Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: ancient_geezer

The first sale I was refering to was business to private, the title conveyed to the partner personally, ostensibly for use as a personal dwelling. Criminal prosecution would be subject to proving the initial buyer's intentions. Good luck enforcing that. Glad to see you back, geez. You are, as always, very thorough. This is not an attempt at a gotcha game, I'm quite serious. I had already considered your points before asking you.


402 posted on 01/06/2005 5:58:31 AM PST by tech30528
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies ]


To: tech30528

The first sale I was refering to was business to private, the title conveyed to the partner personally, ostensibly for use as a personal dwelling.

I see you don't figure on registering the title on that first transaction LOL.

By your specification, is that house has not been lived in but has sold by an business affiliate instead for an obvious profit. That first is a defacto business transaction and will be held so by the courts if you should try this little evasion tactic.

But it's your hide on the line not mine, so go for it. Who knows the state treasurer might not notice it when the title is proved for the real consumer of that home on it's actual retail sale. But I certainly wouldn't by my liberty on it.

Criminal prosecution would be subject to proving the initial buyer's intentions.

Yes for the jail term, however the civil side is by no means a matter of intentions, defacto result is sufficient there and preponderence of the evidence is all that is required for that side of the case.

However, looking at your specification of a house purchase for resale only, presented to a final consumer as not lived in. The intentions are more than apparent and will be to a jury, what you are forgetting is that final purchaser is on the hook for that additional $6k at least until he starts talking to the prosecution's investigators. Good luck.

Glad to see you back, geez. You are, as always, very thorough. This is not an attempt at a gotcha game, I'm quite serious. I had already considered your points before asking you.

Then you already had your answer. Obviously there is no more loophole there than there is for a traffic speed limit that is ignored when a cop isn't looking. If you're caught that's the breaks baby. The statute has it covered. If not, more power to yah. Government revenues and spending need to be trimmed, preferably by action of the electorate demanding such, but your informal way works well if you are willing to take a risk with at least three folks in on the shennanigans and that last one who is going to be looking after his own hide before you and your accomplice's in a fraudulent representation.

403 posted on 01/06/2005 9:09:09 AM PST by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson