InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,607.66
(
0.41%
)
US TECH 100
19,744.40
(
0.34%
)
Dow Jones
39,805.62
(
0.13%
)
Brent Oil
85.06
(
-0.06%
)
Bitcoin
57,878.93
(
0.92%
)
Post# of 157299
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Jetmek_03052

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 48
Posts 14129
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 01/11/2004

Jetmek_03052

Member Level

Re: nerd86 post# 88498

Wednesday, 09/19/2007 4:12:06 PM

Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4:12:06 PM

Post# of 157299
Nerd, also....

OF COURSE LAWA brought a suit. Look at it from a landlord point of view....

1. GTEM wasn't paying ANY thing towards the rent.

2. They couldn't evict without getting the courts involved because GTEM had a contract (which they were in default of by non-payment by the way).

3. Since they couldn't evict the current rentor, they can't very well rent to another tenant.

GTEM put them in between a rock and a hard place, doing what they did. Better to take them to court and get SOMETHING and also get them out of the hangar so they can rent to a more responsible rentor...one who preferably pays the rent.


I keep telling myself....deep breath....count to ten....try to answer without personal attack...present fact to back up your opinion.

Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up