|
blarzgh posted:The very basic, practical problem for This Meth House is that the best day in Court for the buyers is an order from the Judge that the sellers give back the money and take back the house. And hey, probably tack on some attorneys fees for good measure. Distinctly possible the people selling it were landlords and not occupants. They probably have other properties they can go after.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
You usually buy those houses as is and they may be immune from disclosure laws
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I think in the story somewhere is that the house is on record as being a civil forefiture for meth, so the city may have hosed up. Edit: to clarify, the story says they found it had been listed on the meth forfeiture roles, which they obviously didn't know since thats not where they bought it, so logically they bought it from the person who bought it OFF of the meth forfeiture roles, which means that person may be more well off and more likely able to satisfy a judgment than a meth person. EwokEntourage posted:I made the original post facetiously but now I’m kinda interested. I don’t do a lot of insurance litigation. Considering insurance companies like paying the least amount possible, you’d think they’d have something address crowd funding at this point I made my bold proclamation without researching it either, and I stick by it, since I can't imagine there is any legal basis for offsetting a damages award on the basis of whether a third party's gift was 'intended' to be used for [same purpose as insurance payout] however, I agree with you that if an insurance co. hasn't tried yet, its not long before one does. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Actually, the closer I read the story, she says "we never received the Disclosure AT ALL" which means they didn't go through a real estate agent or title company for closing - neither entity would associate with a sale that didn't include those things, and would have immediately advised them not to. Further, the attorney is advising them to make a claim against their homeowner's insurance instead of against the seller, which suggests to me that the attorney knows they done hosed themselves. I don't think these two cats are as blameless as we'd like them to be
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:56
|
|
|
Wouldn't most lenders (Again asusming the buyers got a mortgage) be hesitant to underwrite something purchased in that manner/without those things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
I didn’t get a disclosure for my first home because it was purchased as a rental and the owners never occupied it so according to my realtor and the title company that was okay. It was really bullshit because I’m pretty sure it was occupied by the owners children, but it is what it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:Wouldn't most lenders (Again asusming the buyers got a mortgage) be hesitant to underwrite something purchased in that manner/without those things? Yep. We definitely literally, and figuratively don't have the whole story here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 00:12
|
|
|
Seems like they got it as a sheriff sale ? In which case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Seems like they got it as a sheriff sale ? Lmao
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 00:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yep. Maybe they have a deed of trust with the register of deeds and said county is online and searchable. Fake edit: They are online and searchable, but I'm not paying $7 to look and see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I made my bold proclamation without researching it either, and I stick by it, since I can't imagine there is any legal basis for offsetting a damages award on the basis of whether a third party's gift was 'intended' to be used for [same purpose as insurance payout] however, I agree with you that if an insurance co. hasn't tried yet, its not long before one does. Hmmm would not opening a go fund me to repair your meth house count as a failure to mitigate damages? “The average person knows that their insurance company is going to gently caress them over. Therefore, the individual has a common law duty to mitigate damages via crowd sourcing Repair funds. Here is my expert witness disclosure for Dr. Smith and his expert report, showing that the plaintiffs could have raised $12,138.92 by shaming their family and friends into donating to their go fund me aimed at restoring the aforementioned ‘meth house.’”
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 02:20
|
|
|
Had a sort of funny story, now I have a legal question! So one of my Dad's wierd-rear end Californian hippie friends was in town so I ended up getting lunch with the guy and my younger brother. He offers me some gummies I chose not to accept, but my brother, apparently, did. My brother is a straight laced, awkward, lovable dork and he had no clue he just ate two weed gummies when I was getting us a table and for the first time in his life was high as poo poo in a BBQ place. Thankfully nothing ended up happening other than me getting really pissed at the guy, but I honestly believe he didn't realize my brother was clueless. Hypothetically, assuming my brother didn't end up trying to drive or something, what could happen to him if the police got him walking down the sidewalk being high, not endangering himself or being a nuisance. If they believe the story, is just being high through no fault of your own in public a crime? From what I read it looks like possession, trafficking, paraphernalia and all that wouldn't seem to fit. Is this just me not understanding something basic? Hypothetically in Florida. sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
I'm in Ohio and I have a tenant (I'm managing this property on behalf of my grandfather) subletting to someone with a pseudonym (Let's call him Texas). Subletting is a violation of the lease and I want to evict everyone but I'm told I need to serve a 3 day notice addressed to all the tenants. Problem is Texas won't tell anyone his real name so I don't have any name to serve. Can I just write "all inhabitants" or will that not hold up? How do I remedy this issue?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 03:46
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:I'm in Ohio and I have a tenant (I'm managing this property on behalf of my grandfather) subletting to someone with a pseudonym (Let's call him Texas). Subletting is a violation of the lease and I want to evict everyone but I'm told I need to serve a 3 day notice addressed to all the tenants. Problem is Texas won't tell anyone his real name so I don't have any name to serve. Can I just write "all inhabitants" or will that not hold up? How do I remedy this issue? IANAL but just evict the guy on the lease. I don't think Ohio has super strong squatter's rights. Other guy has no real claim, he got snookered and can sue his 'landlord'
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
Blarzgh can I just say I'm glad the Texas Law Hawk is apparently stealing all your traffic ticket clients so you have time/the inclination to do effort posts in here
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 06:22
|
|
|
What if he is the Texas law hawk? He only wishes
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 07:57
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:
The answer is always "talk to an attorney in your area" but he might be theoretically be chargeable with something like public intoxication, public disorderly conduct, etc. He might have a defense of lack of intent if he could prove it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 12:11
|
|
|
To anyone's knowledge is there a law relating to rent payments being reported to credit bureaus? The rational to this is that people often pay rent consistently for years but it may not reflect on their credit the way a mortgage would. I've done some research and it seems landlords can report this if they want but it's not mandatory and a person isn't able to report their own consistent rent payments. I'm sure this varies by state. If no such law exists I'm seriously considering contacting my state representative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Blarzgh can I just say I'm glad the Texas Law Hawk is apparently stealing all your traffic ticket clients so you have time/the inclination to do effort posts in here I've prosecuted a case he was the lawyer on, but they just sent in a request for an offer of deferred and we mailed one back and they took it so I never actually got to meet him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:10
|
|
|
lifts cats over head posted:To anyone's knowledge is there a law relating to rent payments being reported to credit bureaus? The rational to this is that people often pay rent consistently for years but it may not reflect on their credit the way a mortgage would. I've done some research and it seems landlords can report this if they want but it's not mandatory and a person isn't able to report their own consistent rent payments. I'm sure this varies by state. If no such law exists I'm seriously considering contacting my state representative. In fact, most credit agencies require that you either be submitting a minimum number of accounts every year or they won't allow you to process claims with them - this is usually something like 100-500, so unless your landlord is a company they probably don't hit that mark - they could still submit claims, but they have to pay a processing service to handle it for them, which can be a couple hundred dollars. This is the main reason that smaller entities (like a landlord) aren't going to submit accounts, it costs them money to do. There are tons of regular payments people make that are not generally reported to credit bureau: phone carriers, cable providers, utilities, etc. None of these usually show up unless someone is overdue and they decide to send it to collections and it gets reported then. There's probably actually a question of if you can report on-time rent payments because it isn't a credit line - you are paying at the beginning of the month for the coming month, so you make payment and receive a service/product, your landlord isn't extending you a line of credit or loan. I think this is also why things like cable payments aren't reported when current, because it's not until you owe them money outside the payment period that it becomes a reportable debt. IANAL though. I agree that most credit stuff is bullshit, but I'm not sure requiring everyone to pay equifax is the solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:29
|
|
|
lifts cats over head posted:To anyone's knowledge is there a law relating to rent payments being reported to credit bureaus? The rational to this is that people often pay rent consistently for years but it may not reflect on their credit the way a mortgage would. I've done some research and it seems landlords can report this if they want but it's not mandatory and a person isn't able to report their own consistent rent payments. I'm sure this varies by state. If no such law exists I'm seriously considering contacting my state representative. The difference is that you're borrowing money for the mortgage, so it shows that you're good at paying back the credit extended. Rent is just a monthly bill for something you're leasing. It's not a bad idea but it's like requesting that the electric company also show that you pay your bills on time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I've prosecuted a case he was the lawyer on, but they just sent in a request for an offer of deferred and we mailed one back and they took it so I never actually got to meet him. Uh huh. So you two have never been seen together?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 14:49
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:Uh huh. So you two have never been seen together? This is true. CAAAWWWWWW
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
lifts cats over head posted:To anyone's knowledge is there a law relating to rent payments being reported to credit bureaus? The rational to this is that people often pay rent consistently for years but it may not reflect on their credit the way a mortgage would. I've done some research and it seems landlords can report this if they want but it's not mandatory and a person isn't able to report their own consistent rent payments. I'm sure this varies by state. If no such law exists I'm seriously considering contacting my state representative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
This is going to be a bit long and I'm sorry ahead of time but I'm extremely pissed off about this whole ordeal and am looking for guidance from anyone that may be able to help. Any and all suggestions are welcome. My fiancee and 4 of her friends + my sister just got back from Southern California for her bachelorette party. The maid of honor rented an AirBnb entire home (not shared- this is important) and paid for the property in advance. They notified the land lord that this was a bachelorette party and they liked the house because there was enough space for each girl to have their own bed. 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms were on the listing. The day before the trip (the trip began 10/03/19 and the reservation ended 10/6/19) they hadn't heard anything from the landlord, so the MoH reached out to find out how to get the key. The landlord responded that they wouldn't be able to stay in the agreed upon property because there was 'emergency electrical work' being performed, but he told them that he would be moving them into a larger, better property that he had. The property was not larger, nor better. It sounds like square footage-wise it may have been, but they went from 4 bedrooms to 3, and king beds (1 of which was going to be shared) to queens. Additionally, the house was completely unfurnished in terms of cups/silverware/etc. This is all small potatoes, though, so far. The girls arrived on staggered days, my fiancee and 2 friends on the Thursday, and my sister and the 2 others late Friday. My sister arrived by herself late Friday night and the girls left her the key in the mailbox. They were at Disneyland, part of the trip. While in the house she heard someone in the backyard. The person then tried to enter through a rear sliding glass door, multiple times, as if trying to break in. My sister called my fiancee and asked if the other girls were going to be arriving later and entering through the back and she was told that no, they would not be. My sister then called the police and ran into one of the bedrooms to hide. The police arrived and the man-in-question was identified as a "friend" of the landlord who apparently stays on the back of this property. The second land lord (who is brother in law of the initial point of contact) showed up later as the police were there. The rest of the girls then returned from Disneyland to the fracas and everyone (including the police) noticed that the man that was attempting to enter the property was belligerent, talked back to the officers, and appeared to be either intoxicated and/or on drugs, something that I'm not sure made it into the police report, but I won't know that until I get a copy of it. When questioned as to why he was even on the property to begin with, the man that was attempting to enter said that he "stays in the back unit". When questioned as to why he was attempting to enter the front unit, through the sliding glass door, he initially denied these claims, but when pressed by my sister who said "I saw you trying to enter are you kidding me?" he said "I was trying to go in to turn the light off." My sister has been diagnosed with anxiety resulting from multiple close calls in her life between car accidents and an attempted sabotage of her sorority house in which the perpetrator was arrested and sent to prison for breaking their gas main and attempting to burn their house down. Yes, you can't make this poo poo up. Needless to say, the event was massively traumatic for her. The landlord, multiple times, tried to tell her (in front of the police) that he understood her situation; her response, brilliant in its succinctness, was "No, you don't. You're not a woman, in a place you don't know, by yourself, with a man that shouldn't be here looking like he's trying to break in. We rented the whole house, not a room." The police ordered the friend away from the house for the duration of the trip, warning them that if they set foot again on the property without notifying that they would be arrested for trespassing. Additionally, and this is a big kicker, there is a doorway attached to the living room that leads to (presumably) another room attached to the house that the girls did not have access to. Nor were they EVER made aware of. Here's a pic below:  Furthermore, the landlord attempted to state (after the police intervention) that they didn't have access to the "back unit" or "backyard" of this property, so it was all basically irrelevant, according to him, since this was something he claimed was stated in the ad. That's fine, if that was true for the original property. But it's not. The original ad clearly states it's for an entire house. Not part of a house, or that there's some "mystery room" attached.  Here's the ONLY place (in the original ad) where it says it's a "Front Unit" (but doesn't note anything about shared walls, shared rooms, etc.) Or that other people will be there.  His claims about the unit that they were moved into being an "upgrade" are bogus- they clearly went from 4br/3ba to 3br/2ba. And furthermore, anything he says about the second unit is essentially irrelevant because the contract was for the FIRST place, where this all shouldn't have been an issue, until he moved them at literally the last second, without them getting a chance to see photos (as they had asked for in text messages). It's all a huge mess, and as the fiancee of the bachelorette, and the brother of the sister in law, obviously I'm extremely angry and want to punish these people as much as possible. A full refund from AirBnb seems to be the absolute minimum here. My sister has something from the cops that she's going to forward to me as I help them put this together. I was doing some research on small claims emotional damages in California and it seems like that might be an avenue as well. My sister has been through too much bullshit in her life to have had to deal with more crap like this, and my fiancee absolutely had her weekend crushed by these shady rear end lunatics. I also have screen shots of all text interactions between the MoH and the main landlord, including the most recent in which he asks her if there's a way they can solve this off the record with some sort of "monetary compensation". The same guy pulled my sister and the MoH aside at the scene to discuss ways they could keep this off of AirBNB's radar because "money is one thing but our reputation is super important". Any and all suggestions are welcome and appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 01:52
|
|
|
The "mystery room" is likely an owners closet with stuff like cleaning supplies and what not. The rest sounds lovely, but I wouldn't get worked up about extra room. Basically every rented property has a closet (with a real door that locks), that only the owners and cleaning staff have access too. As for the ikea unit in front, it probably is to make up for the missing storage space. Also, entire unit can just mean an apartment or condo. I wouldn't think a mother in law unit in the back would count. I would expect the owner to mention it at some point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 02:00
|
|
|
nm posted:The "mystery room" is likely an owners closet with stuff like cleaning supplies and what not. That's a fair point and something I was considering but it's just so shady how it all went down, how they move a group of 6 women to an unregistered property on AirBNB with no pictures or no information literally the day before, and there just happens to be a guy creeping outside trying to get into the main unit late at night. Also the original ad states "Entire house" for what it's worth. Maybe I should have been clearer in the OP but it sounds like the hidden doorway is where the guy was saying he was going to sleep, entering through an addition in the back yard. Or who the gently caress knows? Maybe he was trying to enter through the house thinking no one was there. So it literally shares the same wall with the living room that they're staying in. This wasn't confirmed for sure, but they said that the view out of the sliding door shows that the back has had recent work done, including walls that lineup around the hidden doorway as seen here:  e: According to my sister (without going through the backyard since the contract said they couldn't, but looking over the fences) he was either sleeping in that shed (possible) or in the addition (a lot more probable). TheKevman fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 02:09
|
|
|
TheKevman posted:Additionally, and this is a big kicker, there is a doorway attached to the living room that leads to (presumably) another room attached to the house that the girls did not have access to. Nor were they EVER made aware of. I'm a little confused by this picture. Was the guy who was trying to get into the house named Mr. Tumnus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 03:54
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I'm a little confused by this picture. Was the guy who was trying to get into the house named Mr. Tumnus? Look above the cabinet, behind the painting. It's all blocking a door to the top secret squatter meth den.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
Ok, so who's gonna be a real buzzkill and tell her honestly that if they get their money back that's the best they can hope for and they should be happy with it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Ok, so who's gonna be a real buzzkill and tell her honestly that if they get their money back that's the best they can hope for and they should be happy with it? If that's honestly what it seems like most likely outcome/best outcome is then so be it. I just wanted to try and get a feel for something that I don't know a whole lot about. There's just so much crap at play here that's super scummy/sleazy/gross.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
TheKevman posted:If that's honestly what it seems like most likely outcome/best outcome is then so be it. Yeah, thing is... I like to tell my usual case type client that they actually have two problems: a legal problem and an rear end in a top hat problem. The legal problem is the one you can use the legal system to remedy. Being an rear end in a top hat is not illegal. Conflating the two problems is both expensive and stupid. You've been given the likely answer to your legal problem. What you do with your rear end in a top hat problem, well maybe someone itt has a good suggestion for you, but my suggestion will always be leave a bad review, get therapy, move on with your life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 10:51
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Yeah, thing is... I like to tell my usual case type client that they actually have two problems: a legal problem and an rear end in a top hat problem. The legal problem is the one you can use the legal system to remedy. Being an rear end in a top hat is not illegal. Conflating the two problems is both expensive and stupid. Thanks
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 11:02
|
|
|
TheKevman posted:Thanks Hey, listen to whatever advice the others give you on this because what you can and should do about an rear end in a top hat problem in the US is wildly different from where I live. I'm just saying think about what kind of effort is worth the kind of result you can expect. E: for clarity, all of my brilliant insights come from this guy, he's like a mascot Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Law isn't good at providing remedies for the problem of "some people are assholes." That's just the way the system works. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Oct 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 11:14
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Look above the cabinet, behind the painting. It's all blocking a door to the top secret squatter meth den. Damnit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 14:03
|
|
|
And just to be clear, no one is saying there aren't legal theories of recovery above and beyond a refund, like some kind of trespass or deceptive trade practice, or negligent infliction of emotional distress, etc. Here is the practical issue: To pursue these things, you will have to find an attorney, in California, near where the house is, pay them a retainer to research these claims and file a lawsuit over them, continue to pay them for months and months while they prepare for a trial, and hope the other side wants to settle instead of go to trial. Eventually, some, or all of your group will have to travel back to california to be witnesses in depositions or a trial. In the end, if all you have is a tort claim, then whatever the judgment amount might be, you won't get your attorneys fees back for that judgment amount. And while the landlord obviously has assets you can go after if you DO win a judgment, you risk the only liable party being the meth head who tried to trespass, and who caused emotional distress, as an intervening tortfeasor. And that dude is clearly not paying any judgments. So, if/when/after you get your refund, consider the amount of time and money you will have to spend to make the landlord spend the same amount of time and money, and then decide if its worth it. You are free to contact any civil attorneys in the area of the property and ask them what they think for free. Just know going in that many plaintiffs make the (generally wise) decision that its not worth it to pursue matters over and above a central issue because of the diminishing returns of those kinds of claims.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 15:02
|
|
|
Absolutely make sure airbnb knows all about it, though, and raise a bit of a stink with them. That's probably the best recourse you have for the rear end in a top hat side of things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:
Note on this, OP. If you go small claims, an attorney can't go to court for you in California. One of the few states where that is the case. And really, there's nothing to your claim set of facts suggests it isn't appropriate for small claims unless you want to pursue emotional distress damages and small claims can't award damages there. So that means you'd need to sue in the county the property is located, and go to court to argue your case yourself. You can of course consult a lawyer before filing any kind of lawsuit though. They can give you a likelihood of success. I'll just second that your probable best outcome here is a refund and the satisfaction of leaving a lovely (but not defamatory!) review for the property owner. Any other outcome is going to cost you time and money you won't get back. And you said yourself you're very mad. General rule of thumb is don't sue because your mad. Find an alternate resolution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Note on this, OP. If you go small claims, an attorney can't go to court for you in California. Lol, what the gently caress, California?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
From an in-house perspective, it sucks large. It's a big incentive to settle on meritless claims because it's that or we pick somebody on site whose job description isn't go to court. Even if that person doesn't take a dive and follows our advice, the judge may still just split the baby. I think Florida and Colorado are the other two states that do this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2019 17:15
|
|