|
My mom used to co-own a restaurant in the early 00's, and she got out in 2004 while her partner continued. All of a sudden today the IRS took her bank accounts, but for some reason also took mine and all the money in it, because her name was on the account. Is there anything I can do to get my money and account back? I didn't do poo poo and the bank refuses to take her name off of "unless she dies". Gee thanks. The IRS is taking their sweet loving time "investigating" and all I want is my money back. Can I lawyer up or something? I'm in the glorious state of New Hampshire.
Methodis fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Nov 30, 2010 |
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
My employer is telling me that I am not allowed to enroll in Direct Deposit. I always thought that employers must allow you to chose direct deposit if wanted? I am in Connecticut, if that makes a difference
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
No, employers (for the most part) *must* pay you your wages in cash or negotiable check within set periods. That's about all the law in most states say. Some allow for direct deposit as an alternative but the wording isn't really specifically saying they can force you, and I doubt anywhere requires them to obey the employees preferred payment type. http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/wgwkstnd/wage-hour/pay002.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Methodis posted:My mom used to co-own a restaurant in the early 00's, and she got out in 2004 while her partner continued. All of a sudden today the IRS took her bank accounts, but for some reason also took mine and all the money in it, because her name was on the account. Is there anything I can do to get my money and account back? I didn't do poo poo and the bank refuses to take her name off of "unless she dies". Gee thanks. The IRS is taking their sweet loving time "investigating" and all I want is my money back. Can I lawyer up or something? I'm in the glorious state of New Hampshire. I am not a lawyer. I do, however, work for a national bank. If your mom is a signer on your account, the account (and money) is just as much hers as yours. It doesn't matter what arrangement you may have with her. I'd open up a new account only under your name so you can keep your money without the IRS taking it. As for the money they have already locked up, you are going to have to go through the IRS's procedure to get it back. The bank can't do anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
Methodis posted:My mom used to co-own a restaurant in the early 00's, and she got out in 2004 while her partner continued. All of a sudden today the IRS took her bank accounts, but for some reason also took mine and all the money in it, because her name was on the account. Is there anything I can do to get my money and account back? I didn't do poo poo and the bank refuses to take her name off of "unless she dies". Gee thanks. The IRS is taking their sweet loving time "investigating" and all I want is my money back. Can I lawyer up or something? I'm in the glorious state of New Hampshire. Lawyer up, find someone who does tax controversy work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:No, employers (for the most part) *must* pay you your wages in cash or negotiable check within set periods. That's about all the law in most states say. Some allow for direct deposit as an alternative but the wording isn't really specifically saying they can force you, and I doubt anywhere requires them to obey the employees preferred payment type. I know that the company I work for does not offer physical checks. You either get paid by direct deposit or they have some weird system where they open up a bank account with your pay and give you a debit card. They are an international corporation, so you'd think they would follow the law, although you never know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 07:20
|
|
|
Methodis posted:My mom used to co-own a restaurant in the early 00's, and she got out in 2004 while her partner continued. All of a sudden today the IRS took her bank accounts, but for some reason also took mine and all the money in it, because her name was on the account. Is there anything I can do to get my money and account back? I didn't do poo poo and the bank refuses to take her name off of "unless she dies". Gee thanks. The IRS is taking their sweet loving time "investigating" and all I want is my money back. Can I lawyer up or something? I'm in the glorious state of New Hampshire. Regardless of what else you do, you should open a new account in your name only and start using this. It looks like the IRS believes your mom owes them taxes, and it may or may not be related to this restaurant business. If you are on good terms with your mom and if she has the means, the easiest solution would be for her to reimburse you for whatever is in the account, and you can then just let the money in the account go to the IRS. This will get you your money and will remove you from the issue between your mom and the IRS. If your mom is unwilling or unable to do this, then you should talk to a tax lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
Edit: removed
Imaduck fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Dec 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Employment attorney
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 21:18
|
|
|
Yeah thanks for all the help goons. My mom is going to reimburst me and she worked out something with the IRS. I'm going to miss my bank account though, and i'll have to open a new one, but i've been looking for one that goes all throughout the state anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2010 22:10
|
|
|
Heres the story I moved in with a girlfriend, signed a year lease, both names on contract, we broke up after the 2nd month and she wants out, I told her she still has to pay if she leaves she disagrees. If she does end up leaving can I sue her in a small claims court for the remaining 10 months at 400$ per month(her half)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
djbaseball24 posted:Heres the story I moved in with a girlfriend, signed a year lease, both names on contract, we broke up after the 2nd month and she wants out, I told her she still has to pay if she leaves she disagrees. If she does end up leaving can I sue her in a small claims court for the remaining 10 months at 400$ per month(her half)? No
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:No why? she signed the lease too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 02:56
|
|
|
djbaseball24 posted:why? she signed the lease too? You're still on the hook for the money, she's not, unless the contract specifically apportions costs to each of you. Last man standing on a lease owes, if you both cut out either or both of you can be sued for the money. Anyways even if she is in breach, you don't get to sue for damages that way. You're required to mitigate and try to find another roommate or make up the costs some other way, then can sue for the actual damages caused by the breach. You can't just sue for 10 months rent and call it a day
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 03:01
|
|
|
djbaseball24 posted:why? she signed the lease too? I'm sure this will vary state to state, but you have two options. 1) you both break the lease and let the landlord come after both of you, then you both will be responsible for half the debt 2) You take on a roommate for her portion of the rent. You may be able to sue her for possibly one or two months rent if you can demonstrate you were actively searching for a roommate but could not find one in time. The courts will not order her to pay 10 months of rent while you live there alone. get out of the apartment, make a deal with the landlord for your share, and let him deal with her for hers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 03:02
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with retaliatory discharge, preferably in Texas? I'm probably about to get into a fight with my employer over overtime pay, and I want to be prepared for the possibility that they'll just kick me out rather than pay me. I've been with the company for three years, have a history of minor infractions (tardiness, some procedural/personal mishaps) but have never been formally disciplined until I got written up today for, as they put it, filing a timesheet in violation of company policy. I'm fully expecting them to fight tooth and nail to avoid admitting that I'm a nonexempt employee, since doing so would force them to pony up a ton of back pay for a lot of people in my department, and I wouldn't put it past them to use my somewhat checkered history as pretext for a with-cause termination. What steps can I take to ensure I have the strongest possible case if and when this goes to litigation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 09:00
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:You're still on the hook for the money, she's not, unless the contract specifically apportions costs to each of you. Last man standing on a lease owes, if you both cut out either or both of you can be sued for the money. That is not quite how it works in my state. In my state, there is no "last man standing" doctrine. She would be liable for half of the rent despite moving out, subject to mitigation, but mitigation is relaxed for non-commercial tenants. Moral of the story - consult a local attorney.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 15:02
|
|
|
Interesting legal situation came up today, I'd kinda like some hypothetical opinions. A Section 230 CDA protected service provider is being threatened to comply with a permanent injunction over a trademark infringement case that it was never a party to. The infringing party in the trademark case is using the service provider to host a website that infringes the mark. The service provider's actions, however in hosting that website are not commercial so the hosting is not an act of interstate commerce eligible to be trademark infringement. If you were the GC of the service provider, would you stand your ground, on the thoughts that the injunction cannot apply to you? Or would you quietly take down the page -- if so do you cooperate, or do you bitch and complain to them about it? Or some other action?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Interesting legal situation came up today, I'd kinda like some hypothetical opinions. A Section 230 CDA protected service provider is being threatened to comply with a permanent injunction over a trademark infringement case that it was never a party to. The infringing party in the trademark case is using the service provider to host a website that infringes the mark. The service provider's actions, however in hosting that website are not commercial so the hosting is not an act of interstate commerce eligible to be trademark infringement. Forget the law and analyze it from an economics perspective. What would cost the least money, ultimately? Because that is what will drive the decision making 90% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 18:36
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Interesting legal situation came up today, I'd kinda like some hypothetical opinions. A Section 230 CDA protected service provider is being threatened to comply with a permanent injunction over a trademark infringement case that it was never a party to. The infringing party in the trademark case is using the service provider to host a website that infringes the mark. The service provider's actions, however in hosting that website are not commercial so the hosting is not an act of interstate commerce eligible to be trademark infringement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:You're still on the hook for the money, she's not, unless the contract specifically apportions costs to each of you. Last man standing on a lease owes, if you both cut out either or both of you can be sued for the money. My understanding is that in Wisconsin, you still owe the landlord the full amount you just have a private cause of action against the girlfriend. Of course you have to mitigate, but most contracts specify who has the burden of mitigating (the person moving out).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 08:34
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:My understanding is that in Wisconsin, you still owe the landlord the full amount you just have a private cause of action against the girlfriend. Of course you have to mitigate, but most contracts specify who has the burden of mitigating (the person moving out). Jurisprudence and the residential tenancy act reflect what I said in my post where I'm from and it's pretty similar across Canada, I guess it can vary pretty widely on what state you're in though
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 08:49
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:Jurisprudence and the residential tenancy act reflect what I said in my post where I'm from and it's pretty similar across Canada, I guess it can vary pretty widely on what state you're in though
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:Jurisprudence and the residential tenancy act reflect what I said in my post where I'm from and it's pretty similar across Canada, I guess it can vary pretty widely on what state you're in though That sounds loving insane. So if you have roommates, and even if you signed the lease, as long as you're the first one out you can just say a big gently caress you to your by-now-ex-roomies and there's nothing they can do? I mean, in practical terms, there isn't much Americans can do in that situation (most people living in that kind of arrangement are close to judgment-proof), but still. Can you cite anything online to that effect? Not asking for case law or a law review article, just something simple that outlines the doctrine you're talking about. I didn't find anything when I googled "'last man standing' canada tenancy" or "'last man standing' canada lease" (other than tenancy-in-common and joint tenancy stuff, which is obviously not what we're talking about).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
eviljelly posted:That sounds loving insane. So if you have roommates, and even if you signed the lease, as long as you're the first one out you can just say a big gently caress you to your by-now-ex-roomies and there's nothing they can do? I mean, in practical terms, there isn't much Americans can do in that situation (most people living in that kind of arrangement are close to judgment-proof), but still. It actually depends on the lease itself, not the laws in the state. Some states very well may have laws that pertain to them, but the language in the lease is the most important. "Jointly and severally" is the clause the asker is looking for in the lease. If you both signed it, in any situation I can think of, you are both 100% liable for all financial charges. You can go to the landlord and see if they can work something out, but both tenants are liable for the rent. Unless the lease specifies that Susie will be paying 50% and Jackie will be paying 50%, it's the responsibility of each tenant to ensure that 100% of the rent is paid. If one of the tenants moves out without working something out with the landlord, they are still liable for the rent, but the only real recourse is civil court. The remaining tenant still has to make sure 100% of the rent is paid. A civil court judge will grant a judgment in favor of the remaining tenant if he or she is able to prove the case, but it won't be for the full 10 months rent. The remaining tenant has to attempt to mitigate his or her damages by making a real effort to find a new roommate. Again, it's possible that there are some states that specifically outline this, but it's pretty much always covered in the lease. So read that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
bellybutton posted:That's not what hypocrite lecteur is saying is the law of the land in Canada, though. quote:Last man standing on a lease owes, if you both cut out either or both of you can be sued for the money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
Legal goons, I need some advice. I live in California, and a couple of days ago I got the oil changed on my new Mazda 5 (it had 5400 miles on it at the time of the change.) The next day while driving down 580E, my car poo poo itself. Smoke started pouring out from under the car, lights came on the dash and the car basically stalled. I had it towed to the Mazda dealership. The foreman called me today and said that the problem was clearly oil-related. There was oil all over the car (when I left the dealership, even the rear window had a nice brown coat.) He said the only way this would've happened was if I hit something major or the oil place made a mistake. I didn't hit anything, and there's no damage to the car to imply that happened. My girlfriend called the oil place yesterday. The guy on the phone insisted that we'd have to bring it in to them. She told them basically to go gently caress themselves. We weren't going to bring it into them so they could potentially hide any mistakes they made. Right now we're waiting to hear back from the foreman, but his cursory examination seems to imply that the motor is gone. This will probably be a $3000+ repair, not to mention taking a week or so. So, legal goons, this is the advice I need: Once we know what our bill will be, we'll contact the oil change place and say, "This is what you need to pay." If they refuse to do so, what would our next step be? I'd *really* like for them to just say, "Yes, we messed up. Here's a check to cover your new engine and rental car" but I'm skeptical that'll happen. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:Legal goons, I need some advice. You need to get something in writing from the dealership stating that the oil change place caused the problem, and what the problem is. You're going to have to be able to prove to them (and if they won't pay you, to a court) that it is their fault and not yours. You may even want to get two opinions and two things in writing. Make sure written estimates for repairing it are included. If they refuse to pay you, you're going to have to sue them. You can do that in small claims court. It's not a difficult process, but you DO have to prove your case. So as long as you have those written statements and estimates, you should be fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
Can you sue in small claims for the $3000+ he estimated?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
Yes. Each state has a different upper limit for small claims cases, but California's is $7500.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
bellybutton posted:It actually depends on the lease itself, not the laws in the state. Some states very well may have laws that pertain to them, but the language in the lease is the most important. In my state, the Tenant-Landlord Act trumps the lease. So, again, consult a local lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:In my state, the Tenant-Landlord Act trumps the lease. So, again, consult a local lawyer. In all states the law will trump the lease, except for a few exceptions where people are actually allowed to sign away their legal protections in the lease. That said, I can't think of any state (though to be fair, I'm only familiar with a few states) in which the law actually addresses this issue in Landlord-Tenant law, so if this poster's state happens to, clearly, all he needs to do is look at the landlord-tenant law in his state and see what that says. Otherwise, it's going to be in the lease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
bellybutton posted:You need to get something in writing from the dealership stating that the oil change place caused the problem, and what the problem is. You're going to have to be able to prove to them (and if they won't pay you, to a court) that it is their fault and not yours. You may even want to get two opinions and two things in writing. Make sure written estimates for repairing it are included. My mechanic said that if I had hit something, there would be damage to indicate that. After all, its possible I *did* hit something and just didn't notice it. But he says there's no evidence of that. He'll call me back later today to let me know what he thinks caused the issue. Thanks for the advice. Edit: Update - the mechanic called and said the oil leak was because there was no oil filter on the car. It was either not put on at all, or put on improperly. Iron Squid fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Dec 3, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2010 18:58
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:My mechanic said that if I had hit something, there would be damage to indicate that. After all, its possible I *did* hit something and just didn't notice it. But he says there's no evidence of that. Dear god. I don't know a thing about cars, so I don't know if that is accurate or not, but you need to get it, and an estimate, in writing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
Iron Squid posted:Edit: Update - the mechanic called and said the oil leak was because there was no oil filter on the car. It was either not put on at all, or put on improperly. Probably put on too loosely. Unless the oil filter is mounted very high up on the MZR motor, which I don't think it is, there's no way you could have gotten far from the shop without an oil filter on and not immediately gotten smoke or a seized engine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 01:29
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Probably put on too loosely. Unless the oil filter is mounted very high up on the MZR motor, which I don't think it is, there's no way you could have gotten far from the shop without an oil filter on and not immediately gotten smoke or a seized engine. I bet they didn't remove the gasket from the previous oil filter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 02:06
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I bet they didn't remove the gasket from the previous oil filter. Happens all the time. I have a quick question from Virginia Small Claims Court - My friend was being sued in small claims court for $3200. When he went to court this morning, the plaintiff did not show up so the judge dismissed the case. Can the plaintiff file another lawsuit against him over the same matter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
gigabitnokie posted:Happens all the time. It depends on how the judge dismissed the case. If it was dismissed "without prejudice", then the plaintiff is able to refile. If it was dismissed "with prejudice", he cannot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 03:44
|
|
|
gigabitnokie posted:Happens all the time. That depends on whether the dismissal was "with prejudice" or "without prejudice." If it is "with prejudice," there is no opportunity to refile.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:00 |
|
|
eviljelly posted:That sounds loving insane. So if you have roommates, and even if you signed the lease, as long as you're the first one out you can just say a big gently caress you to your by-now-ex-roomies and there's nothing they can do? I mean, in practical terms, there isn't much Americans can do in that situation (most people living in that kind of arrangement are close to judgment-proof), but still. Nah I mean a lease is joint and several liability, just as a matter of simplicity the landlord will always go after the last guy still there. Where the duty to mitigate comes from I actually don't know, probably common law, just know from observing RTDRS proceedings that it's there. RTA doesn't cover agreements between tenants, so probably just basic contract law. Looked a bit through the RTA and the RTDRS site without finding anything other than landlord's duty to mitigate when the tenants move out, so I may be full of poo poo hypocrite lecteur fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Dec 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2010 04:11
|
|