A Puzzle For Those Who Could Lose Their Homes In This Crisis

[anthropositor]

Since the ability to maintain one's abode and not have it taken away  is rather central to one's good health, and especially to the health of the skin, and since we are at the outset of a Depression it is worthwhile to have some idea how to defend yourself when someone tries to steal your home and land.

A little background.  A little over eight years ago, my wife and I found ourselves without a place to live.  We stumbled over some distressed sellers with a few acres and what could euphemistically be called a dwelling for sale.  The house was a complete shambles.  I learned that there had been twelve people living there, who had left abruptly.  I did not hear the details.  I also made some phone calls and checked out the sellers. 

Opinions varied sharply, ranging from; they are crooks, to they have been in the furniture business for many years and are wealthy and well connected.  Actually, come to think of it, those two extremes in opinion are not all that far apart.

But they could not have done a normal sale with a conventional loan through FHA or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mack. No inspector would have even deemed the place fit for human habitation, let alone find it suitable for a loan.  Therefore  I had some advantages going for me. 

I have a reputation for being tough but scrupulously ethical and had been in my two previous abodes for about eight years.  So we did a land contract in which I agreed to take the place "as is" even in its' unlivable condition. 

Even with my most imaginative ideas, we were talking several thousands of dollars in necessary repairs.  On that basis, I convinced the sellers that they should finance the down payment as well.  So for three years, they were getting two monthly payments from me. 

The bathroom floor was falling through.  The tub was precarious.  The toilet was not affixed to the floor.  We re-plumbed all the bathroom fixtures, did a lot of new wiring, re-framed and installed several new windows.  This was just for starters.  Repairs have been ongoing throughout these years.

I am thoroughly convinced that the Seller was counting on the repairs driving us under so that we would default.  Two things lend support to this notion. 

After we had been there some months, the septic tank overflowed.  We could not pay the hefty charge to pump it and make our property payments too.  So we stopped letting any water go down the drains.  No showers or baths.  Dishwater was thrown in the back yard along with the water for our ablutions.  We went elsewhere if we needed to use the toilet.

But the sewage in the front yard not only did not recede, it increased.  Very puzzling.  We struggled with this terrible problem for over a month.  The sellers were living right across the driveway from us.  They were only forty yards further away from our septic tank than we were.  So, while they were not affected as much as we were, it was pretty intolerable. 

Finally the seller suggested that he get the tank pumped and pay for it "as a favor to me."  Well of course I went for it.  Then, while it was being pumped, someone in his household, one of the children said within my hearing, not knowing it was a secret, that their stuff was  coming into my tank too, one of several facts that had never been disclosed to me.  They had left me twisting in the wind for more than a month.  But now that I knew about it, they were forced to install their own tank and leach lines.

About a year later our water heater went kaput.  It was plumbed in copper pipe which had to be destroyed to get the tank out.  Seller said he had one of the same size stored out behind the furniture store which I could have.  We plumbed it into place, only to find that it did not work.  So labor on the job was effectively doubled.  I went out and bought my own water heater.

I could name another half dozen major harassments, but this gives the general idea.  Suffice it to say, we became considerably more distant, but we still smiled and waved, trying to keep some semblance of peace.  In a few more years, the Sellers and their children moved out, being replaced by the patriarch of the furniture store and his wife and mother, along with, periodically, several other visiting residents.

Meanwhile, I had learned by other means that they were borrowing large amounts of money on acreage which included ours, and that this was the most probable reason that they had not registered the sale with the county assessor.  I had anticipated they would do this when the original contract was signed.  Of course this was unethical, but probably did not rise to the level of fraud, because they had not changed the ownership of record, and they were clandestinely paying the property taxes, keeping them current for their own purposes.  It is important to understand that according to our contract, I was responsible for all property taxes from the first day of the contract, but since the sale had never been reported to the assessor, there was no way I could get a bill.  Another important point is that I had only purchased two acres of a larger parcel on which the tax was assessed.  In any case,  I knew the lender in these loans they were getting was a bank, but had no idea which one. 

This was a rather difficult position to be in.  If they went bankrupt, the bank could have first call and boot us out.  Just like the bail out, the banks get the protection, the people get to twist in the wind.

We would wind up losing tens of thousands and have very low chance of recovery if they went bust and lost everything.  Quite a quandary.  I of course, was a peace loving person, and worked very hard not to rock the boat.  And since our payments were really so nominal because of the original deal I made (monthly rental elswhere would have been higher elsewhere, but of course we would have gotten a habitable dwelling and would have been responsible for repairs and reconstruction).  In any case, I was just treading water and waiting for the right moment in time to come to grips with the problem.

Most of us are at least dimly aware that we have just entered a great Depression.  As I watched it develop, I had been mulling over what to do with these sellers, but was still procrastinating, just continuing to work on all my various projects.

On the first of this month a deputy Sheriff came out and presented me with a 10 Day Notice to Vacate our TENANCY which alleged that we had not paid our property taxes, which we were contractually responsible for from the date of the original contract.  And, as I said earlier, I had never been assessed or billed any property taxes, and therefore had not paid any.  According to the paper, the Sheriff would remove us on the eleventh if we remained on the property.
Today is/was the eleventh.  It will be midnight in a half hour.   

So I invite anyone to guess what I might have done.  I'll give you a few hints.  I did not retain council.  I did not move.  So what steps did I take to prevent this wrongful eviction?  Virtually everyone I have spoken to in the past ten days has said I absolutely needed an attorney to save the house.  In every capacity, this was the first thing out of their mouths.

I did interview one attorney for perhaps five minutes, filling him in on the main details.  At the end, I said "Minimum to maximum, what will your charges be for handling this case?" He said the minimum would be $1,500 and the maximum would be $15,000.

And he was, of course, making no guarantees or predictions that we would prevail.  But he supposed that if we were able to pay eight years of property taxes, we could probably stay on the property until the seller came up with another pretext. 

I laughed and laughed and laughed.  I was still laughing when I shook his hand and then wiped my hand off on my pants.  I laughed still more out in the parking lot as other potential marks were entering his office.  Now I can't guarantee that I will not use a lawyer for any portion of this.  But I can guarantee that it won't be him.  And I doubt very much if my legal costs will exceed a few hundred dollars. 

I also doubt very much that I will pay the taxes from day one of the contract, in spite of the fact that the contract says "buyer will pay all property taxes due now and hereafter" from the date of the contract.  Does anyone have any idea why not?  Or what I did in the past ten days to prevent the eviction that was to occur today?

In the United States today, millions of people are losing their homes on pretexts just as flimsy as these, mostly at the hands of the very same banks that participated so enthusiastically in the sub prime mortgage feeding frenzy. 

These newly homeless people are not afforded any protection by the courts.  Many of them are renters who are current on their rent, but their landlord defaulted in a loan with the bank.  But we live in a free country.  These people are free to be homeless.  Except for the vagrancy laws of course. 

No real protection whatsoever by the courts or the government.  Yet the bankers are being bailed out.  What is wrong with this picture?  Exactly how much can you trust your government or the courts?  Perhaps about as much as I can trust that lawyer I spoke to or these sellers. 

And that is why, even though I am on solid ground here, nothing is guaranteed.  I live in the deep south.  Carpetbagging and chicanery and the "good old boy network" are alive and well here.  And that is why I will take nothing for granted.  Those with the most resources always have the edge.

Once again, I invite guesses as to what to do, or what I did in the past ten days, or what I will do next.

The best answers will get a bag of Shmooo from me.  You can learn more about Shmooo in the Nutrition subsection.

 

[itchychick]

There are several points in your account, anthro, which puzzle me, at least from a legal rights perspective. 

Firstly, whose obligation is it, legally, to report a private sale to the assessor?  If indeed the obligation falls to the seller, then, as I see it, he has reneged on the original contract.  You could sue him for this breach of contract, but that wouldn't solve the immediate problem of pending eviction. 

It would seem to me that in order to secure a loan on the property, the seller would have had to produce proof of ownership to the lending bank.... if this proof was his original deed, then I would definitely agree that he obtained the loans fraudulently, as he had already sold you the property.

Did you investigate the reasons you weren't receiving property tax bills?  Given that your original contract stipulated that you would be responsible for all the taxes, it surely came to your attention that something was amiss. 

Do you have any written proof (in the form of a deed or similar) that the land legally belongs to you?

As far as what you might have done, my answer would depend on your answer to that last question.  If the only written proof of ownership is that original contract, then I would make the argument that the original seller reneged on the contract thereby nullifying it.  If you are not the recognized owner of the property, then you are not responsible for the back taxes (or any taxes).  That, however doesn't leave you in any kind of desirable position.  At that point, I would investigate what rights you may have on the property as a squatter.  Here in Canada, I think most municipalities have laws which state that an occupant of land will have some legal rights to the land after a specified duration of time.  I don't know how long that may be, or how far those rights extend, but I'm pretty sure that one cannot be summarily evicted if one falls under the parameters of squatters' rights.

[anthropositor]

There is a lot of good thinking here.  What I have is a land contract stating the terms of the sale: term. interest rate, payment figures, my obligation to carry property insurance continuously, and so on.  This is different than a trust deed which has gone through escrow and has been duly recorded. 

And of course, in a standard sale, there is assurance that the title is actually held by the seller. 

Therefore, a land contract holds greater risk.  In this case it means that if the seller were to go bankrupt after borrowing from a bank on this property as if it was still his, the bank could seize the property and boot me out.  I would have little reliable recourse.

When I initially bought the place, I already had the strong feeling that serious complications would start after three or four years.  But I wasn't risking all that much when you consider that my monthly payment, even with property insurance was as cheap or cheaper than rent.  So what I was actually putting at risk was the ongoing investment in improvements.

The sellers started more gently, in comparison, after four years, with various bait and switch schemes in which I was to get other property at more money and a longer contract.  And there were a few dirty tricks along the way, but these too were pretty easy to parry, and generally worked out all right after some effort.

I did not investigate the reason I wasn't getting the tax bills.  I knew the reason.  The transaction had not been reported.  I also knew that they could drop the hammer on me in any year they wished to, by just missing a tax payment, getting the property to go into default for a couple of months and then do an eviction.  They might have even pulled it off.

This was the year that they apparently decided to do that.  From their perspective, I was not even aware of what was happening with the taxes.  And they were correct that I wasn't paying direct attention to it every year, because they had never tried to play real hard ball with me until now.  What went wrong for them is that they telegraphed the punch and did it is such a way that I could block it.

And you are correct that, not being the registered owner, never having recieved a bill on the smaller portion of a larger tract being taxed, a correct bill could not even be calculated without a new appraisal by the assessor.

All good thoughts.  You are to be congratulated on all you have done.  But let us look at the premise:

Once again, I invite guesses as to what to do, or what I did in the past ten days, or what I will do next.

So far, what you have said does not cover what I did, what I am doing, or what I plan to do.  However, you are more than halfway there, and deserve honorable mention for something else you mentioned, although you didn't mention it by the name "Adverse Possession."  The ability to claim that you lived on, improved and maintained property as if it were your own, recieved mail there and were notoriously resident on the property without the knowledge or any objection by the true owner for a number of years, and to get the court on that basis to deed over the property to the clandestine resident.  It is an extremely interesting and little known means to claim the property of another and to do it with legal force.

This is not one of those cases, since I have entered into a legal contract and a sale is underway.  But if you continue to reason the way you have so far, you are well on your way to finding out what Shmooo tastes like, and see how it affects you when you eat it.

Remember, you don't need to figure out what I did AND what I'm doing AND what I'm going to do.  Approximately nail any of the three and you are a winner.  Good job so far.

The Shmooo is definitely going to seed as I mentioned earlier, although it is happening in an odd way that I would not have anticipated.  It seems to have skipped a step that I thought had to occur. 

I was beginning to worry that we could get an early freeze and that it could impact the harvest.  While I don't want to interfere with the seeding, I also don't want to harvest 50 square meters of Shmooo all at once.  But I doubt that the full seed production will take more than two weeks.  Then I'll have several days of intensive harvest and drying of the leaves for my winter use.   

[itchychick]

Seeing as I am the only one playing here, anthro, I will give this some more thought.  I'm afraid I'm falling short on specifics of what one could do in this situation.  I'm going to assume that the unpaid tax issue is not on the table at this point, as you are not the registered owner of the property. 

However, you are more than halfway there, and deserve honorable mention for something else you mentioned, although you didn't mention it by the name "Adverse Possession."  The ability to claim that you lived on, improved and maintained property as if it were your own, recieved mail there and were notoriously resident on the property without the knowledge or any objection by the true owner for a number of years, and to get the court on that basis to deed over the property to the clandestine resident.  It is an extremely interesting and little known means to claim the property of another and to do it with legal force.

That indeed was what I was getting at... I didn't know that this was called "Adverse Possession".

Okay, so if Adverse Possession is not an option, the question is, how to distance yourself from the seller in case the seller goes bankrupt and the bank forecloses on the property.  On the other hand, you want to ensure that even as you distance yourself from the seller, you don't put yourself in a position where you are left holding the back taxes bag.

I would make a deal with the seller.  A contractual agreement whereby the next few months of your payments to him will go directly to paying the taxes owed, and the total amount paid will be deducted from your outstanding balance owed on the property.  In return, you will not disclose to the authorities that he obtained the bank loans fraudulently. 

There would also have to be some stipulation that as soon as the taxes are paid and up to date, an official sale be recorded and ownership transfered officially to you.  That way, the bank cannot foreclose on your piece of the property in the event of a seller bankruptcy. I'm not familiar with land contracts, but I'm guessing that there is some way to acheive this?  Of course, the seller could turn around and call in the remainder of your payment, but I would be inclined to think that the threat of exposing his fraud might be sufficient to keep that possibility at bay.  Given that you have evidence that could financially ruin him, put him in jail, or both, I think you would have the upper hand in any of these negotiations...

So... to summarize, I would guess that as steps you might have already taken would include informing the authorities that you were not legally responisible for the property taxes, given that the sale was never recorded nor were you the officially recognized owner.  Second steps would be to negotiate for the immediate payment of the back taxes and subsequent transfer of the land to you by the seller in exchange for your not exposing his actions.

How'm I doing here?

[anthropositor]

I would make a deal with the seller.  I think not.  Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas.

A contractual agreement whereby the next few months of your payments to him will go directly to paying the taxes owed, and the total amount paid will be deducted from your outstanding balance owed on the property.  In return, you will not disclose to the authorities that he obtained the bank loans fraudulently.  

I would not only be lying down with the dogs, I would be leaving the option open to have their puppies, to put it delicately.  For my own gain, or in self defense, I would be agreeing to hide their nefarious activities, giving them the latitude to continue preying on other, perhaps more defenseless victims.  I doubt I would feel very good about myself if I did that. 

Of course lawyers often get their clients to make such "compromises" as that; the confidentiality so often written into settlement agreements.  That way the bad guys can put up the facade that they just settled to end the matter, and admit no actual fault in the matter.  Then they can go back to business as usual.

But in purely tactical terms, this courts disaster.  I would rather teach them a proper lesson which might give them pause when they conspire to scam someone else in a similar fashion.  They invested, in round numbers, about $1400 over the past eight years, in order to steal back many multiples of that.  I think I will just keep that money, thank you very much.  I am not, in fact holding any back taxes bag.

There would also have to be some stipulation that as soon as the taxes are paid and up to date, an official sale be recorded and ownership transfered officially to you.  That way, the bank cannot foreclose on your piece of the property in the event of a seller bankruptcy. I'm not familiar with land contracts, but I'm guessing that there is some way to achieve this?  Of course, the seller could turn around and call in the remainder of your payment, but I would be inclined to think that the threat of exposing his fraud might be sufficient to keep that possibility at bay.  Given that you have evidence that could financially ruin him, put him in jail, or both, I think you would have the upper hand in any of these negotiations...

Now here and there we have some glints of good ideas, but still it is all garbled up with defensiveness.  If they had any possibility of calling in the note in its' entirety, they would have tried that instead of evicting me.

And actually I do not have evidence that could convict them of fraud against me, although if I wanted to, I could probably total up several thousands of dollars in damages for other things, and make a case for punitive damages as well, it probably isn't worth the bother, considering the risk/reward ratio. 

The fact that they kept the property in their name wasn't a correct or ethical thing for them to do, but it wasn't a fraud against me, but against the bank that provided them with loans.  From the perspective of the court, I would have no standing to argue on behalf of a bank with which I had no dealings.


So... to summarize, I would guess that as steps you might have already taken would include informing the authorities that you were not legally responsible for the property taxes, given that the sale was never recorded nor were you the officially recognized owner.  Second steps would be to negotiate for the immediate payment of the back taxes and subsequent transfer of the land to you by the seller in exchange for your not exposing his actions.

Now, as it turns out, there are no authorities yet.  The eviction papers were issued via the Sheriff on the sellers representation only, not on the order of a judge. No court case in any of the four courts that could have been involved had been initiated.  I know that because I checked with each of the court clerks in question, and while I was at it, made sure that they became familiar with the details of two old people threatened with being put out on the streets by villainous carpetbaggers who also happened to be prominent  merchants around town. 

I also spread the word around the D.A.'s office, and the assessors office, all in the name of finding out what my options were.  And though I could see that there was some sympathy for my position, the best any of them would venture was, "You are going to need to retain an attorney to get you out of this." 

But NONE of them pointed out that the Sheriff could not actually put me out of my house without an order by the court, if I served notice that I disputed the claims.  And nobody had any comments about where said notice had to be served, or how.  Down to the last one of them, they were pimping for the town lawyers in general, rather than saying anything really helpful or worthwhile.

Okay, I'll stop now.  What do I do next?  We have almost gotten past the boring, annoying part, spreading far and wide that there was going to be a fight, and being as likeable as I could to every bureaucrat and office worker and clerk I could get to listen.  This was all excellent preparation for what I had to do next....

So after a couple of big mouthfuls of Shmooo, feeling like Popeye after downing an emergency can of spinach, what did I do next?  (Two essential things and one critically important thing).  hint, hint.

[anthropositor]

Okay, since so far. only Itchy has been making a play for the Shmooo prize, and since she has been really innovative and imaginative, I am going to throw in the first of the absolutely essential things I did.  I returned to the assessor's office to determine the actual tax liability.  No taxes were delinquent, but there was a current tax payment due of $206.  The last day to pay it was the day before my eviction was to take place.  Remember, this was the only potentially dangerous legal element contained in the eviction papers.

Now if I had been true to my previous form over the years, never having been billed or paid any taxes, from the sellers standpoint, it was highly unlikely that anyone as dumb as I had always appeared to be to them, would even think to check on the tax status.

Clearly the seller now had the intention to let the tax go unpaid and absorb a small penalty, get me out, and then go pay the tax before the bank found out that the tax had been delinquent.  I simply wrote a check for the tax on the entire larger parcel.  Now I had a paid receipt for the latest tax payment made.  And this cause of action vanishes for another whole year.

The seller had counted on me to make a mistake, instead of expecting me to have any skills at all.  As I teach in chess, never play anticipating a blunder by your opponent.  Always play as if your opponent will always make his strongest move.

Now what?  Itchy is already a whisker away from winning her Shmooo.  That does not mean that someone else can't jump in and win as well.  I never said only the best answer wins.  All good answers showing excellent logic and effort win.

[itchychick]

Well I must have completely misunderstood, anthro, because I thought (and I'll have to go back and re-read your first post) that it the Sherrif was there on a judge's orders - action initiated by the tax assessor.  I was under the impression that the eviction was the result of long standing unpaid taxes. 

What you have said above puts the situation in a completely different light.  Understanding this, I can see why you would be horrified at my suggestion of making a deal with the seller!! Yeesh.  What a slime bag.

Okay.  Hopefully now I understand the situation.... but there is one piece that I don't quite grasp.  If this whole tax game was a ploy by the seller and you have now taken that little weapon away from him, by what other means might he have any authority to try again?  Here is where my understanding of your contract falls short.  Other than paying the taxes and your monthly payments, are you under any other contractual obligation to him?

[anthropositor]

In the question, do I have the rights of a tenant or a buyer?, things are not clear cut.  They are treating me as a tenant.  So is the Sheriff.  I must counter that.  This is the time to do that.  How?

[andyb]

Is the key to all this to get the sale registered at the Land Registry (or whatever the US equivalent is)?

Can the purchaser register the purchase without the co-operation of the vendor? You say you have the contract with terms and presumably a receipt for any moneys paid? So you should be able to prove that you have a registerable interest in the land?

Please remember I'm in the Uk and we may have different procedures and remedies to you, Anthro - but this has been a fascinating thread so far.

I have to say that on first reading I thought you were an 'unregistered purchaser yet to complete' rather than a tenant - but reading through again I'm not so sure...

Best of luck whatever...

Andy

[itchychick]

That's where I'm at too, andy.  It seems that registering ownership should protect anthro against any financial ruin of the seller.  If this is not possible without the seller's consent, then it's down to predicting any other loopholes in the contract whereby the seller can make another grab at it.

[anthropositor]

The ultimate goal is to force the seller(s) to do what they should have done at the outset of the sale.  There are a variety of ways in which the sellers were able to profit by this delay, while putting me at considerable extra risk, and causing me not to be able to declare the interest paid on my taxes.

While I reminded them periodically of this need, I was also acutely aware that I could well have been caught up in a fight that could easily have been prohibitively expensive to fight, and which could easily have made it impossible to keep up the payments as required without going deeply in debt from another quadrant.  

A perfect example is the quote I got from a lawyer a week ago, giving his minimum fee of $1,500 and the maximum of $15,000 for "handling" this matter.  And he wasn't even making assurances that we would prevail.  He even thought it likely that I would be ordered to reimburse the seller for tax payments that I did not authorize them to pay on my behalf.

No.  What I needed to do was to bide my time for as long as I could, taking my additional risks and losses, until I was cornered and had no choice but to fight.  This was my only chance to prevail.

This attempted eviction was that moment.  For my wife,  it was a crisis that came out of the blue.  She had not needed to know for these past eight years that we were dealing with crooks who were conspiring to cause us to default, at a point in time when they thought it was most likely that we could not continue paying on the contract.  I saw no good reason to burden her with that knowledge, and several good reasons not to.

Just look at their timing.  They did this in the most economically calamitous time this nation has faced in eight decades.  They were so confident that I was a complete boob, (an impression that I went to considerable effort to cultivate all this time), they really thought that there was no way I could defend myself even against the eviction.

What did I do next?  This is the fun part.  It is also critically essential.

[anthropositor]

Hi Itchy,
Still putting the cart before the horse.  How I will force them to regularize the sale I will figure out later. For now, I still have to stop the eviction.  That is the critical issue.  If I don't do that, I lose it all.

[andyb]

Anthro,

re: "On the first of this month a deputy Sheriff came out and presented me with a 10 Day Notice to Vacate our TENANCY which alleged that we had not paid our property taxes, which we were contractually responsible for from the date of the original contract.  And, as I said earlier, I had never been assessed or billed any property taxes, and therefore had not paid any. "

Can I just clarify who it was that caused the Notice to Vacate to be served? Is this from the County Assessment Office? Or from the seller, or someone else?

Thinking aloud:

• Is there a Protection of Eviction Act or similar in the US?
• If so I can't see how an eviction can take place without first getting a Posession Order from a Court.
• I assume that (as in the UK) being in posession of land you are initially in a strong position in that the Plaintiff would first have to show legal entitlement to cause the action in the first place, and then have to show reasonable cause for asking for the eviction judgement,
• I presume that Judge would have to consider what the legal relationship between the parties is before making that judgement - whoever caused the Notice to Vacate is claiming it's a tenancy but you say you have a Land Contract (is this the same as a Deed of Transfer of Ownership, Anthro?).
• So, if the relationship is in dispute, the Judge would have to look at the intention of the parties when the contract (of sale or transfer?) was drawn up - was it to rent or to purchase?
• and if purchase, what was purchased - a lease or an outright transfer of ownership?
• what terms were part of that contract - have any been broken or defaulted upon?
• If they have, does the breach warrant granting of the Posession Order or is some other remedy available?

oops, gotta catch the bus to work now - but this is fascinating!

Andy

[anthropositor]

Excellent questions Andy.  From the top:

The notice served by the Sheriff emanated only from the seller(s); they perhaps paid a fee to the Sheriff for delivery.  No other agency or court was involved.  No case had been filed.

In the United States, in a rental, the laws generally favor the landlord, but some statutory delays are built in so that if the eviction order is in any sort of dispute, the tenants can stay for the duration of the dispute.  This would be an Unlawful Detainer action.  Generally, if the tenant had no good defense, if they moved out prior to losing in court, even the day before, the Unlawful Detainer portion would be dropped, but the landlord could still pursue any damages or payments in arrears civilly.

It is correct that a court order is required before a forced eviction can be carried out.

All these years of living on the land without any complaint of record from a landlord or seller does give the presumption that the resident actually has a right to be there, even without other documentary evidence.

And the remaining matters are matters of fact to be determined by the court, based on the existing documents and the testimony of the parties.

What you refer to as a Deed of Transfer of Ownership is perhaps the equivalent of a Second Trust Deed here.  A land contract provides a somewhat less firm and clearcut form of protection.  There are more likely to be ambiguities that the court needs to resolve.

The contract was clearly a purchase agreement, conferring on me many, if not all the responsibilities of an owner.  It required me to maintain property insurance for instance.  And I could not require the seller to carry out any repairs, if I could not make the case that the owner was responsible for causing the damage and/or for failing to disclose things he was required by law to disclose.

[anthropositor]

Well Itchy, since I want to proceed to the next step, and since, although I have already deemed you a winner (though I haven't previously said so), I am now playing that annoying quiz show music that says the time is running out for the answer to this portion.

Andy too came up with some very relevant questions and observations, but I don't sense that getting some Shmooo was his motivation.  So later on today, I will go on with what I did next.

It is my main theme in all my posts, that if we try, we really can take care of ourselves much better than we have been led to believe by the so-called experts, whether they be lawyers or doctors or dentists or professionals in any other field.  And in these hard times, we are well advised to stop being so dependent on experts and become more skillful in taking care of ourselves.

Preventing viral infections, super gluing my  teeth, in making the monocle to extend the use of an eye with a cataract, not having been attended by a physician for a few decades, even when dealing with a stroke or high blood pressure, the fermenting of my own beverages, the making of cheese had an extremely important impact on my life and wellbeing.  And in No-Till farming, in the development of new food crops from currently wild or little-known sources, each of these things have changed my life, and the lives of others in significant ways.

I do hope my experiences will inspire others, not to be foolhardy, but to become more capable and self-sufficient.  Had I not done these things, I probably would have failed to hang on to my home years ago, and might even be dead, rather than robustly healthy.

[Uncle Matt]

I do hope my experiences will inspire others, not to be foolhardy, but to become more capable and self-sufficient.  Had I not done these things, I probably would have failed to hang on to my home years ago, and might even be dead, rather than robustly healthy.

They have here!!

[itchychick]

Hi all,

I've been checking in on the fly today and haven't had time to post properly...

I will this evening, after piano lessons, dinner, clean-up, homework, bathtime, and bedtime but before I get to my work.  (or passing out. Whichever comes first. )

[anthropositor]

I have suspended the quiz show music...

[andyb]

I'm holding my breath for the next instalment 

[LIGA girl]

Hi Anthro

from my quick reading of this thread and my knowledge of some of the points of law here, I would say that to prove ownership of the land will be difficult and fraught with danger as the holder of the land title deeds can take out mortgages on it and from the sounds of him he probably has done so. Anyone who holds the title deed has the ownership of the land and if you never took steps to get it you would be deemed to be reckless and to deserve what you get. If you get the title deed you are also liable for any mortgages on it.

Adverse possession sounds like an excellent remedy if you have reached the time limit for your country, your possession of the land has been open and obvious and with the knowledge of the owner. Here I think it is 12 years but that varies in other countries, you may be able to get it now.

I dont know about the law relating to tenancy, I hope you dont get the short straw here Anthro

LG

[itchychick]

Ha. Well. I'm back a little earlier than anticipated.  Change of plan.  After dinner but before clean up and the rest, we had an unexpected discovery.  Elder son has lice.  Three cases were found amongst his classmates a few weeks ago, and he has been complaining of an itchy head for a few days now....

So.  After an emergency run to the pharmacy for stuff, I am now waiting for the "brewing time" for son #2 (it was highly recommended that we all do the treatment) and the third load of laundry to finish.  Kids are now watching a movie, and I have declared tomorrow a mental health day for all of us.
  ________________________________________________

Okay, back to the regular scheduled programme:

This is really obvious, and in fact, so obvious that I didn't think that I bore mentioning, but of course, if the order of eviction was/is still standing, then of course, anthro would have needed to take immediate action to stop that.

You stated earlier that if you file notice that you dispute the claim of eviction, the Sherrif cannot force an eviction without a court order.  Have you filed such notice?  Given you now have the receipts for the fully paid taxes, it would seem that your claim to Unlawful Detainer (have I got the terminology right?) would be entirely legitimate.  You could then not be forced to vacate before the dispute is settled.  At least that would buy you some time to plan your next move.

[anthropositor]

Exactly correct.  I needed to make a formal response within the ten day period, even though it did not say so anywhere on the Vacate Order.  I hold this to be a serious defect, that this essential duty and to whom it must be addressed is not in the body of the Order.  It shows distinct favoritism toward the complaintant to omit this essential information.

I elected to write the letter and serve it first at the Sheriff's Office, getting it stamped Received and initialled for my records.  Since neither the Sheriff or his Sergeant were in at the time, I chatted with the bookkeeper and court clerk, showing them copies of the letter to illustrate my points.  Then I called the voice mail of both the Sergeant and the Sheriff, leaving them urgent messages about the eviction in process and how ill-conceived it was.  Copies of my letter were on their desks.

The Sergeant called me and was the very first of all the county bureaucrats to inform me that no eviction could actually occur without a judges order, and that could not happen until the case was heard in court.  The letter I wrote in response to the Vacate Order made a hearing a necessity if the seller wished to proceed against me.  Of course I knew this, but my wife was still apprehensive.  Now I could quote an authority figure.

But there was a bonus.  A few hours later, the Sheriff himself called me.  We chatted at some length.  At the end, he decided to personally take the letter out to the Patriarch of the furniture store.  I was delighted by this turn of events.  Normally, the boss doesn't do things like that.  A low ranking deputy does.

Now, to be absolutely sure of a recorded delivery of the letter, on the ninth day, I sent it Certified, Return Receipt Requested, Priority mail to be delivered on the tenth day.  The Sheriff had blunted the surprise in one way, but made it razor sharp in another.

Now, a few words about this letter.  It is not for the purpose of negotiation, appeasement, compromise, mending fences, supplication, or anything of the sort. 

My eight years of being a Gomer Pyle sort of Boob were over.  I was now going to be myself.  The pretense all that time had been pretty fatiguing.  I felt like a long running play had just dropped its' final curtain. 

I was certainly happy to no longer have to put up that facade of mediocrity to crooks who were trying to fleece me.

Here is the letter:

Formal Answer To Notice to Vacate 10-6-08

To: [name and address removed]
AR

From: (Mr. & Mrs. Anthropositor)
(Delete St.)
Delete City, AR

Re: Eviction Order

Please be advised that this eviction order does not reflect the true facts.  Please be advised that there is no merit or foundation in any of the causes you have alleged therein. The order is disputed in its entirety.

If this matter is not put to rest without court intervention, we will list the various injuries we have suffered in our dealings with you, and will countersue for damages.

This is not the time to list them all, or to list the serious losses we have sustained due to your unscrupulous, negligent and willful actions, but you may rest assured that we will comprehensively list them for the court and for the public.

Most particularly, we are not tenants and never were. We are buyers.

We are not in breach of contract. Therefore, if you were successful in evicting us and seizing our real and personal property we would take vigorous legal action against you for our injuries.

This was a stealth action on your part, with no warning. No demand for moneys alleged to be due has been presented. Not in writing. Not verbally.

There have been many, many harassment's made against us over these eight years, in an attempt to get us to relinquish our home. I will list them comprehensively during any legal action that you bring against us, in a counter suit against you.

Although you have received several verbal requests over these eight years, to inform the Tax Assessor of the purchase of this home on two acres of land, you have to date failed to do so.

I can think of several motivations for your ongoing delay in the proper recording of this sale. Reasonsresulting in profit to you and substantial loss to us.

Only the seller could do this. Therefore we, the buyers, are entirely blameless. The assessor's office has informed us that there is no delinquency in the tax liability on this property. I call upon you once
again, this time formally and in writing, to correct this wrongful and injurious failure to inform the Tax Assessor of our purchase agreement and get us properly listed as buyers.

If you do this, the Assessor will be able to determine the actual tax liability due for the two acres and the dwelling.  Until you do this, no correct and accurate figure can be generated.

Certainly you cannot believe that we were responsible for the taxes on the entire tract, of which this parcel is only a part.

To sum up: You have never made any demand with any dollar amount to us. Never. In over eight years.

Our tax liability commences on the date the Tax Assessor generates the proper precise amount due from us for our proportion of the larger tract. And a debt cannot be due before the debt has been properly computed and an actual bill has been presented. You do not even know what figure you claim is due.

These are essential elements of a debt.

We did not empower or otherwise authorize any party to pay our taxes without our knowledge or consent, and therefore cannot be held responsible for any such DONATIONS made without our being made aware of it.

Rest assured that we will pay all taxes on our two acre parcel with dwelling, at such time as we receive a proper and correct bill from the Tax Assessor showing precise figures for that parcel only, not the
larger tract that the parcel is on.

The other minor things you allege in your eviction papers are equally without merit, and certainly don't constitute a cause for elderly people to be put out on the street and their home wrongfully stolen from them.

(Anthropositor)


Okay, anyone notice what I deliberately left out?

[itchychick]

Good letter!

As for the omission, I noticed that although you hint at the reasons the seller delayed in "the proper recording" of the sale, you made no mention of the bank loan he took out against your property...

[anthropositor]

Yes, that is one.  There are quite a few that I am holding in reserve for later.  But the specific tactical one was not telling them in the letter that I had paid the taxes which were almost immediately in danger of becoming overdue.  I had every reason to believe that their plan was to let those taxes go into default, and I couldn't allow that.

And oddly enough, as I interpret some of the more obscure statutes of Real Estate Law, they may have had another recourse against me, which is now no longer available to them.  It turns out that my having paid this latest installment of the taxes was essential from several perspectives.

[Bamawing]

What few bits of my intellect are left over, I'm having to use for moving/student teaching. And I know next to nothing about law anyway.

But dangit, I want Shmooo. So I came up with the following: a top 10 list of things Anthro probably didn't do to save his home, but could have. I'm hoping I at least get honorable mention and a taste.

10. Isn't there some sort of law that states that you have to give tenants 30 days' notice before eviction?
9. If you don't own the land, is there any way they can prove that you live there? You could be visiting for a spell. It's not your fault that the spell has lasted several years.
8. Do a James Bond-like sneak in at the courthouse and change the records.
7. Laws are complicated. Tell them that according to a loophole in section 45, paragraph B of the Eviction Act of 1892, you cannot be forced to leave your property due to the current state of corn prices. By the time they manage to check this claim and realize it's bogus, you'll have had plenty of time to invent another one.
6. Ingest many beans before the evictors arrive. When they come, smoke bomb them out, so to speak.
5. It should be fairly easy to blackmail wealthy crooks with connections. Fun, too.
4. Exactly how many large dogs is it you own?
3. Anthro is a unique species. One might could even say... endangered. And we all know what happens to endangered species when you mess with their habitat... or, rather, what happens to *you* if you do the messing.
2. Two words: sword cane.
1. Ichabod, the vial! To them this time!

[anthropositor]

10. No.   9. No   8. Felony   7. Might be useful as a delaying tactic, but would also annoy the judge.   6. I eat no beans.  Not since the age of fourteen.   5. The letter does have elements of lawful blackmail.   4. Half the number I had two weeks ago.  Cats?  Half the number of two weeks ago.  Quite a challenge finding homes for that many animals in such a short time, but we were quite attackable on this count.  3. Generally more dangerous than endangered, especially when cornered.   2.  A sword cane is a disguised, concealed weapon.  My knife is always on my hip, in full view.   1. Ichabod is on an extended sabbatical, trying to overcome his late-developing aversion to blood and other red things.  He sort of freaked when I cut up the roadkill buck in the back yard.  I'm sure the Company will return him to duty as soon as they think he is up to it.  If he does recover, I will be glad to see him back.  Since he was a quisling as well as a butler, he was within my means... and he ate very little.   

[itchychick]

 

[anthropositor]

Somehow I overlooked LG's comment.  Certainly my deal, all the way from the beginning was a calculated, high risk transaction.  But most of what I did was to put off the day of reckoning as long as possible, while keeping my strategy as well hidden as the strategy of the sellers.  I really did have them thinking that I was considerably more retarded than I actually am.  As it turns out, that was a very useful thing for me to do.

[andyb]

I really did have them thinking that I was considerably more retarded than I actually am.

so were they hoping any contract would be null and void on the grounds of diminished responsibility and incapacity of the purchaser?

[anthropositor]

Not exactly.  They were convinced that I was too stupid and too meek to defend myself against their well planned tactics.  They did not even attempt to disguise the fact that they were borrowing on the land over these eight years.  They just acted like they had a perfect right to.

And I believe they thought they were on solid ground to claim that my "failure" to pay property taxes never assessed to me, meant that I owed them for the payments that they paid without my knowledge.  I doubt that they even checked with their lawyer, they were so confident that they had me over a barrel.

And look at the timing.  That order to vacate was presented at precisely the time of the greatest and most destructive global market panic in history.  That was no coincidence.  It was premeditated.  As was their treating me like a sharecropper for these eight years. 

What they had never figured out is that I can live well with minimal cash resources, simply because I do not waste what I have. 

Had I gotten dental work when it was clear that I could use it, had I gotten medical attention after the stroke, had I gotten the cataract operation when ordered, it is likely I would have lost the house and land several years back. 

My wife too has been remarkably resilient.  I even pulled one of her teeth a month or so ago.  Some of you might think that's easy for me since I am the puller and she is the pulee. 

But I did remove a three unit permanent bridge from my lower jaw after the dentist told me it could only be removed destructively.  I took it off intact.  It probably took me ten or twenty times longer to do that than pulling her tooth.

The genesis of dental anesthesia was only a century and a half ago.  Yet today, we are convinced that without it, and the dentist to administer it and do the work, we are entirely helpless.  The same as we are without lawyers and doctors.

Why is this?  I think part of it is the absolute pervasiveness of conditioning and propaganda.  Try this.  Watch TV for an hour. 

Tabulate the number of commercials for lawyers, for medicines you are to ask your doctor about, for over the counter nostrums.  I think you will be surprised at the counts you come up with.

It is pervasive conditioning which we are so used to, it seems perfectly normal.  It is not.  It is Pavlovian in its' intensity and scope.  And I'll bet it is the same in Canada, England, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, and virtually every other industrial country.

[itchychick]

And I'll bet it is the same in Canada, England, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, and virtually every other industrial country.

Not nearly so much.  The only advertising I see on tv for lawyers are on the stations that come from the US, for American law firms.  We do get most of the same commercials for new drugs and remedies, but these are all American adverts.  It's been a while since I watched tv in Europe, but I don't recall the commercials there being in the same vein as on American tv. 

As similar as we (Canadians) are, culturally to Americans, there are significant differences in the way we approach things, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.

[andyb]

I'm in the UK and I try not to watch adverts - in fact the BBC channels don't carry any - being a public service broadcaster.

What adverts I do see seem to be promoting car insurance and price compariosn websites such as confused.com and moneysupermarket.com at the moment. Oh and those awful (some would say scary!) 118 118 adverts (for telephone (expensive) directory enquiries). And thinking about it I have seen a few 'Had an accident not your fault? no win no fee' ambulance chasing type adverts - but these seem to be in a minority of all adverts on the box at the mo...

It has been said that TV advertising in the UK is among the best in the world - but I'm often using the break to put the kettle on so I can't comment... 

andyb

[CalamityJane]

And I'll bet it is the same in Canada, England, Australia, France, Spain, Germany, and virtually every other industrial country.

As similar as we (Canadians) are, culturally to Americans, there are significant differences in the way we approach things, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.

I second itchy's post here although we live in different provinces. There are very few ads here re law or medicine, but they do sparsely exist. Seems we are drenched though in toothpaste, mouthwash, vehicles, cleaning etc. ads.

Jane

[anthropositor]

In the U.S. perhaps the most frequent type of commercials on TV are those for prescription medications, motivating the viewer to ask the doctor.  It is absolutely pervasive conditioning.

If this is not the case in Canada, you are indeed fortunate.  I wonder what method was used to prevent pharmaceutical ads?  Now you have me wondering about the European countries as well.  I had just presumed that these ads were pervasive nearly everywhere.  Are magazines and other media similarly restrained?  If they are, I'll guess that it is reflected in reduced use of prescription drugs.  Very interesting.

[CalamityJane]

Are magazines and other media similarly restrained? 

I only read magazines in the Doc's waiting room, but they seem to be packed w/ads of all sorts, especially make-up/skin care. I'll have a look when I next shop. Interesting Anthro.

Jane

[Uncle Matt]

Well, here in the UK, most adverts (at least at the moment, anyway) fall into one of five categories - Insurance comparison websites, beauty products, "Sale weekends" at furniture stores, DIY Stores etc. and supermarkets, or other TV Programs.

Or at least, that's what it seems.

[anthropositor]

As similar as we (Canadians) are, culturally to Americans, there are significant differences in the way we approach things, particularly in the fields of law and medicine.

From my perspective, medicine and law are the two most significant elements of life in modern industrial society.  Consider the subject of this thread; unscrupulous people waiting for the most opportune time to spring a trap based on convoluted technicalities in the law.  They depended on the likelihood that I, like most people, would not be able to cope with the technicalities involved in defending myself against their predatory acts.

And at every turn, I was strongly advised by virtually every official or clerk, that I would need a lawyer to get me out of this predicament. 

Surely most of these people were quite well aware that I could not be moved without the order of a judge, and that could not happen without a scheduled court case, and that would take several months on the very fastest timescale.  But these well experienced people declined to supply this information because it constituted "legal advice." 

And it is also true that I would not have been able to find an attorney to take the case for a hefty portion of the damages, in the way that they will so often do with major personal injury cases, because too little money was involved.

Virtually all knew that I had to make a response within the time period on the vacate order (ten days). and that my response had to be verifiable as a matter of record.  This does not constitute legal advice.  Even the Vacate Order itself should have contained some of this information, but did not.

In medicine too, the individual is in an analogous position, having only the power to accept or reject what is dictated by the physician, the insurance provider, and the government.

I have strong reservations about a half dozen elements of current cataract surgery.  From the surgical perspective, these matters are not any of the patient's business.  They are accepted.  They are routine.  The patient has no right to even bring them up and expect a discussion of them. 

It is an absolute, that only the physician can decide these matters.  The patient can only consent or refuse the operation.

Yet we have become so conditioned to the normalcy of the situation that almost none of us question it at all.  We just follow doctor's orders.

The monocle I designed for those with cataracts demonstratively works, and works well.  No, it will not work on very advanced cataracts.  But for many people, it can delay surgery for an extra couple of years. 

Yet we have been so propagandized, that the surgery is so routine, so modern, and that complications are so minor and so infrequent, that no one in their right mind would want to delay the operation, no matter how many new advances were continuing to develop in the field.

Dictatorship best endures when most of the population consider it reasonable and normal.  My cataract monocle has now served me well for quite a while.  Yet it has not caught the imagination of a single other cataract patient.  And it certainly has not generated the slightest curiosity from optometrists or ophthalmologists.  I find that appalling.

[itchychick]

I think you raise some really valid points here, anthro.  It is appalling that your legal rights were not made clearly known to you at the time that you were served the notice, and even more appalling that your early enquiries yielded little usable information...

I can't help but feel that that wouldn't have been the situation here, but having never experienced that, I can't say with certainty.

As for the whole cataract surgery, and the unwillingness for doctors to enter into a dialogue with you, that is a very different scenario from the one we would face here.  Certainly, I have seen my share of doctors who are unwilling to consult with patients as to a course of treatment, but the ones like this who I have met have never had the pleasure of my company in their offices a second time.  I feel no hesitation in shopping around for a doctor who suits my needs, and that includes being able to take the time to answer my questions, and who is prepared to examine alternative paths of treatment.  Physician availability is the only obstacle we face here when we "shop around".   We don't have to worry that a profit-driven HMO will deny us the right to find another doctor, or that the "good ones" will be unaffordable.

A quick example.  When I was in my early 20's, my family doctor found some irregularities in my urine samples, and referred me to a very reknowned nephrologist (in fact, this person invented peritoneal dialysis and is highly regarded in medical circles).  I have a genetic condition which can, over time, cause organ damage, and the fear of course was that there was kidney involvement. The mechanism by which this happens is very well understood.  Even I, as a layperson, knew about the connections between my blood disorder and the specific types of organ involvement.  The first thing this doctor said to me was "you are too skinny".  The second thing he said, without so much as a blood pressure measurement, was "we need to preform a kidney biopsy".   When I questioned the necessesity of a biopsy as a first course of investigation,  he actually got angry that I dare question him, and had the audacity to reply "I am the doctor".  To which I replied "and I am the patient whose organs you are not going to cut into without a much better reason."  I walked out of that office and never returned.  I found another, very capable nephrologist who was willing to work with me in a way that I found acceptable.  My family doctor was very willing to help find me another doctor, and thanked me for giving her feedback on the first doctor.  18 years later, the problem is being well managed and has stabilized without ever the need for surgery.

[anthropositor]

Absolutely central to your care was your ability to resist the attitude of the first nephrologist.  It was also helpful that your other physician took your complaint seriously and helped connect you up with another specialist.  I fear that this ability to resist is not common among patients, and is often discouraged by other attending physicians.  In other words, perhaps there was a certain amount of luck involved.  I am so glad it worked out. 

As to the relative merits of the various medical systems, I am not in a good position to make such an evaluation.

I suspect that each system has its' merits and defects, but that all have layers of bureaucracy that interfere with best medicine.  The interference may be in different forms and combinations in each industrial country, but the systems seem strained to the breaking point just about everywhere.

I see feelings of pride and loyalty expressed about the doctors in these other systems.  Yet I hear a lot of Americans speak in glowing terms about some American doctors.  Let's face it, when outcomes are good, we often give the doctor the lions share of the credit.  I don't know if that is justified.

It might be worthwhile if a few doctors paid a little more attention to the system within which they work, with a view to making it fairer and more responsive to patient needs.  I see no signs that this will happen anywhere.  Actually, I believe the trend will continue to be in the opposite direction.

[itchychick]

I agree with all you've said, anthro.  I certainly don't want to make it out that our system is problem free, nor that the American system is awful.  There are plenty of wealthy Canadians who travel to the US for treatment.  That speaks volumes.

Both my sister and brother-in-law completed portions of their medical training in the US, and were impressed with the research and technological resources available to them.  They both, for both personal and professional reasons turned down extremely well-paying offers of employment in the US, however.

I think the business of medicine is so big that these problems of beauraucracy and/or greed and/or complacency are almost unavoidable to some exent.  In a free market medical system, there is too much incentive for profit, and I fear that patient interest can easily take a back seat.  In a government run system, there are huge problems of over-run costs and professional apathy.

[anthropositor]

Both Itchychick and myself have been making inquiries of our respective governments, with regard to the international shipment of a cooking herb/green food, Shmooo. 

We each got different and conflicting answers from different officials.  The bottom line is that neither country is at all clear about what may happen with the shipment. 

I am taking the additional precaution of assembling the shipment with my signed statement of the content and that it is a food and known not to be proscribed by either country as contraband.  I will put the package together under the watchful eye of a government agent.  This may, or may not, be enough, depending on the individual officials the package encounters in its' transit to its' destination.

I have also labeled it as a research sample, without an established value, since the product is not being sold at this time.  The purpose is to determine the versatility of the Shmooo, in its' dried form, as a regular constituent of the diet.  In other words, it should be duty free to the recipient.  We shall see.

[itchychick]

Indeed we shall!

I will be needing some recipes, anthro!

[anthropositor]

Okay, I'll talk about this over in the Nutrition subsecrion on the Maca and Shmooo thread.

[anthropositor]

With regard to the fight over the home we have been purchasing for over eight years, it is far from over just because I was able to stop the ten day eviction order from being carried out. 

The sellers have lost a big part of their element of surprise.  I too have lost some of my surprise.  The sellers have now found out that I was a little more equipped to defend myself than they expected.  But it would be a dangerous dream to think that this will be the end of it. 

Whatever move they make next, it will take months rather than days for their actions to carry force.  I must be prepared to neutralize what I presume will be their next strong move, finding a reason to call our contract due and payable in sixty days due to what they hold to be breach of contract, even if it has no merit at law.  That will necessitate a court battle which my opponents will probably be better able to afford than I.

What should I be doing to prepare?

In chess terms, it is my opponent's move, and I don't yet know what he will do.  That does not mean that I should just sit and wait.  I should try to anticipate the strongest, most dangerous moves that might be made, and fend those moves off, to whatever extent I can.  In chess the moves alternate between the two players.  But if you don't use the time it takes your opponent to move, making constructive anticipations of what may happen, you will very likely loose the game.  All I have done so far has been to parry a surprise attack and begin to position my pieces effectively.

So, to put it in another way, at this point we have two avenues to pursue; What are they most likely to do next?  And what should I be doing to improve my defensive posture, to best negate the threats?

The same sort of thing that is happening to my wife and myself, leaving aside the specific details, is happening to millions of people in the United States alone. 

A great many renters are being evicted from their homes right now, not because they are in arrears on their rent, but because their landlord defaulted on their payments to a bank and the bank foreclosed.  Our convoluted legal system provides these renters with no reliable remedy. 

And meanwhile, although our legislators do a lot of talking about not allowing Golden Parachutes and multibillion dollar bonuses for the executives of failed banks and mortgage institutions and stock brokers, no one is saying anything about retroactivity. 

Our elected leadership was stampeded into enacting the big bailout, and they will continue galloping toward the economic abyss, with the subsidiary bailouts that are lining up in the immediate near future. 

On the good side, a sudden cataclysmic economic meltdown of the sort which occurred during the Great Depression was partially averted, but we don't know for how long.  That initial $700,000,000,000 may have only provided us with a short interlude of imaginary safety, and nothing more.

Will our justice system be up to the task of providing real equity and protection?  I doubt it.

The risks that I and millions of others now face are not just abstract.  They are very real.  There is not only the loss of shelter.  There is also a lowering of  the prospect for real justice and equity from the system which should be protecting us all, rather than the affluent few.

Platitudes and wishful thinking will not change this.  We must fight, as our only option, even when the deck seems to be stacked against us. 

We do not often get to decide when we will fight, or where.  But many of the recently homeless have not felt that they had any chance at all even if they did fight.  Almost all of them were simply forced into the streets. 

It is clear that the courts DO favor the powerful over the plebian.  Not just in the U.S.  Virtually everywhere. 

If we look at the Great Depression, our justice system was corrupted and degraded by organized crime and the fortunes that were amassed by the criminals and their bought-and-paid-for allies in law enforcement and the courts.

Any new ideas?
Great economic upheaval tips the scales of justice to favor the wealthy and influential over those undergoing economic hardships.

[anthropositor]

Nothing new (that I know of) has happened since my response to the sellers.  This is not a time for complacency.  It is a time for ever greater diligence.

I know I am not the only one that this sort of thing is happening to.  Don't let the predators get away with it!  Don't even be surprised or offended that they do it.  I got plenty of indicators that they were up to no good, from the original sale on.

We are in a Depression folks, and not just in the U.S.  What is happening to the worlds economies was due to the actions of a great many bankers, brokers, lobbyists, speculators, legislators, judges and other carpetbaggers.  Tens of thousands of them. 

And most of the CEO's and company officers got clean away with the crime, keeping vast fortunes in bonuses given even as their companies collapsed in ruin.

Within days of the election, a Senator was convicted of seven felonies, totaling about a quarter of a million dollars.  His constituents promptly re-elected him.  If there is any government on Earth not permeated with corruption and intrigue, I would like someone to tell me where it is!

Good Luck Mr. President Elect.

Such injustice foments revolution insidiously by sowing a seething discontent in the disenfranchised public, even as they grow explosively in numbers.

[itchychick]

I'm back tracking about halfway back on this thread to the brief discussion on advertising by drug companies and lawyers.

I asked hubby about the differences between Canadian and American advertising practises (due to the nature of his work, he has significant knowledge of the laws concerning pharmaceuticals).  In Canada, there is legislation which prohibits the advertisement of any specific  drug for a medical condition.   Companies cannot say "Lipitor reduces cholesterol" or "Try Viagra for erectile dysfunction".  All that can be said is "if you suffer from high cholesterol, see your doctor" etc.   Having said that, we do get a lot of American stations here, and so we do see some American advertising.

As for lawyers, they are not permitted to work on contingency, so we don't get any ambulance chasers advertising that they only get paid if they win for you in court.  There is one ad right now for a firm that specializes in tax law, but that's the only ad for a Canadian law firm that come to mind - ever.... 

[anthropositor]

I suspect that I could get very fond of Canada if I were to visit.  But it might be due to noticing the differences that I happened to favor.

It is nice that Canada has some limitations on medical advertising on TV.  What is to prevent a Canadian company from buying commercial time on the American stations, broadcast into Canada from the south?

There is much wrong with contingency fees for lawyers.  Even so, they can play an important role in providing an avenue to legal services for the impoverished and disenfranchised.

In the United States, legal representation is provided for the accused in a crime if they cannot afford a lawyer.  Such Public Defenders are often overburdened with work, tend to plea bargain at any opportunity, or have skills that might better be applied to less demanding work.

In civil matters, the situation is just as bad.  There are "legal aid" agencies, but they are only available after running a complex gauntlet of means testing and making an invasive and comprehensive inventory of all assets.  Many find they have just a little too much income or stuff to qualify for the service, but only after their privacy has been invaded.

Superficial appearances aside, reliable justice is not to be had for the poor in this country, without a large component of luck.

[anthropositor]

A process server came out on the 17th.  My wife was in the process of running him off.  I came running.  Took the papers he had for each of us.  I had already delayed service a few weeks because they had tried to serve me in an odd way, and I needed time to prepare and to extend the statutory time, but it is now in my interests to get this matter scheduled before a judge.

Anyone care to guess why?  You know folks, this same sort of thing could happen to you in virtually any country.  A little practice on how to fight such matters, particularly if you do not have the resources for a legal beagle to hold your hand, could make the difference between success and failure.

What kinds of things might you do to defend yourself against being ripped off for your home?  You must try a variety of things.  Bear in mind, each tactic you employ will not all work.  You have to expect that. 

In essense, what the lawyer did was make a demand for specific amounts of money fpr the seller and threatened to seize our property in two months if we do not pay the amounts she generated by some as yet unknown means.  She also suggested that my experimental gardens constituted a violation of state law. 

The structure of her paperwork showed that her own clients probably had not been entirely forthcoming with her.  If you are going to go up against me, it is a really good idea not to mislead, omit, or lie to your lawyer in any way.  Things are looking a shade less bleak. 

Next, annoying though being served papers may be, don't kill the messenger.  Make him your friend.  I did that with the process server, and he was so surprised at my behavior that I got some excellent information that I wouldn't otherwise have gotten.  But enough hints.  This is an exercise for you guys.  Call it a moot suit.  Like I teach my chess students, practice makes perfect, and actually playing the game does a hell of a lot more for your skills than just lurking while other people play. 

Look at how well Itchychick did.  But she is on a bit of a holiday for a little while to give some of you other people a chance.  Take advantage of it. 

[anthropositor]

In the last week, since Christmas day, I have initiated contact with both the patriarch and, separately, his son, the seller of our property.  I told him that with the discharge of his lawyer, we could hammer out a compromise agreeable tp all partoes.  He was cagey and noncommittal.  I suspect he took my offer as a sign of weakness.

In that, he was sorely mistaken.  I may be blind, but I am stronger than I have been in forty years.  I fear only that he has no notion how big a bite he has bitten off.  Having a brand new daughter, I have no taste for the battle, but once we engage, there shall be no quarter.  The expenses involved will cost me, in my estimation, an additional year of blindness.

Even with the good old boy network and their lawyer, they are no match for me.  I have made my offer for peace.  I will even repeat it one more time.  Then will come the counter attack.  Sounds like bravado doesn't it.  They do not know how annoyed I will be to lose another year of sight because they are so foolish to continue.

No more suggestion for folks to speculate about next moves.  The situation has become critical.  School is out.  Now I shall report each stage after it happens.  No overconfidence here.  I can easily lose the next round.  I am playing a powerful tag team.  But I won't be knocked out.  There will be an appeal of this round should go to them, by hook or crokk.  And they will know they have been in a fight.  I'll give them a few more days to decide.

[anthropositor]

Having given the patriarch father and the son an opportunity to bargain independantly with me and having waited a week or morw for the answer, and they having remained mute. O have retained a counsel of impecable credentials and capability from several counties away.  I did this, of course, because I heard from so many sources of the good old boy network in this area.

In the intervening weeks, I have laso heard a great many more spontaneous horror stories of instances of abused of their manyrenters.  I have heard of no other buyers like me so far, but certainly the potential profits for them if they prevail are many, many multiples of what they can get from any renters.

My lawyer has a considerably different style of waging battle than I do, but our fighting styles seem to me to be complimentary rather than contradictory. 

In other words, it turns out, we are totally sympatico.  Who would have guessed?  And all the idiot, scoundrel and good old boy lawyers I oreviously spoke to in this neighborhood were not a waste of time.  I now know who never to use for any purpose.  That can save me a lot of time in any future emergency.  Although, come to think of it, I now know who I will want to represent me in any future difficulty.  While nothing is for sure in southern courts, having an Atticus Finch at your side certainly doesn't hurt.

One might say, my recent spate of good fortune has just been blindingly excellent.  In thanks for this to the Spirit of Benevolence in the Univers, anyone who is up against it, out of work, hungry, or otherwise in a world of hurt, who finds a way to send me some postage and a penny per Shmooo seed will get some Shmooo seed with which to feed themselves and others.  Please though, grow the seeds and eat the plants.  And let some of the plants grow to maturity and go to seed, and spread the seeds to your friends.  Don't just eat the seeds I send you. 

Soon, I may not be writing for a while until I get at least one of my eyes fixed.  But even while I am unsighted, I will have people to help me with the sending out the seeds.  See the nutrition thread for more information.  No gardening experience required.  Simple instructions will come with the seeds. 

From whatever country in the world, no need to convert your money.  Just send whatever kind it is.  I'll honor it.  If your country is undergoing famine or other crisis, tell me.  Let's see what we can do.  As soon as you grow more than you need, feed the needy around you.  That will be nutrition for your soul.  I'm posting this now, wguke U still can, but it will not expire until I do.  And later, if you would let me know your experiences with Shmooo, that will make me very happy.

May peace be upon us all.
Anthropositor

                               

[anthropositor]

Now that I am represented by an attorney iseem to have somewhat less to do.  That is not entirely comfortable.  Currently it is the opponent's move.  All previous deadlines having been met, it appears we will wait until they make some new move.

This is not time to be wasted though.  I shall continue to brainstorm, to look at worst possible scenarios and sort out the best responses.  Many chess tactics and strategies have their counterparts at law.  Both chess and trials are adversarial by nature.

In this case, if it were to come to trial, it would be decided by a judge, not a jury.  There are things to consider about that.  The opponent has some advantage in deciding what court to file in.  Unless...

[Uncle Matt]

you take him to trial first?

[anthropositor]

Maybe.  A good speculation Matt.  That employs an offensive action pre-emptively for defensive purposes.  Any others?  Even future steps which can't yet be played are fair and useful to speculate on for the purposes of proper preparation.  Just like chess.

And as in chess, there are four major components of the battle:
TIME, FORCE, SPACE, STRUCTURE
To some extent, each of these elements can affect or even convert into one of the others.

But above and beyond all this is the spectrum of goals.  What do I want to do?  Why do I want to do it?  How badly do I feel injured or betrayed?  And exactly what part should that play in my decisions about what to do?  Are there lawful tactics which could be brought to bear which would encourage more ethical behavior on the part of my adversaries?  Or which would otherwise close avenues of harrassment.  This current battle might be won without closing off the possibilities for future abuses.

That's about it.  Got to go teach my Sunday afternoon Group chess class.

[anthropositor]

LG, you have made some excellent and valid points.  Of course. one of the initial steps I had to take care of was to determine with certainty that the title holders were one and the same as thpse tp whom I was making the property payments.  I determined that years ago, but that does not preclude them from making a clandestine transfer, and it might be rather complex and expensive to prove fraud complete with intent.  And that is not of interest to me anyway.  I simply want to assure that they can't steal the property back, along with the down payment and the nearly nine years of accumulated equity, something on the order of 40% of the contract price.  It may be the equivalent of Grand Theft, but as I understand it, the law as written could allow it.

Just in the past few weeks, I once again checked on the title holders.  No change. 

The issue now is that they have surely encumbered the property and I have no idea who the lenders are,  Nor am I likely to be able to force them to divulge the information without a court battle.  Whatever the merits of my position, and I think they are strongly in my favor, from an expense standpoint, my opponents have what would appear to be a considerable advantage from a purely financial perspective.  They can bury me with costs and drive me under, getting the property back by default if I can't continue to make my payments,  In other words, they don't even need to win in court to win.  They have the deep pockets.

Not only that, even if I am not driven under by expenses, even though they ccurrently have many multiples of my resources, that might not last.  Depressions are hard on people in the furniture business too.  That is why it is worth while for me to be active in seeking a lender to pay off the loan.  That is probably the only way to be safe from these people, sad tp say.

I haven't really done any brainstorming with my lawyer, other than the first discussion over lunch and a short phone call.  Other than the outline of what I hope to accomplish other than just the immediate goal of hanging on to our home for now.  We need to secure it against future predations of the sort we have been experiencing.

For me, the central reason to have a lawyer is that he is much more familiar with all the traps and trappings of the legal system and the courts.  In other words, if you get a lawyer, let him carry the ball.  See what he does.  Don't mocromanage.  See what kind of gameplan evolves.  Don't become a bumbling runaway client.  Any other strategies and tactics not involving the courts still need to be fully discussed with your advocate.  I have two such avenues in mind, but for now, I will just watch and wait, playing purely defensively.  I must admit though, my offers to sit down to settle this matter without lawyers, made twice between Christmas and New Years bot being accepted or even responded to, does give me a strong indicator of their continuing intentions.

At the moment, the ball is in their court and they are letting the clock run.  A time for waiting, watching, planning.  Just like chess.

[LIGA girl]

I had read some pf your recent posts on this thread Anthro and was going to make a post but was not sure of the details. You must be referring to my much earlier post re garding encumbering the property etc. I am curious about what your lawyers tactics are as you dont say. I think you are wise to get a legal rep who, as you say, knows the courts and the time frames involved and can use them tactically. A really clever lawyer can also come up with an innovative legal argument but I am not sure of the issues you are going to court over here. Maybe I just havent read it closely enough .....

[anthropositor]

Framkly, I am guarding against micromanaging.  This proves difficult for me.

Of course, being almost blind is helpful.  It keeps me out of the law books, which are all fine print.  Even on the computer, with larger copy, reading is now very slow and I need to stack monocles to read at all.  But I did get the extra two years of usable sight out of my monocle experiments.  They were certainly worth it, in spite of the fact that the ophthalmological world has not the slightest interest in any innovation which does not come from within.

If they didn't have me by the (eye) balls I would be inclined to avoid their services, just based on attitude and virtually complete innaccessibility and an apparent refusal to discuss any alternate ideas at all.

Can't blame the physicians entirely though.  It is partly the public letting them get away with it, and the way the system has evolved legally and the entanglements with the insurance system and the government morrass of regulation.  But I am crossthreading.

Back to the property.  The big reason for me to use a lawyer is to get innovative ideas that I might have missed myself.  Also, avoiding spending my time sorting the irregularities built into the legal system, and focus on the other tactics which can also have a bearing on my opponent's willingness to continue the battle in wnich even a win could cost them far more than they anticipated.

But such thoughts are worst possible scenario, in which all parties lose.  I doubt that they even know how many ways they have already lost in terms of their business and general good will.  When people bahave with such evil and avarice, it can come back to haunt them.

If they have not yet recognized how formidable I can be, and wish to continue this battle, they will learn the hard way after I get one of the eyes fixed.  That is my only real handicap at the moment.

My opponents have three handicaps which are less easy to reverse.  Greed, stupidity and overconfidence.  Who knows? maybe their lawyer will give them some idea what they might be in for, if she is bright enough.  I see no indicators of that so far.   

[anthropositor]

Even under ordinary circumstances I have a bit of a tendency to cross thread my comments. I had a recent additional incident of skullduggery which I know I mentioned somewhere, but I don't know where.  It is a pretty serious issue though, and this is where it belongs.  Now I am too blind to see what I type.  I just set for bold copy, so I may be able to read it after I post it.  Unfortunantely, it does no good while I'm typing.  The bold doesn't really show up until after posting.

Over the weekend, when I was away teaching a group chess class, one of my last two dogs, Sox, had his leather collar cut and was missing.  He did not return as he would have if he could have.  He has either been killed or stolen.  If it was another move to discourage me from living here any more, it is another indicator of the lengths the sellers will go to to get the property back.  I have carefully walked the close surrounding acres, where the carcass would have been found if this was an act of terrorism.  Although it has been very cold, my nose is very good and I have not gotten a whiff of deadness.  I am really anxious to know for sure.  Sox was the best of his litter.  I will walk the ground again in a few more days.  On Monday, I talked to the Police Chief.  He says they will be keeping a closer eye on the place, but as crimes go around here, the stealing or murder of a dog probably doesn't amount to a big deal.  I really hope he was stolen.

I think the sellers may have gotten some word from their lawyer that it is going to be an uphill battle to wrestle my property away from me, and that perhaps the should not set their sights on winning.  I have a call into my lawyer to tell him of this new development, and to tell him of the new battle with St. Mary's regional Medical Center which they just launched.  I expect I'll say more about that over on the ongoing Anthropositor Hires A Surgeon Thread.  Unfortunately the Medical Center has been purchased by a huge conglomerate that is apparently eating up hospitals across the country, so it is not just a matter of confronting the head of the hospital.  Lawyers in a distant state will be making the decision (as to whether they will allow me to have my eye operations  wideo recorded.  I have already heard that this arbitrary decision is based on "risk management."  That does not mean that making the recordings is dangerous to the patient in any way.  The equipment was specifically designed to do this routinely.

No, what their concern is, in a surgical mishap, such a recording could conceivably wind up as evidence in court.  And my guess is that even if I voluntarily agree in writing that any such recording could not be used in an evidenciary manner, the distant anonymous lawyers will not budge.  This sort of legal evil can very easily spread from this medical conglomerate until no clinic or hospital  will allow recording of operations which has been going on routinely for many years.  This is not a matter of law folks.  It is an evil policy forced on the public by a powerful private company.  And it is in part caused by a whole industry of ambulance chasing predatory attorneys bringing frivolous lawsuits, and winning becausethe medical corporations and insurance providers just "settle" based on a seemingly pragmatic assessment of comparative risk.  And that is how our rights as patients just disappear. 

As has become quite obvious in this past five months, the government and corporate ruling systems which govern us are rotten to the core.  And everyone is angry, frustrated and scared out of their wits about what is happening, but nobody is fighting back.  Those who do are just regarded as crackpots.  Those who do fight generally have to go it alone.  And that's how our rights become so eroded as time goes on. 

I am a reasonably careful touch typist but there are probably a few errors above.  I'll probably be able to see them when this gets posted in bold print, but I may have to just leave them that way.  Too bad Ichabod is no longer around to help.   

[anthropositor]

I have now stacked two monocles for a little additional acuity, so no more bold print for the moment.

New news on my missing dog Sox.  Although I talked to the Police Chief last week about it, without filing a crime report, the week went by with no further information about my missing dog.  Now, this weekend, while out hunting for his body in the surrounding area, and asking people about it, I found a witness who watched as a police officer and an animal control person enticed the dog into a cage with bait after a considerable time.  It is difficult to understand why I was not informed about this when I talked to the Police Chief, why he did not check into it further and inform me of the action, and why no notice of the action was posted on my door, so that I could keep my dog from being executed.  I have no sure information at this time that Sox is still alive.  Since it is the weekend, I have not yet been able to talk to the Chief, animal control, or my attorney.  Apparently, the seller of my house and his father, my current next door neighbor, and the central complainant, is as well connected as everyone seems to think he is. 

I made a police report.  An officer came out and took the collar, which had been cut by a sharp instrument, perhaps a hunting knife.  I pointed out to the officer that it certainly wasn't chewed.  And since I had checked the collar before going off to teach chess lessons, I know with certainty that there is no way that Sox could have made those cuts.  There were no puncture marks at all on the collar.  I asked the officer his opinion.  He said, "I'm not going to say."  Southern fried justice?  Maybe a change in venue is in order, or an outside police agency should take a look.  Just a lot of odd things.

[itchychick]

If your neighbour is responsible, that is low indeed...

[anthropositor]

Almost five months since this battle began.  We are still in the house.  No guarantees, but things are looking pretty good.  Still have to fight the ticket for the two puppies not being leashed, but I will use the opportunity to further publicize what has been happening.  I suspect my adversaries are starting to hear some feedback from the public about what they have been doing.  Their lawyer has been quiet as a church mouse for the past few months.

It looks like I will have to take the fight to them.  I am generating some ideas which I hope to implement in a few months.

[anthropositor]

Here it is, April, 2009 and I'm still living in the home they tried to take away six months ago.  Still no guarantees, but I have generated some new tactical ideas for assuring that I won't lose the place to a third party lender.  Time will tell.

[anthropositor]

I went to trial for the ticket on the puppies.  Tried to hash it out with the prosecutor, a young woman of no particular talent I could discern.  Got nowhere.  I owed a hundred dollars and she would give me up to four months to pay it off.  So I went back into the courtroom prepared to fight the case.  But the details had apparently spread around a bit.  When the junior D.A. came back in, my case was called.  I rose to begin to fight.  The judged motioned the prosecutor over to the bench and had a few brief unknown words with her.  He frowned.  She stepped back.  He called me by name saying simply that my case was dismissed.  I said, "Thank you, Your Honor," and turned to go, wondering what I was going to do with my excess adrenaline.  Then the judge said, "Did you dress that way to come to court?"  (I was dressed in one of my tux's.  It may have put my case on the top of the stack.  Who goes to court in a tux?  All the defendants were dressed in total grungies, and I was even better dressed than the lawyers who were there)  I said, "No, Your Honor, I was hoping to get to Church for the Memorial Service."  I thought it impolitic to add that I was an agnostic attending in honor of my wife's faith.

[anthropositor]

There is still some more that I have to do in this matter but I can't really telegraph my moves here.  Loose lips sink ships.  It is certainly important not to get overconfident, or to think that because they now smile, wave, or greet me, they have nothing further up their sleeves.  Of course, speculations by others are still welcome.   

[anthropositor]

About seven months into the battle for the house.  Been fairly quiet.  Yesterday the process server returned with new papers signifying that the sellers were preparing to declare the contract null and void, with a sixty day notice to quit.  No new issues were presented.  Just the formal notice that they were intending to attempt to get a court to sign off on the abrogation of the contract.  While nothing is ever sure in a court of law, I am on solider footing in this sort of issue than I really need to be to prevail, if the issues are heard in a fair court.

I will be brainstorming for a few days and then getting with my lawyer.  I may not be checking in here too frequently.  The borrowed laptop I have been using for the past few months since I got my sight back will be going back to its' owner and I will be sorting out a new dial-up modem for my PC.

I still encourage questions and speculations, and I still will eventually address them.

On the good side, since the original modem fried, I have spent much less time on the computer.  And of course, having my sight back, I have unlimited reading to get caught up on.

Let me leave you with a principle in chess that applies in this case.  Remember that this dispute started with a surprise attack; the attempt to simply summarily evict us in ten days.  Then later, there was all the harassment with the dogs.  And now, a second attempt has been initiated to evict us in sixty days.  I think we are extremely likely to prevail here as well.

The chess axiom is this: "An attack repelled favors the defender."

In the initial attack, hundreds of people around here heard about it.  In the second, dozens of local residents of our little town learned of the issues.  And some of these people are the movers and the shakers of the town.  They would not have, if the harassing had not happened.  A merchant being shown to be unscrupulous will certainly lose some business.  Whereas two old folks being put out of their home without cause, cannot be hurt too much by publicity which is generated by the conflict.  Particularly if the two old people play by all the rules.  Our big disadvantage is that the resource base of our opponents is very large and ours is very small.  But in the public opinion battle, that too has some advantages. 

Currently I am entirely in defensive posture.  What would you do next?   

[andyb]

Anthro - does your local community have a newspaper? If so, I would be interesting to know if your plight and the various run-ins you've had with the owners has been reported, and if then so, how fairly?

You mention that 'two old folks being put out of their home without cause, cannot be hurt too much by publicity'; which indicates to me that you might be willing to go to the media to promote your case. I suppose it would depend how 'private' you wish to be over the issues but, as you say, public opinion has an effect and it would almost certainly have a negative effect on a business that was shown to be underhand/less than scrupulous. Especially if, as you say, you are playing by the rules and the paper reports fairly.

The resource base of your opponents may be very large but it may be undone somewhat if you have the community on your side. 

A merchant only remains successful if he can continue to sell to willing buyers...

[anthropositor]

Good point and good question Andy.  I'll break it up into a few parts.  First, when you are the aggrieved party, you are anxious for as many people to know it as possible, particularly if it is a merchant family that is doing it to you.  

But on the other hand, I just want to save our home.  I am trying to avoid an enduring feud.  Not only that, for as long as they own the contract, it is in my interests for them to remain in business.  So, while I have privately talked to several hundreds of people in the area about the ongoing events, that is a drop in the bucket compared to the much wider public the reach with their routine paid advertising.

But let us look at another perspective when it comes to attracting media.  If I were to drop in at the big local paper and relate what has happened so far, I think they would take notice of the fact that this furniture merchant regularly purchases advertising.  That advertising budget is not small.  And newspapers are already dropping like flies.  The likelihood of the editor doing a story of this sort is not high, and if they did, they would lean over backward to represent the facts in the best light for the advertiser.  It might not be fair, but I can't say I would blame the newspaper too much.  These are hard times, and the paper is just trying to survive.  On those occasions when I might place a classified ad, it will be brief, only run for a few days, and not have any frills.  Not much money to be made for the paper.

Another factor which makes such a story a problem is that it is not an easy one to put in short form.  And yet another problem is, there is nothing really "newsy" about it.  Most of the action is behind the scenes, and the typical reader is not all that conversant with the elements of the law involved.  And the fact is that a whole lot of people have been getting thrown out of their homes without good justification.  If it is happening to millions of people at once, it is no longer news.  That's odd, I know.  But we respond better to the picture of one victim of a disaster than to the knowledge that the same thing is happening to millions.  That is why some charities will send you a picture of one individual who you are helping "personally" along with some background information about the recipients circumstances.  

Newspapers know this as well.  There has to be something newsworthy, preferably something providing a photo-op for the paper.  A juicy photo can make an otherwise bland story into an above the fold, front page story.  And the stories that are read most are those about people, not statistics.

And finally, going for the throat with publicity can backfire against me if it is too successful.  It certainly would do me no good to drive their business into the ground.  Considering the way we have been treated, we might get some small satisfaction out of that, but it could even increase our chances of losing the house.  So getting even can even be counterproductive.

That does NOT mean that I will never go in the direction of publicity to a greater degree than I already have.  I will just do it carefully and with proper preparation.  It is certainly not the first thing on my agenda.  The central thing is not to lose our home and all the equity we have accumulated in over nine years.  Compared with that, getting even is of no importance whatsoever.

There are two kinds of publicity that are extremely focused and confrontational, and entirely legal.  At the appropriate time, these are very likely to be brought into play.

Here is a question up for grabs.  Have my opponents hurt themselves in the fight so far?  How did they do with their harassment getting Sox snatched by the dogcatcher and getting me ticketed?  I did not ultimately have to pay the $35 bail to get Sox out of jail.  I had to get him a rabies shot.  The truth is, I had already given him a Mexican rabies shot, but did not have a vet's certification to that effect.  So my cost was $10 for that.  If I had not won on the ticket when it went to trial, that would have been $100.  But I did win, so that was zero.

Meanwhile, I made sure everyone involved with the city knew the details of what had been going on.  So, for the cost of $10, I was able to represent our position to good effect within the city, and it is far, far less likely that there will be official cooperation with future skulduggery of the same sort.

In chess, one of the principles I mentioned earlier is; "An attack repelled usually favors the defender."  So far, I have neutralized or repelled the attacks that have been brought against us, and have ultimately gained some advantage from the attacks having occurred.  In some varieties of martial arts, one deliberately waits to be attacked, to better use the opponents energy of attack against themselves.

In one of my favorite training chess openings, I bring my bishop to G5, (often on the second move in the game)  specifically because it is so easily attacked by my opponent's F or H pawn.  There is considerable pressure for the opponent to do this, and even strong players often succumb to the temptation.

In my Real Estate battle, my engaging in my No Till Farming experiments are an extreme annoyance to the Patriarch next door.  From his perspective, I should have a landscaping crew come in to mow, weed-eat, apply weed killers and insecticides to large areas as he does.  And no blade of grass should ever be over four inches tall.  In previous years, during the time of the year they were interested in obtaining or renewing existing loans on our land, they just sent over a landscaping crew to "polish" my yard.

I, on the other hand, do not like them borrowing on my land, and can't currently prevent it.  If I am engaging in ecological experiments that the loan assessment officer is not likely to understand, the amount of money he is willing to lend will be considerably smaller. 

Certainly, the structure of the bioswale ecological experimentation would change in some important ways, if I were to receive a written assurance that our home would never again be used as security for loans received by the seller, and that any existing loans had been paid off, there would be a considerable difference in our landscaping.  This assurance is among my important objectives.  But in the meantime, one can expect my landscape to be exceedingly natural in appearance.  Things which I can eat are an ever larger proportion of the plant life surrounding the house.  I now have several different crops which are doing extremely well in spreading on their own.  Nothing in the contract says anything about the Seller being able to dictate to me anything at all about the character of my landscaping.

From my opponents perspective, the landscaping I have chosen is unlawful.  It is not.  But it provides a central element of their attack.  (Sort of like putting my Bishop on G5, drawing attack from the pawns.)

[anthropositor]

On Friday I received a letter from the seller expressing his intention to refuse my house payments, and to terminate our contract now into its' ninth year.  This was several days after a process server presented me with some papers from his lawyer expressing the intent to terminate the contract.  My lawyer said I need do nothing.  He would take care of it.  But I am a little more proactive than that.  Today was the due date.  I took my check down to the furniture store and found the young rascal himself right in front with several other people.  I walked directly up to him with a brief greeting, and put the check in his hand.  Of course I expected him to refuse it.  Had he done that, I would have simply asked that he give me a record of his refusal by writing "refused payment" on the face of the check, and signing or initialing the refusal.

But apparently I caught him by surprise and he didn't quite know what to do.  Perhaps he had it in his mind that I might cause a scene of some sort.  But those of you who know me realize that I would never do that.  In any case, he went directly to the receipt book, as if he was hypnotized, and wrote me out the receipt.

Any ideas what else I might do to increase my odds of winning this battle?

[andyb]

I had to laugh when I read this, Anthro! - sounds like you put the 'fluence on him! 

Actually, I wonder if acceptance of monies tendered by you (and in front of witnesses) waives his Notice of intention to refuse monies from you?

AndyB

[anthropositor]

Yes, I believe that once you have given notice of an intent, which you subsequently fail to carry through on, I think you are back at square one again.  Another element of this is that the paperwork given me by the process server references the date of first service as showing intent to unilaterally cancel the contract (although it did not specifically say that).  The contract requires 60 days from the alleged breach.  Of course, I am disputing that there has been any breach at all.

I suspect that they were just trying a longshot.  You would be amazed how many people would have simply assumed that the payment would not be accepted, and simply have left it to the attorneys to sort out.  These people may be affluent merchants, but clearly they are not swimming in the swiftest part of the stream.  If they were, they would have realized already by this point, how tenaciously I was prepared to fight for my home.  These people mostly try to buffalo their renters, people who have built no equity whatsoever.

Their reputation was certainly not Sterling when I first did the house deal with them nine years ago.  But they were not entirely notorious.  I had to make a few phone calls before I got some cautions about them.  But before this matter is concluded, considerably more people will realize how they operate.  Not just hundreds of people.  Thousands of local people.  Potential customers.  Even in this past half year, several hundred people, a few dozen of them in positions of influence, have learned the details of this blatant attempt to force us out.  The longer this goes on, the larger those numbers will be. 

[anthropositor]

My opponents seem to be in some difficulties.  They no longer are running the TV commercials that used to annoy me multiple times a day.  This is only one of several indicators that they have some serious fiscal woes, which doesn't exactly bring a tear to my eye. 

A process server came by again with my last check for the property payment.  He has come often enough for me to have made him a friend.  I know that sounds incongruous, but one doesn't "kill the messenger." 

It cost their lawyer (and therefore them) $40 to send my payment back.  We will see what good it does them.

[andyb]

I assume you still have the receipt from when the payment was previously accepted, Anthro?

Not sure, but it might possibly be useful to hang on to that?

Andyb

[anthropositor]

Yes Andy.  I also have the paperwork and the uncashed check left by the Process Server.  This is shaping up to be a court battle almost certainly.  You know, I may give the impression I have it all together, but I am really learning by leaps and bounds as I go along. 

My lawyer has been very helpful in this regard, although he can make it painful at times.  The law, unfortunately, has some convolutions which are quite an enigma to me.  Our very home is at stake here, along with nine years of payments which add up to an irreplaceable amount of money.  And in the end, apparently, it is the letter of the law that counts, not right or wrong.  That is disturbing indeed.  I have learned, for instance, that I had the whole venue thing wrong.  This will be fought in my county, no matter what.  Considering the great influence, locally, of my opponents, this is a great blow.

[anthropositor]

Well, things are heating up a bit in the fight.  One of my dogs, the gentle one, Sox, was stabbed over the weekend.  He is dead.  I have been doing some things to get caught up to current events.  I am not very happy right now, but I am keeping myself well in check.  It is probably just as well that I do not know with certainty, who the assailant was.  More later.

[totalfolly]

One of my dogs, the gentle one, Sox, was stabbed over the weekend.  He is dead.

Oh, Anthro!  I'm so sorry!  How awful that Sox was used in such a wicked manner to try to intimidate you! 

totalfolly

[Bamawing]

That is shocking, Anthro!!!

[anthropositor]

Thanks dears,

The borrowed laptop I have been using fried its' WiFi card, or the slots that it plugs into, so I haven't had regular access lately.  But I went out and bought another brand of card, so when I return the laptop, it will be in better condition than when I borrowed it.  So currently, I am back in business.

The key question I had going before the first of the month was, since the clients were refusing payment, how could I make the payment due on the first?  To review: last month I had received a communication from the Seller, stating that he was going to refuse my payment.  As you will recall, I ignored it, took my payment down to their furniture store and handed it over, getting a receipt.  Well, a month has gone by and they won't fall for that again.  So now what?  Here are some hints.  In his letter to me, he referred to his attorney as his property manager.  Of course, being a property manager is considerably different than being a lawyer.  And under some circumstances, being a property manager also means that you are personally involved in the business, and therefore, cannot act as the attorney at trial.  A property manager who is personally involved in the business, could easily have a stake in the outcome of the trial, which would be a conflict of interest for an officer of the court.

Okay, enough rhetorical hints.  Rhetorical because I am not going to keep you all waiting for a few days so that one or two of you will come up with some ideas.  Here is my answer.  Knowing that I would be refused if I did the same thing again on the first of July, and noticing that they had a property manager who they have so conveniently identified, I elected to make this payment directly to said property manager.  The question was, how to get her to accept the check.  If I just walked into her office and tried to hand her the check, she will just refuse it.  So instead, I just put the check in a fancy manila envelope, along with the notarized paperwork which I supplied with it.  The envelope was sealed of course.  And I was carrying a clipboard with the receipt for the envelope to be signed by someone in the office.  It is worthwhile to note that no one in these law offices had any idea what I looked like.  And I took great pains to look just like a process server.  Then I walked up to the counter.  "Got a delivery for you.  Sign right here."  

"What's this?"

"It's a delivery for (Property Manager's name)."  The receptionist signed for it and I left immediately as she went to deliver it to her boss.  Now, they may still not cash the check, but it has been delivered and I have a receipt.  And within the envelope, along with my check, is a fancy notarized statement.  And I must add that I did not write the check to the sellers, as all previous checks had been written, nor to an attorney, as such.  I wrote it to (name),Property Manager.  Not only will she very likely be exceedingly miffed at the designation of  property manager applied to her by her boss, she may totally miss the possibility that she may be forced to replace herself with another attorney for any eventual court proceeding.  And she may not have too easy a time finding an attorney to replace her.  She just lost one of the attorneys who was "of council" who left the state for a distant realm before the investigation of his behavior involving an alleged forgery relating to a $300,000.00 bonus which he had in essence, recommended for himself.  This only made the newspapers less than two weeks ago.  Certainly, I found it pleasant news.  

My guess is that he will skate on the charge by staying out of the state until the statute of limitations makes the matter a moot point.  I should point out that this fellow was exceedingly well connected, a major political power hitter and fund raiser.  I certainly was not looking forward to going to court against such a well known mover-and-shaker.  Although my understanding of the situation is that there is an ongoing investigation of this matter, I anticipate that, now that he is out of state, the investigation probably will not proceed.  He can't be compelled to return without other expensive complexities, not to mention potential embarrassment to other parties.  And I could care less.  As long as he doesn't get to muck around in my situation.

 

    

[anthropositor]

Ms. _____ _______,
Please be advised:
Due to the return of our last two property payment checks to us uncashed, by yourself and by the ______'s, we have opened a Property Payment Account with _______ Bank.  The Account (#000000000*******) now holds the two payments you have already returned without good cause, as well as the payment due on 8-1-09.  These payments are numbered chronologically, #109, #110 & #111, each in the amount of $***.**, currently totaling $***.**.  These monthly deposits will continue until such time that you voluntarily resume proper acceptance of the payments, or until a judge orders you to do so.  Please inform your bosses that these funds are immediately available to them and that we will continue to adhere to all contractual obligations, as we have since this contract was formed in the year 2000.

Yours,
(Anthropositor)

[anthropositor]

I just got a letter in response to my opening up the Property Payment account to hold all the refused payments. from the "property manager".  She said that she objected to my opening up the account, and that she considers the contract to have been canceled.  I can only think that she is hoping that I will fail to continue to pay into the account because she objected.  I will ignore the objection as being completely without merit. 

I will also continue to pay the property insurance as I have been doing these past nine years.  And, if memory serves, I have only about 42 days to pay the next annual property taxes.  Since I paid them last year, on the larger parcel, of which my two acres is only a portion, it is only logical to do that again this year.  It strikes me that if there were any legal basis for the attempt to throw us out of our home, they would have already filed a court action.  The fact that they haven't done so is an indicator that their cause is so faulty they could not prevail.  Eleven months is a really excessive period of time to go by, without actually filing a court action.

Clearly, at some point, if they do not take me to court, I will file suit for relief against them, for their failure to do anything in a court of law.  But meanwhile, I will give my answer to the property manager some careful thought for a few days, and then E-mail it on Monday. 

[anthropositor]

It has now been a year and a few days since the Sellers tried to take our home back.  Throughout the year, I have only been able to fight defensively.  Now things are about to change.  Last month I sent in another notice that a new payment had been made into the account I had opened to hold refused payments.  I pointed out in that letter that it had been nearly a year since the beginning, with no case being brought to court.  A process server came this month.  The case has been lodged.  I have a judge assigned.  I know nothing about him except his record of successful appeals is blemishless, a record he is very likely to be pretty proud of.  But I have also sorted out a way to go on the offensive.  So that is the new riddle.  How do I properly go on the offensive, instead of just fighting for my home?

[Bamawing]

I can't say I know, Anthro, but I can say I know you'll be successful. Those jerks don't have a chance.

[anthropositor]

Fortunately, as a chess coach, I am aware of the dangers of over-confidence.  And since this involves our home and land, and over nine years of equity, it behooves me not to get too cocky.  Just being right is no consolation if we do not defend correctly, and lose the case.

Does anyone know the difference between depositions and interrogatories?  That is to say, the practical differences?  To call for depositions by your opponent and significant parties and witnesses requires some substantial charges up front.  The more depositions, the more money.  In some cases, it is tempting to have several parties deposed.  But we are financially precluded from taking this path.  These deposed individuals would be making sworn statements.  A court recorder is taking both the questions and answers down.  Opposing attorney's are present and engaging in their lawyerly duties.  All of this is very useful, but it is also expensive.  It is not possible for us.

Somewhat more economical is the answering of submitted written interrogatories.  These are still sworn, but the answers are in writing, as are the questions put to the subject of the interrogatory. 

The objective is to lock in testimony prior to court.  Then if an opposing party later says anything that conflicts with the interrogatory on the stand, the discrepancy can be demonstrated.  When one is responding to an interrogatory, the generally accepted legal tactic is to give as little actual information to your opponents as you can, not by being duplicitous of course, but by minimizing the details of the answer. 

But, though that is generally the tactic, I don't know if it is the best one in this particular situation.  Although we are Defendants in an action alleging that the contract has been nullified, it is our position that not only have we not done anything that would breach the contract, the Plaintiff's engaged in a variety of actions and inaction's which were designed specifically to seize the property, putting an elderly couple, one of whom was disabled by blindness, out of their home of nine years.  That these actions on the part of the Plaintiff were premeditated and without legal merit.  That the lawyer for the Plaintiff was in a position to advise her clients that their case was not well founded in law.  That is to say, the lawyer herself shared in the culpability for this wrongful action, violating her duty as an officer of the court.

The legal terminology for the damaging actions of the Plaintiffs and their counsel is called Abuse Of Process.  This is a tort.  If a judge finds that the Plaintiffs engaged in a frivolous suit, without any thought to the potential consequences, the court can award damages to the Defendants that are appropriate to the circumstances, and set protections in place to prevent further such abuses by these Plaintiffs for the duration of the remainder of the contract.

The foregoing does not constitute legal advice.  Laws vary widely from one geographic area to another.  Anyone in this same sort of difficulty should get the advice of competent counsel licensed to practice contract law in that jurisdiction.     

[LIGA girl]

Hi Anthro

a deposition is a statement made by a witness and committed to writing and an interrogatory is a set of questions submitted to your opponent to gather further information from them regarding evidence they may use in court. Tactically if you answer an interrogatory you give as little info as possible while still being truthful. I hope this helps, I am not sure what legal action you are involved in.

Cheers
Vicki

[anthropositor]

Yes LG, that is correct.  But a deposition requires a court stenographer, and attorneys get to play a part as well.  It is adversarial in nature.  That is the source of most of the expense.  Interrogatories are done by correspondence between the attorneys involving responses to questions put. 

The action here is the attempt to overthrow a land contract of nine years.  The details are in the earlier part of this thread.  The Plaintiffs allege that the contract has been negated and that I am therefore in unlawful detainer because of my refusal to leave.  But the refusal of the Plaintiff to receive payments, in itself, is not the same as the defendant willfully failing to make the payments.  That is why, when we could no longer  compel the Plaintiff to accept the payments, we opened a new account for the purpose of housing the payments as they came due, until such time that the court makes a determination in the case.

[Uncle Matt]

That is why, when we could no longer  compel the Plaintiff to accept the payments, we opened a new account for the purpose of housing the payments as they came due, until such time that the court makes a determination in the case.

A very wise move, I think...

[anthropositor]

Yes, my lawyer was glad, in retrospect, that I thought of it.  His first reaction was that it was not necessary.  I believe it was a pivotal move, showing that I never had any intention at all of breaching the contract.

[LIGA girl]

Hi Anthro

I am aware that this thread contains some of the facts of the case but it is a long thread and a lot of other things are discussed in it.

What are the grounds on which the plaintiff claims termination of contract?

Here it is possible to represent yourself in a matter such as this, bypassing the need to pay lawyers. If you know the points of law you are arguing, you can draft or respond to a set of interrogatories yourself and have a deposition typed and signed in accordance with the law for it to be acceptable evidence in court. Is that possible over there? You simply need to know the legal grounds on which the P is claiming relief in order to draft your responses or statements accordingly.

cheers
Vicki

[anthropositor]

Unfortunately the body of the process of the law is convoluted, as are the court procedures that need to be navigated.  An example is the interrogatories directed toward me nearly a month ago by the other side.  The game plan was that my lawyer would send them to me, I would retype them, including my answers.  The trouble is, I have not seen them and my lawyer is pretty hard to reach.  Nor has he read them to me over the phone.  But verbally, he has recently said that this particular deadline is not cast in granite, and is, often as not, observed in the breach.  But meanwhile, I have been more and more disturbed with the passage of time.  What has happened in the last year has had the effect of a siege.  And my lawyer informs me that it could go on for another similar period of time.  That, and not yet having an entire game plan presented from his perspective is dismaying.  As a chess coach, I realize that the absence of a game plan provides a serious handicap.  The other area of problem is that my lawyer really does not want me contacting the other side, in spite of the fact that I have made no mistakes so far, and that all contacts up to now have worked out well.

I certainly would rather have an advocate in the courtroom, rather than representing myself, but on the other hand, I really do need to know each of the next moves in a timely way, and how those next moves propel us toward a successful conclusion.  If I do, the pressure is cut in half.  It is quite certain that the other side has been deliberately playing for delays, and would like to continue to do so.  Not hitting the deadline for these interrogatories makes us seem to be delaying.  I don't like it at all.

I had an unanticipated spell of vague apprehension a few days ago, followed in short order by a sense that I was losing temperature.  You might call it a "cold sweat" for lack of a better name.  I began to rise from the couch and was overpowered by a sense of vertigo, which then continued even when I turned my head.  And some nausea was beginning to develop.  Some of the possibilities are; a stroke or a TIA, an infection of the inner ear. 

I considered what to do next.  The first thing was to inform my wife as precisely as I could that I was having some difficulties, since I could still speak.  There was no paralysis of the face or arms, but the legs were not showing any signs of reliability.  If this was the onset of a new stroke, it was considerably different than the one five years ago.  That one presented no obvious physical signs.  Even the extreme stupidity that set in was more obvious to me than others.  Only some of my chess opponents began to notice.

Once my wife knew what was going on, I prepared myself for the trip to the bathroom.  Dizziness was really a problem.  I moved in a low, wide-legged crouch.  But the legs were very weak.  I went down as I got to the bathroom.  My wife got a little freaked.  Wanted to call an ambulance.  I was not close to losing consciousness.  My pulse was strong and steady, no sign of fibrillation.  I calmed her down while I was laying there with nothing to do.  My voice seemed oddly frail sounding to me.  I tried to make it more resonant, without success. 

In any case, I sent my wife off for half an aspirin and to try to find the missing thermometer, while I just laid their doing the easy part, nothing whatsoever.  My time sense got a little off.  I thought I had been on the floor for twenty minutes.  My wife says more than an hour.  The only thing I had done that required a lot of effort was to sit up enough to take the aspirin with a full glass of water.

But after this long rest, I was able to get to the toilet soon enough to regurgitate a few times.  So I added the possibility of some sort of food-born poisoning to my list of things which might have caused this.  I was at or on the toilet for perhaps another hour, and had the strength to get to my bed under my own power.  I woke up ten hours later, fit as a fiddle.  Had I gone to the hospital, we could easily have been several thousands further behind the eight-ball, making it that much more likely that we could go under, and lose the house even before the case ever came to court.

This certainly did not seem likely to be a cardiac problem.  Much more likely, the year of nonstop stress had taken its' toll.  From that perspective, leaving everything in my lawyer's hands, especially without knowing his complete game plan, was probably the worst thing I could do.  But I'll take a few days off, and then work it out.  If I have to take over the case, I guess I'll have to do it.