Page 3A The Champion Free Press, Friday, July 13, 2012
by Daniel Beauregarddaniel@deklabchamp.comIn 1974 Decatur waschosen as a pilot city to participate in a new federal program enacted to revital-ize blighted neighborhoods.The program stemmed froma relatively simple idea:selling foreclosed homes for a dollar.Local historian
said, at thattime, many homes in southDecatur were falling intodisrepair because some whomoved into the newly gen-
tried area were unprepared
for home ownership.“The program was in-tended to bring a new set of homeowners into the com-munity and the skills andresources to improve their houses and their commu-nity,” Rotenstein said. “Thefollowing year Decatur sold113 of the houses.”Rotenstein said one of the main reasons someneighborhoods in southDecatur had fallen intodisrepair during the 1960sand early 1970s was be-cause prior to 1966, the areaknown today as Oakhurstwas undergoing rapid gen-
By the mid-1970s, theU.S. Department of Hous-ing and Urban Development(HUD) was south Decatur’slargest residential propertyowner and property man-ager. Titles to more than100 vacant homes in HUD’s portfolio were transferredto the Decatur HousingAuthority and 113 of thosehomes were sold to newowners for a dollar.Urban homesteading wasauthorized under the samelegislation that created com-munity development block grants. Together, these twoacts enabled the rehabilita-tion of residential propertiesthroughout south Decatur and improvements to McK-oy and Oakhurst parks.Additionally, the home-steading act and communitydevelopment grants enabled
the area’s rst streetscape
improvement project totake place in the newly re- branded Oakhurst businessdistrict. Now the area looksmuch different and Roten-stein said many of the dollar homes have disappeared tomake way for new houses.“The program was moresuccessful in Decatur thanit was in other cities,” Ro-tenstein said. “However,many of these older homesare now being torn down tomake way for newer homes being built by younger peo- ple moving into the area.”
Historian remembersDecatur’s ‘dollar homes’
State Supreme Court rules in 2009DeKalb hotel robbery lawsuit
Two views of a south Decatur HUD dollar home; from 1978 and 2012. Photos provided
NOTICE OF SALE UNDER POWER
GEORGIA, DEKALB COUNTYBecause of default in the payment of the indebtedness, secured by a Security Deedexecuted by
to Fleet National Bank dated December 11, 2000 in theamount of $129,229.00, and recorded in Deed Book 11769, Page 714, DeKalb County,Georgia Records; as last transferred to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association byassignment; the undersigned, JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association pursuant tosaid deed and the note thereby secured, has declared the entire amount of saidindebtedness due and payable and pursuant to the power of sale contained in said deed,will on the first Tuesday in August, 2012 , during the legal hours of sale, at theCourthouse door in DeKalb County, sell at public outcry to the highest bidder for cash,the property described in said deed to-wit:All that tract or parcel of land lying and being in Land Lot 219 of the 16th District of DeKalb County, Georgia, being Lot 3, Block C, Providence Point Subdivision, Unit 1,as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 116, Pages 1 and 2, DeKalb County Records,which plat is incorporated herein by reference.
which has the property address of
7888 Providence Point Way, Lithonia, Georgia
.,together with all fixtures and other personal property conveyed by said deed.The sale will be held subject to any unpaid taxes, assessments, rights-of-way,easements, protective covenants or restrictions, liens, and other superior matters of record which may affect said property.The sale will be conducted subject (1) to confirmation that the sale is not prohibitedunder the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and (2) to final confirmation and audit of the status of the loan with the holder of the security deed. Notice has been given of intention to collect attorneys' fees in accordance with the termsof the note secured by said deed.Said property will be sold as the property of Chudney Farr and Rolando Dishon Burseand the proceeds of said sale will be applied to the payment of said indebtedness, theexpense of said sale, all as provided in said deed, and the undersigned will execute adeed to the purchaser as provided in the aforementioned Security Deed.JPMorgan Chase Bank, National AssociationAttorney in Fact for Chudney Farr McCurdy & Candler, L.L.C.(404) 373-1612www.mccurdycandler.com
The Champion NewspaperPublication Dates:07-12-2012, 07-19-2012, 07-26-2012, 08-02-2012
File No. 10-16685 /FHA/lseymoreTHIS LAW FIRM IS ACTING AS A DEBT COLLECTOR AND IS ATTEMPTINGTO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
In a case stemming from a 2009 robbery at a DeKalb ho-tel, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that juries can beapportioned among all the parties at fault, including crimi-nals and a hotel owner that does not keep guests safe.“The rules of statutory construction, including relianceon ordinary word meanings, dictate that an assailant whoevades hotel security to intentionally abduct, rob and assaulta hotel guest is, at the very least, partially at ‘fault’ for the
brutal injuries inicted by the assailant on that guest,” Jus
wrote for the majority in the 5-2 ruling published July 9.“As a party at fault, such an assailant must be includedwith others who may be at fault, e.g., the property owner in a premises liability action, for purposes of apportioningdamages among all wrongdoing parties,” Melton wrote.
The case stems from a lawsuit led in federal court by
, who was attacked and robbed by unknownassailants in August 2009 while staying at the Red Roof Innmotel on North Druid Hills Road and Buford Highway inAtlanta.
Couch sued the hotel’s owners for negligently failingto keep their premises safe and failing to provide adequatesecurity. None of Couch’s attackers have ever been identi-
ed. The hotel’s owners led a notice of their intent to ar
-gue “fault of non-party” under a recently amended Georgialaw, arguing that their responsibility for damages should bedecreased “in whole or in part” due to the fault of the crimi-nals who attacked Couch.
In response, Couch led a motion challenging the appor
-tionment, or divvying up, of damages and challenging thestatute as unconstitutional. The case is pending in the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, whichasked the state Supreme Court to answer two questions re-lated to Georgia law before ruling on Couch’s motion.Justice
dissented, arguing that Geor-gia’s common law prohibits the consideration of intentionalconduct in assessing damages.