Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM in reply to: “Renegotiate” Your Loan – banks giving in to buyers in distress #492804December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM in reply to: “Renegotiate” Your Loan – banks giving in to buyers in distress #492892
ucodegen
ParticipantMisscotroneo = Casey Serin?
…
“How do I pay all this?” … maybe you should have thought that through before you signed 8 mortgages.I was wondering about that.. Casey bought 8 properties after his first successful flip in 2003. Though it could also be a troll pretending to be Casey (as if Casey wasn’t a troll at times himself..).
…and you [**note] are a greedy idiot mouthbreather douchebag with a narcissistic delusion of entitlement wholly lacking in any sense of personal accountability.
Must be the old NPD Casey…
December 9, 2009 at 10:48 AM in reply to: “Renegotiate” Your Loan – banks giving in to buyers in distress #493130ParticipantMisscotroneo = Casey Serin?
…
“How do I pay all this?” … maybe you should have thought that through before you signed 8 mortgages.I was wondering about that.. Casey bought 8 properties after his first successful flip in 2003. Though it could also be a troll pretending to be Casey (as if Casey wasn’t a troll at times himself..).
…and you [**note] are a greedy idiot mouthbreather douchebag with a narcissistic delusion of entitlement wholly lacking in any sense of personal accountability.
Must be the old NPD Casey…
ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
ParticipantEx-parte judgements are questionable period. See the 5th and 14th amendments (in effect: a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process). They are usually for a ‘temporary’ action and not permanent. Removing money from an account through ‘ex-parte’ is a rather permanent action unless you intend to put it back…
FYI to other readers: ex-parte means an action and judgement by one party in a dispute without notification of the other party and without giving the other party time to respond.
It looks like the people mentioned in the article should have declared bankruptcy before the second took action. Bankruptcy would have prevented the second from being able to directly attach the wages/accounts.
Too many of these cases by banks may cause them to get ‘slapped back’ pretty hard. Their traditional process would be for the second to foreclose on the property, clear the first and then resell the property. I suspect the second knows that the property is so far underwater that the sale of the property would probably not even clear the first, much less the outstanding on the second.
December 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM in reply to: OT: 40% of unintended acceleration claims are Toyotas #492040ParticipantFlu,
then i can say… you’re an ASSHOLE!!!@luxuryglow
Here’s looking at you…BTW, flu is Asian, and is commenting about Asians…
luxuryglow, you’re commenting about …. so you are??December 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM in reply to: OT: 40% of unintended acceleration claims are Toyotas #492205ParticipantFlu,
then i can say… you’re an ASSHOLE!!!@luxuryglow
Here’s looking at you…BTW, flu is Asian, and is commenting about Asians…
luxuryglow, you’re commenting about …. so you are??December 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM in reply to: OT: 40% of unintended acceleration claims are Toyotas #492586ParticipantFlu,
then i can say… you’re an ASSHOLE!!!@luxuryglow
Here’s looking at you…BTW, flu is Asian, and is commenting about Asians…
luxuryglow, you’re commenting about …. so you are??December 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM in reply to: OT: 40% of unintended acceleration claims are Toyotas #492675ParticipantFlu,
then i can say… you’re an ASSHOLE!!!@luxuryglow
Here’s looking at you…BTW, flu is Asian, and is commenting about Asians…
luxuryglow, you’re commenting about …. so you are??December 8, 2009 at 11:56 PM in reply to: OT: 40% of unintended acceleration claims are Toyotas #492910ParticipantFlu,
then i can say… you’re an ASSHOLE!!!@luxuryglow
Here’s looking at you…BTW, flu is Asian, and is commenting about Asians…
luxuryglow, you’re commenting about …. so you are??ParticipantI’m not shocked at his wife for wanting to renegotiate the prenup. What does kinda make me go huh is $2 million if she stays married for 2 more years, $55 million for what 7 or 9 years.
I think the renegotiation of the prenup is going to be a lot more complicated:
she: you were unfaithful.. I want the prenup changed or I’ll leave.
he: You try to change the prenup, I’ll follow through with assault and battery. In fact, if you want to leave, you’ll need to make some sacrifices off of the existing prenup to avoid assault and battery.She gave up some of her negotiating ground when she lost her cool and went after him & SUV with that club. Infidelity will not land you in jail in the US, but assault and battery can.
As for whether she married him for money.. what happens next will tell you. If she leaves, she didn’t marry him for money. If she stays, she probably did. Either way, the ‘alliance is broken once he started drilling in foreign lands’..
ParticipantI’m not shocked at his wife for wanting to renegotiate the prenup. What does kinda make me go huh is $2 million if she stays married for 2 more years, $55 million for what 7 or 9 years.
I think the renegotiation of the prenup is going to be a lot more complicated:
she: you were unfaithful.. I want the prenup changed or I’ll leave.
he: You try to change the prenup, I’ll follow through with assault and battery. In fact, if you want to leave, you’ll need to make some sacrifices off of the existing prenup to avoid assault and battery.She gave up some of her negotiating ground when she lost her cool and went after him & SUV with that club. Infidelity will not land you in jail in the US, but assault and battery can.
As for whether she married him for money.. what happens next will tell you. If she leaves, she didn’t marry him for money. If she stays, she probably did. Either way, the ‘alliance is broken once he started drilling in foreign lands’..
-
AuthorPosts
