|
blarzgh posted:Ooh, these look good. Adding to my list. Same. Is this better than The Expanse?
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
Whitlam posted:What's the most creative defence or grounds for appeal you've ever heard? Oh, another good one; kind of dense though so I'll see if I can simplify. So Husband and Wife divorce in 1999. They have a house, with ~$100k in equity in it, and $100k in debt. Divorce Decree says a buuunch of bullshit, but basically H has 1 calendar year to pay her $50k, whereupon she will give him a deed for her half. The language reads, "Husband shall have The Option to purchase Wife's equity..." and then a 4 paragraph stepping stone of dollar amounts based on other property division. The last paragraph reads, "If husband does not exercise the option to purchase before Nov. 1, 2001, then he shall pay [Maximum Amount] on Nov. 1, 2001, and Wife shall tender deed." So did they do any of this? loving of course not. Fast forward to July, 2017. Ex H calls Ex W and says, "hey how you doin' babe btw here is a check for thta $50k + $25K penalty back 20 years ago send me the deed thx XD!!" Well, by this time, the house is worth a cool $650k now so she says 'uh, let me check with an attorney.' So the question of law comes down to this: "is the division of property in the decree an Option to purchase that he failed to exercise - now they split it 50/50? OR Is it an immutable division of property, and thus he only has to pay her the $50k to net himself $450?" We spent 4 hours in trial, at the bench, plus two conference calls with the judge going back and forth over the language in the decree, and I'll be frank, I still don't 100% know the answer. In the end, the judge ruled against us and said, "He has an option to purchase under parts A, B, C and D. However, Part E probably says that if he didn't do A-D, then he HAS to do E, thus not an option." Which was a real kick in the nuts. Until we mentioned Pre-judgment interest. See, if he wants to enforce the division of property under the decree, then fine - his $75k payment was due on November 1, 2001. And 20 years of simple interest at the 8.5% of the 1999 divorce decree is like $125,000.00. Plus the $75,000.00 he owed. She wound up getting about 90% of what she would have gotten if he'd just split it 50/50. And we saw his attorneys fees for the case, which were more than the loving equity he got out of it; literally almost 8 times more than we spent. He loving lost money on the whole deal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Same. Red Rising is better than the Expanse - I got annoyed with the Expanse by the 4th book, but I'll be goddamned if I'm not going to stick it out when the last one comes out in the spring. I'm too invested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Red Rising is better than the Expanse - I got annoyed with the Expanse by the 4th book, but I'll be goddamned if I'm not going to stick it out when the last one comes out in the spring. I'm too invested. I was done after Book 3, but I love the show. It’s much better on screen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:I was done after Book 3, but I love the show. It�s much better on screen. Eh, I'm all caught up on the books. I found them just fine, based on the principle of everything's edible if you have no taste. First day of moose hunting today, total tally 350 kilos of butcherweight moose. Pretty great first day, I have to say. Kinda wish I was shooting, but the senior guys get to do that and the scrubs like me drive game. All I could think about today is a suit I need to draft. There's no rush other than the rear end in a top hat client blowing up my phone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:And 20 years of simple interest at the 8.5% of the 1999 divorce decree is like $125,000.00. Plus the $75,000.00 he owed. I’d say this was the best family law outcome I’ve heard but it may also be the only good family law outcome I’ve heard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:22
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:I’d say this was the best family law outcome I’ve heard but it may also be the only good family law outcome I’ve heard. Its only good if you ignore all the bad stuff I didn't mention 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:We spent 4 hours in trial, at the bench, plus two conference calls with the judge going back and forth over the language in the decree, and I'll be frank, I still don't 100% know the answer. In the end, the judge ruled against us and said, "He has an option to purchase under parts A, B, C and D. However, Part E probably says that if he didn't do A-D, then he HAS to do E, thus not an option." Which was a real kick in the nuts. i don't see why he's not barred by estoppel or laches here. "i don't care what this says, you sat on this for 20 years so get the gently caress out of my courtroom" seems like an ideal way for a judge to make a headache go away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
I think it's more, she failed to execute on the final judgment and he failed to tender, so he had to satisfy the judgment now with interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Its only good if you ignore all the bad stuff I didn't mention Aaand that’s why my optimism was cautious at best. Family law: never again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
“My conviction was illegal because my lawyer was ineffective. I was accused of kid diddling over a ten year period. I had an alibi! My lawyer failed to present that alibi. That alibi was that for 9 months of that time period (which do not include the only two actual dates the victims remembered) I was incarcerated. For kid diddling. My lawyer should have let the jury know I was a convicted kid diddler.” In other news... does anyone else get irately angry when people don’t know the difference between declarative and imperative for purposes of hearsay analysis? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In other news... does anyone else get irately angry when people don’t know the difference between declarative and imperative for purposes of hearsay analysis?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
We had a guy on domestic violence diversion program, which included a provision for 'no drinking alcohol', appear on a local commercial in which he's at a bar drinking a beer and saying how it tastes better than the competitor's beer. Probation office dings him, he comes in and tells the judge that it was fake beer. She says 'oh so you're lying to the public about how much better X beer tastes?' and then gives him a slap on the wrist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 02:04
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:We had a guy on domestic violence diversion program, which included a provision for 'no drinking alcohol', appear on a local commercial in which he's at a bar drinking a beer and saying how it tastes better than the competitor's beer. FAIR
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't see why he's not barred by estoppel or laches here. "i don't care what this says, you sat on this for 20 years so get the gently caress out of my courtroom" seems like an ideal way for a judge to make a headache go away. At first blush yes, but the house was still owned 50/50 so what, they can never sell it? She never gets her money out of it? It's what HDD said, so it came down to the question of whether it was an option to divide the property, which one or both parties waived, or if the division occurred in , and per the terms of, the decree and it just took them 20 loving years to get around to it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Hearing those words, I get the distinction and why it matters for hearsay, but I haven't heard those terms used in hearsay analysis. Yeah. Not using the terms either. Just the concept. Hearsay. Out of court statement for the truth of the matter asserted. “No, Billy! No!” There is no truth being asserted. There’s no need to do a hearsay exception analysis. Judge let it in as excited utterance. So meh. But still. Not. Hearsay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 12:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't see why he's not barred by estoppel or laches here. "i don't care what this says, you sat on this for 20 years so get the gently caress out of my courtroom" seems like an ideal way for a judge to make a headache go away. I love laches. I’ve recently gotten the habeas courts to start recognizing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:We had a guy on domestic violence diversion program, which included a provision for 'no drinking alcohol', appear on a local commercial in which he's at a bar drinking a beer and saying how it tastes better than the competitor's beer. We had a guy on probation for drug possession who appeared on a local news "man on the street" segment about a voter initiative that was going to make (among other things) drug possession a misdemeanor rather than a felony. He was in favor of the initiative, then added that marijuana should be legalized, and then went on to say that in fact, he had smoked marijuana that very day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 13:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:At first blush yes, but the house was still owned 50/50 so what, they can never sell it? She never gets her money out of it? adverse possession of the entire house, she's lived there twenty years under a belief she held full title to the property, paying all the taxes and such (i assume) 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:adverse possession of the entire house, she's lived there twenty years under a belief she held full title to the property, paying all the taxes and such (i assume) He lived there, not her. Also, you can't adversely possess property unless your possession is "adverse", i.e. in contrast to your rights under color of title - it's not "adverse" if you actually have the legal right to be there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:He lived there, not her. Also, you can't adversely possess property unless your possession is "adverse", i.e. in contrast to your rights under color of title - it's not "adverse" if you actually have the legal right to be there. oh gotcha, so the issue is basically he stiffed her for twenty years and then realized he'd better get around to paying her so he could sell the house? also i think that excluding the other joint owner could be adverse possession in certain circumstances, where you changed the locks, denied them their right to be there, acted as if you held sole title to the property, etc. but that's all moot if he was the one living there. he shoulda made that argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:39
|
|
Selachian posted:Pros and the goons in the thread asked me to keep posting the "good" ones here and telling them your responses
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:We had a guy on domestic violence diversion program, which included a provision for 'no drinking alcohol', appear on a local commercial in which he's at a bar drinking a beer and saying how it tastes better than the competitor's beer. What a doofus. On an unrelated note, what the hell time do you have to wake up to watch NFL games?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 22:05
|
|
|
Also abugadu people are talking about your civil war letters in the TFF NFL N/V thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 22:16
|
|
|
Haha, that's what clued me too. For whatever reason this thread feels like a completely different forum than the rest of SA so I get a worlds colliding feeling when I see a lawgoon posting elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
Are you having a stroke
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 02:05
|
|
blarzgh posted:Are you having a stroke No, that's Day by Day.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:What a doofus. The early games start around 3AM Monday, we just DVR the GB games and start watching at ~7AM or so, FF'ing through the commercials and strolling into work around 9. Daylight savings kind of borks things up a bit, though, so that it's tougher to watch the second halves of Tues Morning Football or Fri Morning Football at lunch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No, that's Day by Day. Is the irony of the comic that if someone replies, "that's actually true." then you call them a red pill or whatever, thus becoming a recursive, meta loop?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 05:16
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Ok I finished hull zero three. Halfway through and this book loving rocks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 05:17
|
|
blarzgh posted:Is the irony of the comic that if someone replies, "that's actually true." then you call them a red pill or whatever, thus becoming a recursive, meta loop? Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:56 on Oct 12, 2018 |
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 05:52
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:The early games start around 3AM Monday, we just DVR the GB games and start watching at ~7AM or so, FF'ing through the commercials and strolling into work around 9. Jeez, I thought it sucked having Monday Night Football start at 2:30 while I'm still at work. Watching NFL straight from 7 am to 5:30 pm on Sundays rules though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:perfect, they'll like that one. Look if it's your comic you can just fess up, no one will judge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
This 6:00 a.m. flight to Midland Texas is filled with leathernecks and lawyers. I feel like we should be buying them drinks. "Hey guys, really good work out there. The combination of oil, meth, and tractor-trailers are keeping Dallas lawyers at full employment".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
Midland is like the 4th worst place on Earth. Edit: "Downtown" looks like a set piece for the Walking Dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 13:58
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Midland is like the 4th worst place on Earth. It’s the 4th most liveable small city in Texas according to a job posting I just got. The “city” skyline picture was that of a small fountain and one short building.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
Does "liveable" mean "fewer meth deaths per user."? Or "best personal injury lawyer service per 18 wheeler accident."? Or, "Least likely to find your body in the desert."?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Does "liveable" mean "fewer meth deaths per user."? Or "best personal injury lawyer service per 18 wheeler accident."? Probably means cheap mortgage
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:15
|
|
|
Midland is the "nice" city where all of the oil executives and white collar workers for the oil fields live while Odessa is the city where all the blue collar and workers live. Midland is where you live if you want to be a "rancher" but never actually ranch a day in your life. Midland is white as gently caress, as well, if you're scared of minorities. Midland/Odessa is like a dual city of sorts but is segregated severely by class.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
I went back and found it. It wasn’t even in Midland  quote:Big Spring is a pleasant rural community spread over several miles of gently rolling hills. Known as the crossroads of west Texas, Big Spring affords its residents the life style of a rural community with quick access to larger metropolitan areas. The economy in Big Spring is diverse, with the most evident natural resources being agriculture and oil related industry. The economy is diverse with both oil AND gas production!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 14:25
|
|