Quicken ComplaintsFaster complaints
If you read their online forums, they still write checkes as check, can't handle dd-mm-yyyyyy and don't handle importing multiple banking or investment. Accounts is very quaint, and for heaven's sakes, it's a good idea to download each individual banking cart as it can't handle inter-account payments! In IMHO there is a UK store for someone who can come up with a Quicken substitute.
To me it needs to be able to handle my current information en bloc, administer my banking account, allow banking transactions and car reconciliations, make periodic orders and debit entries, as well as variables, equities and equities and ISAs. I' ve tried several since 2004 and still come back to the fact that Quicken XG 2004 does much more, much better, even if the inventory upgrade is now forfeited.
What I found doesn't actually reimport my old stuff - unless I exported it as QIFs. However, then everything that imported the QIF file could not handle all cross-references. I' ve spent over 15 years with Quicken building up a bunch of old dates that I actually relate to from time to time.
Comment on Elsman: A copy of the memorandum annexed to the complaint may be proof before a court.
In its recently published statement in Elsman v. HSBC Bank USA as trustee for MLMI 2006-AF1, slip Op. 5D14-1753, 41 Fla. The Elsman claimant claimed that he was available as the bearer of the certificate in question but that he had omitted to enclose with his appeal a certified copy of the certificate in question or any other proof of his bearer status. However, the Elsman claimant claimed that the Elsman claimant was not available as the bearer of the certificate in question but did not enclose with his appeal a certified copy of the certificate in question or any other proof of his bearer status. the Elsman claimant was not a person who was not the bearer of the certificate.
Since the claimant, HSBC Bank USA, as trustee for MLMI 2006-AF1, was not the designated recipient of the banknote, the Tribunal recognised that HSBC had to prove that the banknote was either particularly approved or barely endorsed. HSBC Bank USA, as trustee for MLMI 2006-AF1, was not the designated recipient of the banknote. Relying on McLean v. JP Morgan Chase Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 79 So. 3d 170, 173 (Fla. 4d DCA 2012), the tribunal further confirmed that the position must have existed at the date of filing of an enforcement action.
Or in other words, the grade had to be specifically endorses for HSBC or endorses blanc when HSBC lodged its suit against Elsman. HSBC did not provide evidence of such confirmation at the filing date of the claim. HSBC's appeal, which attempted to restore a missing grade, contained a copy of Elsman's Schuldschein as an issue without any assistance.
Later HSBC submitted the initial notice to the tribunal, which carried an un-dated Sonderindossament of Quicken Loans to HSBC. Since the copy of the notice annexed to the appeal did not also carry the approval and since the approval of the initial notice was undated, the Fifth DCA noted that this could not demonstrate that the approval was in place at the moment the appeal was lodged.
Consequently, the approval of the initial grade could not substantiate HSBC's claim that it was the owner of the grade and should be excluded at the beginning of the case. Even while HSBC tried to provide other proof of its position in court, the Fifth DCA noted that such proof did not prove that HSBC was the owner of the grade when it instituted the enforcement proceedings.
While HSBC provided a grade attribution of Quicken Loans to HSBC, it post-dated the appeal by six working days and could therefore not show that HSBC was holding the grade on the date the appeal was made. "However, as the Fifth DCA stated, neither of the two documents showed that the memo was accepted by HSBC at the moment of the filing of the appeal and thus did not prove HSBC's position.
The Fifth DCA strongly trusted its statement in Schmidt v. Deutsche Bank, 170 So. 3d 938 (Fla. 5. DCA 2015), where the claimant also neglected to include a confirmed copy of the relevant grade with his claim and did not produce any further supporting documents in court substantiating his position on foreclosure, in the allegation that HSBC was unable to prove.
Remarkably, in Elsman and Schmidt as well as in other recently resolved cases such as Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., slips opt. 4D14-2509, 40 Fla. L. Weekly D2630a, 2015 WL 7568558 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 25, 2015) and Kenney v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 175 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), the court debated the exhibit appended to the appeal along with other "evidence" on the question of origin.
Had the photocopies of the annotations annexed to the complaints in those cases contained annotations similar to those on the originals, the CFI would presumably have found that the claimants had provided compelling and substantive proof that the annotations were in existence at the time the complaints were lodged. In fact, Clay County was the opposite of Elsman, since the claimant enclosed a copy of a memo with Elsman's claim, which was approved without further ado and later submitted the exact same memo to the courthouse.
In the first DCA, which was defined by affixing a copy of the endorse mark to the enforcement action, the claimant proved his entitlement to enforcement as the owner of the mark "as a case". Thus, by matching the copy of the memorandum annexed to the appeal with the originally confirmed memorandum, the Fifth DCA in Elsman has provided further assistance to the view that the copy of a bond of indebtedness annexed to a levy of execution may be used as proof of a plaintiff's status, provided that the copy carries a specific indorsement in favour of the claimant or an empty indorsement also existing on the initial memorandum.
You can read the full statement of the composer here.