nov 21, 2006

What's the problem? You give a gift. The gift belongs to the receiver. The couple sold the house and got money for a new start in their home, New Orleans.

The story says the church conducted many interviews and found this couple needy.

Karole28 · Nov 21, 2006

Beyond Belief said:
There should have been some kind of stipulation in the agreement to protect the church's interest. A good lawyer would have handled this better from the start.

Well, sadly, BB, the church issued a statement saying they're going to start doing exactly that.

It's a sorry shame.

Linda7NJ · Nov 21, 2006

windovervocalcords said:
What's the problem? You give a gift. The gift belongs to the receiver. The couple sold the house and got money for a new start in their home, New Orleans.

The story says the church conducted many interviews and found this couple needy.

Agreed! It belonged to them and they were free to do whatever they wanted with it.

Dark Knight · Nov 21, 2006

I think the gift was procured under false pretenses, which is where the problem lies. Obviously the church feels scammed.

southcitymom · Nov 21, 2006

Unless there is proof that the couple didn't really need a home and scammed this church for the property they received, I agree that the house is theirs to do with as they wish.
I mean the church set up a committee to search out this couple. Obviously the committee felt like they were in need. What's changed their minds now?

Beyond Belief · Nov 21, 2006

I'm flopping on both sides of the fence on this one. One one hand I recognize the right to dispose of a gift in any manner one choses, but on the other hand see accepting a gift under false pretenses.

The church may want to stipulate the homeowners will remain in the home for a certain amount of years, simular to the "first home owner" buyers given FHA loans.

southcitymom · Nov 21, 2006

Beyond Belief said:
I'm flopping on both sides of the fence on this one. One one hand I recognize the right to dispose of a gift in any manner one choses, but on the other hand see accepting a gift under false pretenses.

The church may want to stipulate the homeowners will remain in the home for a certain amount of years, simular to the "first home owner" buyers given FHA loans.

What are the false pretenses?

Dark Knight · Nov 21, 2006

southcitymom said:
What are the false pretenses?

The begged for a house to live in, it sounds like, then never lived in it. Even saying they didn't even like the area.

Even if it was legal, they took advantage of the church's generosity, which isn't cool.

southcitymom · Nov 21, 2006

Dark Knight said:
The begged for a house to live in, it sounds like, then never lived in it. Even saying they didn't even like the area.

Even if it was legal, they took advantage of the church's generosity, which isn't cool.

I re-read the story and see your point. I wonder how the church will respond.

reportertype · Nov 22, 2006

I'm hardly ever in complete agreement with Dark Knight, but these people ick me out. Their actions and attitudes about it make me wonder if they attempted to get the house just so they could profit from it. I'd be embarrassed if I had done something like this; just because it's legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

Dark Knight · Nov 22, 2006

reportertype said:
I'm hardly ever in complete agreement with Dark Knight, but these people ick me out. Their actions and attitudes about it make me wonder if they attempted to get the house just so they could profit from it. I'd be embarrassed if I had done something like this; just because it's legal doesn't necessarily make it right.

I love you too.

Karole28 · Nov 22, 2006

This is definitely a case of what is legally right vs. what is morally right.

This couple has earned a lifetime of bad karma.

bertajo · Nov 22, 2006

I think there are two issues here. First, when the family sold the house, they profited an additional $13,000 from the transaction (within 7 months). While I understand the family has the "right" to sell the home, it seems ungenerous to keep this money. Second, I could empathize with a church in this situation because the gift seemed contingent on the family's willingness to settle into the community. If the church wanted someone to have the house anywhere, they would have given the family a cash gift.

This analogy is my version of these two humans. Let's say you recruited by a lucrative company in Alaska for the perfect position. After multiple rounds of interviews beating out other worthy candidates, you are offered a phenomenal salary with benefits, options, and insert other perks here. After days of haggling the contract, you decide it's just too cold for you in Alaska, and you don't dig the snow. The logic might work for these people, but I suspect that they never had any intention of settling into this community. And, if you were the number two guy in the interview process, wouldn't you be bitter?

Linda7NJ · Nov 22, 2006

If they were indeed homeless and poor, then the church is dead wrong. IMO

windovervocalcords · Nov 22, 2006

Linda7NJ said:
If they were indeed homeless and poor, then the church is dead wrong. IMO

And that the couple gained an additional profit from selling the house, which belonged to them, through a gift that should have come with no strings attached, I would posit may be proof of their excellent karma. The church did not say--here's a house--it's not really yours to sell and profit from, they said we want to give a house to a family who lost their home in the hurricane.

If you give to someone and then regret the gift it takes away from the original generosity. That takes away from you virtuous karma and merit you recieve when you practice generosity.

It's a great lesson in generosity. The Church could skillfully work with the feelings that have arisen in this situation. It's an invitation to go deeper in spiritual practice.

As more information comes out, things will get clearer.
If they have committed a form of fraud, then they will see their profits go to legal fees and may face some kind of prosecution. Until, more information comes out it's all mere speculation.

Even if the couple turn out to be criminals, the Church members can take delight in their generosity, their positive motivation to benefit and the ethical basis of their faith that prevents them from exploiting other's generosity.

It's too bad this happened. So many things about the Katrina hurricane bring up issues. The Katrina hurricane certainly seemed to have alot of karma connected with it. Collective karma--and individual karma.

poco · Nov 22, 2006

windovervocalcords said:
What's the problem? You give a gift. The gift belongs to the receiver. The couple sold the house and got money for a new start in their home, New Orleans.

The story says the church conducted many interviews and found this couple needy.

I agree - was thinking the same thing - they wanted to give someone a house - they did - but the couple wanted to move back to NO - so they sold the house, made a little profit - what's the big deal???

I wonder where this house was for $75,000......... do they even sell houses that cheap anymore???

2 unrepentant about selling Katrina gift

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dogs are awesome!

Well-Known Member

Former Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics