|
Cop posted:My girlfriend and I are in a lease at an apartment complex with which we've had many water problems. We still have 6 out of 12 months left of our lease and we want to get out asap. Not knowing much about the Nebraska landlord/tenant law I'm not sure what to do. Here are some pictures if they might help with determining whether or not there is a way to break the lease. Nebraska landlord-tenant laws. If the landlord will not fix the problem, you can probably break the lease under 76-1425: quote:(1) Except as provided in the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, if there is a material noncompliance by the landlord with the rental agreement or a noncompliance with section 76-1419 [saying that the landlord has to maintain a fit premises] materially affecting health and safety, the tenant may deliver a written notice to the landlord specifying the acts and omissions constituting the breach and that the rental agreement will terminate upon a date not less than thirty days after receipt of the notice if the breach is not remedied in fourteen days, and the rental agreement shall terminate as provided in the notice subject to the following. If the breach is remediable by repairs or the payment of damages or otherwise and the landlord adequately remedies the breach prior to the date specified in the notice, the rental agreement will not terminate. If substantially the same act or omission which constituted a prior noncompliance of which notice was given recurs within six months, the tenant may terminate the rental agreement upon at least fourteen days' written notice specifying the breach and the date of termination of the rental agreement. The tenant may not terminate for a condition caused by the deliberate or negligent act or omission of the tenant, a member of his or her family, or other person on the premises with his or her consent.
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
Konstantin posted:Nebraska landlord-tenant laws. If the landlord will not fix the problem, you can probably break the lease under 76-1425: Awesome. Just what I was looking for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
Canuckistan posted:How do you make this point to the judge? Do you make a motion to dismiss after the officer is dismissed? Sometimes the judges will do this on their own -- when i was prosecuting my first of second case some judge tried to dismiss because he thought I'm missed it, and he'd gently caress with me. I had a read back, and I had. LLJKSiLk posted:RE: Speeding tickets - I understand that some jurisdictions have allowed a person to petition for the source code/technical information of the radar gun that nailed you - as well as maintenance logs/calibration for the gun. Elsewhere, probably less so. In some states you have a lot less rights with a traffic court than a criminal court. Also remember that judges will do whatever the gently caress they want, double for traffic as no one will appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 09:37
|
|
|
I'm going through a divorce and although I'd rather not be in this situation, we actually have a good arrangement worked out. My wife works days as a teacher and I work nights as a private tutor. I pick up the kids at 7 am and return them to my wife at 5 pm, then I go off to work. I was served with papers for child support. My contention is that since I have the kids half the time (or nearly half the time) my child support should be little or nothing. While I have the kids I have the sole responsibility of providing food, bottles, baby formula, diapers, I'm the one feeding them, bathing them, and doing laundry. I've spoken with a few lawyers and they basically come to the same conclusion: "You're gonna end up owing her money." I wish I could find a lawyer who says "Yeah you've got a great case here and I think we can let you keep watching your kids and not owe that much." The lawyer I met with on Tuesday said I would probably end up owing $700-800 per month. To me that sounds like double dipping on my wife's part. I'm watching the kids all day, she doesn't have to pay for food or clothes while I'm watching them, and she gets paid on top of that. Do I have a chance? In NY by the way. edit: I'm not looking for someone to sugarcoat this, if I'm gonna end up owing her money that's fine, but none of the lawyers I've spoken with have ever given my a good reason why other than "Well, usually the wife gets some money." oh snap fucked around with this message at 16:44 on Jan 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 16:41
|
|
|
The short answer is that you aren't the primary caregiver of the children. Who has to spend more money on a larger house because you have kids? Who pays for the kids' health insurance? If they get sick, who would take time off of work to care for them? Who buys new clothes when they outgrow them? In addition to that, divorce court is normally biased in favor of the woman. Unless you are willing to fight for full custody of the children (a battle you are unlikely to win) you'll end up paying child support. If you want you can cut back on what you voluntarily give to your kids, you don't have to provide free daycare, but the fact that you do so doesn't matter much to the courts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:The short answer is that you aren't the primary caregiver of the children. Who has to spend more money on a larger house because you have kids? Who pays for the kids' health insurance? If they get sick, who would take time off of work to care for them? Who buys new clothes when they outgrow them? In addition to that, divorce court is normally biased in favor of the woman. Unless you are willing to fight for full custody of the children (a battle you are unlikely to win) you'll end up paying child support. If you want you can cut back on what you voluntarily give to your kids, you don't have to provide free daycare, but the fact that you do so doesn't matter much to the courts. I have the larger house, my wife left me. I pay the mortgage, she doesn't contribute anything. We split health insurance. I've been writing her checks for $477 since she moved out. If I didn't provide free daycare who would pay for the daycare the kids need? If I didn't watch the kids during the day it would increase our family's expenses, daycare is not cheap where we live. I just hope I luck out and get a judge who is willing to look at the specifics of my case. Not trying to sound argumentative, but these are my best points, so have at 'em.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:The short answer is that you aren't the primary caregiver of the children. Who has to spend more money on a larger house because you have kids? Who pays for the kids' health insurance? If they get sick, who would take time off of work to care for them? Who buys new clothes when they outgrow them? In addition to that, divorce court is normally biased in favor of the woman. Unless you are willing to fight for full custody of the children (a battle you are unlikely to win) you'll end up paying child support. If you want you can cut back on what you voluntarily give to your kids, you don't have to provide free daycare, but the fact that you do so doesn't matter much to the courts. Could he charge $800/month or whatever the child support payments are for daycare? (this would be a bargain in any major city, yes?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Based on my divorce experience, I would lawyer up and file for custody. Settle for joint custody and reduced child support obligation based on your exercising greater than minimal visitation/custody time periods. Ignore the emotional bullshit and random filings from her lawyer. The reason most guys lose is because most guys are convinced to settle. I spent a year and a half with court appearances and my ex's lawyer was bending over backwards increasing what they were willing to give up when we were hours away from trial starting. I have joint custody, 7 on/7 off during the summer, 4 out of every 14 days during the school year, and I pay 50% of the normal child support - only for 9 months out of the year. 2 days before reaching that settlement I was pressured to accept standard visitation (2 out of every 14 days / 4 weeks in the summer) and 100% child support for 12 months of the year. Even your own lawyer will push you to say this is a good deal if your ex's lawyer acts like she won't budge because of the standard logic. I told them to gently caress themselves and I'd take it to trial - then they loosened up a lot because trials are expensive and they don't want to lose. Also - do not accept any temporary agreement if it isn't exactly what you want - because these will end up becoming permanent 90% of the time. You can file for temporary custody based on the fact that you have your child from 7am - 5pm every single day. LLJKSiLk fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jan 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
Is it illegal to wear headphones/earphones while driving in Florida? I was always told this was illegal because you wouldn't be able to hear horns or sirens, but people on sports bikes do it all the time. I got a new iPod for Christmas and since my speakers in my car suck, I've been listening to it while driving around, and haven't had any problem with seeing or getting out of the way of emergency vehicles. I was just wondering if this is something I could get pulled over for, or, if I got pulled over for something else, is this something I could get another ticket for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 20:21
|
|
|
silversiren posted:Is it illegal to wear headphones/earphones while driving in Florida? I was always told this was illegal because you wouldn't be able to hear horns or sirens, but people on sports bikes do it all the time. I got a new iPod for Christmas and since my speakers in my car suck, I've been listening to it while driving around, and haven't had any problem with seeing or getting out of the way of emergency vehicles. I don't know for certain, but I would bet money that a trooper could write you a ticket for driving recklessly because you were driving with headphones on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
A few months ago I went off the edge of a driveway I was turning around in a little bit and dragged a rock out under my car. It did some damage to the plastic guard. I found out recently it also damaged the core support. I was wondering if there was any way the city or property owner might be liable for this. While it was my error, the rocks obviously constitute a hazard. The city owns the treelawn, but holds the property owner responsible for it's care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:A few months ago I went off the edge of a driveway I was turning around in a little bit and dragged a rock out under my car. It did some damage to the plastic guard. I found out recently it also damaged the core support. I was wondering if there was any way the city or property owner might be liable for this. While it was my error, the rocks obviously constitute a hazard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
What is the legality of keylogging/monitoring usage of my personal computer? For instance, I have someone using my computer who has had a history of visiting sites and doing inappropriate things. They swear they don't do that any longer - but I have installed a keylogger in order to verify what exactly is being done while I'm not around. Do they have a reasonable expectation of privacy by using my computer equipment?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
Short answer: No. There are tons of applications that do some sort of keylogging and data gathering for legitimate purposes. Now....what you do with the information you may get from a key logger is what may get you in trouble, like recording a password to gain access to an email account or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 21:33
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Short answer: No. Cool. Regarding passwords, what is the legality if a user gives you their password? For instance, during my divorce my lawyer said it was okay to use information gained from my ex-wife's account because she gave me the password during our marriage, so what I accessed she had already consented to. He said it would have been inadmissible had I gained it through subterfuge. I ask this one out of general curiosity. Primarily my concern is making sure nothing goes on my computer that I don't know about, i.e. visiting certain sites or downloading certain things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
Well that's a different topic/question altogether, really. One that would probably be best answered only when all of the specifics are explained that you should only disclose to a lawyer. My "not a lawyer" advice is that unless you have something more than their word that it is okay for you to gain access to their accounts using their password you probably shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
Any Mass. goon lawyers want to PM me about a quick question?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
I will be driving into Canada from the US this weekend and will be bringing a friend who is on a non-supervised probation. Technically, he is not supposed to leave the country. His understand is that just as long as he does not get arrested in Canada, he will be fine. Are we going to have trouble crossing the border?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
LLJKSiLk posted:RE: Speeding tickets - I understand that some jurisdictions have allowed a person to petition for the source code/technical information of the radar gun that nailed you - as well as maintenance logs/calibration for the gun. Its a lot of reading. Ill get started after the dishes are done. Also why would I get the radar company involved? How would one write a request for this info and where would I turn the request into?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
LLJKSiLk posted:Cool. Regarding passwords, what is the legality if a user gives you their password? For instance, during my divorce my lawyer said it was okay to use information gained from my ex-wife's account because she gave me the password during our marriage, so what I accessed she had already consented to. He said it would have been inadmissible had I gained it through subterfuge. We actually have a case in my state now. These are the facts as I understand them: Husband suspects wife of cheating on him. Wife keeps her passwords in a little notepad next to the computer.* Husband uses that to access her email account and prints off emails proving the infidelity. Uses that in the divorce (maybe there's a custody issue?). County prosecutor charges the guy under Michigan's hacking statute, which prohibits "unauthorized access of a computer." *Prosecution contends that he actually IS a hacker and used the matrix or whatever to obtain her passwords. Defense contends the notepad version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 07:23
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:We actually have a case in my state now. These are the facts as I understand them: I remember reading about this on Slashdot. One would think the judge would err on the side of the notepad being a key left next to a lock on a box that he technically owns even if his wife kept things in there. I think the legal argument could be made, that as a password is considered "testimonial" if the police ask for your password to your mobile phone for instance, you are not required to give it. But if you mention your password to your phone, would the police then get in trouble if they had access to your phone?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 07:27
|
|
|
LLJKSiLk posted:I remember reading about this on Slashdot. One would think the judge would err on the side of the notepad being a key left next to a lock on a box that he technically owns even if his wife kept things in there. Well, what the judge winds up doing is up in the air right now. I don't know where the case is procedurally, but my hunch (based on typical timelines for felony cases in Michigan) is that it's probably ONLY had a preliminary examination, and that's nothing more than a probable cause hearing. (And there almost always is probable cause, because it's a low, low hurdle.) It might get thrown out when it actually goes into circuit court, but that remains to be seen. It also might be that the notepad story isn't true, and that's just Defendant's contention. My recurring question in the case is why, if the prosecutor is so interested in digging up crimes for this family, the wife hasn't been charged with adultery -- it's still a felony in Michigan. Your "testimonial" question is a little confusing. It leads me down the path of the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination analysis (which is a right asserted when you're on the stand, not during an investigation). I think it's more properly a Fourth Amendment search and seizure issue. If the police can get a warrant, you either provide them the password or they just seize your computer and have that guy from Law & Order press whatever button he presses to search your hard drive. It is analogous to a locked container in that way -- either unlock it or we break the lock. However, if (for whatever reason) you wound up telling police officers what your password is, the state would argue (1) that you consented to any search by volunteering the password and; (2) that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in anything protected by a password you make known to third parties, so any search of those effects is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, I think if you tell the police your password, it's going to be admissible evidence (unless it stems from some other defect -- like they coerced it out of you, etc). This is all applicable to a criminal case where it's Defendant's computer and Defendant's password. I don't know that any of it applies to the man infiltrating his wife's email.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 08:21
|
|
|
I bring up the "testimonial" argument, because you could theoretically argue that providing the password is tantamount to admitting that you have control of what is on the computer/mobile phone as opposed to being able to use the defense that they aren't. I am thinking of a case where a guy was stopped crossing into the U.S. He consented to a search of his laptop, where the law enforcement officer allegedly saw images of child pornography. He took the laptop, and closed the lid. The guy had some sort of encryption on the laptop, and when the police tried to get the evidence they could not - so they took the guy to court to divulge the password to his encryption. He won a ruling from the judge that said that being forced to divulge a password was considered "testimonial" and he could not be forced to testify if he chose not to. I don't know if they were able to break the encryption or not eventually, but that was a ruling. Here is a link: http://cyb3rcrim3.blogspot.com/2010/12/revealing-password-was-testimonial-and.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 17:51
|
|
|
Ok goons, Mass. question -- An employer wants to search an employee's personal property (bags and such) on suspicion that the employee deals drugs out of their store at night, which could subject the employer to all sorts of nasty things if something bad happened. Can they? Issues? Non-Mass. lawyers, other jurisdictions do what?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Ok goons, Mass. question -- An employer wants to search an employee's personal property (bags and such) on suspicion that the employee deals drugs out of their store at night, which could subject the employer to all sorts of nasty things if something bad happened. It's pretty much universal. They can not legally force anyone to submit to a search but they can make it a condition of employment, ie; fire you if you don't submit. If they suspect criminal activity they need to call the police (theft, drug sales).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 19:47
|
|
|
Is videotaping my friends and I scaring Chihuahuas illegal? We are not going to touch or harm them in any way, just run out in costumes and scream really loud
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 20:28
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I will be driving into Canada from the US this weekend and will be bringing a friend who is on a non-supervised probation. Technically, he is not supposed to leave the country. His understand is that just as long as he does not get arrested in Canada, he will be fine. Are we going to have trouble crossing the border? You might get lucky crossing the boarder but it's a really stupid idea. He will probably be denied entry and if that happens once he might not be allowed back in Canada ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
Positive Housemouse posted:Is videotaping my friends and I scaring Chihuahuas illegal? I hope not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
Positive Housemouse posted:Is videotaping my friends and I scaring Chihuahuas illegal? We are not going to touch or harm them in any way, just run out in costumes and scream really loud Listen up people: this is how you win a Darwin award
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
If a person were standing in one state and shoots another person standing on the other side of the border with another state, where would the crime be prosecuted?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 23:19
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:If a person were standing in one state and shoots another person standing on the other side of the border with another state, where would the crime be prosecuted? Jurisdiction is proper in the state where the criminal act took place (state 1), the state where the victim was injured (state 2), and the federal system, because it's an interstate crime. So instead of "I can't be prosecuted for it anywhere," the reality of the situation is "I can be prosecuted for it three times."
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
^^ That makes more sens  (IANAL) I am pretty sure it would be where the victim is at the time of the crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:Jurisdiction is proper in the state where the criminal act took place (state 1), the state where the victim was injured (state 2), and the federal system, because it's an interstate crime. On the other hand, if you shoot someone in another country and that person runs to Mexico and the Mexican police trick you into crossing the border you can be convicted of attempted murder in Mexico until it gets overturned by the Mexican appeals court. (True story)
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:^^ That makes more sens Look up the Separate Sovereigns doctrine
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
Uggh. That's a pretty lovely decision. (imo) Thanks though. I had never heard of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Uggh. That's a pretty lovely decision. (imo) Yeah, double jeopardy doesn't bar trial by separate sovereigns. As I said, jurisdiction is proper in three places simultaneously. Any combination of those three (from "all" to "none") are within their discretion to bring that offender to trial. That's why it's a goofy, eye-rolling plotline whenever TV shows try to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 01:02
|
|
|
One more question about my divorce case. The lawyer my wife is using is her uncle who represented us by doing the closing for the first home we purchased. I'm saying he has a conflict of interest because I opened all of my finances to him in confidence while he was acting as my attorney. He is claiming he doesn't have a conflict because any of the information he may have learned while representing me could have also come from my wife. I think it's a pretty bullshit argument. My wife was not involved with our family finances at all so she couldn't have shared that information with him. I feel like I'm at a disadvantage while negotiating because he can throw numbers in my face from years ago. I'm coming to the table with "I make $60,000 a year now" and he'll say "Well a couple of years ago you were making 70, so you should pay based on that amount." Also, because he is a very close family member he has seen me and my wife interact with the kids on a regular basis. There's one incident in particular that portrays my wife in a negative light. Can I call him as a witness? Does that disqualify him from acting as her attorney?
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Just a law student and don't completely know the answer to your divorce question. From what I do know, you really ought to get a real life attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 04:12
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Just a law student and don't completely know the answer to your divorce question. From what I do know, you really ought to get a real life attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 10:49 |
|
|
oh snap posted:One more question about my divorce case. The lawyer my wife is using is her uncle who represented us by doing the closing for the first home we purchased. I'm saying he has a conflict of interest because I opened all of my finances to him in confidence while he was acting as my attorney. He is claiming he doesn't have a conflict because any of the information he may have learned while representing me could have also come from my wife. It's not really a helpful question, but your jurisdiction doesn't already have some sort of disclosure requirement in place? I'm not sure how you were planning on keeping this information secret anyways.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2011 04:53
|
|
