All Forum Posts by: John Clark

"@Tom Gimer

@John Clark Nobody suggested suing the other guy's attorney."

Wrong. suit vs. attorney has always been a part of the discussion. Those people are wrong, too.
Here :;;;;;;;;;;;;;

"Think a lawsuit arguing breach of contract, and negligence on the part of the 1st attorney, Ms. ****, would be the best course of action. "

==========================

The people who want to sue the seller's lawyer are wrong because he had no duty and no contract, with the buyer.

SUE the SELLER if able!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Don't you think that the government could have possibly maybe just interfered a little less, and maybe things might be a little better? "
-----------------------------
Could have? Sure. Did it make a passable fist of the job under the circumstances? Yes. Don't let great be the enemy of good. work towards improvement, not perfection. We'll be perfect when we're dead.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Maybe we as Americans should allow the people to govern themselves a little as our founding fathers fought for that right? "
--------------------------------------
Are you telling us that the colored need to go to the back of the bus?

"It seems as if the government is interfering with the natural order of things, "

------------------------------

Pandemic is the natural order of things?

"Sorry, but I don't need forbearance, just my rights restored to due process when my tenants are in default. "
------------------------
I think you will find that throughout history governments have regulated land use, and have imposed restrictions for health reasons. Read about the tragedy of the commons. By all means document your cases of people abusing the system; that will help persuade the politicians to stop/not exercising the states' inherent power to regulate health, safety, and welfare (incidentally, most states in the South and Appalachia have banned snake handling in churches. Would you like to tell us that those states violated parishioners' First Amendment rights? I can tell you right now that the states didn't.

Do we live in dangerous times, with populist governments wanting to flaunt their economic ignorance with pie in the sky ideas and solutions? Darn tootin' we do. Does that mean states aren't on firm ground to refuse to evict now? No.

For the record, I think we should be able to evict during Covid-19. It's not the Black Death, and those who can but won't pay will find their minds focused. As for those who cannot pay, I say to take the money away from corporations that took stimulus money after adding debt, etc, and using it to pay rents.

" That infrastructure was bought and paid for by the folks who "built it" as well. Pretty sure at least some part of my 300k in my yearly income and property taxes went to something worthwhile, like
infrastructure."

--------------------------------------

And some part of my comparable income and property taxes went to it too. Trouble is, some of the taxes of renters went to that infrastructure too. Also, it was government -- NOT you or me -- that planned and directed that investment.

Let me give you an example -- who created the value and the wealth seen in the property around Central Park in New York City? I'll give you a hint; it wasn't the people who own property there or even those who built or bought those buildings. It was the GOVERNMENT of New York City. How? The government made Central Park possible and then built it.

So no, you didn't build it on your own. You built it with the government's help, and you sell to people educated by the government (public education), and the local governments, for the health, safety, and welfare of us all, have TEMPORARILY banned evictions. You -- and I -- will be able to take money judgments and resume obtaining eviction orders as well.

The only delusional position is yours: You owe your wealth to being able to build on a foundation constructed by all levels of government.

1. Nobody "nationalized" anything.

2. The federal government didn't "empower" local governments to do anything. States have always had control over health, safety, and welfare.

3. The idea that you "created" assets and the government didn't is wrong. Don't believe me? Construct a building and see how far you get without the ability to have police or fire protection, the ability to enforce contracts (including suing for back rent when this is all over), building codes, and a generally educated workforce. Not to mention roads, water and sewer connections, working telephone, radio and television systems not blocked by spectrum interference, etc.

Not to mention the subsidies provided for car transportation, etc.

Get a grip and grow up.

I don't know why people are talking about suing the other guy's lawyer. The lawyer didn't make a representation to you, nor does he have a contract with you. The SELLER has the contract with you. The SELLER made the representation. Maybe the seller has a case against his own lawyer, but that's HIS problem. You don't worry your pretty little head over it. YOU sue the SELLER.

So now look for CONTRACT defenses by the seller. They are -- statute of limitations, -- bankruptcy, -- death, and it's too late to file a claim against his probate estate, -- Seller mental incapacity (and this one is a maybe).

Then there are the business reasons not to sue. The are -- guy has no money, -- hassle, -- cheaper to work with city and get problem straightened out.

In answer to the the original question, though, of who to sue first? There is only ONE person you can sue, the SELLER.

“Seller, as a condition subsequent to closing, shall remove and sever the subject properties from the condominium regime.”

--------------------------------------------------

Sounds like a straight forward breach of contract issue, with the breach occurring after closing. The contract has an implied term of a reasonable time after closing to get it done, and the seller didn't do it. What is the statute of limitations for breach of a written contract? Go to your lawyer immediately if not sooner.

"the home should cash flow $200-300 dollars. "
---------------------------------------
From the numbers you gave, that house does not cash flow. Cash flow is much more than rent minus (mortgage plus insurance plus property taxes all wrapped into one payment). You will have capital expenses, you will have maintenance, a vacancy, management fees -- you name it. You may get lucky and not have capital repairs for a long time, but you need to reserve for them.

So your old house won't cash flow, which means you have to see if any appreciation  will make it worth your while.

Sell, move, and buy a two or three flat in your new town that you can live in and rent other units at the same time.

"If you send a 5-day notice and then don't file your suit for 3 months . . . "
-----------------------------------------------
Like I said, if you e-file your joint action complaint in accordance with the law and the 5 day notice, on your personal property, where's the violation? You might not have a hearing for 3 months, but you got the ball rolling.