saftgeek - I hate to admit it but you are all too correct about far too many attorneys! I was a high school teacher for 20 years before deciding to go to law school and I have been deeply appalled by the how truly unethical and dishonest some lawyers are. In the six years I've been practicing law, I've run into more dishonest, downright sleezy lawyers than I met incompetant teachers in twenty years of teaching school... and people are always knocking teachers for being incompetant! Shyster lawyers make me ashamed of this profession just as incompetant teachers sometimes made me ashamed of the teaching profession. I would urge you or anyone else who has evidence of a lawyer behaving dishonestly or unethically to report them to their state bar association. It might not do any good but then again, it just might. At least in Texas, I think our state bar tries to disbar the unethical lawyers whenever they can find them. It certainly sounds like your ex-boss was exactly that type. I also truly am not trying to paint GCs as dishonest. I believe the vast majority are honest folks who do their best to do a good job when building a home and, if they make mistakes, try their best to fix them. BUT, as in all professions, there are some people building homes that are either lazy, dishonest, or so downright disorganized that the homeowner who ends up hiring one of them needs to be able to go to court and get help. And, unfortunately, the contract promulgated by the Texas Association of Builders is specifically designed to protect these bottom-feeding GCs from facing the music for their bad behaviour. The funny thing is, I KNOW that it was the TAB's lawyers who drafted the d--n contract that protects the bad builders, so when I'm knocking the contract, I'm also slamming some of the members of my own profession! I actually suspect that most builders who use the TAB form contract do so because it is available to them cheaply and they don't know any more about what it really says than the homeowner does. And, so long as there are no major problems with the build - nobody is any the worse off. But, I defy any honest person who has ever READ the TAB contract to argue with a straight face that it is a fair and balanced contract. Among other things, it requires the homeowner to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Basically an implied warranty of habitablity means that courts have said when two parties enter into a contract for one to build a home for the other, there is an implied understanding between them that the finished home will be inhabitable. The owner doesn't have to make sure to insist that language be put into the contract SAYING that the house must be able to be lived in when comleted...the courts will assume that since the contract was for the building of a home, the finished product must be something one can inhabit or it is simply not a "home." But, just in case someone WANTS just a shell - or something like that - to be built, courts will allow the parties to agree to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Asking the homeowner to waive the implied warranty of habitablity might be fair if the homeowner wanted to build something totally new and different and the builder said, "you know, I can build that for you but I don't think it'll be something you can live in when I get done, are you SURE that's what you want?" But, I think you would have to agree that, except in those rare instances, a house should be inhabitable, just like a car should be driveable, a suit should be wearable, and a wedding cake should be edible. Would you agree to buy a new car from a manufacturer who insisted that you agree to waive the "implied warranty of driveability"? Would you purchase a suit from a tailor who refused to warrant that it would be wearable? Would you order a wedding cake from a baker who refused to guarantee that it would be edible? Why would you buy a home from someone who refused to warrant that it would be habitable????? Nevertheless, the Texas Association of Builders - with the help of its attorneys no doubt! - realized that implied warranties can be waived and that most homeowners don't ever really read or understand the contract they sign. So they put language into the form contract that waives the warranty of habitablility on every single home built under it. That means the homeowner may think he is contracting for a turn-key home but, even if the house he gets is so defective that he cannot possibly live in it - say the sewage pipe has broken in the wall so that there that raw sewage has contaminated all the insulation - the homeowner cannot argue that the builder breached the contract by building an UNIHABITABLE house. Fair????? The TAB contract also requires that the owner agree upfront to "binding arbitration" in the event of a dispute. This doesn't sound too bad...unless you happen to know a couple of facts about binding arbitration. First, arbitration is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than small claims court even though most building disputes are going to be over amounts small enough have brought the claim in small claims court. Second, arbitrators are selected and PAID by the parties to the dispute which means that arbitrators make more money if they are selected for more cases. If an arbitrator wants future work, they have to make sure that the party that is more likely to bring them future business is happy. Care to guess which party is more likely to NEED to hire an arbitrator for a second or third or fourth construction dispute? Some studies have shown that homeowners win less than 5% of claims that go to arbitration but win about half of claims that are tried in a court of law. Even those few homeowners who are nominal winners in arbitration almost never win enough money to actually repair their homes! The TAB contract also requires that the builder receive his final payment, in full, (i.e. NO RETAINAGE) at the time of the final walk-through even though it also specifies that a punch list of items to be corrected/completed/repaired will be made at this same time. In theory the builder is supposed to return and finish the punch list. But, WHY should the unscrupulous builder bother? After all, he has already been paid in full AND the homeowner can't even sue him in small claims court due to the binding arbitration clause I already mentioned? Do you think that is fair? I could go on and on about other clauses that are in the TAB contract but I suspect I've made my point. A builder who insists on using the TAB contract after having some of its many unfair clauses pointed out to him may not actually BE dishonest but, IMHO, neither is he the kind of straight shooter I really want to deal with. Straight shooters are willing to play on a level playing field.

Well stated CelticMoon. I am glad to hear you can help. Your nephews illustrate the point about why evaluating parent participation is important. I cannot understand why some investment bankers kid would be entitled to the same level of aid which is what would happen if parents were not required to disclose their finances. So there is less money available for those who cannot afford it. Do you honestly think the average millionaire would say, oh my kid who got into Harvard will not go since he did not get enough aid and I want him to go to Z College instead so he can work his way through? While there are always the exceptions, the average wealthy person is thrilled his kid is at a good school and is more than willing to write the check. The truth is that a gifted student or athlete in that of Celtics nephews situation has an excellent chance at a good education and a combination of scholarships (usually from the school), grants (school or businesses or government) and low interest loans (not all college loans are). Scholarships and grants do not have to be repaid. Often they are not even based on academics or sports, there are small ones out there for kids from a particular area, interested in a specific hobby, that type of thing. Apparently there are now web sites that identify them. So really poor kids who are gifted still have a shot. Its the ones who are average or are mildly gifted but whose parents are neither poor nor wealthy enough to comfortably afford college that need to worry the most. Even if you make 150k a year, putting 3 kids through college at 40k each, good luck. Also, says this Mother of Five (all 10 and under), schools look at how many kids you are sending to school at one time. I changed my planning after the 4th and 5th were born because now our situation was different! Either he is a child and I am resposible for him or he's an adult and I'm not There is no reason for my child to suffer for a principle. The reality is without filling out an aid application, my child will not be eligible. Bottom line this is the way the system works, accept it or write to your congressman to have universal college education paid for by the government. Some states had almost that when I was in college. Schools ranger from 7k -10k a year while UT at Austin was about 500 (no idea what it costs now). You can argue that he should work his way through and leave the aid money for Celtic's nephews, fine. You can also argue that since it is unlikely he will qualify for aid you do not want to hurt his chances of admission (yes this does happen when a kid is on the fence, they will take the one who does not ask for money) or reveal your finances to strangers. Ok I can accept that. Or that giving him more than X will severly endanger your own retirement, I can also accept that. Unless your child plans a future in the military (which is possible given your background and West Point is free but is not possible or desireable for everyone(no offense different strokes) or has an entrepenuarial bent or a talent in sports or sales or a vocation, the best way I can see to give my children their best shot at money and position and job satisfaction is to encourage them to go to the best college and graduate school they can get into. Sure if there is an equally good cheaper state school, by all means PLEASE attend. To arbitraily say, ok the government says I am no longer responsible for him even though I was responsible for him yesterday and was even willing to pay yesterday but I am not paying today, please. It is arbitrary. I agree with you that it does seem odd that you could no longer access his medical records or school records after that day. But this was not a rule he invented. I believe I have the responsibilty to raise a child until he is a functioning adult in a career that his intellect and education suite him for. If I worked so hard for 18 years to raise him, why would I dump him just as he was nearing the finish line? Why does my child have to reinvent the wheel? Just because my DH worked his way through school and took out loans, why does my child? My parents paid my way and if possible I would like to pay my childs. Frankly my parents taught me a lot more about money management than did DHs. I had a lot of educating to do when we got married. He rarely discussed money with them except to hear what they could not afford. Now that he makes his own he feels a certain entitlement and is sometimes a little overly generous with himself. I keep meaning to read Rich Dad Poor Dad. He had no idea how to use credit or invest. I cannot believe the crap he invested in when he made his first money. As for carrying a balance on credit cards at 15% while paying off his 5% student loans, do not get me started (ancient history now). If anything I would teach children how to manage money, how to invest it and use credit wisely. As for working why would I have them waste hours they could be studying working at some menial after school job making minimum wage. Sure a work ethic is important, summer jobs are a good thing. However as far as I can tell until they graduate from college or start working, they have one job and that is to work on their academics to achieve as much as possible. This is the ideal version. The reality is my kids may have to work to help pay for college but it will not be because of some arbitrary principle but rather because of genuine need Claiming them or not on their taxes has nothing to do with anything

best, yes, our kiddoes are the same age. Smart to look at schools early -- wish I had done this with DS #1. My DS who is interested in Chicago is an excellent student and all-around good citizen, so I think U of Chicago may be within reach but who knows -- he liked what he saw, so I think seeing a good "reach" school is good inspiration for the year ahead! He is one of those kids who could get straight A's with just a tiny bit more effort, but I can't complain as his lowest grade this year was a B+. He also plays sports, two instruments, and has a part time job. But enough bragging. I just appreciate him because our first -- though a great guy with many talents -- was a whole different ball game! Anyway, we had a great time in San Fran other than that one really lousy afternoon. The park ranger that we flagged down said it is, unfortunately, a frequent occurrence there, usually homeless people who then sell whatever they get. Fortunately, it's all replaceable stuff. My favorite part of the trip, though, was out of the city -- we went to Muir Woods one morning and it was just so stunning and peaceful. Have fun in Chicago! I think we'll be going back sometime during this coming school year for an actual tour of at least a couple of schools.

"The debt doesn't generate income. Rent generates income. Debt costs money. It always has and always will. Sometimes, you can net out positive, but you are always increasing your risk. Lots and lots of people have bankrupted themselves by financing multiple rental properties." That mans they did not know what they were doing, and likely over leveraged the debt they carried. The frast ;itte hicup om cash flow ad they crash ad burn. while debt costs money, it is one of the things that allows our economy to work and prosper. he lack of any method to borrow is one of the things that holds may economies back. It is also a trap for fools that do not understand the money is not free and creditors expect (and often can demand) repayment. Or you can try to save up to put enough down on investment properties (normally a minimum of 20%, ad often more is actually needed) and not ever get very far. While it is true the rent is what pays the income, without the ability to borrow at least some portion of the purchase price the income would never have existed. Better rethink that whole concept a little bit. Yep, the lender gets a cut. But I get a nice cut also. I really like having someone else make my mortgage investment payments for me, while I skim off some cash every month, and then have an increase in value when I sell. Even when I have 50% of the price into the property, if the value increases by 2%, that is 4% on my investment (and the tenants are paying the expenses). If only you could find someone to pay for a loan on stock andlet me pcket the increases.