Jump to content

officerripley

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

officerripley last won the day on February 10 2018

officerripley had the most liked content!

About officerripley

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks so much, pg, for all the great info. about this; sound like my brother & I have some decisions to make about this. And to anyone else reading this & considering having a trust done, take it from me: think long & hard about having the trust done by a generalist attorney rather than a *trust* attorney; even if the trust attorney charges more (& if they do, I don't think it'll be that much more), sounds as if it'll be very worth it in the long run to use the *trust* attorney.
  2. Okay, good to know, pg, thanks. (I wonder who the court would appoint as a further successor trustee, maybe an atty.? Because the 3 remaining inheriting trustees in the trust are even older than my brother & I & spread out all over the U.S.; one is completely bedridden in a nursing facility, 1 is legally blind & cannot travel by air due to a heart condition, and 1 is mentally unstable & on a *lot* of medication.)
  3. 1) Yes, the note was secured by a deed of trust against a piece of property (a 4-acre lot). 2) Yes, the borrower was in default since the note specified that it was to be paid off by a certain date (it was not) & if not, the balance was due in full & if not paid in full (it was not), the note then specified that foreclosure could happen. 3) The trust says only that a co-successor trustee may resign only if the remaining co-successor trustee agrees & signs off to that effect; nothing is said in the trust about what happens if neither co-successor trustee is alive or able to serve. I had just heard that if that happened, the trust would then be turned over to a probate court judge since there'd still be money coming in to the trust.
  4. Residing in northeastern Calif., my brother & I are co-successor trustees in a trust that the trustors were our mother & stepfather (both deceased). Upon the death of the remaining trustor, a debtor owed the trust about $50K in the form of a promissory note for real property which note had aged enuff to become forecloseable. Before my brother & I could foreclose, however, the debtor filed bankruptcy (orig. Chap. 13, now converted to Chap. 7). The debtor has continued to make monthly payments (of usually $500) in agreement with the bankruptcy requirement but still owes the trust about $45K. My brother & I are both elderly & in below-average health & were told by the atty. who wrote the trust that due to the way the trust was written & that now that both trustors are deceased that another co-successor trustee cannot be added. (My brother & I wanted to add his son & sole heir.) So finally to my question: since it's beginning to look as if my brother & I will both be dead before the debtors finish paying off the trust, will the trust then be turned over to the Probate Court? And if so, might the Court decide to just cancel the trust since it's such a small amount that's still owed?
  5. Thanks, USslang & good on you for quitting. If a company has that many problems & is getting sued often, that doesn't mean anything other than there is something *wrong* with it & people are smart to leave if they possibly can. (Even if a ship is not sinking, if the captain & other officers are crooks, why in the world would you want to be part of their crew?! How could you even live with yourself?!)
  6. Where USslang is "getting this" is probably from the news; that's where I've found out about the problems other customers are having.This truth-in-advertising matter is not the only thing the solar co. is being sued for btw; 1 of the 3 suits against them is by a bunch of their employees for not being paid for the hours they worked. And I actually did read the contract but too fast & with the salesperson nattering away at me the whole time (gee, I wonder why), I made the plain & simple human error--which all humans have done at least once in their life unless they're a sociopath--of not paying enough attention to what I was reading. So I made a mistake; these big companies need to tone down the shysterism a lot & stop trying to get people to sign their souls over to 'em so to speak.
  7. Thanks, USslang. They way this & other solar lease companies have taken advantage of people reminds me of the crap that some subprime lenders pulled, thereby being at least part of the reason for the mortgage crisis. But crooks count on the fact that the average person is not a lawyer who can stand to read thru 20 pg contracts while a salesperson is urging you on, chattering away, "You're gonna be so happy with this, trust me." Some of us are just too trusting, I guess.
  8. Well, they are, as I said above, being sued for misrepresentation by truthinadvertising.org. So at least somebody else agrees with me.
  9. 1) Found out that, around here anyway, having leased solar makes houses pretty much unsellable. Realtors says that as soon as most buyers hear that the home has leased solar, espec. from this company, they lose interest unless you drop the price down to an almost give-away price. And even if you do find a buyer, the solar co. has to approve their credit before they'll allow them to take over the lease. And most people find that leased solar doesn't save you that much $$; the lease payments increase over the term of the lease &, around here, you still have to pay your electric co. a "Net Metering Charge". (Explaining why most buyers aren't interested in such homes.) 2) So upon looking at the lease pprwrk to see about paying the lease off early so we could then own the solar panels & equipment thereby making the house sellable, found out that we signed off on a lease that doesn't allow that, that we can never own the panels, etc. At the end of the 20yr lease and not before then (which will be 17 yrs from now for us), we can only re-up the lease or tell the co. to come get their panels, etc. 3) If you move, this company says they will move the panels, etc. to your new place (for a fee, of course), but at our age, we need to move to a smaller place, probably even something like a condo or mobile home park that doesn't even allow solar panels. 4) So since we've never leased anything before & weren't told by this co. what the real deal is, we're basically sitting here in a house that we've improved & poured our hearts into & thought would be easy to sell when the time came & now find that it's pretty much unsellable. 5) Saw on a forum about this co. that one leasee whose elec. bill never went down much after installing anyway is so desperate he says he's thinking about just stopping making the lease payments & let 'em come repossess the panels, etc. But I'm afraid doing that would get a collection agency and/or a breach of contract going.
  10. Thanks, USslang! I've tried to register at truthinadvertising.org but something's wrong with their site, I guess: have tried registering with 2 diff. email addresses but keep getting a "You're Temporarily Locked Out of Your Account; click here & we'll send you an email to unlock your acct." (Clicking on that link & getting the unlock email doesn't work either, of course.) I left feedback on their site about that & hope they get back to me soon; I'd love to join that class-action suit. Another site I was on said that you really don't have to do anything to join a class-action suit; that if you're a customer of the defendant company you're auto. included in the suit & that whoever files the suit will be contacting you; but I have never been contacted altho the suit was filed in Sept. 2017.
  11. What kind of attorney should I contact to try getting out of a solar company lease; would that be a Contracts atty? (There's 1 & only 1 in my area & who knows if he's taking new clients...) Also this solar company has a class-action lawsuit started against them in late 2017 by truthinadvertising.org.
  12. Thank you, John; I'll do that! :-)
  13. In California. In some cases, if a person qualifies for Medi-Cal (Calif.'s version of Medicaid), it will pay for the person to reside in a skilled nursing facility. Now I hear that, due to Calif. going broke, a law is being considered to change that, i.e., Medi-Cal will no longer pay anything at all toward the cost of skilled nursing facilities. Is this true, and if so, can anyone give me the Calif. Assembly Bill number so I can track it? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...