Fallen

Members
  • Content count

    61,109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Fallen last won the day on November 5 2016

Fallen had the most liked content!

About Fallen

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. From the start you said the clerk pointed out obvious: that the unkawful detainer action will show up in court record as dismissed (versus judgment in favor of plaintiff). That's a good thing. If asked whether eviction/unlawful detainer ever filed against you, you say "yes"; if asked whether you've ever been evicted, obviously answer is "no". And depending on one's point of view/how finicky one is about precise terms, anything short of a sheriff executing a writ of possession (overseeing lock change is most common method vs. landlord getting movers to put stuff at roadside) is not being "evicted". That said, people can be subject to eviction after landlord gets judgment; getting a court to award-order possession ("ok to get writ if you want") from court doesn't mean landlord will seek a writ or, even if it does get one, that doesn't mean it will be executed. Lots of steps and your case didn't go beyond first step (after pay/cure or quit notice). Unless you're very young, I wouldn't worry so much. The landlord may try to jack up deposit, however.
  2. Uhm, Wondering, it seems like time to move on, no?
  3. A bit though o much info in follow-up. As mentioned, it is discrimination, but not all discriminattion s unlawful. Focus on another place. As a landlord, I'd wonder why your dad is unwiling to buy a(nother) place and be your landlord. Sounds like Dad is a nice guy, however. Trust you appreciate him.
  4. The purpose of child support has nothing to do with paying to see kids. Do not file a lawsuit. Waste of time.
  5. I wish you'd done a little research before you left the apt. You truly thought that a manager turning off power and telling you to get out is how eviction works? Upsetting, that. And no mention of how you know better now even though you've talked with someone who is a landlord (and obviously have internet access), so that's worrisome. Please read all you can about landlord-tenant matters as time allows. And I suspect what you mean about electricity is that they had ability to shut off power to your unit, and that there was no account in your name with power co. Highly unlikely property has its very own power plant. A landlord is obligated to mitigate damages, and even in backward-ass Texas they have eviction procedures that must be followed. You may be able to prove illegal eviction tactics. I can't imagine why, given info you've shared, why anyone would suggest you'd owe this place any money let alone "half". You don't even indicate a lawsuit and judgment, so perhaps you mean to say this is a nasty record on credit report. If it's a judgment, I'd have to guess you weren't properly served and thus didn't show up in court. knort, I think poster simply didn't finish parenthetical remark about not being rich enough to be able to pay for a lawyer, hence legal aid.
  6. Mother in law didn't need you to sign over your interest before a refi, though of course before it closed the lender would expect that from you. You didn't "have to", and you don't even say to whom you signed your interest. Your credit is shot because you didn't make payments (and I presume the idgit, per the decree, was supposed to take responsibility for payments, but that doesn't relieve you of responsibility). You also don't say why you ever thought he and/or his mother could refi on their own. There must be a reason he wasn't on the mortgage. "... everything what my husband and I have are in his name because of the payments that they did not pay on the house as well as the foreclosures that were on the house." This doesn't make sense. At any rate, two should "have" (own) nothing together all these years later. Were I you, I'd talk with a bankruptcy attorney.
  7. Explain "trash pickup service". I'm too accustomed to landlords' inappropriate assignation of something as "amenity" when it isn't. If you are m-t-m, not sure why they wouldn't just increase rent by $25 extra and then separately say "New amenity! Just put trash outside door and no more lugging to dumpsters." If you're in the middle of a lease, they aren't free to change terms. Regardless, fighting "The [wo]Man" (in this case, landlord) often requires an expenditure of time, trouble-effort and dough well beyond what you may suspect, even where landlord is behaving unlawfully or contrary to contract. The "(it's the) principle" cases usually need to be personally meaningful to look back on them as worthwhile.
  8. So long as you don't mind the risks of impact by law of unintended consequences, it's fine. Assuming you still have assets when you die, do you (for one of many scenarios) care what happens if all of you die together?
  9. You'll need to start research on how to petition court that handles landlord-tenant matters and show up a hearing for the TRO where you attempt to convince court that landlord is being untruthful about basis for seeking order. Sheriff office isn't precisely being truthful in that someone could go there and talk with her about retrieval of X stuff before the hearing on the restraining order.
  10. Your mom's inheritance if any (and we don't know) in a parent's or g-parent's estate would be part of her estate. But we can't know if your mom inherited anything. For example, is title held in the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship? Presume not, but maybe g-uncle doesn't know. It ain't part of great-grands' estate if they transferred ownership to their kids. You can't expect strangers to know from here what you're signing away in a doc. Seek counsel.
  11. Er, was there a date sought? ... pondered even? Not sure what you expect folks to say other than to engage counsel (clearly not person used in divorce, if any) to send a demand letter and request (just for giggles) how ex plans to explain fraudulent removal of your name when you seek to void removal transaction and also ask court to order partition-sale of property. It is not a bad thing if ex refi'd and took your name off mortgage, and good thing ex apparently didn't delfault on payments over the years and ruin your credit.
  12. In future, please break up text into paragraphs. After you secure a criminal defense attorney, contact a real estate attorney to discuss the rest.
  13. Way too much extraneous detail in the follow-up (esp. about what happened in '60s, but please note it was up to your mom to document and collect on any loan to her relatives; chances are there was no enforceable loan agreement that you could pursue from dead borrower granny's estate). In other words, LET THAT GO. Best to focus on the questions asked relative to legal issue. A trust set up when you were a kid sh-wouldn't be tied to anyone's estate. I doubt anyone set one up, because there'd be no reason not to let you have it decades earlier/while gparents were alive. You're free to contact state unclaimed property folks to see if there's an account with your name on it. The grandparents apparently chose to effectively gift interest in house to particular sons as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Someone telling you that they used sale proceeds to pay their mom's debt may or may not be lyng because they don't want to discuss how they might choose to give you what your father would've gotten were he alive and his parents had chosen to "add" him as a co-owner. But they're free to use their money/the proceeds as they like. Presume house was only asset worth mentioning. You waited too long after granny's death in 2010 (and grandpa before her) to see what was what in terms of anything in her estate (or his).
  14. I think "if" is important. Plenty of people sign things they don't understand. I trust poster to know whether it is fact or fiction that property is in his name alone and that there is no mortgage underlying the loan contract that he indicates signing. If he hasn't checked land records before making assertion, not my problemo.
  15. Why would you think he has power to throw you out even if he were a co-owner? If he was dumb enough to put house in your name alone (I hope you're sure), and not insist on a mortgage-deed of trust, given what you've said, I wouldn't be concerned. He can sue you for money you owe and, if he wins, come after house. But that isn't simple or short process. I'd ignore the current demand. He is clearly trying to prey on ignorance, but he also has an ignorance problem. Seek local counsel. Better late than never (should have before signing anything).