Jump to content

adjusterjack

Members
  • Content Count

    9,153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    135

Everything posted by adjusterjack

  1. You keep opening new threads every time you have a question about your situation when it should have all been in one place. https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/242796-weird-situation/?tab=comments#comment-623891 https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/242847-confused/?tab=comments#comment-624159 https://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/243346-need-advice-asap/?tab=comments#comment-625771
  2. Does the guy even have a title? Did you see the title when you first made the deal? Before you decide on anything I suggest you demand to see the title and make sure he is the owner on it. Otherwise you could end up throwing another $800 down the toilet.
  3. You can sue him. If you win you can try to collect. Chances are that you'll never collect. This was just a bad deal from the beginning. Maybe you should just cut your losses, walk away from the deal, and learn an important lesson for the future.
  4. Improvements to the property would probably count in the equation but taxes and condo fees don't count any more than paying for water, electric, food and clothing. Those are day to day living expenses that everybody pays.
  5. No. You have to understand the difference between "ownership" and "marital interest." Her name is on the deed. She owns it. Your marital interest is based on the equity that has accumulated during the marriage. Equity is the current market value of the home less the outstanding balance of any loans. Equity accumulated during the marriage is the current market value less the market value at the time of the marriage less any outstanding loan balances. The purchase of the aunt's 50% for $10 is almost certainly going to be construed by a court as a gift. Gifts are generally the sole and separate property of the recipient. Any marital interest you have in the property is likely to be rather small.
  6. A letter to the President of the company should suffice. I can't give you step by step legal advice (and court clerks can't either) but my guess for the two cents that it's worth is you would file in the District Court of the county in which this is happening. Pick your county and it will take you to your court's website. https://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/?fa=court_rules.local&group=district There you may find court rules, forms and instructions. You can review the case files of the trial court, appellate court, and supreme court but there will probably be thousands of pages of documents to wade through. Consider contacting local legal aid.
  7. Then you need a lawyer. No question about that. Maybe contact the lawyer who won the case you cited. Note that one of the reasons that the neighbor won is that the neighbor notified the violators of his objection and of the restrictions. Have you done that? I suggest you do it in writing and cite that case like you have cited it here. Then, if they don't stop, you hire a lawyer.
  8. This is a 6 1/2 year old thread. Don't post on dead threads. You'll be reported, deleted, and banned if you keep doing it.
  9. No, it isn't. I already wrote that something appeared to go wrong. Make sure you don't leave out the important parts when you talk to the lawyer.
  10. Try another mortgage company, bank or credit union.
  11. No. Your wife owns it as her sole and separate property. That doesn't change. It's the equity in the property that may entitle you to a cash settlement, or some non-cash offset, in the event of a divorce I suspect though that there was more of your wife's earnings that went into supporting the condo than just the $10.
  12. The word "can" denotes the ability to do something. So the answer to the question is yes. Whether it actually happens is anybody's guess and completely up to the prosecutor.
  13. Arizona has 7 years to charge somebody with a felony. Nothing illegal happened. Maybe they waited until he got out of prison because it would have been a waste of time to charge him while he was in prison. Tell your friend to talk to his lawyer. You can't help him.
  14. If the intent was for you to sell your home and rent it back from the buyer then, yeah, it sure does look like something went wrong. But how you expect any stranger on the internet to know what is going on is beyond me. Did you use a real estate agent, lawyer, escrow/title company? When the sale closed did you get a stack of paperwork? Did you get a check? Answer those questions.
  15. Where's your common sense? What made you so dumb as to ask strangers on the internet if it was OK to bring your nerf gun to work? Show the boss the picture and ask for permission to bring the nerf gun for the event. smh
  16. I'd say so. They probably had sufficient other identifying information. But if they found stuff that you want suppressed you'd better be talking to a lawyer where your communications are confidential.
  17. This has more to do with whether or not she was a tenant in friend's place, not whether she is a resident of the state. How long was she staying with the "friend"? What was the arrangement? Was she paying rent or contributing money in any way? Was she getting mail there? If she was a tenant, she would be entitled to notice of termination of tenancy under ARS 33-1375: https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2018/title-33/section-33-1375/ Either 10 days or 30 days depending on the arrangement. Unfortunately, sometimes having rights doesn't mean one is able to enforce them. It might be unwise to try to get back in with a risk of confrontation. Was there a falling out between the two? Any reason for the abrupt ouster? Wherever she is you can probably go online and buy her a bus ticket to wherever you are. The alternative is a homeless shelter.
  18. Why do you ask? That's a serious question. Residency is a lot of different things for different purposes. You can live on somebody's couch and never be a resident or you can be a resident the first day you arrive. Residency (anywhere) depends on what you do and what you intend to do. Are you being asked to prove that you are a resident? Are you being told that you must be a resident to accomplish certain things? Do you want to be a resident? Do you want not to be a resident? So, explain why you are asking and you'll get some helpful comments.
  19. Let's back up the truck a little. You've been served a summons and complaint and you wrote that you have 5 days to answer. These are the forms you use. https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ud105.pdf https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc025.pdf Google California how to answer unlawful detainer complaint and you'll find several helpful resources.
  20. You're not getting it. We are trying to get you to say something like: "I am in (state). I was convicted of (crime) on (date). I (or my lawyer) filed a motion for (what) on (date). How long does it take for a judge to rule on the motion." Without some background, I'm afraid all we are going to do is amuse ourselves.
  21. Maybe I'm wrong here, but how would the subtenant know one way or the other what the owner told the master tenant (daughter) if the master tenant (daughter) expressly or impliedly had the authority to rent out the room?
  22. Which is why we are kidding around while we wait for him to come back and tell us.
  23. At an average fee of $300 per hour, PG1067, after 20 years you would have made $14,625,000 ($731,250 per year). Assuming you could live on $300,000+ per year, If you saved the rest with a modest return of 3% you'd have about $10,000,000 at the end of 20 years. You could retire to an island and sip pina coladas while native girls wait on you hand and foot. But I suspect we aren't talking about the quantity of motions here.
  24. OK, then you appear to have two defenses for which you can move for dismissal. That you were not served the "termination" notice (different than eviction notice) which is 60 days if you had been renting there at least a year, 30 days if you had been renting less than a year. And that the owner has no authority to terminate your tenancy because your contract was with her tenant who had "apparent authority" to rent you the room and, indeed, represented that he/she was renting the room on behalf of the owner. To make up for my earlier brusqueness I'll give you a little more help. In California "apparent authority" is also known as "ostensible agency." The statutes noted are found at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=CIV&division=3.&title=9.&part=4.&chapter=&article= And here's a few cases that mention "ostensible agency." https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=4%2C5&q="ostensible+agency"+sublessor&btnG= I haven't read them so I don't know if they will be any help. Good luck.
×
×
  • Create New...