[UCGal]

[quote=rnen]Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.[/quote]

Some recourse… but only if you have overwhelming evidence and a tenacious attitude. It took almost a year to get our complaint to show on our former contractors license… he still has active status – but at least the complaint is disclosed and the state prosecutor is pursuing him in an administrative law court. If we hadn’t nagged the CSLB investigator it would have been dropped. (She was incredibly overworked – so we had to be squeeky wheels.) And our case was pretty straightforward, well documented, abandonment.

The one good thing about using licensed contractors – they’re required to have bonds. We may never see a penny in judgements – but we were able to collect the full bond. (Now if we could get the rest of the money we’re out.)

But overall – the CSLB is not exactly consumer friendly… But I’d still stick with licensed contractors, vs unlicensed… if only for the bonding.

[UCGal]

[quote=rnen]Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.[/quote]

Some recourse… but only if you have overwhelming evidence and a tenacious attitude. It took almost a year to get our complaint to show on our former contractors license… he still has active status – but at least the complaint is disclosed and the state prosecutor is pursuing him in an administrative law court. If we hadn’t nagged the CSLB investigator it would have been dropped. (She was incredibly overworked – so we had to be squeeky wheels.) And our case was pretty straightforward, well documented, abandonment.

The one good thing about using licensed contractors – they’re required to have bonds. We may never see a penny in judgements – but we were able to collect the full bond. (Now if we could get the rest of the money we’re out.)

But overall – the CSLB is not exactly consumer friendly… But I’d still stick with licensed contractors, vs unlicensed… if only for the bonding.

[UCGal]

[quote=rnen]Being one of those “licensed schmuck”s I will agree that the board does little to enforce quality but it does provide a valuable resource for those that do experience difficulties with their job.[/quote]

Some recourse… but only if you have overwhelming evidence and a tenacious attitude. It took almost a year to get our complaint to show on our former contractors license… he still has active status – but at least the complaint is disclosed and the state prosecutor is pursuing him in an administrative law court. If we hadn’t nagged the CSLB investigator it would have been dropped. (She was incredibly overworked – so we had to be squeeky wheels.) And our case was pretty straightforward, well documented, abandonment.

The one good thing about using licensed contractors – they’re required to have bonds. We may never see a penny in judgements – but we were able to collect the full bond. (Now if we could get the rest of the money we’re out.)

But overall – the CSLB is not exactly consumer friendly… But I’d still stick with licensed contractors, vs unlicensed… if only for the bonding.

[UCGal]

[quote=Eugene]Recorder grantor/grantee index does not show any transfers associated with either of the alleged sales. It seems that original owners are still in control.[/quote]

I agree. But the owners do have 2 NOTs against them – one from 1/13/2010, and one from 10/19/2009.

[UCGal]

[quote=Eugene]Recorder grantor/grantee index does not show any transfers associated with either of the alleged sales. It seems that original owners are still in control.[/quote]

I agree. But the owners do have 2 NOTs against them – one from 1/13/2010, and one from 10/19/2009.

[UCGal]

[quote=Eugene]Recorder grantor/grantee index does not show any transfers associated with either of the alleged sales. It seems that original owners are still in control.[/quote]

I agree. But the owners do have 2 NOTs against them – one from 1/13/2010, and one from 10/19/2009.

[UCGal]

[quote=Eugene]Recorder grantor/grantee index does not show any transfers associated with either of the alleged sales. It seems that original owners are still in control.[/quote]

I agree. But the owners do have 2 NOTs against them – one from 1/13/2010, and one from 10/19/2009.

[UCGal]

[quote=Eugene]Recorder grantor/grantee index does not show any transfers associated with either of the alleged sales. It seems that original owners are still in control.[/quote]

I agree. But the owners do have 2 NOTs against them – one from 1/13/2010, and one from 10/19/2009.

[UCGal]

It doesn’t show as sold at trustee on 2/2/2010 on fidelityasap.com.

I don’t see either sale listed – so it may not have been recorded. (I don’t have access to title searches.)

[UCGal]

It doesn’t show as sold at trustee on 2/2/2010 on fidelityasap.com.

I don’t see either sale listed – so it may not have been recorded. (I don’t have access to title searches.)

[UCGal]

It doesn’t show as sold at trustee on 2/2/2010 on fidelityasap.com.

I don’t see either sale listed – so it may not have been recorded. (I don’t have access to title searches.)

[UCGal]

It doesn’t show as sold at trustee on 2/2/2010 on fidelityasap.com.

I don’t see either sale listed – so it may not have been recorded. (I don’t have access to title searches.)

[UCGal]

It doesn’t show as sold at trustee on 2/2/2010 on fidelityasap.com.

I don’t see either sale listed – so it may not have been recorded. (I don’t have access to title searches.)

[UCGal]

LOL – I just answered your same question over on sdlookup.com.

1) Staggered checks or checks for higher than the amount and get paid the “change” a week or so later.

2) You can look up the previous owner on the county records database site.
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx

If you don’t know who the owner is – you can usually figure it out by plugging in the address to the property tax database

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(fbvk2bn0j131r0450qy1ts45)/Start.Aspx

(this will also tell you if property taxes are current.) Take the owners name from this tax record- and plug it into the grant deed search… You’ll see federal and state tax liens on that.

also look for mechanics liens, absentee judgements, etc… all red flags. I’m not sure – but I think judgements about unpaid child support can show up.

3) I think the 2nd gets wiped out at trustee sale. Fed tax liens must be settled, I’m pretty sure. So you should avoid properties that have these kind of red flags.

[UCGal]

LOL – I just answered your same question over on sdlookup.com.

1) Staggered checks or checks for higher than the amount and get paid the “change” a week or so later.

2) You can look up the previous owner on the county records database site.
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx

If you don’t know who the owner is – you can usually figure it out by plugging in the address to the property tax database

https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(fbvk2bn0j131r0450qy1ts45)/Start.Aspx

(this will also tell you if property taxes are current.) Take the owners name from this tax record- and plug it into the grant deed search… You’ll see federal and state tax liens on that.

also look for mechanics liens, absentee judgements, etc… all red flags. I’m not sure – but I think judgements about unpaid child support can show up.

3) I think the 2nd gets wiped out at trustee sale. Fed tax liens must be settled, I’m pretty sure. So you should avoid properties that have these kind of red flags.

[Author]

Posts