0
0

"Octomom" faces eviction


 invite response                
2010 Dec 27, 3:36am   4,437 views  18 comments

by CrowsAreSmart   ➕follow (0)   💰tip   ignore  

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

LOS ANGELES -- The man who owns "Octomom" Nadya Suleman's La Habra home says he's going ahead with eviction proceedings because she can't come up with a $450,000 mortgage payment.

Amer Haddadin says he'll proceed with an eviction if Suleman and her lawyer Jeff Czech don't pay him the balance on the house by the end of the year.

Haddadin says Czech and Suleman became joint owners of the house, after her father bought the home and transferred the deed. He suspects they have the money to pay him.

Reached by phone Sunday, Czech said he hadn't heard anything about the proceedings and had no immediate comment.

Suleman and her 14 children have lived in the house since her octuplets came home from the hospital nearly two years ago.

#housing

Comments 1 - 18 of 18        Search these comments

1   Done!   2010 Dec 27, 4:05am  

Ah a Feel good story.
This is news why? Didn't say because she's failed to make the payments.
It sounds like the house was bought low interest using Owner financing, with a 2 year due date.
"He suspects they have the money to pay him."

But if you think about it, deals like these aren't any different than just leasing for two years.
Except Renters are at least entitled to their Deposit back.

2   elliemae   2010 Dec 27, 11:30pm  

She shoulda done the porno.

4   American in Japan   2011 Apr 1, 1:23am  

Arrest that cat!

5   echo   2011 Apr 1, 1:50am  

This is a gal who doesn't get it and never will. She needs a attitude adjustment

6   American in Japan   2011 Apr 1, 11:31am  

I remember that she once said that the welfare money she receives isn't welfare...LoL!

7   seaside   2011 Apr 1, 1:51pm  

How many rooms needed for 14 children including 8 babies, herself, and numorous visitors... well...

elle, she don't have a chance in porn industry. Stoya pwns them all. lol.

8   elliemae   2011 Apr 2, 8:57am  

Zlxr says

Maybe - the Doctor should help pay for what he helped to do - since it definitely took his help for her to have more than 1 child - and she already had several that she couldn’t afford.

The doc was just doing his job - it's common practice to implant several embryos in order to increase the chance of conception. It's none of his business whether she can afford the kids. Besides, what would be his obligation? Should he run a credit check, personal references, etc? What if a person loses their job immediately after the embryos are implanted? Would he then be required to perform an abortion?

I might be wrong, but it's probably discrimination if the doc refuses to implant an embryo based on his guess as to whether the patient would be able to support the child in the manner that the doctor prefers.

9   terriDeaner   2011 Apr 2, 3:19pm  

elliemae says

I might be wrong, but it’s probably discrimination if the doc refuses to implant an embryo based on his guess as to whether the patient would be able to support the child in the manner that the doctor prefers.

Sounds more like an issue of:

Fisk says

Discrimination in housing against a household based on the number of children - illegal in CA.

But hey, what do I know. I would have guessed 'zoning violation'.

10   elliemae   2011 Apr 2, 3:38pm  

terriDeaner says

But hey, what do I know. I would have guessed ‘zoning violation’.

Would this apply to a nine-month lease?

11   terriDeaner   2011 Apr 2, 3:57pm  

elliemae says

Would this apply to a nine-month lease?

That's a real stumper... I suppose it depends on the what her 'property' was originally zoned for. I'm guessing it was originally residential but she tried to squeeze in a commercial enterprise. It would all boil down to whether there is a differential restriction for square inchage per occupant for residential versus commercial, I think.

12   elliemae   2011 Apr 2, 4:31pm  

terriDeaner,

You raise an interesting point about the zoning restrictions. However, when determining the space required per occupant, do you suppose that they consider those people popping in & out several times versus more permanent occupants? A revolving door defense, if you will.

This also raises another question - when discussing zoning issues, do they take into consideration whether the owner "self occupies" the property in question, or if she intends to invite others to peruse the area? And how would such a determination be applied if she intends to invite someone to her property for recreational purposes but can't find anyone who actually wants to?

So......many......jokes...... must....use....restraint....

13   terriDeaner   2011 Apr 2, 4:50pm  

Ellie, your first-hand knowledge of these types of properties clearly illustrates your expertise, to which I must humbly defer.

14   elliemae   2011 Apr 2, 5:08pm  

I would like to thank you for deferring to my judgement in this matter because as a matter of fact I do have a personal knowledge of the subject - in fact, I own a property very much like octomom's. Mine is smaller and would be a tight fit for her number of occupants - and I'm willing to bet that mine has experienced a substantially lesser amount of visitors than hers.

My problem is that this thread sparked a veritable plethora of masturbation jokes with my guy - and we used the one we did. We could have done so much better, but I was beaten at my own game. Damn!

15   terriDeaner   2011 Apr 2, 5:27pm  

elliemae says

My problem is that this thread sparked a veritable plethora of masturbation jokes with my guy - and we used the one we did. We could have done so much better, but I was beaten at my own game. Damn!

Awww... C'mon. All in good fun. And where are the rest of the jokes anyhow???

16   mikey   2011 Apr 3, 3:32am  

I have no problem with this topic. It's a masterstroke, in my opinion. And I believe that it's been well handled.
However, it is sad that this poor woman got into such a pickle. But wad can she do now? This situation seems to be causing some friction.
Since the ball is in her court, is it really fair that she should not be sacked? I mean, she can't hang around forever and this could get hairy.
Just why do they want to polish her off? Is it because she's not as buffed as other women? Now there's the rub.
Personally, I'm pulling for her.

17   elliemae   2011 Apr 3, 10:55am  

mikey says

Personally, I’m pulling for her.

Well, make sure you pull out in a timely manner.

18   mikey   2011 Apr 3, 2:46pm  

Juicy comment, Ellie, you little squirt. Popping off again? I don't want to be premature but since when did you be-cum an ex-spurt?
Shoot, I'm a tad pole axed here.
Guess I'll finish now, semen sez jizz because. Whew, that takes a load off.
I'm going bust.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste