Re: So, KENT what do you call it? - Posted by Ed Copp (OH)
Posted by Ed Copp (OH) on August 12, 2001 at 20:40:55:
You KENT SAYRE, are the one who knowingly is dealing with an individual who admittedly does not own the property.
You KENT SAYRE are the one who is suggesting that she (the non owner) decive the owners of record. Gosh I think that that would be deception, a lie if you like that term better. You KENT SAYRE are the one who is attempting to get a cash kickback here, after the fraud takes place, not me.
There is no morality/ethics issue in my comments, I am just offering a suggestion that might keep your backside out of prison.
Obviously the laws mean nothing to you, so I find it difficult to understand why you asked the question anyway.
When you lie cheat and steal to make it, you are a CRIMINAL. Have fun (at the expense of others) KENT, if that is your real name. Enjoy the loot…
You keep referring to this lady as the “Seller”, or “Owner”. If she does not have title to this proeprty, she owns nothing, sepecially in light of the fact that she apparently doesn’t even have control over her sister or niece, who she gave control of this situation, if that is in fact what happened. Could you clarify this point at little.
Secondly, I do tend to agree with your post about “Uncle Ed’s words of wisdom”. I do not favor your rebate plan, but I am short of you being a criminal or having criminal intent.
Please privide more info as to your relationship and contacts with this woman, and why she just can’t demand the sis and niece do her will… Thanks.
Just curious if the partial rent issue works the same in most states. I’ve been fortunate enough that I haven’t had to deal with it, so I don’t even know how it works here.
I can see how accepting the money could be tempting, but if you have to start all over on the eviction, it’s not worth it.
Posted by Ed Copp (OH) on August 12, 2001 at 21:00:21:
JT-IN,
There are a lot of other possibilities here. perhaps the non-owner, wannabe seller is incompetent, or perhaps she is on welfare (another little deception here hers not ours).
It is obvious that we will not get all the facts unless we are ready to agree to KENT’s methods first. Incidentally it is not necessary for anyone to agree with me. What the heck if we all agreed we would have nothing to talk about.
It may, in this case be necessary to convince a judge that you are attempting to do the right thing for the seller (if you can determine who that/they is/are). Better KENT than me. I have better things to do than to go to court.
I have properties in AZ. There its mainly contract law that governs. My lease specifies how each payment received will be applied to the tenant’s account (repairs, charges, late fees first, then regular monthly rent, then sales tax). It also specifies that if the check is not enough to clear the account we can start eviction. Unless the account is cleared each month, the tenant is late but whatever the difference is. Thing is, if you get separate direct Section 8 payments, its the same deal. Without the clauses in the lease, Sec 8 assumes paid in full if you cash their check.
Now, in CA we never accepted partials mainly be cause it tended to be all or nothing. And in TX, the partial would only be cashed if the tenant signed an agreement to pay, which leads me to believe that partials there without such an agreement are taken to mean its accepted as full payment.
One thing that I don’t see mentioned here, my leases say that any late payments will be reported on the tenant’s credit report.