Posted on 08/10/2008 7:56:16 AM PDT by Publius804
I haven't ever heard of a time of limit for money owed. I'm not saying that there isn't one, but if there is, I've never heard of it.
I've dealt with title claims on property, which were quite old (30 years) and weren't challenged due to passage of time.
I like that solution. How did that actually work? In whose name was the money deposited? I’d love to do things that way....not that I’m the “rick relative” just that I do get asked for momey.
Roger that! I saw an interview with this guy years ago. When he's not reading a script he is as dumb as a box of rocks.
In the rich guy's name - he just put it up as security, with the bank acting as the collector of payments from the relative. There was always the case that the borrower would default and the deposit would be lost, but the fact that the borrower would be dunned by the bank and not the relative evidently weeded out the deadbeats.
Oops - should be:
In the rich guy's name - he just put it up as security, with the bank acting as the collector of payments from the relative. There was always the case that the borrower would default and the deposit would be lost, but the fact that the borrower would be dunned by the bank and not the RICH GUY evidently weeded out the deadbeats.
I looked it up, both do.
Crimes statute of limitations "periods of prescription" begin with the cause of action or offence.
Contracts "periods of prescription" begin at the time that the contract becomes executable. In California the statute of limitations for Breach of a written contract is Four years.
If Richard Dreyfus took legal action to execute the contract with in the four years then the statute of limitations would not be enforced.
It is up to the one being sued to challenge the suit on the grounds of the Statute of Limitations. With lawyers it frequently is true you get what you pay for.
Okay, understood. A fully secured loan should get a very favorable interest rate, too, so that’s nice for the borrower.
I like that idea.
Tax consequences are certainly one aspect I had failed to consider. Another aspect is that any executor of an estate will not repay an unenforceable loan since it deprives the heirs of their expected inheritance. If he or she does so because “it is the right thing to do”, any heir can sue the executor. I’ve seen these situations arise. I suspect either (1) preserving the loan against the statute of limitations, (2) establishing a valid claim should the building go into foreclosure or be sold, or (3) the tax issue, proving it was a loan as opposed to a gift. On the other hand, he could just be a bankrupt jerk. ;o)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.