|
Okay, thanks for the replies. I've lived in this property myself for the last 3 years and never once had to call a repair. It's a semi-luxury condo in Manhattan with a doorman and a super. Assuming there is a repair necessary, doesn't the tenant just call the on-site super for repairs?
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Those are the kind of things you get to figure out as a landlord!
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
lolercoasterrr posted:Assuming there is a repair necessary, doesn't the tenant just call the on-site super for repairs? Under no circumstances should you remotely consider becoming a landlord, ever, in your entire life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
lolercoasterrr posted:Okay, thanks for the replies. I've lived in this property myself for the last 3 years and never once had to call a repair. It's a semi-luxury condo in Manhattan with a doorman and a super. Assuming there is a repair necessary, doesn't the tenant just call the on-site super for repairs? What the hell, go for it. You're young and have plenty of time to figure out for yourself that being a landlord sucks. You are probably going to lose money on the deal unless property values are rising at an absurd clip. This does happen, but not so much since 2008. Fire up that spreadsheet and do the math for your situation. Watch out for those weird NYC tenancy laws and rent control rules. Also, I've never even heard of a property management company that does much more than find new tenants and dick the old tenants out of their damage deposits.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
When I was practicing divorce law, I saw lots and lots of clients who'd spent their life savings trying to get into a profession that seemed so incredibly easy that anyone could do it, and then lost all their money. The three most common of those professions were restauranteur, dog breeder, and landlord.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
The most successful landlords I know are miserable slumlords who abuse their tenants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The most successful landlords I know are miserable slumlords who abuse their tenants. I know a guy who owns a couple trailer parks. He said the ticket to success is the ability to not believe or give a poo poo about any sob story any tentant gives you ever, and B. know how to use the court system to get your money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
echopapa posted:When I was practicing divorce law, I saw lots and lots of clients who'd spent their life savings trying to get into a profession that seemed so incredibly easy that anyone could do it, and then lost all their money. The three most common of those professions were restauranteur, dog breeder, and landlord. Fourth is real estate agent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Fourth is real estate agent. Fifth is lawyer 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:I know a guy who owns a couple trailer parks. He said the ticket to success is the ability to not believe or give a poo poo about any sob story any tenant gives you ever, and B. know how to use the court system to get your money. The beauty of trailer parks in Texas is that you can get away with executory contracts for deed or "lease-to-purchase agreements", rather than standard deeds of trust. This means a lot of things, but mostly 1) The property isn't deeded to the tenant/purchaser until the full balance is paid off, which means... 2) They miss one payment and fail to cure the default, the landlord/seller can kick them out via eviction, no foreclosure sale necessary, and essentially treat every dollar paid towards the purchase as rent. They lose everything. euphronius posted:The most successful landlords I know are miserable slumlords who abuse their tenants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The most successful landlords I know are miserable slumlords who abuse their tenants. A friend of mine wanted to get into landlording and so we pulled out the spreadsheets and gathered lots of data. It turned out that the most profit was in HUD housing. The state pays on time and the tenants are motivated to avoid being evicted from their subsidized home. The down side is that you have to be a pretty cold bastard because so many of your tenants will be serial gently caress-ups that you want off your property.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
e: nvm, talked to a friend
booshi fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Mar 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
|
You've probably given too much detail for any of the resident lawgoons to help, sorry. "Didn't get it in the mail" is pretty valid unless you sent it registered. Have you tried calling the cops when the neighbors get noisy? If you own the place, file a complaint with the HOA or condo board or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
e: nvm, talked to a friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:A friend of mine wanted to get into landlording and so we pulled out the spreadsheets and gathered lots of data. It turned out that the most profit was in HUD housing. The state pays on time and the tenants are motivated to avoid being evicted from their subsidized home. The down side is that you have to be a pretty cold bastard because so many of your tenants will be serial gently caress-ups that you want off your property. My parents rented their old house out through HUD. When they got divorced, my mom, my sister, and I moved back to the old place. We gave them over 60 days notice and still nearly needed to evict them to get them out, and they had trashed the place when they finally did leave. Some of it was recent, but some things- like the mouse corpse ground into the carpet in one bedroom- had clearly been there for a long, long time. It was incredibly filthy. The moral of the story is never be a landlord.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Colorado. Just closed on my first home on Thursday, then pulled up the carpet Friday to discover some blatant water damage that was not uncovered in the inspection nor disclosed by the sellers. The sellers had lived in the home for over 30 years and clearly knew it was there, as you can see they remodeled the kitchen because of it about 10 years ago—but not the side of the wall in the living room, which had also been damaged. The living room hardwood and subfloor were also damaged. I've uncovered mould, rotted framing, and rotted subfloor, all of which they basically papered over and/or ignored. Basically, the sellers intentionally misrepresented a substantial defect in the condition of the home that they were aware of, and which might take several thousand dollars to repair. Do I have any sort of recourse, or is it caveat emptor?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
You need to talk to a lawyer ASAP. If you can actually prove they lied, you might have something. You might also have something re: your home inspector.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Cranbe posted:Colorado. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_defect Lawyer time!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Cranbe posted:Colorado. 3rd'ing lawyer up. There are many home purchase issues on which you could be screwed, but some issues have hard-coded protection (or inspector liability). Flooding and termite damage are examples of what could be protected from caveat emptor, varying by state. You're looking for a local real estate attorney. It's worth your time/money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
Thanks, y'all. I'll call up some attorneys tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
Per state (OR) law, a landlord may enter a unit with 24 hours notice, and the tenant may refuse to let them enter if 'reasonable'. The state bar website doesn't really clarify what "reasonable" means; is this pretty much down to the mood of the judge, assuming it even went that far? The actual law's text is: quote:(ii) A tenant may deny consent for a landlord or landlords agent to enter upon the premises pursuant to this paragraph if the entry is at an unreasonable time or with unreasonable frequency. The tenant must assert the denial by giving actual notice of the denial to the landlord or landlords agent prior to, or at the time of, the attempted entry. Which just punts it to another layer of "reasonable". So if Bubba Q. Hypothetical works a late shift and sleeps till noon, can he leave a note refusing entry until after he's awake? Or would that wind up "your sleep schedule is unreasonable, gently caress you"? How about if the notice to inspect is a range of hours covering the entire day?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Javid posted:Which just punts it to another layer of "reasonable". So if Bubba Q. Hypothetical works a late shift and sleeps till noon, can he leave a note refusing entry until after he's awake? Or would that wind up "your sleep schedule is unreasonable, gently caress you"? How about if the notice to inspect is a range of hours covering the entire day? a "reasonability" standard generally creates a fact question. In other words, when a statute says "reasonable", you can generally assume that the answer will come down to whichever side the jury believes as to whether the conduct was "reasonable."
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:Which just punts it to another layer of "reasonable". So if Bubba Q. Hypothetical works a late shift and sleeps till noon, can he leave a note refusing entry until after he's awake? Or would that wind up "your sleep schedule is unreasonable, gently caress you"? How about if the notice to inspect is a range of hours covering the entire day? If any of this is a real issue for you, then your own lawyer's advise is best. Consider getting one if you haven't already. If you work nights and sleep until noon then you should make sure the landlord knows this. If it comes down to a spat in court then the landlord should be able to show some effort to accommodate. As for the "sometime all day" many states/municipalities have laws stating that the time must be specified more precisely. Also, look at your lease for the phrase "quiet enjoyment" and then check the google for what it means. As before, efforts to accommodate can go a long way. Finally, if you say "no entry before noon" and they show up anyway then you can tell them to go away. Most workers will just go because it isn't their job to force entry and fight you. This will piss of the landlord because he'll probably have to pay for the worker to show up again. Regardless, this is a problem that reasonable people usually don't have because they talk to each other and sort it out. Still, some landlords are poo poo bags who like having drama. Just as landlords should always want problem tenants to leave, tenants should look to move away from problem landlords. If your landlords are always dicks, look in the mirror and cogitate the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
So I got my first speeding ticket, and it just so happened to be a really big one. I got caught in Fulton County, Georgia doing 87 in a 55, going with the flow of traffic on I-75. According to the research I did I am gonna get hit with super speeder laws, meaning a 200$ seperate fine, 6 points on the license, and a maximum 1000$ fine, court date is May 5th. 1. What should I expect out of a fine, this is my first offense in traffic? 2. Should I go ahead and take the Defensive Driving Course, or do I have to wait to actually wait for the court date before I can take it to get points off my license? 3. Possible to get leniency for taking the initiative and doing the DD course ahead of time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Points systems are confusing as gently caress - Be careful. Sorry I can't answer your questions specifically; this might help, though. Taking defensive driving is generally part and parcel of the process of talking to the prosecutor and accepting deferred adjudication. Deferred adjudication is a process where the charges against you (speeding) are placed on hold, essentially, for a certain period of time. During that time you have to complete certain requirements, like paying a reduced fine, taking defensive driving, or serving a probationary period (or all of the above). If you complete the requirements, the charges are dismissed. IMPORTANT - Point systems are different from state to state. I have no loving clue how they work in GA. They could attach to your DL whether you complete deferred or not. You have got to figure this out, it could cost you lots of money over the course of your driving career. - Deferred Adjudication is different from court to court and is entirely discretionary. We do municipal prosecutions for a handful of cities in north Texas, and each one has their own procedure. One doesn't even offer deferred, only reduced fines in exchange for immediate payment and dismissal. You will have to find out from the Court Clerk what they offer, if anything, and you may not find out until the day of your hearing. - You need to understand your options and do more research before accepting any particular course of action.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
I have a question regarding email retention policies as they apply to litigation. I haven't read through this enough to know if it's up anyone's alley, but I figured it was worth a shot. I am am aware of a non-profit organization that has been accused of having some shady practices. I'm not aware of anything that would get prosecuted, most likely, or even get them sued, but certainly could be damaging to their reputation and possibly compromise their non-profit status. Anyway, said organization just implemented an email retention policy that will automatically delete all emails older than 90 days from the exchange server. Along with this, they're also implementing a policy stating that emails are not allowed to be archived anywhere outside of the exchange server. In practice they are stating that any email that exists from before 2014 is to be destroyed and if you don't you're breaking policy. The stated reason for this is resources (server space, etc.), but given the very short policy of 90 days and the accusations against them I'm thinking that this is an excuse and that their reasons are legal. My first question is, would this work? That is to say, if there were some sort of horrible crime committed (or something that could bring a civil suit) and it was all done via email, would they be able to show up at court with their email policy in hand with no issue? At what point are you destroying evidence? Secondly, once you lose your own copy of your mail, is there anything keeping you safe from someone showing up with a copy of a forged email and claiming that it came from you? (I'm sure there are technical issues at hand here, but let's assume it's easily done) Wouldn't you want to have logs or records to refute such accusations?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
My lease ended at the end of March. At the beginning of February, I called the office asking about going month-to-month for a month and a half after my lease ended. They said they would send me a renewal letter and gave me a rent quote. I dropped off a notice to vacate 60 days in advance. I never received the letter. I called the office 4 times in 4 weeks to ask for the letter, confirm they received my notice to vacate, and confirm my month-to-month rent. Each time they quoted me at $955 and said they'd leave the letter at my door. I dropped off my rent the night of March 31st. There was a note on my door late afternoon of April 1st with the renewal letter, a letter confirming receipt of my notice to vacate, and a note saying "To clarify any confusion, you also need to pay $60 for pet rent on top of the quote we gave you." The renewal letter still has 955 typed in, with someone scribbling "+60" in pen on top of it. I think its bullshit to give me the same quote 4 times (even when I asked if that covered pet rent, etc.) and delay sending me the documentation to review for over a month, and then ask for more money. Is this something I can fight? Or am I in the wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Dienes posted:My lease ended at the end of March. At the beginning of February, I called the office asking about going month-to-month for a month and a half after my lease ended. They said they would send me a renewal letter and gave me a rent quote. I dropped off a notice to vacate 60 days in advance. Typically a month to month lease that starts after a prior lease has expired retains the same terms as the prior lease. So rent should stay the same. This is contingent though on the contents of the lease (does it address this possibility?) and your state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Don't sign anything that would acknowledge you accept the new lease terms (the +$60). Your current lease should default to month-to-month. Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the only way you can modify a written contract is with another written contract; a 'decree' is not a contract.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I have a question regarding email retention policies as they apply to litigation. I haven't read through this enough to know if it's up anyone's alley, but I figured it was worth a shot. I'm not a lawyer, but my for-profit company has the same e-mail policy; I'm given to understand it's increasingly common these days. We're a records management company, and making sure our clients are correctly applying retention is a big deal to us, so I can only imagine that someone checked very thoroughly before we implemented the policy and that it's legally sound. In the event that you were sued and your e-mails were potentially evidence in the suit, you'd probably be required to make an archive at that point. Anything that was 90 days before the suit (and therefore destroyed before you were alerted that it was evidence) wouldn't be able to be used against you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Sefer posted:I'm not a lawyer, but my for-profit company has the same e-mail policy; I'm given to understand it's increasingly common these days. We're a records management company, and making sure our clients are correctly applying retention is a big deal to us, so I can only imagine that someone checked very thoroughly before we implemented the policy and that it's legally sound. I'd definitely use it against them. Given how (relatively) easy it is to store and backup email these days, it's probably unreasonable to have a 90 day retention policy. In a trial, I'd point out that they're probably hiding something. Electronic discovery is a big deal, and your company may have a duty to keep accurate records; intentionally creating a short retention period of internal communications could be seen as spoliation of evidence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
fork bomb posted:Don't sign anything that would acknowledge you accept the new lease terms (the +$60). Your current lease should default to month-to-month. Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the only way you can modify a written contract is with another written contract; a 'decree' is not a contract. I wrote on the renewal (which they gave me on 4/1/14, the day after my lease expired) that I did not accept those terms and returned it to the office, after scanning copies for myself. The lease states "Resident's tenancy shall be from month to month if Resident continues in possession after the end of this lease and if the continuation of possession with with Management's prior written consent. The rent for residents month to month tenancy shall be such amount as management may lawfully establish, and Resident shall be subject to all provisions of this lease which may be applicable and consistent with a month to month tenancy." The lease doesn't specify any fees for month-to-month, but the $25/month move-in special would end. I received verbal consent to stay in March and written consent to stay on 4/1/14, backdated by the office for 3/14/14, as part of the acknowledgement of my notice to vacate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Dienes posted:My lease ended at the end of March. At the beginning of February, I called the office asking about going month-to-month for a month and a half after my lease ended. They said they would send me a renewal letter and gave me a rent quote. I dropped off a notice to vacate 60 days in advance. Whether or not you are in the right, it will probably cost more than 240 bucks worth of your time, effort, and actual money. Consider whether it's worthwhile to be right if you don't get any money out of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I have a question regarding email retention policies as they apply to litigation. EDIT: Beaten; not paying attention. There are really 2 questions buried in there, and the hidden one is whether your applicable state or federal laws concerning the business require the preservation of emails. That I don't know. What I do know is that destroying evidence (or simply allowing it to deteriorate) in civil litigation is called "spoliation". Whether done during pending litigation, or just prior to litigation (and in anticipation thereof) there can be consequences by the civil judge. Every party in litigation has a responsibility to preserve all relevant evidence for the case. If a court ever finds out that a person destroyed evidence, knowing it would probably be relevant to the case, the court can hand out civil penalties called "sanctions". Sanctions are typically cash penalties against the bad actor, and are commonly awarded to the party who the bad conduct harmed. An example: In 2012 there was a case where a natural gas well-testing report was being circulated amongst the attorneys in the case. It was under a protective order "for attorney's eyes only". One of the Plaintiffs forwarded it to an expert they planned to use, in violation of the order, to help coach their expert. Another side found out and they filed a Motion for Sanctions against the plaintiff. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the party that made the motion something like $25,000.00 because that was how much the party had spent in attorneys fees deposing that particular expert, reviewing the document, and making the actual motion for sanctions. Furthermore, every party has a responsibility to turn over all potentially relevant information upon request during litigation, or explain why they no longer possess the information. That means that if suit is filed, the party suing can send requests to the company, demanding all emails dating back to whenever. If the company says "oh, we started destroying them all.", then the plaintiff may have grounds for sanctions or other actions. Another tangential consequence is the result it would have on their overall defense. Imagine these closing arguments: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... If the defendant had nothing to hide, then why did it begin systematically destroying all the evidence that would have shown the truth?" A potential plaintiff isn't without recourse, however. If they fear the destruction of potentially important evidence, you can obtain a restraining order on relatively short notice. If your case is even mildly plausible, a strong Plaintiff's attorney can have an original petition filed, and get an ex-parte restraining order prohibiting the destruction of such emails in 24 hours. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What I do know is that destroying evidence (or simply allowing it to deteriorate) in civil litigation is called "spoliation". Not only that, but once legal action has commenced, and usually once it has even been threatened, the duty to preserve evidence attaches. Failure to do so can result in sanctions and those sanctions can get pretty nasty. For example, a sanction can be a finding that the a fact has been admitted. Furthermore, destruction of evidence can take you into the magical realm of criminal defense. To make things even more fun, malpractice has been found when an attorney (allegedly) verbally instructed a client to preserve evidence but did not provide a written instruction. Spoliation is not something that the courts take lightly. It is well within reason for spoliation to bring down a larger hammer of justice than the original charges would have. edited to add this: blarzgh posted:An example: In 2012 there was a case where a natural gas well-testing report was being circulated amongst the attorneys in the case. It was under a protective order "for attorney's eyes only". One of the Plaintiffs forwarded it to an expert they planned to use, in violation of the order, to help coach their expert. Another side found out and they filed a Motion for Sanctions against the plaintiff. The Court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the party that made the motion something like $25,000.00 because that was how much the party had spent in attorneys fees deposing that particular expert, reviewing the document, and making the actual motion for sanctions. I don't believe this is a spoliation sanction. The expert was a testifying expert and the other side had a right to see all documents that the expert consulted in preparation for his testimony. One of those documents was withheld, not destroyed. To me it looks like a fairly standard sanction for a discovery violation. If it had been destroyed and the destruction discovered, then the sanction would have probably been a whole lot worse. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Spoliation is not something that the courts take lightly. It is well within reason for spoliation to bring down a larger hammer of justice than the original charges would have. If you want a high profile and fun example of exactly how little courts like it when people try to hide the evidentiary ball, look up the Broadcom-Qualcomm case. Qualcomm sued Broadcom on some patents. Literally the last day of trial, a Qualcomm witness admitted she had seen some relevant emails that Qualcomm never produced. Qualcomm had their patents declared unenforceable, paid $20 million or so in sanctions (I think also paid Broadcom's attorneys fees), and many of the lawyers involved were referred for Bar discipline. Now imagine if the Court found out Qualcomm had destroyed rather than just not provided the emails.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
To further the potential for bar problems... Large-scale email services are not private. Specifically, gmail has been compelled to produce emails from its servers and there is no attorney-client privilege because there's no expectation of privacy. If an attorney/company uses outside email servers, its records retention policy may be irrelevant and communications may not have attorney-client privilege. In the future that could extend to ISP's, depending on their security and conduct.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
This is all in the state of Colorado. My grandmother died when her mobile home caught fire. She was a hoarder, and there's pretty extensive damage to the home. She owned the home, but rented the space from the park. There was no insurance on the house. Her will listed my mother as the executor of the estate, but we all knew her wishes towards her property. The home would go to me. However, I can't afford the rent or the repairs, or even the cost to move the thing to a dump. My mother is meeting with an attorney Friday, but our worry is that the mobile home park will not be willing to buy the home and we'd be stuck with all these costs. I understand that I can walk away from any inheritance, but as the executor, is my mother screwed? The main problem is none of us can afford an attorney or any costs associated with this home and would prefer to just walk away from it, if we can't get any money from selling it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Grem posted:This is all in the state of Colorado. My grandmother died when her mobile home caught fire. She was a hoarder, and there's pretty extensive damage to the home. She owned the home, but rented the space from the park. There was no insurance on the house. Her will listed my mother as the executor of the estate, but we all knew her wishes towards her property. The home would go to me. However, I can't afford the rent or the repairs, or even the cost to move the thing to a dump. My mother is meeting with an attorney Friday, but our worry is that the mobile home park will not be willing to buy the home and we'd be stuck with all these costs. I understand that I can walk away from any inheritance, but as the executor, is my mother screwed? The main problem is none of us can afford an attorney or any costs associated with this home and would prefer to just walk away from it, if we can't get any money from selling it. IANAL but google says about being an executor of an estate " If you don't serve, who will? If you decline the job after the person who names you has died, or resign after serving for a while, someone else must take over. If you're an executor and you haven't yet begun probate, you should simply notify the alternate executor named in the will. If there isn't anyone, someone must either take over informally or begin probate proceedings and ask the court to be appointed an executor. If you resign as executor after having started probate court proceedings, you can submit your resignation to the probate court and provide a written record of what (if anything) you have done. The court will then appoint someone to take your place." TL:DR being an executor of an estate is something you do voluntarily. You can pass. An estate is the last remaining debts and assets of the deceased. In the United States debts can't be passed on. An estate can have a negative balance and creditors can suck it basically. Nobody is responsible for your grandma's stuff if they don't want to be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
Think of it like this: Your grandmother's estate is an entity, like a corporation. That corporation must pay its debts from its own assets, not yours or mom's. If that corporation has debts leftover after using up its assets, then that's it. Those debts wither on the vine and no one pays them. The executor is not personally responsible for paying the shortfall. If the corporation has any property/money leftover after paying the debts, then that property is distributed according to the will. The executor's job is just to manage paying those debts, then distributing the leftover property (if any). So basically, your mom should do her best to sell grandma's property to cover the debts. But if there's a shortfall... gently caress it. The only name on the debt is grandma's. [Your mom should get an attorney, and as executor she can bill the estate for her attorney fees]
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 20:06
|
|