General Discussion

FBaggins

(28,563 posts)

20. I assume that's not an intentional strawman

Wed Oct 29, 2025, 04:03 PM

Oct 29

I can't see anywhere that I've implied that it had to be "in perpetuity". I haven't seen anyone claim that the home was unoccupied for the first year and then she changed her mind. The accusations are that the home was immediately occupied (but not by her). The Schedule E claiming rental income and deducting expenses was for the tax year in which she purchased the home.

I would agree that if the home were empty for a year (apart from actual vacation usage by James) she would have a much clearer defense... but nothing hints that this is the case.

If there's an ambiguity, it's going to be construed against the drafter.

This isn't some fresh contract unique to a specific lender. It's Form 3890 that is a standard instrument for Fannie/Freddie underwritten second home mortgages. It's standard language that has been used on tens of thousands of mortgages every year. If there was any ambiguity, it would have been edited out by now.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Three words in Letitia James' mortgage contract doom the fraud case against her [View all] bigtree Oct 29 OP

The author is incorrect FBaggins Oct 29 #1

I'm no lawyer, but other lawyers disagree with you. Happy Hoosier Oct 29 #2

Exclusive use DOES NOT mean that occupancy FBaggins Oct 29 #3

Where did you get your information? dpibel Oct 29 #4

You provided a link to the document FBaggins Oct 29 #5

For the first year dpibel Oct 29 #6

Yes - and the story is that she purchased the home for her grand niece's use FBaggins Oct 29 #8

Did you read the entire article? dpibel Oct 29 #9

I did - none of them are commenting on the topic in the title/OP FBaggins Oct 29 #17

Pretzels are tasty! dpibel Oct 29 #18

I assume that's not an intentional strawman FBaggins Oct 29 #20

Not sure why you're so invested in this dpibel Oct 29 #22

I'm not so sure, either. marble falls Oct 29 #26

it really sucks when you have to NJCher Oct 29 #16

this is specious bigtree Oct 29 #7

Rent isn't actually part of the charges FBaggins Oct 29 #15

smoke. No real prosecutor thought she should be charged. bigtree Oct 29 #19

That part is true. It's clearly a politically-motivated prosecution FBaggins Oct 29 #21

they're not going to spend much time parsing whether she visited the home or stayed there bigtree Oct 29 #25

When you sign a document attesting to exclusive use you don't list everyone who will be occupying the property Hassin Bin Sober Oct 29 #23

Very nicely put. marble falls Oct 29 #27

That's true - and would be a great defense if it were relevant FBaggins Oct 29 #28

Dude. I'm part owner of a mortgage company. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 29 #30

Not possible with a 2nd Home IbogaProject Oct 29 #24

Dudnt her niece live there? viva la Oct 29 #29

When I was young a female CPA told me the expression "picking the fly shit out of pepper". twodogsbarking Oct 29 #10

Quite the discussion above, unless I missed it..... KS Toronado Oct 29 #11

Question: Who is being defrauded here? SpankMe Oct 29 #12

K&R UTUSN Oct 29 #13

She would be better off popsdenver Oct 29 #14