Nope, I don't think I have some supreme knowledge over all other licensed land surveyors whatsoever.
I can read. That's it. Most people don't read. Ever.
I abhor lazy, and that seems to be all we have anymore.
All my citations are right there in the supplied literature. If people can't make a statement that is defensible, then they are just spewing garbage.
And this thread isn't even really about surveying and we're not discussing survey concepts.
It's mostly about people challenging what I wrote about a topic.
Was it worth the time for my retort? By my standard cited above, then, yes.
Does anyone else think so? Probably not, and I don't really care.
The action of forming an incorporated business does not automatically indicate any depth of knowledge in business/land. It indicates no more sophistication than the proposed family in the suburbs buying their house. All it takes is walking into someone's office who has the appropriate knowledge to guide you through all or a portion of the process. Also, you are making an assumption that there was a certain level of knowledge attributable to Eads. It is just as possible that Duplex was the brains in the operation and got out before he got dragged down. Nothing in the case opinions leads to factually indicating Eads was a 'sophisticated' business/land person. The same can be said of Whitaker and partners ability to enter into the Florida land deal. The partners could have been the sophisticated ones or they could have hired others to help guide them.
You can quibble over the word 'rights', but since dissolution means that a company stops being recognized as a company within that state, they would then lose the rights associated with being a recognized company. Like it or not, companies do have rights. Being relatively familiar with that area, I will now make an assumption of my own - the reason for the administrative dissolution is probably the very simple to address failure to pay taxes / workman's comp or failure to simply keep up with yearly reporting. It seems that a sophisticated business person would address these matters (or more serious matters) in the time between the several notices the state gives before the dissolution.
I do not need to try again. There is not enough information to claim that it is fact that Whitaker pledged the 99 Hermitage property as collateral. That is an assumption on your part. It is possible, but the two court opinions do not make it a clear fact (which is why I asked for the source of your supposed knowledge, i.e. did you find something that listed the actual collateral for the loan). If the property in Florida did not cover the loan amount once liquidated, SPCP would be allowed to go after other assets that were not pledged as collateral. They just need to find them, get a judgement, file the lien - not too difficult for a bank trying to collect money. Since Eads did not record a deed, a search of the Tax Assessor's records in Davidson County would indicate Whitaker as the owner of the property and SPCP would move forward with trying to get that asset to satisfy the loan. While Whitaker could have been that devious, it is also possible he had no knowledge that the deed to Eads had never been recorded. To claim he pledged the property as collateral, based on the two opinions posted, is not substantiated.
100 percent backward from a 'sophisticated real estate person' does not equal simpleton or stupid. It would be someone who is not knowledgeable of the real estate process.
Your last two line attempt doesn't matter to me. I have read enough of your posts to put the appropriate stock in them.
Is your lien theory sound? It seems that way.
Attached is a handful of Florida court documents that outline the proceeding, the security interest(s), and the various parties.
If you read through the case documents from TN and FL, at some point you may likely come to the conclusion that neither Whiteaker, nor Eads were the most righteous members of the congregation. Refuse to accept my summary? Fine.
But you want to argue semantics, so here we go...
(Apparently you seem to think that is some kind of flex on me? (#swoll))
Raymond C. Whiteaker, Jr. was a real estate attorney in TN for many years. He knew what he was doing.
Is there a promissory note or mortgage describing the TN, property? Not that I can find.
But I didn't say there was a document like that. I said he pledged assets.
The moment he personally (severally, and corporately) guaranteed subsequent future real estate deals without recording the deed to Eads, Whiteaker pledged any and all assets under his then, now, or future ownership, which means he pledged the Eads property. By not recording, Whiteaker was subject to risk, and Eads was subject to loss. Those are the facts of this case. That is what happened. And the court cases reflect that, albeit, poorly in many instances.
If you felt "flexed" upon, that is your issue.
I asked what extraneous source you were using to come to a couple of your conclusions. Whether Whitaker or Eads were 'righteous members of the congregation" is solely an opinion matter and is not demonstrated from the court opinions. Whitaker's failure to meet loan terms (especially in 2008) nor Eads failure to file a deed do not, in my opinion, indicate righteousness or not. I do not know them beyond the court opinions and I do not know their intent behind any of their actions in the court case. That is also not the matter that I was discussing.
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will accept your statement that Whitaker was a real estate attorney - information that was not in the court opinions and was therefore why I asked what outside source were you using. Perhaps you knew this before I asked and just couldn't be bothered to indicate the source or you looked up the guys obit after being questioned. Either way it is information outside of the opinions. If Whitaker was a real estate attorney and not just an attorney who filled out some deeds once in a while, then there is some ground upon which to indicate he should have been more knowledgeable in at least some aspects of real estate. Being an attorney does not make it his responsibility to perform the act of filing the deed for Eads if that was not what was arranged. Despite many people's distaste for attorneys, just because he was an attorney does not mean that he knowingly did anything "shady" nor that he "pledged" (an interesting term) property he knew he had already conveyed to Eads. Since footnote 2 on page 6 of the majority opinion indicates Whitaker's administrator filed an inventory showing no real property in 2014, it seems questionable that Whitaker was claiming the Eads property as his own. Suggesting that he was doing so shadily is not supported.
Whitaker being a real estate attorney (per your statement apparently based on some outside source) still does not indicate Eads had any level of sophisticated knowledge of the real estate process or business.
I would say always, but there may be an exception. Almost always, a pledged asset is one that is specifically brought to the loaner's attention and offered up as something of value to guarantee a loan. A bank does not just look at the pledged item and say okay we'll give you money. There is almost always paperwork to give them easier access to the pledged item (i.e. lien or mortgage filed). The Hermitage property would simply be an asset that the bank went after once the pledged asset (the Florida development as described in the mortgage documents) failed to cover the owed amount.
Considering that the mortgage on the Florida property was executed 15 years after Whitaker had already provided Eads a deed to the Hermitage property and it was not listed in his, 24 year after the deed to Eads, inventory of assets by his administrator, I see no basis to claim Whitaker was doing something "shady" in regards to the Hermitage property. Since it was not specifically called out in the promissory note, it was not a pledged asset, but simply an asset that was (unfortunately for Eads) determined by the court to still be Whitaker's estates property. Your attribution of shady intent on the part of Whitaker and sophisticated knowledge of real estate/business on the part of Eads is still not supported within the court documents. If you have accurately portrayed Whitaker from an outside source with the claim he was a real estate attorney, I agree that he SHOULD have had some level of sophistication in the real estate process.
Just here watching the beat down on mulambda382.
