If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Palm Beach Post)   Shady firm comes up with novel approach to help underwater homeowners: You deed us your house, you give us an upfront payment, you give us monthly payments, in return you get what you've got coming to you   (palmbeachpost.com) divider line 45
    More: Florida, interest-only loan, default judgments, Coral Springs, homeowners, work product, payments, Paul Gellenbeck, clerk of courts  
•       •       •

4493 clicks; posted to Business » on 17 Jun 2012 at 7:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-17 03:10:34 PM
I can't possibly care what happens to a real-estate speculator who gambled and lost.
 
2012-06-17 03:28:03 PM

Asa Phelps: I can't possibly care what happens to a real-estate speculator who gambled and lost.


I'm having a bit of trouble getting worked up, myself. Getting in bed with a shady firm like this makes me even less sympathetic.
 
2012-06-17 03:45:07 PM
Clever and so crazy they might get away with it.
 
2012-06-17 03:46:49 PM

AbbeySomeone: Clever and so crazy they might get away with it.


For a while, at least.
 
2012-06-17 04:49:10 PM
How do you deed a house to someone when the bank holds the deed (due to holding lien on the house).

You can't sell a house without paying off all the liens, and you certainly can't just give it away with an outstanding lien.

Can you?
 
2012-06-17 05:57:39 PM

Ambivalence: How do you deed a house to someone when the bank holds the deed (due to holding lien on the house).


The bank doesn't "hold the deed." The deed is recorded in land records. You can deed away the house all you want. You just run the risk of the bank finding out and accelerating your loan for violating the terms of the loan contract that forbids transferring your interest in the house. And the purchaser runs the risk that he's on the hook for not honoring the lien of record.
 
2012-06-17 08:06:03 PM

St_Francis_P: Asa Phelps: I can't possibly care what happens to a real-estate speculator who gambled and lost.

I'm having a bit of trouble getting worked up, myself. Getting in bed with a shady firm like this makes me even less sympathetic.


I kind of want everyone involved shot into the sun, myself.
 
2012-06-17 08:06:50 PM

kronicfeld: Ambivalence: How do you deed a house to someone when the bank holds the deed (due to holding lien on the house).

The bank doesn't "hold the deed." The deed is recorded in land records. You can deed away the house all you want. You just run the risk of the bank finding out and accelerating your loan for violating the terms of the loan contract that forbids transferring your interest in the house. And the purchaser runs the risk that he's on the hook for not honoring the lien of record.


As far as I can tell, the whole thing hinges on Shady Distrust Co., Inc. filing a preemptive lawsuit against the bank saying "we acquired this title, therefore you no longer have a mortgage on it, you just have an unsecured debt with the borrower", and hoping that the bank is too busy/disorganized to respond so that it gets a default judgment. If so, Shady believes it owns the deed free and clear, while the borrower is left to hope that when the bank realizes it has no chance of recouping its loss, it will agree to sell the debt at a huge discount to Shady... at which point the borrower discovers that even if Shady acquires a $1M debt for $10K, it's still a $1M debt.

Unfortunately for Shady, I suspect that they will discover about six months from now that almost all of those default judgments it is relying on will get challenged and overturned, at which point I suspect that the principals abscond with the "processing fees" leaving the deeds nominally owned by a defunct and bankrupt shell company. And for that part, I'm going to need way more popcorn.
 
2012-06-17 08:07:14 PM

atomic-age: St_Francis_P: Asa Phelps: I can't possibly care what happens to a real-estate speculator who gambled and lost.

I'm having a bit of trouble getting worked up, myself. Getting in bed with a shady firm like this makes me even less sympathetic.

I kind of want everyone involved shot into the sun, myself.


Especially the banks.
 
2012-06-17 08:13:53 PM

Ambivalence: How do you deed a house to someone when the bank holds the deed (due to holding lien on the house).


As kronicfeld says, the bank generally doesn't hold the deed (in the much rarer contract-sale format... more common when banks aren't involved).

Normally what prevents you from selling your house while the bank lien is outstanding is that the buyer would either do due diligence themselves (and find the bank lien) or the title insurance company would find it when writing title insurance on the property (which is why that exists).
 
2012-06-17 08:16:14 PM
... that should be "except in the much rarer contract sale"
 
2012-06-17 08:24:06 PM
You help me, and I, in return, am helped by you.
 
2012-06-17 08:35:41 PM
So novel I remember it from about 20 years ago.
 
2012-06-17 08:43:52 PM
So, why would anyone do this? I mean, I'm no financial genius, and even I can see that this relies on a shaky legal footing of a default judgement - which, as several have pointed out, is easy enough to overturn once the lender figures it out. Who the fark thinks this is a good idea?
 
2012-06-17 08:53:02 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: So, why would anyone do this? I mean, I'm no financial genius, and even I can see that this relies on a shaky legal footing of a default judgement - which, as several have pointed out, is easy enough to overturn once the lender figures it out. Who the fark thinks this is a good idea?


People who buy investment houses in Florida for the sole purpose of reselling it 5 years down the road for a huge profit.
 
2012-06-17 09:12:17 PM
Sounds like a three card monte game, only with Deeds.

Felony charges are in somebody's future.
 
2012-06-17 09:17:28 PM
I see the analysis is mostly covered here. This will work until the bank catches on to the fact that this is happening more than once or twice (which has probably already happened) and then everybody who tried this is going to be out their processing fees at a minimum, and more than likely have their loans accelerated and foreclosed on ASAP for trying to pull that nonsense.

Banks don't want more houses as REO inventory, but they sure as fark aren't going to sit around and just let people scheme like this en masse and put them in a position where every loan they've made has to be settled for pennies on the dollar. The guy saying he 'doesn't want the banks to know what he's doing' is full of shiat, the only people he's hoodwinking are the homeowners. It's like a pyramid scheme, the first few that pulled it off will likely make out and everybody else is going to get screwed (and deservedly so, frankly).
 
2012-06-17 09:53:02 PM
FTA I still have a little apprehension, but you have to be a gambler in real estate. You go out on a limb sometimes," said Lowe, who owes about $367,000 to her lender. "Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't."

NO YOU F-ING DON'T! YOU BUY REAL ESTATE BECAUSE IT HAS LOCATIONAL VALUE OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR OUT OF A DESIRE TO LIVE IN A FIXED SPOT
 
2012-06-17 10:06:43 PM
Right up there with "soverign citizens", inmates who claim their name is a trademark and can't be used in court filings, and all of the "income tax ain't Constitutional, I ain't payin'!" folks.
 
2012-06-17 10:27:21 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: FTA I still have a little apprehension, but you have to be a gambler in real estate. You go out on a limb sometimes," said Lowe, who owes about $367,000 to her lender. "Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't."

NO YOU F-ING DON'T! YOU BUY REAL ESTATE BECAUSE IT HAS LOCATIONAL VALUE OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR OUT OF A DESIRE TO LIVE IN A FIXED SPOT


How quaint...buying an object because you want the object, not "as an investment"...
 
2012-06-17 10:53:26 PM
Still, some real estate attorneys are wary, saying it's an unproven tactic. They fear the homeowner could be left owing debt to their original lender while paying a fee to the trust.

It takes an attorney to sniff out the most probable ending here.

Wait. No it doesn't.
 
2012-06-17 11:00:23 PM
I came across a business model that sounded similar to this.

Underwater home owner turns over title, company sicks a pack of lawyers to break the mortgage while home owner leases the property back from company, after three years company sells home back to home owner for fair market value.

This model was based on the idea that many mortgages were badly screwed up and open to breakage. Of course, I came across it as a job opportunity on Craigslist, so it might have been the lead-in for some kind of scam.
 
2012-06-17 11:03:54 PM
I have trouble enough finding sympathy for a real estate speculator, but one that bought houses to rent to college students? College town landlords that target students are about the worst landlords out there. Not going to feel one bit sorry for them.
 
2012-06-17 11:38:08 PM

King Something: Benevolent Misanthrope: Who the fark thinks this is a good idea?

...Florida...


Ah.
Makes sense.
 
2012-06-17 11:44:24 PM

czetie:
...Unfortunately for Shady, I suspect that they will discover about six months from now that almost all of those default judgments it is relying on will get challenged and overturned, at which point I suspect that the principals abscond with the "processing fees" leaving the deeds nominally owned by a defunct and bankrupt shell company..


I'm guessing that the processing fees are non-refundable anyway.
 
2012-06-18 12:48:39 AM
If only there was less regulation stifling enterprising job creators like this company. Im sure the free markets are enough to police this kind of behaviour and bring more prosperity to ALL Americans.

Vote Romney 2012.
 
2012-06-18 02:18:51 AM

flemardo: So novel I remember it from about 20 years ago.


old school flim flam wearing a new sport coat.
 
2012-06-18 03:02:24 AM
FTFA: Equus Partners signed its deed over to Fidelity in February. Paul Gellenbeck, managing director of the Fidelity Land Trust Co., said the lawsuit will be refiled with a stronger argument soon and was not dismissed because of the threat of sanctions."The Equus case was six months ago and our lawsuits went from three pages to 14 pages," Gellenbeck said. "The strategy completely changed."

And it's not one he wants advertised. "We're very, very, very secretive as far as our work product," Gellenbeck said. "I don't want the banks to understand what we do."


I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.

When you sue someone, you are required to provide the defendant with a copy of pretty much everything you provide the court. (Electronic filing systems are carving away at the need to serve the defendant with physical copies of most of the paperwork; but the effect is the same -- the defendant can log onto the court's computer system and see everything.) When you sue a bank, the bank sees your work product. If the bank can't understand what you do, it's because what you do is so incoherent that the judge won't understand what you do either.

And, of course, the contents of court files are public records. With very rare exceptions, everyone can see who you are suing and who is suing you. There are circumstances in which you might be able to get some of your statements concerning the facts of the case sealed. But your legal arguments are going to be wide open. So again, if people can't understand what you're doing, it's because you're doing it wrong.

/not a lawyer; not legal advice
//may cause drowsiness -- alcohol may intensify this effect
 
2012-06-18 03:37:14 AM
A possible course of action is that you have a house with a mortgage on it that has been bought and sold 10X in the last ten years. You go to court and file a "quiet title" action, which basically says "I don't believe anyone has any claim on my title, and I want the court to clarify that".

You are supposed to notify anyone you think might have a claim, which would included certainly anyone you are paying your mortgage to.

They may not show up, in which case you win. If they show up, you then pull the whole "show me the note" routine and try to win.

This is the "holy grail", so to speak, that I don't believe anyone has really pulled off successfully.

However, these scamsters are most likely pulling it off without notifying your mortgage company. The mortgage company will find out some day and re-open the case.
 
2012-06-18 03:44:25 AM
I came to a screeching halt at "Conceived, at least in part, by a man barred by the state from engaging in consumer debt-related services".

Any advice you take from a man fitting this description is terrible, terrible advice.
 
2012-06-18 05:32:04 AM
I bought my first house not too long ago. It had been a foreclosure, I got a great interest rate and the home is my biggest investment.

And yet, I will probably die before the house is sold again.

See, I treat houses the way I treat the battered, beloved old car in my garage. 'Investing' in the sense that you hope to sell something for more than you paid for it, is stupid when it comes to cars, because cars depreciate. The weird thing I noticed, though, between 2007 and 2011, was that the asking price for cars the same age and condition as mine went way up. Cash for Clunkers had a hand in that, as did the recession, the credit crunch, and the overwhelming shadiness of buy-here-pay-here lots making Craigslist look like a better deal. The twin brothers of the car I paid $300 plus tag and title fees for in 2007, and by that I mean same make, model, condition and general mileage range, are going for $3,000 now.

Thing is, I'll be damned if I'll sell that car after I poured my heart and soul into making it my own. I hand-sewed those seat covers, I took off and re-shaped those fenders and I rebuilt that engine to be as flawless as I could. This scar on my arm is from welding the exhaust and there's a thousand of my fingerprints everywhere from the engine bay to the brake lines to the stock radio I took out, fixed and re-installed. I've put sweat, blood and learning into that car, and I'm a better person for the work I put into it.

What's more, it's within a short while of qualifying for vintage plates, and if I can protect it, care for it and keep it going, I will have an investment in terms of 'I bought something and now it is WORTH more,' that makes $3,000 look like the cat litter bill. I'll still have the use of the car while I wait for the value to go up, which is worth whatever I'm not paying to some finance company for a new one. I only have $300 and various parts and materials in it (I treat time working on cars as 'learning' time, so the value I get out equals or exceeds the value of the time I put in,) so in the event it's ever totaled, while I'll be sad, it's not like losing a pet or a relative and I can get another for under a month's wages provided it doesn't get totaled before I'm a senior citizen. But best of all, because I bought it outright and fixed it myself, I was able to afford two more, so I can spare and baby this one as my 'special' car out of pure sentiment and the fact that it just happens to suit my tastes.

Don't invest for the purpose of selling, because selling is never sure. Invest for the purpose of making it worth keeping, and the only buyer you have to please is yourself. (And if you invest in yourself, hard work, maturity and learning-wise, you'll attract the kind of significant other you can always work out an agreement with, no matter what topic.)

Houses should be the same. I invest in my home by working a second and a third job, of which every penny of the latter's wages are thrown onto the mortgage principal like I'm putting out a fire. I also invest in my home by maintaining it, improving it to suit my own tastes and that of my spouse and making tasteful, sensible additions, like ADA-compliant support bars in the bathrooms, wheelchair-accessible light switches and, eventually, a second bathroom and kitchenette so the upstairs can accommodate a renter, au pair or live-in caregiver. My plan is for this home to be my little fort, where I can retire when I am old even if I do become fully crippled, where my parents can live for free when they are old or where I can put a trustworthy and sensible tenant in the event I must move for work.

Any other properties I buy, I will handle the same way, though subsequent houses I may eventually sell if the distance to maintain them or the available renters make them too difficult. Considering my husband is working toward an investment in a modest general aviation plane and license, owning property such that whichever house we are not presently living in generates income as a vacation rental or single-family rented home, should not be too difficult travel-wise. His idea of an acceptable risk extends to light personal danger, never to money, so we're pretty perfectly matched. (I only insist that he never fly a plane unless I am in it with him. Dying is nothing compared to being separated from him, and if he takes a chance, so do I.)

Taking a loan against property should only be done in true emergencies, never to buy more property in the hopes it'll pay off well. I learned that at eight years old when my Grandma explained how 'buying on margin' was to blame for the poverty in her old 'Little Orphan Annie' comics. Home improvements, unless it's to adapt for a disability or to recover from a catastrophe, are not emergencies, and insurance is an absolute must to hold off catastrophes. Preventative care is always worth it, and if it's a choice between posh clothes, a flashy car and the latest electronic toys or the products and time I need to storm-proof and termite-block my home, I'll stay in blue jeans with my old sedan and save fancy toys for when I'm old enough to have really earned them.

People who 'flip' houses, especially older, smallish ones like the one we have (it's a thoroughly modest but very charming little three-bedroom,) are to my thinking no better than those buy-here-pay-here bastards who are deliberately profiting from the poverty and desperation of others. There are some good ones, who sell reliable cars and work with people fairly, but there are a lot of snakes, and flippers are no different. They bought on margin, trying to make a profit from families needing homes, and when the flow of too-easy money stopped, prices plummeted and they were screwed over. Deservedly so, I think, and far more so than the families who bought a sensible house at a market-peak price they could hardly help, tried their best to pay it down despite highly questionable interest-rate practices and saw their jobs wiped out with the crash the flippers and lenders created.

I have no sympathy for skinned speculators any more than I have sympathy for a man who quits a job as an engineer to pursue a career in poker and loses his shirt. A steady job, with steady improvements, sound insurance and careful decisions is always better than the fast flip and the quick buck. The only place where I take wild risks with my money is in founding or investing in small business, and like a sensible poker player, I never bring anything to the table I don't own outright and that I can't afford to lose.

I'm 26 years old and everything I know about money, surviving and planning for a good future, all these paragraphs above, I learned from my grand and great-grandmothers. Survivors of the Depression, World War II and the vast changes to technology know when to take a risk, with how much, and when to hold your cards so you can build up a better hand. What I demand to know is not "am I unusual" or even "am I right?" about investing and financial policy. (Though at my age, I need all the advice I can get.)

It's "why in God's name didn't anyone in finance, banking, real estate or government listen to THEIR grandmas before getting everyone into this awful mess?"

I feel like I should close with 'get off my lawn' at this point, but I'm not crotchety enough yet. And really, the Cool Old Lady conservative-with-money, liberal-with-experiences attitude is not too bad. I just want to make the kinds of choices now that will let me have the options Grandma, Nana and Granny have when I'm their age. Last week, Grandma took an acrobatic plane ride for her birthday and got to fly it a little, Granny recently had a sidecar added to her Honda (she feels Harley-Davidsons are too masculine,) and dear old Nana has retired to a cruise ship whose ports are convenient to three-quarters of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren and within a short trip for the rest. When she feels like a visit, she calls to coordinate schedules and then books a cabin for whichever branch of the family she wants to see, just picking up the tab over all protests, because she feels she's earned the right to enjoy herself.

I can endure anything, even three jobs and a fixer-upper, if it means I have the slightest hope of a future that looks like that.
 
2012-06-18 06:07:51 AM
The savvy 78-year-old played her hand well for years in the home-buying game, picking up properties in California and Key West to rent to kids in college and bartenders serving drinks on Duval Street.

But she got caught with a 10 percent interest-only loan on her gated Valencia Isles home, which is now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the $571,000 she paid in 2003.


Looks like she made plenty of money, lost on this one deal, could afford to pay it off but doesn't want to.

fark her.
 
2012-06-18 06:25:38 AM

Ishidan: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: FTA I still have a little apprehension, but you have to be a gambler in real estate. You go out on a limb sometimes," said Lowe, who owes about $367,000 to her lender. "Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't."

NO YOU F-ING DON'T! YOU BUY REAL ESTATE BECAUSE IT HAS LOCATIONAL VALUE OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR OUT OF A DESIRE TO LIVE IN A FIXED SPOT

How quaint...buying an object because you want the object, not "as an investment"...


It is quaint.

In this Daily Show interview (and I assume, in his book), the former Managing Director for Bain Capital basically argues FOR a casino based economy. He says that innovation is driven by risk taking, and that requires large cash payoffs.

In part 3 (extended), Stewart asks him why we shouldn't incentivize banks to make loans to small businesses, putting money into the "real economy," and not in to financial economies. He replied that there is no real money even in financial markets; it just flows through on the way to consumption or investment.

In modern capitalism, businesses don't make much money. Labor certainly doesn't make much money. Banks don't even make much money.

Investment is what makes money. And real estate has some of the biggest payoffs.

Everyone saying these people "got what they deserve" when they lost it all either:

a) Don't like the fact that we have a gambling based economy (but, well, we do, reality sucks), or
b) Like kicking losers when they are down
 
2012-06-18 06:50:58 AM
So, the same people who specualted in the real estate business and lost their asses are now trying to screw the banks (who the taxpayer bailed out) so they can turn around and screw the taxpayer again somehow.

Shoot everyone involved.
 
2012-06-18 07:11:53 AM
Won't somebody think of the banks?
 
2012-06-18 07:13:35 AM
This sounds marginally more sane than seceding from the US and declaring your house a sovereign state.
 
2012-06-18 07:20:57 AM

H31N0US: The savvy 78-year-old played her hand well for years in the home-buying game, picking up properties in California and Key West to rent to kids in college and bartenders serving drinks on Duval Street.

But she got caught with a 10 percent interest-only loan on her gated Valencia Isles home, which is now worth hundreds of thousands of dollars less than the $571,000 she paid in 2003.

Looks like she made plenty of money, lost on this one deal, could afford to pay it off but doesn't want to.

fark her.


Exactly. I'm not seeing where she is really in trouble. Her main house is underwater but she should have cash flow from all the properties she is renting out (which is why you buy and rent out in the first place). She should just deal with it.
 
2012-06-18 09:34:57 AM

SpiderQueenDemon: I bought my first house not too long ago. It had been a foreclosure, I got a great interest rate and the home is my biggest investment.

And yet, I will probably die before the house is sold again.

See, I treat houses the way I treat the battered, beloved old car in my garage. 'Investing' in the sense that you hope to sell something for more than you paid for it, is stupid when it comes to cars, because cars depreciate. The weird thing I noticed, though, between 2007 and 2011, was that the asking price for cars the same age and condition as mine went way up. Cash for Clunkers had a hand in that, as did the recession, the credit crunch, and the overwhelming shadiness of buy-here-pay-here lots making Craigslist look like a better deal. The twin brothers of the car I paid $300 plus tag and title fees for in 2007, and by that I mean same make, model, condition and general mileage range, are going for $3,000 now.

Thing is, I'll be damned if I'll sell that car after I poured my heart and soul into making it my own. I hand-sewed those seat covers, I took off and re-shaped those fenders and I rebuilt that engine to be as flawless as I could. This scar on my arm is from welding the exhaust and there's a thousand of my fingerprints everywhere from the engine bay to the brake lines to the stock radio I took out, fixed and re-installed. I've put sweat, blood and learning into that car, and I'm a better person for the work I put into it.

What's more, it's within a short while of qualifying for vintage plates, and if I can protect it, care for it and keep it going, I will have an investment in terms of 'I bought something and now it is WORTH more,' that makes $3,000 look like the cat litter bill. I'll still have the use of the car while I wait for the value to go up, which is worth whatever I'm not paying to some finance company for a new one. I only have $300 and various parts and materials in it (I treat time working on cars as 'learning' time, so the value I get out equals ...


tl;dr
 
2012-06-18 09:39:10 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: FTA I still have a little apprehension, but you have to be a gambler in real estate. You go out on a limb sometimes," said Lowe, who owes about $367,000 to her lender. "Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't."

NO YOU F-ING DON'T! YOU BUY REAL ESTATE BECAUSE IT HAS LOCATIONAL VALUE OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OR OUT OF A DESIRE TO LIVE IN A FIXED SPOT


Those first two are definitely gambling.
 
2012-06-18 10:00:43 AM
So watch public records for the suits, contact the bank to buy the loan before this company can..........profit?
 
2012-06-18 10:15:30 AM

SpiderQueenDemon: It's "why in God's name didn't anyone in finance, banking, real estate or government listen to THEIR grandmas before getting everyone into this awful mess?"


Because of a pernicious modern assumption that nothing of value is lost with the past.
 
2012-06-18 10:19:06 AM

WhoIsNotInMyKitchen: If only there was less regulation stifling enterprising job creators like this company. Im sure the free markets are enough to police this kind of behaviour and bring more prosperity to ALL Americans.

Vote Romney 2012.


There is. It's as simple as answering the quiet title complaint. It would take about 10 minutes. Do you honestly believe it's possible to regulate all potentially abusive behavior? You'd end up with more regulation than could possibly be enforced.
 
2012-06-18 11:05:06 AM
This outfit is no more shady than the major banks that manipulated the housing market into their own casino and tanked the world economy. They sound just unscrupulous enough to make the banks do business with them - the average homeowner acting in good faith has no chance.
 
2012-06-19 12:09:37 AM
This looks like a terrible, terrible idea. On the other hand:

"They are preying on the disorganization of the banks themselves and their inability to be organized enough to respond to the complaints in order to avoid a default," said Ice, a foreclosure defense attorney. "It takes advantage of the sheer magnitude of foreclosure cases."

If I'm too busy to pay my mortgage the bank isn't going to cut me any slack. Why should we give the banks any leeway if they can't be arsed to reply to a lawsuit in due time?
 
2012-06-19 03:26:28 PM

Chameleon: This looks like a terrible, terrible idea. On the other hand:

"They are preying on the disorganization of the banks themselves and their inability to be organized enough to respond to the complaints in order to avoid a default," said Ice, a foreclosure defense attorney. "It takes advantage of the sheer magnitude of foreclosure cases."

If I'm too busy to pay my mortgage the bank isn't going to cut me any slack. Why should we give the banks any leeway if they can't be arsed to reply to a lawsuit in due time?



We shouldn't. If they can't keep their business in order, that's their own damn problem. When it comes to getting cases reopened, I doubt too many judges are going to accept "we didn't feel like it" or "we couldn't keep track of the paperwork" for valid reasons to not answer a properly served complaint in time. Even if the complaint is total BS.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report