Betty The Restauranteur

[eltf177]

She's only delaying the inevitable. She should declare bankruptcy and try to save what she can while she can.

I agree, but Betty and her husband seem to be out of touch with reality. It will be interesting to see how hard the IRS goes after them...

[Sapphire Silk]

I may be misunderstanding the court shows I have been watching (I am Canadian and the shows are American) but I thought you could sue someone for money up to the state limit even if they own you more. It is just that you can't get more than the state limit if you win the case.

So if someone owns you $6000 but the state limit is $5000 you can still get the $5000 and you have the kiss the $1000 extra good-bye, but winning $5000 is better than being owned $6000 but not getting a single dollar.

Am I wrong?

You're thinking small claims court. A case like this would be in district court. That's the kind of litigation that requires lawyers, the discovery process (basically both sides cough up all documents related to the case, and the lawyers depose everyone), and a trial. It is a very long process; it can take several years even in close and shut cases.

Betty's case won't get through the courts before November. She'll get foreclosed on, or the IRS will take the place and all her crying and bs won't help her a bit.

She's only delaying the inevitable. She should declare bankruptcy and try to save what she can while she can.

[NecessaryCatharsis]

Yeah, Windsor Ontario. Everyone involved is in Ontario. We got off lucky, out less than $20,000. The building supply store he regularly dealt with was in for over $600,000.

[sirwired]

I don't understand how this can be legal. It's perfectly obvious they're hiding assets and everything should be seized!

It's not. (I believe the legal term is "Fraudulent Conveyance"), but it's a civil matter (as opposed to criminal), meaning you must expend money to obtain the necessary court orders, then you must do all the legwork to force collection.

(Not to mention that I'm guessing "Windsor" refers to Ontario, making collection more-or-less impossible without even more legal fees.)

[eltf177]

We had a contractor go bankrupt owing us for the last three houses we had done for him, and we were at the end of a loooong list. Surprisingly, despite him being the sole owner of the company, neither him nor his company owned anything. Not a cent in the bank, not a vehicle, property, tool, nothing upon which anyone could collect even if they successfully sued. Coincidently he was paying large sums of money and gifting all his possessions to someone in Windsor, for the last three months he was in business. Also his mother in law lived in Windsor. Nothing but perfectly theft.

I don't understand how this can be legal. It's perfectly obvious they're hiding assets and everything should be seized!

[NecessaryCatharsis]

We had a contractor go bankrupt owing us for the last three houses we had done for him, and we were at the end of a loooong list. Surprisingly, despite him being the sole owner of the company, neither him nor his company owned anything. Not a cent in the bank, not a vehicle, property, tool, nothing upon which anyone could collect even if they successfully sued. Coincidently he was paying large sums of money and gifting all his possessions to someone in Windsor, for the last three months he was in business. Also his mother in law lived in Windsor. Nothing but perfectly legal theft.

[taxguykarl]

Yep, I've seen this happen more than once. What gets me is how the new corporation can get insurance. Any reasonable check will show it's the same fools under a different name

Assuming that they even bother with insurance.

[eltf177]

With sub-par contracting companies the most common story is the person owning the company just shuts the doors and opens a new business under a different name.

Yep, I've seen this happen more than once. What gets me is how the new corporation can get insurance. Any reasonable check will show it's the same fools under a different name...

In fact, a related story of my own: My sister actually had a CC that went to collections. She said it was the CC company's fault for giving her a card in the first place (in other words, the CC company should have known better).

Nice attitude, sis.

A lot of people seem to have this attitude...

[mjr]

more credit cards and debt than they can handle and then proceed to blame BigCorpration Bank for thier problems.

Well, it's partially BigCorporation Bank's fault -- but not entirely.

See, I have a little different perspective on debt than a lot of people. I know a lot of people think debt is a "tool" of some sort.

However, the person with the credit card/loan has to exercise some sort of fiscal responsibility, correct? I'm not big on credit cards. And I try to avoid taking out loans whenever possible, just on principle.

The problem here, and why I say BCB is partially to blame is that there's usually some sort of application that is filled out when someone applies for a loan or credit card. What's at issue is that BCB extends credit/a loan when they sometimes shouldn't. Just to throw some numbers out there (just making them up): If you've already got $50,000 in CC debt, BCB probably shouldn't extend you another $5,000. Because guess what's going to happen.

And honestly, if you as an individual are $50,000 in debt, you probably shouldn't ask for $5,000 more...because guess what's going to happen...

So both parties, in this case, are partially to blame.

In fact, a related story of my own: My sister actually had a CC that went to collections. She said it was the CC company's fault for giving her a card in the first place (in other words, the CC company should have known better).

Nice attitude, sis.

[sirwired]

With sub-par contracting companies the most common story is the person owning the company just shuts the doors and opens a new business under a different name. Yes, it is theoretically possible to "pierce the corporate veil" with this B.S. and collect personally from the owner, but that escalates the costs of the suit so high that few people go that route.

About the only way such shady characters can be stopped is for their behavior to get REALLY bad (i.e. stripping roofs and then driving off, never to be seen again) at which point they might get banned from doing business in the state.

[eltf177]

If the lawsuit fails or, more likely, Betty wins but either can't collect or can't collect right away I see this as just another shell game. From your previous posts it sounds like Betty has several years of outstanding back taxes. I'm just wondering how much longer the IRS is going to wait, not to mention the employees...

[Ophbalance]

I may be misunderstanding the court shows I have been watching (I am Canadian and the shows are American) but I thought you could sue someone for money up to the state limit even if they own you more. It is just that you can't get more than the state limit if you win the case.

So if someone owns you $6000 but the state limit is $5000 you can still get the $5000 and you have the kiss the $1000 extra good-bye, but winning $5000 is better than being owned $6000 but not getting a single dollar.

Am I wrong?

That's for small claims only. Other court systems exist for larger damages. The downside being that the larger the court system the longer the wait to get through the queue.

[Ghel]

I don't know the details of Betty's case. I only know that she's convinced she'll get enough to pay her real estate taxes, pay the IRS some money she owes them for back taxes (her own plus withholding form employees' paychecks), and assorted other bills. My concerns include something similar to what you describe, earl. Even if she wins the court case, she might not be able to get the money from the company who did her roof. They might be broke, or they might declare bankruptcy. Or they might just refuse to pay, and then she'd have extra legal fees trying to get a judgment against them to force them to pay. And again, they might find ways to get out of it then. So I don't think she should be relying on that to get her out of the hole she's dug. But I didn't say any of this to her. I'll just wait and see what happens.

[earl colby pottinger]

Misunderstanding?

I may be misunderstanding the court shows I have been watching (I am Canadian and the shows are American) but I thought you could sue someone for money up to the state limit even if they own you more. It is just that you can't get more than the state limit if you win the case.

So if someone owns you $6000 but the state limit is $5000 you can still get the $5000 and you have the kiss the $1000 extra good-bye, but winning $5000 is better than being owned $6000 but not getting a single dollar.

Am I wrong?

[Ghel]

Things are still up in the air with Betty. Her accountant is still working on her tax returns. He's had less time lately because it's tax season, so I don't hold that against him.

Betty's plan for paying the real estate taxes on the restaurant reads poorly. She had a new roof put on the restaurant less than a year ago. She must have gone with the cheapest place she could, because she's having issues with the roof. It leaks or something. I didn't get the whole story. Anyway, she's suing them for her money back. The court date is tomorrow, the 17th. She's planning on paying the real estate taxes from the settlement she expects to get in the lawsuit. I have some misgivings about this, but since the county won't actually take the property until November, I'm willing to give her some time to see if things happen the way she expects.

The house loan is matured again, but I refuse to extend it until we get current financial information. Since the real estate taxes are so far behind, I'm not holding my breath.