On this page the following entries were made in the “HB 2791” category.
Archive for “HB 2791”
As a distressed home purchaser, one of the things the law forbids is for me to tell the seller I'm a "consultant."
There’s a property I’m interested in buying, and though I haven’t talked to the homeowners yet, I have put together the paperwork.
When I drive out to see them, I like having documents ready to go so if they’re inclined to accept, we can get the process underway.
But, like everyone in WA investing in foreclosures, I am confused.
Continue reading “Foreclosure Consultant? You tell me . . .” »
Sugarman demonstrates the truth means little to him, and documents exactly what I'm up against . . .
At some point the day of reckoning arrives and we see how you and your staff operate.
Of particular interest will be the actions of one AAG Jim Sugarman, particularly in light of what Sen. Brian Weinstein has exposed.
I’ve been talking about it for months as it relates to the bogus foreclosure rescue scam complaint you filed against me, and now others appear to be joining in. I’m guessing it won’t be long before the lies and deceit become obvious to all.
Continue reading “Smackdown 2008: Sugarman vs. Weinstein” »
Unbridled advocacy in the hands of out-of-control AAG's is a dangerous thing, particularly when they're willing to bend the rules and worse, believe those rules apply to everyone but them.
I’m tuned in to a belief system I previously was not aware of.
Sure, I’d seen signs of it in the past, but until dealing with your office, I had no understanding of how deep these twisted beliefs run and how far these likewise twisted advocates will go in the name of consumer protectionism.
When there’s no hesitancy to do whatever it takes because the end justifies the means, destroying businesses with whom they disagree becomes just another day at the office.
Continue reading “One Tin Soldier” »
It's working so we figured we ought to do it that way.
As you know (though appear to be confused about), the new law requires investors to pay 82% of market value to any homeowner who either stays or has a continuing interest after selling.
You’ve complicated it further by requiring the investor provide the seller a check the very moment he decides to vacate.
We just took it . . .— AAG James Sugarman
Consumer Protection Division
Additionally, the 82% requirement remains in perpetuity, so if the seller is still in the property 10 years later, he’s entitled to 82% of the future market value as well.
And that makes sense to you?
Continue reading “82 Percent? Good Question?” »
Putting him in charge of fixing the mess he created and encouraged the Legislature to support is a clear case of the inmates running the asylum
I see you’ve recorded a video detailing the HB 2791 debacle and suggesting there’s a very simple fix . . . going back to the original version your office “crafted.”
The original version was a total mess, and going back to it isn’t what most of us consider a fix.
Remember the original version?
Continue reading “The Fix is In” »