[mike92104]

I’m sure it will shoot up again at 4:20 p.m.

[mike92104]

Get up early and take a crap in it. Fold it back up and leave it for the jerk. Actually, you should crap in the one from last week and leave it out instead.

[mike92104]

[quote=UCGal][quote=moneymaker]EconProf from this link http://www.wimer.net/landlord/a/landlords_rights.pdf it states
“Also, you cannot evict you
while the lease is in effect, except for reasons
such as your damaging the property or failing to
pay rent. A lease gives you and the tenant the security of a
long-term agreement at a known rent.
The disadvantage of a lease is that if the tenant
ends up being undersirable, but complies with
the terms of the lease you must ride out the term.”
I believe marriage is a protected category as far as discrimination goes, so if you want to risk a lawsuit evict away.
My personal take would be if he spends less than half the nights there he is not a tenant.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter if marital status is a protected status (which I don’t think it is)… If the lease states a specific occupancy, and the new spouse exceeds that occupancy – you’re in violation of the lease and need to ask to have the lease amended.

I’ve got an email out to an attorney.

As I said – I’m not trying to be a jerk and say she can’t have him spend the night…. but every night for an extended period raises red flags that he’s moving in, and I want to work with her, while still protecting my rights to choose who is renting.

California appears to be pretty flakey on the whole de-facto tenant and sub-tenant rulings… I don’t want to get screwed.[/quote]

When I was renting, it was very normal to have a clause saying I couldn’t have any guests for more than 14 days without the landlords prior approval. Approval typically meant a full credit check, and adding said guest to the lease.

[mike92104]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078767/

[mike92104]

This seemed appropriate:

http://www.networka.com/videos/police-try-to-stop-longboard-skaters-during-the-2013-broadway-bomb

[mike92104]

[quote=spdrun]

Yep. Just a thinly veiled excuse to search 2200 vehicles without any probable cause.

And score overtime at a non-annoying (for the cops, as opposed to for everyone else) hour. A DUI checkpoint at 2 am on a Friday night might not be so popular with the younger cops, many of whom are budding alcoholics and will likely want to be out driving drunk themselves. 🙂

Yeah, cynical bastige here.[/quote]

Right?!? Using this:

“So far this year, the department has tallied 38 driving under the influence arrests during the hours of 5 a.m. to 4 p.m. with 10 of those arrests occurring on Wednesday, he said.”

as justification.

[mike92104]

[quote=paramount][quote=6packscaredy]
but there’s lots of people intoxicated from the night before at 7 a.m. on the way to work…[/quote]

This was nothing less than pure tyranny.[/quote]

Yep. Just a thinly veiled excuse to search 2200 vehicles without any probable cause.

[mike92104]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]If they did then I never heard it. What I heard, over and over and over again, was if you like your policy you will be able to keep it. I heard this again, and again, and again.

Sorry, not a single time did I ever, ever hear, that if you like your policy but if it considered substandard by the standards set out in this legislation, and it changes at all, it will need to be cancelled because it cannot be offered under the new legislation.

Sorry that was never ever said.[/quote]

Not the substandard policies part. But that people would lose their coverage? Absolutely. He said it on national television. And when he said that nobody would lose their coverage, he made it clear he was saying that nothing in the law would require people to change policies. And nothing does. Because the government isn’t issuing the policies, private insurers are. This same discussion was had immediately after the law was passed. There’s no surprises now. This is exactly what was expected.[/quote]

Bullshit! The constant barrage of talking points passed from liberal to liberal to liberal was that no one would lose their coverage or be forced to change their policy. The only people saying it were those opposed to the law, and we were accused of fear mongering.

[mike92104]

Agreed. I work with a couple of those types.

[mike92104]

[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=mike92104]If you’re not drunk, what do you have to hide?[/quote]

You wouldn’t get the point if it stabbed you in the ass, would you?[/quote]

Ha Ha! That’s one I haven’t heard before. It was sarcasm. I think it’s a load of BS along with the Border Patrol, Homeland Security, and the TSA.

[mike92104]

If you’re not drunk, what do you have to hide?

[mike92104]

Only in CA

[mike92104]

Thanks Flu. I just ordered one myself.

[mike92104]

[quote=6packscaredy][quote=mike92104]You’re mad because you didn’t keep any copies, and expected BofA to do it for you. Then, when you waited until the last minute to file your taxes, you’re pissed because BofA (who no longer services your loan) doesn’t have your info in a handy online version.

Your fault, your problem. Move on.[/quote]

you’d agree it would be unreasonable for b of a to come to my house and take back my hardcopy statements after the account is closed, right?

why is it more reasonable for them to take back my online statements fater the refi; after all that’s hwo they agreed by contract to provide them. and they saved a LOT of money by doing it that way, over many customers.

seems especially super unreasonable to do so while tax returns are still being filed.

so not my fault.

their fault.

they want to save money, or clean up theri computers, or what?. and then save even more money by deleting my account.

bullshit.

they must pay!!!!! how is that making america worse, to transfer money from bank of america to some class action lawyers?

the only reason it makes america worse is because b of a gets bailed out by taxpayers, but if it were just b of a’s money, seems liek it would make america to financially damage a bad bank.[/quote]

Still your fault. You are no longer a customer. Why should they maintain your online account? They are providing the statements, but not the way you want. You’re pissed because you waited until the last minute to file, and the info wasn’t in a place convenient enough for your satisfaction. That’s all.

My mortgage info was on BofA’s site. Want to know why? Because i am STILL a customer.

[mike92104]

You’re mad because you didn’t keep any copies, and expected BofA to do it for you. Then, when you waited until the last minute to file your taxes, you’re pissed because BofA (who no longer services your loan) doesn’t have your info in a handy online version.

Your fault, your problem. Move on.

[Author]

Posts