Lonnie Deals - Then and Now - The original method won't work

Lonnie Deals - Then and Now - The original method won't work

Specialist · Springfield, IL · Member since 2011 · 700 posts · 479 votes

First of all, I believe Lonnie Scruggs, was a great man who, while he did charge for his knowledge, made a whole lot of people a whole lot of money. I would never try to take that away from him.

Second, through no fault of Lonnie's, times have changed. The federal government of the 50s and the 60s and even the 70s is no longer small business friendly. They know they cannot be cost effective in regulating and taxing small business so they want it gone. Accordingly, they are more and more aggressive in regulating small businesses and building in costs of regulation that make it difficult, if not impossible, for small business to afford the cost of regulation.

Third, I know no one likes change - especially when it requires either spending money they hadn't planned for, or worse, quitting a business they depend on for their livelihood. The problem with the type of magical thinking that appears both in this forum and many other places is it is dangerous. It is akin to teenagers thinking, " I can't get pregnant (or she can't get pregnant) if we only do it just this once without protection".

So, in a series of posts to this thread, I am going to try to outline the dangers for all to see, to at least warn those that read it what they are up against. This will take some time so it won't all show up today or tomorrow, but I will continue to post until all of it is laid out.

Fourth. I do own a national consulting company that helps people with all of this. I am not posting to troll for business. Most of you, I believe, would not be able to justify most of our costs, and I have little or no expectation that all of you will want to engage us. We do quite well working with retailers and community owners who have the volume to afford our services. I will, however, give general ideas of costs when it seem appropriate and try to quantify how much volume it takes to justify compliance.

I hope all of this will help.

5Reply
146 views

Most Popular Reply

Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
12y

For clarification, a mobile home is a single family dwelling defined in the SAFE Act, what might be confusing is that while Ken specializes in working in the mobile home industry and those financing them (being "dealers") the same issues apply to conventional housing, 1-4 family dwellings. With respect to the SAFE Act there is no difference for compliance between a mobile home and a SFD sitting on dirt.

So, as Ken and Donna proceed, consider that there is no difference between a ranch style 3/2 and a double wide 3/2 as to the financing arrangement.

The key aspects I might expect will be as to the structure of entities devised to originate financing and in making or funding a transaction and in servicing the loan after it's made. Pay attention as I believe that those who can mirror the entity side of the MH industry may be able to adopt the same structures in other financing transactions. There will still be RMLOs I'm sure as well as mortgage servicers. We will see. :)

BTW, welcome Donna, haven't seen you post, but it looks like it may have hit on a commercial side or something and was removed. :)

See this reply in the discussion

54 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y
    Jackie,

    You will have shady tree lawyers trying to find loop holes for the buyers when they default.

    Joe Gore

  • Investor · Central America, Panama · Member since 2010 · 423 posts · 293 votes
    12y

    oh, forgot to mention. One attorney I talked to said Dodd-Frank applies to Rent to own, Lease Options, Lease purchase, and Selling the beneficial interest of a trust - anything that is not strictly a rental will require vetting financial qualifications using a mortgage broker including the 43% debt to income ratio.

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y
    Jackie,

    The only real way to see if it works is to put the government to the test. There is a lot of Internet hype but know one will know how it will work until the rules are put forth.


    Joe Gore

  • SoCal, CA · Member since 2013 · 51 posts · 10 votes
    12y

    @Donna Rishel

    Re: the restrictions on collecting from non-performing borrowers, does that also apply to people who are holding notes they purchased from note brokers? So if someone purchased a performing note for their own portfolio & it later becomes delinquent, can the note holder contact the homeowner directly to try and work out an agreement, modify the loan etc. to avoid a foreclosure? Or must he/she hire a servicer for any collection attempts?

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y

    @Emma S. , yes! If the collateral property is 1-4 family or "residential land". It won't be an issue for commercial notes.

    Modifying a note is the same extending credit as a new loan.

    I can assure everyone, you are getting a greater insight to the SF issues in this thread than you will with any seminar/pitch or mortgage broker spiel.

    As Ken pointed out, many of the issues in lending are not unique to one type of activity, ECOA is applicable to any credit activity.

    Donna, very well said. The arbitrary nature of seller financing has been an issue I have been pointing out for years, I have stressed interest reflecting the risk and prudent lending practices in origination and much of it falling on deaf ears I believe, not sure, hope its made a difference.

    Jackie, good points and I'm certain that there is a silver lining here with a great deal of opportunities for those who become compliant.

    I'm sure that investors and MH dealers will adapt and overcome as will note investors. There is a solution, set up an operation that is compliant.

    Thanks again to Donna for pointing out that any financing contract, lease-options, rent-to-own, wraps, sub-2, CFD, falls under the SAFE Act and all of these issues. Any scheme or contract that is determined to be made so as to circumvent the Act is included.

    I could go on, but won't, this is Ken's thread. Just know that all that has been said applies to all SFD transactions and lending, it's not unique to MHs. :)

  • Specialist · Springfield, IL · Member since 2011 · 700 posts · 479 votes
    12y

    Bill

    Jump in anywhere at any time.

  • Specialist · Springfield, IL · Member since 2011 · 700 posts · 479 votes
    12y

    Jackie wrote:

    The other biggie, is that you cannot charge more than 5% over the going Fannie Mae interest rate (currently 3.2%), there can be no balloon in your note, and the interest rate you charge has to be fixed for the first 5 years. (no more lonnie deal interest rates) (there goes the note business)

    Here is where measuring risk comes in. We are advising our clients to structure their lending to meet the requirements for qualified mortgage except for the interest rate caps. Bear in mind our clients are coming to us about chattel lending on manufactured homes - not SFR or real estate deals.

    Because of efforts of the Dodd Frank Task Force I am part of, manufactured housing received special exemptions that do not apply to SFR/real estate deals. Using this special exemption, we recommend clients making chattel loans of $50,000 or less charge no more that 8 !/2% over APOR (which changes weekly) and that for loans $49,999.00 they charge no more than 6 1/2% over APOR.

    While this removes the protections of a Qualified Mortgage, given the special exemption it also still allows for rebuttable presumption if the other aspects of the loan do conform to a Qualified Mortgage. The risk is somewhat higher when defending a loan in court, but still reasonably secure - if everything else is 100% on the money.

  • Investor · Central America, Panama · Member since 2010 · 423 posts · 293 votes
    12y

    Dodd-Frank says no interest rates over 5% of the doing Fannie Mae rate, why risk it by charging more.

    Mobile homes, even though personal property and chattel loans, do fall under the SF rules for Dodd-Frank.

    It is better to comply or do business a different way.

    A simple solution...

    Since the owner occupant, seller, of the mobile home does NOT need to follow the Dodd-Frank rules, you can get an option to buy the mobile home at the agreed to price. Explain to the seller that you will help them find a qualified buyer who will be approved by the park. But most buyers can only afford small monthly payments vs. $3000 or $5000 cash for the mobile home. So, you will help the seller create an owner financed note with payments the buyer can afford, then you will buy the note from the seller for the cash they need.

    Seller gets the cash they need.

    Buyer gets the mobile home with monthly payments they can afford

    You get a note at a good price & cash flow.

    The added benefit is, you do not owe capital gains taxes because you are buying a note vs. selling a mobile home.

    There are NO LIMITS on how many times you can do this each month!

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y

    At this time, no one knows how the Dodd-Frank rules will play out after the 1st of the year. But one thing for sure there will be a lot of shady tree lawyer's offing their service to the consumers who think someone did them wrong when they cannot pay their loan.


    Joe Gore
  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y

    Well there is our first significant difference. As to interest rate, as I read that some time ago, Fannie Mae was referenced as to the indexes used, that would be treasury bills or fed fund districts or LIBOR, that the cap was 5% from the index, which is basically the options of ARM loans through Fannie Mae. We might clarify that as at the time of origination that could produce a non-compliant loan using the street rate of a Fannie ARM and not the index rate. I have also seen it as being the Fannie 30 year fixed PAR rate without any discount.

    Speaking of interest, all should know points are pre paid interest and equity loans generally are barred from charging points and left to cash funded loans by registered lenders.

    I totally agree that those who may seek to do financing under any exemption tread carefully as regardless of any exemption to the SAFE Act, you are not exempt from other loan compliance issues, it's not a license to return to the wild west. There can, have and will be issues of any equity funded loan that is purchased later for cash in foreclosure, tax and bankruptcy issues as a new note holder will then have a cash basis.

    What is going on, for the non-lending types, is that each aspect of secured financing is being peeled away into fragments or stages of origination, processing, underwriting, loan terms, funding, collateralization, collections and servicing where each specific function is falling under new requirements for compliance and to be performed by qualified parties holding an appropriate license.

    Last issue at this point, loan classifications are made under several considerations, type of collateral, the borrower, use of funds and other considerations. Those who insist on saying a non-owner occupied dwelling is commercial may find later they are wrong....the best way to ensure how a loan will be classified is not by listening to a broker or some investor or reading some blog but by getting that answer from your state regulatory authority, a regulator or a qualified compliance officer. The issue is not just the SAFE Act and status of a seller. Loan classifications can be subjective, it's not always if X applies then it is a Y type loan. :)

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y
    Originally posted by Jackie Lange:
    Dodd-Frank says no interest rates over 5% of the doing Fannie Mae rate, why risk it by charging more.

    Mobile homes, even though personal property and chattel loans, do fall under the SF rules for Dodd-Frank.

    It is better to comply or do business a different way.

    A simple solution...

    Since the owner occupant, seller, of the mobile home does NOT need to follow the Dodd-Frank rules, you can get an option to buy the mobile home at the agreed to price. Explain to the seller that you will help them find a qualified buyer who will be approved by the park. But most buyers can only afford small monthly payments vs. $3000 or $5000 cash for the mobile home. So, you will help the seller create an owner financed note with payments the buyer can afford, then you will buy the note from the seller for the cash they need.

    Seller gets the cash they need.

    Buyer gets the mobile home with monthly payments they can afford

    You get a note at a good price & cash flow.

    The added benefit is, you do not owe capital gains taxes because you are buying a note vs. selling a mobile home.

    There are NO LIMITS on how many times you can do this each month!

    No! No! No! Jackie,

    1. A third party acting as a facilitator may not assist in qualifying any buyer or originate any note without a license.

    2. The seller/owner is still originating a loan to a new owner occupant regardless if the note is purchased or not.

    3. You have put the "investor" facilitator in a position of acting as a mortgage broker and a lender funding the transaction, basically at the table. That is exactly what mortgage broker/originators do, they do the note and sell it to the wholesale lender at closing for the cash to give to the seller!

    4. If your facilitator type earns a significant part of their income from the activity they are not an investor but a dealer, again, requiring a license.

    5. The act of "making a note" is done by the "Maker" who is the borrower, so the "making of any note" also includes them.

    6. Not to mention that being an independent transaction facilitator for MHs, cars, boats or even airplanes in a brokerage-dealer position as a business.

    Please get out of the business of advising people how to finance real estate you're going to get people fined and in trouble.

    Ken and I have both taught attorneys financing and compliance issues, if you are really running your suggestions by any attorney in the U.S., I suggest they take a few courses.

    There is no easy way anymore, if there were I would have already disclosed it. :(

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y

    Jackie,

    Talk to a lawyer and get straight answers and not rely on all the internet hype where someone is trying to sell their services or wanting to be top dog on what the rules are but can not back it up with references that they have help anyone.

    Joe Gore

  • Investor · Central America, Panama · Member since 2010 · 423 posts · 293 votes
    12y

    I never suggested that YOU do the qualifying. You still need to use a certified mortgage broker to do that and document the vetting process carefully. Plus the buyer has to be approved by the park.

    And you need to use an attorney or title company to create the note to make sure it is compliant with the laws in your state and Dodd-Frank.

    All you can do, as the investor,is to help find a buyer then point the seller in the right direction because they sure won't know how to do any of this.

  • Professional · Springfield, IL · Member since 2013 · 4 posts · 5 votes
    12y

    Bill wrote:

    The best way to ensure how a loan will be classified is not by listening to a broker or some investor or reading some blog but by getting that answer from your state regulatory authority, a regulator or a qualified compliance officer. The issue is not just the SAFE Act and status of a seller. Loan classifications can be subjective, it's not always if X applies then it is a Y type loan. :)

    I agree with everything Bill wrote except getting answers the advisability of using regulators (or trying to use them) as a good source of information. That is natural because Bill was a regulator employee and I have long considered regulators as the enemy, and because much has changed since Bill was actively involved as an Examiner. We have an incident that floats around our offices that when we were seeking a clarification from the State of Oregon that they sent us a letter that stated, "We cannot answer or clarify that point for you. If we gave you information that later proved incorrect we might be liable in a civil action".

    This type of response is not uncommon. Remember that if you call or write a regulator you are not likely to be talking to an attorney (unless you are an attorney and establish those credentials) but rather someone who has been cautioned on what they can and cannot say and are often only parroting statements that have been approved by the legal staff.

    One last thing. As Mr. Rishel has indicated, the materials that he, his wife, and myself are posting are only related to the chattel finance of manufactured homes. Rishel Consulting Group is not a law firm and the information is not, and should not, be considered legal advice or a substitute for qualified legal counsel. The material we supply is educational in nature and intended to prepare those engaged in the chattel finance of manufactured homes to effectively interact with qualified legal counsel of their choosing.

    With that said, please be careful to separate what we post from other and different regulations that exist for real estate mortgage transactions. An example of this is the difference of opinion on this thread regarding interest rates. While we are comfortable with 8.5% over APOR because of special exemptions given by the CFPB for the chattel finance of manufactured homes where the loan amount is under $50,000, we would not consider ourselves knowledgeable or qualified to comment on interest rates for real property lending. I believe both Jackie and Bill are either unaware of, or confused about the special exemption given chattel lending on manufactured homes which may explain the different answers. Bear in mind that the Fanny Mae rules do not apply to very many manufactured home loans because Fanny and Freddie are not interested in providing capital for chattel loans on manufactured homes, so capital to lend as chattel on manufactured homes normally comes from non government sources.

    (The exception to this rule is HUD Title I financing which only a very few lenders can qualify to originate and fewer still are interested in originating.)

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y
    Originally posted by James Gray:
    I agree with everything Bill wrote except getting answers the advisability of using regulators (or trying to use them) as a good source of information. That is natural because Bill was a regulator employee and I have long considered regulators as the enemy, and because much has changed since Bill was actively involved as an Examiner. "

    LOL, yes, FDIC Examiner, but it's also the next 25 years in lending and banking that gets tossed in the into the experience side. Basic prudent lending practices have not changed for decades. I missed about 5 years which I've been getting caught up on in the last couple years.

    Regulators will be the ones involved most likely in lowering the hammer. James is right, many won't give you the time of day, some will tell you if you would be under a certain aspect or not, depends on what it is. I have had excellent responses from our state dept of finance, your mileage may vary. Yes, I understand the enemy part, but really, they don't want to have added details of examinations of activities that don't really fall in their jurisdiction, so it won't hurt to ask. :)

    And James further wrote " I believe both Jackie and Bill are either unaware of, or confused about the special exemption given chattel lending on manufactured homes which may explain the different answers."

    James, no, I'm not confused, the difference for chattel lending was posted just prior to my post, I was pointing out that the difference mentioned was the first significant difference to RE lending. That MHs have a different interest rate applicable than does RE lending.

    I wasn't in agreement with Jackie on the interest rate for RE, not a total disagreement either, as she was saying the Fannie rate, I was pointing out on adjustments I have seen it being based on the indexes, not the street rate, but I also saw initially the mention of the 30 year fixed rate at PAR, again not necessarily the street rate.

    Great stuff, please keep it coming! :)

  • Professional · Springfield, IL · Member since 2013 · 8 posts · 8 votes
    12y

    Regulatory Law versus Contract Law

    Legal advice from a competent attorney is important. The catch in that statement is the use of the word "competent". We know from experience that many, many attorneys who are competent (and sometimes brilliant) in contract law, miss almost everything when it comes to regulatory law.

    Now, attorneys are human beings just like me and you. Some are very careful to avoid accepting work in areas where they are not competent. Others, (to use a word my husband likes) are frankly ultracrepidarians for whatever reason. In our personal life and in our business life we prefer to deal with attorneys that will admit their limitations. As a consequence, we have six different law firms on retainer for our business, only two of which are acknowledged experts on regulatory law. Regulatory attorneys are always far more expensive because regulatory law requires the skill to extrapolate what the regulators and the courts will actually do when examining or enforcing the laws and rules.

    This is where so many so called non attorney "experts" posting on the internet go wrong. They lack the formal education and the experience to understand that what is written into law is not necessarily what the regulators or courts are using to make decisions with.

    When it comes to regulatory law, regulators and the courts will, almost always, take their guidance from what they consider the intent of the law in the first place.

    This is the major difference between contract law and regulatory law. In contract law, the contract is everything. In regulatory law, you cannot contract to avoid the law or the intent of the law. Here are two examples.

    1. An attorney familiar with contract law, but not with regulatory law creates a contract format that does not address holder in due course, or does not contain a precise disclosure box as specified in Reg Z but is otherwise flawless. The contract is going to be worthless if a borrower obtains competent legal counsel any point along the line. Penalties often include forfeiture of the home, all monies paid by the borrower, in some cases, lot rent, not to mention the fines.
    2. Many people, in states that have permitted it, have mistakenly sought out attorneys to originate their seller finance loans. Some attorneys have even agreed to do that, under the SAFE Act exemption. The problem is, that was never the intent of the exemption, and both HUD and the CFPB have stated that in their commentary. The exemption was created so that attorneys handling estates could handle the transactions for the heirs. So if regulators catch this, or if it goes to court, the intent will guide the rulings. Fines and penalties are to be expected by those using this in an attempt to avoid licensing and compliance.

    A quick rule of thumb is if you are doing something to avoid the intent of the law, it will usually not work.

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y

    No one will know how it will play out until they are in court in front of a judge. No lawyer have a crystal ball on how the outcome will play out. I think if a low life consumer you finance a home for pull a trick by hiring a shade tree lawyer to get them out of paying their debt under the new law should be sued in small claims court and drag the consumer through the system until they are broke.

    Joe Gore

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y

    Very good comment Donna! Yes, I have been one saying to get to an attorney as they were initially exempted. And I believe the wording was something like "in the course of their legal practice". So it doesn't really mean an attorney can turn themselves into a mortgage originator. I see real estate attorneys, title company types doing that here on occasion and I'm sure they will stop doing so in short order.

    An attorney dealing in estate matters is a good example. I believe they would be allowed to do an origination in the course of their work in other matters, such as representing clients in estate planning (pre estate settlement), partnership or business dealings if one were to pledge a personal asset to a partner but not as to practice.

    I have been "away" researching other RE topics, brokerage operations, so now I'm back concentrating on the CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual....certainly brings back memories. There are no secrets there, but you can see areas of interest and the applications of regulatory requirements. Had it not been for this thread I would have probably glanced over the new changes.

    BTW, I just took an on line mortgage originator's exam and got a 94, loan limits and some new disclosures accounted for -6 of 100! LOL

    Glad you touched on that Donna as I try to stress that those dealing in RE will be viewed in matters as to the intent of the law more than to the letter of it. Couldn't agree more.

    Hey, don't stop! :)

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y
    Bill,

    I hope everyone will abide by the new law and as you, and I know some will not. The last few days I have been looking over my notes and 15 out of 100 mortgage loans that were made that I bought from the bank consist of mortgage fraud, and I have proof to back it up and when I start the foreclose process after the 1st of the year, and I will see. How many will take the next greyhound out of town or go to court and face the Charges and Bill, I know you should agree it is a crime to commit mortgage fraud?


    Joe Gore
  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y
    Originally posted by Jackie Lange:
    Dodd-Frank says no interest rates over 5% of the doing Fannie Mae rate, why risk it by charging more.

    Mobile homes, even though personal property and chattel loans, do fall under the SF rules for Dodd-Frank.

    It is better to comply or do business a different way.

    A simple solution...

    Since the owner occupant, seller, of the mobile home does NOT need to follow the Dodd-Frank rules, you can get an option to buy the mobile home at the agreed to price. Explain to the seller that you will help them find a qualified buyer who will be approved by the park. But most buyers can only afford small monthly payments vs. $3000 or $5000 cash for the mobile home. So, you will help the seller create an owner financed note with payments the buyer can afford, then you will buy the note from the seller for the cash they need.

    Seller gets the cash they need.

    Buyer gets the mobile home with monthly payments they can afford

    You get a note at a good price & cash flow.

    The added benefit is, you do not owe capital gains taxes because you are buying a note vs. selling a mobile home.

    There are NO LIMITS on how many times you can do this each month!

    Jackie, This is exactly what you said. Where is there any mention of using a mortgage originator? Every point I made was based on this post.

    Don't you have the copy rights to Lonnie's books? Seems I read that somewhere, still all for sale right?

    Keep up the pointless ribbing Joe, your plug will likely get pulled on BP. :)

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y
    Originally posted by Joe Gore:
    Bill,


    I hope everyone will abide by the new law and as you, and I know some will not. The last few days I have been looking over my notes and 15 out of 100 mortgage loans that were made that I bought from the bank consist of mortgage fraud, and I have proof to back it up and when I start the foreclose process after the 1st of the year, and I will see. How many will take the next greyhound out of town or go to court and face the Charges and Bill, I know you should agree it is a crime to commit mortgage fraud?


    Joe Gore

    Is there some implication there? Obviously you have not read my posts, yes, mortgage fraud is

    Is there some implication there? Yes, mortgage fraud is a crime at different levels of activity, obviously you haven't read my posts.

    I just find it really hard to believe you wrote a check for 100 mortgages for yourself, seems you'd have better things to do than hang around on BP with snide remarks, guess you have a job. Did you ever fill out your profile?

    Somewhere you made a comment about "State Bank" do you have any idea how many State Banks there are? Just exactly what were you saying, "let slide"?

    I'd say the only way I could have bummed into you is if you smoke while reading a newspaper and knock the cigarette out of your mouth burning a hole in my car seat. Otherwise, we don't know each other Joe, there are other Bill Gulleys out there. :)

  • Professional · Springfield, IL · Member since 2013 · 8 posts · 8 votes
    12y

    I just went to the link provided by Jackie. That is one of the most dangerous speeches I ever listened to. Some of the information is correct, some of it is not correct and the lack of definition and things left out are incredible.

    Not to mention that the presentation of material is chaotic and very hard to follow.

    The good part is the person doing the presentation does not inspire any real confidence that she is any kind of an expert.

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y

    Welcome to the world of gurus Donna. :)

  • Dallas, TX · Member since 2013 · 4k+ posts · 744 votes
    12y
    Bill,

    I was talking about First state bank in Joplin, Missouri, who did banking fraud with trucking companies in Joplin, and nothing was ever done. Bill if you don't like my profile don't read it. Bill when you have money, you can write a check. Bill with your smart remarks I suggest you keep them to yourself from here forward. Did you ever buy a better vehicle than the truck you have.


    Joe Gore

  • Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
    12y

    LOL! I have never been in the First State Bank of Joplin or what ever it may be in Joplin, and Joplin was never part of my examination area, I never examined any Joplin bank! Where did I ever say I worked in the Springfield office....LOL, I didn't! And, I'm pretty sure I was never in Joplin in 1980. Yes, I have other cars, no, I bought the F-150 new, it has 74,000 miles on it and I'm keeping it. I'm probably the last guy on earth you could intimidate, so then we have some truss then. :))

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.