Betty The Restauranteur

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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...

[taxguykarl]

It will be interesting to see how hard the IRS goes after them...

IIRC, they are already on some kind of payment plan. Still though, sooner or later someone will say ENOUGH! and the liquidation will commence.

[Ghel]

When last I posted on this thread, I was waiting to talk with Betty about the results of her day in court, regarding the lawsuit against the company that did the roof of her restaurant. I still don't know what happened. She's not returning my calls.

In addition, her homeowners insurance has been cancelled because the check she used to pay the premium was returned for insufficient funds.

Her tax returns still aren't done from 2011. And now it's tax season, and her accountant is very busy.

So, it sounds like, if she doesn't call me back before Goodhair returns from vacation on Thursday, we'll be starting legal proceedings for foreclosure on both the restaurant and their house. It sucks, but we can't keep bailing her out of her bad decisions.

[eltf177]

Agreed, there's too many red flags to keep on letting this situation continue...

[Tama]

What is Goodhair's current view on the matter?

[eltf177]

What is Goodhair's current view on the matter?

I for one hope he's not going to try and bail Betty out this time. He's let enough questionable loans go through already, if he ignores the obvious issues here one would hope higher ups would notice and start asking Goodhair some _very_ uncomfortable questions...

[Ghel]

I very much doubt he'll be willing to bail Betty out. Foreclosing will likely mean some negative publicity, since Betty will tell everyone that the bank wasn't willing to work with her when she fell on hard times (), and we won't be able to respond in our defense because of privacy laws. The previous bank management advanced on her loan many times to help her pay her real estate taxes, insurance, and IRS tax levies so that she wouldn't go out of business. That's the primary reason her loan has only gone down by $9,000 in the past 20 years, when the original term of the loan was only 15 years (IIRC).

Goodhair had suggested to do another 90-day extension on the house loan, which has matured again, in order to give Betty's accountant enough time to finish the tax returns. But with her not returning my calls, I can't even do that.

[eltf177]

This is good to hear. And Betty's not returning your calls is the final nail in the coffin.

Let the wailing commence!

[wolfie]

Considering some of her problems are with the IRS, the bank needs to get rolling on the foreclosure ASAP. Because the IRS has priority, if you wait too long the bank might not get its money back, but my understanding is that once the bank has got its money back through LEGAL means it's now the bank's money and not subject to action against Betty by the IRS.

[roxtar]

predicting arson in the near future... after insurance has been secured of course.

[earl colby pottinger]

Betty

Betty sounds like the type of person who sets a fire without reading the part in the insurance policy that states what the minimum safety standards and minimum time she has to have the insurance she must meet for the insurance to be valid.

Example: For my cabin up North I needed a dry fire fighting unit, the wood stove had to be a certain distance from the wood studs in the wall and the chimney had to be 2 inches thick in the insulation. The old standard was just 1 inch but at the time I put in the stove the standards were upgraded.

If she misses even a single one the conditions in the insurance they can turn her claim down and not pay her a cent.

[taxguykarl]

From Ghel's first post on this matter, I somehow knew this would happen. I'm surprised the management let the nonsense go on this long.