|
roomforthetuna posted:People shouldn't have to hire a lawyer every time someone might take them to court in future. It is thinking like this that led to the legal services market meltdown from 2008-present. Everyone should always have lots of lawyers on retainer and consult with those lawyers before every major or minor decision in their personal and business lives. It might get expensive for you, but hey, I have student loans to pay.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:It is thinking like this that led to the legal services market meltdown from 2008-present. Everyone should always have lots of lawyers on retainer and consult with those lawyers before every major or minor decision in their personal and business lives. It might get expensive for you, but hey, I have student loans to pay. You may be on to something here. The world would work better if things were like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--u_puzhGs&feature=youtu.be
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 18:21
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:You may be on to something here. The world would work better if things were like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f--u_puzhGs&feature=youtu.be SIMPLE CONSENT! ONLY $98! Mileage, notary, and filing fee included! On call 24/7! "You get us paid, we get you laid!* *VD testing extra. *VD waivers extra, must wait until next day courthouse is open. *prior domestic assault waivers require additional fees and may require $250 court-approved video monitoring fee. We also specialize in 'crazy clause' litigation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 19:01
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:It is thinking like this that led to the legal services market meltdown from 2008-present. Everyone should always have lots of lawyers on retainer and consult with those lawyers before every major or minor decision in their personal and business lives. It might get expensive for you, but hey, I have student loans to pay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Simple (I think) legal question (PA resident): MY GIRLFRIEND is renewing her lease for another year very soon. Her ex has moved out long ago but his name was still on the lease with her up until this point. Now, when she wanted to remove his name off and renew it solely in her name, her landlady now wants to charge an additional security deposit, due to the reasoning that since there's now only a single income she is concerned about her not being able to make rent payments. Is this legal to charge another month for an additional security deposit on such a whim?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 20:38
|
|
|
How much is the security deposit now? This is legally a new lease so the landlord can require two months' rent as security deposit. The landlady needs to refund 50% of the original security deposit to the girlfriend's ex, and credit the other 50% to her, (minus any damages, if she decides to do an inspection for them) but the landlady can ask for the difference between that 50% and two months' rent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:How much is the security deposit now? This is legally a new lease so the landlord can require two months' rent as security deposit. The landlady needs to refund 50% of the original security deposit to the girlfriend's ex, and credit the other 50% to her, (minus any damages, if she decides to do an inspection for them) but the landlady can ask for the difference between that 50% and two months' rent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
Newb. But a lurker! Still a newb. I'm in California, for reference. I lost my job and got unemployment. In order to, well, EAT, I offered my creditors to pay amounts smaller than the minimums in a good-faith effort to pay down my debt. My checks were returned to me citing "federal law prohibits us from accepting your payment as it is not at or above the stipulated minimum payment on your account." Nonetheless, I tried to get into a recovery/hey-you're-broke-but-want-to-do-good- plan, but I was rejected. After 2 years of unemployment and not finding a job, these deliquent debts became chargeoffs, then the creditors filed suit against me. The lawsuit paperwork ended up going to an old address. As I look into these suits, the evidence used to decide against me were as follows: 1)did not show up to court, default judgement entered and 2)a barely-legible and crooked (seriously, the text is copied at a 45 degree angle with words falling off the page) copy of what appears to be a 'statement of accounts' from the credit card company that sold the account to the collections agent. I started a business and YAY have a job now. I'd like to go to court on my own without a lawyer to vacate one of the judgements against me. I know this is possible. Does anyone else have experience with... a)going to court on your own behalf b).... in order to vacate a collections judgement or know how one might go about this? If worst comes to worst, I would prefer to settle for some amount instead of pay off the judgement. But these people who work at UNIFUND, seem like real assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 21:42
|
|
|
I'd suggest checking out this thread in BFC for dealing with debt collection. There's a lot of things you can do wrong that can really screw you over. You may have already done some but still, listen to those guys.
beejay fucked around with this message at 23:07 on Apr 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted: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. I kinda figured you had to get served within a week or so, but that's what I get for knowing nothing about anything. So... Make it 30 days from the date of service. The legal system is full of byzantine loopholes and exceptions and poo poo (or so it seems to us laymen!) what's the harm in a fairly straightforward one that potentially keeps people from getting screwed over? Here's the issue with "you just have to plan for it": This means figuring out the SOL, hiring a lawyer, preparing a counterclaim, and hanging around (or hiring someone to) in the courthouse for a few hours on that last day, just in case the other party decides to file suit. After any and every thing you do that could involve a lawsuit. That's an absurdity. Take my friend's case, for example. Some old lady pulls out of a parking lot into oncoming traffic and he T-bones her. Clearly 100% her fault, her insurance assumes responsibility and pays everything off, and he goes on with his life, which happened to include moving out of state not long after. On day 364 he should have had someone waiting in a courthouse on the other side of the country with a counterclaim prepared just in case someone he hadn't heard a peep from in a year decides to sue him?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 10:56
|
|
|
MehtaMar posted:Newb. But a lurker! Still a newb. I'm in California, for reference. Since you're in California, the self-help books over at Nolo Press might be of use to you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
Nevermind.
Jesto fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
You might want to rewind to the point where someone else has a video camera recording your private property, since that (should be) illegal in its own right.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 03:07
|
|
|
Short Time Listener, First Time Caller. My name is hatelull and I have a question about Divorce/Custody agreements in the state of Texas. TL;DR version: If a CS amount is audited, can it be applied retroactively? To wit: Dude has kid. Dude gets married. Dude gets divorced. CS is set based on Dude's Gross Income (a standard equation). Dude changes jobs, goes back to school full time. Dude and now ex-wife amicably agree to lower his child support amount. Dude gets a lawyer and a court order is fulfilled to lower the rate. Dude graduates, gets better job(s). Everything has been on the level, and so far there is no animosity between my daughter's mother and myself. However, there's always that fear that grips at 3 in the morning where I wake up to discover that everthing has gone pear shaped and the State of Texas wants to audit my current employment status and salary. I'm willing to accept this as fate. However, I just want to make sure I'm not going to get bent over because I've had this job for X amount of time and I should have been paying X amount of dollars during this period. Thanks, and I apologize in advance if Family Law/Child Support has already been through the ringer in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Nevermind.
Jesto fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
hatelull posted:Short Time Listener, First Time Caller. My name is hatelull and I have a question about Divorce/Custody agreements in the state of Texas. What does the order say regarding the new amount? Does the new amount revert back when you leave school, or does the order say it will depend upon your current income? I'm not a family law guy at all but if you've got a xourt order telling you how much to pay, that has force of law so I don't see how the state could change that without getting another court order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 04:17
|
|
|
Jesto posted:Or do you know any specific laws in California that outright forbid anyone from keeping a camera constantly trained on someone else's private property? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 04:20
|
|
|
hatelull posted:Short Time Listener, First Time Caller. My name is hatelull and I have a question about Divorce/Custody agreements in the state of Texas. I'm not licensed in Texas, but I do child support work and I'm fairly certain that no state allows retroactive modification, based on federal law. They may come in and file a motion for modification that would be effective as of the date of filing, but they can't go back and alter anything before that, unless the previous order stated on its face that it was temporary (which you'd probably know if it did because it would have been set for a hearing for a permanent amount). And again, no idea if this is applicable in Texas, but there's usually something that allows a state to review the amount after 3 years time to see if a modification is warranted. Edit: adding footnotes for your research: 42 U.S.C.§ 666(a)(9) (1994, Supp. IV 1998, & Supp. 1999); 45 C.F.R. § 302.70(a)(9) (2000). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/essentials/c11.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 04:51
|
|
|
 UK Data Protection laws question:I left my mobile phone provider a month ago and recently closed all business (phone unlocked, number transferred, refunded bill just came through), so I logged onto their website and found that my account is still there, inactive without a number or a plan attached to it, but with my personal details, nonetheless. Support simply tell me they won't delete my account. This sounds incredibly fishy to me, and I suspect that some data protection law might apply. Considering that nothing seems safe from customer database leaks these days, I don't really want my personal details knocking about on more servers than necessary...
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 10:07
|
|
|
My PIN is 4826 posted:
http://www.out-law.com/page-7250 quote:Privacy International has claimed that the difficulty in closing accounts with eBay puts the company in breach of the Act. It concedes that deleting an account is possible, but very difficult. Under the terms of the Data Protection Act, companies must allow people to delete or request that their personal information be deleted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 12:16
|
|
|
Would there be any legal pitfalls associated with a non-lawyer creating and selling contract bundles for profit? I know that anyone can write contracts and I assume you're free to try and sell them if you want, but does it open you up to liability or the accusation that you are impersonating a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 19:21
|
|
|
adonis_dna posted:Would there be any legal pitfalls associated with a non-lawyer creating and selling contract bundles for profit? I know that anyone can write contracts and I assume you're free to try and sell them if you want, but does it open you up to liability or the accusation that you are impersonating a lawyer? Simply providing forms is legal - take a walk through any office supply store or bookstore, and you'll find scads of books with prewritten legal forms for all sorts of transactions. Using any of these is generally a stupid idea because they aren't carefully drafted for any particular set of facts nor are they checked for compliance with any given state. But they are certainly legal. If you were to sell these forms, and you offered advice to customers about their transactions, then you'd run into "unlicensed practice of law" problems, which is what you're getting at. Basically, you sell your forms but you "officially" refuse to provide legal advice to your customers - you don't tell them which entity to form, or which provisions to include in their contracts, you just sell them the docs. Then of course your customer service reps will answer questions over the phone and then you later argue that this doesn't qualify as unlicensed practice of law. In practice, I think services like Legalzoom offer legal advice in violation of the rules but so far they've gotten away with it. tl;dr: selling just forms is fine, selling legal advice is not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
AZ Tenancy and Trustee's Sale questions: I found a notice taped to my door this morning that the unit I rent (along with most of the rest of the complex) is being auctioned off at a Trustee's sale. A call to the property manager confirmed it. I assume this voids my lease. Question 1: When is my lease actually void? The date of the sale? Question 2: Am I required to pay a full month's rent if the auction falls mid-month? Question 3: Do I have to move out prior to the auction or should I hang around to see if/what the new rent offer is? Question 4: Finally, the description of property says "units 1-18, inclusive." Does this mean the units are being auctioned in a single block or is it possible to bid on each unit separately? (I've considered making an offer for my place in the past and just found out I'm going to be here at least four more years.) I swear things like this have been asked and answered before, but I couldn't find them. Brennanite fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Apr 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:AZ Tenancy and Trustee's Sale questions: I wouldn't assume your lease is void - it may be a commercial auction where the buyer purchases the property as well as any contracts pertaining to the property (such as leases). In that case, the buyer would step into the shoes of your current landlord. However, your lease might be void, I don't know since I'm not a landlord-tenant guy. try contacting one of these: quote:Community Legal Services
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
Beejay & King of the Cows -- THANK YOU. I know you just posted a link to a different thread, but stuff like that makes forums like this valuable. Search sometimes doesn't cut it, but people do. I am now totally going to try to settle some of this shizznizzle, and refer incessantly to this and other threads in the process. Amazeballs. Can I be an official goon in only 2 posts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:AZ Tenancy and Trustee's Sale questions: The Protecting Tenants in Foreclosure Act section 702 seems to infer that you may stay until the end of the lease. There are lots of caveats in that law though, so be sure to call those numbers entris posted. This is a good starting point though: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc111/s896_enr.xml#toc-id058AF64E0CAE4A32A18D6FB5FD5717C3
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
Brennanite posted:AZ Tenancy and Trustee's Sale questions: Just a law student, but I have done some Landlord-Tenant work through a clinic. As always, if you want real legal advice, talk to an AZ lawyer and not some guy on the internet who may or may not currently be wearing pants. As I understand it, a trustee's sale is the sale of foreclosed upon assets in a bankruptcy. The federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act states that a tenant's lease does not end when property is sold at foreclosure. This means that they must allow you to remain for the duration of your lease. The only exception is if the purchaser seeks to occupy the property as a residence, in which case they must give at least ninety (90) days notice, even if there is less than 90 days remaining. This means you are guaranteed at least 90 days, or more likely the remaining time on your lease. Practically speaking, if the new owners want to continue leasing the property you should be ok. In this case you may be able to lease the unit again next year. They are not obligated to keep the same lease terms. Once your current lease expires they can offer any lease terms not void under federal, state, or local law. If they do not wish to lease, then they do not have to lease to you next year. If they don't like the current lease terms they may also be super anal about all your lease provisions. Thus, whoever your new landlords are, it is a very good idea to understand all your obligations under the lease and make sure you do not breach. One of the most common fact patters I saw was a new LL taking over and doing everything in their power to claim the tenants breached, just so the landlord could rent the units out under more favorable terms. I believe the inclusive means that the building is being auctioned off as a whole. It would be strange to sell off units individually unless they were freestanding. Still, it's probably the building as a whole unless AZ does something weird. You could always call up the auction people and ask though. Again, I am not a lawyer, I am not in your jurisdiction, and I may not be wearing pants. You would get much better advice talking to a lawyer in your area. Also, most states have landlord-tenant groups than can provide information if you do not want to talk to a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 04:19
|
|
|
If there's another party present at a attorney/client meeting, are they covered under privilege? Not an employee of the attorney, maybe a spouse or relative of the client.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 09:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that if they're involved with the case with you, they're a client, even if they specifically aren't the one paying the lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:If there's another party present at a attorney/client meeting, are they covered under privilege? Not an employee of the attorney, maybe a spouse or relative of the client. Depends on how the person is present. Eavesdroppers are different from people who are sitting in on the meeting. But I'm assuming that's not the gist of your question. Generally speaking, the presence of a third party (specifically one who's not assisting the lawyer in their duties) may defeat privilege. One of the elements of attorney-client privilege is that the communication in question must be confidential. Statements made in the presence of a third party are not confidential. Say it's a cousin who just wants to sit in on the meeting to know what's going on -- cousin is not a party to the case, just a well-meaning relative. Presented with that fact pattern, I would say privilege almost certainly does not apply, and I would warn the client up front in the most direct terms possible. The "spouse" thing is a little more convoluted because there are the limited spousal privileges -- those are also defeated by the presence of third parties. It's remotely conceivable that you could find a judge who would say both privileges (attorney-client and spousal) apply simultaneously, but I would never stake a client's well-being on it. Javid posted:I'm pretty sure that if they're involved with the case with you, they're a client, even if they specifically aren't the one paying the lawyer. "Involved in the case" is too vague. There are any number of things someone can do to be "involved" in a case. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 10:35 on Apr 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 10:32
|
|
|
Yeah, I realized spouse was a poor example as soon as I posted it, but you otherwise answered my question quite nicely. Thanks.Javid posted:I'm pretty sure that if they're involved with the case with you, they're a client, even if they specifically aren't the one paying the lawyer. Where do you practice law?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 10:42
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I kinda figured you had to get served within a week or so, but that's what I get for knowing nothing about anything. So... Make it 30 days from the date of service. The legal system is full of byzantine loopholes and exceptions and poo poo (or so it seems to us laymen!) what's the harm in a fairly straightforward one that potentially keeps people from getting screwed over? Don't let me insult your intelligence here, but one of the things that may be tripping you up is the difference between counterclaims and defenses. Take your hypothetical. Your friend has grounds to sue. He has a year to do so. He chooses not to. All of a sudden he wants to because he gets a suit brought against him. He's entirely able to defend against it - he can bring witnesses, he can make his arguments, he can deny wrongdoing and the judge gets to decide on the preponderance of the evidence. He can even ask for the plaintiff to pay his court fees at the end if he feels the suit has been brought maliciously. All that is barred is his ability to bring a counterclaim, which is properly a separate claim, and which he was totally fine with letting go for a whole year. Why should the law make an exception to cover his sudden change of heart?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 12:26
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:Don't let me insult your intelligence here, but one of the things that may be tripping you up is the difference between counterclaims and defenses. Take your hypothetical. Your friend has grounds to sue. He has a year to do so. He chooses not to. All of a sudden he wants to because he gets a suit brought against him. He's entirely able to defend against it - he can bring witnesses, he can make his arguments, he can deny wrongdoing and the judge gets to decide on the preponderance of the evidence. He can even ask for the plaintiff to pay his court fees at the end if he feels the suit has been brought maliciously. All that is barred is his ability to bring a counterclaim, which is properly a separate claim, and which he was totally fine with letting go for a whole year. Why should the law make an exception to cover his sudden change of heart? Why should a person who is prepared to litigate over a set of facts be allowed to rely upon limitation in respect to a seperate action over those same facts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 13:16
|
|
|
This happened in Michigan. Back story. Some lady sideswipped my car in July of 2007. She had no insurance and I did not have full coverage. I eventually sold it for less than what I wanted as I couldn't afford to fix it. I was granted restitution of $1600 and to date I believe I have received $516. I haven't seen any money in over a year now. According to the prosecutor She was sentenced on 6-12-08 to 2 years probation. A term of her probation was to pay $1,600 in restitution. Reading local law apparently I can file an MC52 to try and intercept her tax refund each year. http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,1607,7-238-43513_43515-129450--,00.html For Income Tax Refunds or Credits: Form MC52, Request and Writ for Garnishment (Income Tax Refund and/or Credit). This allows for a one-time intercept of an Income Tax Refund or Credit. My question is, how do I find out her SSN? Will the court just give me this information. Any other suggestions? Thank you very much!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm pretty sure that if they're involved with the case with you, they're a client, even if they specifically aren't the one paying the lawyer. Just to be clear, only the person being represented is the client. If somebody else is paying the bills, the bill payer is not the client and the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the bill payer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:If there's another party present at a attorney/client meeting, are they covered under privilege? Not an employee of the attorney, maybe a spouse or relative of the client.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
When I meet with clients for estate planning, often it is a married (or gay) couple that I represent jointly. I tell them that there will be no attorney-client confidentiality between the three of us - what the wife tells me, I am required to tell the husband, and vice-versa - but I will not divulge any information to 3rd parties. If I meet with an individual, who wants to have their brother, sister, etc. in the meeting, I explain that there will not be attorney-client confidentiality for that meeting. In both cases, I make sure the client signs a waiver of the attorney-client confidentiality before I continue the meeting. edit: yep, was missing a "not", thanks Choad entris fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Apr 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 15:55
|
|
|
^^ Are you missing a "not" in that second paragraph?Feces Starship posted:Don't let me insult your intelligence here, but one of the things that may be tripping you up is the difference between counterclaims and defenses. Take your hypothetical. ... No, I'm not at all confused about that. Additionally, my entirely non-hypothetical friend (or rather, his alcoholic yet inexplicably awesome lawyer) did a fine defense and the woman was practically laughed out of the courtroom. Feces Starship posted:All that is barred is his ability to bring a counterclaim, which is properly a separate claim, and which he was totally fine with letting go for a whole year. Why should the law make an exception to cover his sudden change of heart? We covered this earlier in the thread. You can go back and read the argument if you like; I'm inclined to drop the matter here since this is supposed to be an advice thread and I've probably shitted it up enough with this debate. Choadmaster fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Apr 28, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Just a law student, but I have done some Landlord-Tenant work through a clinic. As always, if you want real legal advice, talk to an AZ lawyer and not some guy on the internet who may or may not currently be wearing pants. Now, my lease specifically states that "in the event of foreclosure on the premises this agreement shall be terminated. Agent shall return applicable deposits to tenants. Tenants hereby release agent from further responsibility or liability." That says to me that it's void. HOWEVER, it sounds like this Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act supersedes the termination clause in my lease. Is this correct? The property management says that the lease remains in force since the contract is with them and not the owners. My lease makes it very clear that the parties are the owner and myself, so I am not trusting 100% what they say. I think I will be making an appt. with Student Legal Aid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:17 |
|
|
Brennanite posted:Now, my lease specifically states that "in the event of foreclosure on the premises this agreement shall be terminated. Agent shall return applicable deposits to tenants. Tenants hereby release agent from further responsibility or liability." That says to me that it's void. HOWEVER, it sounds like this Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act supersedes the termination clause in my lease. Is this correct? That's really important information. I've never had to deal with that sort of provision before. Make that appointment with student legal aid. Make sure you bring a copy of your lease and copies of the notifications you have received.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2011 20:52
|
|