Latest news with #MikeMoon
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Yahoo
Colorado landlord shocked after police raid his property — turns out tenants were using it as an illegal club
Mike Moon got quite the shock when he found out what his tenants were really doing in his rental property. In late April, more than 300 law enforcement officers — from around 10 federal agencies — zeroed in on Moon's property in the wee hours of the morning. During the raid, officers seized cocaine, pink cocaine and meth. They also detained over 100 people and arrested two people on existing warrants. DEA Special Agent in Charge Jonathan Pullen told reporters at Denver7 that many of the folks they detained will face federal immigration charges. The Drug Enforcement Administration claims the property was being used as a nightclub illegally. Additionally, it is now linked to gang activity, drug trafficking, violence and prostitution. Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now become a landlord for as little as $100 — and no, you don't have to deal with tenants or fix freezers. Here's how I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast) Nervous about the stock market in 2025? Find out how you can access this $1B private real estate fund (with as little as $10) 'They were supposed to be out of here by the end of this month,' Moon told reporters. He also expressed shock and said he feels dumbfounded after learning what his former tenants did on the property. Moon said that the contract on the lease specified that the space was to be used for events like weddings, quinceaneras and birthdays. The lease has strict terms, and tenants weren't allowed to serve alcohol on the property. Additionally, the lease was about to expire, and Moon said that he had been planning a renovation conversion project for the past 18 months. When asked about the fact that tenants let this activity take place, Moon told reporters that he was shocked considering 'the political environment and all the news that's happening around the country that they thought that this was even a wise idea to do something illegal like this.' Landlords have legal protections in Colorado, as tenants do. According to state statutes, tenants need to adhere to any lease agreements set by the landlord, assuming it doesn't break any type of fair housing laws. For example, if a tenant 'commits a material violation of the rental agreement,' the landlord has the right to evict them. In Moon's case, the tenants used the property for illegal purposes. Plus, they didn't adhere to what the property is to be used for as an event space. Read more: BlackRock CEO Larry Fink has an important message for the next wave of American retirees — here's how he says you can best weather the US retirement crisis In this case, the landlord will most likely need to provide evidence that the tenant is violating the lease agreement. The law stipulates the landlord must give a 'Demand for Compliance or Right to Possession' notice in writing and state a certain timeframe in which to fix the lease violation or to vacate, usually within three business days. However, there are cases where landlords can exercise the 'no fault' law (as opposed to 'for cause'), where they can evict a tenant simply by not renewing the lease. Moon, for example, told the tenants he's taking back the property to convert it for other means. Since the tenants were using the property for illegal activity, Moon may also have a right to evict them or call local authorities. Experts often tell us owning rental properties that cash flow are a sound investment. But this assumes the tenants hold up their end of the agreement, and aren't a nightmare to manage. The best way to protect yourself as a landlord is to be proactive — in other words, before taking on a new tenant. When putting up your rental property, screen tenants judiciously and go on more than simple 'gut instinct'. Review tenant applications carefully and ask for information such as their business license and registration (in the event of renting a property for commercial purposes). Interview the applicants in-person, request references, and background checks. You can also get business credit reports and look at past business tax returns to see if they're able to pay rent. Even if all these pieces are in place, it doesn't mean it's an automatic green light. Working with a real estate or business attorney may be worth the investment when it comes to drafting a lease agreement so you're well-protected in the event you need to evict your tenants. These professionals can help you be clear in your expectations for your tenants, including having them agree to periodic inspections. A well-drafted lease agreement can also protect you and ensure you understand what your responsibilities are as a landlord. Spotting red flags and communicating with the tenant efficiently can help to mitigate any bigger problems down the road. Some of these could include if a tenant is too aggressive in their negotiations, or being vague about the intended use of the property. If any of this sounds like simply too much to manage, you may want to consider investing in rental properties without the responsibility of being a landlord. Want an extra $1,300,000 when you retire? Dave Ramsey says this 7-step plan 'works every single time' to kill debt, get rich in America — and that 'anyone' can do it Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead Robert Kiyosaki warns of a 'Greater Depression' coming to the US — with millions of Americans going poor. But he says these 2 'easy-money' assets will bring in 'great wealth'. How to get in now This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Sweeping Missouri child welfare bill, including child marriage ban, heads to governor's desk
A view of the Missouri Senate chamber from the visitors gallery (photo courtesy of the Missouri Senate). A sweeping child welfare bill that would ban child marriage and prohibit the state from seizing foster children's Social Security benefits is headed to the governor's desk, after the Missouri Senate gave it final approval Tuesday on a 32 to 1 vote. The sole no vote was Republican state Sen. Mike Moon of Ash Grove. The bill garnered little opposition when it cleared the House last week 129 to 14, though a group of Republican lawmakers condemned the provision making it illegal for anyone under 18 years old to marry. 'There are legitimate reasons for people 16, 17 to become married,' said state Rep. Dean van Schoiack, a Savannah Republican, who was also vocal in his opposition to the idea last year. 'A pregnancy could be a legitimate reason to become married, for one thing.' He said he knows many couples who were married at 16 or 17 who are still together. State Rep. Hardy Billington, a Poplar Bluff Republican, said 'more babies will die' if the bill passes. 'People at 16, 17 years old will have more abortions because they can't get married,' he said. Both Billington and Van Schoiack left the House chamber during a roll call on the legislation, and thus did not record a vote. House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, a Kansas City Democrat, said the Platte County recorder of deeds shared with her 'how horrifying his experience is when he has to assist a young woman with a marriage certificate, the look in her eyes when he knows that this is against her will.' She then turned her comments to Van Schoiack. 'And for you to stand up here and advocate for young women to be married off, it is disgusting,' Aune said. 'Honestly, I can't believe it. It's indefensible. I can't believe you would stand up in a microphone and say it out loud.' Under current Missouri law, anyone under 16 is prohibited from getting married. But 16 and 17 year olds can get married with parental consent to anyone under 21. Marriage would be banned for anyone under 18 under the bill that passed Tuesday. There was no discussion before Tuesday's vote, but in 2023 Moon's opposition to the child marriage ban garnered national attention when he said: 'Do you know any kids who have been married at age 12? I do. And guess what? They're still married.' The ban on child marriage almost passed last year but was stalled by a small group of Republican critics. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE The underlying bill, dealing with foster children, was sponsored by Republican state Rep. Melissa Schmidt of Eldridge, and handled by Republican Sen. Jamie Burger. Most of the provisions were added on by other members as amendments. Among its many provisions is a ban on Missouri's social services agency from seizing Social Security benefits from foster kids under the bill that passed. Missouri's child welfare agency takes millions of dollars each year in foster children's benefits and uses the money to help pay for foster care. In fiscal year 2024, the Children's Division spent over $10.6 million in children's benefits. Over 1,200 foster kids were receiving benefits in Missouri of late last year, or just over 10% of all kids in care. As a result, kids who are orphaned or have disabilities are responsible for paying toward the cost of their care in state custody. The bill would ban the state from using those benefits to pay itself back for routine foster care expenses. Instead, the division could use the funds for the child's 'unmet needs' beyond what the division is obligated to pay, such as housing as the child prepares to age out of foster care. The effort to ban the practice won bipartisan support during last year's session and was on the precipice of passing. But it died when GOP infighting forced the state Senate to adjourn early. House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee's Summit Republican, pledged earlier this year that this legislation would be the first bill sent to the Senate, highlighting the issue as legislation that 'should have been passed but fell victim to our inaction and politics.' The bill also voids nondisclosure agreements in childhood sexual abuse cases. And it includes a proposal by Republican state Sen. Travis Fitzwater of Holts Summit that would assign foster children 14 to client-directed attorneys, meaning they would be required to act based on the goals of the children. Currently, foster children have guardians ad litem, who are attorneys tasked with acting in what they view as the child's best interest. The shift, which would be subject to appropriation, goes into effect in 2028 unless a county opts into a pilot judge in each case would still have the discretion to continue the guardian ad litem appointment. The bill also creates a commission appointed by the chief justice of the state Supreme Court to review family legal representation throughout the state, and make recommendations to bolster its uniformity and quality. It would also require the state Department of Social Services to build a program of residential care for youth with severe behavioral challenges currently being held in inappropriate placements, by contracting with qualified service providers. This, too, would likely require funding by the legislature. Other provisions include: Increasing a tax credit for donations to certain youth programs. Clarifying that parents allowing children to engage in appropriate independent activities without supervision would not be considered abuse or neglect. Stating that the state Children's Division cannot hold itself harmless in contracts with private service providers when there are issues resulting from the state's negligence. Requiring Children's Division caseworkers to present identification of themselves when conducting investigations of child abuse and neglect, and inform parents of their rights; Requiring the Children's Division to take into consideration the religion of the foster child when determining placement, in order to ensure children are in households of a similar religion to their families' when practicable. Modifies the Amber Alert system to add that the system aids in finding not only an abducted child but an 'abducted or missing African American youth.' Changing the criminal offense of endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree, by raising the age of a child from 'under 17' to 'under 18.'
