FARK.com: (4671492) Real estate company sues Steve McNair's widow for back rent on mistress' apartment

It's Not News, It's Fark

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.

		Real estate company sues Steve McNair's widow for back rent on mistress' apartment (tennessean.com)		98
		More: Asinine

• • •

10004 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2009 at 6:49 PM (10 years ago) | Favorite | share:

98 Comments (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

mysticcat

2009-10-01 4:58:04 PM

Dude, that's cold.

Dopgang

2009-10-01 5:20:40 PM

I'll just leave this here...
[image from forumimagecodes.com too old to be available]

phlegmmo

2009-10-01 6:51:07 PM

An affair to dismember.

CowboyNinjaD

2009-10-01 6:51:21 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Lt. Cheese Weasel

2009-10-01 6:52:34 PM

Is Steve McNair gonna have to choke a biatch?'

Oh, wait....

TheBigBadCrystallineEntity

2009-10-01 6:56:04 PM

Is the very bad PR worth a couple months back rent?

bukketmaster

2009-10-01 6:56:55 PM

Hey, either she wants to inherit his property or she doesn't. The people he leased it from didn't shoot him.

jennyz

2009-10-01 6:57:35 PM

Wooow... that's harsh.

untillater

2009-10-01 6:57:59 PM

Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Sin_City_Superhero

2009-10-01 6:59:14 PM

untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Didn't RTFA did ya. It specifically says that his signature is NOT on the lease.

jamesmusik

2009-10-01 6:59:26 PM

Bad subby... they're suing his estate, which is their right, not his widow. Debts have to be paid before an estate is distributed.

okaykleek

2009-10-01 6:59:55 PM

She a-howlin' about the front rent, she'll be lucky to get any back rent, She ain't gonna get none of it

untillater

2009-10-01 7:03:43 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Didn't RTFA did ya. It specifically says that his signature is NOT on the lease.

His signature is on the Co-Signer form, which is a legally binding addendum to the lease, the fact that it was signed 8 days prior to the rest is not relevant.

Bender The Offender

2009-10-01 7:03:58 PM

Oh look, an illiterate farktard that can't read or an insufferable douchebag that thinks they don't have to read the article to make a comment that's completely against the facts of the article.

untillater

2009-10-01 7:04:46 PM

Bender The Offender: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Oh look, an illiterate farktard that can't read or an insufferable douchebag that thinks they don't have to read the article to make a comment that's completely against the facts of the article.

try reading again yourself dumbass

potterydove

2009-10-01 7:05:07 PM

If he entered the lease then his estate is liable on it.

Tough titties widow. You should have done a better job of pleasing your man.

Sir Charles

2009-10-01 7:05:28 PM

RIP RIC FLAIR

gregscott

2009-10-01 7:07:13 PM

I think that in some states (like Georgia, perhaps) there is a required clause that lets you out of a lease if your employment changes over 75 miles from your current location. Perhaps unemployment as well? It would seem the wife could argue that the husband is currently employed either playing harp or shoveling coal, elsewhere.

Bender The Offender

2009-10-01 7:08:01 PM

untillater: Bender The Offender: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Oh look, an illiterate farktard that can't read or an insufferable douchebag that thinks they don't have to read the article to make a comment that's completely against the facts of the article.

try reading again yourself dumbass

This part farkwit?

Also, Steve McNair's signature does not appear on the property lease, court documents said.

NittLion78

2009-10-01 7:08:59 PM

R.I.P. Blair

Super Chronic

2009-10-01 7:09:03 PM

untillater: Sin_City_Superhero: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Didn't RTFA did ya. It specifically says that his signature is NOT on the lease.

His signature is on the Co-Signer form, which is a legally binding addendum to the lease, the fact that it was signed 8 days prior to the rest is not relevant.

Thank you, your honor, for rendering your legal opinion based on the law as it applies to the facts of this case.

MeinKampfyFark

2009-10-01 7:09:34 PM

RIP Steve McQueen

untillater

2009-10-01 7:10:09 PM

Bender The Offender: untillater: Bender The Offender: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Oh look, an illiterate farktard that can't read or an insufferable douchebag that thinks they don't have to read the article to make a comment that's completely against the facts of the article.

try reading again yourself dumbass

This part farkwit?

Also, Steve McNair's signature does not appear on the property lease, court documents said.

"The only document containing the signature of the Deceased is the Co-Signers Form"

Otherwise known as an "addendum" look it up. It means that legally speaking, it is on the lease.

doobiebrother

2009-10-01 7:15:02 PM

Mc Nair, the ~~gift~~ git that keeps on ~~giving~~ taking.
prick is screwing people from the grave.

Super Chronic

2009-10-01 7:16:07 PM

untillater: "The only document containing the signature of the Deceased is the Co-Signers Form"

Otherwise known as an "addendum" look it up. It means that legally speaking, it is on the lease.

Dude, give it up. McNair's widow is challenging the legal sufficiency of the cross-reference from one document to another. You obviously didn't read that and just posted "end of story" as if the article made it clear. It's not end of story, it's the beginning of the story. It's the very question being asked. Just admit you didn't read the article and move on.

12349876

2009-10-01 7:16:35 PM

Probably legal, but it's still the...

untillater

2009-10-01 7:16:57 PM

Super Chronic: untillater: Sin_City_Superhero: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Didn't RTFA did ya. It specifically says that his signature is NOT on the lease.

His signature is on the Co-Signer form, which is a legally binding addendum to the lease, the fact that it was signed 8 days prior to the rest is not relevant.

Thank you, your honor, for rendering your legal opinion based on the law as it applies to the facts of this case.

Let me guess, your one of those brilliant people that recently lost their home because you dont know how to read a mortgage / lease contract?

andrew131

2009-10-01 7:17:29 PM

untillater: "The only document containing the signature of the Deceased is the Co-Signers Form"

Otherwise known as an "addendum" look it up. It means that legally speaking, it is on the lease.

Those are usually used for applications, not the actual lease agreement. You can't retroactively add someone to the lease without the co-leasee signing it.

thisisarepeat

2009-10-01 7:18:01 PM

WTF? She doesn't have it? She hitched her wagon to his checking account, what the hell is the problem with paying his bills?

Bender The Offender

2009-10-01 7:18:16 PM

You said "he signed the lease"

untillater: Bender The Offender: untillater: Bender The Offender: untillater: Why is this a problem? he signed the lease, whomever the leasee had living at the rental is none of the leasing companys business.

his estate is still liable for the lease... end of story.

Oh look, an illiterate farktard that can't read or an insufferable douchebag that thinks they don't have to read the article to make a comment that's completely against the facts of the article.

try reading again yourself dumbass

This part farkwit?

Also, Steve McNair's signature does not appear on the property lease, court documents said.

"The only document containing the signature of the Deceased is the Co-Signers Form"

Otherwise known as an "addendum" look it up. It means that legally speaking, it is on the lease.

Now, I might not have a GED in law, but you sure do appear to be a lying, backpedaling ass biatch. Your response councilor?

NannyStatePark

2009-10-01 7:20:59 PM

potterydove: If he entered the lease then his estate is liable on it.

Tough titties widow. You should have done a better job of pleasing your man.

Umm maybe he just wanted to look at a different rack or dip his wick in a different candle. His wife might be the best lay on planet earth but some men are whores. Maybe he's too good to look at the stretch marks his kids put there. I love how a third chick shot him, asshole was too stupid to handle himself with the ladies.

I love reading the legal ninjitsu they busted out on this leasing company. Employees farking up legal documents are a source of amusement to me. I love telling them that I can still sue the arbitration company. The company should just eat it for employing dumbasses.

untillater

2009-10-01 7:21:58 PM

This case will never see the inside of a courtroom. The only reason she is contesting it is because she feels affronted by his having a widow.

It will cost her far more in court to fight than to just pay it. also the reverse is true for the leasing company, who in all likelyhood will just let her off the hook because it will cost them less.

The odds of getting the judge to dismiss with predjudice is unlikely.

so yes, this should be, end of story, she pays up. but instead we get a retarded BS story on fark, thanks to our wonderful legal system.

BDR459

2009-10-01 7:22:19 PM

Anybody know how I can get that Co-Signers form. Great piece to have for memorabilia(sp). Original dated legal document. Pretty original and verifiable.

untillater

2009-10-01 7:23:41 PM

bah, his having a mistress.

and

how exactly am I backpeddling?

//eventually Ill have to learn to proofread before submitting but... not today

Highroller48

2009-10-01 7:25:45 PM

mysticcat: Dude, that's cold.

Perhaps, but as has been pointed out, perfectly legal. Not the real Estate company's job to eat the cost.

Your debts are part of your estate, just like your assets, as it should be.

rpm

2009-10-01 7:26:23 PM

untillater: Otherwise known as an "addendum" look it up. It means that legally speaking, it is on the lease.

It does?

"The only document containing the signature of the Deceased is the Co-Signers Form, which makes no reference to the Lease and was not executed simultaneously therewith.

"As a result, the Co-Signers Form is not part of the Lease, and the only party obligated under the Lease is the Resident."

mongbiohazard

2009-10-01 7:30:47 PM

Super Chronic: untillater: "The only document containing the signature of the Deceased is the Co-Signers Form"

Otherwise known as an "addendum" look it up. It means that legally speaking, it is on the lease.

Dude, give it up. McNair's widow is challenging the legal sufficiency of the cross-reference from one document to another. You obviously didn't read that and just posted "end of story" as if the article made it clear. It's not end of story, it's the beginning of the story. It's the very question being asked. Just admit you didn't read the article and move on.

I have worked in the rental apartments business for years, for one of the biggest REIT's in the country.

Those addendums are generally for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the rent. So if there is an addendum to that effect then, yeah, the estate would be on the hook if the primary signer doesn't pay.

Now a clever & expensive lawyer will be able to get someone out of pretty much any lease, I don't think it would be wise from a PR or moral standpoint and I didn't RTFA so it could just be a pet addendum or something silly like that (which will mean the landlord will be farked if it actually goes before a judge...

Just thought I'd inject a little experience to the discussion. I've let people out of their rent obligations for less. I wouldn't want to pursue this if I was the landlord, though my superiors could always force me to. I just think what they're doing is very unwise in the long run.

untillater

2009-10-01 7:30:54 PM

yes, legally.

even when you present a BS case, you have to come up with a "reason" even if the reason has no legal leg to stand on.

ClipJoint

2009-10-01 7:35:57 PM

Bender The Offender

Now, I might not have a GED in law, but you sure do appear to be a lying, backpedaling ass biatch. Your response councilor?

Dude, your Troll-Fu is weak. And start by getting your plain-old GED before you start blasting on people's intelligence..."councilor"

nytmare

2009-10-01 7:39:45 PM

What's the purpose of the "Co-Signer's Form" if it's not related to the lease?

pestluvr

2009-10-01 7:41:36 PM

R.I.P. Huggy Bear

Super Chronic

2009-10-01 7:46:17 PM

mongbiohazard: I have worked in the rental apartments business for years, for one of the biggest REIT's in the country.

Those addendums are generally for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the rent. So if there is an addendum to that effect then, yeah, the estate would be on the hook if the primary signer doesn't pay.

Now a clever & expensive lawyer will be able to get someone out of pretty much any lease, I don't think it would be wise from a PR or moral standpoint and I didn't RTFA so it could just be a pet addendum or something silly like that (which will mean the landlord will be farked if it actually goes before a judge...

Just thought I'd inject a little experience to the discussion. I've let people out of their rent obligations for less. I wouldn't want to pursue this if I was the landlord, though my superiors could always force me to. I just think what they're doing is very unwise in the long run.

Well, that's illuminating, unlike anything untillater has to say. Surely that's what the addendum is for, but it is being contested on the ground that it's not specific enough. A landlord looking to enforce a form contract has to be aware that a court will construe the contract under the principle of contra proferentem (I encourage untillater to look that one up while he thinks he can condescend to the rest of us and look smart by saying to look up "addendum").

/and I do have a GED in law
//well, a J.D. and an LL.M. and 15 years of practice anyway

Delay

2009-10-01 7:46:21 PM

untillater: bah, his having a mistress.

and

how exactly am I backpeddling?

//eventually Ill have to learn to proofread before submitting but... not today

Most of us who post on Fark don't read, let alone proofread.

Co-signer agreements vary. Depends on what he signed, but let's pretend we see the agreement. I'm looking at it now. It includes some statement like "co-signer guarantees monthly rent in the amount of $69." As you point out, the co-signer does not sign the lease itself.

Someone should go after Adrianne Hobbs, whoever that is. She seems to be the one who was living there. If Ms. Hobbs is the landlord's mistress, there should be no problem having the thing dropped.

Chunky Pumpkinhead

2009-10-01 7:47:41 PM

On one hand, it's a dick move. She lost her husband after all. They still have the property to lease and generate future income while they sit on their ass.

On the other hand, this intellectually predominant individual, who fathered 4 children by 3 mothers, was getting paid millions to play sports! It's not the same as trying to collect from the butcher's wife

neomatt

2009-10-01 7:53:17 PM

Fark lawyers are the BEST!

untillater

2009-10-01 7:53:35 PM

Super Chronic: mongbiohazard: I have worked in the rental apartments business for years, for one of the biggest REIT's in the country.

Those addendums are generally for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the rent. So if there is an addendum to that effect then, yeah, the estate would be on the hook if the primary signer doesn't pay.

Now a clever & expensive lawyer will be able to get someone out of pretty much any lease, I don't think it would be wise from a PR or moral standpoint and I didn't RTFA so it could just be a pet addendum or something silly like that (which will mean the landlord will be farked if it actually goes before a judge...

Just thought I'd inject a little experience to the discussion. I've let people out of their rent obligations for less. I wouldn't want to pursue this if I was the landlord, though my superiors could always force me to. I just think what they're doing is very unwise in the long run.

Well, that's illuminating, unlike anything untillater has to say. Surely that's what the addendum is for, but it is being contested on the ground that it's not specific enough. A landlord looking to enforce a form contract has to be aware that a court will construe the contract under the principle of contra proferentem (I encourage untillater to look that one up while he thinks he can condescend to the rest of us and look smart by saying to look up "addendum").

/and I do have a GED in law
//well, a J.D. and an LL.M. and 15 years of practice anywaSuper Chronic: mongbiohazard: I have worked in the rental apartments business for years, for one of the biggest REIT's in the country.

Those addendums are generally for the specific purpose of guaranteeing the rent. So if there is an addendum to that effect then, yeah, the estate would be on the hook if the primary signer doesn't pay.

Now a clever & expensive lawyer will be able to get someone out of pretty much any lease, I don't think it would be wise from a PR or moral standpoint and I didn't RTFA so it could just be a pet addendum or something silly like that (which will mean the landlord will be farked if it actually goes before a judge...

Just thought I'd inject a little experience to the discussion. I've let people out of their rent obligations for less. I wouldn't want to pursue this if I was the landlord, though my superiors could always force me to. I just think what they're doing is very unwise in the long run.

Well, that's illuminating, unlike anything untillater has to say. Surely that's what the addendum is for, but it is being contested on the ground that it's not specific enough. A landlord looking to enforce a form contract has to be aware that a court will construe the contract under the principle of contra proferentem (I encourage untillater to look that one up while he thinks he can condescend to the rest of us and look smart by saying to look up "addendum").

/and I do have a GED in law
//well, a J.D. and an LL.M. and 15 years of practice anyway

I suppose if one must lie, make it a big one.

texastag

2009-10-01 7:58:37 PM

R.I.P Nair short shorts

/Funny how short shorts of the 70's/80's look like giant grandma thunder shorts compared to the barely thong covering short shorts these days
//Shorts

vapor_trail

2009-10-01 7:58:58 PM

Although it's been said already:

The property owner isn't at fault here. They now own a distressed property. A murder occured and that now needs to be disclosed to any new tenants/ buyers. McNair appears to have co-signed which makes his estate liable. Sucks for the wife but such is the decision he made when he put his credit on the line for crazy chick.

I'm a property owner as well and I would likely do the same. Not all of us are rich, greedy bastards. I just try to cover the mortgages on the properties and it isn't as easy as most think.

neomatt

2009-10-01 8:04:17 PM

Chunky Pumpkinhead: On the other hand, this intellectually predominant individual, who fathered 4 children by 3 mothers, was getting paid millions to play sports! It's not the same as trying to collect from the butcher's wife

Does the court draw a distinction? Should it?
I wonder how much the lawyer will charge to fight it? The bill is $1,750...figure a "good" lawyer charges about $300 per hour...and then there are court costs...
See, this is why I didn't become a whoring professional football player.

SonikTooth

2009-10-01 8:08:05 PM

wait a minute?

i know being dead doesn't excuse a person from all debts ... but, really, being dead doesn't exclude one from liability for a residential lease? why on earth should dead people be required to make good on a monthly payment toward a place to live? ya know, since they are dead and all ...

/crazy as his mistress

Displayed 50 of 98 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Report

If you like these links, you'll love

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up

Support Fark

learn more

Headlines of the Week
Fark NotNewsletter

Report

Like Fark!

Follow @Fark On Twitter

Report

In Other Media

Fark Exchange

Fark.com

Top Commented

Top Commented ▼

Top Commented
Top Clicked
Top Voted
My Recent Commented
Recent Mentions

Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.