Is a new Florida solar farm, employing 500+ workers and providing energy to 20,000 homes a bad idea?
Largest solar farm in Southeast planned for Florida
The $1.5 billion project in Gadsden County would produce 400 megawatts of energy, enough to power about 32,000 homes.
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/09/largest_solar_plant_in_southea.html
Sorry. 32,000 homes.
No. Very good idea, nothing can grow on those land fills they put the solar panels anyway.
Why do white people get mad when a black man buys a $300,000 house for $16.00?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl10|sec1_lnk3|219259
Just look at the above website it explains everything!
thats a very very smart man
Texas Man Takes Advantage of Loophole That Allows Him To Live in $300K Home for $16 Bucks?
The law in Texas is called "adverse possession". The owner of this particular home simply walked away and the mortgage company happened to go out of business.
This opened the door for this "Squatter" as the neighbors call him, to go to court and sign a form claiming ownership of the house that he payed for a mere $16.00
If the home owner wants him out then he has to pay off the massive mortgage debt and the bank would have to file a lawsuit. The "squatter" thinks that neither of which is likely gonig to happen so he is staying there for three years until he can ask the court for ownership.
This has the neighbors outraged that this guy is "living on easy street" and are looking for ways to get him out, but for now he says he ain’t going anywhere.
What do you think about this?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C78504
The issue is whether the Robinson will have, at the end of three years, satisfied the Texas statutory requirements for Adverse Possession. Adverse possession is conceptually defined as possession for a statutorily prescribed period of time which, if certain elements are met, may ripen into legal title. These required elements are, continuous and uninterrupted possession that is open and notorious, actual (requiring literal entry onto the land) and hostile, that is contrary to the consent of the true owner. In Texas, the statutory period is 3 years if the possession is under color of title, and 5 years if the property is claimed under a duly registered deed.
In this situation, Robinson has asserted that the home, Blackacre, has been foreclosed upon. In addition to his open and notorious use of Blackacre, he has in fact publicized his use of Blackacre and his assertions of its abandonment by paying the filing fee to the county clerk, thus meeting the requirement of hostility. Finally, he has entered onto the land, and although the strictest reading of "continuous and uninterrupted possession" could be construed to mean that he cannot leave again, most courts would allow Robinson to leave the premises for ordinary business, as long as he does return at the end of the day.
Should Robinson remain unmolested on Blackacre given these conditions, his possession may ripen into legal title, and Robinson can be held to be the owner of Blackacre. It should be noted that although the fact pattern states that Robinson researched the law and acted, there is nothing in the fact pattern itself that states with certainty that the $16 clerk’s fee gave Robinson color of title and, as such, the prescribed period of adverse possession may be longer than the anticipated 3 years.
A further issue remains as to how Robinson’s neighbors might successfully defeat this attempt to possess Blackacre adversely. Lacking standing to bring a cause of action, the neighbors’ only remedy is to goad the owner of Blackacre to move against Robinson. To this end, the neighbors ought to publicize Robinson’s use of the property and remind the legal owner of his or her right to act.
First and foremost, the legal titleholder may oust Robinson as a trespasser, thus cutting the three-year clock and forcing him to start over. Because an action for ouster is costly, this may likely be a last resort. A potential remedy for the legal titleholder might be to grant Robinson permission to remain on the land for a prescribed period. Once permission is granted, the element of adversity to the owner’s true possession is broken, and Robinson’s three-year clock would be cut.
Why do white people get mad when a black man buys a $300,000 house for $16.00?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk3%7C219259
The article and the 2 minute video above shows everything that guy did that was LEGAL, but the white folks are mad and trying to get him kicked out.
I was just reading that article!
Good on him! I’m so happy he was able to get the house and find the loop hole. His neighbors need to stop having a stick up their butts. He owns/has the house fair and square and they need to get over it.
I’m white btw.
Texas Man Takes Advantage of Loophole That Allows Him To Live in $300K Home for $16 Bucks?
The law in Texas is called "adverse possession". The owner of this particular home simply walked away and the mortgage company happened to go out of business.
This opened the door for this "Squatter" as the neighbors call him, to go to court and sign a form claiming ownership of the house that he payed for a mere $16.00
If the home owner wants him out then he has to pay off the massive mortgage debt and the bank would have to file a lawsuit. The "squatter" thinks that neither of which is likely gonig to happen so he is staying there for three years until he can ask the court for ownership.
This has the neighbors outraged that this guy is "living on easy street" and are looking for ways to get him out, but for now he says he ain’t going anywhere.
What do you think about this?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%7C78504
People amuse the cr*p out of me. So, basically, all these people are in a twist b.c. this guy was smarter than they were. It looks as though everyone else had an equal opportunity to do the same thing. Early bird gets the house. Good for him. I’d certainly rather see someone like this get a piece than those rat f**ks on wall street.
Can you believe this? This is outrageous?
A homeless paralyzed army vet was about to get a free home………
but they decided not to give it to him because it would "bring down housing values in the neighborhood."
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/06/28/hoa-halts-construction-of-paralyzed-army-vets-home/?icid=maing-grid7|maing9|dl10|sec1_lnk1|73851
Yes, that is outrageous.
Why do white people get mad when a black man buys a $300,000 house for $16.00?
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/07/18/man-snags-300-000-house-for-16/?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl10%7Csec1_lnk3%7C219259
Just look at the above website and that will explain everything, it also has a 2 minute video explaining what the black man did that was LEGAL.
Thank you for posting this, that man is so intelligent.
LMFAOOOOOOOOOOO @ the white neighbors anger hahaha, they are just mad b/c they didn’t do their research! We are taking ova hahahaha
What Do You Think – Couple Gets Blasted For Using Law Written in the 1800s To Keep Their Home?
The Iowa couple, Matt and Jamie Rae Danielson, are now under scrutiny from skeptics who are wondering if perhaps the couple devised a "win-a-free-home" scheme from the get-go.
It all started when Matt Danielson and his broker, Jason Larson, arranged an impromptu meeting at a mall food court to sign the CitiMortgage financing documents for their new construction 3-bedroom home that they had been negotiating for a while.
Matt dialed his wife’s cell, but didn’t reach her; so in a rushed session he signed the papers without her, finalizing a $320,000 mortgage for 100 percent of the sale price, which included an additional $50,000 to finish the basement.
In Iowa, if only one spouse signs a mortgage document, creditors have little recourse of coming after the home. The state’s homestead law dating back nearly 125 years to 1888 — a law which might soon get rewritten — says mortgages are not valid until they are signed by both spouses.
"People are threatening to burn our house down. There are nasty blogs going around where people are outraged," a distraught-sounding Matt said. He says he and his wife didn’t seek this loophole when they purchased their house in May 2007.
"You don’t make this kind of thing happen. It happens to you."
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/03/22/couple-owns-home-after-one-payment-due-to-foreclosure-glitch/?icid=maing|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3|51327
Dumb as hell on all fronts.
Only a moron would accept a mortgage signed by only one owner.
Law in every state.
When underwriting once, I refused to accept a mortgage because husband and wife were in title and the husband said the wife was "unable to sign".
Turns out she was dead in the trunk of his car……
Law isn’t all that hard. If you own, you sign on any encumberance
What Do You Think – Couple Gets Blasted For Using Law Written in the 1800s To Keep Their Home?
he Iowa couple, Matt and Jamie Rae Danielson, are now under scrutiny from skeptics who are wondering if perhaps the couple devised a "win-a-free-home" scheme from the get-go.
It all started when Matt Danielson and his broker, Jason Larson, arranged an impromptu meeting at a mall food court to sign the CitiMortgage financing documents for their new construction 3-bedroom home that they had been negotiating for a while.
Matt dialed his wife’s cell, but didn’t reach her; so in a rushed session he signed the papers without her, finalizing a $320,000 mortgage for 100 percent of the sale price, which included an additional $50,000 to finish the basement.
In Iowa, if only one spouse signs a mortgage document, creditors have little recourse of coming after the home. The state’s homestead law dating back nearly 125 years to 1888 — a law which might soon get rewritten — says mortgages are not valid until they are signed by both spouses.
"People are threatening to burn our house down. There are nasty blogs going around where people are outraged," a distraught-sounding Matt said. He says he and his wife didn’t seek this loophole when they purchased their house in May 2007.
"You don’t make this kind of thing happen. It happens to you."
http://realestate.aol.com/blog/2011/03/22/couple-owns-home-after-one-payment-due-to-foreclosure-glitch/?icid=maing|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3|51327
Law in IA is that both people have to sign the document. Only husband did. And everyone is assuming that the husband would have been aware of the law and was planning a scam, when CitiMortgage did NOT know the law? Give me a break. Citi is at fault for processing the mortgage and ever giving them possession in the first place.
Religious or humane person, how much sympathy do you show others who have unforseen things happen to them?
Sympathy, understanding feelings of others!
33 man out / Baby Jessica / foreclosure-freeze / Sympathy, understanding feelings of others!
33 miners story here
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/94069?fp=1
While the 33 miners were being hoisted to the surface earlier this week, Web searches were not only soaring on the brave men and their families, but also on Jessica McClure, better known as "Baby Jessica."
Baby Jessica story here
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/94071?fp=1
Another story of others bucked the odds and survived the ordeal tied to the other stories!
After Sabella commented on the Chile situation, Web searches on "ramon sabella" surged into breakout status. Sabella says he was overwhelmed by the attention he received after being rescued. But according to a popular blog from CNN, he remarked, "If the miners can hang on and be normal, spend time with family and friends, they can manage not to be overwhelmed. They’ll be OK."
Lastly, there’s Ramon Sabella. If you don’t remember him, you probably weren’t around in 1972, when Mr. Sabella’s plane crashed in the Andes Mountains. He and a group of others bucked the odds and survived the ordeal. Their story was documented in the movie "Alive."
Foreclosure Freeze story here
http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/111040/from-a-maine-house-a-national-foreclosure-freeze?mod=realestate-buy
From a Maine House, a National Foreclosure Freeze
5,295 comments
SandyS 43 seconds ago
One Comment here:
Before anyone starts casting stones at this woman for having the audacity to lose her job in a depressed area, just consider…it can happen to you any day now. Unemployment isn’t going down. And our wages isn’t going up, even though our elected officials always make sure they vote themselves a raise as much as they can get away with. I always put myself in the shoes of the other person, because I’ve been the other person. My plant closed down within a year after Clinton signed NAFTA into law, putting me on the unemployment line. I was disabled (but not receiving $ for it) & jobs weren’t plentiful for people who couldn’t stand for long periods. That left us to survive on my husbands income, which was as a school bus driver. If our rent hadn’t been cheap, we’d have had to live in our car, like hundreds of other Americans. And while I agree that everyone needs to pay their fair share, where are the agencies that help people stay in their homes? And why couldn’t the bank lower her mortgage once she was on welfare? Even if she only paid a fraction of what her payments were, at least she’d still be in her home with her family. I have no sympathy for the banks. They brought this on themselves by their greed. And it’s only by the grace of God that those of you who throw stones at people like this lady aren’t in her position right now. Don’t get too cozy. The tax man cometh.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sympathy is a social affinity in which one person stands with another person, closely understanding his or her feelings. Also known as empathic concern, it is the feeling of compassion or concern for another, the wish to see them better off or happier. Although empathy and sympathy are often used interchangeably, a subtle variation in ordinary usage can be detected. To empathize is to respond to another’s perceived emotional state by experiencing feelings of a similar sort. Sympathy not only includes empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person.
In common usage, sympathy is usually making known one’s understanding of another’s unhappiness or suffering, especially when it is grief. Sympathy can also refer to being aware of other (positive) emotions as well. In a broader sense, it can refer to the sharing of political or ideological sentiments, such as in the phrase "a communist sympathizer". The word derives from the Greek συμπάθεια (sympatheia), from σύν (syn) "together" and πάθος (pathos) "passion", in this case "suffering" (from πάσχω – pascho, "to be affected by, to suffer").
Can we show sympathy toward people who had unforseen circumstances come upon them in ways they did not see coming and powerless without help from others to get things aright again?
Sympathy is a feeling, and most people have sympathy for people who have something bad happen to them. But even better than sympathy is when you actually DO something for others rather than just feeling sympathy.
If you see that someone is having a tough time, don’t say "Let me know if there is anything I can do to help." Those are empty words. Instead, find something helpful you can do, and do it.