|
Fluorescent posted:State: North Carolina By following this handy worksheet http://www.nccourts.org/Courts/CRS/Councils/spac/Documents/sstrainingmanual_09.pdf My guess is maybe 6 months? But honestly there are so many factors involved that we don't know the answer to, and even more than we can't know the answer to, that there is no way to say.
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Fluorescent posted:State: North Carolina On the military side, 'someone' can be administratively separated, though for these offenses, it's probably not mandatory if "someone"'s command wants to keep him/her. Probably probation possibly a chance of keeping it off "someone"'s record probably an administrative separation from the military Definitely, definitely needs an attorney for the NC criminal stuff. If "someone"'s going to be administratively separated, he/she needs an attorney for that too, because "someone"'s benefits (or loss of them) will depend on how the discharge is characterized. not an NC attorney, not your attorney, not "someone"'s attorney, not advocating B&E, resisting/eluding or property damage. VVVV reported. (not really) joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Sep 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
joat mon posted:not advocating B&E, resisting/eluding or property damage. Screw that. I advocate for B&E. It's a timeless crime, without all the fuss and bustle of your burglaries and robberies. The skill of the lockpick, the quick smash and grab. A dog barking in the dead of night and the quick getaway. It's a foregone art in our modern society, and I think overlooked far too often by your enterprising ne'er-do-well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Isn't B&E at the very least an element/lesser-included of burglary, if not outright the same thing? Personally I think regicide is due for a comeback
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Hi legal advice thread! I apologize in advance for this novel of a post, and I know that the OP says this thread isn’t good for determining whether or not you have a claim, but I just need some input to help me decide what to do. I posted this earlier in the thread: A Loaf of Bread posted:I assume I'm just screwed here, but I figured I'd ask anyway. I got a couple of helpful responses saying that we could still take this to small claims court and if the judge believed our word over his, we had a good chance of winning. The Craigslist guy—we’ll call him “Tom”—finally responded to my attempts at contact when I emailed him threatening to take legal action against him. He has provided some more information about his side of the story in our email exchange, but has refused to pay the amount I am asking. I just wanted to check in here and see if people think that my roommates and I have a solid chance of winning against him before I decide to go ahead and file a claim. Tom’s argument is that he had thought that we had agreed that he would pay only his $500 per month rent and nothing else, which is simply not true. He quoted in an email our original Craigslist listing that says “$500 rent” as proof of this fact. However, it seems pretty obvious to me that the rent on an apartment posting would not be all-inclusive unless explicitly stated. He says that we never mentioned that he would be expected to contribute to the electricity and Comcast bills. When Tom initially came to see the apartment, we told him then that he would be expected to pay an equal share of these bills. My two other roommates and a friend who happened to be there at the time all remember this happening just the same as I do. The one problem—and where I admit my own error—is that I asked him to pay his portion of the bills for the previous few months at the beginning of the final month of the lease. I probably could have avoided this whole ordeal by just asking him to pay his portion as soon as I paid the bill each month, rather than after a few months. However, because my other roommates and I remember that we explicitly stated the bill paying expectations to him before he moved in, I do not think that this excuses his refusal to pay. In the end, he has agreed to pay for his part of the electric bill, and says he will pay for the price of the most basic Comcast package, rather than the more expensive package that we actually had and that he had agreed to partake in. This lower cost is $80, whereas he actually owes me $150. This all took place in Massachusetts. I want to know whether we have a solid chance of being successful in our claim against him, or whether I should just cut my losses and accept the lower amount.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 22:00
|
|
|
I think I speak for the vast majority of anyone who answers you seriously when I say gently caress $80 sounds pretty god drat good why are you asking if you should sue him over $70 more when you are lucky to have him offer anything
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Isn't B&E at the very least an element/lesser-included of burglary, if not outright the same thing? In NC, the difference between burglary and B&E is that one has to break into a dwelling house or a building with a room being used as a sleeping apartment to constitute burglary. If it's not a dwelling house or building with room being used as a sleeping apartment, then it's B&E. B&E with intent to commit a felony or larceny is a felony, B&E without that intent is a misdemeanor. Burg B&E
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Exactly. I mean why would a self-respecting thief go through all the fuss and headache of holding a family at gunpoint while robbing them, when they could just hit up a construction site or used car lot?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Dogen posted:I think I speak for the vast majority of anyone who answers you seriously when I say gently caress $80 sounds pretty god drat good why are you asking if you should sue him over $70 more when you are lucky to have him offer anything Oh I'm completely aware of how ridiculous it sounds, but I'm in grad school right now and very poor, so $70 is a lot of money to me. If it's unlikely that I could get the full amount owed in court than I'll undoubtedly take the $80, but if there's a good chance of getting what I am owed then I need to take that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
A Loaf of Bread posted:Oh I'm completely aware of how ridiculous it sounds, but I'm in grad school right now and very poor, so $70 is a lot of money to me. If it's unlikely that I could get the full amount owed in court than I'll undoubtedly take the $80, but if there's a good chance of getting what I am owed then I need to take that. There is also a chance that you will be awarded nothing and in that case you will also have to eat the filing fee.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
A Loaf of Bread posted:Oh I'm completely aware of how ridiculous it sounds, but I'm in grad school right now and very poor, so $70 is a lot of money to me. If it's unlikely that I could get the full amount owed in court than I'll undoubtedly take the $80, but if there's a good chance of getting what I am owed then I need to take that. If you can afford A) The filing fee and B) The service of process you don't need that $70. Lawsuits suck. A lot. They're not fun. Go hang a sign that says "TUTORING: $35/hour" in your school cafeteria and you'll be way happier.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:If you can afford A) The filing fee and B) The service of process you don't need that $70. Don't forget judgment enforcement... i'm going to guess he has no real property to stick a lien on, so that means money to the sheriff or other enforcement mechanism. Of course if your state has a high interest rate on judgments...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
A Loaf of Bread posted:Oh I'm completely aware of how ridiculous it sounds, but I'm in grad school right now and very poor, so $70 is a lot of money to me. If it's unlikely that I could get the full amount owed in court than I'll undoubtedly take the $80, but if there's a good chance of getting what I am owed then I need to take that. Pro: -Maybe the judge will side with you completely and also make the other guy pay your $40 filing fee. Con: -$40 filing fee (that you might get back as costs) -a day or two out of your and your 2 rommate's lives -maybe the judge will split the baby pretty much as the other guy offered. -maybe the judge will only give you one's month's worth of the split of the utilities becaue you impliedly repudiated the unwritten 'utilities clause' of your oral contract by not asking for payment of utilities in any of the month's payments except the last. If it only costs you $70 to learn the 'get it in writing' and 'be clear on the other person's understanding and clearly communicate your understanding to the other person in a (business or personal) relationship' lessons, you've come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
A Loaf of Bread posted:he will pay for the price of the most basic Comcast package, rather than the more expensive package that we actually had and that he had agreed to partake in. This lower cost is $80, whereas he actually owes me $150. You should cut your losses. He'll say he didn't agree to the higher package. You'll say he did. A judge will throw up his hands and not care. You have a decent likelihood of losing. (and as a practical matter, fighting over the last $70 could have him not pay you anything. That sucks, but it's probably true) woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:They haven't said anything about my security deposit yet. So for the security deposit I sent them the certified letter since they are past 30 days. From what I understand in PA if you hold it past 30 days you lose any claim to it and when I fish out my move out form with the new address I gave them they owe me double the deposit. Section 250.512 PA Landlord-Tenant Act. So I got a letter from the apartment complex about my security deposit with one of those red Pitney Bowes date stamps on it that claims it was sent one day before it would be over the thirty day limit. It arrived five days after the thirty day limit. When a law says they have X days to get you a letter does that mean they have to send it before X days or you have to receive it before X days?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
I bet the law says "postmarked by".
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Javid posted:I bet the law says "postmarked by". I checked and under section 250.512 of the PA landlord tenant act it says provided. So I'm still unsure of which it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:You should cut your losses. He'll say he didn't agree to the higher package. You'll say he did. A judge will throw up his hands and not care. You have a decent likelihood of losing. I guess you're right. I'll have to suck it up and take the $80. Thank you all for your input.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
I head this idea the other day, where if you were a defense attorney for a murderer or a rapist or something, you could interrupt people whenever they were about to talk about what your defendant did. You could be like "hey, that's a pretty inappropriate thing to be talking about in a public place." and make them feel guilty and ashamed for even bringing it up. Which leads me to my issue, the Law School Megathread linked in the OP doesn't work. If it's ok to ask here, how long does law school take, and how much would it cost on average?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Bobby Malone posted:Which leads me to my issue, the Law School Megathread linked in the OP doesn't work. If it's ok to ask here, how long does law school take, and how much would it cost on average? This is the current link: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3301274 The J.D. in the US takes three years full-time and four years part-time. Tuition can vary, but expect something between $25,000 to $45,000 (not including room and board, books, etc.). Edit: Per zzyzx, that's yearly tuition. Add up fees, room and board, books, etc., and I don't see how you're going to walk away from law school for less than $120,000 and probably a lot more. Unless you have a scholarship, but let me tell you from personal experience that it still isn't going to be cheap. ibntumart fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Bobby Malone posted:I head this idea the other day, where if you were a defense attorney for a murderer or a rapist or something, you could interrupt people whenever they were about to talk about what your defendant did. You could be like "hey, that's a pretty inappropriate thing to be talking about in a public place." and make them feel guilty and ashamed for even bringing it up. To spare you from reading the thread: Don't go to law school.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
joat mon posted:In NC, the difference between burglary and B&E is that one has to break into a dwelling house or a building with a room being used as a sleeping apartment to constitute burglary. If it's not a dwelling house or building with room being used as a sleeping apartment, then it's B&E. B&E with intent to commit a felony or larceny is a felony, B&E without that intent is a misdemeanor. Oh. In Texas it can just be a building not then open to the public, not just a dwelling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Oh. In Texas it can just be a building not then open to the public, not just a dwelling. In OK, Burg 1 is B&E of an occupied dwelling to commit any crime. Burg 2 is B&E of (pretty much anything that can be entered) to commit a felony or larceny. B&E is B&E of a building/trailer/vessel/dwelling without intent to commit a crime.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:So I got a letter from the apartment complex about my security deposit with one of those red Pitney Bowes date stamps on it that claims it was sent one day before it would be over the thirty day limit. It arrived five days after the thirty day limit. When a law says they have X days to get you a letter does that mean they have to send it before X days or you have to receive it before X days? Well what does the letter say? If they actually returned your deposit, then going fishing for more on that basis is probably a waste of your time. If they are trying to screw you over on it and you'll be fighting them anyway, it might be worth chucking it on the list of problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Well what does the letter say? If they actually returned your deposit, then going fishing for more on that basis is probably a waste of your time. If they are trying to screw you over on it and you'll be fighting them anyway, it might be worth chucking it on the list of problems. They're trying to charge me for a utility payment that was covered by credits from the money in an "inactive" account. The letter itself doesn't even say how much I'm getting back either it just states that there is that charge and the 99.00$ security deposit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 14:20
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:This is the current link: (Per year.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
joat mon posted:In OK, Interesting to see the divergence of everything from the common law burglary of B&E/dwelling of another/at night/felonious intent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Bobby Malone posted:I head this idea the other day, where if you were a defense attorney for a murderer or a rapist or something, you could interrupt people whenever they were about to talk about what your defendant did. You could be like "hey, that's a pretty inappropriate thing to be talking about in a public place." and make them feel guilty and ashamed for even bringing it up. What in the world? A defense attorney is not exactly going to have a lot of contact with the victim or their family/friends outside of court. (don't go to law school)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 23:39
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:I doubt his boss (assuming he's registered as the director of the company) would be personally liable for any outstanding debts . Just wanted to note that some jurisdictions actually have this sort of remedy. Here in Alberta a director can be personally liable for up to 6 months of unpaid wages. The poster should at least confirm the law in their jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
If you're preparing to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, what should you look for in an attorney or what should you look out for? I've retained one, but I'm not sure what questions I should even be asking apart from, "Do you think this will be successful?" It's unusual to me to pay for a service before it's rendered, so I'm a little on edge. Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:If you're preparing to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, what should you look for in an attorney or what should you look out for? I've retained one, but I'm not sure what questions I should even be asking apart from, "Do you think this will be successful?" Many (most?) people filing bankruptcy really shouldn't, but bankruptcy lawyers are in the business of bankruptcy so... Talk to a financial adviser first.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Woo, I'm one of those so for once I'm not just making stuff up! For all normal cases (meaning not high income, no multiple homes, businesses, trusts, or other non-standard assets) the end legal result is identical regardless of your attorney. The only big difference is the service and bed-side manner, which just means as long as you're comfortable it's OK. All bankruptcy attorneys will want to be paid in full before filing. If you're comfortable with them, then just make sure you're not being ripped off with a high fee. Maybe call around. They don't have to be the cheapest, but just in the ballpark. The big ticket question for you is whether you'll lose any property in a 7. It's unlikely you would, and the main job of your attorney is to protect your property. I've never lost property that I knew about beforehand, but that's the main question in most cases. If you've got 5 cars, that could stretch them thin. So just be very upfront about all property, including 401ks, odd parcels of land, your name being on 1/8 of grandma's land, etc. They should be able to give you clear expectations on keeping all your property, or potential areas of risk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 22:52
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Many (most?) people filing bankruptcy really shouldn't, but bankruptcy lawyers are in the business of bankruptcy so... While I fall into the second category, I do objectively disagree with you. Where do you get this idea? I'd say it's VASTLY the opposite: a significant percentage of the population would financially benefit from bankruptcy, but doesn't due to social/emotional concerns. Other than the percentage of bankruptcy attorneys who are scammers and push hard sales, I've not seen any bankruptcy cases that shouldn't file. I mean really... that's kinda dangerous made up bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:While I fall into the second category, I do objectively disagree with you. Well, I'm not going to get into a debate about this, but to answer your question... I spent a lot of time in the financial adviser community and large swaths of people who filed for bankruptcy need not have. It's not that the bankruptcy didn't do what it was supposed to do, but that they could have buckled down and got out of debt without the downsides of bankruptcy (which include legal, social, and emotional problems). So, really what I mean is not that attorneys were doing something wrong. They did exactly what they were hired to do. They just weren't in the business of helping people develop budgets and financial plans. Additionally, when you say "a significant percentage of the population would financially benefit from bankruptcy, but doesn't due to social/emotional concerns"...that's not the opposite of what I said at all. It's completely possible, or even likely, that many people who don't file for bankruptcy should and many who do file shouldn't. Anyway, I can't believe its a controversial opinion that you don't ask a bankruptcy attorney if you should file for bankruptcy. You also don't ask a car salesman if their cars are the best for your needs, a mechanic if its better to repair or sell your car, or a captive insurance salesman if you should buy their insurance. Well, I guess you can ask them, but at least ask a lot of them. Even if someone isn't a crook or a liar, that doesn't mean their biases don't affect their judgement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
While I don't picture us agreeing, I think there are objective non-controversial facts. And you're on the wrong side of them. First, your financial consequences determination is flat wrong. The question is not "could they have avoided bankruptcy". That answer is always yes: everyone could physically survive without bankruptcy. No one "needs" to file bankruptcy. The question is what's worse. Are the consequences to filing bankruptcy better than the alternatives? Let's say some one has 50k in unsecured debt. Unless they're planning to buy a home within ~5 years, or have high income, they should file. It's pretty simple math. Second, your "spent" time around the community seems out-of-date. The financial consequences to bankruptcy are very different than they were even 2-3 years ago. The interest rates and qualification standards outside of bankruptcy are now usually better than for those who "buckle down" and spend 5 years struggling. No kidding, it's WAY better to be 3 years outside of a bankruptcy (and debt free) than to be 3 years into a debt repayment plan. Lastly, your entire lawyer salesman assumption is kinda made up bullshit. Does a heart surgeon talk people into surgeries? Some do, just like some attorneys do... but the generalization is offensively ignorant. I'm licensed by a state agency, there's an arm of the Justice Dept that specifically monitors bankruptcy attorneys, plus the common sense fact that my business lives by recommendation (meaning hardsale practice is only a short-term venture). All that adds up to natural weeding out of hard-sale scammer bankruptcy attorneys. Your common sense comparison just doesn't flow. For examples: A major group that shouldn't file bankruptcy are those without assets living on SSI. That group, in general, is vulnerable to persuasion, desperate for answers, and 100% doesn't need bankruptcy. That group is not generally sold into bankruptcy. I'm physically sitting through the docket, and it doesn't happen. In any event I think that type of sight unseen conjecture is dangerous to be in this thread. If you're not going to get into the debate, and you think attorneys are out to sell their wares to the client's detriment, then feel free to not provide any more legal answers in this thread. (edit: your. And not trying to sass, but this was like going into the goon doctor's thread or car advice thread and calling them biased. Kinda weird, man.) woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:stuff None of those things is in conflict with what I said. I think you're probably getting your defenses up on this one. Try to think about what I wrote as coming from someone who isn't attacking you or what you do, and I think you'll see it. The only clarification I'll make is that I wouldn't take the word of a heart surgeon, I'd get multiple opinions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
It's in direct factual conflict. Your advice was incorrect and unasked for. She said she's filing, and has retained an attorney. She didn't ask our opinions about Chapter 7. Getting multiple opinions from a heart surgeon is fine. Popping into the Goon MD thread to spout what you heard from the medical community 3 years ago is inappropriate. Period. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Sep 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Thermopyle, while I'm with woozle on this one, I'd make one clarification. I get the vibe from you that you think many people go through bankruptcy, but still end up in trouble. Instead, they should consult a financial planner to solve their long-term financial problems, which may (but may not) involve paying off all their debt. While that may be true, it's only true for people who use the bankruptcy process as a substitute for addressing the reasons they got into debt. But that's not what bankruptcy is designed for. It doesn't solve the problems that got you into debt, it just gives you a fresh start so you can avoid/solve those problems without the additional burden of debt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 06:40
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Isn't B&E at the very least an element/lesser-included of burglary, if not outright the same thing? In some jurisdictions, burglary has a dwelling house requirement, and also sometimes a nighttime requirement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 05:45 |
|
|
Okay, so here's a question. My parents separated a while back, their divorce was finalized in February. The circumstances that led to their divorce also led to my dad losing his job, and for a long time he just sort of hosed around, didn't try to get a job, and paid for everything using credit cards. As a result, their joint credit card has a total of $8000 in charges on it, and it's far from the only card he's maxed out. He's deeply in debt and planning to declare bankruptcy. One of the conditions or whatever of their divorce was that my dad was court-ordered to pay off the balance of that credit card. So far he has not made any moves to do so. The other day the company called my mom, she mentioned that Dad's going to declare bankruptcy, and they told her that if he does, she will be responsible for paying off the credit card. There's no way for her to just remove her name from the card apparently, and my dad's run his credit into the ground enough that he can't just open another card and pay off the joint card with the new one. My mom says she's mentioned this to my dad several times and that he's not been responsive about it at all and that nothing's been done about it, but every time us kids see him he talks more about how he's going to declare bankruptcy within the next few months. There is absolutely no way my mom can afford to pay off that credit card. She's now a single mother with six kids ages 7-19 living in her house. Her sole income beyond child support (which my dad doesn't always pay, and even when he does it's never on time or the full amount) is doing daycare for one child and basically working as a maid for the person she does daycare for. She is also trying to go to college for the first time, as she got married just out of high school. The only reason she's able to make ends meet is that for some reason, random people keep feeling compelled to give her money out of the blue. She'll be completely broke and wondering how she's going to feed her family for the rest of the month, and then someone she hasn't talked to since high school will send her a check for a few hundred dollars or something. And obviously that's not really a reliable source of income. I didn't mean to turn this into a sob story, but I'm really loving concerned. My dad is in complete denial that his problems with PTSD and drug/alcohol abuse were what led to the end of his marriage/job and believes that my mom is completely to blame and ruined his life intentionally. I would not put it past him to stick her with this credit card bill out of spite. I told my mom she absolutely has to make sure that this doesn't happen, even if it means suing him, but her response has been that he's already been court-ordered to pay the balance of that credit card, and that she can't afford to hire a lawyer to tell him something he's already been told. So I'm asking here: what legal recourse might she have to keep him from filing for bankruptcy until the card is paid off? And if there's none, what might she be able to do to get rid of the charge if he does declare bankruptcy and it falls to her to pay a bill that she has no way to pay? I'll answer anything that needs clarification, and I'll take any kind of advice on the situation. I just really don't want to see my dad get to give my mom a final gently caress you by foisting this bill onto her after he's caused her so much pain over the last couple years. Sorry there's so many words. I'm really torn up over this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2012 15:30
|
|
