GUZMAN, SILVINO, JOSEFINA AND EFRAIN

Home Browse Search

1, . ' T D t,"N To:. From: Deanna Clark Corp. Records Manager John Lujan Loan Officer Lute: January 24, 1989 Subject:MEAD HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION AGREEMENTS In response to your request for the status of the above -named Agreements, the following information is provided: 1) The Agreement dated May 24, 1977, between the City of Santa Ana and Mead Housing Assistance Foundation and the Santa Ana CRA is no longer in effect, if by that you mean whether the City has an ongoing program for housing replacement and rehabilitation with Mead. Those properties/homeowners on your list are the only ones assisted under the program, with purchase of rehabilitation completed long ago. I don't know the completion date. It more than likely is when the last homeowner executed loan documents with Mead and the City. The Agreement may no longer be in effect, but I feel it should not be destroyed so long as even one original homeowner owns the same property and owes the deferred funds to the City. 2) All of the Agreements between the City and the individual homeowners are still in effect except those for Archibold (909 South Flower) and Godinez (626 East Central). The Godinez property transferred and the loans were paid in 1985, while the Archibold property transferred and the loans were paid in 1987. Two Promissory Notes are involved with each property. Both Notes are deferred and will remain in effect until an annual <review no longer qualifies the homeowner for a deferred loan (at which time loan will be converted to an amortized loan), upon the homeowner reaching a certain age, or the property is sold or transferred. Only the latter will eliminate the need to keep active the specific documents for a property. 3) The Agreement dated September 17, 1979 between the City of Santa Ana and Mead Housing Assistance Foundation is in effect only insofar as it is the master agreement between both parties. No projects have been funded other than those on your list, and no projects are being considered. Due to the nature of the Agreement, I would think it should be kept in your records so long as one homeowner owes funds to the City as a result of the Agreement.