Reply With Quote
Change the law.
Should congress be able to spend us into debt?
See, the thing is, you can't look at the question in a vacuum if that means focusing on the amount owed while ignoring the notice given. The whole point of receiving (multiple) notice(s) in a situation like this is to be given multiple opportunities to pay a debt that's owed. It's your right to cure a default and from the sounds of it, it seems like she was given multiple chances to do so. Plus, there's no allegation that the debt was fraudulent, paid off, or otherwise not owed. Like you said, she's signed a contract and has agreed to pay the HOA its dues.
More to the point, she was negligent, by her own admission, in not opening her bills. It's not like she was disabled, or incapacitated, or otherwise unable to open those bills - and receive the HOA's notice. She was feeling blue. Thinking the HOA is some evil monster in this instance is totally myopic because it let's a negligent dumb irresponsible off the hook.
That's really a long way of saying - we're in agreement so far (sans the business about looking at this in a vacuum).
If I remember right and understand your question - you're referring to the doctrine of unconscionability. Here's a description:
Gillman v. Chase Manhattan, 73 NY 2d 1 - NY: Court of Appeals 1988An unconscionable contract has been defined as one which "is so grossly unreasonable or unconscionable in the light of the mores and business practices of the time and place as to be unenforcible according to its literal terms. (See 1 Corbin on Contracts, § 128, p. 400.)" (Mandel v Liebman, 303 N.Y. 88, 94.) The doctrine, which is rooted in equitable principles, is a flexible one and the concept of unconscionability is "intended to be sensitive to the realities and nuances of the bargaining process" (Matter of State of New York v Avco Fin. Serv., 50 N.Y.2d 383, 389-390). A determination of unconscionability generally requires a showing that the contract was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable when made — i.e., "some showing of an `absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party'
As you can see from the legal standard, there's really no way to claim that this obligation is unconscionable.
I get where you're coming from. However, legally speaking, it doesn't matter how "big" or "small" this 's breach has to be. Legally, a default is a default and not paying $1.00 or $100,000 triggers the same rights in the HOA.See, to me, even if you didn't pay that $10 dollars for 5 years, giving up a $300,000 house doesn't seem like a reasonable solution. Now, I don't mind hitting them with lawyer fees or things of that nature, which would run the debt up quite a bit. Jut sending out notices, even if there are quite a few, seems to me like not enough due diligence... I would think at least a phone call or two would be in order if they were going to repossess your house.
If that doesn't seem right to you, keep in mind what CG said - you'd have to be extremely negligent to get to a place where you get foreclosed for not paying a small debt. In this case, losing the home is entirely on
Change the law.
Should congress be able to spend us into debt?
you're so ing stupid it's unbelievable
Ah ok. (Seriously, I obviously know nothing specific about buying/owning/selling a home.)
So not only did this woman get notices from the HOA, she must've gotten them from the court as well, correct? Every time I've had to go to court I got notices from the court itself. (This is assuming that her presence is requested for this meeting, which would seem an obvious invite.)
and to follow up, maybe said soldier shouldnt have married such an irresponsible or when he was sent off to war named someone responsible to handle his debts and this would never have happened.See, the thing is, you can't look at the question in a vacuum if that means focusing on the amount owed while ignoring the notice given. The whole point of receiving (multiple) notice(s) in a situation like this is to be given multiple opportunities to pay a debt that's owed. It's your right to cure a default and from the sounds of it, it seems like she was given multiple chances to do so. Plus, there's no allegation that the debt was fraudulent, paid off, or otherwise not owed. Like you said, she's signed a contract and has agreed to pay the HOA its dues.
More to the point, she was negligent, by her own admission, in not opening her bills. It's not like she was disabled, or incapacitated, or otherwise unable to open those bills - and receive the HOA's notice. She was feeling blue. Thinking the HOA is some evil monster in this instance is totally myopic because it let's a negligent dumb irresponsible off the hook.
That's really a long way of saying - we're in agreement so far (sans the business about looking at this in a vacuum).
If I remember right and understand your question - you're referring to the doctrine of unconscionability. Here's a description:
Gillman v. Chase Manhattan, 73 NY 2d 1 - NY: Court of Appeals 1988
As you can see from the legal standard, there's really no way to claim that this obligation is unconscionable.
I get where you're coming from. However, legally speaking, it doesn't matter how "big" or "small" this 's breach has to be. Legally, a default is a default and not paying $1.00 or $100,000 triggers the same rights in the HOA.
If that doesn't seem right to you, keep in mind what CG said - you'd have to be extremely negligent to get to a place where you get foreclosed for not paying a small debt. In this case, losing the home is entirely on
And, at the hearing on foreclosure, she could have shown up, written an $800.00 check, and still kept her house. So not only did she ignore all the notice provided her by the HOA, she ignored a court summons telling her that he house was about to be taken away.
That would have been part of the process, but to also ignore certified letters of a court notice and be a no-show in court, the court couldn't arbitrate. The court would have no choice but rule for the plaintiff.That sounds like a strange way to do business. Couldn't they just take them to court? *shrug* It's laws like this which make me wait until I'm settled down to buy a house, and not try to flip stuff like a lot of military members do.
Would you prefer the police hunt her down, put her in cuffs, and take her to a court hearing?
tbh I bet she was pretty hot
maybe she wore some of those short skirts RG was talking bout?
Pretty much.Ah ok. (Seriously, I obviously know nothing specific about buying/owning/selling a home.
So not only did this woman get notices from the HOA, she must've gotten them from the court as well, correct? Every time I've had to go to court I got notices from the court itself. (This is assuming that her presence is requested for this meeting, which would seem an obvious invite.)
Yep. She ignored the HOA for months, yet still found a way to keep the lights on and pay her property taxes (you can be damn sure the County would have been after her had she not paid those). Basically, she just decided she was going to blow off the HOA.
Yes, something like that. Thanks for the find!
It doesn't seem right somehow (it's the same reason I hate some hardware makers saying you can't mod their hardware once you buy it... it's your hardware damn it!), but as you said, she entered freely and there were multiple attempts. Still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but I'm not sure I know a "better" way to work it out than what they attempted.I get where you're coming from. However, legally speaking, it doesn't matter how "big" or "small" this 's breach has to be. Legally, a default is a default and not paying $1.00 or $100,000 triggers the same rights in the HOA.
If that doesn't seem right to you, keep in mind what CG said - you'd have to be extremely negligent to get to a place where you get foreclosed for not paying a small debt. In this case, losing the home is entirely on
And I bet that soldier is ing pissed off.
LOL...
I never thought of that. She was obviously opening the utility bills and paying them.
Ah! That's the biggie I was looking for. I wouldn't necessarily trust the HOA (because they've somewhat got a motive for her leaving... 800 bucks missed for a 300,000 house is a pretty good trade), but if she ignored a court summons (which usually come in special envelopes that say, "Hey, this is a court summons, you kinda have to go to these"), then yes, she's a stupid .
Nice to hear that there were those recourses I was wondering about.
She would have to have been formally served with a process server (assuming she hadn't already lawyered up) - so she would also have had to known that a court was ready to take her house away.
But she was
Ironic that lost in the shuffle is the fact that HOAs are foreclosing on the big banks. How can you take issue with that? How's it evil?
dumb soliders fault then. dont go boo hooing about your own dumb mistakes then.
why would that happen if things changed?
Crazy slippery slope, imo.
Nobody here feels en led to free swimming pools or tennis courts.
Nobody here loves constant dumb posting.
Nobody here loves you.
coming from someone that had to have the difference between evil and illegal explained to him.
[insert long list of things to lol at]
Jesus jumped-up ing christ you are stupid.Seriously, I'd love to live in this fantasy world where I somehow become a champion of civil rights by refusing to pay my bills because I feel
The rest of us are talking about whether it is morally right to seize a house, and all your dumb ass can see is "is it legal".
Should the penalty for an $800 fee be $300,000? Not by any moral standard, but because it is legal, or it makes you feel smug and superior, it's fine with you.
, let's see where that kind of moral reasoning goes.
"It's perfectly legal to take this Jude business, so it is right. I mean why should they be crying because they are jews. They know the law, so they can't be all crying about it."
"It's perfectly legal to shovel them into ovens, so it is the right outcome. I mean if they weren't jewish in the first place it wouldn't have happened to them."
Yeah, I went there. I believe you are exactly the kind of person who would have been cheering at the rallies, and exactly the kind of person that goosestepped all the way because it was legal, and it seems that no small portion of the US population will be right beside you.
I only ask, who are you going to push into the oven first when it is made legal, vy?
You trollin me?
This thread has pretty much been exclusively about the numerous chances this dumb Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_ had before she lost her husbands house. Not about morals.
I thought you one to
Yes. Clearly I needed to be told the difference between the two and clearly it was not a typo as I was not posting from phone. I really appreciate the help you gave Blake. Too bad if maybe you spent less time explaining the difference between evil and illegal to me, DAT BULL wouldn't have rode your wife hard and put her up wet.
It's fascinating that you and vy65 allow the Court to determine your own personal moral codes.
More copy and paste from the downstairs regulars! Neat!Too bad if maybe you spent less time explaining the difference between evil and illegal to me, DAT BULL wouldn't have rode your wife hard and put her up wet.
You need that list of lols to complete the imitation though, tbh
You bragging about your neighborhood amenities is irrelevant.
Dropping the lol after your failed bragging is pure NBA forum regular that doesn't see the fail.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions