ABC partnership owns and operates a potato farm in Idaho. A, B, and C are the partners/owners. C is having significant personal financial problems. Savoy Stores has obtained a judgment against C in the amount of $12,341. Savoy knows that ABC is about to harvest its potatoes. When the ABC potatoes are being transported for processing, Savoy takes one-third of the potatoes to satisfy the debt. A and B object. C claims he is using the partnership property to satisfy a debt. \nCan C do this? what is the reason that C can or cannot do this?
130627
I'm pretty sure that C can do that, because 1/3rd of the partnership is his. The Partnership, provided its not a corporation, is part of his personal assets.
62693
The best course of action would be to contact an attorney. Never accept answer on such an important future impacting question from a place like this! However that being said, go here\n\nhttp://www.co.beaufort.sc.us/Auditor/Homestead.asp\n\nand here\n\nhttp://www.bankruptcyaction.com/scexemptions.htm
356792
(a)\nLoss of $2500\n\n(b)\nProfit of $4250\n\n(c)\nBreak even point is selling 3,111 units.
246633
So where's that starting point?  Either we start (yesterday) with Mary having $785.63 we subtract $57. and $125. for 603.63.  Then we add $57.25 for a total of 660.88 (B) \nOR\nwe start we $785.63 (today) anb subtract $57. and $125 for $603.63 (C).  The $57.25 doesn't matter cause Mary did that yesterday....
666503
To make that kind of deal,obviously the State had knowledge of assets...and also why would your BF agree to it if he had no access to that kind of $$$.Better yet why would his attorney agree to that time stipulation?\n\nSomething is not quite right with this story
454954
how is this in home schooling?\nAre you asking 'Can a company still deduct depreciation on their own properties?- such as farmers deducting depreciation on their tractors' \nwhich companies could charge which parties for depreciation?\nI am not sure what you are asking
315463
First off I need to know what state we are in. Laws vary and every ruling would be different due to this facto! I live in Texas, so I will tell you our law. Jack would go into court and file suit on Mary. In the state of Texas there is no subletting clause. So Mary has broken her lease the minute she sublets to Christian. So Christian and Paul and Pete and Johnny are no common factors in this suit. Mary will be responsible for all monies due and any damages. Plus forfeits any deposits she rendered toward these charges. Total liability is on Mary. Mary has no recourse after she is sued to go back on any of said sub-letters. The orginial lease is the only binding lease. In the state of Texas there is no verbal contract.
516018
While you are quarreling, the house and shop value is deteriorating.  Ever see old houses falling down because heirs couldn't decide what to do with them!  How's that for preserving a parent's memory.  Have the property appraised and have those who want it give the rest their monetary share.  If some want just land, have the property subdivided.  Then there's the family where some kids are always given more than others.  Those are the ones who want the others to "give" them something instead of sharing the burden.
336605
Well even though there seems to be a contract orally for the sale of land s.53 of the law of property act 1925 applies as well as s2. law of property act 1989, which means that all sale of land must be in writing and are usual by deed. So practically there is not legally enforceable agreement until contracts are exchanged. So even if tom has spent money on a survey he may not recover.\nThere is debate in this area , but in the uk this is inherent risk in these transactions. He may bring a claim for damages under Hadley v.Baxendale, only for his loss eg the survey costs.\n\nAs far as the car is concerned, no consideration has passed so Tom has not really lost anything, he could enforce the contract, but courts are unlikley to enforce specific performance. Practically if the car is £500 there are plenty like it perhaps, but if the price was more £100,000 eg for a RUF modified porshce which are built to order then as there is nothing like it the court may order specific performance of the contract. Orally contracts cannot usually be enforced without some evidence showing intention.
521290
let ab be the pole,bc  be the shadow \nlet pq be the player then p must lie on ac because \nhis shadow & pole's shadow's meet at the end\nnow trangle abc is similar to pqc(because pq is parallel toab)\ntherefore pq/ab=cq/cb\npq=2m\ncq=1.6m\ncb=1.6+4.4=6m\ntherefore\nab=7.5m\nthanks
523510
whoever the next of kin is, gets the land... your description is to confusing to figure that out for me..but you being a family memeber should be able too.... a lawyer would probally help too.. if there is a lean on the land or debts owed.. it might just go to the government.. I would get a lawyer
425144
Everything is supposed to add up to $25 not $30. Think of it like this...\n\n$30 was paid to the manager. SO he has $30. HE took out $5 from this to give them back...so in essence he has $25 in his possession. \n\nThe three people paid $30 and were given back $3 ($1 EACH) Therefore they actually paid $30 - $3 = $27. The bellhop kept $2 which when subtracted from the $27 would give equate the $25 in the possession of the manager.\n\nThe trick in the question was adding back the $2 that the bellhop had, instead of subtracting.
490698
You probably should be discussing with an estate attorney in your area.  But there are a couple of ways you might think about doing this.  Please don't just give equal shares to your children because while it seems fair on it's face, it won't prevent problems if the one child/son wants to keep the property as a farm and others want to sell.  What you might do, is reserve a life estate in the entire residence/farm for yourself.  That protects you for your lifetime.  You can then set up a partnership with your son and determine his payment/income/revenue from the farm on a fair basis equal to his input.  \n\nUpon death, in your will or trust, you might want to deed/gift the farm to the one son who is interested in keeping the property.  That lets him have what he wants or wants to continue to have as an operation.  Then provide that an appraiser be appointed (it can be someone you trust) or you can have your son/farmer pick one; the other family members pick another; and then those two appraisers pick another.  Let them all appraise the farm and agree on a value (or let them all appraise and have the average used....there are some problems with this though).  But determine or think out a method that you believe is fair.  Then let the Son mortgage the land or borrow the funds and pay that portion (value at your death) to your other kids.  \n\nIf you have other assets, you can give these to the other children and offset the value of the farm further.\n\nThis is a difficult but resolveable situation.  Good Luck
369357
Who knew that British law professors were as nasty in first year property courses as American profs?\n\nA. Julia is out, as is Stephen and Margaret, assuming they were not on the title (and that's pretty clear, since the land office registered the title to Samantha free and clear) and assuming there's no landlord/tenant law that protects them.\n\nB. see above.\n\nC. Jones retains his leasehold unless the relevant jurisdiction has a requirement that a least of that duration be recorded (and this one presumably wasn't).\n\nD) Haye presumably is within the requirement of C, and thus his lease retains validity.\n\nE. Michael had a future interest which is now a present interest, if the lease has been signed then the same lease recording provisions apply. However, if he has a contract with the previous owner for a lease but never got that lease, his contract is invalid against the new owner, and his recourse, if any, is against the old owner, for breach of contract.\n\nHad the property been register in J&S and executed by both, no difference, except that any Landlord/Tenant consideration would not apply to Stephen.\n\nPS - I hated property class.
279336
you're mixing apples and oranges...\n\nYou owe them each $24 so 48 total, and you \nhave 3 left, so 48-3=45 which is the amount \nyou spent.\n\nAdding what you have left to what you owe\nthem has no meaning...
268302
Seems cruel and unfair but if you don't keep up payments on a house, then you either have to sell the house or the mortgage boys'll take it away.\n\nWhy on earth didn't this person sell? If they'd been paying for it for ten years then at least a third would already be paid off! They could've sold up, paid the mortgage off and had enough left over for a sizable deposit on something small once they'd got back on their feet again. I don't know the story, but it sounds like madness to me.
510352
Depending on the agreement that the sister that paid had with the mother, assuming that her performance of paying was based on a promise made to her by the mother she should ask her attorney if she possesses any legal rights under a promise estoppel. The owner of a property has the right to do whatever they wish relating to willing the property.\nBuena Suerte