At this late point I very much doubt that anyone will be checking back on their various comments left after reading this article, however, in the case that anyone stumbles across this particular article and decides to read some of these unjustified assumptions and judgments--then I would like to help set the record straight.

I can see how easy it might be to sit back and judge others when you are not involved in a situation like this, it probably appears like the solution is straightforward and black and white. But the truth of the matter is that there a lot of variables that this couple might be facing that would have never been included in an article like this one. Not to mention that there has not been an official decision made by anyone actually involved, in fact the owners were quoted as saying that they would (if anything) be rebuilding a home (which would then in turn have to be built to FEMA specs--which would then lower the risk of any future flood damage). As for any buyout options, there does seem to be a lot to consider when there is so much left to determine...specifically, whether or not they would actually qualify and whether the application would be approved and this doesn't even take into account the waiting period for that approval. To have had this happen to your first home within your first year of marriage must be a very difficult thing to cope with and to be so young and thrust into this sort of unknown territory and be pressured to make the right decision must be a major burden (for anyone). I feel strongly that no one should be condemning this couple for any decision that they make until they walk a mile in their shoes and can actually have an accurate picture of what this family is facing.

There are a lot rumors flying. The absentee owner buyout ineligibility is one of them. Another is that the city would go on a rampage bulldozing flood damaged houses without allowing options to the owners. Even FEMA isn't on a bulldozing rampage, hence the buyouts: FEMA pays 75% and the state and city split the other 25%. Again, the buyouts are voluntary.

Our local rapidly aging wacky hippie chick is contributing mightily to the rumors.

I thought I read or heard that second homes were not eligible for the buyout. If that is not the case, I agree with you gazettefan. The buyout sounds like the best option.

MooShoo, second homes and rental homes are eligible for the buyout. The point of the buyout is to permanently clear the parcel of human habitation. So it doesn't matter if the owner lived there or not. Taking the house down would keep others from living there (including owners, renters, etc.) and reduce the number of future flood victims.

You might have the buyout mixed-up with grants and loans from FEMA. Absentee owners are not eligible for grants and loans from FEMA, nor are non-owning occupants.

The home seems to be in the flood fringe and the owners can flood proof the home. The owners can also rebuild because they had flood insurance. The home probably has no value to others but the owners can determine if the home has value to them. They can do this by flood proofing or rebuilding and with those options they can compel FEMA to put value on the property.

Yes, they can demolish and/or rebuild or sell the parcel. The parcel is still buildable. I'm talking about the true owners.

The owners and the tenants should probably take the buyout, save the $190,000. If they are willing to pay the $190,000 they can put that money plus the buyout money into another river property that is without the same flood potential.

Thanks for the comments JCK.

JCK, if there was a mortgage, then flood insurance was required and flood damage would be covered, but not necessarily to the tune of $190,000. A problem seems to be that the tenants are not the real owners of the property.

I wonder if they're confusing a standard homeowners policy with a rental dwelling policy. To be eligible for a homeowners policy the dwelling must be a one or two family dwelling which is occupied, at least in part, by the owner. If it's occupied by another party even if they are related to the home's owner a rental dwelling policy should be written. Either way neither covers flood damage.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something I don't think the issue is who's name the policy is in. It undoubtedly includes a flood damage exclusion.

A federal flood insurance policy, if required by the lender, would be written in addition to a homeowners policy. Federal flood insurance covers flood damage but not damage caused by fire, wind, hail, etc. They also don't provide liability coverage.

Kayla, you left me hanging here with insufficient facts to really understand what is going on.
*
My first questions pertains to the insurance policy. Is it a standard homeowner's insurance policy, or is it federal flood insurance? Typically, a mortgage lender requires the latter if a home loan is made on a house in the flood plain. Regardless, I would be talking to an attorney right now if I was in a claim dispute of this magnitude with my insurance company.
*
My next question pertains to eligibilty for a buyout. Courtney's parents own the home, but do not live there. Thus, it makes it their second home. I was under the impression from previous articles in the Gazette that second homes are not eligible for a buyout. What gives?
*
Third question and fourth question. Is the Fayle's lot in a floodway or a flood plain? Isn't it true that if they are in a floodway and have substantial damage to the home, they cannot rebuild? If so, then the only out is a FEMA buyout - and only if it is a primary home. In that case their lot has no value on the market, which brings up the final point.
*
Final question. Are they able to rebuild because City zoning lets them rebuild even though they have substantial damage to a non-conforming structure? I assume this is true because they wish to rebuild. It may make some financial sense. The reason is the lot has some value because it is buildable lot on the river - although less desirable than in the near past. Their choices are either demolish the structure and rebuild, or sell the lot for market value.
*
Anyone else got some ideas for these folks?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something in the article but my understanding is that the damage was caused by flood waters which caused the foundation to shift. Insurance policies don't cover flood damage regardless of whose name the policy is in.

In the second paragraph of my last post,the word "rebuilt" should be "FLOOD PROOFED."

It should read:

If the cost of repairing the home to its pre-flood condition is equal to or exceeds 50% of the ASSESSED value of the STRUCTURE (excuding the value of the land) then the structure has to be FLOOD PROOFED according to FEMA or DNA requirements (FLOOD PROOFING), which is very expensive.

Take the money and run!

gazettefan thanks for the clarification.
*
If I read the article correctly that the couple didn't own the property or have the insurance in their name, (even though they paid it) then FEMA won't give the owners (or in this case the couples parents) anything for the dameage as it is considered a second home.
Otherwise it would have been qualified for help that way if the insurance didn't pay for the fixing/rebuilding.
*
On the same note, when purchasing the insurance most agents ask if it is for the homeowners to live there or if it is rented out (or in this case lived in by the couples daughter/son in law,wheather it was rented/land contract or what not)
Perhaps, and I know this is hindsight, but perhaps they (the couple) should have had checked into this as to avoid any misunderstanding. I know we were told that the tenants (even if they paid the property taxes) as long as the home is not in their name leagally that they should have renters insurance as the homeowners insurance dosen't cover them.
*
I truly do feel sorry for them and hope that they can get back into a home of their own soon. I wish them the best of luck no matter what they decide to do.

The 50% rule in the floodplain means:

If the cost of repairing the home to its pre-flood condition is equal to or exceeds 50% of the ASSESSED value of the STRUCTURE (excuding the value of the land) then the structure has to be rebuilt according to FEMA or DNA requirements (FLOOD PROOFING), which is very expensive.

A lot of fill and the elevation of the structure to a certain height (among other things) are required.

The city can't arbitrarily prevent someone from FLOOD PROOFING a home in the flood plain. If the owner(s) didn't have flood insurance, the city may prevent them from REBUILDING.

Well, we can all learn from other's mistakes. When you buy a house, you ask questions. You have an inspection done. Talk to the neighbors. Especially when its by the river. River's can and do flood. Sometimes a few times a year. The tax payers should not have to foot the bill for it though.

When you sign papers, you read them first. Perhaps with a lawyer.

The first few posts on here called them dumb and stupid. If that isn't mean, then what is? Not that I ever used the word mean.

Just questioning the thoughts behind wanting to rebuild in a flood zone, not trying to be mean at all. I know personally I wouldn't want to rebuild in a known floodplain, or anywhere where natural disasters are a KNOWN FACT, such as tornadao alley, or where hurricanes are etc... I don't understand why people keep on rebuiling time after time in such areas. Personally it would be too emotionaly draining besides the finacal problems.

All I can say is I hope that they rethink this. Take the buy out and restart fresh somewhere else. I understand that it will be difficult to get a loan for buying somewhere new, but face it it will be a lot harder to get a loan to rebuild in a flood plain, not to mention being able to get insurance to cover it.
*
One question, I thought that it was mandatory if a home was more than 50% damaged that the city had to give approval to rebuild in a flood plain. If that is the case, then would the city be able to deny the permits needed to rebuild? Or did I get it wrong on the information in previous articles. If that is correct couldn't the city then say no to allowing them to rebuild anyways?

I don't think people here are mean, the article's headline is,"Couple plan to rebuild home in floodplain". I think most of us here are just questioning the logic behind such a poor decision. What would your response be to an article titled "Couple plans on leaving keys in new car in bad neighborhood"?

the contractor estimated the damages at 160k that is if they were to repair. they are not going to repair they are going to rebuild. that is not going to cost as much to do aside from raising the land which i thought i read the city was making anyone who wanted to rebuild do.

so if they owe $80 and it is worth $61. how does putting $190 k into make ANY since at all and where would that money come from???? if they cannot buy a new home and roll the $19K into it how will they get $190k plus $20k from the bank to fix a home that is only worth $61k???!!! I dont think anyone here is mean or unrealistically negative. this is a negative situation to be in and they should take our advice and not be in MORE neg experience that makes no financial since. If they dont believe any of us maybe they sould take a few dollars and ask A FINANCIAL EXPERT their opnion before making a terrible finacial move!!

The city tax site says on 6/20/2007 a Warranty Deed for $85,000 was on the house.

This article is probably just a brief outline of what their actual situation is. If the city only gives them fair market value, and you still owe, because most of us would, how are you going to get another mortgage for a new house? In most cases, you aren't.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone would let the gazette do a story on them when the comments here are always so negative.

Maybe I missed it, but how much do they owe on this house? It is possible that they owe say $80,000 for this house that the city has assessed at $61,000.
It is very easy for people not involved to say take the buyout when it doesn't involve them, and they don't know all of the facts.
With the information provided, the buyout seems like the logical solution, but it would be nice to know the whole story.

i agree take the buyout.and what a great opportunity it is to get a buyout relief!! why put all that money(190k) to rebuild when they say the value is way over the assesssed value(60k). Somebody surely needs to speak to them about over improving your home for the area!!!!yuo cannot be that attached after only one year of living there and who would want to even risk even minimal flooding again. i dont understand the ins either. how can they have a loan and somebody else is insuring it? is it land contract maybe? hopefully they will read this and change their minds!!!! and listen to people that have owned their homes for years and not be "the smart one" that really arent not that smart yet about owning your first home. TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN!!!!!!

If anyone remembers the April article that documented the flood from the winter thaw, you will remember that Nick Gayle's home was also featured.
http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/apr/16/...

"Neighbors told Gayle that his yard it the worst for flooding."

I think it is time to take the offer, and move on...

No need to be so mean to these people. Poor decision to stay, admittedly, but seriously.

If it were me, rather than sink $190,000 into rebuilding a home worth $61,000, I'd consider buying something elsewhere for less. There are hundreds of homes for sale right now in Janesville, and some are very nice for about $70,000 less.

They sound like their dumb. I am sure we will have another flood next year. So maybe the Gazette can cover it when their house is washed away next year. Natural selection will take care of them.

"We’re not the principal residents, so they won’t replace it,” said Beth Norwood, Courtney’s mother. “We didn’t know that when we bought the policy.”

Oh, any reputable insurance agent or mortgage company will MAKE you put the insurance policy in the new owners name

And if they do get flooded out again, nobody should be on the hook to cover their losses! They are willingly placing their brand new rebuilt home in an obvious flood plain! I can not believe the lack of common sense in some people...

We'll be reading about them the next time the river floods and they go through this again. The city offer isn't going to get better, take it and start a new life away from the river.

If you stay and rebuild, it'll be forever on your mind, "Is this the year it'll flood again?" That takes a toll emotionally. Financially, your insurance premiums will be sky high. Take the buy-out, build elsewhere and dump your current insurance company. A flood plain is a flood plain is a flood plain....

They cant get any insurance money, and they wont take the buy out? Are they dumb? Take the money and run!! A new home isnt going to have a "much" higher value...it would still be on a flood plain.