Ah, scalding rebuttal indeed. With this finely honed ability to argue you SHOULD be a lawyer. My assessment of you stands, you are very contentious. Contentious-Quarrelsome, Webster's Expanded Dictionary. This would make sense, since you are from the 'Show-me-State'. And before you feel that I have taken a cheap shot at Missourians, I too can trace my bloodline to that fine state.
Let's clear up a few things before we play, shall we?
Glass half empty or glass half full is a figure of speech which describes a view or position that is either pessimistic, taking an unfavorable view of affairs, or optimistic, tendency to take the most hopeful view.
Pessimism would also include seeing the glass as totally empty.
In an effort to remove any confusion regarding my statements, I will refrain from using anything but plain, literal English.
1) HG offered you a pessimistic view of your state of affairs. Worst case scenario. A proper application of what I had written shows your counterpoint to be devoid, or without, any pertinent, or appropriate, comments. In fact, when you claim "Half empty or half full, HG said my glass was comletely empty!" you actually reinforce, bolster, strengthen, my assertion that HG was offering you a pessimistic view. In addition, you tried to sneak the issue concerning the dispersement, or splitting up, of monies into counterpoint one. I clearly, as a thorough reading would show, addressed this in point two.
2) Once again HG offered you a pessimistic view. It was NOT inaccurate, or wrong, based upon the information you provided in your original post. The only claim you had on the property was a typed letter, and from your stinging counterpoint where you claim these were ALL the facts, the letter contained ONLY these words "we entered into a joint venture to purchase the property and that we each own 50% and that neither can sell without the other's permission". The only signatures on the letter belonged to you and the man with whom you made the agreement. This informal letter was not notarized. You had no witnesses to this transaction, professional or otherwise. No description of "the property". It could have been a roll of toilet paper. The letter then becomes about as useful. Especially since you mention no witness to the transaction, the man could have signed it under duress, which is plausible since it appears you were providing some type of care for him and he was handicap.
Legally, the man whom you shared a home with held the title in his name, and his alone. This means that legally the property is his to do with as he pleases. The burden of proof is on YOU to prove otherwise.
Unless, or course, you had other supporting documentation that you neglected to tell us about. You had bank records or cancelled checks to prove a financial involvement with "the property". The 'letter' actually contained more than a fragmented and vague sentence. Ah, yes, we should have known about the financial involvement because you did claim to have given him $15,000. Alas, you forgot to mention how this was dispersed. Cash, check, wampum.
Based solely on the information you proved, I think HG gave you better than a worst case scenario. I'm sure this is why he replied "I am not privy to the terms and conditions in this agreement. You need someone with a law degree to review it for you." He at least gave you the benefit of the doubt that your letter was more than you presented here. As to his comment "great, you want to play attorney, that's fine", you yourself admit it was foolish to have done this without legal representation. "No, it wasn't too smart, but I trusted him and thought it would always work out for the better."
3)The use of the word 'further' indicates that you are trying to advance a thought or point. The point you were trying to make was that HG's advice was unqualified. The manner in which you wrote the statement shows that you hold HG culpable, or to blame, for having missed that point.
4)You actually did NOT want to retain an attorney. You believe you are just as smart, or smarter, than they are. They are a waste of money. That is why you did not use a lawyer originally. That is why you would not go unless forced. "I always intended to seek legal advice on this question IF I was forced into it." This is why you hold HG in contempt, or in scorn, for the advice he gave. It was contrary to what YOU believed should happen. With the information you provided, he could come to no other conclusion (see #2 above). Now, happily for you, you found a good lawyer who agrees with YOU. So therefore HG is bad. I'm sure your lawyer had more information (#2 again).
If 99.9% of the posters here KNOW they should seek legal advice, why would you NOT seek it by following HG's advice? I have counted 5 times he told, or implied, that you should see a lawyer. Seems to me you did finally, when you were forced, hire an attorney.
"Why? Why would I see an attorney if I HAD NO CHANCE?" you ask.
"I am not privy to the terms and conditions in this agreement. You need someone with a law degree to review it for you." Is the answer (#2 again please).
"Luckily, I had enough sense to ignore HG's "advice" and get on with what I had to do. "
Luck, I'm sorry to say, had nothing to do with it. HG recognized what type of person you were when you apparently ignored his first post and e-mailed him directly. At which time he re-directed you to your post, and his initial reply (that could theoretically be the 6th time he told you to get a lawyer). Finally, he answered you pessimisticly because this was the only way to get you to quit whinning and hire an attorney. He got you to follow his advice in spite of yourself. Pretty smart, give credit where credit is due. The only actual advice he gave, aside from hiring an attorney, was to obtain the title to the property in J county. Which you did, I might add. The rest of his post was either questions or statements, the latter based on the info. you provided (#2 one more time).
So you see, I have read this thread most thoroughly.
And you DID follow HG's advice.
