|
Soylent Pudding posted:Landlord Tenant is one of those areas where you usually cannot contract around statutes. Again, here is a reference guide for you: http://www.atg.wa.gov/ResidentialLT/default.aspx Yeah I figured as much. Just wanted to see if there could be any possibility. I read through most of the material on the state website. Good information for next time, although we turned the management over to a property management company so we don't have to deal with this stuff anymore (hopefully  )
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
Move along.
Nero fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2011 19:18
|
|
|
Savannah, GA. We moved into the apartment late May, I am neither on the lease nor the utilities. We get a bill from the electric company for the first 10 days - $300. We immediately call the landlord and the power company. Both do not really respond well. Landlord says he will look around and power company said they would send someone to look at the meter. I was pretty sure it was either a busted meter or ac since, the water smelled of sulfur until I ran it hot for a few minutes. I figured no one had lived there for awhile so it could be a myriad of things. Landlord comes by and leaves without a word. Power company does not even send us a bill for the next two months despite us calling them. They told us twice they were sending someone out but, never showed. We finally call them for a third time, they tell us we owe $1200 and to call in the meter ourselves. This has not happened yet because the girl its in her name, has not. Call the landlord again, turns out it was the AC. We are without a/c for 1-2 weeks while he is getting his guys to fix it. He does notice the filter is very dirty which was, unknown to me, apart of our responsibilities in the lease. I figure the meter is not wrong since the a/c was running hard because of the circuit. My question is what exactly do we owe and how much of it is the landlord's responsibility to help take care of the power bill?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Nero posted:My girlfriend was in a car accident about a month ago and the other party is alleging that she is responsible for significant injuries, far above the amount my girlfriend's insurance would cover. We were planning on getting married this month. If we get married and then she gets sued and loses, can I be held liable for these damages as her husband? We live in Missouri and the accident occurred in California. Is her insurance providing representation for her? If so, this sounds like the type of question to ask them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 00:10
|
|
|
Nero posted:My girlfriend was in a car accident about a month ago and the other party is alleging that she is responsible for significant injuries, far above the amount my girlfriend's insurance would cover. We were planning on getting married this month. If we get married and then she gets sued and loses, can I be held liable for these damages as her husband? We live in Missouri and the accident occurred in California. I'm not licensed in either of your jurisdictions so this isn't legal advice, just a personal opinion. The term you're looking for is 'community debt', and in general it would have to be incurred during the marriage in order for your assets to be at risk, and her actions must have been for the benefit of the community or for family purpose. So while it's unlikely, you may want to look into doing a prenuptual agreement as to covering your assets, and you'll probably want to get an attorney in whatever jurisdiction the case is being filed. Also, to give you a sliver of hope, your insurance company has a duty to defend, which means that they'll also have an attorney on her behalf (though they'll send you a letter saying you'll want to get one for yourself), and they'll be pressured to settle for the policy limits. When I worked insurance cases, it was extremely rare for someone to pursue the case past the policy limit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 01:36
|
|
|
edit: forget about it, I'll just wait until I see my lawyer again in two weeks.
Crell fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Aug 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
if you have a lawyer edit out your post and trust in your lawyer, or get a different one
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 03:42
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:I'm not licensed in either of your jurisdictions so this isn't legal advice, just a personal opinion. One note, however, and again not-state specific advice - even if the debt pre-exists the marriage, if you transfer assets into her name, those assets are at risk. For example, if you add her to the deed of a house that you own, the accident victim could conceivable foreclose on her half interest. So keep everything in your name.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 11:51
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:One note, however, and again not-state specific advice - even if the debt pre-exists the marriage, if you transfer assets into her name, those assets are at risk. For example, if you add her to the deed of a house that you own, the accident victim could conceivable foreclose on her half interest. So keep everything in your name. One the other hand, don't move stuff from her name into yours because you potentially create the same problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 12:03
|
|
|
I hope I didn't miss a question like this in reading the thread but: This fall I will be moving to Ann Arbor, Michigan to start my Master's degree. As such, I'm apartment hunting. I have a more pricey apartment just in case, but have been hunting on Craigslist for a cheaper one. And sure enough, I found a group. Now, before I go any further, I have stalked these people as much as possible. Friending them/talking to them individually on facebook/skype, constant emails/references, and making sure they are EXACTLY who they say they are. Despite never being in a room with these people, I trust them (to an extent. I'm not going to wire money or anything). The house we're looking at is awesome, but the landlady only wants to deal with ONE person contractually about the rent. And now, no one is stepping up to be that person. Now, because I don't "know" these guys, I feel VERY uncomfortable doing it. But, I think that there would be a legal means of making everyone comfortable (we have our own contract to each other or something). Any ideas? Thank you in advance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 17:44
|
|
|
Do colleges have the legal right to open mail or packages delivered to the student? Their explanation of their mailing service is as such: "Blah Blah College Mail Services processes all incoming and outgoing mail for faculty. staff and students. During the academic calendar year: We sort mail in X student mail rooms for approximately XXXX on campus residents." Does this give them any legal right to open or report any delivered packages for any reason?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 21:00
|
|
|
empiricus posted:Does this give them any legal right to open or report any delivered packages for any reason? Your school can't open your USPS mail. Reporting suspected crimes in progress (this box smells like weed and is being delivered to XXX) is OK though. I'm not clear about the law here for private package companies in this context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Your school can't open your USPS mail. Reporting suspected crimes in progress (this box smells like weed and is being delivered to XXX) is OK though. I'm not clear about the law here for private package companies in this context. The box wouldn't smell like weed, nothing like that. In fact, the box wouldn't smell like anything. So as long as its USPS it's safe as far as opening, and in general as long as it doesn't smell suspicious it won't go anywhere? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
helpful people posted:useful advice Thanks guys. I appreciate the help!
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Doctor J posted:I hope I didn't miss a question like this in reading the thread but: Now, whether or not that's legal/advisable/possible in your area (is it subletting? I don't know) would have to go to someone with actual schooling in something which is not music.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Doctor J posted:I hope I didn't miss a question like this in reading the thread but: Since you're moving to Ann Arbor, I assume you're going to the University of Michigan. If so, you should check out Student Legal Services-- it's free (paid for as part of your tuition). http://studentlegalservices.umich.edu/ if you want to check it out. The one thing is that they can't get involved in cases involving multiple U of M students, since there's a conflict of interest there. I'm not sure if that matters if you're just drawing up an agreement between tenants, but at the very least you could probably get some good advice from them. They have been of great use to me in the past. edit: grammar edit 2: It also just clicked that you're not in Ann Arbor yet, so this probably isn't that helpful. Maybe one of your potential roommates is a UM student and could talk to someone there? Either way, good resource for the future. Sadsy Kitten fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 01:26
|
|
|
Austin, TX My mom was in a fender bender and has received a rental car while her car is in the shop. The rental car has Louisiana Commercial license plates. This evening, she was pulled over and ticketed for operating a non-registered motor vehicle. (yes, stupid for not verifying registration status, but that's not typically something I would think one would need to worry about when renting a car) In this scenario, could the rental company be held liable for the cost of the ticket? Update w/ more info and another question: the ticket was written for "operate unregistered motor vehicle". The sticker on the plate expired at the end of July 2011, the officer claimed that when he ran the plate, no match came up, which was the reason for initiating the stop. Is expired registration and unregistered MV the same charge? grnberet2b fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Aug 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 03:12
|
|
|
grnberet2b posted:Austin, TX Out of curiosity, has she spoken to the rental agency regarding whether they'll pay for the ticket?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:Out of curiosity, has she spoken to the rental agency regarding whether they'll pay for the ticket? Not yet. We went this morning and traded out cars and spoke with them about it. There wasn't any explicit offers to cover the ticket, but the manager spoke with the company's "risk management team" who informed him that we could show the court the title of the car (  ) to prove it was registered and get the ticket dismissed. We've been put in a different rental car, and the manager says he will be sending us a copy of the "new registration" by the end of the day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
The DoE on their website and on the automated phone system claims authority to garnish under SEC. 488A. 20 U.S.C. 1095a of the Higher Education act of 1965, which in section (a(1)) specifies that garnishment is not to exceed 10% of disposable pay. However, I am being garnished at 15% as permitted by the Debt Collection Act of 1996 under 31 U.S.C. 3720d. The 1965 act and everything in it appears to have been more recently amended/reaffirmed/reauthorized/whatever, and I don't see anything in the 1996 act that specifies that it those sections replace or supercede those of the other. But then I'm not 100% clear how these things work. Since they're claiming authority under the earlier act that has also been more recently acted upon, but garnishing at the higher percentage of the 1996 act, isn't something a bit screwy here? e: ignore all this. It seems the problem is that the DoE has the the old wording of that particular section on their site rather than the updated 20 USC 1095a that was modified by the later act. Looking at the current code, the sections are consistent with each other. That they've got the wrong one there sucks for me, but a botched c/p by some web programmer isn't going to get me anywhere. Bah. Thought I was on to something. ReidRansom fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Aug 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
I'm asking this question for a fellow goon who is afraid his wife might be keeping tabs on his forum postings. I'm in So Cal. My divorce started last September and most issues seem to have been resolved in the final judgement. The main outstanding issue seems to be that my ex-wife is entitled to half of the money in my retirement account. I have provided my attorney with instructions on how to facilitiate the actual trasnfer of funds. More than 6 weeks ago, my attorney sent her attorney an email with the Final Judgement attached. She stated that all her side had to do was modify the Final Judgement to include details about the retirement account seperation, send it to the court and the divorce would be on its way to being complete. We have not received any kind of response from her or her attorney. What I want to know is why she would be waiting this long to sign the papers. Alimony and possessions have been decided, and there is a substantial amount of money waiting for her. All she has to do is file the final judgement, but they won't move forward. Can someone give me some possible insight into their thinking here? What could be the reasons for this? The marriage term was less than five years and I'm pretty sure she can't get alimony past May of next year so what is her angle here? How long does she have to respond to the email from my attorney or to file that Final Judgement? Thanks ahead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Billy Shears posted:I'm asking this question for a fellow goon who is afraid his wife might be keeping tabs on his forum postings. If he has an attorney he should be asking these questions of his attorney, not strangers on the internet. If he doesn't trust his attorney at this point we may be able to offer advice on finding a new attorney. If he's worried that his wife is keeping tabs on his forum account he should change his passwords and again, talk to his attorney.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
Dad died last June, unmarried. His ex-girlfriend he had been living with in MI (we're in CT) handled a lot of things for us and was the exectuor of the estate. She's approached my sister and I with $9,486 in debt in Dad's name that she's asking us to pay. It's broken down as $3,648 to the State of CA (he lived there for a time, this must be taxes but I'll get more info) and $5,802 to BofA Credit Card. My sister and I inherited the contents of Dad's Canadian RRSP account(he lived+worked there for a long time). We need to know if that account is considered part of "assets" and as such subject to having to pay his debts? I figure the Tax Debt is unavoidable and I'm prepared to write a check for that one, but are we at all liable, legally, for the BofA debt? I should probaly talk to a lawyer but if that's going to cost more mone than my half of the $9500 then gently caress it... I'm sick of dealing with this and want it gone as cheaply as possible. I've never dealt with a death or talked to a lawyer before and really don't know what to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 13:54
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:If he has an attorney he should be asking these questions of his attorney, not strangers on the internet. If he doesn't trust his attorney at this point we may be able to offer advice on finding a new attorney. If he's worried that his wife is keeping tabs on his forum account he should change his passwords and again, talk to his attorney. If they're just formalising final judgement then it's a bit late for all of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 14:11
|
|
|
Wamsutta posted:Dad died last June, unmarried. His ex-girlfriend he had been living with in MI (we're in CT) handled a lot of things for us and was the exectuor of the estate. Do not pay anyone anything without talking to a lawyer. In probate cases, it is possible for some types of assets to pass directly to a named beneficiary without going through probate or becoming part of the estate. If that can be done with a Canadian RRSP account, then that money wouldn't be used to settle the debts of your dad's estate. (Some quick Googling indicates that RRSP accounts can be passed directly to named benificiaries, at least under Canadian probate law, but I don't know for sure if there are any caveats with your dad being a US resident at the time of his death.) In any case, you are not directly responsible for any of your dad's debts and you should not pay his creditors or his ex-girlfriend anything right now, though if it turns out that the RRSP account should have gone through probate for some reason, you could be responsible for returning those funds to the estate so that they can be distributed properly through the probate process. If the only thing you've received from your dad (or his estate) was the RRSP funds, a probate lawyer should be able to let you know if having those funds skip probate was kosher; if it was, then you are in no way responsible for the debts of your dad's estate. If you know any lawyers (or know anyone who has one on retainer), ask that lawyer to recommend a probate lawyer in your area. Otherwise, just google or check the phone book for one that handles probate and estate law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2011 21:17
|
|
|
Edit: gently caress it, I'll just go to the police.
A.s.P. fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Aug 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
This is a bit of a long shot, but is anyone familiar with traffic law in Victoria, Australia? I don't have an actual situation, just a friendly argument with my girlfriend about the law. I say that if you brake to avoid an animal on the road (like a neighborhood cat) and someone hits the rear of your car, it's entirely their fault and you have no fault in the accident at all. She says that if you brake to avoid an animal, and someone hits your car from the rear, you can still be charged with dangerous driving or similar. I don't see how that could possibly be - I was under the impression that if someone hit you in the back, that was always their fault unless you were reversing into them or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 11:59
|
|
|
The NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) is charging a $300 fee for religious accommodations for the FE exam (an engineering exam) in the state I am in (Missouri), but a friend took it in Maryland and didn't have to pay. The accommodation is that they give it only on Saturday, which is the Jewish Sabbath. Is it legal to charge money for religious accommodation like this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 17:52
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is a bit of a long shot, but is anyone familiar with traffic law in Victoria, Australia? I don't have an actual situation, just a friendly argument with my girlfriend about the law. Not a lawyer, not even in Australia, but I hit someone in front of me-- I was driving along at 50mph and suddenly this guy veers out from a standstill in the turn lane and cuts me off. I don't have time to stop, bam, I've hit him in the back. Totaled my car, barely made a dent in his (drat SUV driver). He got the ticket though (I also had several witnesses to back up my story), so you can definitely hit someone in the back and not be at fault. I'm curious about the animal thing, too. It seems like it might be considered reckless driving to just suddenly stop in the middle of the road. In driver's ed, I was taught to avoid animals when I could, but not at all costs. I imagine if the animal were a deer or some other large creature, you'd have more of a case, since that can do some serious damage to your car, but I'd be pretty pissed if some guy decided to brake for a squirrel (or even a kitty) and made me wreck my car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 18:04
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is a bit of a long shot, but is anyone familiar with traffic law in Victoria, Australia? I don't have an actual situation, just a friendly argument with my girlfriend about the law. It is going to depend on the circumstances. If you do an all-out emergency stop for a squirrel then the police and insurers are likely to be very unimpressed. You should always be leaving enough space for the car in front to do an emergency stop though, so the starting point will be that regardless of whether you were driving dangerously, so was the other car.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:This is a bit of a long shot, but is anyone familiar with traffic law in Victoria, Australia? I don't have an actual situation, just a friendly argument with my girlfriend about the law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2011 22:54
|
|
|
nm posted:In the US, the driver behind would be at fault. You should always be following at a distance so that you can stop at a moments notice. Yeah, this is how I was taught it. Someone pulled out of a side road 2 cars ahead of me, and stalled. The car that would have hit it swerved around, the car in front of me did an unnecessary emrgency stop (stopping like 50 metres before the obstruction), and I hit that car. I got the ticket and I felt I deserved it because I was clearly too close to stop in time. I mean, squirrel, pet dog, crawling drunk, or toddler, you don't want people going "what is that shape, exactly, and am I or am I not allowed to brake for it? The girlfriend contacted the cops via twitter to ask and they backed me up, so problem solved I guess
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 03:09
|
|
|
So I recently moved an in the process I cracked the screen on my 42 inch LCD TV. Is there anyway this might be covered under my homeowners insurance? I kinda wanna cry a little bit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 03:33
|
|
|
cr0y posted:So I recently moved an in the process I cracked the screen on my 42 inch LCD TV. Is there anyway this might be covered under my homeowners insurance? I kinda wanna cry a little bit. Having been a furniture mover, I'd have to say probably not but all insurance companies are different. IF it was the movers who broke it, they'll pay for it if you kick up a fuss, even if you didn't pay extra for "insurance". If you did it yourself, it's worth asking anyway. Just don't commit insurance fraud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
can you talk yourself into legal liability for something? For example, I was thinking about josh hamilton (the baseball player who killed a guy by throwing him a ball as a souvenir, if you didn't know). Obviously it was an accident, but if he swore up and down he was actually trying to kill the guy, would it be possible to arrest + convict him, assuming he maintains his intention to kill the fan during his trial? would the case even make it to trial?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
What is the legal definition of being "committed to a mental institution"? Is it the same as being adjudicated a mental incompetent in the sense that it requires a judge or court order? I am concerned because I was taken to a mental hospital in my teens/early 20's by my mom and want to buy a gun. I always thought I wouldn't be able to, but after doing some research I don't think I've ever been "committed". I live in Ohio. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 02:56
|
|
|
Anyone want to help me out with a bit of Canadian law? I'm from Toronto, and wondering if there's any way I can have my youth court record erased early. I was initially arrested when I was 14 or 15, I'm now 19 but I only finished my probation sentence about a year ago. I think the normal length of time to wait is 5 years. I need to get a criminal background check for a job opportunity and it would be pretty depressing if I won't be able to come back clear for another 4 years. Looks like that's how it's gonna be though, anyone wanna help clarify for me? I've got a good lawyer if that helps but I don't want to bother contacting him if it's impossible to get this wiped early (he's bloody expensive).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
Michael Corleone posted:What is the legal definition of being "committed to a mental institution"? Is it the same as being adjudicated a mental incompetent in the sense that it requires a judge or court order? I am concerned because I was taken to a mental hospital in my teens/early 20's by my mom and want to buy a gun. I always thought I wouldn't be able to, but after doing some research I don't think I've ever been "committed". I live in Ohio. Thank you. In Ohio, the only restriction one would have from having been committed to a mental institution is that one won't be able to get a concealed carry permit. However, federal law (subsection (g)(4) makes it illegal for you to possess a gun if you've been committed to a mental institution. For this purpose, the feds define "committed to a mental institution" as: "27 CFR 178.11 posted:Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes a commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution. You mom taking you in may not be a formal commitment - I think the lawful authority they have in mind is more like a doc signing off on an involuntary commitment pursuant to state law that you are a threat to yourself or others. Talk to your doctor/check your medical records - and then go talk to an attorney Medical Sword, All you need is the medical examiner to corroborate the confession by saying the guy died from being beaned by a baseball, and 12 people to believe Hamilton beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to kill the guy. e: I didn't know the guy died from falling out of the stands - like Abugadu said, causation's another hurdle for Hamilton to get over in convincing a jury he's guilty. joat "so long as there are no sports questions, Regis is going to owe me a million dollars some day" mon joat mon fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Aug 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
Medical Sword posted:can you talk yourself into legal liability for something? For example, I was thinking about josh hamilton (the baseball player who killed a guy by throwing him a ball as a souvenir, if you didn't know). Obviously it was an accident, but if he swore up and down he was actually trying to kill the guy, would it be possible to arrest + convict him, assuming he maintains his intention to kill the fan during his trial? would the case even make it to trial? In general, yes you could talk yourself into bigger problems. The US crim system is set up with roughly 4 types of mental states for crimes, each with correspondingly greater penalties, stretching from being criminally negligent to premeditating/committing intentional acts. So for example, the worker who accidentally leaves an open manhole that someone falls in would not be punished as badly as someone who intentionally comes over, opens the manhole, and tries to conceal the opening from sight, despite the fact that the end result (someone falling in and dying) is the same. With the Hamilton case, if you start with the hypothetical that Hamilton intended to cause the fan's death by throwing it short, and claimed to have done so, (and was not found insane/incompetent), it may still be difficult to convict because of the grey area around whether Hamilton caused the death. So Hamilton intends to kill the fan, and the fan dies, but does a poorly-thrown ball that tempts the fan to overreach and fall have enough of a causal connection? There might be an arrest, based on public outrage alone, but probably not enough of a connection to convict, as it might be a tough sell to a jury to say that it was forseeable that a poorly-thrown ball would cause the fan's death. U.S. law is incredibly murky on this point, as there are competing doctrines: first, negligence of the victim is not supposed to be used to excuse the conduct of the defendant. However, if the actions of the victim break the chain of causation, it may relieve the defendant of liability. Confused? Good. Hamilton might, in your hypothetical, be subject to a civil suit, though, as the standard to be proven is less. In tort law, the foreseeability test requires only that the general type of harm suffered by the victim was reasonably foreseeable, in the sense that the harm was the same as or similar to the type of harm that the defendant’s conduct unreasonably risked. The particular specific manner in which the harm occurred does not have to be foreseeable. In contrast, in criminal law, the foreseeability test is more exacting, requiring that the specific manner in which the harm occurred must be reasonably foreseeable. So the case might make it to trial, but the prosecutor would have to convince the jury that it was reasonably foreseeable that the fan would fall over the railing to grab a poorly-thrown ball. Given how little that happens, I would predict an acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:25 |
|
|
In California, does a passenger being on parole automatically give police permission to search my vehicle?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2011 11:23
|
|
