The appropriate "logical avenue" would be to sue the former company and the owners. Allowing a company to default, by "re-organizing" and promising payment in 2009, and continuing to do their work is incomprehensible to me. In my opinion, "re-organizing" to escape debts is fraud.
By allowing them to continue to work in the industry you are preventing "good" clients who "do" pay their abstractors from getting that work and providing a steady stream of revenue to hard-working abstractors. There are good companies out there that are more deserving of the work. The work won't go away if this company goes under - it will just go to reputable companies that we can be happy to work for.
Its like a tax foreclosure - the purpose is to get the home into the hands of a productive homeowner that will pay their taxes. Same with this client - get their work back into the hands of a client that will actually pay their abstractors.
If this company couldn't do that, what makes you think they will be around to make good on their promise in 2009? They are stringing you along and they have already shown that they know how to "re-organize" to escape paying their debts once - will you be so cooperative when they do it again in 2009 owing more abstractors more money?
Just my $0.02!
Robert A. Franco
SOURCE OF TITLE
to post a reply:
login - or -
register