San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico Forums Home 

San Carlos Mexico Forum
Welcome to our forum. In order to post in our forums you must be registered. Please take a minute to register to enjoy the full benefits of the forum. Registration is FREE and your information is kept private. When registering, please make sure your email address is entered correctly-if incorrect, you will not receive your validation message. Please do not use your email address as your user name for your own privacy and security. Gmail account users should check spam or trash folders for our validation message after initial registration. We also suggest you add host@sancarlosmexico.com to your white list.

This message board requires you to register in order to post new topics, reply to topics started by other users, start polls, or vote on polls. As a registered user, you can edit your own posts, upload photos and view our photo gallery, and send private messages to other members of the board. Registered users can keep track of the topics they are interested in, and receive e-mail notifications when someone posts to one of those topics. Registered users can choose a theme and setup a profile, to include hometown, email & web address and avatar if desired.
We do ask that you post in the appropriate forum-look over the subjects and topics of all forums including the mercado section before making your first post. Posts in the wrong forum or not related to San Carlos may be moved or deleted without notice.
Please take a moment and register to enjoy all the benefits of the forum.
Bienvenidos!

 Moderated by: bartmanaz Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page  
New Topic Reply Printer Friendly
Traveling Bill Board  Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Fri Oct 18th, 2019 05:19 pm
  PM Quote Reply
21st Post
390pony
Member
 

Joined: Thu Jul 17th, 2014
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
Posts: 390
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
That would be my guess, too.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 20th, 2019 01:24 am
  PM Quote Reply
22nd Post
wynner
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 10th, 2019
Location:  
Posts: 20
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Both owners filed suit. One is still in progress. It doesn't change the claim by the owners that the occupants are living and working using someone else's property without payments. No monetary compensation at all. Like, "You want me to move because I haven't paid you? Make me. In the meantime, I won't pay at all"
The billboard is showing the frustration that these squatters can just stay on another person's property for free.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Sun Oct 20th, 2019 01:47 am
  PM Quote Reply
23rd Post
wynner
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 10th, 2019
Location:  
Posts: 20
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
And to be clear: there is no sublet. There are two owners: one person owns the commercial units, one person owns the residential condo. Both claim the same thing: the people mentioned in the billboard have paid nothing to the owners for quite some time.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Sun Oct 20th, 2019 07:21 pm
  PM Quote Reply
24th Post
long time resident
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 27th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 1046
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
It took a good lawyer and five years (and a lot of money) to remove a mexican family that decided to no longer pay rent,. It can be done.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 01:53 am
  PM Quote Reply
25th Post
emc2
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jul 2nd, 2018
Location:  
Posts: 29
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
I feel bad for the condo owner, Bill. He has been trying to get his condo back for a few years now.  

Last edited on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 02:00 am by emc2

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 02:43 am
  PM Quote Reply
26th Post
nice guy
Member
 

Joined: Mon Jun 25th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 773
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Does this same situation apply if you rent your house to Mexican nationals or foreigners here?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 03:54 am
  PM Quote Reply
27th Post
Bullshipper
Member
 

Joined: Thu Aug 23rd, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1960
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
yes

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 06:21 am
  PM Quote Reply
28th Post
Bullshipper
Member
 

Joined: Thu Aug 23rd, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 1960
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
If you have a contract, they get 3 months of not paying rent before a court will hear the case.
If you win, they can appeal usually 2 more times.
If you win the appeals, they can usually get at least 2 more stays (judge reviewal) against an evict orders, and if they lose those, the loser usually has to pay a bond to get it reviewed (an amparo) again.
If you loan, let someone house sit, or do not try to collect some rent on a verbal deal, its gets more complicated and doubtful.
Then if you win all bets, you still have to usually do a forceful eviction where you pay your workers to carry their belongings out to a truck under the cops supervision,
Then you try to collect, and that usually goes no where for lack of funds.
Foreigners can leave the country adding another barrier.

States in the US have different laws too, some owner friendly and others that side with the tenets.

Last edited on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 06:24 am by Bullshipper

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 07:10 am
  PM Quote Reply
29th Post
MountainbikeVH
Member


Joined: Sat Oct 28th, 2017
Location: San Carlos, Mexico
Posts: 65
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
 I just saw this two days ago in my neighborhood.  I was wondering about this myself.  Sounds like a crappy situation for the owners. 

Last edited on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 07:12 am by MountainbikeVH

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 04:23 pm
  PM Quote Reply
30th Post
long time resident
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 27th, 2005
Location:  
Posts: 1046
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
The part I didn't like the most, was that after my client won, they still had to pay a truck, and workers to move the people out. And the place was left very trashed, and damaged........no recourse really. In Mexico, once a person is moved in, very difficult, time consuming and costly to move them out. If it is an American, then you have better recourse, but not much.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 04:46 pm
  PM Quote Reply
31st Post
wynner
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 10th, 2019
Location:  
Posts: 20
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Bullshipper has it right. When the squatters use legal tactics to stall and appeal every step of the litigation, it can take years. What is SO annoying in these two cases is that the squatters DENY they are squatting, they insist they are paying rent, payments, whatever. No owner would initiate such a long drawn out process if the renters were actually renting and paying like they should be. It would be refreshing if the squatters just said the truth, "I am ripping people off by staying here for free and I don't care"

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 05:38 pm
  PM Quote Reply
32nd Post
frankie
Member


Joined: Fri Sep 1st, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 1075
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

i am not a frequent patron of shots! so i have no prejudice opinion!
there is always 2 sides to any story. lots of speculation and little if any facts!
if my memory serves me, there was an existing restaurant / bar before shots!
* shots subleased the building!
* shots rented the adjoining commercial condo
* they opened the wall, so it could be one continuous business!
* those would initiate 2 separate rent / lease agreements.
* my understanding is one is a sublease.
* both units are required to pay an HOA fees.
* HOA fees are adjusted in time, to reflect the current expenditures!
* HOA's also have "extraordinary fees" 
* the owner is obligated to pay the HOA fees and any annual extraordinary fees.
* it is possible that the rents are being paid, but the rents have not been properly adjusted to reflect current expenditures!
* how are the units owned? 
* if one or both have a fideicomoso in order to legally rent, the owner is required to obtain a "EXPLOTATION LUCRATIVO"  from the secretariat of foreign affairs, "SRE"!
* taxes would have had to be paid from the rents.


all these factors could contribute to what we a hearing as rents not paid!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 07:31 pm
  PM Quote Reply
33rd Post
wynner
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 10th, 2019
Location:  
Posts: 20
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
* shots subleased the building! NO, they signed a purchase agreement for both units
* shots rented the adjoining commercial condo NO, see above 
* they opened the wall, so it could be one continuous business! YES
* those would initiate 2 separate rent / lease agreements. NO, see above
* my understanding is one is a sublease. NO
* both units are required to pay an HOA fees. YES
* HOA fees are adjusted in time, to reflect the current expenditures! YES
* HOA's also have "extraordinary fees" YES, they are being billed to the OWNER
* the owner is obligated to pay the HOA fees and any annual extraordinary fees. YES
* it is possible that the rents are being paid, but the rents have not been properly adjusted to reflect current expenditures! NO, the lease payments are NOT being paid
* how are the units owned? Trato directo, straight title
* if one or both have a fideicomoso in order to legally rent, the owner is required to obtain a "EXPLOTATION LUCRATIVO"  from the secretariat of foreign affairs, "SRE"! Not on a purchase agreement
* taxes would have had to be paid from the rents. Not applicable

Last edited on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 07:31 pm by wynner

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 07:56 pm
  PM Quote Reply
34th Post
Hook
Member
 

Joined: Wed Oct 26th, 2005
Location: Mexico
Posts: 3534
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Wynner, in your point by point refutation to frankie, you seem to be indicating that John signed a purchase agreement.

Yet, the banner on the trailer says they are not paying RENT, as if they are simply renters. Was that simply a bad choice of a word by the person who produced the banner?

Or, are you saying they signed a purchase agreement and they are supposed to be making payments directly to the previous owner?

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 08:05 pm
  PM Quote Reply
35th Post
wynner
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 10th, 2019
Location:  
Posts: 20
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Bad wording on that sign. 


There IS a second condo involved as well, a residential condo. That is where the bar owners live. The owner of THAT condo has apparently not been paid RENT for more than two years. The sign maker knew about the Bar situation in general, but not the details.


The purchase agreement payments are not being paid to the owner of the units that house Shots.


Squatters squatting in two places: at work and at home. Makes it easier to make a profit if you don't pay for either place.

Last edited on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 08:07 pm by wynner

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 08:25 pm
  PM Quote Reply
36th Post
frankie
Member


Joined: Fri Sep 1st, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 1075
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
wynner wrote: * shots subleased the building! NO, they signed a purchase agreement for both units
* shots rented the adjoining commercial condo NO, see above 
* they opened the wall, so it could be one continuous business! YES
* those would initiate 2 separate rent / lease agreements. NO, see above
* my understanding is one is a sublease. NO
* both units are required to pay an HOA fees. YES
* HOA fees are adjusted in time, to reflect the current expenditures! YES
* HOA's also have "extraordinary fees" YES, they are being billed to the OWNER
* the owner is obligated to pay the HOA fees and any annual extraordinary fees. YES
* it is possible that the rents are being paid, but the rents have not been properly adjusted to reflect current expenditures! NO, the lease payments are NOT being paid
* how are the units owned? Trato directo, straight title
* if one or both have a fideicomoso in order to legally rent, the owner is required to obtain a "EXPLOTATION LUCRATIVO"  from the secretariat of foreign affairs, "SRE"! Not on a purchase agreement
* taxes would have had to be paid from the rents. Not applicable
whiner, excuse me wynner, who are you??????
your posts #8, # 22, # 23, are contrary to your correction to my post!
in this post you also are contrary to yourself, you say they purchased then you say ""the lease payments are NOT being paid""???
* a purchase contract, does not guarantee or imply "TITLED OWNERSHIP"!!!!
* Trato directo, by definition, means the property was sold directly from the seller to the buyer!
* Trato directo or through a real estate agent would REQUIRES a NOTARIO to make the transfer of title!
* " EXPLOTATION LUCRATIVO" i was responding figuratively to your post #23, "quote; one person owns the 2 commercial properties and one owns the residential property! THAT IMPLIES A LEASE OR RENT AGREEMENT! 


my comments are merely to suggest possibilities, as to what may be the problem!


Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 08:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
37th Post
frankie
Member


Joined: Fri Sep 1st, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 1075
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
wynner wrote:

The purchase agreement payments are not being paid to the owner of the units that house Shots.


you are all over the place!!! 


rent, leaser,now purchase payments?????????


unless you are one of the principle parties, it is obvious you have a personal grievance!

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 08:42 pm
  PM Quote Reply
38th Post
wynner
Member
 

Joined: Thu Oct 10th, 2019
Location:  
Posts: 20
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Frankie,
You are right: I mistyped. It should not read "lease payments", it should have read : "purchase payments are not being paid". Apologies

It is also a little confusing because there are TWO locations: the BAR (which uses two joined condos) and a residential condo (which is being used as a residence).

The BAR location was supposed to be purchased in installments per the purchase agreement. The buyers agreed to make a payment each month to the owner until the agreed upon amount was reached. That did not happen, they stopped making payments.

The property right now is still owned by the owner, as direct title. If the buyers were to ever finish making payments, title would have been transferred to them.

The residential condo is different. The bar people rented a condo to live in and then just stopped paying RENT.

Hope that clears it up, apologies if I wasn't clear

BAR= breach of purchase agreement via failure to pay, still there anyway.

RESIDENCE= breach of rental contract via failure to pay, still there anyway.

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

 Posted: Mon Oct 21st, 2019 09:14 pm
  PM Quote Reply
39th Post
frankie
Member


Joined: Fri Sep 1st, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 1075
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

"RUBY'S WINE BAR"!!!! 
that was the name of the fine establishment prior to "shot's"!!


since i must have lapsed into a senior moment, or HOPEFULLY just a brain fart!
 i made some phone calls and received some PM's to refresh my memory! 
now i feel comfortable that i have the skinny from reliable sources!


i can state unequivocally that i support the owners of the the properties in question! 


Last edited on Mon Oct 21st, 2019 10:37 pm by frankie

Back To Top PM Quote Reply  

 Posted: Tue Oct 22nd, 2019 01:21 am
  PM Quote Reply
40th Post
Aleman69
Member
 

Joined: Sat Jul 22nd, 2017
Location:  
Posts: 68
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sounds like the same what this people did in Chandler before they moved to San Carlos. 

Back To Top PM Quote Reply

Current time is 08:55 am Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next Page Last Page    
San Carlos, Sonora, Mexico Forums > Topical Forums > San Carlos Forum > Traveling Bill Board Top




UltraBB 1.172 Copyright © 2007-2014 Data 1 Systems