Controlling Interests

Posted September 4th, 2007 by Joe Kaiser

Do you really think we'll put our money into a problem situation with a partner we all know is ill-equipped to handle problems, and just give him complete control?

Dear Rob,

One of the trickiest things we do is partner up with people in foreclosure. It’s a high-risk play, particularly because partners can be a real pain in the ass.

And do you know what they say about partners?

Choose wisely?

You’d better believe it.


Asking for trouble

But we don’t get to choose.

We’re pretty much committed to going into business with whoever happens to be the owner of that property on the brink of foreclosure, and that creates all kinds of problems for us.

You probably know, one of the first rules of business is . . . avoid partnerships.

And there’s a good reason for it. When that partner of yours screws up, you’ve screwed up. So, if you decide to take on a partner, it’s always a good idea to make damn sure you get a good one.

What does that mean?

Before taking on a new partner, check out his track record to confirm he’s got successes under his belt, is responsible enough, and can be depended on.

Take a look at the people he hangs with and think long and hard about anyone who runs with the wrong crowd because his posse will soon be your posse.

And pay particular attention to his recent history because if he’s been in trouble lately, you can pretty much count on you being in trouble the moment you sign on the dotted line.


meth labs R us

So, who do we take on as partners?

You guessed it, that guy with all the problems, typically.

He’s in foreclosure now, has a history of making a mess of things, has a property that’s been a problem for the county for many years (just ask the neighbors), and seems to screw up everything he gets his hands on.

He has no money, no job, and is living with the power turned off in his girlfriend’s trailer because his place had been boarded up.

And he’s scheduled to be arraigned next week, having something to do with a couple meth labs the cops found on his property (he got five years).

What do we call him?

“Partner.”


Out-of-control

Typical?

Well, certainly not unusual.

Your office makes a big deal about us stepping in and taking charge.

It’s important we take control whenever we get involved, because until then, things are nearly always out-of-control. There’s a reason they’re in foreclosure, Rob, with a property that’s a disaster.

Here’s the line from your press release . . .

In other situations, the property was placed in a trust and the defendants acted as trustees. Most property owners believed they still owned the property, but the defendants actually had control.— March 14, 2007 Press Release

Do you really think we’ll put our money into a problem situation with a partner we all know is ill-equipped to handle problems, and just give him complete control?

Does that make sense to you?

Someone who’s totally irresponsible and has no ability to do anything but mess things up even worse than they’re already messed up, and you think he’s the one to put in charge?

Rob, he’s the one who created this mess.


Accepting full responsibility

When we get involved as a partner, Rob, we take control. It’s an absolute and not unreasonable requirement and we refuse to get involved without having control. Otherwise, we’d lose every nickel we’ve invested, pure and simple.

Most partners have issues that make them less than dependable, to put it kindly. Not all, of course, but enough. Some drink and some take drugs, and giving them control would be nothing short of a formula for certain disaster.

And doing so would be stupid.

By putting us in charge, everyone is guaranteed the problems will be addressed and quickly squared away.

You’ve argued ” . . . Most property owners believe they still owned the property . . .”

And they do, as co-owners of the trust, along with us.

You’ve argued ” . . . but defendant’s actually had control.”

And we do, thankfully, because now, at long last, there’s someone in charge who can be depended upon to get those problems resolved. Our partners appreciate the fact that we’re in control. They’re actually delighted to see those difficult issues they’ve been unable to handle finally being resolved.

You say it like it’s something sinister, Rob, and that makes absolutely no sense.

But really, what else is new?

Respectfully,

Joe Kaiser


2 Responses to: “Controlling Interests”

  1. anemonehead responds:
    Posted: September 4th, 2007 at 8:26 am

    Joe,

    I think this is a concept that Rob should be able to grasp pretty easily considering the partners (Cheryl Kringle) he’s had. Look at the mess it’s gotten him into.

    At this point Rob probably wishes that he had taken control from the get go to avoid a mess.

  2. Davido responds:
    Posted: September 4th, 2007 at 10:04 pm

    Joe, do you think this case will go to trial?


Post a Comment

Enter Your Details:


You may write the following basic XHTML Strict in your comments:
<a href="" title=""></a> · <acronym title=""></acronym> · <abbr title=""></abbr>
<blockquote cite=""></blockquote> · <code></code> · <strong></strong> · <em></em>

  • If you’re a first-time commenter, your response will be moderated.
  • If your response includes a link, it will require moderator approval.
Enter Your Comments:



Note: This is the end of the usable page. The image(s) below are preloaded for performance only.