|
hypocrite lecteur posted:Yeah basically none of that's true in Canada and probably not in most parts of the US so not sure what to tell you It's also just not true in the UK.
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:I can't remember poo poo about property law and don't want to research this for myself. Someone entered a caveat on title on a piece of property that there should be no burning on the property. Like, no fires, no burning brush or trash, whatever. Owner then sells it off, continues to own an adjacent piece of land. Off the top of my head, developer-imposed restrictive covenants run with the land. This might or might not be the case for one between private individuals. Options for removal will vary depending on the land titles legislation. Which province? Schitzo fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 17:00
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:Off the top of my head, developer-imposed restrictive covenants run with the land. This might or might not be the case for one between private individuals. Options for removal will vary depending on the land titles legislation. Which province? AB
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:AB Take a look at sections 137 to 139 of the Land Titles Act. You'll need to determine whether it's capable of running with the land. Grab a copy of Ziff and see if there's any case law on point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
place fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 19:57
|
|
|
wacky posted:I'm not a lawyer but I know for slander/libel cases, your chance of winning one goes down the more of a public figure you are but I would think that the opposite would be true for anonymous death threats. If you are receiving anonymous death threats as anyone, then obviously the police should take it seriously, but if you are a public figure you are probably much more likely to have Joe Crazy facebooking about murdering you for whatever crazy reason is rattling around in his head ever since he saw you on TV or whatever
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 21:46
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Yes, that would make sense. Unfortunately we clearly don't run on sense, since in our given examples in the last few posts, we have two ordinary people getting serious plausible death threats with no help from law enforcement, and one public figure getting clearly stupid almost certainly non-serious internet death threats and the threatener getting a year in prison. your anecdotal experiences of the law are interesting and you should post more about them ps if you're as annoying in person as you are online I'm not surprised a cop wouldn't want to stand in place to listen to your complaining
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:Yes, that would make sense. Unfortunately we clearly don't run on sense, since in our given examples in the last few posts, we have two ordinary people getting serious plausible death threats with no help from law enforcement, and one public figure getting clearly stupid almost certainly non-serious internet death threats and the threatener getting a year in prison. Except this wasn't a random internet threat, the two people knew each other and there was a real personal greivance going back over 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Except this wasn't a random internet threat, the two people knew each other and there was a real personal greivance going back over 10 years. hypocrite posted:ps if you're as annoying in person as you are online I'm not surprised a cop wouldn't want to stand in place to listen to your complaining Edit: Oh and... quote:your anecdotal experiences of the law are interesting and you should post more about them roomforthetuna fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Apr 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:It was still a stupid non-serious internet death threat - unless the guy was so incredibly stupid that he really thought a murder plan that begins with "publicly invite the guy, on the internet, to a public execution of himself" is a good idea. Surely you see the difference between the plausibility of that, and the plausibility of "if you try to have the courts enforce their prior judgement against me I will come to your house and smash your loving head in." He was sent for a psych-evaluation. That suggests... oh why I am I bothering. I am curious as to why that avatar isn't in the traditional red angry text.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 00:12
|
|
|
While we're on interesting questions for the sake of curiosity... I was reading a Cracked list yesterday (yeah, yeah..) and it mentioned a case where the US government sued a guy, lost, and filed an appeal at the end of the day on the last day allowed, so he wouldn't have a chance to respond before the time limit was up. That reminded me that essentially the same thing happened to a friend of mine; he was in a car accident (not his fault) and the lady who caused it filed suit against him the last day she was allowed so he wouldn't have time to get a lawyer and file a response. I know nothing about the legal system, so two questions: 1) What's the response for, anyway? I assume it's an attempt to tell the court "this suit is baseless, here's why, don't even take it up." Is that correct? 2) Why the gently caress is this allowed? For the one in the Cracked list, it went to the Supreme Court and even they said something to the tune of, "well, it sucks, but that's the law." It seems to me like there should be an automatic 30-day extension to allow people to respond in cases like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
Huh? The deadline is for filing the appeal/complaint/suit. That filing then triggers a new deadline for the reply which will be XX/days/weeks later. Unless this is some weird state rule. There would be a serious due process issue anyhow if you could file a suit at 4:59 PM and get a default judgment when the clock struck 5
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
nm posted:Huh? Well, I had a case a few years ago where a young woman claimed rape. She reported it to the police, and an arrest was made and reported in the paper, but the prosecutor didn't prosecute. Defamation, malicious prosecution, and assault all have the same statute of limitations. The guy filed a lawsuit for defamation and malicious prosecution in the last ten minutes that the clerk's office was open on the last day of the statute of limitations. By the time the woman got served with the suit, her counterclaim was beyond the statute of limitations and any claim for positive damages was barred. So maybe it was something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Well, I had a case a few years ago where a young woman claimed rape. She reported it to the police, and an arrest was made and reported in the paper, but the prosecutor didn't prosecute. Defamation, malicious prosecution, and assault all have the same statute of limitations. The guy filed a lawsuit for defamation and malicious prosecution in the last ten minutes that the clerk's office was open on the last day of the statute of limitations. By the time the woman got served with the suit, her counterclaim was beyond the statute of limitations and any claim for positive damages was barred. So maybe it was something like that. The court didn't allow the counterclaim to be filed with the tolling date from the complaint? I'd be really curious to know what ended up happening with the case. Also @choadmaster: Cracked. That's really your answer right there. They'll print any poo poo with little to no regard for fact checking or plagiarism. Or nuance, for that matter. For instance, if that case actually existed, I'd assume that what they meant by it going up to the Supreme Court and they said "too bad" was really that the Circuit Court said "too bad" and the Supreme Court denied cert. That's FAR FAR FAR from the same thing as the Supreme Court actually taking the case and issuing an opinion (with all the binding precedent that comes with it) to that effect, even though the technical outcome is the same. But that level of thought is well beyond what Cracked is capable of producing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
Cheesetits posted:Yes, it is defiantly a US territory, and not Irag (or Guam for the record). From what he has said, when he signed his plea deal his lawyer there told him not to worry about it, and it wouldn't matter back in the states. The probation people over there also told him his probation is limited to the island, and would only be in effect if he returned sometime in the next three years. But then again it is a pretty hosed up place, which is why he was looking for some kind of confirmation. Let's put it this way: he has until that place upgrades their computers to go get a passport and get out of the country permanently, maybe even answering 'no' to the same questions in other jurisdictions assuming he can legally do so. If he waits too long, though, most of the rest of the world won't even let him get past the airport.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 08:34
|
|
|
Diogines posted:I have a purely academic legal question. I thought of a strange legal situation and have been trying to think of an example but come up dry. I strongly suspect the places to look for these, if they exist at all, would be 1)the US Bank cases of the 1820's-30's and 2)the South's reaction to the various Civil Rights Acts. I also strongly suspect all of these laws/cases are complete losers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 08:37
|
|
|
Cracked notwithstanding (I acknowledged its shittiness already), it reminded me of an actual case of a friend of mine. After asking my friend for more details, it appears Solomon Grundy hit the nail on the head: Solomon Grundy posted:The guy filed a lawsuit for defamation and malicious prosecution in the last ten minutes that the clerk's office was open on the last day of the statute of limitations. By the time the woman got served with the suit, her counterclaim was beyond the statute of limitations and any claim for positive damages was barred. So maybe it was something like that. She filed her suit against him just before the SOL ran out so he wouldn't have time to file a countersuit. Which still leaves the question as to why this is allowed; it seems like a rather blatant and easy-to-take-advantage-of loophole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 09:43
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:
Well, in my case, the young lady could have filed her own suit any time during the statute of limitations if she wanted to. So it is not really a loophole, so to speak. She was only motivated to sue once she got sued. It appears from a prior poster that some states recognize a tolling period after a complaint is filed to allow counterclaim. My state does not. These sorts of issues are why it is so difficult for the lawyers here to answer general questions, or questions under the laws of different states. I don't remember what happened in my case. I know it settled, but I don't know under what terms. I know that after researching the situation, the law in my state provided that the young lady could still put on evidence of her counterclaim in order to offset any damages from his claim, but only in offset, and if the jury beleived her, she could not be awarded any positive damages. Incidentally, I have both used and guarded against this strategem in the years since. On one occasion, my client was willing to walk away if the other guy didn't sue. So on the last day of the statute of limiations, I sent a clerk to the courthouse with a complaint to file only if the other guy filed a lawsuit. He stayed there all day, watching what was filed. Sure enough, the other guy's lawyer showed up with 1/2 hour left in the day, and filed a lawsuit. My clerk followed instructions, and filed my lawsuit right after. The suits were consolidated and we were off to the races.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 12:06
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:he years since. On one occasion, my client was willing to walk away if the other guy didn't sue. So on the last day of the statute of limiations, I sent a clerk to the courthouse with a complaint to file only if the other guy filed a lawsuit. He stayed there all day, watching what was filed. Sure enough, the other guy's lawyer showed up with 1/2 hour left in the day, and filed a lawsuit. My clerk followed instructions, and filed my lawsuit right after. The suits were consolidated and we were off to the races. What loving crazy law of the jungle state do you live in what on earth
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:What loving crazy law of the jungle state do you live in what on earth Yeah, this is the kind of tort reform people should be talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 16:11
|
|
|
I don't know why Grundy's story is so objectionable - his client had a claim that he could have raised at any point during the statute of limitations. Obviously his claim wasn't that important to him - the only reason Grundy filed was for strategic reasons, to give his client leverage. The other side adopted the strategy of waiting until the last possible moment to file their claim, in hopes of forestalling Grundy's client from filing his claim. Both sides are engaged in strategic puffery, in my opinion. What's the alternative? If Grundy's client is permitted to file his claim as a counter-claim to the other sides' claim, that means the statute of limitations is basically irrelevant for Grundy's client - he can just hold on to his claim as a backup in case he ever gets sued by the other side. The statute of limitations basically says to Grundy's client "You've got a claim you could bring on its own merits, and we want you to bring that claim in a timely fashion, and not keep it in reserve in case you get sued by the other side." I dunno, I'm not a litigator, but it doesn't seem like an awful rule to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 16:31
|
|
|
entris posted:Both sides are engaged in strategic puffery, in my opinion. And only one of them got to file. This line of thought is why regular people hate lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 16:55
|
|
|
People shouldn't be prejudiced because they didn't want to go to court. Once court proceedings are forced upon them they should be free to raise all related issues. If we are talking about completely unconnected causes of action then I'd generally agree that limitation shouldn't be overuled, but given that practically speaking the only time a two claims are going to hit limitation on the same day is if they arise out of the same event I don't see why that should be a problem. There's no prejudice whatsoever to someone suing under breach of contract who finds himself subject to a counterclaim because he's already prepared for that litigation; none of the harms that limitation periods exist to prevent attach to him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
entris posted:What's the alternative? If Grundy's client is permitted to file his claim as a counter-claim to the other sides' claim, that means the statute of limitations is basically irrelevant for Grundy's client - he can just hold on to his claim as a backup in case he ever gets sued by the other side. A simple "you have a minimum 30 days to file a counterclaim, regardless of SOL" or something to that effect doesn't seem unreasonable. It doesn't make the SOL irrelevant at all, because the process would still have to be started by one party or the other before that date. I don't think you understand what a pain in the rear end a lawsuit is to a normal person. The time and expense is hardly worth it to most people for most things; in general it is more worth it to them to get on with their lives. However, once the other party files suit against them the entire balance of that equation changes. Moving on with their lives isn't going to happen, they're going to have to hire a lawyer, etc. Allowing a situation where they simply can't file a counterclaim seems wrong to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:On one occasion, my client was willing to walk away if the other guy didn't sue. So on the last day of the statute of limiations, I sent a clerk to the courthouse with a complaint to file only if the other guy filed a lawsuit. He stayed there all day, watching what was filed. Sure enough, the other guy's lawyer showed up with 1/2 hour left in the day, and filed a lawsuit. My clerk followed instructions, and filed my lawsuit right after. The suits were consolidated and we were off to the races. I have very little idea about law so I'm not able to articulate this well, but what about this kinda of thing: The other guy files 30min before the end of the day on the last day possible. In return, Grundy's client gets a one-time SOL extension (48 hours? 72 hours? No idea what a proper timeframe would be) to file on the same suit, as since Alchenar pointed out, the main reason two claims are going to have the same SOL date is if they're from the same event.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 17:29
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:A simple "you have a minimum 30 days to file a counterclaim, regardless of SOL" or something to that effect doesn't seem unreasonable. It doesn't make the SOL irrelevant at all, because the process would still have to be started by one party or the other before that date. However, what would deal with that is if the statute of limitations on any claim you might have against that person is simply extended by 30 days in the event of that person filing a suit against you, rather than just giving you a 30 day window. This way if they wait until the last minute to file on their grievance that was the same event, the 30 day extension will give you time to respond, but if they file over a completely separate grievance later you wouldn't be able to dredge up your old unrelated complaint in response. Also, I totally agree with Choadmaster about the "it is a pain in the rear end" aspect. I wouldn't go to court to pursue a $500 claim, but if the other guy tries to get $500 off me, I don't want to go to court and get nothing. The whole point of not claiming in the first place was I just don't want to go to court. Since now I have to anyway, I would certainly make the small additional effort to get money. (This has actually happened!) roomforthetuna fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Apr 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 17:33
|
|
|
roomforthetuna posted:That doesn't really deal with entris' objection, that you could hang on to a claim forever in case the other person files any grievance against you in future. I guess I didn't explain myself well, but I was assuming the additional 30 days to file a counterclaim would be directly related to the suit brought up. It would be ludicrous to dredge up some unrelated poo poo in this manner. Your second paragraph is essentially what I was trying to get at.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
Solomon: I didn't mean to imply that's how it works in my jurisdiction, I've actually never checked. Just seems like depending on the judge and the court, you could make the argument that if the counter-claim arises from the same nucleus as the complaint, the SOL is not serving its purpose in allowing one but not the other, and it would be inequitable to bar the counter-claim. ^^^ yeah, what Choadmaster is saying.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 20:32
|
|
Adar posted:I strongly suspect the places to look for these, if they exist at all, would be 1)the US Bank cases of the 1820's-30's and 2)the South's reaction to the various Civil Rights Acts. I also strongly suspect all of these laws/cases are complete losers. Oh, of course they are losers, no doubt about it, but I was curious to read some opinions to that effect.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Incidentally, I have both used and guarded against this strategem in the years since. On one occasion, my client was willing to walk away if the other guy didn't sue. So on the last day of the statute of limiations, I sent a clerk to the courthouse with a complaint to file only if the other guy filed a lawsuit. He stayed there all day, watching what was filed. Sure enough, the other guy's lawyer showed up with 1/2 hour left in the day, and filed a lawsuit. My clerk followed instructions, and filed my lawsuit right after. The suits were consolidated and we were off to the races. (I'm a criminal law guy.) At least in Virginia, I think that a counter-claim relates back to the date of the other lawyer's pleading for purposes of the statute of limitations. So there would be some protection against that nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 24, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
seeing a lawyer 
probably drunk fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Yeah, my brain is on the relation back doctrine. I'm not terribly well-versed on equities, but it would seem that the hypo under discussion is a fine place for an equitable remedy. "Plaintiff sat on his rights in an effort to block our counterclaim. Because we believed P was content to let the issue lapse, my client did as well. Then P, acting in bad faith, filed suit on the day the SOL tolled."
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 01:47
|
|
|
probably drunk posted:Move along citizen, nothing to see here. I am not in Oregon, and I am not a lawyer yet (or might never be if I don't finish this paper instead of browsing SA). It looks like you have three possible issues. The first is whether or not this is legally your child. The DNA test is a step in the right direction, at least for your own information. Once you get the results you should have some idea which of the second issues you face. It is your kid, and you want custody. Based on what I know about my county, you should have a good claim for custody. However, as the mother she will likely share custody in some form or another unless you can articulate compelling reasons why she is a danger to the well-being of your child. Any actual evidence would be helpful. It would be a very good idea to hire an attorney. On the other hand, it may not be your child. If she claims you as the father you will have to contest paternity. I have no clue how this process works in my jurisdiction, much less Oregon. In this case, you really want to hire a lawyer so you don't get stuck with 18+ years child support. The bottom line is that these are both hugely complicated issues, with serious legal consequences. Family law is always tricky, complicated, emotional, and high stakes. You should absolutely talk with a lawyer in your area. If you have no clue how to find one, this website should be a good start: http://www.osbar.org/public/ris/ris.html#referral Soylent Pudding fucked around with this message at 07:36 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:The bottom line is that these are both hugely complicated issues, with serious legal consequences. Family law is always tricky, complicated, emotional, and high stakes. You should absolutely talk with a lawyer in your area. This is absolutely the correct answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 02:54
|
|
|
probably drunk posted:I am in Oregon Contact a loving family lawyer and delete everything you've ever written online about your situation what the hell is wrong with you there's a child involved and potentially decades of financial liability why are you asking a goddamn internet forum about this (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:08
|
|
|
The beginning of this thread said it wasn't good for "do you have a claim," but the past few pages have people arguing about having claims, so I thought I'd try my luck. I live in Pennsylvania. A few months ago, I filed an anonymous complaint with my company's hr department via email. These were things I had complained to my boss about before several times that were pretty serious (hygiene issues with the store, OSHA laws being violated). Within a week of the letter being sent, everything was fixed. Last week, months after the letter was sent, my boss took me into our stock room and asked me if I ever filed a complaint with our HR department. He said no matter what I answered, he has his ways of finding out. After asking him several times if he was asking if I filed an anonymous complaint, he kept yelling at me that he has his ways of finding out, so I said I did because I felt scared of him at that time. He went on to tell me I had to tell him everything I complained about. He brought my other co-workers into the back room to say everyone had to complain to him before they complained to corporate. Everyone knows someone wrote a letter, but nobody knew who. Now everyone knows it's me, and my work is going to suck because I look like a whistle-blower. What can I do? I feel if I report this to HR I'll be transferred to another store, which would be a pain in the rear end. It doesn't even mean the people at the store I'll be transferred to won't know what I did, because people are friends with people in other stores. [Edit] If it matters, the day it happened, I wrote everything down so I have a record of what exactly happened and was said. AnnaBanana fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:16
|
|
|
hypocrite lecteur posted:Contact a loving family lawyer and delete everything you've ever written online about your situation what the hell is wrong with you there's a child involved and potentially decades of financial liability why are you asking a goddamn internet forum about this If everyone could do me the favor of not quoting my text, and removing the quotes they put up. I'll remove mine after a few hours for more people to give their input. The resounding answer is lawyer up, which I already contacted the bar and requested a reference. probably drunk fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
AnnaBanana posted:The beginning of this thread said it wasn't good for "do you have a claim," but the past few pages have people arguing about having claims, so I thought I'd try my luck. In most states, there is a piece of legislation called a whistleblower's protection act that deals with circumstances of this very nature. Look it up. Contact an employment lawyer for specific counsel. You may have a claim if an adverse employment action is taken against you. I am not your lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 05:57
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I guess I didn't explain myself well, but I was assuming the additional 30 days to file a counterclaim would be directly related to the suit brought up. It would be ludicrous to dredge up some unrelated poo poo in this manner. Your second paragraph is essentially what I was trying to get at. I don't really have a problem with the hard-and-fast, drop dead, statute of limitations date as it stands. You just have to plan for it. The hard-and-fast rule allows predictability. The problem with making an exception like this is that, at some point, you have to quit making exceptions. If you were to institute this 30 day counterclaim exception, I can think of half a dozen ways to muck up its application. For example, if I am representing a plaintiff, and I want to avoid a counterclaim under this exception, I could file the lawsuit and hold service of process for 30 days, to allow this deadline to expire. If some plaintiff does that, is there an exception to the exception? And so forth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:For example, if I am representing a plaintiff, and I want to avoid a counterclaim under this exception, I could file the lawsuit and hold service of process for 30 days, to allow this deadline to expire. If some plaintiff does that, is there an exception to the exception? And so forth. I understand how you might not have a problem with the hard-and-fast rule, because you're a lawyer and know about it, but if someone isn't a lawyer, and didn't hire a "just in case, though there is no actual case" lawyer (who does that!) then the setup as it is can just completely gently caress them over. I don't think you should "not really have a problem" with that. People shouldn't have to hire a lawyer every time someone might take them to court in future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 15:53
|
|