|
Since BO made the points that I was trying to articulate much better than I could have, I will go back to my basic question in this whole thing: am I understanding that you are motivated by doing the best thing for your family, that you already have a master's and are unemployable/underemployed, and you think more school is the way to go? I am being serious, help me out here. I say this as a relatively new lawyer with a wife who has an undergrad degree and a much better job than me. I can't imagine having kids at the moment. Also maybe we could move this discussion to the BFC thread if it's going to continue?
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
xxEightxx posted:And then the economy rebounds, you are an 8 year attorney averaging about $250k a year, and a couple years off from being an equity partner. Meanwhile non-lawschool you is still making 40k a year. Man I love hypothetical wars. You really think that CaptainScraps post is equivalent to yours? CaptainScraps lays out certain estimates of costs, which are guesses but they are constrained by reasonable knowledge of the facts. You are presenting a highly unlikely scenario which incorporates several embedded assumptions (assumptions: nern gets a partnership-track associate position, that he survives 8 years, that his pay averages $250k a year, and that he can make equity partner in the firm). All of those embedded assumptions have a pretty low probability of success. Hey nern, what law school are you going to? And let me lay it out for you, as I studied philosophy in undergrad. You are correct that graduate work in philosophy is a money-sink with .0001% chance of finding a job. Law is a better market, but not much better. You are about to sink a bunch of money into a degree that is a questionable investment. You have a family that you are about to put into debt. Your backup plan is to proceed with a PH.D. philosophy program? Are you kidding me? You are saying that if your risky law school plan doesn't pan out, you'll just move on to an even riskier graduate school plan? And incur more debt? You are making a terrible mistake - not because law school is certain doom, but because you have exhibited terrible, terrible thinking, and if you use similar thinking in law school, you are going to ruin your life. You do not seem like a promising law school student, and the fact that you're going to law school in Pittsburgh tells me that you aren't going to a great law school. Poor thinking + poor law school = unnecessary student loan debt (not dischargeable in bankruptcty) = very sad family.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
University of Pittsburgh Even though I did quite well on the LSAT, my undergraduate grades restricted my options, despite having a 4.0 in graduate school. Law school is actually my backup plan for PhD, which I did not want to pursue unfunded with such a slim likelihood of employment. I might see how I can do if I go that way again since it is truly my passion, maybe not. We selected Pittsburgh even though it was not the best law school I was admitted to because it worked best for both of us. My spouse is starting at Carnegie Mellon getting her MA in English. We're humanities/liberal arts people. That itself is evidence enough that we have terrible thinking, we don't do what's practical or responsible. But we are happy. That's what counts most, right? Anyway, I'll move over to the BFC thread if we are gonna keep chatting. mad love, on the real.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:And then the economy rebounds, you are an 8 year attorney averaging about $250k a year, and a couple years off from being an equity partner. Meanwhile non-lawschool you is still making 40k a year. Man I love hypothetical wars. And every time I piss, krugerrands are gonna come out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:And then the economy rebounds, you are an 8 year attorney averaging about $250k a year, and a couple years off from being an equity partner. Meanwhile non-lawschool you is still making 40k a year. Man I love hypothetical wars. Yes, when planning for the future, using best-case scenarios is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 22:40
|
|
|
nern posted:University of Pittsburgh Is this a troll? entris posted:Your backup plan is to proceed with a PH.D. philosophy program? Are you kidding me? You are saying that if your risky law school plan doesn't pan out, you'll just move on to an even riskier graduate school plan? And incur more debt? No, just let this happen. We can chronicle it and add it to the Megathread OP as it progresses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Look, I have tried to make very clear that I understand the risks associated with my choice and am not deluded at all in thinking that I will just be handed a job. When I was in my master's program for philosophy, it wasn't controversial or an interesting topic of discussion to point out how stupid it is to go to graduate school in the humanities. I am honestly a little blown away at the radically different attitude of many of you in law who seem to act like it is supposed to be a surprise or something that going to school and spending alot of money is a gamble. The best decision would have been to just snagged a job out of high school and earned whatever I could have that way. I recently heard that the lifetime spending power of a plumber without any education after high school is greater than a university professor or similarly educated individual. I know this, but I chose a different life. Is this so hard to grasp? If it were only about what is the smartest move or most responsible choice financially, no one should go to college. But were not robots and this isn't merely a matter of calculating risk and finances, etc. Is this really so complicated to understand? edit: and that Megathread was one of the wonderful resources that helped me see all the risks and dangers associated with my choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:14
|
|
|
nern posted:but i know logic, i know how to analyze texts, i know how to write, and i know how to teach. since these are the skills i have i am doing whatever i can with them. perhaps i should have entered undergrad with a more practical major or done something easier and more financially safe. This is the basic skill set for every entry-level white-collar job in the world. Apart from the lack of capitals and the entitled useless diva complex. nern posted:also, if things with the landlord situation do escalate, since we receive state medical assistance and food stamps it seems we will be able to recieve free legal aid from Neighborhood Legal Service Association. Awesome, as a Pennsylvania taxpayer, I'm stuck paying for all of your horrible mistakes. You realize that people like you are why working class people vote Republican, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
You have two kids but you are all excited at the idea at a 55% chance within 9 months at an entry level job, after you graduate in a few years in an industry that basically has said "gently caress you" to entry level positions, with 5+ years of people that have graduated before you who are even more desperate for a job. Of course people are castigating you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Tuition and taxes that go to U Pittsburgh employ people and create jobs through demand (for space, services, goods, etc). So it isn't as useless as the JD degrees they award.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
Spitball Trough posted:This is the basic skill set for every entry-level white-collar job in the world. Apart from the lack of capitals and the entitled useless diva complex. How on EARTH can what I am saying be construed as a position of entitlement? I have been amazed that so many people would actually come into any academic or professional field EXPECTING to be guaranteed employment. I don't believe I am entitled to a job; all I can do is work hard and do my best to improve the possibility. Any working class person who would actually even consider voting for Romney is completely brain-dead and is contributing to their own continued exploitation. Yes, poor people get help from tax money because rich people have more than they need and poor people do not have enough. What the hell do you think taxes are for? This is a basic thing for any state/government interested in protecting the economic and social well-being of its citizens. edit: It has become apparent that I am wasting my breath is actually attempting any sincere dialogue with you people. I shouldn't have bit, I have been trolled... nern fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Aug 21, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
If you are dead set on going to LS, delay your admission, find a day job, then go back in the evening. It will take 4 years, but the economics of it are better. Try being a paralegal (you can't be a paralegal with a JD).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
nern posted:Look, I have tried to make very clear that I understand the risks associated with my choice and am not deluded at all in thinking that I will just be handed a job. When I was in my master's program for philosophy, it wasn't controversial or an interesting topic of discussion to point out how stupid it is to go to graduate school in the humanities. I am honestly a little blown away at the radically different attitude of many of you in law who seem to act like it is supposed to be a surprise or something that going to school and spending alot of money is a gamble. The best decision would have been to just snagged a job out of high school and earned whatever I could have that way. I recently heard that the lifetime spending power of a plumber without any education after high school is greater than a university professor or similarly educated individual. I know this, but I chose a different life. Is this so hard to grasp? If it were only about what is the smartest move or most responsible choice financially, no one should go to college. But were not robots and this isn't merely a matter of calculating risk and finances, etc. Is this really so complicated to understand? nern posted:Okay, so I am looking to file an uncontested divorce. We have a 9 year old daughter and have been split up for something like 8 years. I live in Rhode Island, my daughter lives with my mom in NY, and she lives in Kentucky. All the custody stuff has been determined in NY Family Court and we have no joint assets to divide. My question has to do with residency requirements. In Rhode Island, to file for a divorce you must have been a resident of the state for a year, I just moved here from 45 minutes away in MA 4 months ago. So, I guess I cannot file for a divorce in RI. Now, it seems like only one party need fulfill the residency requirements to file for a divorce in Kentucky, but I am not sure how I would go about filing the divorce from afar. Surely its not possible to be in a situation where I simply COULDN'T file for a divorce. I am just not sure how to go about filing. It will be uncontested and all the big stuff is already decided or already established, but I am just not sure about the venue. Wait, you just got divorced in November and now you're making decisions with life altering consequences based on where a new person wants to live? Or where your old theoretical ex with a restraining order against you wants to live?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
nern posted:
I don't know about anyone else but I am being dead serious. LS could be the worst mistake you ever made in your life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Wait, you just got divorced in November and now you're making decisions with life altering consequences based on where a new person wants to live? Or where your old theoretical ex with a restraining order against you wants to live? Nope, I'm still legally married to the baby-momma even though I haven't been with her for 9 years. The custody thing panned out wonderfully, I was awarded full custody and visitation with the baby momma is supervised as I see fit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Jeez guys I tuned out when I read "we get food stamps" and "I'll just take out more student loans" on the same page. Uh student loans can't be put off forever or am I doing this wrong by paying them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2012 23:59
|
|
|
nern posted:edit: It has become apparent that I am wasting my breath is actually attempting any sincere dialogue with you people. I shouldn't have bit, I have been trolled... The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: Now with 45% more unemployed attorneys on welfare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 00:19
|
|
|
Haha! This thread reminds me of every conversation I had with my peers during 3L after a few drinks. I can go you guys one better for being a bonehead, I got a loving L.L.M.! Now I am an entry level accountant with $200k in debt! Don't go to Pitt, just don't do it, take the LSAT again if you must, but don't go to Pitt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
nern posted:Nope, I'm still legally married to the baby-momma even though I haven't been with her for 9 years. The custody thing panned out wonderfully, I was awarded full custody and visitation with the baby momma is supervised as I see fit.  Wait so you said you're 27 now with a 10 year old and a 3 year old. So that means you had your first child when you were ~17 and then around ~20? So the second child was with a different mother while you were still in school. How much debt do you have from your undergrad/graduate school and are you on the hook for the second child support as well? Edit: Reading over your prior responses more carefully, you said your spouse is a student at Carnegie Mellon, so you definitely have at least 1 kid to pay for. Of course that conflicts with your not-yet divorced from the first "babby-momma" so what's going on there? OGS-Remix fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Aug 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 01:21
|
|
|
nern posted:If it were only about what is the smartest move or most responsible choice financially, no one should go to college. But were not robots and this isn't merely a matter of calculating risk and finances, etc. Is this really so complicated to understand? You're right, there's only two choices. Take on a horrendous amount of student debt or be forever unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
 HEY GUYSThere's a great thread for discussing the pros & cons of law school and the legal profession. It's right here at this link! Please do not derail further and bring the discussion there instead, thank you! e: also I haven't read all of this but from like two posts I'm guessing that nern should make a damned e/n thread instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Christ; thank you Eggplant Wizard. Now on to MY personal issues, which are far, far more important than [Some Internet Guy]'s career choices. (I'm kidding, this is probably stupid and maybe only halfway on-topic. I figure it can't hurt to ask though. Forgive the overly-detailed spiel that follows, skip to the TL/DR if you like...) So an old lady ran into me last month. It was very obviously her fault but she refused to admit it even on the scene and was quite snooty about it, even (dammit, didn't I see her blinker was on when she pulled out in front of me??). Fortunately the first thing I did after our cars stopped moving was jump out of my car and take photos. It is clear from the pictures that she was in the wrong. I went home (I drove the car home, but it is not drivable due to smashed headlight/turn signal so I've since borrowed one) and contacted my insurance company, spoke with them about my options, and decided to (try to) deal directly with the old lady's insurance company. Her insurance has a great reputation for their expediency, responsiveness, and generosity (even the body shop where I got my estimate told me I was lucky, and that their adjuster was likely to give me an even higher estimate than his). I had my insurance co contact hers and give them all my info. My company called back, gave me the claim number her company filed it under, and said her company should be in contact with me within a day or two. I don't know if it was a miscommunication or what, but by day 3 I still hadn't heard from them. I DID get a letter from the local adjuster in my mailbox saying basically "We heard you were in an accident with one of our clients. The claim number is XXXXXXX. We haven't heard from you yet, and if we don't hear from you in a week, we will close the file." Now that was a load of poo poo, given that my insurance company had been in contact with them, but I chalked it up to miscommunication and called the adjuster myself. I gave her all the pertinent info, and emailed her a diagram and all my photographs. She said they'd look it all over and make their decision. Two weeks later, I finally got fed up and called her again. I shouldn't have waited that long but this company has such a good reputation I figured they must know what they're doing. Yes, I'm stupid. Anyway, I asked her why I haven't heard anything and she tells me "Our client disagrees with your version of the events, so we can't help you." Well gently caress, you'd think if they denied my claim they'd have bothered to tell me about it, no? I pointed out to her that my photos clearly support my version of the events and show that her client is totally lying, and she says, "What photos? I didn't get any photos. All I got was a diagram you drew." The photos and diagram were attached to the same email! Not only that, but I specifically told her I was sending her photos - if she "didn't get" them you'd think she'd have thought to ask about it. I told her I'd resend the photos, and then hung up to do so. I've called her three times since (to confirm she's actually gotten the photos) and she hasn't answered the phone even once. What I'm seeing in all of this, even back to the initial "we're going to close this" letter, is that this adjuster is trying to stall and/or make this just go away. I understand that she's not working for me (it's the old lady's insurance company, after all), but I would expect she is required to be at least be halfway competent at her job. All this time I've waited for this issue to get resolved I've had to borrow other people's cars, which in addition to being a pain in the rear end has also cost me 70% more in gas over the past few weeks (crappy gas milage on borrowed car). If I'd realized they were going to try to screw me this way I'd have rented a car from the beginning. I'm already planning on trying to go higher up the food chain to complain about this adjuster's performance; like I said, this company has a great reputation and I don't think they'll be too happy to hear this story. What I want to know is if there are any laws/regulations (California) regarding insurance claims that may have been broken here (I'm sure the answer is no, but I have to ask!). Given the (good) stories I've heard about them, it's possible they'll willingly add a little extra to my settlement for the obnoxiousness I've been put through, and if there's anything that might strengthen my hand I'd love to hear about it. (Yes, the old lady's blatant lies and the adjuster's stalling has pissed me off to the point where I'm happy to milk more money out of them if I can.) TL/DR: Old lady ran into me; her insurance company has a terrific reputation but the local adjuster I'm making my claim with seems to be stalling and not calling me back (not even to tell me they're denying the claim). The old lady is flat-out lying to her insurance company, and the adjuster "didn't get" my photos that prove me right (despite her acknowledging she DID get one specific one so she clearly got the email). I resent the photos and called her back three times but have gotten no response. This has left me carless for three weeks (unfortunately I didn't rent, I borrowed) and is rather annoying and insulting. Knowing the spotless reputation of the insurance company, I'm hoping they'll toss a little extra for my inconvenience into the settlement check if I escalate my issues up the chain. I know it's highly unlikely, but if there is any chance the insurance adjuster broke any laws/regulations (in California) with her non-responsiveness or loss/mishandling of my photographic evidence I would like to know so I can bring that up, too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
Choadmaster, why did you decide to go it yourself when you have an insurance company?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:TL/DR: TL;DR. Any police report assigning responsibility for the accident? Insurance is to make you whole, so I wouldn't count on getting a little extra something for the inconvenience of dealing with them. Absent a police report and if the other party thinks you're at fault, your path of least resistance is to go to your insurance company for repairs and let them and their lawyers deal with the recovering from the other person's policy. Is there a compelling reason you don't want to do this? Edit: IANAL, just someone who has dealt with a number of accidents before. fordan fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Aug 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Her insurance has a great reputation for their expediency, responsiveness, and generosity (even the body shop where I got my estimate told me I was lucky, and that their adjuster was likely to give me an even higher estimate than his).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 07:39
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:So an old lady ran into me last month. It was very obviously her fault but she refused to admit it even on the scene and was quite snooty about it, even (dammit, didn't I see her blinker was on when she pulled out in front of me??). So basically the old lady refused to admit liability and you've been trying to solo your damages with her insurance company? Old lady is way smarter than you man
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:So basically the old lady refused to admit liability and you've been trying to solo your damages with her insurance company? It seems like his insurance also contacted them about the accident. quote:I had my insurance co contact hers and give them all my info. My company called back, gave me the claim number her company filed it under, and said her company should be in contact with me within a day or two.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
Here's the deal: The car is old and not worth repairing (but worth enough that it won't be totaled). By law, her insurance company is required to send the check for the damages directly to me, at which point I can spend it on whatever. Likely I will sell my car for whatever worth it has left to some kid who is willing to bang out the dents on the cheap, and use the combined money to buy a newer car; alternatively I could use a fraction of the money to repair the worst of the damage (I couldn't care less about my car's appearance), then use the rest on maintenance to extend my car's life (it would be enough for a new tranny or replacement used engine, etc.). My own insurance company is under no such obligation to give me the money; they will send me to a body shop of their choice, and pay them directly to have the car repaired to the point where the impact area is spit-shiny and brand new (while the rest of my car will still be old). I find it ludicrous to spend $3k on a $4.5k car for almost purely cosmetic issues. I've done this before with multiple other accidents and never had an issue, because it's always obvious I was in the right (as it is this time to anyone who bothers to actually look at the photo evidence); as soon as their company admits fault, the law allows me to go to any body shop of my choosing and use their estimate for the damages (ie. I don't have to accept what their adjuster decides). It is a perfectly valid and logical way to go about it. Hell, I got an extra 3 grand out of the company that totaled my last car by giving them reciepts for all the custom hardware I'd installed on it - something my own company would not have given two shits about. Now that we've gotten past the (apparently requisite in this thread) questioning-your-choices portion of this discussion, perhaps we can get to the answering-the-question bit? (Should anyone have the desire/knowledge to do so, anyway.) fordan: No, no police report. If you call the police here for a minor, no-injury accident they won't actually laugh in your face, but they won't show up either. I've tried it multiple times; including once (as a witness) after one of the other cars involved drove off a small cliff and landed in a tree (waited 2+ hours for that one before giving up; as soon as I told the 911 dispatcher that the stoned kid crawled out of it unhurt she told me the wait would be "at least" an hour).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 09:58
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:fordan: No, no police report. If you call the police here for a minor, no-injury accident they won't actually laugh in your face, but they won't show up either. I've tried it multiple times; including once (as a witness) after one of the other cars involved drove off a small cliff and landed in a tree (waited 2+ hours for that one before giving up; as soon as I told the 911 dispatcher that the stoned kid crawled out of it unhurt she told me the wait would be "at least" an hour). You can file a police report whether the police show up at the scene or not. You are living proof of why it's such an important thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 15:50
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Uh student loans can't be put off forever or am I doing this wrong by paying them? The trick is to do an income contingent repayment plan and get a job in a qualifying public service position, like working at a college. If you have a low enough salary, you don't need to pay the regular monthly amount, sometimes not even paying just the interest that month. You work in a qualifying field for 10 years and then you get to do loan forgiveness and your loan goes away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:I've done this before with multiple other accidents and never had an issue They've done it a lot more than you and have more experience in getting the common man to trip up, so they pay less. But if you still think you're smarter than an insurance company with decades of experience...
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
I have a question for you all. Last Friday my friend was raped by a guy and then pushed out of a car in the middle of nowhere. She walked to a police department because her cell phone was damaged and reported the incident. On New Years he was arrested for robbery (he robbed the store he worked at taking money and a gun). She went to the ER and they did a rape kit on her. She is wanting to press charges on him, but the police seem to be jerking her around. She doesn't have a record of any sort (not even a parking ticket) and they have been questioning her like she was the rapist. Like questioning her about the fact she was at the police department in March (because her credit card was stolen and she was filing a report for the credit card company). Or "How one guy could hold her and rape her" (She's 5'4 and he was a Marine..oh and there was a second guy there). She mainly just wants to know what she needs to do to stop getting hosed with by the police and get charges filed against the guy. She lives in Georgia if that makes any difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:
Edit: You're in CA? Cal Ins Code 758.5 specifically prohibits what you're saying re:body shops. They also have to cut a check to you in your name and the lienholder's (if any) not the bodyshop unless you have the car fixed. And they cannot force you to fix the car. nm fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:They've done it a lot more than you and have more experience in getting the common man to trip up, so they pay less. But if you still think you're smarter than an insurance company with decades of experience... Trip up on what? They pay the body shop estimate and I can go around to as many shops as I want to confirm that cost. And if they total the car, I do my own research into the car's value to ensure the right valuation (and refuse to agree to a settlement until they agree to that value) - like I said I easily got an extra 3 grand (for a car they'd valued at $1800) for the last car I had that got totaled. This thread is full of a lot of "ooga booga they gonna get you!" with no concrete explanation of how or why. If I really don't like what the third-party insurance company is trying to give me I can always refuse to accept it and go through my insurance company anyway (never had to though). nm posted:Edit: You're in CA? Cal Ins Code 758.5 specifically prohibits what you're saying re:body shops. They also have to cut a check to you in your name and the lienholder's (if any) not the bodyshop unless you have the car fixed. And they cannot force you to fix the car. Well now there's something useful! Thanks nm. This directly contradicts what my insurance company has told me every time I call them (would it matter [I expect not] if I signed a contract stating otherwise? gently caress if I remember what was buried in those 30 pages of legalese when I got my insurance). You didn't cite anything for the have-to-write-a-check-to-me claim but I'll trust you're correct. The only downsides left then to using my own insurance co are (1) waiting to get my deductible back, and (2) no rental car coverage, but I'm not renting anyway. I'm going to try calling her adjuster again first to see if she's looked at the photos. I've done most of the process already and if they're willing to admit fault at this point I won't be left waiting to get my deductible back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
Hey so my mom called the lawyer herself and made him an offer ($50,000 to not take him to court for arson), the guy has since got a DUI and basically never shown up to discuss the offer so far. The lawyer apparently said they could offer $5,000 the other day. She thought this was an insult but I figure he was probably just throwing out a lowball to see if she took it. Some advice on how she should proceed would be appreciated. Apparently one of the police didn't think it was a good idea that she had made the offer herself, but her lawyer clearly wasn't making much of an effort. She is willing to take half the offer or some offer thereabouts, something substantial to cover the loss of the barn and the stuff in it and etc., I just don't know how lawyers or offers actually work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
I'm too lazy to check back to your original situation, so I'm just making crap up... If he's a bum with a DUI, then any money you get out of him is fantastic. There's a moderate chance that no matter what deal is brokered, he's gonna fall through with payment. Maybe he'll keep it up for 3 months, but slow payments are risky. The more up-front money you can work into the deal the better. It all depends on your mother's expenses and feelings, and the bum's access to money. An example of a deal if she felt it was her best shot: countering with "ok 5k, but I want it all upfront within 30 days or no deal, motha fucka". Or 10k with 5 upfront, 20 with 3. Whatever you can squeeze out. Him agreeing to pay the full 50k over 10 years in slow payments really means he agrees to pay her $500 then vanish into the wind (unless for some reason you know he's for sure staying in the community). You'll want it in writing. And as part of the agreement, make it that he's stipulating that the actual amount is 50k, and in the event he defaults on the reduced deal he agrees that the entire 50k become due. If his attorney doesn't like that, then up the price to drop it. (Or hell, if you think the guy has any assets, she should just get him charged then sue the poo poo out of him. He'll have no income, so there has to be land or something for her to get some $$$ on that path) woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 20:22 on Aug 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Arson, burned down the barn and etc. was the original situation. Basically right at this moment most of his money comes from his parents and grandparents I guess, they keep bailing him out of jail every time he gets thrown in, allegedly they have spent ~$10k in the last week on him. He's close to retirement age and is supposed to be making a shitload of money off of that for some reason, so I thought maybe garnishment would be an option. The lump sum/payment later option sounds like a good one. She thinks $50k after the burnt building and month with no water/electricity is totally what she deserves so I don't know if she'll risk going super low on a lump sum and risk the rest on payments, but it's worth trying, certainly. Thanks for the advice! I made sure to pass it all along to her.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
DrakoDWyvrex posted:I have a question for you all. Maybe get an attorney. Funny how quickly they'll start taking her seriously after that, and the attorney might be able to talk to someone in the DA's office and get the ball rolling. The attorney would also be able to help her get a restraining order against the guy. There might be a local women's advocacy group that would do it, or a lawyer who'd do it pro-bono. Several posters in this thread are prosecutors or public defenders and might be able to give you more direction than that. quote:She lives in Georgia if that makes any difference. Well, if you read some of the stuff coming out of Missouri lately...
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:12
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Trip up on what? Dragging things out and getting you to say something, even if it's accidental, that points to you possibly being partially liable and so they don't pay out as much. You pay for insurance for a reason, so why do their job for them?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:46 |
|
|
Karb posted:I'm not totally sure this is the right thread for this, but it's the closest thing I could find. If any of you guys can help me out I would be eternally grateful. I posted this a few pages back and the general response was to err on the side of caution, which sounded good to me. I have some new information that is relevant, however, and I thought that might change people's opinions. I went to the Office of Student Conduct at my school yesterday and they told me that the sanctions had been reversed, not naturally lifted, because I was ruled "Not Responsible" with regards to the alcohol infraction. As far as the school is concerned, I was never disciplined and do not have a record. I'm still waiting on the CORI self-audit, but I imagine that I'll show up in the court system with a dismissed case (I'm considering petitioning to have it sealed, this is a total loving headache that I don't want to deal with later in life). I asked if I should disclose it on graduate school applications and the Conduct Office told me not to, but I go to a small state university whose staff is really not versed in that sort of thing. I got the feeling it was a "yeah, uh, don't disclose it, probably, I'd say" sort of thing. Does anyone with legal knowledge know how the liability works in this case? If a judgement is reversed and considered undisclosable by the school, is it like it never existed? Or should I consider it "disciplined, with a reversal after investigation"? I'm thinking about emailing an admissions department at one of my target schools and asking, but I don't want to have my name attached to it if it turns out I never had to bring it up. EDIT: The state's legal help website says most employers, licensing agencies, etc. can only see convictions and open cases on a CORI check. Does anyone with experience know what is revealed to graduate schools at private programs? How about at public schools? Thanks again. Ilya Bryz fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Aug 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2012 23:49
|
|
or I will be banned.