Casual thread
November 30th, 2017 at 5:56:19 PM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
Don't believe that hype. He only paid more to get them to show up and stay on. He had to hire 50 or more a week to stay staffed, and perhaps 100 would just not show up to work each and every day. He charged less to expand his market, not to be some good person. He got to be a very awful human being as he got older. Had he not abused his son to an early death and let him take over there might never have been GM, Ford would have owned the market. The President is a fink. |
November 30th, 2017 at 10:03:24 PM permalink | |
beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 | This thread. Wow. I've only gotten this far, but JEEZZZUSS, guys.
I married in 1996. We moved to Florida in 1997. I sold the house I owned pre-marriage and bought in Florida. I got the mortgage solely in my own name. I paid every payment, from a checking account that only I owned. The house was still deeded to both of us by Florida law. He never paid a penny on it. I could not sell it without his approval. We chose well, and the house tripled in value the 10 years we had it. Then came the divorce. And I had to buy out his equity to complete the divorce. The equity he had not in any way earned. Had he been the buyer, and the mortgagee, I would not have been required to be listed as co-owner of the house. In 1997. So, no, not legend. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
December 1st, 2017 at 6:42:46 AM permalink | |
odiousgambit Member since: Oct 28, 2012 Threads: 154 Posts: 5055 |
that law was probably written to protect women. I'm Still Standing, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah [it's an old guy chant for me] |
December 1st, 2017 at 7:16:35 AM permalink | |
beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 |
Perhaps, but the point was, it's a one-way law. As a married WOMAN, I was not allowed to own property in solely my name. Had it been him, I was not required to be on the title. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
December 1st, 2017 at 8:21:09 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
First, if his name was on title of course you could not sell it without his approval. And he could not sell it without your approval. This is how title works. I don't get what you mean "deeded to both of you by Florida law." You could have bought the house in your name only and told him he was not welcome on the title unless he paid something in. His reaction might not have been the best, and I'm sure you would scream if a guy told that to his new wife. But I have never once heard of any US State where a married person cannot own real property sole and separate.
Does not matter if he "earned" it or not. He was on title, you have to buy him out. In that regard, welcome to the world of what usually happens to men. I've seen women do worse to the guys. Back to the subject, I am thinking your legal advice was bad. You are asking me to believe a law existed that treated men and women different as late as 1997? I am not buying that. Did a lawyer "suggest" that both of you be on title? I have been doing this stuff for 15 years and your story to me is full of holes. The President is a fink. |
December 1st, 2017 at 8:35:54 AM permalink | |
beachbumbabs Member since: Sep 3, 2013 Threads: 6 Posts: 1600 | I'm just telling you what happened. We had been married only 7 months at the time. There was no realistic way to fight the law about it without destroying the relationship. It would have been perfectly fine with him if we kept it in my name. We had a pre-nup that specified assets would stay with the person who brought and/or built them. But the title company would not close without a joint deed. They showed us the applicable law at the time. And so it was done. Never doubt a small group of concerned citizens can change the world; it's the only thing ever has |
December 1st, 2017 at 8:50:27 AM permalink | |
JimRockford Member since: Sep 18, 2015 Threads: 2 Posts: 971 | I miss Buzz. I think it's understood why he doesn't post anymore. Hope he's holding up okay. The mind hungers for that on which it feeds. |
December 1st, 2017 at 8:51:31 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
I can't tell the exact date this was passed, appears to be between 1943 and 1983. At the least it looks like as of 1968 the Florida Constitution allowed you to do this sole and separate. Should have had the title company file a quit-claim deed after closing if this was an issue.
|
December 1st, 2017 at 9:25:08 AM permalink | |
kenarman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 14 Posts: 4470 |
Rather interesting AZD that you should say "He only paid more to get them to show up and stay on". I thought you were the free labour market guy here and have numerous times said that is the way it should work. He also kept decreasing the price, we can argue if it was altruistic or profit motive as a reason but we can agree the price kept going down. That was the point of my post. "but if you make yourselves sheep, the wolves will eat you." Benjamin Franklin |
December 1st, 2017 at 10:35:42 AM permalink | |
AZDuffman Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 135 Posts: 18136 |
That is the way it should work. Why does Costco pay more than WMT? Besides being more productive, they want their pick of applicants. Old Man Henry paid them not to be a nice guy, not to "let them buy his cars," and for no other of the reasons we hear.
True. Early version of what we have now in electronics. The President is a fink. |