Ok, if the person have a house, there must be a NOTARIZED act of sale signed by parties......
Go and get that document, and read it......the MISTAKE is in there...
Hellossss !!!! :(
So in that ACT, I "MUST" have accepted SURETY somewhere, and accepted to ACCOUNT for it.....BY MISTAKE :D
It is so clearly identified, in the act of sale I have in front of me :D
is it 12 DOCUMENTS AND DISCHARGE: Buyer agrees
to accept Seller�s lawyer�s personal undertaking to obtain, out of the closing funds, a discharge in registrable form and
to register same, or cause same to be registered?
Try to spot Canada Revenu Agency in the ACT of Sale, the one I have in front of me, says:
I agree to acquire this property, under the CRA and QRA income tax act.
:P
How about the Irrevocable Power of Attorney hidden in Mortgage documents? Not sure if they are here on Canada but I wouldn't be surprised.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmfwPghjW_M
I bought that debt back, this year, with good reason to presume i had, somewhere down the road, contracted, by mistake, to be surety for that debt. I have noticed a trend, many mistakes!
Well... I signed a document that says :
"In front of notary (name)"
APPEAR
"the seller company name and blablabla"
AND
"the PERSON WB graphic designer resident (address)..."
So ME made the PERSON APPEAR in front of a NOTARY PUBLIC, PUBLICLY declaring that ME was SURETY for the PERSON ?
The only part in the contract I see that refers to any other act besides the Real Estate act is in a box. The box has the "buyer" named and the "seller" named (with addresses). There is a tiny box which is ticked beside RESIDENT OF CANADA and directly under it says "as defined under the Income Tax Act"
Now that being said, I don't believe I am looking at the notarized act of sale. There is no notary signature. I am looking at the "Contract of Purchase And Sale". Hmmmmm. I may have to contact the notary as this is all I have in my records.
Here, the seller is identified as a resident corporation, but there's NO MENTION of the income tax act...
Then there's the sales tax refund part, the seller being a construction company... I'm confused ?
I'll have to get back at this later on... WB's got clients waiting for him ;)
Yes. It is a little misleading as to WHOM the "description" is applied to. It appears under the "seller". I am THINKING it applies to BOTH the "seller" and "buyer" because ALL the information is in the same box.
We ALL buying these property as PERSONS, and/or Employee, and/or Agent, and/or SLAVES.......
So they have ALL the good reasons in the world that WE ARE what we've SAID we were....
So HOW can we CORRECT the MISTAKE we've made ? , :D
Tom. If one has signed something, without knowing what the causes might be or without knowing what they were indeed signing, could not one rescind their signature?
Why would one need the "other" party's agreement? Now that we are thinking surety was accepted upon the purchase of property, I am not so sure "rescinding" is a good choice. This subject has been a struggle for us (as much as the marriage subject). And we have made some mistakes. We were thinking that by signing as the "homeowner", we were accepting surety. I am sure that is probably true also, but we were not thinking at all about the actual purchase of the property as being where surety was accepted. We have bought the debt now btw.
john scott duncan = a man. A Semi-evolved chimp, that made it this far.
John Scott Duncan = REGISTERED AGENT for the CROWN ORGANIZATION. In order to ACT as AGENT in this CAPACITY you MUST be ACTING AS HER MAJESTY.
JOHN SCOTT DUNCAN = LEGAL NAME, LEGAL ENTITY, REGISTERED CROWN ORGANIZATION. This is where all the ACCOUNTING and SURETY happens. When you use this name, you are ACTING in COMMERCE. When you use this name, there is always a MONETARY VALUE attached to it. Under ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION this would be a "VESSEL".
John Scott, DUNCAN = HER MAJESTY AND AN ORGANIZATION.
:P
When you've SIGNED the Act of Sale, about this house, you haven't read that thing, so now read it, and correct the mistake with whom it may concerns...
Ok Pete Daoust, since I am still working on "catching up" with old threads as well as trying to keep up with current ones.... I have come back to this one with a question.
In my mortgage, I signed a page that states an oath that " The deponent(s) is/are 19 years of age or older and is/are resident(s) in Canada under the Income Tax Act (Canada)."
When I go through the Income Tax Act online, and I try to find a definition for "resident" I cannot find one. I also can't find a definition for Canada.
In the Interpretations Act, Canada is:
� Canada �
�Canada�, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada;
Maxim on includes - is the exclusion of all else right?
Does this mean that Canada is only water and that I have sworn an oath that I am a "resident" of water?
There is a MISTAKE to be fixed. Pete has left me a clue about it. I have to find it (check), then understand it (working on that here and now), then fix it (after understanding).
Please help me Todd Kozinka, because "Sounds like admiralty to me" doesn't give me much to go on. What are you trying to tell me?
They definitely want you to sign as the homeowner to "get that benefit". We have considered signing as the sole authorized administrators, but NOT signing seems the EASIEST way to not create joinder. It means we buy twice as much debt BUT we don't have a problem with the cost as much as we have a problem with handing jurisdiction over.