GantzLawBlog

Reminder: Tax Appeal Deadline...

2006-07-24T17:28:00.000-07:00

The deadline to appeal your 2007 tax assesssment is August 12, 2006. -KMG

Welcome, Vanetta Harper!

2006-07-21T17:28:00.000-07:00

Vanetta Harper has joined Gantz Law Offices LLC in the role of Administravtive Assistant.
Welcome Vanetta! We look forward to working with you!-KMG

Debt Elimination Scheme Update

2005-09-23T08:06:00.000-07:00

For those of you following the Dorean Group antics ...here is the latest.
Click on link above.-KMG

FREE credit Report for PA & NJ residents

2005-09-07T09:44:00.000-07:00

Effective September 1, 2005 Pennsylvania and New Jersey residents have the right to receive a free copy of their credit report once per year. (ie once every 12 months). If you live in States other than PA and NJ click the link above to find out your effective date. You can also request your credit report by dialing 1-877-322-8228. -KMG

U.S. Supreme Court decides Eminent Domain case

2005-06-27T15:40:00.000-07:00

The Supreme Court shocked property rights activists with this one....click on the link and read the opinion for yourself!-KMG

How to find out if a Party has filed Bankruptcy

2005-06-18T11:43:00.000-07:00

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has an automated system that you can access via telephone: in Pennsylvania call 215-597-2244 Else where 1-888-5853 (toll free!) The menu you will prompt you. -KMG

Is Smoking a Nuisance?? Jury says YES!

2005-06-13T15:44:00.000-07:00

Jury Finds Tenants Can Be Evicted For Smoking In Unit
Landlord: 'Nuisance' Clause In Lease Was BrokenBy Jason M. Scally
In a case that appears to be the first of its kind in the country, a Boston Housing Court jury allowed a landlord to evict a tenant for cigarette smoking in her rented condominium unit — even though it was legal to do so and the tenants had the landlord's consent.
According to the landlord's attorney, Peter S. Brooks of Boston, neither he nor the judge were able to find a case where a jury had deemed smoking to be a legal nuisance in a summary process action.
In Harwood Capital Corp. v. Carey, Boston Housing Court Docket No. 05-SP-00187, the landlord sought to evict a tenant after receiving complaints from abutting residents about the strong smell of smoke coming from the tenant's apartment.
But faced with a tenant who had a legal right to smoke under state law and the lease, Brooks explained that he pursued the case at trial under a common law nuisance theory and a clause in the standard Greater Boston Real Estate Board lease prohibiting tenants from creating a nuisance or engaging in activity that substantially interfered in the rights of other building occupants.
After a three-day trial, the jury came back with its verdict that the tenant had breached the lease and that the landlord was entitled to possession. (A Verdict Report appears on page B5.)
Key to the verdict, Brooks said, was the testimony of some of the tenant's upstairs neighbors who described how the excessive second-hand smoke impacted their lives.
While the landlord was successful, however, the defendant tenant's lawyer, Boston attorney James S. Rosencranz, has pledged to appeal.
Rosencrantz told Lawyers Weekly he believed that some of the jury instructions were in error. The tenant's attorney also said he planned to challenge an evidentiary ruling on a letter from a doctor that was allowed into evidence after it was initially blocked by his motion in limine.
"This case is not over," Rosencranz stated.
Legal Nuisance
In granting his client's summary process claim, Brooks commented that the jury's decision may represent the first verdict in which a landlord has been allowed to evict a tenant for smoking, even where it was legal to smoke in the building and the landlord was fully aware of the tenant's smoking.
"The trial judge [Jeffrey M. Winik] said he has never seen such a case before, and we looked at [Northeastern University's Tobacco Control Resource Center] to see if there was a case like this," the landlord's attorney said. "But to my knowledge, I can't find another case like it anywhere."
Brooks said he found cases that discussed marijuana smoking, but there were no "cigarette-only" decisions on point, despite his legal research and "Google" searches.
He said he did find one Superior Court decision by Judge Raymond J. Brassard, who ruled in a landlord-tenant dispute that smoking three to six cigarettes was not a nuisance — but it was not an eviction proceeding.
Without any specific precedent to rely on, Brooks said that the lease clause prohibiting tenants from creating a "nuisance" was his strongest argument.
Smoking Complaints
In explaining his version of the facts, Brooks said that the defendant tenant, Erin Carey, rented a condominium unit from his client, Harwood Capital Corp., at the Dockside Place Condominium near Fort Point Channel in Boston. Carey shared the unit with one other tenant, and they both worked out of the unit as well.
The landlord's lawyer said he estimated the pair smoked about 40 to 60 cigarettes a day.
"They were heavy smokers ... and the tenants on either side of them and upstairs couldn't take it anymore," Brooks explained. "So they came to the landlord, my client, to get them out."
He said that a number of neighboring tenants later testified at trial about how the second-hand smoke was interfering with their lives.
"One tenant above had to move out of her apartment on occasion," Brooks noted, adding that another upstairs tenant with a 4-month-old baby also expressed concern for the health of her child.
In contrast to what he said was effective testimony by the abutting unit occupants, Brooks added that the defendant "came across like, 'It's my home, and I'll do what I want.'"
But Rosencranz, the defendant's lawyer, said he had a different take on the case and he questioned both the motives behind the eviction — money, he argued — and the reasons for the abutting occupants' complaints.
"Nobody ever saw smoke," he said, noting that one neighbor complained of the smell of smoke when he turned on the air conditioner or heat, while another complained that there was an odor of smoke under her sink.
Indeed, Rosencranz said that problems with the building and HVAC system were the reasons why the other tenants smelled smoke, and yet the landlord never came to inspect the building.
"They want to make this a smoker versus a non-smoker case," he said, "but it really isn't necessarily that at all. It's a case where a landlord didn't get off his rear end to do anything because he was still getting a rent check."
But Brooks said he believed that the defendant tenant did not have enough evidence to support her theory. "It's not enough for a tenant to show cracks. They have to show causation," he said.
Brooks noted that the judge also charged the jury that the sanitary code in Massachusetts did not require a landlord to prevent smoke from escaping a unit. "Liability only attached when you have cracks or holes to allow weather — cold, rain or snow — to come in," Brooks added. "The judge left it for the jury to decide whether there was a defect in the unit."
Possible Appeal
Rosencranz said that the jury charge about the sanitary code would be one of the issues he challenges on appeal. But he also said he planned to appeal the judge's jury charge related to the alleged ventilation system defects.
"This is why [the landlord] got a verdict — because the judge told the jury that if you find this problem was caused by the ventilation system, then that's not the landlord's problem and you have to find for the plaintiff landlord," Rosencranz said. "Now I ask, if an HVAC system is not a landlord's problem, then whose [problem] is it?"
The defendant's attorney added that he would also challenge an evidentiary ruling that allowed a letter from one of the neighbor's doctors, which explained the harmful effects of second-hand smoke.
Rosencranz explained that he had filed a motion in limine to keep it out because it was just a general, "to-whom-it-may-concern" letter written by a doctor who had known the neighbor for a number of years and had just performed an annual physical.
"The doctor never saw any problem and the doctor never treated any problem," he said.
His motion in limine was allowed, but Rosencranz said that when Brooks brought it up at trial the next day, the judge said that the defendant's attorney could use it to cross-examine the neighbor, so he did. But by doing that, the judge then allowed Brooks to admit it into evidence.
"The whole scenario didn't make sense," Rosencranz remarked.
But Brooks countered that the "back door" admission of the letter was appropriate under evidentiary rules.
"Be careful what you use on cross," Brooks said. "If you use it to impeach, the other side can admit it in evidence."
Questions or comments may be directed to the writer at jason.scally@lawyersweekly.com.
© 2005 Lawyers Weekly Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Homeowners: How to Obtain a copy of your C.L.U.E Report....

2005-02-16T09:55:00.000-08:00

C.L.U.E. is the "Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange" database of insurance claims of private property. You can obtain a copy of your CLUE report via the link above.
Why would you want to obtain a CLUE Report? Well, some homeowners have found that when they have called their insurance agent to ask if a particular claim would be covered (and even thought they did not put in a claim, the information was nevertheless reported in their claims history in the CLUE database.
CLUE reports are used by underwriters to assign surcharges and rates based upon your claims history. Many times homeowners are suprised to see the information the insurance industry is collecting. -KMG

Fed Raises Rates by a quarter of a point......

2004-11-10T12:19:00.000-08:00

Rates are creeping up....Click on the Link above for the full story of the action the Fed took today.-KMG

ATTN LANDLORDS:West Chester Rental and Inspections: PA Supreme Court declines to hear West Chester's appeal.

2004-11-10T10:05:00.000-08:00

For the story, click on the link above.-KMG

ATTENTION VOTERS: Absentee Ballot Instructions

2004-10-12T05:19:00.000-07:00

Deadline is approaching! Exercise your Right to Vote

Absentee Ballot Application Deadlines for Registered Voters

Except for military electors and civilian electors who make an emergency application for absentee ballot, an absentee ballot application must be completed, signed by the elector, and received by the county board of elections no later than 5:00 P.M. on the Tuesday before Election Day.

Who may Vote by Absentee Ballot?

The following qualified electors who (unless otherwise indicated) are registered to vote are eligible to vote for any office in any election by absentee ballot:

An individual who is or may be in the military service of the United States, regardless of whether at the time of voting the military elector is present in the election district of residence or in the Commonwealth and regardless of whether the elector is registered to vote.
A spouse or dependent residing with or accompanying a person in the military service of the United States and who expects on Election Day to be absent from his/her municipality of residence during the entire period in which the polling places are open for voting (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M.).
A member of the Merchant Marine, and his/her spouse and dependents residing with or accompanying the Merchant Marine, who expect on Election Day to be absent from the Commonwealth or the municipality of residence during the entire period in which the polling places are open for voting (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M).
A member of a religious or welfare group attached to and serving with the armed forces, and his/her spouse and dependents residing with or accompanying him or her, who expect on Election Day to be absent from the Commonwealth or the municipality of residence during the entire period in which the polling places are open for voting (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M).
An individual who, because of the elector's duties, occupation or business (including leaves of absence for teaching, vacations, and sabbatical leaves), expects on Election Day to be absent from his/her municipality of residence during the entire period the polls are open for voting, and the spouse and dependents of such electors who are residing with or accompanying the elector and for that reason also expect to be absent from his/her municipality during the entire period the polls are open for voting (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M).
A qualified war veteran elector who is bedridden or hospitalized due to illness or physical disability if the elector is absent from the municipality of his residence and unable to attend his/her polling place because of such illness or disability, regardless of whether the elector is registered to vote.
A person who, because of illness or physical disability, is unable to attend his/her polling place or to operate a voting machine and obtain assistance by distinct and audible statements. (Note: A disabled elector may be placed on a permanently disabled absentee file).
A spouse or dependent accompanying a person employed by the Commonwealth or the Federal Government, in the event that the employee's duties, occupation or business on Election Day require him/her to be absent from the Commonwealth or the municipality of residence during the entire period the polls are open for voting (7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M).
A county employee who expects that his Election Day duties relating to the conduct of the election will prevent the employee from voting.
A person who will not attend a polling place on Election Day because of the observance of a religious holiday. -Pennsylvania Department of State
-KMG

BEWARE: Counting on Float ...could sink your financial boat!

2004-10-06T07:20:00.000-07:00

If you are in the habit of writing checks and relying on the float in your account to cover you READ ON! As of October 28, 2004, you will no longer be able to rely on float. If you are like most people you probably trashed that fine print Notice you received from your Bank. Use the Link above to get up to date information regarding CHECK 21.-KMG

Small, Self Employed in Construction?

2004-09-28T08:29:00.000-07:00

The Internal Revenue service has guidelines for you. The link above will direct you to an 80 Page booklet of information just for you and the tax issues and questions you have.-KMG

Landlord Alert! S.B.689 could hurt you...

2004-09-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports:

Posted on Tue, Sep. 14, 2004

Pulling plug on consumer rights

Utilities are urging lawmakers to scale back laws that protect customers.

By Edward F. Lynch Jr.

The electric, gas and water utility companies of Pennsylvania are planning a surprise for their current and prospective customers this autumn. They are pushing state legislators to scale back consumer-protection laws that have been enacted over the last 30 years.

Their wish list includes:

Redefining an applicant for utility service as "a person who applies for residential service provided by a public utility and all adult occupants of that person's household." In plain English, all persons living in a household, including those not applying for or authorizing the service, would be liable for the debt.

Requiring applicants to provide the names of all adult household members and proof of their identities as a condition of service.

Allowing the utility companies to require cash security deposits equal to two months' estimated annual bills before or as a condition of providing service. Deposits would be held for up to 24 months until a timely payment history was established.

Permitting utility companies to terminate service for unpaid bills based on estimated readings, rather than actual meter readings. Customers often dispute charges based on estimated readings, leaving unpaid or partially paid bills.

Allowing Philadelphia Gas Works to seek liens against landlords whose tenants default on their own individually metered gas bills - even though the landlord had never contracted to be either primarily or secondarily liable for those tenants' gas service. (EMPHASIS ADDED-KMG)
These measures would be just the beginning. If you were a low-income customer who became delinquent, there would be numerous draconian measures that would affect the health and safety of you and your family.

Under current regulations, for example, a utility is not permitted to terminate heat-related service during the winter months to any household containing children under 12, seniors 60 or older, physically or mentally handicapped residents, or people with medical conditions. The utilities want to abolish these safeguards and permit terminations for unpaid bills - without prior Public Utility Commission (PUC) authorization - during cold weather to any household with an income above 150 percent of the federal poverty level. (The federal poverty level is $18,661.50 for a family of four.)

A single senior citizen living on a fixed annual income of $13,965, for instance, could face shutoff for being $1 over their 150 percent threshold. Many of the working poor and households trying to make the transition from welfare to work have difficulty meeting all their financial obligations and often have incomes slightly above the 150 percent. Many social service agencies and even some government agencies consider households with incomes up to 200 percent to be poor.

People who are sick or have a medical emergency have not been left out. The utility companies want to abolish procedures in place to protect persons with medical conditions or who are seriously ill from the harm that could result from service termination.

Under existing procedures, when utility service is still on, a temporary hold on termination can be obtained orally by the customer subject to subsequent telephone confirmation by the customer's doctor. When service is off, action to begin restoration of service may be initiated by a telephone call to the utility from the customer's physician.

The utilities want to replace these procedures with a cumbersome approach that would require the affected customer to first obtain a letter confirming the illness or condition from his or her physician and then to forward it to the utility. Only then, most likely several days later, would termination be stayed or service restored.

This bill has serious repercussions not only for the poor and indigent but also for everyday customers. Furthermore, if you have a dispute with your utility company and wish to file a formal grievance with the PUC, the state's regulatory body, you would be required to pay a $40 filing fee. Currently, no fee is required. If a fee is instituted, there is no provision to waive it for poor customers.

These deplorable provisions were passed in the waning hours before the July Fourth recess by the House of Representatives. Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed and the Senate version of this bill, S.B. 689, was defeated.

The utility companies, utility trade organizations, and their allies will try to resurrect this bill when the General Assembly returns to Harrisburg on Sept. 20. This bill passed the House without public hearings and with very little debate. I urge all utility-service customers to implore their state legislators not to let S.B. 689 reach Gov. Rendell's desk. But if it does, I trust that he will make the right choice for the citizens of Pennsylvania and veto it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edward F. Lynch Jr. is executive director of the Utility Emergency Services Fund (http://uesfacts.org), a nonprofit that helps low-income Philadelphians maintain vital utility services.

ATTN: Commercial Landlords-light at the end of the tunnel??

2004-09-18T12:34:00.000-07:00

Realtor Magazine Online reports:

Bankruptcy No Longer Sure Way Out of Office Lease

(September 16, 2004) -- In recent years, a number of companies with more office space than they need, at rental rates higher than current market rates, have threatened to file for bankruptcy to be released from lease obligations.

A recent bankruptcy-court decision, however, could end up giving landlords more leverage in negotiating with tenants seeking to get out of leases. A judge for the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Liberate Technology's Inc.'s Chapter 11 petition, ruling that the firm was in a good enough financial position to solve its own problems.

To cut costs prior to filling its bankruptcy petition earlier this spring, the company vacated its almost 181,000-square-foot headquarters and leased just over 15,000 sq. ft. of space in another building. The move slashed its rent from $683,823 per month to $26,269.

Former landlord Circle Star Center Associates LP filed a motion in June to dismiss Liberate's Chapter 11 case. Attorney Ivan Gold speculates that the subsequent ruling "may inspire more landlords in large-stake transactions to take a tougher line" toward wayward tenants.

Source: Wall Street Journal (09/15/04); Muto, Sheila

IRS Final Rule on Sale of Principal Residence

2004-09-07T09:05:00.000-07:00

To view the Final Rules on Reduced Maximum Exclusion of Gain from Sale or Exchange of Principal Residence issued by the IRS please click on the link above.-KMG

UPSET TAX SALES-Chester County

2004-08-28T14:27:00.000-07:00

Chester County Upset Tax Sales will be held on Monday, September 27, 2004 at 9:30 a.m. at Chester Ciunty Courthouse, High and Market Streets, West Chester, PA
REMINDER: BUYERS: If you buy at the Upset tax sale you takes subject to any liens against the property.
REMINDER: HOMEOWNERS: You have until Friday, September 24, 2004 3:30 p.m. to pay delinquent taxes and have your property removed from the sale.-KMG

Interesting Article by Douglas Gantenbein

2004-08-28T14:16:00.000-07:00

Realty Bites
Why do you still need an agent to buy a home?
By Douglas Gantenbein Posted Monday, Aug. 16, 2004, at 6:47 AM PT

Listen to this story on NPR's Day to Day.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," a character in a Shakespeare play famously remarks.
I have a different suggestion: Make it realtors.
Here's why: Americans will spend about $1.14 trillion buying 6 million homes this year—both records. Yet the flat commissions paid to the realtors who handle the vast majority of those sales, averaging 5.1 percent, act as an enormous tax on the transaction process, taking wealth from both buyers and sellers in what for both is often the biggest financial transaction of their lives. It's true that selling a house is a complex task. But so is writing a will, and an attorney doesn't ask for 5 percent or 6 percent of your net worth as compensation.
And what do Americans receive in exchange for that commission, which can total up to $24,000 on a $400,000 home? In many cases, not much. A realtor's license can be had after as little as 50 or 60 hours of training (the person who cuts your hair probably has 1,000 hours or more). I've dealt with a half-dozen realtors during the past seven years, while selling two homes and buying three others. Last year, for instance, we sold a home in the $500,000 price range in the town of Newcastle, east of Seattle. It wasn't a perfect home—a typical suburban place with too much garage, not enough yard—but a very nice one, including a full theater room and a fantastic home office. We wanted to sell to make a move to Port Townsend, a little town in the northwest corner of Washington. One realtor we used to sell it was utterly incapable of articulating how our house differed from nearby, newer ones that basically were thrown up overnight and had cheap interior finishings. Another was clueless as to how to market a house in our price range, printing a cheap single-sheet black-and-white information flyer. (Our experiences were generally better on the buy side, except for one seller's agent who sought to discredit a skilled building inspector we hired who found that the foundation of a circa-1880 home was a rat's nest of rotting wood, faulty concrete, falling insulation and, well, rats' nests.)
But the real knock on realtors is a bit of simple economics that many people don't understand. Whether you're buying or selling, they rarely work in your interest. For the buyer, a realtor may seem like a dream—a "free" home-finding chauffeur, who then negotiates the best possible price. But the service isn't free—the sellers have likely factored the buyer's agent's 2.5 percent or 3 percent of the take into their price. Moreover, it's in the buyer's agent's interest to have you pay the most that you're willing to pay. After all, the higher the price, the larger their commission.
What about the sellers? They know only too well the service isn't free—they're stuck paying the commission for their own agent plus the buyer's. But "their" agent really isn't interested in seeing the seller get the best possible price. Instead, that agent's incentives favor a quick sell, at any price. Look at it this way: Let's say you've listed your home for $290,000, and you owe $150,000 of that to the bank, leaving you with $140,000 in equity. The home may well sell for that $290,000—in a few months. But if the agent can persuade you to sell it for $270,000 in a few weeks, he is better off having forgone only $500 or $600 in commission while saving a great deal of time, energy, and uncertainty. That deal, though, will cost you $20,000 in equity. When we sold the Newcastle house, in fact, "our" agent actively worked against us in the final stages of the transaction, doing more than the buyer's agent to knock down our price.
All of this was supposed to change with the Internet, which essentially put travel agents out of business and stood stock brokerages on their heads. And it's true that nearly everyone with Web access does at least some shopping via the Internet when looking for a home. But the basic real-estate transaction model remains utterly unchanged from what it was 50 years ago: Homes are listed on a regional Multiple Listing Service, largely controlled by local realtors. Virtually all of those homes have a listing agent, and when buyers finally get around to shopping they'll almost inevitably have an agent drive them around. And in the end, the seller will lose as much as 7 percent of their selling price in commission. True, as I mentioned, the average commission today is 5.1 percent, which is down from the 5.5 percent average of a few years ago. But since 2000 home prices also have risen by 20 to 30 percent nearly everywhere in the nation—in California, by that much just in the past year—and agents' commissions have of course risen, too. Moreover, the Web seems to have done next to nothing to make the real-estate industry more efficient. The average realtor today sells about six homes a year—a figure unchanged from a decade ago. About 1 million homes are sold by their owners each year, a figure that is inching up with help from the Web.
Why the fossilization? Mostly, it's because of the power of the National Association of Realtors, which protects its members' turf like a crazed wolverine defends its offspring. The organization has defeated efforts by some of the nation's biggest banks and even Microsoft to start their own real-estate listings, and have largely protected the sanctity of the Multiple Listing Service, enabling regular folks to scan bare-bones listing on the Web, but keeping most of the good info for themselves. Overall, the NAR has ensured that nearly all residential real-estate transactions still are conducted between two agents in cahoots. And they're largely responsible for keeping commissions close to that 6 percent level when any normal law of competition would suggest they'd be lower.
Now the NAR is taking aim at what many realtors see as a genuine threat: the growing numbers of "discount" brokerages. One of the most prominent is ZipRealty Inc., which was founded in 1999 and currently is planning an IPO. ZipRealty lists homes on its own site as well as the Multiple Listing Service, offering sellers a 25 percent discount on commissions while still paying buyer's agents their full commission. It also extends rebates of 20 percent of the commission to buyers who come directly to ZipRealty. This knocks the total commission into the 3 percent range and attempts to completely unwind buyers from their agents.
But ZipRealty's efforts to drive down commissions and even eliminate the buyer's agent have drawn the NAR's ire. Early next year the NAR plans to implement new rules that would allow local brokerages to bar their listings on ZipRealty's site, a move that strikes directly at ZipRealty's model. The NAR also wants to prevent online brokerage sites from funneling customers to agents in exchange for a fee. That targets upstarts such as LendingTree, which uses the Web to match customers and agents, then rebates to customers part of the fee it collects from brokers. The NAR's moves have gained the attention of the Department of Justice's antitrust folks, and have been delayed twice already.
I'd like to see a strictly FSBO (For Sale by Owner) world. After all, escrow companies and home inspectors already do much of the heavy lifting in a real-estate transaction and add more value than most realtors while working for a flat fee. The Internet, meanwhile, provides a perfect forum for buyers and sellers to meet, just as eBay has transformed the marketplace for everything from lace doilies to Ford F250s. I understand that isn't going to happen anytime soon. Selling a home is indeed a hassle, and realtors at least offer the promise of one-stop shopping. And there's the issue of showing homes—realtors perform the legitimate service of vetting buyers and safeguarding a seller's property. Out-of-towners can benefit from a local realtor's expertise. And I've heard from sellers who have had agents who really "got" how to market a home, probably earning their commission and more.
Still, I'm hoping that upstarts such as ZipRealty, LendingTree, Foxtons (a discount broker in the Northeast), and Catalist (a California discounter) will soon blow away the traditional realty transaction model like they're Puerto Rico playing the U.S. men's basketball team, dropping total commissions on a house sale to 3 percent, or even 2, while still offering the services people seem to desire from a realtor. Certainly, most people realize that a 6 percent commission—or even 5 percent—is nuts, given that e-mail alerts, Web-based home tours, and other services can easily give buyers and sellers as much information as their realtors. It will be a painful change for the 1 million real-estate agents out there—alas, a number that is growing rapidly. But a little Darwinism is needed to thin out the herd, and when it happens it won't give me much grief.
Douglas Gantenbein is the Seattle correspondent for the Economist.

July Sheriff Sales in Chester County PA

2004-07-06T14:38:00.000-07:00

The next Sheriff Sale will be held on July 16, 2004 at 11:00AM
Click on the link for more info.-KMG

June 2004 Chester County Sales Activity

2004-07-06T14:28:00.000-07:00

According to TReND:

3,486 properties were sold in Chester County, Year to Date as of the end of June, 2004. Last year for the same period 3,207 properties were sold.

Median days on market this year is running 21 days opposed to 26 days last year.

This year the Median sold price in Chester County as June 2004 is $265,000.00. The Median sold price for the corresponding period last year was $233,000.00 There are currently 4,330 properties listed for sale with TRend. -KMG

What to do with left over building materials.....

2004-06-20T10:19:00.000-07:00

For all you "Do it Yourselfer's" out there who always seem to end up with excess building materials, Habitat for Humanity has a Re-Store! Storing all that stuff can get to be a project of its own and soon your garage begins to look like a Home Depot. Habitat for Humanity will accept donations of building materials.

Benefits the environment, the building industry, and the community
ReStore
Caln Plaza
1853 E. Lincoln Highway
Coatesville, PA 19320
610-466-1890
hfhccrestore@aol.com

Hours: Tuesday to Friday, 9-6; Saturday, 10-3
FOR MORE INFORMATION CLISK ON THE LINK ABOVE. -KMG

Chester County Sheriff Sales

2004-06-11T14:07:00.000-07:00

The next Chester County Sheriff Sale of Real Estate will be held on June 18, 2004 at 11:00 am in the Chester County CourtHouse Annex. You can obtain a list by clicking on the link above. -KMG

Southern Chester County Investment Group

2004-06-11T07:37:00.000-07:00

The SSCIG will meet on June 15, at 7:30 at the New Garden Grill in the New Garden Shopping Center in Kennett Square. All are invited. This month's speaker will be Robin Batnar from Chester County Housing Authority. For more information you can visit use the link above. Click on the Link, scroll down to Chester County Investment Properties and click on WWW. EdJenks.com. Ed will be happy to answer any questions you have regarding the group. Investment groups are a great way for new investors to learn the business of real estate investing. Hope to see you there! -KMG

Welcome to GantzLawBlog!

2004-06-10T15:23:00.000-07:00

Thank you for visting our blog. We hope you find GantzLawBlog interesting and entertaining. Happy reading!-KMG