And even if it's not on sale, you can always ask, especially if it's a floor model. A friend of mine bought a tool box at HD, and it was the last one- a floor model. He asked for and got 15% off.

(I have deposited more-than-a-year-old checks and had them clear; I can understand why your DH did this, as well as him not noticing. Also, my next-door neighbors were getting old a senile, and didn't cash pension checks; they got a letter saying "did you get your check? it hasn't been cashed? but it was many months later, and it was several checks still on the DR table, not one check) when they took the money out of your savings account, did they give the "defective" check back to you? Shouldn't they have? Demand it be returned to you. (a lesson to us all--if we are giving a bank money back for a check, we should get the check physically returned to us) Unless they submitted it all over again? Here's what I think happened, if I understand this right. (some queries, though) 1. You give them a check, they give you cash. 2. They send the check to the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve?) to get their money. 3. The central clearing house gives the CU its money, and sends the check on to GM to get the money back from them. 4. GM sends the check--but no money--back to the central clearing house as "defective"'; the central clearing house is still in need of money. 5. The central clearing house sends the check back to the CU as "defective" and wants its money back from them. I would think the CU would have an account of money it would use to cover this; it pays the central clearing house, and the central clearing house is out of it. 6. the CU brings the check back to you, and says they want that money back; they take it out of your account. THEY SHOULD GIVE THE CHECK BACK TO YOU--it is your property, once they have their money back. At the very least, they should have destroyed it, but really they should have given it to you so YOU could destroy it. I'm thinking this is where the CU goofed, and I'd press this point. 7. You get a replacement check, and submit it, and the "you to the CU to the central clearing house to GM" chain works, this time. (can you get the folks at GM to send you a copy of their canceled check, the replacement one that supposedly worked just fine? Might be nice to have) Suddenly the old "defective" check is around. (Sometimes if a check is returned for "insufficient funds," the bank will resubmit it, just in case the money will turn up. They will bill the depositor $15, and then if it's returned twice, they'll bill another $15; the check-writer's account will get billed as well each time; this was unpopular, so some banks don't make a second attempt. I'm wondering if your "defective" check got slipped into the "insufficient funds" category and was REsubmitted? So, let's postulate: 8. The credit union resubmits the check to the central clearing house (Federal Reserve?) to get the money. BUT IF THIS IS THE CASE, then they should have RECREDITED your account when they RESUBMITTED the check. (because if they don't give you any money, then they shouldn't be getting any money from anyone else--it's not their money, it's yours, they're just the "pipe" to move it around) Did they? If you can get them to trace their records of when the check was submitted, can you insist that they DO credit your account w/ the money, on that day? 9. The clearing house (FR?) gives the CU the money, and sends the "defective" check on to GM. 10. GM marks the "defective" check w/ a confusing note that was *intended* to indicate that this check has been replaced w/another check, and sends it, but no money, to the clearing house (FR?) 11. The clearing house sends the check back to the CU, demanding its money back. 12. The CU comes to you demanding the money that it owes to the FR. So, did they "give you money" for that check twice (once in cash, once by crediting your account)? No, you say--but if this is what happened, then they should have. Or else someone put that check in the wrong stack somewhere--and I'd want to SEE that check, and I'd want to try to figure who where the "in lieu of" came from. So they should have given you money twice, and asked to get money back from you twice. Maybe if that's the chain of events, you can make them re-credit your savings account w/t he money they owe you from having resubmitted the check (treating it as though you deposited it all over again), and then they can take it back out again. Good luck!

I would pay him in cash, and profusely thank him for his professional opinions. We are getting some work done in a community of about 25,000 people. I found out that the contractors are talking with each other all the time. THEY know what potential customers are doing. If you treat #2 fairly, the word will get around. If you ever have to go back to him or his contractor, or his friends you will stand a much better chance of a good response. Conversely, if the contractor community thinks you screwed the guy over, good luck on getting their best work out of ANY of them in the future! That's part of YOUR cost of doing business. I would pay him $150, and tell him "thank you!"

Thanks for all of the feedback, folks. Renting is still certainly an option, but that $8,000 tax credit keeps whispering to me. I don't need the $8,000 tax credit to make this "work", but it would certainly be nice. As far as additional expenses that come along with homeownership, I must say that if I stay in this area, I'll be paying approximately $1500/mo + utilities, along with whatever outrageous pet fees and pet rents they will add on. For what it's worth, I've got money in accounts I'd rather not touch right now, but I can access. I also have my debts covered by insurance that kicks in if I'm disabled or unemployed. I've got a sizeable amount of available credit (the balance are small, but the credit limits aren't), in case of a terrible emergency. When it comes down to it, I've got more than enough cash/cheap credit around to tackle any catastrophe worth dealing with on a $130K property. I'm an insurance freak, so I don't have any debts that won't be paid if something happens to me, and even the pets have veterinary insurance, so a veterinary emergency won't make me choose between paying my bills or paying the vet. Again, for what it's worth, I'm focusing on houses without pools (don't want the maintenance expense), I'll be working from home (no commute/minimal gas expenses), and I am also focusing on houses new enough that everything won't start to break as soon as I move in. I've wanted to buy a home for years (but lived in an absurdly high COLA area), and I really feel like I've thought this through as much as I can without making sure I'm getting a reality check from everyone. Short of saving up for years to pay cash for a home, I'm not sure I'm in such a bad position to buy a house. With that said, I don't want to be the poster who just posts to get everyone to agree with her, regardless of the facts. So, I really appreciate the feedback. In my situation, with the pets, it just seems like I'm throwing away so much money on pet deposits, pet fees (nonrefundable), and absurd rents to continue doing the "sensible" thing and renting until all the moons align and I can pay cash for a huge portion of a home. One of my biggest considerations is the fact that I could take a 50% pay cut and make out. The mortgage/utilities on these houses = still less than I've paid in rent in years (and at much lower salaries). At what point does, "I really really want a yard and a dog" come into play? I get the impression that, for some locations/situations, renting will always be the most "sensible" solution, but then why do people even bother to buy homes? So, really, when do the scales start to tip in favor of buying a home vs. renting a home? Thanks, all! I've got a lot to think about.