That’s because ol’ Frank learned what he couldn’t do. Something you refuse to acknowledge. Your case is nothing more than a division of assests - one almost or actually in foreclosure, and you disagree with the judge’s discretion on the division. You muddy the waters with theories in attempt to salvage what you can. You win a insignificant matter and assume that the rest of your theories are valid. Really, what’s all this energy going to get you? A scraping by porn shop? A house in forclosure? Is that what you really want? Sometimes it’s just better to close the door instead of letting the crazy out.
If I have misrepresented you, I apologize, but in light of the above, I ask again – Why don’t you just quit asking? You’re not getting satisfaction, it appears that you never will, so why keep doing it?
No, Stoid, they haven’t.
What really happened is that the lawyers who actually looked at your case explained, again and again, that you did not understand the issues, and that you are completely off the mark.
Then, you refused to listen to them. So then they explained again, and you refused to listen again, until they finally recognized that you were never going to listen to them and got rid of you as quickly as they could. You interpreted this as agreement.
That’s what really happened.
Regards,
Shodan
Well this has been very entertaining.
[hijack]Especially on a rainy Mother’s Day as I wait in vain, all alone, for my lovely eldest child to call and wish me well. You’ve posted in this thread you miserable wanker get on the phone and give dear old Mum a call.[/hijack]
Oops back to the point. Aside from the Asshat lawyer thing as I understand it the following has occurred:
- Stoid and Stud Muffin buy a house together.
- S and SM put it into an LLC for reasons of making a bigger profit when it is eventually sold in the ever increasing real estate bubble that was previously known as California.
- S and SM break up in 2006-2007 at the peak of the bubble, house is now worth lots more than S and SM paid for it.
- S wants to buy out SM but he wants her to pay more than the house is worth on the free market. (Is there proof of this?)
- SM sues to have the property sold and WINS!! based on dastardly lies told by SM’s lawyer and the DUMB judge! Unfortunately time passes while court ensues and the rebtwpkac bursts.
- The house is now worth $100,000 less than what S and SM paid for it. Profits gone.:mad:
- House is placed on the market and not selling because it is overpriced. S is apealling the sell order.
So my question to Stoid is: What do you really want?
- Keep the house (this is a given)
- Get SM off the title.
I am assuming, probably a bad thing to do here, that you have been making all the house payments since the break-up in 2006-2007. And that the mortgage company won’t let him out of the mortgage agreement. And that he won’t give you a quit claim without being off the mortgage. Heh, lots of assumptions.
Is it not possible to draw up a legal document with SM such that while he stays on the mortgage, you agree to make all future payments, maintain the house, blah, blah, blah and he gives up any right to future profits? That way neither of you has a default against you, you get to stay in your house, he goes on with his life with the cupcake. Eventually the market gets better and you can refinance, get him off the mortgage and title…life is good. One and all feel free to come in and bash me for being totally naive.
Actually it’s pretty common for lawyers to say something like
“I completely agree that you were f*cked over, but this isn’t the kind of work I do so I can’t help you.”
or
“I completely agree that you were f*cked over, and I think you have a pretty good chance of succeeding on appeal. Just send me a check for $15,000 and I will start working on the appeal as soon as the check clears.”
The first is usually a polite way of brushing somebody off while avoiding an argument over the merits of their case. The second may be a brush off, and it may also a way for the lawyer to earn some quick money, even if the case is a dog.
[more hijack]Hahaha, it worked. He called and said he figured I didn’t know it was Mom’s day anyway. And he was right! The only reason I did know was because my brother called and mentioned it. Hee. A family of dopes on the Dope.
sinjin; calendar and geography impaired.[/hijack]
Back to your regular pitting of lawyers, judges and clients: Bastards all!
Jeez… As I said, I DO get assistance, I DO get answers, I just haven’t been able to get any lately in the areas of expertise I need. The answers may not exist, in that the rulings and circumstances in this case really are as unique as they appear to be, and no one can point to a case that is similar. But I don’t want to assume that’s true until I’ve exhausted all possible means of making absolutely certain.
It’s kinda like techsupport hell, legal style… I have exhausted the expertise of the first and second tier support, now I’m trying to escalate to third tier, and they are always notoriously difficult (but not impossible) to reach. And once you DO reach them, they are always so wonderfully knowledgeable, the struggle proves worth it.
You are very close in most of the points, a key one being the house in the LLC - the LLC issues are entirely separate from the house. We have a 2 member LLC that owned our business and he sued to dissolve it and that is actually where the most intensely convoluted stuff is.
The house is more straightforward and its pretty much as you have laid it out above…the timing and reasons, etc, are off. To answer #4, though, yeah: he stated it in open court. Only it wasn’t an issue of value, it was an issue of the formula for determining the equity. He basically wanted to make more off me than he would from any third party, in that selling to a third party would involve costs that selling to me would not involve.
One of the judge’s pigheaded findings, even after transcripts were provided, was that the parties disagreed regarding the value of the property. Well, he did claim five different values over the course of the litigation, 3 during the second trial, 2 in one session! (What did you believe the value of the house was when in January 2006? $700,000. An hour later: What did you believe the value of the house was in January 2006: $750,000. Call me picky, but I think that stuff should be considered.)
But finally he admitted to having received the appraisal from the licensed appraiser that cited a price lower than the price I based my offer on (Appriaser $630, Stoid $650), that he’d agreed with my higher price valuation, and that he’d been looking to get more from me than a sale to a third third party. (He wanted me to pay him every penny of his equity based on his insistence that I would live here forever and the value would only go up. And before anyone jumps in to argue about that… neither he or his lawyer could ever come up with a single authority that agreed with his view. I found several that agreed with mine, including the Supreme Court of California which found, in a similar-enough case, that when someone has the right of first refusal and they offer you exactly what you’d receive if you sold to a third party, that’s the correct offer and you have to take it; to expect to make more off the person with the right than from any other transaction is, to use their word, “absurd”.)
And Judge Thing continues to state in her judgment that the parties disagreed as to the value of the property. But that’s cupcakes compared to her other stuff.
Your suggestion is amazingly sane. But unfortunately, SM has only one remaining goal: thwart Stoid. Will it cost him? Sure. Does he care? Nope. He doesn’t have the slightest invesntment in what he might lose so long as he makes me lose too. So I need to solve this without hoping for anything like voluntary cooperation from him, and as it happens, I think I have. Some hurdles to clear, but the path is there.
With all due respect, I am a lawyer, and I couldn’t wade through all that quoting sans meaningful analysis. If this is how you practice, it’s no wonder the judge hates your guts.
Oh of course not, I don’t quote massive hunks like that!
My point was that the cites were offered as though they told the story…and they didn’t. At least, not the story they were purported to tell. Ya gotta dig deeper… Do these cases prove what we think they prove? Can’t know until you read 'em.
I’d love to believe you Stoid, you delightful little virago, I really would, but see thing is 99.9% of men just aren’t irrationally vindictive like that. At least not unless we’re being led by a crazy partner (I suppose the evidence suggests this chap may be predisposed to crazies).
No, it is usually the case that the nutter in a male V female lawsuit is the woman - and my girlfriend agrees with me, I’m not “supporting my side” or anything like that, just using heuristics - and it so happens that regardless of your sex your general behaviour here has been neurotic, to say the least, and entirely irrational.
So your interpretation of him trying to get back at you is at best paranoia, but I’m sorry to say that it is more likely projecting 
IANAL.
However, on behalf of all the lawyers who are Board members, and, in fact, anyone who has ever passed a Bar exam in any jurisdiction anywhere…
No.
Ok, I’m not a lawyer, but this is how I see it. You guys were in love, bought a house, things were going good, the real estate market was roaring and then over a period of time everything went south. He found a new girl, wanted to start a new life and wanted as much as possible out of the bit of real estate you held together. He knew what buttons to push, knew you loved the house and got greedy, thought you would pay anything to keep it. And he was right but in the wrong way.
You both stonewalled on the price, went to court and you’ve both subsequently lost everything. The way it looks now there is nothing left for him to lose. There is no equity left in the house for him to regain, he is not living there, it’s a detriment on his credit profile and puts the crimp on him trying to buy a new house with his new cupcake.
Is it possible that you two can come to a workable solution that benefits you both? Realistically there is no reason for him to be reasonable if he gets no benefit. Maybe he signs off on future profits, stays on the mortgage and you make all the payments. Maybe make it a rental property with you the live-in rental manager? If you two cannot come up with a viable compromise you are both going to end up with a stain on your credit report, no house, and absolutely nothing to show for it. Just saying.
I am involved in very few divorces professionally (thank God) and even fewer personally (Yay!!). But in the experience I have, both the man and the woman are quite invariably nutty. However, my personal experience is that the women are nuttier and more willing to be expressive about it. I am willing to concede that that I may have a point of view bias about this generally fits in with my view of men and women.
Well, TBWDSW* will have massive bills from his lawyer, assuming that Stoid doesn’t end up on the hook for them. Are any of the lawyers still reading this? Or Stoid? How do attorney fees work on the appeal. It seems like the guy who won the lawsuit in the first place now needs to containue paying a lawyer. Will he get that money paid for him if he wins? Just seeking information, not advice. 
Maybe I missed it, but has there been a (layman’s) explanation of how the appeals court is supposed to make things right? That is, what is the desired outcome if the appeal goes through. In the other thread you said
which looks a bit… scorched Earth to me. If someone had a dispute with me and the solution they suggested was along those lines (I’ll take the house, you can have the debt. Even Steven!) I’d be fighting tooth and nail against it, too.
Since it’s Mother’s Day, maybe we should just cut the baby in half and everyone can have a share!
- The Boy Who Done Stoid Wrong
I think men can be pretty nutty too, but over a slightly different set of things. They say that “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” and I think there is some truth to it.
Lol, srsly, Stoid, it’s called IRAC.
Ya know this just pisses me off. For every woman that runs her cheating husband over with the SUV three or four times just to be sure there’s a dozen guys who bomb a building in Omaha, mail bombs in hand-crafted boxes to people they don’t know or eat their neighbors.
I have come up with all those solutions at varying times, and the response was no. No. no. NO. No. No. No. No.
And…no.
What he wanted was the business, the house was secondary. That was the whole point of the lawsuit; but I outbid him for the business. That was when his rage began to burn with the heat of 10,000 suns, prior to that it was only a couple hundred.
So let me get this straight. You got the business. You are still residing in the house. What has he gotten?