Reason #6,845 Why Americans Hate Our Government

[Nuthin' Fancy]

California couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

What a moron.

The potential buyers had to have been a Trumpsters.


Eviction Attorney Dennis Block says, "This year alone, we’ve handled at least 7 maybe 8 cases of this exact type of situation."

He says people purchasing homes need to be extremely cautious, especially if they notice any red flags during the process. Block says what’s happening to the Alberts could happen to anyone.

During escrow they discovered there was a $30,000 tax lien on the house which slowed things down, but in the end, all parties signed on the dotted line and the sale was completed.

Too stupid to know a $30,000 lien was an issue.

 

[Weatherman2020]

California couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

What a moron.

The potential buyers had to have been a Trumpsters.


Eviction Attorney Dennis Block says, "This year alone, we’ve handled at least 7 maybe 8 cases of this exact type of situation."

He says people purchasing homes need to be extremely cautious, especially if they notice any red flags during the process. Block says what’s happening to the Alberts could happen to anyone.

During escrow they discovered there was a $30,000 tax lien on the house which slowed things down, but in the end, all parties signed on the dotted line and the sale was completed.

Too stupid to know a $30,000 lien was an issue.

Yes, how dare anyone try to buy a home in KKKalifornia with Nazi Democrats making laws to protect criminals.

 

[my2¢]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

 

[Weatherman2020]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

I am afraid that seller would come to an untimely end, if I was the buyer.

...from lead poisoning...

 

[Dragonlady]

Couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

The seller is a piece of scum. How can a nation survive with things like this expanding?

Bingo. The goal is to destroy America.

They can sue for specific performance and win hands down with damages.

They didn't buy this house to be involved in years of litigation. This is the fault the lawyer who closed the deal. You don't hand over the money until the vendor has vacated.

Of course a purebred idiot such are yourself wants to blame the left, because you blame the left for EVERYTHING.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

I am afraid that seller would come to an untimely end, if I was the buyer.

...from lead poisoning...

Lead poisoning from a lead pipe - over the head.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

The seller is a piece of scum. How can a nation survive with things like this expanding?

Bingo. The goal is to destroy America.

They can sue for specific performance and win hands down with damages.

They didn't buy this house to be involved in years of litigation. This is the fault the lawyer who closed the deal. You don't hand over the money until the vendor has vacated.

Of course a purebred idiot such are yourself wants to blame the left, because you blame the left for EVERYTHING.

Lawyers don’t close escrow in KKKalifornia, Dufus, the sale was recorded by the County and DEMOCRATS make it illegal to remove the seller.

 

[Dragonlady]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

Vendor? WTF?
KKKalifornia Democrats made it illegal to remove the seller.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

Learn to read.
eviction
moratorium
loophole

 

[Dragonlady]

Couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

The seller is a piece of scum. How can a nation survive with things like this expanding?

Bingo. The goal is to destroy America.

They can sue for specific performance and win hands down with damages.

They didn't buy this house to be involved in years of litigation. This is the fault the lawyer who closed the deal. You don't hand over the money until the vendor has vacated.

Of course a purebred idiot such are yourself wants to blame the left, because you blame the left for EVERYTHING.

Lawyers don’t close escrow in KKKalifornia, Dufus, the sale was recorded by the County and DEMOCRATS make it illegal to remove the seller.

This isn't an eviction. The "failure" here was in allowing the vendor to overhold the sale and then treating him as a tenant. He's not, and his removal from the property as an overholding vendor is not an "eviction".

We frequently have vendors want to "stay on" after closing, and where the purchaser agrees, we go to great lengths to make sure that the overholding period is not deemed a "tenancy" under the Landlord and Tenant Act, but rather as a variation of a commercial contract. That's because a "tenancy" confers all kinds of rights onto the Vendor that we don't want him/her to have.

That you refuse to see it, isn't my problem, but as usual, your determination to hate on liberals makes you look gullible and stupid.

 

[Dragonlady]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

Learn to read.
eviction
moratorium
loophole

Learn to use REAL sources, instead of half baked conservative websites. FOX News is not a reliable source. Their sole purpose is to get wind up fools like you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

The seller is a piece of scum. How can a nation survive with things like this expanding?

Bingo. The goal is to destroy America.

They can sue for specific performance and win hands down with damages.

They didn't buy this house to be involved in years of litigation. This is the fault the lawyer who closed the deal. You don't hand over the money until the vendor has vacated.

Of course a purebred idiot such are yourself wants to blame the left, because you blame the left for EVERYTHING.

Lawyers don’t close escrow in KKKalifornia, Dufus, the sale was recorded by the County and DEMOCRATS make it illegal to remove the seller.

This isn't an eviction. The "failure" here was in allowing the vendor to overhold the sale and then treating him as a tenant. He's not, and his removal from the property as an overholding vendor is not an "eviction".

We frequently have vendors want to "stay on" after closing, and where the purchaser agrees, we go to great lengths to make sure that the overholding period is not deemed a "tenancy" under the Landlord and Tenant Act, but rather as a variation of a commercial contract. That's because a "tenancy" confers all kinds of rights onto the Vendor that we don't want him/her to have.

That you refuse to see it, isn't my problem, but as usual, your determination to hate on liberals makes you look gullible and stupid.

Nice piece of fiction. Does it make you feel good to lie to hurt innocent people?

This is America, Shitforbrains. The house closed and the seller refuses to vacate, and Democrats made it impossible to remove the seller.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

Learn to read.
eviction
moratorium
loophole

Learn to use REAL sources, instead of half baked conservative websites. FOX News is not a reliable source. Their sole purpose is to get wind up fools like you.

That’s why you can’t link to your Soros website?

 

[my2¢]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

You're full of crap, under the law it does fall under an eviction. You're too stupid to recognize when an article writer is attempting to tug at your wee-wittle heart.

 

[Dragonlady]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

You're full of crap, under the law it does fall under an eviction. You're too stupid to recognize when an article writer is attempting to tug at your wee-wittle heart.

Under the law, it falls under a "failure to perform" a commercial contract. Unless whoever closed the transaction on behalf of the purchaser failure to properly ensure the completion of the contract. Words matter, which is why we don't allow "vendors" to become "tenants" on closing. It changes remedies.

There are always cases where the Vendor, for whatever reason, wants to stay on, and we refuse to allow it, or to hand over money under the vendor has vacated. In the rare cases where it has been allowed, we verify the Vendor has somewhere to go, and then get an Amendment to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to allow the Vendor to stay on as an "overholding Vendor".

You then go to court to enforce the contract which provides for "vacant possession on closing", requiring performance of the contract, failing which, the Vendor has to return the money, and pay the purchaser's legal fees and damages.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

ALM's Law.com online Real Life Dictionary of the Law. The easiest-to-read, most user-friendly guide to legal terms. Use it free!

dictionary.law.com

.

Selling a property does not create a tenancy out of thin air, nor does "requiring performance" mean an eviction. Either the seller completes the contract, as agreed, or he returns the money. Once you allow the Vendor to become a Tenant, then you can't sue for performance.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

This isn't an "eviction". It's a "failure to perform". Removing the Vendor from the property isn't "evicting" him. You're simply too stupid to understand this.

You're full of crap, under the law it does fall under an eviction. You're too stupid to recognize when an article writer is attempting to tug at your wee-wittle heart.

Under the law, it falls under a "failure to perform" a commercial contract. Unless whoever closed the transaction on behalf of the purchaser failure to properly ensure the completion of the contract. Words matter, which is why we don't allow "vendors" to become "tenants" on closing. It changes remedies.

There are always cases where the Vendor, for whatever reason, wants to stay on, and we refuse to allow it, or to hand over money under the vendor has vacated. In the rare cases where it has been allowed, we verify the Vendor has somewhere to go, and then get an Amendment to the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to allow the Vendor to stay on as an "overholding Vendor".

You then go to court to enforce the contract which provides for "vacant possession on closing", requiring performance of the contract, failing which, the Vendor has to return the money, and pay the purchaser's legal fees and damages.

Legal Dictionary - Law.com

ALM's Law.com online Real Life Dictionary of the Law. The easiest-to-read, most user-friendly guide to legal terms. Use it free!

dictionary.law.com

.

Selling a property does not create a tenancy out of thin air, nor does "requiring performance" mean an eviction. Either the seller completes the contract, as agreed, or he returns the money. Once you allow the Vendor to become a Tenant, then you can't sue for performance.

Now the Canadian wants to teach us US law.
The title of the land was transferred to the buyer. It’s a government action. The same government is allowing the seller to trespass.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

California couple purchased a home a year ago and haven’t moved in yet.
The seller refuses to leave and the law says there’s nothing that can be done.

So now he’s living for free and the buyers are now paying for two places to live.

Leftardism in full glory.

Couple buys Riverside dream home, but seller refuses to move out in eviction moratorium loophole

When Tracie and Myles Albert purchased a beautiful four-bedroom house in Riverside, California they never realized that at the end of escrow the seller would suddenly refuse to give up the keys and leave.

www.foxla.com

What a moron.

The potential buyers had to have been a Trumpsters.


Eviction Attorney Dennis Block says, "This year alone, we’ve handled at least 7 maybe 8 cases of this exact type of situation."

He says people purchasing homes need to be extremely cautious, especially if they notice any red flags during the process. Block says what’s happening to the Alberts could happen to anyone.

During escrow they discovered there was a $30,000 tax lien on the house which slowed things down, but in the end, all parties signed on the dotted line and the sale was completed.

Too stupid to know a $30,000 lien was an issue.

Yes, how dare anyone try to buy a home in KKKalifornia with Nazi Democrats making laws to protect criminals.

The only "law" protecting them is the ban on evictions, every state has them, even red states.
The is a case where an exception is sorely needed.
BUT, BOTH signed the papers, knowing there was an outstanding tax lien, that would have been the first red flag.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The linked article below is from December 2019, new owner's options are limited. What I got out of it is that pretty much one is screwed if they go through closing with the prior owner's ass not out of the house. A good lesson.

The Seller’s Still in My House After Closing, What Do I Do? (homelight.com)

California Dems made it illegal to evict anyone for any reason last year.

September 1 2020
The Trump administration is ordering a halt on evictions nationwide through December for people who have lost work during the pandemic and don't have other good housing options.

The new eviction ban is being enacted through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The goal is to stem the spread of the COVID-19 outbreak, which the agency says in its order "presents a historic threat to public health."
www.npr.org>sections>corona-virus-liv-updates