BBM
Just wondering out loud, but I wonder if both can be true. IF the lease was signed by Casey (crazy thought, I know, but bear with me), but George was a co-signer, it could be reasoned that George did "get" the condo for her because realistically speaking, she has no wherewithal whatsoever to obtain housing on her own. Yet with his signature, he IS providing it as there is no good reason to lease to someone with no job, no assets, etc.
I do know a person who did co-sign a lease for a person who had been convicted of a felony, had no assets, and had just started a job after being unemployed for quite some time, so I know that can happen. It was also done to help the person re-establish credit and get back to being a productive member of society. So I can see this as a possibility.
It would also make sense to me that she would list the realtor in her BK because IF she did sign the lease, she is the principle party on the hook for the money, not George. I'm not real familiar with how things work in BK, and if this is the case, I'm not clear if the BK judge would allow the realtor's money to be included in the BK if George did in fact co-sign the lease.
Like I said, just thinking out loud. :twocents: :moo: