R
RayToddJr
I am posting in hopes of getting some ideas/insights into how to property
set-up the table to get the correct information out of it. I will only post
the relevant fields.
taDEFENDANTS
DefendantID (PK) (Auto)
CLT (FK) (Long)
DefendantNameID (FK) (Long) to table taDEFENDANTS
TrusteeID (FK) (Long) to table taDEFENDANTS_1
DefendantTypeID (FK) (Long) to table taDEFENDANTTYPE
I have the above table set up in this fashion because of the following
reasons:
Some defendants are banks that have Trust Deeds on properties. Those Trust
Deeds have the Bank as the Beneficiary of the Document and the Property
Owners are granting a property interest to the Trustee. As a result, both
the bank and the trustee each now have an interest in the property.
The Problem I am having:
When I am trying to set up a table for the Service of Process on these
defendants, I am having a hard time dealing with each the Defendant and the
Trustee (If there is one). In essence, I am putting two defendants on the
same row/DefendantID.
The primary I set the table up this way is that there are some reports that
must be submitted to the court that require a listing of the encumbrances
that are found on a property. Each line in the report should represent a
single Trust Deed which would include the Trustee’s Name (if any).
The report, as an example should look like:
Lien Holder Name Date Lien Amount Document Type Instr Number
Trustee
Big City Bank 01/01/1900 $5,000.00 Trust Deed
2009100801 Bob Jim
The Question:
How do I maintain two separate entries in the Defendant table for the same
loan but link those two names together in a single row of information.
My Correction Thought:
My thinking on how to correct his is two fold, leave the table set-up as is.
However, When I enter the Bank as a Defendant, I would also enter the
Trustee Name. However, I would immediately enter the Trustee as a Defendant
in his own right as a separate entry. When I generate the above report I
would change the query to not include Defendants where the
DefendantType=Trustee? However, this seems to be double entry and a waste of
energy and time.
I am open to other suggestions on how to properly adjust my tables to make
this work.
Thanks,
Ray.
set-up the table to get the correct information out of it. I will only post
the relevant fields.
taDEFENDANTS
DefendantID (PK) (Auto)
CLT (FK) (Long)
DefendantNameID (FK) (Long) to table taDEFENDANTS
TrusteeID (FK) (Long) to table taDEFENDANTS_1
DefendantTypeID (FK) (Long) to table taDEFENDANTTYPE
I have the above table set up in this fashion because of the following
reasons:
Some defendants are banks that have Trust Deeds on properties. Those Trust
Deeds have the Bank as the Beneficiary of the Document and the Property
Owners are granting a property interest to the Trustee. As a result, both
the bank and the trustee each now have an interest in the property.
The Problem I am having:
When I am trying to set up a table for the Service of Process on these
defendants, I am having a hard time dealing with each the Defendant and the
Trustee (If there is one). In essence, I am putting two defendants on the
same row/DefendantID.
The primary I set the table up this way is that there are some reports that
must be submitted to the court that require a listing of the encumbrances
that are found on a property. Each line in the report should represent a
single Trust Deed which would include the Trustee’s Name (if any).
The report, as an example should look like:
Lien Holder Name Date Lien Amount Document Type Instr Number
Trustee
Big City Bank 01/01/1900 $5,000.00 Trust Deed
2009100801 Bob Jim
The Question:
How do I maintain two separate entries in the Defendant table for the same
loan but link those two names together in a single row of information.
My Correction Thought:
My thinking on how to correct his is two fold, leave the table set-up as is.
However, When I enter the Bank as a Defendant, I would also enter the
Trustee Name. However, I would immediately enter the Trustee as a Defendant
in his own right as a separate entry. When I generate the above report I
would change the query to not include Defendants where the
DefendantType=Trustee? However, this seems to be double entry and a waste of
energy and time.
I am open to other suggestions on how to properly adjust my tables to make
this work.
Thanks,
Ray.