Bad With Money 2018: When I die, bury me in the blockchain.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Bad With Money 2018: When I die, bury me in the blockchain.

«‹›676 »

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

ohgodwhat posted:

I mean, there is a Bitcoin ETF and it's trading at a significant premium to bitcoins themselves.

What? I thought the SEC denied their application (with a hilarious brief about why)

# ? Jun 15, 2017 15:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 23:46

monster on a stick: Apr 29, 2013

ate all the Oreos posted:

What? I thought the SEC denied their application (with a hilarious brief about why)

GBTC has been out for a while now. Even trades at a premium to Bitcoin itself.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:08

ranbo das: Oct 16, 2013

PayPal has caused problems - Where should I go for $1000 in 24 hours? posted:

Tldr up front: PayPal is holding onto $1000 that I need to cover a check to the IRS that has already been written. What do?

So I've got quarterly estimated taxes due today, and I transferred money from my PayPal account to my checking account to cover the difference. The PayPal app defaulted to an old bank account that is no longer open. PayPal says they have to wait to get the money rejected by old bank before I can transfer into new bank.

Customer service at PayPal are unhelpful and claimed I'd just have to wait and that it was out of their hands. This leaves me with a check that will bounce in the mail.

What can I do to get a quick $1000 into my bank account by tomorrow? I'm currently on vacation (yay). I have no credit cards, have a mortgage. I'm typically not stretched like this but trying to get ahead on taxes has messed me up.

Any advice?

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:35

Jeffrey of YOSPOS: Dec 22, 2005; GET LOSE, YOU CAN'T COMPARE WITH MY POWERS

That sounds...understandably frustrating? That it takes more than 30 seconds to resolve "ahh that account is closed" is an absurdity in 2017.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:39

Subjunctive: Sep 12, 2006; ✨sparkle and shine✨

See also: cheques not clearing instantly.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:39

No Butt Stuff: Jun 10, 2004

I like how my bank, which holds my car loan, cannot handle processing the transaction of paying said loan in less than 3 business days.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:40

Cold on a Cob: Feb 6, 2006; i've seen so much, i'm going blind
and i'm brain dead virtually; College Slice

Subjunctive posted:

See also: cheques not clearing instantly.

Cheques are pretty lovely in general.

If you write post-dated cheques it's worth knowing that they can be cashed anytime. The date might as well not even exist.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:48

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Nap Ghost

A friend's mother just ran into a similar problem. She had scheduled a transfer from one account to another on [Due_Date - 1] so that there'd be money for when an automatic payment went through. Her bank instead ran it a few days early, the transaction failed, and she was charged an insufficient funds fee and a late fee.

No idea if it ever got resolved, but it was bullshit.

Cold on a Cob posted:

Cheques are pretty lovely in general.

If you write post-dated cheques it's worth knowing that they can be cashed anytime. The date might as well not even exist.

My bank wouldn't let me cash a check that was post-dated a year in advance (roommate wrote the wrong year) so it has some relevance in some places.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:55

BigDave: Jul 14, 2009; Taste the High Country

No Butt Stuff posted:

I like how my bank, which holds my car loan, cannot handle processing the transaction of paying said loan in less than 3 business days.

I love how Capital One can't process my credit card payment from a Capital One bank account in less than 2 business days.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:57

DarkHorse: Dec 13, 2006; Nap Ghost

Good job Wells Fargo!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/wells-fargo-loan-mortgage.html

quote:

Wells Fargo Is Accused of Making Improper Changes to Mortgages

MAX WHITTAKER FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
JUNE 14, 2017

Even as Wells Fargo was reeling from a major scandal in its consumer bank last year, officials in the company�s mortgage business were putting through unauthorized changes to home loans held by customers in bankruptcy, a new class action and other lawsuits contend.

The changes, which surprised the customers, typically lowered their monthly loan payments, which would seem to benefit borrowers, particularly those in bankruptcy. But deep in the details was this fact: Wells Fargo�s changes would extend the terms of borrowers� loans by decades, meaning they would have monthly payments for far longer and would ultimately owe the bank much more.

Any change to a payment plan for a person in bankruptcy is subject to approval by the court and the other parties involved. But Wells Fargo put through big changes to the home loans without such approval, according to the lawsuits.

The changes are part of a trial loan modification process from Wells Fargo. But they put borrowers in bankruptcy at risk of defaulting on the commitments they have made to the courts, and could make them vulnerable to foreclosure in the future.

A spokesman for Wells Fargo, Tom Goyda, said the bank strongly denied the claims made in the lawsuits and particularly disputed how the complaints characterized the bank�s actions. Wells Fargo contends that the borrowers and the bankruptcy courts were notified.

�Modifications help customers stay in their homes when they encounter financial challenges,� Mr. Goyda said, �and we have used them to help more than one million families since the beginning of 2009.�

According to court documents, Wells Fargo has been putting through unrequested changes to borrowers� loans since 2015. During this period, the bank was under attack for its practice of opening unwanted bank and credit card accounts for customers to meet sales quotas.

Outrage over that activity � which the bank admitted in September 2016, when it was fined $185 million � cost John G. Stumpf, its former chief executive, his job and damaged the bank�s reputation.

It is unclear how many unsolicited loan changes Wells Fargo has put through nationwide, but seven cases describing the conduct have recently arisen in Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Texas. In the North Carolina court, Wells Fargo produced records showing it had submitted changes on at least 25 borrowers� loans since 2015.

Bankruptcy judges in North Carolina and Pennsylvania have admonished the bank over the practice, according to the class-action lawsuit filed last week. One judge called the practice �beyond the pale of due process.�

The lawsuits contend that Wells Fargo puts through changes on borrowers� loans using a routine form that typically records new real estate taxes or homeowners� insurance costs that are folded into monthly mortgage payments. Upon receiving these forms, bankruptcy court workers usually put the changes into effect without questioning them.

It is unclear why the bank would put through such changes. On one hand, Wells Fargo stood to profit from the new loan terms it set forth, and, under programs designed to encourage loan modifications for troubled borrowers, the bank receives as much as $1,600 from government programs for every such loan it adjusts, the class-action lawsuit said. But submitting the changes without approval violates bankruptcy rules and puts the bank at risk of court sanctions and federal scrutiny. When a lawyer for a borrower has questioned the changes, Wells Fargo has reversed them.

Abelardo Limon Jr., a lawyer in Brownsville, Tex., who represents some of the plaintiffs, said he first thought Wells Fargo had made a clerical error. Then he saw another case.

�When I realized it was a pattern of filing false documents with the federal court, that was appalling to me,� Mr. Limon said in an interview. The unauthorized loan modifications �really cause havoc to a debtor�s reorganization,� he said.

This is not the first time Wells Fargo has been accused of wrongdoing related to payment change notices on mortgages it filed with the bankruptcy courts. Under a settlement with the Justice Department in November 2015, the bank agreed to pay $81.6 million to borrowers in bankruptcy whom it had failed to notify on time when their monthly payments shifted to reflect different real estate taxes or insurance costs.

That settlement � in which the bank also agreed to change its internal procedures to prevent future violations � affected 68,000 homeowners.

Borrowers having financial difficulties often file for personal bankruptcy to save their homes, working out payment plans with creditors and the courts to bring their loans current in a set period. If the borrowers meet their obligations over that time, they emerge from bankruptcy with clean slates and their homes intact.

Changing these payment plans without the approval of the judge and other parties can imperil borrowers� standing with the bankruptcy courts.

In the class-action lawsuit filed last week, the lead plaintiffs are a couple in North Carolina who say that Wells Fargo submitted three changes to their payment plan in 2016 without approval. The first time, Wells Fargo put through the changes without alerting them, according to the couple, Christopher Dee Cotton and Allison Hedrick Cotton.

The Cottons� monthly payments declined with every change, dropping to $1,251 from $1,404.

Buried deep in the documents Wells Fargo filed � but did not get approved by the borrowers, their lawyers or the court � was the news that the bank would extend the Cottons� loan to 40 years, increasing the amount of interest they would have to pay. Before the changes, the Cottons owed roughly $145,000 on their mortgage and were on schedule to pay off the loan in 14 years. Over that period, their interest would total $55,593.

Under the new loan terms, the Cottons would have incurred $85,000 in interest costs over the additional 26 years, on top of the $55,593 they would have paid under the existing loan, their court filing shows.

Theodore O. Bartholow III, a lawyer for the Cottons, said Wells Fargo�s actions contravened the intent of the bankruptcy system. �When it goes the right way, the debtor and mortgage company agree to do a modification, go to court and say, �Hey judge, modify or change the disbursement on my mortgage.��

Instead, Wells Fargo did �a total end run� around the process, said Mr. Bartholow, of Kellett & Bartholow in Dallas. The Cottons declined to comment.

Mr. Goyda, the Wells Fargo spokesman, denied that the bank had not notified borrowers. �The terms of these modification offers were clearly outlined in letters sent to the customers and/or to their attorneys, and as part of the Payment Change Notices sent to the bankruptcy courts,� he wrote by email.

Mr. Goyda said that �such notices are not part of the loan modification package, or part of the documentation required for the customer to accept or decline modification offers.� He added, �We do not finalize a modification without receiving signed documents from the customer and, where required, approval from the bankruptcy court.�

Mr. Limon and other lawyers say that while the bank may wait for approval to complete a modification, it has nevertheless put through unapproved changes to borrowers� payment plans. According to a complaint he filed on behalf of clients in Texas, instead of going through the proper channels to try to modify a loan, Wells Fargo filed the routine payment change notification.

The clients also accuse the bank of making false claims by contending that the borrowers had requested or approved the loan modifications. In many cases, the trustees who handle payments on behalf of consumers in bankruptcy would accept the changes Wells Fargo had submitted on the assumption they had been properly approved.

Mr. Limon represents Ignacio and Gabriela Perez of Brownsville, who say Wells Fargo put through an improper change to their payment plan last year.

After experiencing financial difficulties, Mr. and Mrs. Perez filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in August 2016. They owed about $54,000 on their home at the time, and had fallen behind on the mortgage by $2,177. The value of their home was $95,317, records show, so they had substantial equity.

In September, the Perezes filed a payment plan with the bankruptcy court in Brownsville; the trustee overseeing the process ordered a confirmation hearing on the plan for early November.

But in a letter to the Perezes dated Oct. 10, Wells Fargo said their loan was �seriously delinquent� and offered them a trial loan modification. �Time is of the essence,� the letter stated. �Act now to avoid foreclosure.�

Because they were going through bankruptcy, the Perezes were not under any threat of foreclosure. Mr. Perez said in an interview that the letter worried him, so he asked his lawyer to investigate.

Then, on Oct. 28, 2016, DeMarcus Jones, identified in court papers as �VP Loan Documentation� at Wells Fargo, filed a notice of mortgage payment change with the bankruptcy court. It said the Perezes� new monthly payment would be $663.15, down from $1,019.03. In the notice, the bank explained that the reduction was a �Payment change resulting from an approved trial modification agreement.�

The changes had not been approved by the Perezes, their lawyer or the bankruptcy court, their complaint said.

Although the monthly payment Wells Fargo had listed for the Perezes was lower, there was a catch � the same one that showed up in the Cottons� loan. The Perezes had been scheduled to pay off their mortgage in nine years, but the loan terms from Wells Fargo extended it to 40 years. The Perezes would owe the bank an extra $40,000 in interest, the legal filing said.

�I thought that I was totally crazy, or they were totally crazy,� Mr. Perez said. �I am 58, in what mind could they think I would agree to extend my mortgage 40 years more? I don�t understand much maybe, but it doesn�t sound legal to me.�

Mr. Limon quickly fought the changes.

If he had not, Mr. and Mrs. Perez could have faced further complications. The new Wells Fargo payments were so much less than the payments the Perezes had submitted to the bankruptcy court that if the trustee had started making the new payments with no court approval, the Perezes would have emerged at the end of their bankruptcy plan owing the difference between the amounts. The Perezes would be unwittingly in arrears, and the bank could begin foreclosure proceedings if they were unable to make up the difference.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 17:59

crazypeltast52: May 5, 2010

Wells Fargo obviously needs to do it through the proper legal process, but the breathless reporting of changing the loan from 14 years remaining to 40 and reporting nominal dollar interest expenses over that time is bad and the reporters should feel bad. The bank gave them the option to keep liquidity. They could have written the same check every month and been in the same position, but also diverted the money to higher interest debts.

The last paragraph is really the important one, that the change had to go through the court before it could be approved, but the substance of the change is what gets the bulk of the article instead of the procedural issue at the end.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:13

Enfys: Feb 17, 2013; The ocean is calling and I must go

Wow they are rotten to the core.

quote:

It is unclear why the bank would put through such changes. On one hand, Wells Fargo stood to profit from the new loan terms it set forth, and, under programs designed to encourage loan modifications for troubled borrowers, the bank receives as much as $1,600 from government programs for every such loan it adjusts, the class-action lawsuit said. But submitting the changes without approval violates bankruptcy rules and puts the bank at risk of court sanctions and federal scrutiny. When a lawyer for a borrower has questioned the changes, Wells Fargo has reversed them.

It's not really unclear at all. They stood to profit and hoped they wouldn't get caught, same as the other poo poo they pulled.

quote:

The Perezes had been scheduled to pay off their mortgage in nine years, but the loan terms from Wells Fargo extended it to 40 years.

This is the kind of thing you'd expect of a payday loan company.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:13

crazypeltast52: May 5, 2010

The article makes no mention of changing the interest rate, so I'm not sure what exactly the bank gets by keeping their capital in this specific mortgage versus being able to deploy it elsewhere.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:16

Cold on a Cob: Feb 6, 2006; i've seen so much, i'm going blind
and i'm brain dead virtually; College Slice

DarkHorse posted:

My bank wouldn't let me cash a check that was post-dated a year in advance (roommate wrote the wrong year) so it has some relevance in some places.

Yeah in Canada the policy is the bank shouldn't honour the cheque, but there's no penalty to them if they do as far as I know. You can get it reversed but that's cold comfort if that cheque put you into overdraft and other stuff starts bouncing.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:18

feller: Jul 5, 2006

crazypeltast52 posted:

The article makes no mention of changing the interest rate, so I'm not sure what exactly the bank gets by keeping their capital in this specific mortgage versus being able to deploy it elsewhere.

1600 from the government plus the house when borrowers end up not paying what hey actually had to

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:30

Cassius Belli: May 22, 2010; horny is prohibited

crazypeltast52 posted:

The article makes no mention of changing the interest rate, so I'm not sure what exactly the bank gets by keeping their capital in this specific mortgage versus being able to deploy it elsewhere.

Most of these mortgages would have higher interest rates than new ones. If you change the amortization table so the loan goes out another 10 years or so, the payments go down (because the principal is going down much more slowly) but the owner is stuck paying way more money over time. It's like refinancing in place at a crappy rate.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:44

Pryor on Fire: May 14, 2013; they don't know all alien abduction experiences can be explained by people thinking saving private ryan was a documentary

The closest thing to a personal finance class we ever had in all my many years was a sort of home ec class where we learned how to fill out checks and job applications. We were told it was very very important to put the correct date in there, always use perfect writing because it's super important and ALWAYS fill out the memo and ALWAYS make sure you save the carbon copy for all eternity and make sure you balance your number separately with a pencil in this table in the back because the bank messes up sometimes.

Turns out you can put whatever date you want, sign it with a dick drawing, write "for sex lol" in the memo field, etc etc, and 95% of the time noone cares. Then we were all forced to fill out a McDonald's application for employment to practice (we were not allowed to apply anywhere but McDonald's). Sure wish they would have one or two concepts around credit or budgeting or even just how a loving annual percentage rate works, that would have been 10x as valuable.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:46

Photex: Apr 6, 2009

ranbo das posted:

Paypal

I've actually done this with google wallet, it is really annoying but I got my funds back within 24 hours.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 18:47

22 Eargesplitten: Oct 10, 2010

Don't worry, I'm sure fining Wells Fargo about what they net in 4 days is going to stop their scummy behavior this time.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 19:04

therobit: Aug 19, 2008; I've been tryin' to speak with you for a long time

Yond Cassius posted:

Most of these mortgages would have higher interest rates than new ones. If you change the amortization table so the loan goes out another 10 years or so, the payments go down (because the principal is going down much more slowly) but the owner is stuck paying way more money over time. It's like refinancing in place at a crappy rate.

Those borrowers don't qualify for a refinance and won't for years due to bankruptcy. Banks are permitted to make unilateral changes to accounts if they unequivocally benefit the customer. Wells was wrong if they filed incorrect court documents but by lowering the payment while keeping the rate the same, they are making ot easier for these people to remain in thier homes.Any prepayment penaly would likely remain on original terms, and prepay penalties after the first 3 years are really rare in mortgage lending. If the customer doesn't want the lower payment they can keep paying thier original payment.

I know you guys have a hate boner for banks, but this just isn't that bad. Of all the major banks I will agree that Wells is one of if not the worst when it comes to unfair practices but that isn't what this is.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 19:11

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

therobit posted:

Those borrowers don't qualify for a refinance and won't for years due to bankruptcy. Banks are permitted to make unilateral changes to accounts if they unequivocally benefit the customer. Wells was wrong if they filed incorrect court documents but by lowering the payment while keeping the rate the same, they are making ot easier for these people to remain in thier homes.Any prepayment penaly would likely remain on original terms, and prepay penalties after the first 3 years are really rare in mortgage lending. If the customer doesn't want the lower payment they can keep paying thier original payment.

I know you guys have a hate boner for banks, but this just isn't that bad. Of all the major banks I will agree that Wells is one of if not the worst when it comes to unfair practices but that isn't what this is.

Presumably the cost to the borrower on the same principal for 10 years at 2% is much less than 40 years at 2%.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 19:36

therobit: Aug 19, 2008; I've been tryin' to speak with you for a long time

cowofwar posted:

Presumably the cost to the borrower on the same principal for 10 years at 2% is much less than 40 years at 2%.

Then they can keep making the same payment they were and have it paid off in the same amount of time.

Interest barely covers cost of funds+servicing on first mortgages. Origination fees are where they make money. Not to mention that these are loans that have a lower likelihood of performing and stretching the term increases the length of exposure to a risky borrower. But yes, I am sure they have some diabolocal plan to eak out pennies over decades rather than put that principal into a new loan with fresh fees and a borrower with good credit who is going to pay in full and on time.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 19:49

canyoneer: Sep 13, 2005; I only have canyoneyes for you

Clean out the personal items before you sell your deceased granddad's house.

https://np.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/6h85fl/wa_found_hidden_treasure_in_our_new_house_do_we/

quote:

[WA] Found hidden treasure in our new house. Do we have to give it back to the seller? (self.legaladvice)
submitted 1 day ago by bag-o-cash
My wife and I bought a new house and moved in a few weeks ago. We bought it from the grandson of the previous owner who was selling it as he inherited it in the estate. He was kind of a jerk during the closing process and we are just glad it's over and we no longer have to deal with him. It's a bit of a fixer-upper and we've been repainting inside. This weekend, I pulled off a coaxial faceplate and I found hidden within a ziploc bag with a few thousand in 100s folded up inside. I freaked out. We started looking in similar locations all over the house, and over the last couple of days have found lots of other bags in other locations - under the kitchen counter, behind a panel inside a medicine cabinet, under a loose step board in the garage, and several other places. We've found a lot so far, but I would prefer not to say how much, unless it matters legally. During the search, we also found a couple of guns, boxes of ammunition, a bunch of survivalist packaged food, and a backpack filled with clothes and first aid gear. We are still looking for more stuff.
Since we now own the house, do we have any obligation to inform the former owner of this? We had to clear out a lot of the old crap from the house and that was part of the problems with the closing and delays from the seller. The purchase was amended to include everything in the house because the grandson didn't want to clean out a bunch of the old crap. Obviously he didn't know about his grandfather's predilection for hiding money and guns or he wouldn't have added that clause in the purchase. I doubt he would have left this stuff here if he was aware of it. I don't want to tell him, but my wife has a bigger heart than I do and wants to tell him and let him decide. Lawyers of Reddit, what are we legally obligated to do here?

Just take your windfall and enjoy it, man.

Reminds me of an episode of the show Justified where a guy breaks out of prison and tries to go back to the house where he stashed all the money from his big bank heist that the cops never found. At the time, it was an under-construction, middle class neighborhood. When he drives by, he finds the new owners have a speedboat and luxury cars parked outside and immediately knows that they've already found and spent the money.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 19:58

Cassius Belli: May 22, 2010; horny is prohibited

therobit posted:

I know you guys have a hate boner for banks, but this just isn't that bad. Of all the major banks I will agree that Wells is one of if not the worst when it comes to unfair practices but that isn't what this is.

I wasn't saying that the changes weren't beneficial in the short- to intermediate- term, or even that it was a bad deal (except that it put the mortgage holders in a weaker position to get later/more-favorable modifications); I was explaining the upside for Wells. If it were a handful of incidents I'd agree with you, just some misfiled paperwork, but it sounds like a pattern of "hey, let's see if we can slide this by them, make it look like we're doing them a huge favor, and hope we don't get caught."

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:08

Noctone: Oct 25, 2005; XO til we overdose..

I must be an amoral shitbag because even if the seller had been a nice person there's zero chance I would tell them about it, let alone consider giving them a cut. Finders keepers, motherfucker.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:12

canyoneer: Sep 13, 2005; I only have canyoneyes for you

Noctone posted:

I must be an amoral shitbag because even if the seller had been a nice person there's zero chance I would tell them about it, let alone consider giving them a cut. Finders keepers, motherfucker.

quote:

That was one of the reasons the closing took so long and was so painful. Our real estate agent had said that a bunch of the old property would be removed, but then the grandson was pushing back saying that we would have to do it ourselves. We had to get that written into everything that we owned all of the contents so that we could legally dispose of everything.
In your best guess, what would a lawyer say? Also, how do I find a lawyer who specializes in this? Would my real estate agent know someone? I am hesitant to bring it up to her too because the money is large enough that I'm afraid that she will want a piece of it, or am I being paranoid? I really don't want the grandson to get any of this because he was such a turd during the closing by not clearing out the house as promised, expecting us to do it for free on our own time, even before the house closed. I figure it's karmic justice that there actually was valuable stuff left behind that he was too lazy to find himself.

KEEP IT ALL

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:18

Ghostnuke: Sep 21, 2005; Throw this in a pot, add some broth, a potato? Baby you got a stew going!

Yeah, gently caress that guy. I might even tell him, and then keep it anyway just to rub his nose in it.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:21

EAT FASTER!!!!!!: Sep 21, 2002; Legendary.

It must be so, so much money for this even to be a question.

If it was $100 or even $1000 do you think he'd have any hesitation about it?

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:24

crazypeltast52: May 5, 2010

The contract was explicitly revised at the request of the other party in that cash and guns house. I might ask if there were any sentimental guns, but other than that, it would probably be more of a hassle and the jerk might just sue instead.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:27

Noctone: Oct 25, 2005; XO til we overdose..

well obviously, he said the first one they found had a few thousand in it. depending on what he means by "lots" of other bags found then they probably found enough money to pay off a significant portion of the mortgage.

e: the only legal question they need to be figuring out is if there are any tax implications to all the money they found.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:27

ranbo das: Oct 16, 2013

EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:

It must be so, so much money for this even to be a question.

If it was $100 or even $1000 do you think he'd have any hesitation about it?

He mentions in the comments that it's enough money to pay off both of their school loans and then some

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:38

crazypeltast52: May 5, 2010

At that level, it's find the real estate lawyer and your accountant, not the internet.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:41

22 Eargesplitten: Oct 10, 2010

Also a criminal lawyer for the legality of keeping the guns found in the house. There's probably precedent in any given state, but I bet in some the precedent includes the word "felony."

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:45

canyoneer: Sep 13, 2005; I only have canyoneyes for you

22 Eargesplitten posted:

Also a criminal lawyer for the legality of keeping the guns found in the house. There's probably precedent in any given state, but I bet in some the precedent includes the word "felony."

It's Washington State so it's extra weird because of their super restrictive 2014 transfers law

Keep the dough, have a boating accident with the guns

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:47

22 Eargesplitten: Oct 10, 2010

Oh yeah, the one that made it a crime to let someone else try out your gun at the range.

Yeah, lawyer. Or he could have just kept his mouth shut and nobody ever would have known, but too late for that.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 20:57

Noctone: Oct 25, 2005; XO til we overdose..

22 Eargesplitten posted:

Oh yeah, the one that made it a crime to let someone else try out your gun at the range.

Yeah, lawyer. Or he could have just kept his mouth shut and nobody ever would have known, but too late for that.

Eh, the only people that know right now are randos on the internet. But even if they hadn't told anyone at all about the guns, still a good idea to get a lawyer to deal with them. I'd probably keep stumm about the cash and silver, though, and stick them in a safe deposit box.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 21:04

OBAMNA PHONE: Aug 7, 2002

22 Eargesplitten posted:

Oh yeah, the one that made it a crime to let someone else try out your gun at the range.

Yeah, lawyer. Or he could have just kept his mouth shut and nobody ever would have known, but too late for that.

it didnt actually do that

pocket the money, sell the ammo, disassemble the guns and throw the pieces off a bridge. not worth the legal headache.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 21:05

dreesemonkey: May 14, 2008; Pillbug

A friend of mine sold his home in NZ and rents a beautiful ocean view home. The previous owner of that home (was sold to a Chinese investor - I guess all the rage in the hot HZ real estate market) left $5k rainy day money in the phone system patch panel and must have forgotten about it. "It evens out, he said the electric bill would be about half of what it actually is". Found money is cool.

I have not found any money

dreesemonkey fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jun 15, 2017

# ? Jun 15, 2017 21:12

Splish: Sep 17, 2008

Overheard a coworker this morning say that she and her husband make about $120,000 a year and it's good that they don't make more because then they would be in the 33% tax bracket and get screwed over.

How are marginal tax brackets a thing that so many people have trouble understanding? People actually make decisions not to make more money because they are convinced that going into a higher tax bracket applies to all your income.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 21:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 13, 2024 23:46

Noctone: Oct 25, 2005; XO til we overdose..

Splish posted:

Overheard a coworker this morning say that she and her husband make about $120,000 a year and it's good that they don't make more because then they would be in the 33% tax bracket and get screwed over.

How are marginal tax brackets a thing that so many people have trouble understanding? People actually make decisions not to make more money because they are convinced that going into a higher tax bracket applies to all your income.

Because no one ever educates them about it. Which, if you didn't help her out by explaining it to her, makes you part of the problem.

# ? Jun 15, 2017 21:27

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Bad With Money 2018: When I die, bury me in the blockchain.

«‹›676 »