Drive fast, live hard, no regrets... Sorry Penske

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I cannot see ncs saying that.

I heard that if you skip out on a loan for schooling in Japan, the Yakuza may sometimes get involved, verify?

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
I cannot see ncs saying that.

I'd be more like, "yo, bitch, that debt ain't mine! talk to the proverbial hand!"

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
The divorce decree explicitly states that it is his and that he has to indemnify me. I don't htink that the bank cares about that though. I don't think the divorce wiped away my liability as between me and the bank. Am I wrong?

No.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
No, I don't think you're wrong. I think that the bank doesn't give a shit about your divorce decree, as they weren't parties to it. But I do think that if this eventually shows as a black mark on your credit, you are in a position to say "Yes, I am aware that there is a black mark on my credit. Nonetheless, there are extenuating circumstances. These are they."

You gotta look to the guarantee and divorce doc to see which trumps. There's probably law on this, but if they were negotiated in different states, that raises a conflict osf laws question.

Just see a loan workout lawyer. He'll read the docs and unscrew it in a few weeks. This shit probably happens all the time.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by baltassoc

I recall a few months ago getting a credit report with FICO score from one of the credit bureaus and they had a function that allowed you to see how different scenarios would impact your score (like defaulting on a loan, making a payment late, etc.). It might help figure potential options. I'll try to find a link.

Equifax ScorePower(R) gives you your FICO score, and allows you to see what hypothetical changes would have on your FICO score. I think it's an add on to ordering a regular credit report, though. Definitely a cool little tool, although your situation may be odd enough that it would fry its little AI brain.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I'd be more like, "yo, bitch, that debt ain't mine! talk to the proverbial hand!"

Maybe you should have worked harder to keep the marriage together?

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You gotta look to the guarantee and divorce doc to see which trumps. There's probably law on this, but if they were negotiated in different states, that raises a conflict osf laws question.

Just see a loan workout lawyer. He'll read the docs and unscrew it in a few weeks. This shit probably happens all the time.

I don't think that's right, Seb. The bank wasn't a party to the divorce. It doesn't care. All it knows is that casey guaranteed the loan, and it wouldn't have made it without that guarantee. And now, the bank wants casey's money.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe you should have worked harder to keep the marriage together?

Indeed. He is quite a winner.

[bold_n_brazen]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe you should have worked harder to keep the marriage together?

That's beyond offensive, you fucking asshole.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Equifax ScorePower(R) gives you your FICO score, and allows you to see what hypothetical changes would have on your FICO score. I think it's an add on to ordering a regular credit report, though. Definitely a cool little tool, although your situation may be odd enough that it would fry its little AI brain.

Thanks, balt. I'll definitely look into the credit report stuff. I have 2 weeks before I need to talk to the bank person again.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
casey

I like it. Is this new?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
No, I don't think you're wrong. I think that the bank doesn't give a shit about your divorce decree, as they weren't parties to it. But I do think that if this eventually shows as a black mark on your credit, you are in a position to say "Yes, I am aware that there is a black mark on my credit. Nonetheless, there are extenuating circumstances. These are they."

But if they smack your credit without basis, they are open to a lawsuit. In a past life, I sued banks for doing exactly what you suggest they're doing in the corp context. The bank would say "Fuck you... we didn't know. We relied on the guarantee." Then we'd litigate over whether they did proper due diligence to find out.

I am not caught up but have been informed by the IM community that Less took a vicuos and unprovoked shot at me. To this I say, Pity, Less. I was actually contemplating offering you a seat at my VIP table at the Fillmore as an olive branch of sorts bc this shit is childish and we both love live music. An olive branch if you will. But once again, I am reminded that the level of childish, vicious spite for hurt feelings past on this board by certain posters knows no bounds. Now, you will probably come back and say you wouldnt take such an offer from such a stupid crazy person as myself. But its your loss pal.

Oh, and I already know many in the TX ACL community Get with the program, you pathetic little man.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You gotta look to the guarantee and divorce doc to see which trumps. There's probably law on this, but if they were negotiated in different states, that raises a conflict osf laws question.

Just see a loan workout lawyer. He'll read the docs and unscrew it in a few weeks. This shit probably happens all the time.

This is the worst, namby pamby legal advice I have ever read.

"Well, you have to read the documents to see what they say about whether one is superseded by the other or some such thing. I imagine there is law relating to this, and research may be helpful in revealing said law. Note that, if you sue him and he lives in a different state, there may be issues of diversity jurisdiction leading to possible removal. There are federal statutes that govern removal. This is not an uncommon situation and consultation with a lawyer may be able to provide you with some form of relief, although I must refer you again to my earlier statements concerning the language of the relevant documents and the possible existence of adverse controlling precedent."

[Hank Chinaski]

Gallant responds to a wry observation by asking whether it might have been meant tongue in cheek, then responds after some thought.......

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Indeed. He is quite a winner.

Goofus responds quickly with base emotion and whiffs yet agian.....

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
That's beyond offensive, you fucking asshole.