Duggars by the Dozenty!!11!- Part 21: As many threads as Duggars

[Italiangirl]

1 hour ago, nst said:

So Tuesday there is an hour and half special before the one hour show.

Good Lord - does Buzzard have to recap that  Bring on the tequila 

and btw I will be missing two episodes in September as I will be in Italy 

Oh lucky you! Where you will go in italy? 

[sophie10130]

4 hours ago, MsSaylor said:

Joseph is looking pretty good must say. Both of these dudes are still awkward as hell though 

I thought it was so much better than usual! It was a lot easier for me to watch than hair and make up tutorials.

But it does seem like it's this week's episode of Available Fundie.

[eyerollsforjesus]

Does anyone know why this property was sold to Jana in April for $1.00? I tried searching the forum with the address but got no hits. It is 709 W Emma, and according to street view it is a little house like commercial spot next to a copy place. The owners of the copy place were the sellers. 

[Bad Wolf]

Maybe Jana's flipping houses like Jinger did with cars.

[Kira]

9 minutes ago, Bad Wolf said:

Maybe Jana's flipping houses like Jinger did with cars.

Maybe...

http://duggars.tumblr.com/post/146770513480

http://19kidsandloving.tumblr.com/post/146702928430

 

It's odd that she wasn't included in the preview of storylines on "Counting On". She will definitely be on the show.

[Kira]

I wanted to add that Jana flipping a house would be a better storyline than Jinger flipping cars. 

I wonder if she's flipping the house or something else 

[Alisamer]

I'd think she was flipping it if it was a house (that appears to be possibly not residential), if it looked like it needed some sprucing up, and if she'd paid a normal amount for it. But to buy it for $1 and flip it? It's essentially a gift and she can do what she wants with it, but that seems a little odd.

The building just screams "day care" to me, maybe they'll turn it into one, or a midwife office, or set it up as Ben's or Derek's own church?

[SassyPants]

I cannot wait for the day that the shyster, fiscally slimy JB Duggar goes down for some sort of white collar crime involving his bizarre ways with money. 

[Chickenbutt]

My mind is wandering....maybe JB sold the property to the current seller for $1.00 at the height of the Josh issues. Doesn't want to have too many assets in case of a big settlement. And now that that particular mess has been cleared up, *Jana* is buying the house back. And in her name so JB still doesn't have too many assets in case this little DJ problem doesn't just go away.

I really have no idea. Just trying to think about JB hiding assets. He is not above shady financial dealings for lawsuits, taxes etc.

[paulypepper]

I'm just curious and would like to hear from one of our legal pros here, why does the warranty deed state twice that she is an unmarried person? Why is that important?

[Coconut Flan]

We've done this before, folks.  The house didn't sell for $1.00.  That's just Arkansas house transfer talk.  It's $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration which could be hundreds or in this case tens of thousands of dollars. 

I sold my parents' house in Arkansas for $1.00 and other consideration and trust me the check I got was for a LOT more than $1.00. 

[eyerollsforjesus]

Well that explains the $1.00, thanks! It's a restaurant occupancy.. Maybe she wants to open a tacos 4 life or a store front with Sierra's treats?

[clueliss]

This would be commercial real estate which is in the Jim Bob Duggar wheelhouse.  It's what he does - rents commercial real estate (and selling used cars and we see how well Joshly handled that)  If this is Jana's then maybe she's going to be renting it out and getting income in the future.  The Duggar forays into house flipping have been lack luster (and houses seem more aimed at low cost housing for married children on the family dole than legitimate rentals/sales.

[sndral]

3 hours ago, paulypepper said:

I'm just curious and would like to hear from one of our legal pros here, why does the warranty deed state twice that she is an unmarried person? Why is that important?

I'm not an expert in real property or Arkansas law - but identifying a woman as an unmarried person is an artifact of history. It used to be that any property owned by a married woman was controlled by her husband. In some places if you go back far enough a married woman couldn't have title to real property, it had to be held in her husband's name, thus for a woman to legally be on the deed as the owner you had to include why it was in her name & not her husbands, so the unmarried woman, or a widow or whatever language showed why that woman could legally have title.

Remember it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote.

These days even if the deed is in only one spouses name the unnamed spouse may have a right to part of the property -  thus identifying Jana as unmarried makes it clear that it's her's alone. 

The deed to my house reads X, a married woman as her sole and separate property. Since I was soon to be divorced I wasn't best pleased with that wording - but it guarenteed that my soon to be ex & more importantly his creditors couldn't touch my house.

[Iamthe20thDuggarKid]

32 minutes ago, sndral said:

I'm not an expert in real property or Arkansas law - but identifying a woman as an unmarried person is an artifact of history. It used to be that any property owned by a married woman was controlled by her husband. In some places if you go back far enough a married woman couldn't have title to real property, it had to be held in her husband's name, thus for a woman to legally be on the deed as the owner you had to include why it was in her name & not her husbands, so the unmarried woman, or a widow or whatever language showed why that woman could legally have title.

Remember it wasn't that long ago that women weren't allowed to vote.

I wouldn't read that much into it.  I've seen ddeds for unmarried guys that say "a single man" or something like that.   

[Chickenbutt]

My son and his girlfriend bought a house....the deed reads:

XXXXXXX, a single woman and YYYYYYYY, a single man, as joint tenants, with right to survivorship

Which means, they both own 50% of the house and if she dies, then he gets her 50% instead of her mother and if he dies, she gets his 50% instead of me (as conservator for his minor kids).

 

[Coconut Flan]

Yeah, it's all about who can claim what.  In fact just today the house insurance people called because in reviewing their paperwork they found Mr. Flan's name where someone had missed a spot changing it years ago when he died and they wanted to be clear about whether he had any claim to the house or needed to be insured.  It was a bit embarrassing to the poor young woman they had make the call but I assured her I was not bothered by it. 

[sndral]

1 hour ago, Iamthe20thDuggarKid said:

I wouldn't read that much into it.  I've seen ddeds for unmarried guys that say "a single man" or something like that.   

I was more thinking of why the deed would use 'unmarried' instead of 'single,' sometimes you'll see deeds that say 'widowed' or 'divorced', when 'single' should suffice for both sexes IMO. 

When I'm contemplating the resurgence of fundamentalists of all religions it seems to me that subjugation of women is a common core value as it was in many places historically - so my mind tends to wander down historical paths

[Purrl]

It would be nice to think that JB is securing an income for Jana's future by helping her to acquire some rental properties, but in reality I'm sure it's just a way to avoid paying taxes or something else underhanded.

[nastyhobbitses]

29 minutes ago, Purrl said:

It would be nice to think that JB is securing an income for Jana's future by helping her to acquire some rental properties, but in reality I'm sure it's just a way to avoid paying taxes or something else underhanded.

Or to move/conceal assets in anticipation of Joshley's latest legal escapades.

[HarleyQuinn]

JB going down for tax evasion or something shady like that would be the ultimate schadenfreude. I'm surprised no one got him yet. (Maybe he's really good at hiding, because I can't imagine no one has looked into it)

[anotherone]

7 hours ago, Purrl said:

It would be nice to think that JB is securing an income for Jana's future by helping her to acquire some rental properties, but in reality I'm sure it's just a way to avoid paying taxes or something else underhanded.

When she actually moves in there, then I'll believe it was solely for her own future.

[Quivering Uterus]

Its clearly a Jim Bob finagle. Any time you buy a property, without selling another you will be taxed ( sales tax on value ) more. At least that is the way it is in Cali. Jim Bob's no boob when it comes to scurfing the law. Jana was considered a first time buyer, I'd guess too.

 

I bet all their cars are registered to Josie too. That way if in an accident, and the damages to the other car, house, fence, whatever exceeds coverage, only Josie can be sued, which means as a " pennyless" child, the sue party will get squat.

Having  multiple kids really pays off. Again.

 

 

[nastyhobbitses]

1 hour ago, Quivering Uterus said:

Its clearly a Jim Bob finagle. Any time you buy a property, without selling another you will be taxed ( sales tax on value ) more. At least that is the way it is in Cali. Jim Bob's no boob when it comes to scurfing the law. Jana was considered a first time buyer, I'd guess too.

 

I bet all their cars are registered to Josie too. That way if in an accident, and the damages to the other car, house, fence, whatever exceeds coverage, only Josie can be sued, which means as a " pennyless" child, the sue party will get squat.

Having  multiple kids really pays off. Again.

 

 

When Josie drives, no one survives.

I feel terrible, but I'm just imagining Josie like Toonces the Driving Cat from SNL.

[halcionne]

3 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

JB going down for tax evasion or something shady like that would be the ultimate schadenfreude. I'm surprised no one got him yet. (Maybe he's really good at hiding, because I can't imagine no one has looked into it)

I don't think he's particularly good at hiding it. I checked out his property tax records a while ago (Washington County documents real estate and personal property tax all in one place and when I checked it last year (yeah I found the link again today, but I haven't actually looked at the search results) Boob had undervalued the appraisals on many? most? all? of his vehicles. I have a relative who pulls this kind of stuff all the time, and that's what it looked like to me. 

 

1 hour ago, Quivering Uterus said:

Its clearly a Jim Bob finagle. Any time you buy a property, without selling another you will be taxed ( sales tax on value ) more. At least that is the way it is in Cali. Jim Bob's no boob when it comes to scurfing the law. Jana was considered a first time buyer, I'd guess too.

 

I bet all their cars are registered to Josie too. That way if in an accident, and the damages to the other car, house, fence, whatever exceeds coverage, only Josie can be sued, which means as a " pennyless" child, the sue party will get squat.

Having  multiple kids really pays off. Again.

 

 

See my comment to HarleyQuinn. Last time I checked, multiple vehicles were registered to the boob. I wouldn't put it past him, but I don't think he's actually gone so far as to use his kids' identities in that way, yet.