Mahstah posted:

Property question for Alaska.

My parents the land on which they live, worth roughly $60k and completely paid for. Otherwise they very poor with little to no assets. My stepfather has had some pretty serious medical issues in the past and more than likely will have even worse ones in the future. My mother is worried about medical debt getting to the point that she loses her home. She raised the idea of selling ($1) or gifting me the land, so that it is no longer an asset in their names.

I don't want to get myself or them in trouble and am planning on talking to a lawyer but I thought asking here may be a good first step. Is this legal? If it is, should I buy the land from them or is gifting it the way to go? I am also slightly worried about a $60k gift going onto my taxes, that seems like it might hurt come tax season.

entris posted:

First off, do not worry about the tax issue - your parents would owe gift tax, but they are allowed to give away up to $5 million before the gift tax kicks in. You won't pay income on the gift.

If you buy the land for $1, that is still going to be treated as a gift of the majority of the land, since the purchase price doesn't match the value of the land.

OK, now here's the bad news: what you are suggesting, where your parents transfer the land to you to get it out of the reach of creditors, is called a fraudulent conveyance, and that's illegal and won't work. Alaska Code section 34.40.010 and the following sections are the law that prohibit this. So go ahead and put that idea to rest.

However, your parents are entitled to something called a "homestead exemption", which means that they can protect their principal residence from the claims of creditors, for value up to $54,000. See http://www.touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title09/Chapter38/Section010.htm

I think your parents have the following options:

1. You buy their land for a fair price, so that it is a bona fide purchase. This takes the property outside the reach of creditors, but you have to put up the money to buy the land. I am not entirely sure that this will avoid the fraudulent conveyance issue, but I suspect that it might.

2. They sell the land and use the proceeds to buy a new home that is worth less than the homestead exemption, so that their new home can't be taken by creditors.

What your mom originally suggested is not going to work.

If you guys can afford it, you should talk to a consumer rights' attorney who does a lot of work protecting debtors from creditors, and see what options that attorney has for you. It's possible that the homestead exemption has been increased - I don't know if that link above is current - but I wouldn't hope for that.

dvgrhl posted:

Except, if they aren't to the point right now where creditors are after them, and only worried about the possibility of it in the future, would it still be fraudulent conveyance?

dvgrhl posted:

Except, if they aren't to the point right now where creditors are after them, and only worried about the possibility of it in the future, would it still be fraudulent conveyance?

entris posted:

The fact that they already have debt and are feeling financial pressure is enough for me to worry about the fraudulent conveyance rule. Fraud is such a flexible, broad doctrine, that I would worry about a court interpreting the transfer as a fraudulent conveyance.

It's a tough situation that, unfortunately, I don't think there's an easy answer to.

entris posted:

I think your parents have the following options:

1. You buy their land for a fair price, so that it is a bona fide purchase. This takes the property outside the reach of creditors, but you have to put up the money to buy the land. I am not entirely sure that this will avoid the fraudulent conveyance issue, but I suspect that it might.

2. They sell the land and use the proceeds to buy a new home that is worth less than the homestead exemption, so that their new home can't be taken by creditors.

ibntumart posted:

First things first: I'm not your lawyer, not licensed in your state, not legal advice.

If you paid by check, that means you can get copies of the canceled checks from your bank. That plus the receipts should be ample evidence to the building manager that (1) you did indeed pay the extra $100 per month and (2) you're organized enough to present evidence to that effect at court if it goes that far.

Out of curiosity, what did the old lease list as the rent and amount owed for utilities? And did the landlord ever give you any written notice of the higher rent amount owed?

Also, this might help you:
http://www.lawhelp.org/documents/1593216300EN.pdf?stateabbrev=/WA/

Saint Celestine posted:

Quick question about how can I change a traffic court date?

"The defendant or a representative must appear in court on the date of your summons. If a representative appears, that person must explain why the defendant cannot appear and request a continuance. Otherwise, the date must be advanced through the motion court of the specific district court in question requesting that the judge change the date. (A motion to advance cannot be filed in a case involving an accident.)"

Thats from the Illinois traffic court website.

My question is, is a death in the family, say, a mother or father, a valid reason to request a continuance? I'm asking this question for someone else, and their father really did die, so It wouldnt be lying.

I also googled continuance, but it only vaguely outlines reasons.

The T posted:

Sorry, another stupid traffic ticket question.

So, I got a speeding ticket for going "43" MPH into a 30 MPH road. The thing is, the cop said he was going to write it up only for "failure to stop at a traffic signal", and he pointed behind me at the last traffic signal. He checked off that box, and did not check off the "unlawful speed" box. In the "other violations or comments pertaining to offense" section, he wrote "43 mph // 30 mph" and the radar gun's number. He also wrote the law being "violated" being Florida law section 316.074, subsection 1.

Either way, I want to dispute the ticket.

So, I don't think there's any merit to the "failure to stop at a traffic signal" claim. The only traffic signal I passed in the time frame I left my apartment was one crosswalk with a traffic light before it. The crosswalk exists to let people into the mall, and the light ONLY turns red when someone presses the pedestrian walk. You can not turn and there is no intersection, it's just a traffic light in front of a crosswalk.

The light was definitely green for motorists, and there were no pedestrians around. There was a car in the lane right to the left of me, which continued on as normal, and we were both going the same speed.

So my first question becomes, if I were to take this to court, would the "unlawful" speed I was supposedly doing but not actually charged for come into question? Or would that aspect just be thrown out for not being on the citation. And even then, I really don't think I was even going that fast; 40 tops, but between 35 and 40. Still speeding, but, really. Car next to me going the same speed, and it's a ridiculously insignigant speed.

The next point of interest is how it all went down. It was a fairly obviously set up a speed trap; they had me pull into the mall and there was another car that got pulled over before me, and there were 3 cops present. The cop who issued me the ticket ran into the road to direct me into the mall to issue the ticket; he could not possibly also be the one who saw me, because he would have been too far away. There were obviously other cops present.

If I were to take this to court, would I only see the officer who gave me the ticket, or would the others also be present?

The next point of issue is that the address on my driver's license is not my current residence address. Would this cause issues?

Another thing I worry about is the option to attend driving school to not get points on my license. If I go to court and they find me "guilty", does that remove the option of taking driving school to remove the points?

Finally, I read earlier in the thread that someone mentioned to "speak to the prosecutor" to discuss options. How would I go about getting in contact with them in the first place?

entris posted:

If you go to traffic court and bring up these issues, you will find that the officer will revise the charge on the spot to be speeding 15 mph over the speed limit.
...

The T posted:

Thanks. Guess it didn't come off clear, but my question definitely was meant to be, "Can they flat out change the charge". Pretty bullshit that supposedly they can, but I appreciate you pointing that one out to me.

Konstantin posted:

Also, that seems really odd, in Florida the traffic signal violation carries a $125 fine, while speeding 10-15 MPH over carries a $100 fine. The cop isn't doing you any favors.

Lord Gaga posted:

IIRC the failure to obey ticket carries a 3 point penalty if you admit guilt and pay the fine while unlawful speed carries a 4 point penalty. I'd agree that he is not doing you any favors and IANAL. I have, however, received two such tickets and been to traffic court in Florida about ~10 times now and have all dismissals except for one withhold where I plead no contest and got the fine reduced with no school or points. In my times of going I have never seen a judge change the fine except to decrease or try to punish you in any way for going to court. You will be assessed court costs of you elect a trial and then plead no contest. This is $33 in orange county. Wear a suit. Go to Goodwill if you do not have a suit and get a suit. Show respect for the court and read the Florida rules of traffic court linked below. There are rights like speedy trial and discovery you need to understand. It'll also give you a run down of what to expect.

Lord Gaga posted:

On the withhold I mentioned previously, the officer showed up and had everything he needed to make a case for unlawful speed. I had nothing to say that he couldn't disprove with paperwork in hand. I changed my plea to no contest after telling the judge how god drat poor I am and that the only reason I am here is because I am so very very poor.

At that point it was judges discretion. TYPICALLY what happens if you aren't a repeat offender is you will get them same punishment you would have had you done the "traffic school option"

That is:
-Withhold of adjudication
-Pay normal statutory fine (doesnt matter what officer wrote)
-Get sentenced to traffic school at your cost (typically its the 4 hour online eligible one)
-No points/doesn't affect insurance (as with any noncriminal withhold)

The T posted:

If it were that low I could probably deal with it. I doubt bringing up the rate of the fine being "wrong" would really help, though.


How much would I reasonably expect the fine to be lowered? If it wouldn't offset the price of buying a suit jacket (I have dress clothes, but no suit jacket, which sounds like it would be useful/needed?) and the court cost (and the gas to get there...), then it'd almost be like why bother.

dvgrhl posted:

Think of it this way. You show up dressed nicely in a suit, freshly shaven, and maybe even a recent haircut. You've done you're homework so you have some idea of the process and what you need to say. You're respectful, you look the judge in the eye when he talks, and you speak clearly and concisely. You don't play around on your cell phone while you're waiting in the courtroom, and better yet you have it turned off before you leave your car. You have multiple copies of anything you bring with you.

Contrast that with about 95% of the other people the judge will see that day. If the judge is going to give any one a break that day, you've made yourself a good candidate.

From my experience at traffic court I can tell you I was the only one with a tie on, let alone a jacket. Everyone else was in clothes they'd just be wearing any other day. The ones I saw go before my turn either didn't have a clue what they were doing, or worse were making crazy excuses for the judge. When my turn came I had all my stuff ready, gave it to him, barely said anything, and walked out only needing to pay a $25 court fee.

dvgrhl posted:

Think of it this way. You show up dressed nicely in a suit, freshly shaven, and maybe even a recent haircut. You've done you're homework so you have some idea of the process and what you need to say. You're respectful, you look the judge in the eye when he talks, and you speak clearly and concisely. You don't play around on your cell phone while you're waiting in the courtroom, and better yet you have it turned off before you leave your car. You have multiple copies of anything you bring with you.

Contrast that with about 95% of the other people the judge will see that day. If the judge is going to give any one a break that day, you've made yourself a good candidate.

From my experience at traffic court I can tell you I was the only one with a tie on, let alone a jacket. Everyone else was in clothes they'd just be wearing any other day. The ones I saw go before my turn either didn't have a clue what they were doing, or worse were making crazy excuses for the judge. When my turn came I had all my stuff ready, gave it to him, barely said anything, and walked out only needing to pay a $25 court fee.

VampireRobot posted:

I have got a legal question.

I was working in Japan for an American-based company for 3 1/2 years.

I recently quit and came back to America. My last official day of work was in mid-August. They told me that the last paycheck could be a little late because they wanted to make sure I had properly paid off all my bills and other apartment-related stuff before leaving the country before they would clear the paycheck. If I had failed to pay something off or the landlord wanted more than the original deposit money for repairs or something, the company I worked for would be able to withhold money from the last paycheck in order to be accountable and pay for those things.

The apartment was rented in the company's name since it's very difficult to rent apartments for foreigners in Japan. This means that the rent was coming directly out of the paychecks each month, before the paycheck came to me. I never dealt directly with paying rent to anybody: that was the company's responsibility.

It's now been almost 3 months since my last day of work, and they are finally getting around to sending me the final paycheck. They've sent me some pay vouchers via email showing the deductions from my check, including the deposit (used for cleaning the apartment), the prorated rent for the last month (since I was only in the room for 7 days that last month), taxes, normal stuff, etc. This info came from the woman who is in charge of lining up housing, at the company.

Next, I heard from the woman in charge of lining up the paychecks, and she sent me a scan of my final pay voucher which showed that I was having the deductions showed to me before, presented at the time as my "total deductions", in this new voucher listed as "cleaning/fees", plus now there was another column listing "rent", with a full month's rent also being deducted.

I emailed a response to the paycheck woman to ask what was up with that since it had already been included in that "cleaning/fees" amount, as a smaller prorated amount, so why was I being charged one other full month's rent?

A response came from the housing woman, and she sent me a Word document of all of my old pay vouchers, with the month of March 2010 being circled in pink, where the rent deduction field was blank. In the email she wrote that she's sorry for forgetting to tell me, but she was looking through my history and found that that one month, March 2010, I had not had the rent deducted from my paycheck, so they're going to correct that error and take it out of my last paycheck now. Apparently the rent made it to the landlord, but the company somehow allegedly forgot to deduct it from my check.

I might have the old pay stubs from that time, but they would be in a box in another state. I also might have thrown them out when I left Japan. I was banking with the government-run Yuucho Post Office Bank while in Japan and they are very very non-technological, so I think it'd be a dead end to try to ask them to show me the records of my pay at that time, especially since I closed the account when I left.

The whole thing stinks and is suspicious to me. I feel like they're just trying to rip me off on my last pay check. It's already way too late (I DID properly pay everything off before I left, and there's no problem, so the check should have come out a lot quicker), and the document that was sent to me showing that the paycheck wasn't deducted for March 2010 is nothing official and is the type of document that could easily be edited in MS Word before sending it to me.

I've responded asking for more official proof that the pay was not actually deducted and that this isn't just a typo on that particular voucher. I sure as hell don't remember a time where I was paid more than I was supposed to be.

Finally: My question is, what can I do? What if I can't find any proof on my end, and they don't produce any more on their end either, and it's just my word against theirs and they insist on taking that deduction from my check? Is there anything I can do? How about, in the far-fetched case that they're right and they really didn't deduct it from my check, is it legal for them to just realize their (emphasis on "their") mistake now and rectify it by taking that money from my last paycheck now, a year and a half later? Is there a time limitation on when they can do that?

The company, as is the case with most companies that hire mostly foreigners in Japan, has a pretty sketchy reputation. They haven't ever really screwed me over too seriously before, but I have heard of other people being screwed over. Normally in this situation I'd fight it a little and if it didn't work out, I'd just take the loss. But I have been struggling hard to get a new life set up now in America, and I have been waiting for that check. My money situation is not good at all right now, so I've been waiting and counting on that check coming in. It's already late, and now they're deducting stuff suddenly just before sending it out. To say the least, I find the situation less than satisfying.

VampireRobot posted:

Unfortunately I don't know the specifics of the contract now, and if I still have that anywhere, it's in the box with the pay stubs.

To be honest, I'm not wanting to sue. I just want to know if I would have any legal grounds to contest this and fight back against them. Their reputation is that if they try to pull some funny stuff with you and you start threatening them with fighting back and you are actually legally right, they usually back down, so that's kind of what I'm hoping for.

The rent money at today's exchange rate is a little more than $700. Not a fortune but it's definitely a big amount to me right now.

VampireRobot posted:

There's already been a bit of back-and-forth through email, with the latest being me telling them I want to see some proof. Like I wrote before, I want them to prove it's not just a typing mistake where someone forgot to type it into that month's entry but it was still taken care of with the money. Their response just now was that, "it's definitely not wrong. Check your bank book, if it's printed in there."

Of course, the bank book is back at home a few states away, but I could still have my mom look at it. It's very very unlikely that anything like that is printed in there since I live in the 21st century and use the ATM card which the bank confiscated off of me when I closed my account.

I feel like they're calling my bluff. A friend of mine says I should bluff back and tell them I have the statement right in front of me saying I got a normal check that month. It doesn't sound like they're wanting to show me their accounting stuff, but should I ask/demand to be sure?

That70sHeidi posted: