Notes On ' 9 Assets

“A long-lived asset (asset group) shall be tested for recoverability whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable.”

of the asset (asset group) at the date it is tested for recoverability, whether in use (see paragraph 360-

R/s the contractors stated that they can’t work in the home because there is too much crap in the home. R/s contractors said that there is clothes, food, pot and pans everywhere. R/s there is so much stuff throughout the kitchen you can’t see the counter. R/s he filed for eviction of the family and the court date is September 6th.

On Tuesday March 8th, 2016 Case Conference with Resident Ebony Rice #325 has been conducted with Janette Chirico from DHS , Program Director Felicita Rivera, Housing Program Supervisor Zenobia Garland and Senior Case Manager Ms. Arias. The purpose of this meeting was to address client noncompliance and to come with an exit strategy for this Ms. Rice. Client was asked the reason for her missing ILP meetings and her barrier to obtain permanent housing. Client has a LINCH voucher for the amount of $1515. Client stated that she hasn’t receives any help from facility staff so she is searching for apartment on her own. Ms. Rice has been receiving assistance by the onsite housing department but unfortunately she has been able to link to an apartment

The defendant in this case was facing multiple criminal felony charges including burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, grand theft, two counts of dealing in stolen property, and two counts of false ownership for pawned items. Originally, the grand theft charge was supposed to be for the value of $10,000 or more but less than $20,000. However after the state rested, the

Respondents deny that they tried to evict Complainant based on his source of income. Rather, Respondents assert that on November 7, 2017, Complainant was issued a 5-day eviction notice because Complainant failed to pay the November 2017 rent. Respondents further assert that Complainant never made or filed any formal complaints regarding any burglary. Respondents assert that all resident keys are kept in a secure lockbox located in the front office of the building, and only accessed by the building manager or maintenance

◦ If the asset group is tested for recoverability while it is classified as held

- I don't have enough notes in the file (Wich I have been teaching my team for long time for this issue. I highly advice my team more than one time, put your notes ever were in the file to cover any questions), but when I reviewed the file I found we have two inspections has been done on this unit first on it was in 05-06-2015, but has some notes let me know this unit did not pass inspection from the first time and I do not have the deficiency list (Letter that we send to the landlord to inform the unit fail inspection and what need to be do in this unit) (Why? I am not sure, but at this time I had volunteer work on this station schedule appointment for the inspection, but know I do not have more information to support what I am saying her.

The court relied on the plain language of the statute as well as the statute of frauds, MCL 566.106. Specifically, the court held that the right to construct “need not be built” units is eliminated by operation of law and that a property interest created by operation of law is not subject to the statute of frauds. As such, the court granted summary disposition in favor of the Cove Creek Condominium Association and held that the “need not be built” units ceased to exist and that the defendants could not withdraw the undeveloped land from the condominium in 2016.

Ocwen, the borrowers David and Linda Beach built a house in Florida in 1986 by securing an $85,000 construction loan from Fidelity Savings Bank of Florida. Later that same year, they refinanced their house through Great Western Bank. Five years later, in 1991, they stopped making payments on their mortgage, and the next year the bank initiated a foreclosing proceeding. At that time, the Beaches raised the defenses found in §§ 1635 and 1640. The Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit of Florida rejected the Beaches’s defense of rescission because their right to rescission expired in 1989, when the three-year period of § 1635(f) had lapsed. The appellate court affirmed this decision, as well as the Supreme Court of Florida. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine “whether under federal law the statutory right of rescission provided by § 1635 may be revived as an affirmative defense after its expiration under

On 6/4/16 Client Ryan Bowman #205 was involved in a verbal disputes with resident Anna Jones # 203, he stated that his neighbor, called the police against him for no logical reason, he stated that Ms. Jones was banging on the wall from inside her unit and Mr. Bowman told to stop making noise because her son was sleeping, however Ms. Jones do not stop the noise and them call the police. Mr. Bowman also mentioned that both residents meet at PATH during the intake while were waiting for placement and that Ms. Jones was very friendly at first , going into Mr. Bowman unit offer him to cook for him and because he does wanted Ms. Jones approach he believe that now she acting

Comstock v. Finn, 56 P.2d 957 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). The period between 1955 and 1963, the plaintiffs paid rent to remain on the property. Tenants cannot argue a landlord’s title to said property while under his lease for the purpose of adverse possession. Swartzbaugh v. Sampson, 54 P.2d 73, 79 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936). Additionally taxes on the property were assessed to Berkley between 1961 and 1962 to which he paid. Plaintiffs could not produce proof that the monies given to Berkley were for tax payments and not rent payments. Lastly adverse possession as required by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 325 must be continuous and uninterrupted for a minimum of a five year period. Plaintiff lost interest in the property in 1958 when interest in the property when Moheno received the trustee’s deed. Plaintiff was awarded Berkey’s grant deed in 1962. Thus the plaintiff fell short of the five year requirement as stated

The enforcement of the contract against the Smiths is unconscionable because the contract between the Smiths and Star Rent-to-Own involves gross disparity and overreaching/oppressive influences. Star has taken an unfair advantage of the Smith’s dependence, economic distress, and inexperience. During the execution of the contract, not all information was presented to the defendants and this played a major role in convincing them to enter into the contract. This brief is filed in support of the defendants Alex and Sandra Smith, showing the contract to be unconscionable.

This report is based on my observation at the Landlord and Tenant Board which is located 3 Robert Speck Parkway Suite 520 Mississauga, Ontario L47 2G5 on Tuesday, January 26th, 2016 and Wednesday, January 27th, 2016. Throughout the day at the Landlord and Tenant Board we had observed many different cases.

If you have not fully complied with the divorce decree within fourteen (14) days of the date of letter we will file an action in the Court’s of Talladega to enforce the order. Blake will sell the Murano in a commercially reasonable manner, and we will seek a judgment wherein you will pay any deficiency, plus all costs