Stipulation/Impending Eviction

[FlyingRon]

Well, that's not what he said. I suspect he should probably consult legal counsel, PERIOD. He seems incapable of expressing things in a useful manner. As I, stated. I GIVE UP.

 

[Moof]

Or, alternatively, if anyone has any other similar stories and outcomes? "Damage control" in the sense I'm using means, to make the best choice available to me in this situation, to (as best) as I can, protect myself as well, and to put my mind at ease for the

I think you're misinterpreting the clause. I believe the clause is there to state that the signer is aware of his right to consult legal counsel prior to signing and has decided to waive that right and sign anyway. In other words, it's certifying that the signer has decided not to consult legal counsel, not that they can't.

You could be entirely right. That'd make more sense. It's signed now by all parties. We just got done.

 

[Moof]

Well, that's not what he said. I suspect he should probably consult legal counsel, PERIOD. He seems incapable of expressing things in a useful manner. As I, stated. I GIVE UP.

Well, that's definitely your prerogative.

Any clause barring you from getting legal counsel is not going to be enforceable. Are you sure a LAWYER generated such? Anyway, if you comply with the stipulation, you may bring it up at the UD hearing and have a good case. You said they wanted proof a commercial cleaning. There doesn't seem to be much interpretation to be had there,.

And of course they served you with the UD. Once you do not comply with the Cure or Comply, you pretty much tied their hands to do anything else. As stated, the stipulation agreement means nothing until both parties sign it and you comply with it. Until then, it's purely an offer on their part. No LAWYER OR CLIENT IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD STOP THE UD BASED ON YOUR claims of intent. If you flake out and don't agree or comply, they'd have to start all over again from scratch costing them TIME and MONEY.

You keep changing your story, I can't keep up with it. I'm done here.

Uhm... I never tried to state here or anywhere else that I'm trying to stop the Unlawful Detainer based on my claims of intent. I believe what I typed here, was referring to my options based on the stipulation offered to me (after the Unlawful Detainer) and if anyone could give me any insight in my options.

I only mentioned the events leading up to this point and how it happened. I wasn't trying to make some sort of statement in order to do anything other than give some more details on case in the event I may have missed something that might effect what's going on right now.

I'm not arguing their process, I'm trying to understand it. If that frustrates you then by all means bow out. It's not useful for me if you're not going to read my explanations and just jump the gun every chance you can get. I'm already frustrated enough. What did our didn't happen doesn't change feelings, and as I said, I'm just trying to cover all aspects.

I stated in a previous post that I do suffer mental health issues and thought disorders including PTSD and high anxiety. If you don't want to help, fine. I wouldn't have known either way if you had just left it.

I do feel better now that my husband and I have this stipulation signed and with the attorney, and feel much less anxious since the last user posted about the consulting part.

 

[Moof]

Thanks again, @Zigner. I am glad someone can read between the lines and hear my concern over how I may or may not have technically expressed it.

That being said, I guess January 31st is now the new "comply with these things in the stipulation" and just for a moment, things may be a little less doomed feeling.