28 Years. One Home. A Fight for Truth.

In 1997, Tara H bought her Edmonton home from her mother, with a mortgage and title in her name alone. It was the home where she raised her children, built memories, and planned to grow old in.

In 2007, Tara and her then partner refinanced the home.  She made the decision to put the home and mortgage entirely in her then partner's name - a decision that would come to haunt her.

When Tara and her then partner's 31-year relationship ended in 2021, amidst escalating hostile behavior that required police involvement and an Emergency Protection Order, he initiated foreclosure proceedings without her knowledge. Tara tried desperately to bring the mortgage current—payments were only $1,200 per month—but the bank's lawyers wouldn't allow it without her former partner's permission. The man who had just foreclosed on himself held all the power.

Tara got title back in late 2022 but having had only weeks to secure financing, she would have lost her home forever.

Forced Into Predatory Loans

With time running out in January 2023, Tara was backed into a corner. A Vancouver mortgage broker presented what seemed like a solution: a first mortgage at 8.99%. But as Tara signed the documents, a second set of documents appeared. The first lender would suddenly only cover 65% of the value. A second mortgage was now "required"—roughly $47,000 at 14.99% interest, including a year of prepaid payments.

Tara said had the money to cover the shortfall--she didn't need the second mortgage, but she was out of time, and they knew it.  She saved her home, but at a devastating cost.

The Renewals She Couldn't Afford

In March 2024, renewal notices arrived:

• First mortgage: 14.99% (up 6% from 8.99%)
• Second mortgage: 21.99% (up 6% from 14.99%)

The payments were impossible. Tara had no choice and entered into a to a six-month redemption period by consent--another decision that would come to haunt her.

On May 24, 2024, Judge Farrington granted the redemption and issued a clear order:

"This file is hereby transferred to the Edmonton Courts."

That transfer never happened.

Tara had a plan. After years of part-time and seasonal work, a long-time employee at her accounting firm was retiring. By September 2024, Tara would finally be full-time. She could get a conventional mortgage and pay off these predatory loans.  The long-time employee's retirement plans were delayed until February 2025, causing a devastating blow to Tara's redemption strategy.

Finally Full-Time—Then Locked Out

March 2025, Tara was called back to work on a full-time basis for the first time in years--feeling hope she hadn't felt in a long time. Tara just needed a few paychecks to show a mortgage broker.

On March 10, 2025, Tara received an Order to Vacate by April 10, 2025.  Legal counsel for the lender made an Application for Vacant Possession in a Calgary Court--an order granted by Application Judge J.L. Mason--despite the fact Judge Farrington had ordered the file transferred to Edmonton.

Tara contacted the lender's lawyer, explaining she was finally full-time employed and asking for just a few extra weeks. She was declined.

She retained a McKenzie friend (a non-lawyer who provides support and assistance to someone representing themselves in court).  He informed her the Order to Vacate was null and void due to improper venue. On April 10, Tara waited at her home for the bailiff to come remove her and her belongings. No one came.

On April 17, 2025, Tara's McKenzie friend emailed the lender's lawyer: Tara had been approved for private financing and just needed proof of debt ownership to proceed.

The email went unanswered for weeks.

Easter Monday: The Lockout

On Easter Monday, April 21, 2025, Tara came home late from work to find the locks to her home had been changed. With nowhere to go and no medication, and still holding title to the property, Tara made the difficult decision to re-enter her home. Her McKenzie friend had told her she had the right to remain until she was no longer the registered owner. Perhaps she was misinformed. She didn't know the process.

On May 8, 2025, the bailiff returned with police and forcibly removed Tara from the home she'd lived in for 28 years.

A 24-hour security guard was ordered. Tara would later be billed $13,305 for one week—roughly $80 per hour.

The Numbers That Don't Add Up

Between April and October 2025—just six months—what Tara owed jumped from $288,429 to $354,235.

That's $65,805 in six months.

With Tara's mortgage balances at $225,079.63 (at 14.99%) and $57,073.38 (at 21.99%), expected interest for that period would be approximately $28,750.

But the balance increased by $65,806. Even accounting for legitimate interest, that leaves roughly $37,000 unaccounted for.

On October 22, 2025, a foreclosure counselor from the Alberta Foreclosure Relief Program reviewed Tara's documents. Within hours, the problems became clear:

$12,551.41 in Undocumented Legal Fees

Legal fees were rolled into Tara's mortgage without detailed invoices or itemization. Legal fees cannot simply be rolled into mortgage balances without Order of the Court.

$12,479.80 in Property Taxes—Financed at 14.99%

Property taxes were paid and added to the mortgage balance at 14.99% interest. Could Tara have paid these directly, or financed them into a new, lower-rate mortgage when buying out the existing mortgages? Forcing her to finance property taxes at nearly 15% adds unnecessary interest costs—and makes qualifying for new financing even harder.

$9,600 Security Guard Bill—When a Security System Was Installed

A property management invoice charged $9,600 for "Security guard 14 days, 24 hours per day."

The invoice is dated May 14, 2025—6 days after Tara was evicted on May 8, 2025. But that's not the most perplexting thing--the property management company also purchased an alarm system as seen on that same invoice (costing $1,590).  

If you have an alarm system, why do you need a 24/7 security guard?

Was the $9,600 expense necessary or could the alarm system alone have secured the vacant property?

$16,385.25 in Property Management Fees—With Questionable Charges

Total property management charges: $13,970.25 in documented fees, plus another $2,415.00 in undocumented/unexplained charges.

The invoices lack proper breakdown and transparency.

$2,500 in Inspection Fees—Already Paid For?

Property management invoices showed inspections already billed at $45 each. Yet an additional $2,500 in "inspection fees" appeared separately.

For a 5-month period, $2,500 represents roughly 56 inspections.  Previously a drive-by of the property was being conducted once every two weeks.  Where are the photos? The reports? The documentation?

$2,100 in Realtor Fees

Realtor fees added to the balance with no explanation of services rendered or necessity.

Fees That Appear, Disappear, and Change

"Legal fees to file completion" went: $1,839 → $951 → missing → $1,839

One balance owing statement had a $951 math error—the total didn't match the line items.

A Judge Finally Noticed

On October 3, 2025, Tara appeared in court representing herself. She asked simple questions:

• How did my mortgage balance jump so much?
• Why $13,000+ in property management fees?
• Where did these inspection fees come from?

The Applications Judge noticed something wasn't right.

The judge ordered the lender's lawyer to explain the fees and scheduled the next hearing when free legal help would be available.

On October 29, 2025, Tara returned to court. Emotionally exhausted but standing her ground, she was given one more chance: November 26, 2025 to file an Affidavit and fight to save her home.

The Valuation Problem

Tara had an exterior appraisal completed that valued her home at $420,000 to $440,000.

The home was recently listed for $390,000 but did not sell.

Now the listing realtor is suggesting a list price of $320,000.

That's a drop of $100,000 to $120,000 from the appraisal—in a matter of months.

If the appraisal is accurate:

• Home value: $420,000-$440,000
• Amount owed (October 2025): $354,235
• Tara's equity: $65,765-$85,765

With that much equity remaining, foreclosure would be premature. Tara could refinance, pay off the lenders, and keep her home.

But if they sell at $320,000:

• After paying the $354,235 debt (which continues to grow with interest and fees)
• After paying realtor commissions and closing costs
• There may be little to nothing left for Tara

After 28 years of building equity in her home, Tara would walk away with nothing—or worse, still owing money.

This raises critical questions:

• Why the massive discrepancy between the appraisal and the suggested list price?
• Is the property being deliberately undervalued to expedite foreclosure?
• Who benefits from a $320,000 sale when the home may be worth $420,000-$440,000?

A proper, independent appraisal—not just a listing agent's opinion—is essential to ensuring Tara receives fair treatment.

What Tara Is Asking For

Tara isn't asking for her home to be given to her. She isn't trying to avoid paying legitimate debts.  

She's asking for transparency:

• Detailed invoices for $12,551.41 in undocumented legal fees
• Explanation of how 14 days of security was billed in 6 days
• Documentation and breakdown for $16,385.25 in property management fees
• Proof that $2,500 in inspection fees aren't duplicating already-paid inspections
• Justification for financing $12,479.80 in property taxes at 14.99% instead of allowing her to pay directly or finance at lower rates
• Explanation of $2,100 in realtor fees
• A proper, independent appraisal to determine true market value—not a listing agent's opinion that's $100,000-$120,000 below an exterior appraisal

After 28 years of building equity, Tara wants to understand what she actually owes, pay the legitimate debt, and keep her home.

She's working with a real estate agent to properly value the property. She's exploring new mortgage options to pay out the mortgages in default. As part of any mortgage qualification, a lender will order an appraisal—something she can use alongside a comparative market analysis to show the court there is still equity in her home.

An order of foreclosure would be premature.

Why This Matters

Without the foreclosure counselor reviewing her documents, Tara would never have known:

$12,551.41 in legal fees were added without documentation

14 days of security was billed when only 6 elapsed

$2,500 in inspection fees had no breakdown and may duplicate already-paid inspections

Property taxes were financed at 14.99% instead of being paid directly or financed at lower rates

Over $16,000 in property management fees lacked proper breakdown

Her mortgage increased by $37,000 beyond what interest could explain

The counselor identified these questionable charges in hours.

This is why the Alberta Foreclosure Relief Program exists. Not every homeowner facing foreclosure is avoiding their debts. Some are simply asking for honest accounting and fair treatment.

The Fight Continues

Tara has been living in her 2008 Ford Escape while her home of 30 years sits empty.

On November 26, 2025, she'll stand before the court one more time—not asking for a gift, but demanding what every homeowner deserves: transparency, fair valuation, and the chance to pay what is legitimately owed.

After three decades of building equity in that home, Tara wants to pay off the lenders and reclaim what she built.

But without transparency in the fees and without accurate property valuations, the system is stacked against her.
When homeowners stand up and demand accountability, sometimes the system listens.

Tara is still fighting.