Fire at one of my last rental

MN,

I roofed the office of the safety consulting firm we used at the time.

He swears he's going to pay back every penny. He does answer phone calls. Says he'll pay the interest too. We'll see. At least he's recently started to make installments, albeit rather small ones. Says "I can hardly sleep at night knowing I owe you this money". He must awfully tired by now. LOL>>>

I never used to do things without a contract being in the business for a number of years. As time has gone on and things have wound down to just a few jobs a year. I find that most of the jobs I do now are with out contracts. All of the repair work for sure are with out contracts . The last few whole roofs were the same . I pull all the necessary permits and all the docs that are required to get in progress and finals . I have not been ripped off in the roofing end with this arrangement. Some of these whole roofs have been very very rewarding monetarily . Of course the repairs are always good. I also have pulled permits for jobs that are not profitable for me . When my son wants work in between storms . I'll throw a roof at him with just the materials permits and dump etc paid back to me. To cover costs.>>>

Well I got a weekend off i get pretty fired up when it comes to politics i guess that edge is good to have -- but i tell ya i could live without it -- not as well off -- but anyhow -- To each his own we all react differently and that is what makes the world go round - If i had my way everyone would get that One chance to prove himself / herself -- cant say anything would be better or worse but at least people would not be so dependant on others to do the right thing if that makes any sence? -- I am a trusting person and have been burnt if want to call it that - although i have learned to be who i am and not change because of a few bad apples -- I too work without contracts on occaison and it is part of my pitch to let the prospect know my word means more than any piece of paper and they have my word that they will be satisfied with the work being done and if not we will make it right before final payments are made. I also work with no money down 90% of the time.

Mike i know you said provider what does that mean? Does the guy intend on paying you? Or does he plan on ripping you off? I know this is what you need to ask him. I have written off a quite a few smaller like in the 1-2 k range but they were big jobs and i was close to even anyhow -- If he plans on ripping you off record it send it to police?>>>

Now that I have the check and have had some time to reflect on what has happened with the process. Baring the verminous personal attacks . I'm feeling a little frustrated in my friend the Architect . I attribute some of this with anxious impatiences . Part of having a lot of time. Distancing my self while I can do nothing but wait is very difficult . Because I knew the insurance process I was particularly sure of how that was going to turn out. It turned out the way I was expecting . Now I have to wait on others . This is more a lesson in patience. Trying to make sure the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. I'm also very anxious about tomorrow session with my counsel.>>>

The contract I have with the insurance company says it is obligated to include the mortgage company under the terms of my policy. Now it also says to contact the mortgage holder for their procedures for endorsing payments. Minnesota this is very interesting . I'll find out Tuesday. I'm not opposed to and I'm very much in favor of handling the money my self. If this works out the way you have described I may be indebted to you . Some time I'm a robot and just follow the road signs. Very very interesting. I am waiting in anticipation>>>

PS: I've been trying for 3 years to collect the 15K contract value of a small job I did for a PROVIDER to my business. A divorce, poor business climate and no money in the checkbook has garnered me, to date, a whopping $1,000.

A court decision, a checkbook garnishment have done little to help. All the court orders in the world won't get you your money if there isn't any money to be had.>>>

MN,

You don't need to spend a lot of time trying to convince me. I agree with all of it, basically. You're preaching to a guy that still does most of his job WITHOUT a contract, trusts his customers until they give him a reason not to, and has been burned through his trust more than once. It's those burnings that enable me to understand the bank's side. Our society has changed. We no longer have a majority (if it is, it's very silent) of people that take pride in their word. Money has skewed the vision of most. I have preached for years of the pitfalls we faced through our heavy debt, and now we are reaping those pitfalls.

But knowing the weakness of the average person, as a contractor, I am happy for the bank's proactive approach to money management. The average joe/josephine in suburbia is little more than a child when it comes to money management. Holding their hands may well be the best thing the bank could do for them, for me, for you. Lower premiums, less hassles, better results. Not to mention the lower bank fees likely to be needed to cover the losses.

If it was me and my money, I might be a bit pissed, but I think I would still understand. Sad for the way things have become, but at least happy that measures are being taken to protect me and my interests from the irresponsibility of my neighbor.

Don't even get me started on the bail-outs, the stealing from the bondholders to give to the unions, the mountain of political paybacks, and the trampling of our constitution, and a mainstream media that is ignoring it all............ that's a whole other story.>>>

Minn With the scenario you present the conditions will constantly change with each case . The laws try to make things the same for every one. There is a Wikipedia page that I think can make an attempt to explains it. I think this is the problem with your theory . IMO . I C/P the main ideas . Transfer your bank check idea and the results would be very similar. Conventional thinking would say you should get results very close to your original idea. A scientist considers himself lucky if he can get measurements with accuracy to three decimal places. Minn. This is working with numbers that have rules . I just can't imagine the human emotional condition you propose working . Surely now the fourth and fifth decimal, impossible to measure using reasonable methods, can have a huge effect on the outcome of the experiment. This is where your idea falls apart. This effect came to be known as the butterfly effect. The amount of difference in the starting point ( no law, left up to the individual in your example ) maybe so small that it is comparable to a butterfly flapping its wings.

The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does. (Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141) This phenomenon, common to chaos theory, is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. Such a small amount of difference in a measurement might be considered experimental noise, background noise, or an inaccuracy of the equipment. Such things are impossible to avoid in even the most isolated lab. With a starting number of 2, the final result can be entirely different from the same system with a starting value of 2.000001. It is simply impossible to achieve this level of accuracy - just try and measure something to the nearest millionth of an inch! Static laws. You know what is expected and it happens . This is one reason this country was and still is as great as it is . This makes sense to me . :) I also made an appointment with counsel to explore the options as discussed earlier concerning the possession of the check>>>

Mike, Look at it from the banks side you borrowed a guy the money to buy 10 houses in the past 30 years he paid you back on all but 1 house including interest you have made 30 - 40k a year off this one guy now he owes you 275k out of 500k on this last house it is damaged in a fire and totalled out his insurance company pays for replacement and you tell your customer give me all the money your insurance company sent you and i will give it back to you when i feel i can trust that you will complete the repairs -- yes yes i know you have contrators and everything lined up never missed a payment and paid almost half of this house off. but i really just feel more comfortable hanging on to the money for you until you actually need it. This does not sound fair for the responsible guy. so lets just say you said you know what i trust you here just take the check -- he goes and buys a ferrari and says screw Mike I am going to live it up hes made enough money off me in the past 30 years he can have the house. So you take the crappy burnt house insurance money is gone you have to pay to repair out of your own pocket to fix and sell. You gonna Bail Him Out and let him walk? Or go down and file charges and garnish wages until your paid back. Oh and after 30 years you are still ahead.

I have a feeling the rate of 1 in 10 is a little low probably more like 1 in a hundred houses are actually given back to the bank on foreclosures where the previous homeowner spent the insurance money and the house was totalled maybee even 1- 1000.

And as your reading all of that you are thinking none of this is right it does work that way just does not make sence your right it does not none of it but this is the scenario you are afraid of and the fear is what is causing us to loose all hope in our fellow Americans to do the right thing and giving our banks and our government the power.>>>

egg Said: There must be something seriously wrong with me because I never had the slightest interest in easy money and I have reason to believe I never will. You could leave it there on a silver platter there for me and I suspect I wouldn't even put it in my pocket. If I had to choose between easy money and abject poverty, I might weigh it out again, but easy makes me queasy. There's not enough lean in it to keep my eyes squinty.

I have a good idea why dont we all just send our checks into the government to disberse to the banks and insurance companies - then they can stay responsible for us all - since we cannot be trusted anymore - We may buy a ferrari instead of thinking about food or shelter for our families or decide to buy a home / cars/ trips we cannot afford. We are going the wrong direction here - People need to be penalized and suffer consequences personally - our banks and insurance companies should not be able to say here give me your money we will make sure you are responsible.

If i do a job and the homeowner fails to pay me because he spent the money you go to court with your contrac packet file charges - get a judgement in your favor takes 10 minutes at the courthouse 1 - 2 hours in court after judgement go upstairs with judgement to garnish wages another 20 minutes. Home owner held responsible. will know better next time to not pay a contractor.

Or should i say i need you to pay me all up front because i do not trust anyone anymore? How many jobs you think you would get and what makes it fair for banks to treat us like we need all the money up front because we do not trust you why should they not have to follow the law when burned take the homeowner to court file charges garnish wages instead they take from all of us the right the responsibility to choose to do the right thing.

In my opinion the auto makers - bankers - and the people who borrowed money that could not afford it should be penalized and not bailed out - Now what happens is we all lose the right and none of us are trusted - Try going to your bank now with your word and getting a unsecured line of credit at a good rate with no collateral never happen - why because if they did that people would be stupid again and buy that ferrari they can not afford - and you think by taking that responsibilty away from everyone if fair? is it not more fair to penalize them make an example so no one in their right mind would do it again.

I am not saying i am a 100% right this is my opinion - And i do see how it is easier and maybee even better overall to not give people the opertunity to be greedy or dishonest - But we will no longer live in the land of oppertunity if this is the case. More and more i feel this when people have basicially given up and want the government banks and insurance companies to take the responsibilty instead of letting the people have it because the people will screw it up like what is happening now - bail em out take the responsibilty away so they wont do it again or dont bail em out make them be responsible for themselves?>>>

CIAK,

I'm still waiting to find out what Egg's wife's employment has to with any of this????? Or was that just a completely irrelevant, off-the-hip question?>>>

MN,

Trying to look at this from all sides, I'm willing to bet that if you were a banker, you'd be singing a different tune. I can completely understand why a bank does this, and as an honest guy that wants my premiums as low as possible, whatever they can do to cut fraud AND EXTRA EXPENSES, I'm glad they do it like that. I'd have to say that I'm also glad as a contractor that's been burned by an owner that spent their money before paying me.>>>

On the flip side of that type of thinking and behavior is the Mafia B) We only do what benefits us .>>>

Min You definitely have my interest. I've been thinking all day if this is true or for that fact possible. Because the check is so large I will be having a conversation with my lawyer tomorrow or early next week . I do know that if you are in Texas you can request the money from the bank . In all likely hood you will get it . I will update on advice from my counsel.>>>