With your current financial situation and your past foreclosure

Where do you get that the OP has a past foreclosure? I didn't read that anywhere in this thread.

Where do you get that the OP has a past foreclosure?

terriks, luann got that info from this thread (see below). Go to the thread and do a Ctrl F (page) search on her member name "ica171".

Here is a link that might be useful: Foreclosure thread to which OP responded

Yes, we do have a foreclosure. That's basically what I was referring to when I said we had bad credit. It's two years old, and I have heard some different things on the age. Some people have said two years is fine, some have said three is required. The bank we are working with to do FHA financing said that they prefer three, but it's not a deal breaker. And for what it's worth, the foreclosure had absolutely nothing to do with the price of the house, but I won't get into that right now. I don't know if the sellers know about it or not, but I have been very upfront about it with our agent. When we made the offer, I gave her a packet of info similar to what we gave the bank when we applied for FHA preapproval, which includes an explanation letter about the foreclosure.

I should also clarify what I said about rent: yes, our rent right now is $495. That is the lowest rent we've ever had, including at times when DH was working jobs where he made less than he does now. We have rented houses where we paid $600 a month rent and the only thing we did not pay for was the taxes--we paid all utilities and did most of the maintenance ourselves, including paying for it. We were fine. Believe me, $450 a month is not going to kill us, and $450 a month is the payment that we would have if we were at the top of our price range with a higher interest rate than the one we're offering now. Honestly, I fail to see how $450 a month plus utilities plus maintenance on a well-maintained house is worse than $495 a month plus utilities on an apartment. (Well, yes, I do see that "plus maintenance" is kind of wide open, but I do believe that I've explained what needs to be done to the house right now and how it's within our price range and our abilities to do.)

ky114, thanks. I've said something very similar several times--if we waited until the timing was perfect, we'd be waiting forever. Sometimes you have to know that you've learned from your past mistakes and just jump in feet first.

"Owner was going into a nursing home and children are selling it" -- Children would not be the only ones making financial decisions. Unless the owner is a self paying patient in a nursing home. $450 a month will not cover nursing home expenses.

Thanks, jenswrens, for answering that post!

terricks...
"Where do you get that the OP has a past foreclosure? I didn't read that anywhere in this thread."

Right, you did not read it in this thread... and I mentioned that it was on another thread at the beginning of my post.

Sorry, I missed that.

no problem!

Ica, have you thought about how much money the sellers would have to come to the table with in order to sell this house to you? Five years ago we bought a $35,000 house, owner financed, 20% down. The seller did use a realtor, and we had a buyer's agent. We paid half of the closing costs and all inspections, the seller had to pay for the termite treatment because they did find some. Between the termite treatment, the realtor's fees and his half of the closing costs, our seller didn't even walk away with half of that seven thousand dollars that we paid him.
What I'm thinking is that when they were asked if they would carry the note, they thought you would come in with a serious offer. Your down payment would at least need to cover their fees. They probably have not responded because when you put in an offer of $500 down, which is about a third of what you'd have to come up with if you rented a house (where I live, a $500 rental also requires a $500 deposit, plus first and last month's rent, so $1500 up front) you came across a fisherman, not someone to be taken seriously.

I just reread your OP where you said the sellers seemed fine w/no down payment in the beginning, so I feel the need now to add to my post that I think they rethout their position after they found out how much cash they would personally have to come up with just to sell to you, a risky proposition..

"We put the offer in on Saturday, and since our agent had never done a land contract she wanted her manager to look it over Monday, so we set it to expire Tuesday at 5 PM."

Once they allowed the offer to expire there was no need for a response.
The offer died.

You have a foreclosure and you want the seller to finance the sale of a home you can't afford? I don't know the laws, but it certainly would be honest if you disclosed to the seller you have a previous foreclosure. If you couldn't honour your commitment to your mortgage, how on earth do you think you will honour this one and not leave the seller holding the bag?

I would NEVER even entertain the thought of seller financing no matter how desperate I am to sell. I'm not going to trust a perfect stranger to honour their end of the bargain, especially when they have poor credit.

I'm with the person who said that the deal expired and there is no need for them to answer.

Save your money, rent and don't expect people to finance a home you cannot afford. It's for your convenience, not theirs, that you want to do seller financing.

As a couple people have already said, the sellers' silence is your answer. If I were the sellers, I wouldn't go through this deal with you - it is too risky and not enough upside for them.

Honestly, I fail to see how $450 a month plus utilities plus maintenance on a well-maintained house is worse than $495 a month plus utilities on an apartment. (Well, yes, I do see that "plus maintenance" is kind of wide open, but I do believe that I've explained what needs to be done to the house right now and how it's within our price range and our abilities to do.)

BUT, those are known maintenance issues. It doesn't sound as if you have the financial ability to absorb the next financial crisis that comes along, whether from the house or life in general.

The greatest risk you take in making a lowball or other weak offer on any property you care about is making the seller angry or so uninterested in dealing with you for whatever reason (including that you don't look like a serious or qualified buyer) that they will not respond to you on any terms. No reply to an offer on a home is telling you they either won't dignify your offer with a response or that there are problems iin replying and they aren't concerned with keeping you on the hook. And one of the weakest things you can do is to start countering yourself. Really, really bad negotiating.

Having been a seller who had someone make an offer that didn't make sense and made them look like they couldn't afford the house, I understand the silence -- but we did have our agent tell them we would not respond. They made 2 or 3 more offers -- all making them look more desparate and not increasing the likelihood of us ever getting to closing or being interested (plus, they were below market). We were even more convinced we didn't want to get caught up in a contract with them. We closed quicker on an offer slightly over our asking price instead.

Why should this seller pay for you to buy their house? That's what you're asking for. You think you are offering more than market price, but you are asking them to come to closing with cash as well as accept the risk on your future payments when you have little or nothing invested inthe home and may or may not keep it up. What if they have to foreclose, go to court, evict you and you haven't repaired the roof? In that price category, I wouldn't be surprised if the house could be a total loss with water leaks and mildew. And I don't know if an individual can get private mortgage insurance or what it would cost them. For a buyer with a recent foreclosure -- probably quite a bit. Plus, they can make nearly the 6.5% interest on secured, no-risk investemtnts. If they are risk takers, they could make more or at least spend it where it is needed now -- and be in control. Being locked into a low income, high risk investment just isn't very attractive.

I also have to agree that you are not ready to buy a home. You should first have savings for contingencies and emergencies. The rule of thumb is at least several months income -- you don't have that. You don't have money for a down payment, and even when lenders would accept no money down, no money down means you have no equity cushion -- no way to refi, no way to avoid taking money to closing if you should have to sell in a few years. And you don't' have the money to replace the roof. What about the needed repair that always come up later but weren't obvious or weren't found in an inspection? Every house I've bought has had additional repairs needed as well as things go wrong after closing. The older the house, the more you need to be prepared for.

Keep the dream, but keep it for a little longer. Yes, the look on your child's face when you move into your own home will be wonderful, but I suspect that the foreclosure has already left an image of the face of someone having to leave their home.

So, in order to sell the house to you on a land contract the sellers have to come up with at least $5000 (commissions, closing costs and taxes), while you put up $500. Doesn't sound like a deal most sellers would go for. Normally when sellers pay closing costs, commissions, etc., they pay for them out of the proceeds of the sale, which they receive at closing. These sellers would have to wait years before they receive the proceeds. They wouldn't even break even until you had made at least a year's worth of payments. I don't see why any seller would agree to this.

I will try to respond to all the recent posts at once.

We can afford this house; it is well within the range set by our income. As I've said, the prior foreclosure had nothing to do with the price of the house. But I find our foreclosure to be a moot point in a thread about my frustration that the sellers did not respond to our offer.

One of the reasons I assumed they would not accept seller financing before we asked is the amount of money that would be paid out of their pockets. But when they came back and said that they would accept seller financing, I assumed that that was something they'd considered and were OK with.

As for the low interest rate/low down, it was made clear that this was a starting point--they had said they would expect 9 or 10% interest, which we were fine with, but obviously we didn't start out offering a 10% interest rate. Plus, since they were told we had no down payment and said that was fine, I didn't really see it as a big deal to only put $500 down. When we made our offer, we raised the amount that we were offering because we were asking them to pay $1500 in back taxes and closing costs, so we did consider that aspect of it.

Anyway, I spoke to our REA this morning and it seems that I had assumed correctly--the sellers decided that they just wanted to sell the house flat out and not have any interest left in it. Which is fine with me; it's their house to sell as they see fit, and since I was a bit shocked that they were accepting seller financing in the first place I'm not the least bit surprised that they changed their minds about it.

From what my agent was telling me, their agent really wants to make the sale happen. He said something about getting a loan where the sellers put the 20% down--my REA didn't like it because she thought it sounded illegal, and I tend to agree. We're going to see what is going on with our FHA preapproval today, but I'm not expecting much from that.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input, I do appreciate it even if I didn't always agree with it. :)

I didn't really see it as a big deal to only put $500 down. When we made our offer, we raised the amount that we were offering because we were asking them to pay $1500 in back taxes and closing costs, so we did consider that aspect of it.

So, not only would they have to come to the table with mucho dinero to fund the purchase of the home for you, you also expected them to pay the taxes for the rest of the year and closing costs? No wonder they didn't respond. It was a very one sided offer with you taking no risk, putting little down and leaving the seller to fund an exhorbitant amount of money for complete strangers.

"I didn't really see it as a big deal to only put $500 down. When we made our offer, we raised the amount that we were offering because we were asking them to pay $1500 in back taxes and closing costs, so we did consider that aspect of it."

So, not only would they have to come to the table with mucho dinero to fund the purchase of the home for you, you also expected them to pay the taxes for the rest of the year and closing costs? No wonder they didn't respond. It was a very one sided offer with you taking no risk, putting little down and leaving the seller to fund an exhorbitant amount of money for complete strangers.

If they didn't like that aspect of it, they could have countered with not paying those costs, although sellers paying closing costs and taxes that were already due is not out of line IMO. Or they could have said no to the whole seller financing thing in the first place if they didn't want to do it; just because someone asks you to do something doesn't mean you're required to do it.

No, but asking too much is a good way to get nothing.

And you said "the last half of the year's taxes" which most would understand to be the remaining half of the year after they sell.

You had a seller that didn't reject seller financing out of hand and then gave them no reason to wnat to or be able to do the deal. The only way anyone I can think of would do that deal is for a close family member or if they needed a way to go cash negative a bit.

In order to effectively negotiate a purchase of a home, you have to understand both sides of the transaction. I don't think you are seeing the money loss for the seller even after it has been pointed out to you several times and ways.

Our agent had told them we didn't have money for a down which is fine with me--we do have 3% but I'm not going to argue.

This may be the reason that they didn't bother to respond. If you didn't authorize your agent to tell the seller that you don't have the money for a down payment, then she shouldn't be saying that. If you want this house, you should write another offer.

Ica, you've been given very good financial advice and reasons why the sellers did not respond to your "offer". It's funny that your title to your post is "When selling, it might be a good idea to respond to offers", but in fact, you didn't make an offer. You made a request for them to make YOU an offer, a VERY good offer, for you, not them. I really think you should stand back and rethink your financial decisions, for your own sake, and for that of your child. Parents who make bad financial decisions raise children who make bad financial decisions. There was an MSN article on this not too far back. The household finances forum here is a very good one to visit, I suggest you take a look, because your one-sided logic and "I want, I want" attitude are only going to land you in the same boat that you were in two years ago. You seem to have learned nothing from your ordeal. and that is unfortunate.

Wow, I am flabbergasted. Now I'm a bad parent because I went with my agent's advice on what offer to make? How completely ridiculous and offensive of you to say. And also, how dare you judge what I learned and didn't learn from going through a foreclosure when that is all you know--that I went through a foreclosure?

I think that since the deal is officially dead, I'm done with this thread. I see no reason to continue with it.

Brava to addictedtoroses!

Eh, I think the bad parent thing is a stretch. A big one.

While we are doing armchair analysis....I suspect ica171 is a very good parent, but has somewhat of a sense of entitlement about it. Partially because her (his?) kid wants this house ica171 feels justified in making a purchase that the family can't afford despite the fact that when they run into trouble the odds are high that someone else will bear some of the cost (as happened with their last house purchase). Also I get the impression they are a one-income family by choice. I think that's admirable if you are doing it because you think it benefits your family, but you have to accept the downside as well.

ica171, you can't afford this house and you are angling to make others bear some of the risk (whether it's the sellers, a bank, or the government). People don't like that. They consider it selfish. Unless the circumstances are unusual $1650 is a ridiculous amount of savings to have and be considering a house. Your kid is only 3. Schools are not an issue yet (and they may never be if you homeschool or are in an area where location doesn't affect school quality). Grow up.

Wow. Just......Wow.

As somebody noted on another thread, there is a lot of tough love on this board without the love.

Bad parent?

Grow up?

What did the OP do to deserve such remarks?

She didn't come here with any sort of chip on her shoulder and a sense of entitlement that she deserves to be a homeowner.

She didn't even ask for any advice on whether she should be a homeowner.

All she did was post a rant about not receiving a response from an owner and ask for opinions on whether readers here thought the owners might have changed their minds about seller financing.

And for that she's pelted with vitriolic comments about her life?!

There was one simple answer and brickeyee posted it some time ago: Since the offer expired there was no action that needed to be taken. That, in effect, WAS the sellers' response. End of story.

All of this other stuff has just been gratuitous bashing.

Bethesdamadman - you call it "gratuitous bashing." What I've seen is a few swift kicks designed to get a young lady headed in the right direction. With any luck it has worked.

Okay, where did I say Ica was a bad parent? I never said that, not did I mean that in any way. You can be a good parent and still neglect to have or impart good financial values, which is clearly the case here. As parents, we want to give our children the world, and sometimes we need to stand back and look at the risks and costs that it comes with. Too many people are one paycheck away from bankruptcy. I, also, am in a one-income household by choice. This does require sacrifices and strategy. At one time, six years ago, we were not as savvy as we are now. We lived with very little savings, like Ica, and my husband fell and broke his ankle/foot in three places. He was out of work for six months, and he had to quit his job and withdraw his retirement to live off of. In the end, he went back to work before he was fully healed, and I fully believe that the injury stemmed the onset of years of severe gout attacks. Although his doctor has told him many times to "just give up" and apply for SSI, he is the most determined individual I know, working 60+ hours a week. I am starting some online courses while I am home with my children, so that when they are older, or if my husband's health ceases his ability to work, I will be better equipped to make a decent salary. In the meantime, we have both honed our budgeting, planning and savings skills so that we never have to go through that again.
What if an illness happens to the sole breadwinner and a family has little savings? What if he has no reserves to pull, like my husband did? I fully stand behind my statements to Ica, and hope that she visits the Household Finances forum. With strategic planning, she can learn from her foreclosure and bad choices in the past and make good choices and be a good example for her child re:money in the future. The rule of thumb for emergency savings is three months' income, preferably six. A good, solid downpayment for a house is twenty percent. Less is acceptable in many situations, but not always the smartest choice for the buyer, especially if they don't have any emergency savings. Seller financing is not a bad choice if it benefits both the buyer and the seller, but just like everything else, you can't just "jump in feet first" without looking to see if there might be alligators down there!

Solie, Busymom, and Roses, you go, girls.

People always get the angriest when they don't want to hear the truth...

The unfortunate direction this thread has taken is a perfect example of why I've pretty much stopped posting on this forum.

The OP has made it abundantly clear that she's not seeking advice on how to live her life. Yet, a group of posters on here persist on doing exactly that, insisting that their unwelcome, busybody "advice" is somehow good for her.

If I were a new member thinking about posting on here and I came across that "a few swift kicks designed to get a young lady headed in the right direction" remark, I'd run in the opposite direction. Why would anyone risk bring down that kind of public abuse on themselves?

What in the world makes so many of you think that posting on a forum like this represents an invitation to publicly pick apart someone else's life? Whatever happened to the concept of treating other people with dignity and respect?

IMHO, it's not the OP who deserves those kicks.

Asked for or not, the OP has been given good advice. I think the thread took a turn for the worse when people sensed that the advice being given wasn't registering with the OP, specifically when she wrote: Sometimes you have to know that you've learned from your past mistakes and just jump in feet first.

I'm shaking my head because it sounds as if she hasn't learned form her past mistake and is in fact putting herself in a position to repeat it.

She laid out a lengthy scenario of an offer she made, and simply wants comments about why the sellers are not responding. She doesn't want to hear why the offer is bad and why buying the house is risky. She is relying on a real estate agent who will make money if she buys the house and loses nothing if she later ends up in foreclosure.

Sometimes you need a chorus of people saying the same thing before it sinks in. And some of the voices in the chorus are not as pleasant as others.

Let's do a hypothetical story here:

"Hi, my name is Ica, and I've met this great bunch on lemmings, and they've got this great idea for a cliff thingie that they've been talking about. They seem to really know what they're doing, so I'm excited. I just wanted to post on here to see what you all thought about lemmings."

So, people post, hmm, lemmings, I'm not sure that's the way you want to go.

This hypothetical poster then responds "I've hung out with lemmings before, I've learned my lesson, I know all about lemmings! These are DIFFERENT lemmings!"

Some other posters, annoyed that the hypothetical OP doesn't appear to be listening or even acknowleging any previous advice, chime in with "Hey stupid, stay away from the lemmings."

And somehow THESE people are the bad guys.

God bless America!

The french totally messed up when they made the statue of liberty-should have been, give me your downtrodden, but leave the people who can't learn a lesson (hypothetical, of course) on their home shores.

feedingfrenzy- I am sorry if I offended you. That was not my intention. You are right, I should have stuck to the OP's initial question.

Question: Were the sellers rude in not responding to the OP's offer?

Answer: H*LL NO! (with no further explanation needed).

Dsnyrsh - hope you have a great 4th!

ROTFLMBO! Solie, Busymom, Disney, Graywings, sparksals, lascatx, (and there's more, I know, and I don't mean to leave y'all out) y'all are a HOOT! I love you guys! Here's to us for trying to talk some sense into a brick wall. Cheers!

Addictedtoroses - make mine a strong one. Cheers!

"ROTFLMBO! Solie, Busymom, Disney, Graywings, sparksals, lascatx, (and there's more, I know, and I don't mean to leave y'all out) y'all are a HOOT! I love you guys! Here's to us for trying to talk some sense into a brick wall. Cheers!"

So now, in addition to all the other insults, we can add that she's a brick wall. Yeah, you're right, I can see how you're "ROTFLMBO." This thread is simply hilarious.

Well, I'm pretty certain that ica won't be posting here any more. Feedingfrenzy already explained his/her decision to quit posting here.

I wonder how many other members now will think twice before posting a question because of the way ica's question played out.

But that's okay. After all, you all did get to chuckle - excuse me, ROFLMBO - at each other's snide remarks and jokes posted an ica's expense, and that's all that really matter, right?

And look at the bright side. There have only been 50-odd posts to this thread so far, far below GardenWeb's limit. I'm sure you all can amuse yourselves even more by coming up with some more hypothetical stories about someone named ica.

After all, we've got a long holiday weekend coming up. What better way to spend it then picking apart someone on the Internet.

Cheers.

When somebody posts on this forum, or another forum, they pretty much have opened up themselves to a debate. The debates are two sided(or more), not one sided. This allows many posters to learn about/discuss things that they never even thought of. If the forum was simpy agreement and walking on eggshells type of banter, a lot of important discussion would be gone.

IMO, the comment that was mentioned that a parent that makes bad financial decisions usually teaches their child bad financial decisions.... I read that as a logical debate issue. And the poster even referred to a news article on the subject (to prove it wasn't off the cuff emotional thinking.). I truly believe the poster(about the financial parenting comment) meant zero harm in that post, and was actually mentioning a good point to ponder.

But instead, it got turned around into a comment about being a bad parent. Well, that is not what was said.

..............More about financial decision making(though not directed toward the original poster of this post).....
Nobody wants to hear that their financial handling is bad - because they don't believe this UNTIL they are drowning in debt with creditors calling. But when they are drowning, in their minds it is usually because of a bad situation(job loss, real estate market turned, divorce, etc) that occurred, and not because they didn't plan for it. This is why credit reports are used ...because history shows that folks generally have the same financial habits year after year. For example, someone with prior bankrupcies or prior collections issues(even with great excuses for these issues)....are exponentially more likely to have a future financial crisis compared to someone that has a clean credit report. But the same folks with the credit issues can "explain away" their credit problems.

I was a landlord. I checked credit. You would not believe the stories(true, and heartbreaking in many cases) that folks had about their credit. But many folks thought by just explaining the issue, that I would ignore the fact that it happenned, because it was a good excuse. But I knew if they had another financial situation while they rented my place, they I would not get paid.

"I wonder how many other members now will think twice before posting a question because of the way ica's question played out."

I'm a relative newcomer, and I rocked the forum with my 96 reply first post ('People Suck'). I got some pretty harsh replies, and it would have been easy for me to hi-tail it out of here feeling all wounded and stuff.

But, I happen to know that this is the just the dynamics of a message board, and it doesn't matter which one you go to, it's the nature of the beast. Basically, if you're going to put your issues 'out there' on a public forum, you're GOING to get some unsolicited advice and will probably be told things you don't want to hear. Being hypersensitive about it is pointless. Take what's helpful to you, and ignore what isn't. Suck it up, and move on. You know that saying... if you can't stand the heat.

This thread should have ended here
on Mon, Jun 30, 08 at 11:57 Anyway, thanks to everyone for their input, I do appreciate it even if I didn't always agree with it. :)

Everything after that is just gratuitous.
I disagree with the attitude that because you asked a question or naively shared some personal details with a forum on the internet that you are now fair game for all manner of judgemental advice.
The "well they asked for advice on the internet" has been used here before an excuse to gleefully jump in and rake through someone else's life, allude to them being brick walls etc. because you happen to disagree with their choices.

But, I happen to know that this is the just the dynamics of a message board, and it doesn't matter which one you go to, it's the nature of the beast. Basically, if you're going to put your issues 'out there' on a public forum, you're GOING to get some unsolicited advice and will probably be told things you don't want to hear. Being hypersensitive about it is pointless. Take what's helpful to you, and ignore what isn't. Suck it up, and move on. You know that saying... if you can't stand the heat.

Free form discussions are what message boards are all about (what Chelle69 said about dynamics and all . . .) and people shouldn't post if they aren't prepared to read what they don't want to read. However, I'm going to be a hypocrite and say that I think the group on this post went too far. The OP's situation is very hard to determine with so little info given and a lot of assumptions have brought out the torches and pitchforks.

and people shouldn't post if they aren't prepared to read what they don't want to read

BS

I would only agree with this ONLY IF the info was PERTINENT to the original question. For example: Should I paint my dining room red?
No, that would clash horribly with your furniture and be a disaster.
Not,
You've posted on your financial problems on other threads so I'm surprised to see how much big expensive furniture you have.

Thats just taking cheap shots because the internet is (more or less) anonymous. If you want to think of yourself as a nice person you need to be nice.

"I recall you were rather upset at some of the replies posted in your thread too, at one point saying, "I'm done with this." :-)"

And I was done with it - the thread. I still don't get the whole 'buyers/agents can do whatever they want and are exempt from all rules of human decency and you just have to take it" mentality.. but it's not worth arguing. You gotta pick your battles, and know when to walk away from a discussion.

Anyway, it didn't stop me from posting here.

And perhaps ica171 will post in another thread too, after walking away from this discussion.

Marys1000 - Cheap shots? "If you want to think of yourself as a nice person you need to be nice."

Are you the only one who gets to decide what is PERTINENT information?

From ical71's intitial post: "what really gets me is the comment that came with that - they're (the sellers) apparently worried that we won't have the money to do the necessary fix-ups on the house. It needs a new roof...some new windows, some paint, some ceiling repair, etc. (For the record we do have enough money to do everything)." Later in the thread she states that she has roughly $1600 saved. Posters tell her that is not enough money. Is this the cheap shot?

"o.k. we expected the interest rate thing..we put down money anyway ($500) and now they want more?" She later admits that she had a foreclosure 2 years ago. The sellers know that she has bad credit. But she did not mention the foreclosure to them. In another thread she has even suggested to another poster that nothing will happen to them if they let their house go through foreclosure. This is "naive"? This is "nice"?

"my three year old son has been in love with that house since we first saw it and asks every day when we're moving in. If I have to tell him we're not moving there, please tell ME we're not moving there so I can break it to him." Nice touch.

And, still, people took their time to answer and try to help ical71. Which, whether you appreciate the advice or not, was nice of them. And, probably a bit naive.

busymom: "Bethesdamadman - you call it "gratuitous bashing." What I've seen is a few swift kicks designed to get a young lady headed in the right direction. With any luck it has worked."

Gee, do you think I should have been more forceful in my responses to your erroneous posts on the other thread about how short sales and bad credit do and don't affect certain transactions?

Should I have given you a few swift kicks to get you to read books on finance and torts?

Should I have stated that it was like talking to a brick wall because you put up post after post about your misconceptions?

Should I have stated that your son or daughter probably is ill-informed because parents who are ill-informed pass on erroneous financial information to their children?

Or perhaps I should have come up with a hypothetical story about someone named "busymom" and make up a ridiculous analogy to explain how wrong your thinking was? Then all my friends could ROFLMBO at the story I created to make you look as foolish as possible.

And then we could all figuratively have a drink together to laugh at the funny story and the poor fool who was the brunt of the joke.

And then I could post "Make mine a strong one".

Is that how I should have handled it?

Bethesdamadman - You have never hesitated to point out how misinformed I am so I don't know why you would stop now.

Good grief. Have a few beers, kick back and enjoy the fireworks tonight. If you have any good books for me, feel free to suggest them. Have a nice 4th.

Are you the only one who gets to decide what is PERTINENT information?

That's rich. You get to tell strangers how to run their lives with a swift kick after reading a couple of pages on the internet, but I'm not able to decide what's pertinent on a real estate thread.

You all need a Slurpee! Thats my cure for everything! There seems to be WAY too much estrogen floating around in cyperspace! Slurpee's help for that too ;)

Heck with the slurpee, just pass the BONG :-D

Why choose between a slurpee and a bong when you can have both? This is a three day weekend people!

wacko's