On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
....
> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
> true?
>
> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
> price)

If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But because it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit INspection before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession, in this case ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want to get out from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we settled on a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!

Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap Chinese landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to "fix it up" and I DO!

In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?

http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html

John Kuthe...

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
....
>
> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case here,
> there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off the price of
> the house.

We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!

And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!

John

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 3:20:54 PM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > John is livig in a complete fantasy world. The repairs will probably
> > neer be done and he will probably never really own that house. It's
> > a pitiful situation, really.
> >
>
> After he pours his money into upgrading a house that belongs to
> somebody else, it will be worth more money.
>
> What's the betting, the owner will raise the price.
> Or he'll decide not to sell, and raise the rent.
>
> Janet

Can't DO THAT!! We have a LEGALLY BINDING REAL ESTATE SALE CONTRACT!! Buyer (me) and sellers both signed it! Now closing Oct 31!

John Kuthe...

On 2017-09-22 10:36 AM, Janet wrote:

> So why does the owner, who lets it to tenants. not required a
> license/permit and why has the same permit/licence authority not made
> the current owner do the upgrade it's now demanding from John (who
> doesn't own it).
>

I can't speak to the bylaws in his city, but around there there are
requirements that depend on the number of tenants. My former tenants
had a house in a nearby city that they rented out to students. They
converted one more room to rent out and fell under the bylaws and had to
make all sorts of improvements.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:29:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>...
>>
>> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case here,
>> there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off the price of
>> the house.
>
>We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!
>
>And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!
>
>John

Hold on to your balls! I was merely relating something that is done
here, you rude, ignorant *******. Knowing Chinese people really well
I hope they do take you for a ride.

On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> ...
>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>> true?
>>
>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>> price)
>
> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But because it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit INspection before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession, in this case ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want to get out from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we settled on a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
>
> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap Chinese landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to "fix it up" and I DO!
>
> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
>
> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>
> John Kuthe...
>

OMG!!!!

You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?

Dude, you're underwater right NOW!

On 9/22/2017 10:36 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On 9/21/2017 11:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2017 13:07, Gary wrote:
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously he doesn't know better.* When I was (briefly) considering
>>>>> selling my house the real estate agent told me I'd have to repair the
>>>>> wood rot (some of the exterior trim has issues).* That would also have
>>>>> involved repainting the house.* Both major expenses and would have been
>>>>> my responsibility as the SELLER.
>>>>
>>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>>>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>>>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>>> price)
>>>>
>>> The difference, Gary, is if the buyer is trying to get a mortgage.* John
>>> Kuthe claims he's paying cash.* (Still doesn't make sense he'd do all
>>> these repairs and upgrades *before* he owns the house.)
>>>
>>> Sure, you can buy and sell a house "as is".* But if a buyer expects to
>>> get a mortgage the lending bank expects they're at least buying a house
>>> that passes inspection.
>>>
>>> Jill
>>
>> Mortgage is one factor, but in this case, he wants to have tenants and
>> probably needs a license or permit. Unless it is up to code, he could
>> probably buy the place "as is" but would have to kick out the roommies
>> he has.
>
> So why does the owner, who lets it to tenants. not required a
> license/permit and why has the same permit/licence authority not made
> the current owner do the upgrade it's now demanding from John (who
> doesn't own it).
>
> Janet UK
>

The present owner may have had a permit but did not keep it up. I don't
know that he is demanding John to do it, but it probably has to be done
for approval. who knows what their actual agreement is. Anything is
possible and subject to negotiation between them.

On 9/22/2017 11:58 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>> ...
>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>>> true?
>>>
>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>> price)
>>
>> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But because
>> it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit INspection
>> before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession, in this case
>> ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want to get out
>> from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we settled on
>> a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
>>
>> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap Chinese
>> landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to "fix it up"
>> and I DO!
>>
>> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for
>> $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore
>> these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
>>
>> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>>
>> John Kuthe...
>>
>
> OMG!!!!
>
> You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
>
> Dude, you're underwater right NOW!

Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:36:14 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
> >
> > On 9/21/2017 11:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> > > On 9/21/2017 13:07, Gary wrote:
> > >> jmcquown wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Obviously he doesn't know better.Â* When I was (briefly) considering
> > >>> selling my house the real estate agent told me I'd have to repair the
> > >>> wood rot (some of the exterior trim has issues).Â* That would also have
> > >>> involved repainting the house.Â* Both major expenses and would have been
> > >>> my responsibility as the SELLER.
> > >>
> > >> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
> > >> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
> > >> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
> > >> true?
> > >>
> > >> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
> > >> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
> > >> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
> > >> price)
> > >>
> > > The difference, Gary, is if the buyer is trying to get a mortgage.Â* John
> > > Kuthe claims he's paying cash.Â* (Still doesn't make sense he'd do all
> > > these repairs and upgrades *before* he owns the house.)
> > >
> > > Sure, you can buy and sell a house "as is".Â* But if a buyer expects to
> > > get a mortgage the lending bank expects they're at least buying a house
> > > that passes inspection.
> > >
> > > Jill
> >
> > Mortgage is one factor, but in this case, he wants to have tenants and
> > probably needs a license or permit. Unless it is up to code, he could
> > probably buy the place "as is" but would have to kick out the roommies
> > he has.
>
> So why does the owner, who lets it to tenants. not required a
> license/permit and why has the same permit/licence authority not made
> the current owner do the upgrade it's now demanding from John (who
> doesn't own it).
>
> Janet UK

My guess is lots of people rent their rooms out to get some extra income. My guess is that a lot of people modify their homes to be used as rental property without getting any permits. If you try to sell the home and it's claimed as rental property you have to have it inspected by a third party. That's going to be a problem. I suppose you could lie and say it's not being used as rental units. Yeah, that might work.

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 7:29:32 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.

Hopefully, you're right. A roofing company that would take a job without considering the total value of the home means they're mostly in it for the money. I wouldn't place much trust in a company that worked that way.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 09:36:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/21/2017 11:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 9/21/2017 13:07, Gary wrote:
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Obviously he doesn't know better.* When I was (briefly) considering
>>>> selling my house the real estate agent told me I'd have to repair the
>>>> wood rot (some of the exterior trim has issues).* That would also have
>>>> involved repainting the house.* Both major expenses and would have been
>>>> my responsibility as the SELLER.
>>>
>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>>> true?
>>>
>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>> price)
>>>
>> The difference, Gary, is if the buyer is trying to get a mortgage.* John
>> Kuthe claims he's paying cash.* (Still doesn't make sense he'd do all
>> these repairs and upgrades *before* he owns the house.)
>>
>> Sure, you can buy and sell a house "as is".* But if a buyer expects to
>> get a mortgage the lending bank expects they're at least buying a house
>> that passes inspection.
>>
>> Jill
>
>Mortgage is one factor, but in this case, he wants to have tenants and
>probably needs a license or permit. Unless it is up to code, he could
>probably buy the place "as is" but would have to kick out the roommies
>he has.

It may not be listed on the tax rolls as a multiple occupancy
dwelling, property may have been converted by the present owner
without obtaining permits) but I can assure yoose that prior to
closing that fact will be discovered and the property will be
reasessed by the taxation board.

A residence needn't meet code for selling purposes but would need to
meet certain code requirements for insurance purposes. Insurance
companys don't care about style of kitchen/bathroom but they do care
that the electrical system meets code, they care that proper handrails
are present at entrys and stairways. and proper lighting is present at
doorways, staiways, etc. Generally insurance companies and mortgage
lenders send their own inspectors to scope the place out. Even if
he's paying all cash, for a multiple occupancy dwelling
the insurance company will conduct an in depth inspection prior to
issuing an insurance policy, and without an insurance policy in effect
that property won't close.

John isn't buying any property. John hasn't inherited a dime (his dad
has to know his son is a worthless putz). John hasn't made any
improvements. Anyone can post photos of the exterior from a realtor's
ad... but to date no one has seen any before and after Interior
photos. And no contractor is going to do work on a property that John
doesn't own unless they are paid in total in advance because a
contractor knows they can't place a mechanic's lien on a property that
the party doesn't own.... did the Chinaman sign the work order, I
seriously doubt it... in fact the Chinaman can have John arrested for
thashing his property. John has never yet posted the truth about
anything, John is a PATENT LIAR, a BONAFIDE SICKO!

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:36:06 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On 9/21/2017 11:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> > On 9/21/2017 13:07, Gary wrote:
>> >> jmcquown wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Obviously he doesn't know better.* When I was (briefly) considering
>> >>> selling my house the real estate agent told me I'd have to repair the
>> >>> wood rot (some of the exterior trim has issues).* That would also have
>> >>> involved repainting the house.* Both major expenses and would have been
>> >>> my responsibility as the SELLER.
>> >>
>> >> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>> >> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>> >> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>> >> true?
>> >>
>> >> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>> >> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>> >> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>> >> price)
>> >>
>> > The difference, Gary, is if the buyer is trying to get a mortgage.* John
>> > Kuthe claims he's paying cash.* (Still doesn't make sense he'd do all
>> > these repairs and upgrades *before* he owns the house.)
>> >
>> > Sure, you can buy and sell a house "as is".* But if a buyer expects to
>> > get a mortgage the lending bank expects they're at least buying a house
>> > that passes inspection.
>> >
>> > Jill
>>
>> Mortgage is one factor, but in this case, he wants to have tenants and
>> probably needs a license or permit. Unless it is up to code, he could
>> probably buy the place "as is" but would have to kick out the roommies
>> he has.
>
> So why does the owner, who lets it to tenants. not required a
>license/permit and why has the same permit/licence authority not made
>the current owner do the upgrade it's now demanding from John (who
>doesn't own it).
>
> Janet UK

John is a LIAR!

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 12:58:09 -0300, wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:29:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>>...
>>>
>>> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case here,
>>> there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off the price of
>>> the house.
>>
>>We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!
>>
>>And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!
>>
>>John
>
>Hold on to your balls! I was merely relating something that is done
>here, you rude, ignorant *******. Knowing Chinese people really well
>I hope they do take you for a ride.

John has NO balls to hold on to. John is an emasculated creep who
lies about anything/everything. The Chinaman cannot take him for a
ride, John hasn't two nickles to rub together. John is a tenant that
owes the Chinaman back rent. and better pay up or soon he'll be out on
the street, HOMELESS! Winter is coming John,. very soon you'll be
freezing your one tiny emasculated testicle off. John has been paying
rent by perfoming oral sex on an old Chinaman, but the old Chinaman
says "John is not too good at oral sex, grasshopper. LOL-LOL
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

On 9/22/2017 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 11:58 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>> On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>>>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>>>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>>> price)
>>>
>>> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But
>>> because it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit
>>> INspection before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession,
>>> in this case ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want
>>> to get out from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we
>>> settled on a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
>>>
>>> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap
>>> Chinese landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to
>>> "fix it up" and I DO!
>>>
>>> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for
>>> $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore
>>> these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
>>>
>>> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>>
>> OMG!!!!
>>
>> You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
>>
>> Dude, you're underwater right NOW!
>
> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.

Yeah, sure. And the Chinese man who still owns it will either raise the
price or sell it to someone else after letting John pay to repair
everything.

Jill

On 9/22/2017 6:27 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-09-22 3:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>
>> Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
>> Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
>> before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
>> different laws, I guess.
>>
>
> We won't see right away. There seemed to be some silence around the time
> of the original closing date.
>
It would be a great Halloween prank if the landlord let him continue
paying for expensive repairs and then suddenly decided not to sell.

Jill

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 10:44:47 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 4:36:14 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:
>> In article >, says...
>> >
>> > On 9/21/2017 11:09 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> > > On 9/21/2017 13:07, Gary wrote:
>> > >> jmcquown wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Obviously he doesn't know better.* When I was (briefly) considering
>> > >>> selling my house the real estate agent told me I'd have to repair the
>> > >>> wood rot (some of the exterior trim has issues).* That would also have
>> > >>> involved repainting the house.* Both major expenses and would have been
>> > >>> my responsibility as the SELLER.
>> > >>
>> > >> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>> > >> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>> > >> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>> > >> true?
>> > >>
>> > >> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>> > >> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>> > >> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>> > >> price)
>> > >>
>> > > The difference, Gary, is if the buyer is trying to get a mortgage.* John
>> > > Kuthe claims he's paying cash.* (Still doesn't make sense he'd do all
>> > > these repairs and upgrades *before* he owns the house.)
>> > >
>> > > Sure, you can buy and sell a house "as is".* But if a buyer expects to
>> > > get a mortgage the lending bank expects they're at least buying a house
>> > > that passes inspection.
>> > >
>> > > Jill
>> >
>> > Mortgage is one factor, but in this case, he wants to have tenants and
>> > probably needs a license or permit. Unless it is up to code, he could
>> > probably buy the place "as is" but would have to kick out the roommies
>> > he has.
>>
>> So why does the owner, who lets it to tenants. not required a
>> license/permit and why has the same permit/licence authority not made
>> the current owner do the upgrade it's now demanding from John (who
>> doesn't own it).
>>
>> Janet UK
>
>My guess is lots of people rent their rooms out to get some extra income.

Good one, Mr Aloha.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:29:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>...
>>
>> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case here,
>> there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off the price of
>> the house.
>
>We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!
>
>And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!

Are you saying you're pleasing a Chinese?

On 9/22/2017 9:58 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:29:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case here,
>>> there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off the price of
>>> the house.
>>
>> We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!
>>
>> And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!
>>
>> John
>
> Hold on to your balls!

What would David say?!?!?!!

> I was merely relating something that is done
> here, you rude, ignorant *******.

Oh bugger off you vinegar-titted old entitlement boarding school biotch!

> Knowing Chinese people really well
> I hope they do take you for a ride.

Your karma is toxicity defined - enjoy HELL, bitch!

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/22/2017 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/22/2017 11:58 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:

>>> OMG!!!!
>>>
>>> You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
>>>
>>> Dude, you're underwater right NOW!
>>
>> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.
>
>Yeah, sure. And the Chinese man who still owns it will either raise the
>price or sell it to someone else after letting John pay to repair
>everything.

Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
different laws, I guess.

On 9/22/2017 12:54 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 22 Sep 2017 08:58:40a, Casa de Masa told us...
>
>> On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want
>>>> to improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the
>>>> required things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is
>>>> this not true?
>>>>
>>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>>> price)
>>>
>>> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But
>>> because it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit
>>> INspection before being legally transferred to a buyer's
>>> possession, in this case ME! And because the cheap Chinese
>>> landlord(s) just want to get out from under this house for as
>>> much cash as they can get, we settled on a cash as-is sale price
>>> of $108,000!
>>>
>>> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap
>>> Chinese landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house
>>> to "fix it up" and I DO!
>>>
>>> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for
>>> $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES
>>> restore these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here
>>> in STL!! See?
>>>
>>> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>>
>> OMG!!!!
>>
>> You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
>>
>> Dude, you're underwater right NOW!
>>
>
> What a chump!
>

I'm shocked that anyone would charge that for a clay tile roof.

You have plenty of those in AZ. Wayne - how on earth can it cost over
$100K to replace?

On 9/22/2017 1:32 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 08:29:59 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case here,
>>> there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off the price of
>>> the house.
>>
>> We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!
>>
>> And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!
>
> Are you saying you're pleasing a Chinese?
>

Can you please just KILL yourself NOW?

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....
> The present owner may have had a permit but did not keep it up. I don't
> know that he is demanding John to do it, but it probably has to be done
> for approval. who knows what their actual agreement is. Anything is
> possible and subject to negotiation between them.

No one here seems to LISTEN when I say "sold as is for $108,000 cash"! They all want to foist off what THEY KNOW about real estate sales! And the reason *I* have to finance all this work is because my cheap Chinese landlord is NOT EVER GONNA! In the municipality of Bel Nor MO an Occupancy Permit is necessary to be obtained when an OCCUPIED property is legally "sold" or "closed on". And upon inspection in June the Occupancy Permit Inspector of Bel Now FAILED this property on three pages if individual violations, which *I* need to remedy if *I* want the property to pass it;s Occupancy Permit Inspection! Which I DO!

John Kuthe...

John Kuthe...

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:29:32 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 11:58 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
> > On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> >> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> >> ...
> >>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
> >>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
> >>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
> >>> true?
> >>>
> >>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
> >>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
> >>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
> >>> price)
> >>
> >> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But because
> >> it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit INspection
> >> before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession, in this case
> >> ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want to get out
> >> from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we settled on
> >> a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
> >>
> >> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap Chinese
> >> landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to "fix it up"
> >> and I DO!
> >>
> >> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for
> >> $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore
> >> these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
> >>
> >> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
> >>
> >> John Kuthe...
> >>
> >
> > OMG!!!!
> >
> > You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
> >
> > Dude, you're underwater right NOW!
>
> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.

No, not that much. My buyer's agent ran "comps" on properties in my area of Bel Nor and NO PROPERTIES in the area came up to $500,000. Maybe $200,000ish.

But it's gonna ROCK! And last! And look VERY COOL!

John Kuthe...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 14:41:22 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe
> wrote:

>On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>...
>> The present owner may have had a permit but did not keep it up. I don't
>> know that he is demanding John to do it, but it probably has to be done
>> for approval. who knows what their actual agreement is. Anything is
>> possible and subject to negotiation between them.
>
>No one here seems to LISTEN when I say "sold as is for $108,000 cash"! They all want to foist off what THEY KNOW about real estate sales! And the reason *I* have to finance all this work is because my cheap Chinese landlord is NOT EVER GONNA! In the municipality of Bel Nor MO an Occupancy Permit is necessary to be obtained when an OCCUPIED property is legally "sold" or "closed on". And upon inspection in June the Occupancy Permit Inspector of Bel Now FAILED this property on three pages if individual violations, which *I* need to remedy if *I* want the property to pass it;s Occupancy Permit Inspection! Which I DO!

But aren't you spending a lot of money, just to be allowed to then buy
the property for pretty much the asking price? Sounds wrong to me.

On 2017-09-22 2:48 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 22 Sep 2017 08:11:29a, Dave Smith told us...
>
>> On 2017-09-22 7:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 9/21/2017 8:40 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>>> It makes for interesting speculation.
>>>
>>> OB Food: I don't like mangos so I doubt I'd like mango ice
>>> cream. I do like pineapple sherbet.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My wife loves peaches and dislikes mangoes. I always expected that
>> she should like mangoes because of their many similarities to
>> peaches. That is what seems to be the problem for her. She bites
>> into it expecting peach and gets something different.
>>
>>
>
> Is she blind? The two fruits don't even vaguely resemble each
> other.


They do when they have been peeled and sliced.

On 2017-09-22 2:52 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Fri 22 Sep 2017 08:29:59a, John Kuthe told us...
>
>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 1:34:55 PM UTC-5,
>> wrote: ...
>>>
>>> Sometimes the buyer prefers to do it themselves, in which case
>>> here, there will be an agreement to take whatever the cost off
>>> the price of the house.
>>
>> We (buyer and seller) can agree to anything WE WANT!!
>>
>> And WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU!!
>>
>> John
>>
>
> Why do you even discuss this here? It's like watching the
> everlasting soap opera that's been on television for decades. If you
> tune in once a year, you're actually keeing up. :-)))

I have not paid too much attention to the details. I just remember Kuthe
posting about how thrilled he was to have inherited enough money to buy
the house so he could be a landlord. Given his history here, I doubted
the deal would ever go through. The situation has got stranger and
stranger. At this point it just looks like a very slow implosion.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:11:53 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Fri 22 Sep 2017 02:52:59p, Dave Smith told us...
>
>> On 2017-09-22 2:48 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Fri 22 Sep 2017 08:11:29a, Dave Smith told us...
>>>
>>>> On 2017-09-22 7:29 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>> On 9/21/2017 8:40 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It makes for interesting speculation.
>>>>>
>>>>> OB Food: I don't like mangos so I doubt I'd like mango ice
>>>>> cream. I do like pineapple sherbet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My wife loves peaches and dislikes mangoes. I always expected
>>>> that she should like mangoes because of their many similarities
>>>> to peaches. That is what seems to be the problem for her. She
>>>> bites into it expecting peach and gets something different.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is she blind? The two fruits don't even vaguely resemble each
>>> other.
>>
>>
>> They do when they have been peeled and sliced.
>>
>>
>
>Even then I don't think they look at all alike.

Wayne's drawing a line in the sand.

On 2017-09-22 3:25 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 1:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.
>
> Yeah, sure.Â* And the Chinese man who still owns it will either raise the
> price or sell it to someone else after letting John pay to repair
> everything.


The saga has been perversely interesting to watch from the sidelines.
The guy ranted about the evils of the system that allowed his father to
amass the wealth that he was able to pass on to him and bragged about
his inheritance and his intended purchase. The deal did not go through
when it was originally supposed to, and now it looks like he is setting
himself up for a major financial hit when the detested Chinese landlord
sees how much money Kuthe has put into his building before the deal has
gone through.

I can't help but connect this to my experience with my manic depressive
cousin. I had been PoA for her mother because her parents knew she was
not competent, so I knew how much the estate was worth. My brother was
the executor of her estate and the two of us tried to talk her into
letting us set up a trust account for her. She blew her money on a car
and an unwinterized cottage that she thought would make a nice home. Now
she is back to living on welfare and living in flop houses.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:16:31 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>The saga has been perversely interesting to watch from the sidelines.
>The guy ranted about the evils of the system that allowed his father to
>amass the wealth that he was able to pass on to him and bragged about
>his inheritance and his intended purchase. The deal did not go through
>when it was originally supposed to, and now it looks like he is setting
>himself up for a major financial hit when the detested Chinese landlord
>sees how much money Kuthe has put into his building before the deal has
>gone through.
>
>I can't help but connect this to my experience with my manic depressive
>cousin. I had been PoA for her mother because her parents knew she was
>not competent, so I knew how much the estate was worth. My brother was
>the executor of her estate and the two of us tried to talk her into
>letting us set up a trust account for her. She blew her money on a car
>and an unwinterized cottage that she thought would make a nice home. Now
>she is back to living on welfare and living in flop houses.

Ok, so we have:

MDC: Manic Depressive Cousin
BN: Big Niece
Microwave: Wife

(Just trying to draw the contours of your universe.)

On 2017-09-22 3:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:

>> Yeah, sure. And the Chinese man who still owns it will either raise the
>> price or sell it to someone else after letting John pay to repair
>> everything.
>
> Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
> Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
> before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
> different laws, I guess.
>

Excuse me if I don't retain all the information that has been spewed
about his plans to become a slum landlord but I seem to recall that the
closing date was originally supposed to be a few months ago.

I have limited personal experience in real estate deals, but sales are
usually conditional on the vendor being responsible for repairs.

On 2017-09-22 3:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >

> Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
> Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
> before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
> different laws, I guess.
>

We won't see right away. There seemed to be some silence around the time
of the original closing date.

On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 5:15:36 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
...
> The saga has been perversely interesting to watch from the sidelines.
> The guy ranted about the evils of the system that allowed his father to
> amass the wealth that he was able to pass on to him

It worked very well for him. The first thing I did when I inherited what I inherited was sell off some of the more heinous stocks like Big Oil, Big Pharma, BofA, etc/ Businesses I did not want MY money supporting!

> and bragged about
> his inheritance and his intended purchase. The deal did not go through
> when it was originally supposed to, and now it looks like he is setting
> himself up for a major financial hit when the detested Chinese landlord
> sees how much money Kuthe has put into his building before the deal has
> gone through.

We are UNDER CONTRACT to close Oct 31, 2017!


>
> I can't help but connect this to my experience with my manic depressive
> cousin. I had been PoA for her mother because her parents knew she was
> not competent, so I knew how much the estate was worth. My brother was
> the executor of her estate and the two of us tried to talk her into
> letting us set up a trust account for her. She blew her money on a car
> and an unwinterized cottage that she thought would make a nice home. Now
> she is back to living on welfare and living in flop houses.

Blah blah blah! There's a method to my madness! I'm not completely stupid! Far from it!

John Kuthe...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:26:46 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-09-22 3:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, sure. And the Chinese man who still owns it will either raise the
>>> price or sell it to someone else after letting John pay to repair
>>> everything.
>>
>> Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
>> Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
>> before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
>> different laws, I guess.
>>
>
>Excuse me if I don't retain all the information that has been spewed
>about his plans to become a slum landlord but I seem to recall that the
>closing date was originally supposed to be a few months ago.

Yes, but it has been postponed. To Oct 31 now.

>I have limited personal experience in real estate deals, but sales are
>usually conditional on the vendor being responsible for repairs.

I find that strange too, but if he's certain the property will be his
as of Oct 31, it doesn't really matter. He'd have done those repairs
anyway.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:27:48 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2017-09-22 3:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>
>> Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
>> Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
>> before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
>> different laws, I guess.
>>
>
>We won't see right away. There seemed to be some silence around the time
>of the original closing date.

He does tell us when that date has been postponed again. After a bit
of prodding, but still.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:28:06 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/22/2017 6:27 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2017-09-22 3:41 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:25:51 -0400, jmcquown >
>>
>>> Let's just wait and see. If John is right, the house will be his on
>>> Oct 31, no matter what. Strange that he has to pay for fixing it up
>>> before it's legally his, but anyway. Different countries/states,
>>> different laws, I guess.
>>>
>>
>> We won't see right away. There seemed to be some silence around the time
>> of the original closing date.
>>
>It would be a great Halloween prank if the landlord let him continue
>paying for expensive repairs and then suddenly decided not to sell.

He says that's not possible legally.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> I can't help but connect this to my experience with my manic depressive
> cousin. I had been PoA for her mother because her parents knew she was not
> competent, so I knew how much the estate was worth. My brother was the
> executor of her estate and the two of us tried to talk her into letting us
> set up a trust account for her. She blew her money on a car and an
> unwinterized cottage that she thought would make a nice home. Now she is
> back to living on welfare and living in flop houses.

Good lord, do you have any relatives that you don't talk trash about? I
wonder what they must think of you, never mind, I'm sure I know already.

Cheri

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
> ...
>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>> true?
>>
>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>> price)
> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But because it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit INspection before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession, in this case ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want to get out from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we settled on a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
>
> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap Chinese landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to "fix it up" and I DO!
>
> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
>
> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>
> John Kuthe...

So you settled on a price. That's fine. Is it under contract or can
they pull out after the work you pay for is done?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/22/2017 11:58 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>> On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>>>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>>>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>>>> true?
>>>>
>>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>>> price)
>>>
>>> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But
>>> because it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit
>>> INspection before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession,
>>> in this case ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want
>>> to get out from under this house for as much cash as they can get,
>>> we settled on a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
>>>
>>> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap
>>> Chinese landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to
>>> "fix it up" and I DO!
>>>
>>> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for
>>> $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore
>>> these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
>>>
>>> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>>>
>>> John Kuthe...
>>>
>>
>> OMG!!!!
>>
>> You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
>>
>> Dude, you're underwater right NOW!
>
> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.
Or $200K. Who really knows? John doesn't.

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:27:07 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> ...
>> The present owner may have had a permit but did not keep it up. I don't
>> know that he is demanding John to do it, but it probably has to be done
>> for approval. who knows what their actual agreement is. Anything is
>> possible and subject to negotiation between them.
> No one here seems to LISTEN when I say "sold as is for $108,000 cash"! They all want to foist off what THEY KNOW about real estate sales! And the reason *I* have to finance all this work is because my cheap Chinese landlord is NOT EVER GONNA! In the municipality of Bel Nor MO an Occupancy Permit is necessary to be obtained when an OCCUPIED property is legally "sold" or "closed on". And upon inspection in June the Occupancy Permit Inspector of Bel Now FAILED this property on three pages if individual violations, which *I* need to remedy if *I* want the property to pass it;s Occupancy Permit Inspection! Which I DO!
>
> John Kuthe...
>
> John Kuthe...

Did you enter the contract before or after the inspection?

John Kuthe wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2017 at 12:29:32 PM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/22/2017 11:58 AM, Casa de Masa wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2017 9:28 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 12:05:49 PM UTC-5, Gary wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Don't we have a "sell as it is" thing here? Owner doesn't want to
>>>>> improve anything, just sell. And buyer knows about the required
>>>>> things to fix. They pay less and fix up themselves. Is this not
>>>>> true?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a seller just want's to unload a house, there should be no
>>>>> govt requirement to fix things first as long as the problems are
>>>>> stated out front and the buyer agrees to it (and the reduced
>>>>> price)
>>>> If the house was NOT OCCUPIED this MAY have been the case. But because
>>>> it IS occupied this house must pass an Occupancy Permit INspection
>>>> before being legally transferred to a buyer's possession, in this case
>>>> ME! And because the cheap Chinese landlord(s) just want to get out
>>>> from under this house for as much cash as they can get, we settled on
>>>> a cash as-is sale price of $108,000!
>>>>
>>>> Why is it SO HARD for folks here to understand that? The cheap Chinese
>>>> landlord(s) don't want to put any money into this house to "fix it up"
>>>> and I DO!
>>>>
>>>> In fact I just signed a roofing "repair and RESTORE" estimate for
>>>> $113,671 from Old World Roofing company here in STL who DOES restore
>>>> these old red clay tile roofs like we have a lot of here in STL!! See?
>>>>
>>>> http://oldworldroofingco.com/Home_Page.html
>>>>
>>>> John Kuthe...
>>>>
>>> OMG!!!!
>>>
>>> You put MORE into the roof than the whole house?
>>>
>>> Dude, you're underwater right NOW!
>> Maybe once restored it will be worth $500,000.
> No, not that much. My buyer's agent ran "comps" on properties in my area of Bel Nor and NO PROPERTIES in the area came up to $500,000. Maybe $200,000ish.
>
> But it's gonna ROCK! And last! And look VERY COOL!
>
> John Kuthe...

So you will have well over $225K in a house worth $200K? That's bad
economics.