Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Hassin Bin Sober

(27,500 posts)

23. When you sign a document attesting to exclusive use you don't list everyone who will be occupying the property

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #1)

Wed Oct 29, 2025, 05:55 PM

Oct 2025

Having a non (of any consequence) rent paying family member in the property doesn’t exclude Leticia James from using the property.

James has already said she did spend some time in the property. And before you say it - the relationship was obviously close enough to allow mostly rent-free living for this grand niece.

That’s just one of many reasons this case is garbage and they had to run it through several times.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

Emrys marble falls

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 2025 OP

The author is incorrect FBaggins Oct 2025 #1

I'm no lawyer, but other lawyers disagree with you. Happy Hoosier Oct 2025 #2

Exclusive use DOES NOT mean that occupancy FBaggins Oct 2025 #3

Where did you get your information? dpibel Oct 2025 #4

You provided a link to the document FBaggins Oct 2025 #5

For the first year dpibel Oct 2025 #6

Yes - and the story is that she purchased the home for her grand niece's use FBaggins Oct 2025 #8

Did you read the entire article? dpibel Oct 2025 #9

I did - none of them are commenting on the topic in the title/OP FBaggins Oct 2025 #17

Pretzels are tasty! dpibel Oct 2025 #18

I assume that's not an intentional strawman FBaggins Oct 2025 #20

Not sure why you're so invested in this dpibel Oct 2025 #22

I'm not so sure, either. marble falls Oct 2025 #26

it really sucks when you have to NJCher Oct 2025 #16

this is specious bigtree Oct 2025 #7

Rent isn't actually part of the charges FBaggins Oct 2025 #15

smoke. No real prosecutor thought she should be charged. bigtree Oct 2025 #19

That part is true. It's clearly a politically-motivated prosecution FBaggins Oct 2025 #21

they're not going to spend much time parsing whether she visited the home or stayed there bigtree Oct 2025 #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 2025 #23

Very nicely put. marble falls Oct 2025 #27

That's true - and would be a great defense if it were relevant FBaggins Oct 2025 #28

Dude. I'm part owner of a mortgage company. Hassin Bin Sober Oct 2025 #30

Not possible with a 2nd Home IbogaProject Oct 2025 #24

Dudnt her niece live there? viva la Oct 2025 #29

When I was young a female CPA told me the expression "picking the fly shit out of pepper". twodogsbarking Oct 2025 #10

Quite the discussion above, unless I missed it..... KS Toronado Oct 2025 #11

Question: Who is being defrauded here? SpankMe Oct 2025 #12

K&R UTUSN Oct 2025 #13

She would be better off popsdenver Oct 2025 #14