|
Okay, fair enough, I just wasn't sure whether it was advisable to go into more complete information. He gets drunk and handles firearms around me, and as for being sexually harassing, he showed me pictures of his old roommate naked from behind, called me overly emotional and an overly sensitive woman, emphasizing woman and saying that was my problem, asks me if he's attractive, and asked me over and over again last night if the sex I had with an ex was good. That is not even half of it. Also, I'm in Concord, not SF proper. It's in the east bay. I'm going to check out the tenant's rights websites provided, but should I narrow my search because of my area? Thanks. Serious Cephalopod fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Feb 11, 2013 |
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Is there anywhere else you can stay? Legal/money stuff aside, it sounds like your personal safety is in danger, and that should be your first priority.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
DuckConference posted:Is there anywhere else you can stay? Legal/money stuff aside, it sounds like your personal safety is in danger, and that should be your first priority. I have been making arrangements, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
I currently live in the state of Illinois at leased condo. I park in a private lot attached to the condo in my designated spot, and right in front of my spot is a large metallic sign post with a heavy wooden sign in it. Heavy winds caused a that sign to blow out of the metal post(and holder), dented the hood of my brand new car, and damaged 2 other cars. The condo association and their insurance is claiming Act of God and no negligence. However, I believe it was their negligence (lack of any upkeep on/around the condo) that caused it as the metallic sign post is unsecured, and the base of the post is exposed. Is there any recourse I have? -- Moreover, in regards to the condo, the landscaping was never completed years ago when the owners purchased the units before construction completed. Now the landscaping remains unfinished and nobody wants to claim responsibility for the unfinished landscaping. Is there any legal actions an owner can take?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
fuseshock posted:I currently live in the state of Illinois at leased condo. I park in a private lot attached to the condo in my designated spot, and right in front of my spot is a large metallic sign post with a heavy wooden sign in it. Heavy winds caused a that sign to blow out of the metal post(and holder), dented the hood of my brand new car, and damaged 2 other cars. Don't know your state's laws specifically, typically wind damage is covered. A risk is not mitigated because they occurred via an act of nature, the analysis is more of whether or not the damage caused was so unforeseeable so as to excuse performance under the law. Wind blowing a sign down doesn't seem to be what an act of god covers, but if there are experts here please correct me. I don't even know if you need a negligence analysis if your state has a res ipso statute. Long story short they are full of poo poo, put their feet to the fire. Repairing your car will be a lot cheaper before you get an attorney, I am surprised they won't pony up. Your second issue needs more clarification I'm not quite getting what you are trying to convey.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
You have insurance? They'll probably go after them and you'll probably get your deductible back too in the long run if it fits the state's definition of negligence.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
So the best course of action here is to accept the fact the condo association won't pony up to any of their crap? And to file a claim with my own insurance and have my own insurance pay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
fuseshock posted:So the best course of action here is to accept the fact the condo association won't pony up to any of their crap? And to file a claim with my own insurance and have my own insurance pay? Actually your insurance will probably try to recover themselves. They have their own lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:In my state, if the child is aware their parent is in an adulterous out-of-wedlock relationship, it's statutorily against the best interest of the child. So even though every child clearly knows that mommy and daddy are dating other people, everyone has to pretend like they aren't. Wow, really? That seems a bit...weird. Is it one of those things that go under "weird laws that are super old and really should just be changed already." I did finally find a lawyer with a reasonable retainer, but after our initial consultation he said that he doesn't think I need to retain him UNLESS my ex files a counterclaim and/or doesn't want to cooperate with the mediation process. He says he knows my ex's lawyer and he's not one that argues for the sake of arguing, and was a sensible choice as far as lawyers in this area go, which was kind of a relief to hear. He also said that what I was going to ask for in mediation was reasonable and doesn't think it will be rejected, but if it is to then call him and he'd step in on my behalf. I also offered my ex (through his attorney) a final opportunity to voluntarily participate in the child support process - his lawyer called it an olive branch and expressed gratitude. Holy crap am I looking forward to this being over. >< I have an increased respect to people who can do this all day for a living, although I suppose there is less (if any) emotional investment. TY all for the advice!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
You'd be surprised how much law is based on pop-psychology from like the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
insanityv2 posted:You'd be surprised how much law is based on pop-psychology from like the 1950s. Like Brown v Board of Education.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
insanityv2 posted:You'd be surprised how much law is based on pop-psychology from like the 1950s. I think the whole "if you're married, you're considered married until you're not married anymore" thing is older than the 1950s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:03
|
|
|
I have a question about California employment law. I quit my previous job because my boss was harassing me. I had an unemployment appeal hearing today and when I was reviewing the file I saw that my former boss stated that I was "disrespectful and lazy". When I got home I got a rejection letter from a job interview. I thought the job interview went really well so I am starting to wonder if she is badmouthing me to prospective employers. Is this defamation? What can I do? Mr. Big fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
I just got in a car accident 2 hours ago, and I have a couple questions. We're on a surface street and I pull up to a stop light. Right as I come to a stop I get hit hard from the rear and get sent into the SUV in front of me. The SUV in front had no visible damage I can see. I have visible damage to the front that looks pretty bad and surprisingly not so bad visible damage in the back. Rear car has visible front damage. This takes place in California, and everyone has insurance. Am I at fault for rear-ending the car in front of me or the person who rear-ending me at fault for both impacts? Anything I should worry about the person who hit me pulling? My car is a 2002 civic and only worth $4,000. If repairs cost more than this, does that mean the other party will just write me a check for whatever the repair place says its worth? Not completely sure how totaling works. Don't have much experience with car accidents, so any other general advice? Is this question in the right thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I think the whole "if you're married, you're considered married until you're not married anymore" thing is older than the 1950s. No, I meant more like the "knowlege of adultery will corrupt our impressionable youth" idea that was probably behind that statutory game of pretend thing woozle described. euphronius posted:Like Brown v Board of Education. waht? insanityv2 fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 07:05
|
|
|
Mr. Big posted:When I got home I got a rejection letter from a job interview. I thought the job interview went really eel so I am starting to wonder if she is badmouthing me to prospective employers. Is this defamation? What can I do? I'd imagine it is much more likely that the company you applied at already had a person picked out to fill that position and the other applicants (you) never stood a chance. In my experiences, that happens more often than not. The whole interview process is just to keep up the impression of fairness and EO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 07:13
|
|
|
Raimondi posted:I just got in a car accident 2 hours ago, and I have a couple questions. IANAL but I get hit a lot. The guy behind you should be at fault for both impacts. Insurance companies will total your car when the estimated repair cost gets to ~80% of the value of the car. Note that if this happens its in their best interest to lowball the value, and they probably will - even if you're dealing with this through your own insurance company (which you should assuming you have collision insurance on your car). You don't have to accept their estimate -- go on Craigslist/eBay/autotrader and see what a 2002 Civic with similar mileage and wear actually sells for in your local area. Almost certainly this will be higher than what they claimed (supposedly they do the same thing, but they're going to base their judgement on the three shittiest, cheapest civics they can find). Print the listings to PDF or take screenshots, and send them to the adjuster along with the correct average value you've calculated from said listings. If they don't total it, they will give you whatever the repair place estimates the repair to cost. Note that they'll probably try to send you to one of their preferred repair shops, but you have the right to take it wherever you want (if you refuse to take it to one of their preferred shops, they will want to send you an adjuster to look over your car and make his own estimate on their behalf; if they disagree with your repair shop you might be in for a bit of an argument). Note also that you're under no obligation to have the car repaired; the insurance company might want to send the check directly to the repair shop, but you can tell them, to cut the check to you instead. Have any absolutely necessary repairs done and keep the rest of the cash for whatever the gently caress you want (assuming you don't mind some dings in your $4000 beater). As of right now, I've literally made more $$$ off the dings people put into my car than I ever paid for the car in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 07:29
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I'd imagine it is much more likely that the company you applied at already had a person picked out to fill that position and the other applicants (you) never stood a chance. In my experiences, that happens more often than not. The whole interview process is just to keep up the impression of fairness and EO. I don't doubt it but my boss definitely talked smack about me to the EDD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 08:45
|
|
|
So my partner is in a bit of a pickle, it sounds fishy to me so I was hoping someone could help me with how I could get to the bottom of some crap. My partner had to overnight stay at a hospital about a year ago, where they had to put them under watch while they administered shots to their abdomen to get rid of ulcers. The bills for the stay were pretty steep but that is expected, even if they could have just administered the doses over a few days and let us on our way instead of saying the overnight was mandatory but I'm nitpicking. The main problem comes from them now claiming they need money to compensate for "damages" (As far as I know it is psychological damages, and compensation for such.) because when my partner was being treated they injected them multiple times and they struggled a bit because being stabbed several times in succession isn't pleasant. So they also claim the needle broke or something, and now put a 2,000 bill for as far as I know a needle, and because the nurses reported my partner as violent. Also during the visit my partner denied the use of painkillers (to avoid unwanted side effects), which they still forced on them afterwards. Is this just horseshit that they can get away with especially after such a long period of time, or would there be any way to dodge these seemingly horseshit charges? Maybe any information I can possibly dig for that would further help anyone from the thread give me some advice? I really haven't seen any documentation or have heard anything directly but if you can pan anything from my explanation and advise you'd be doing us a great favor, money isn't exactly the most flowing substance at the moment, and there are car payments piling up that this medical business is really hampering. Sorry if I was too vague or unsure in areas, I just don't have a clue about any of this, it just seems really fishy to me. Since this was such a long time ago I don't think there are many ways to dodge from our end, but here's hoping to save a few grand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 10:57
|
|
|
PROTOSTORM!!! posted:So my partner is in a bit of a pickle... This story screams of having large chunks of information that you aren't telling us and which you probably shouldn't tell us. You need to consult with a lawyer. e: no, I totally believe that you think that's the whole story. But I'm equally sure it isn't. If you want someone to point you in the direction of finding a recommendation then you need to post your state/general location Alchenar fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 11:33
|
|
|
Actually that is literally it, they had to stay a few days and the nurses were kind of assholes. Now when we need to pay up there are more charges in the bill. I'm not the one paying the bills just hearing it second hand from my partner, and it just seems like totes bologna that they need damages paid for. I was in contact with my partner via phone every day, several times a day, and no bullshit happened besides being served poorly made oatmeal and the nurses being kind of bitchy. I'll see if they are willing to consult a lawyer, I'd figured as much but it just doesn't seem like there is only the hospitals word (and reports) versus our word (and lack of cash). Worth a shot though Okay okay okay letting my anger type it out, could a particular brand of attorney be recommended for a case evaluation? Thanks for your time though brodo, much obliged. PROTOSTORM!!! fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
insanityv2 posted:No, I meant more like the "knowlege of adultery will corrupt our impressionable youth" idea that was probably behind that statutory game of pretend thing woozle described. insanityv2 posted:waht?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 13:41
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Note also that you're under no obligation to have the car repaired; the insurance company might want to send the check directly to the repair shop, but you can tell them, to cut the check to you instead. Have any absolutely necessary repairs done and keep the rest of the cash for whatever the gently caress you want (assuming you don't mind some dings in your $4000 beater). As of right now, I've literally made more $$$ off the dings people put into my car than I ever paid for the car in the first place. Also not a lawyer, but my parents did what you suggest several years back and when they had another claim on the same vehicle the adjuster noticed the unrepaired damage from the first claim. This got them in quite a pickle and basically the insurance company subtracted the value of the unrepaired damage related to claim 1 from their payout for claim 2. I don't know what the laws for insurance fraud are, but it seems morally questionable to profit off an insurance claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Mr. Big posted:I have a question about California employment law. Yes. Probably nothing, I believe that speech is priviliged if it relates to your employer's perception of your work and it is being conveyed to another potential employer. I don't believe there is a bright line rule as to what is privileged and what is not, and I do not what standard of review is given to the comments made. Most employers don't even bother commenting, for fear of this exact situation. It's just not worth the hassle of getting sued. You can probably send cease and desist letter of sorts to him, articulating the situation of harrassment, and that any negative comments about your work ethic and/or performance not previously disclosed to you during your employment will be viewed as retaliation for not tolerating the harrassment, and thus false and defamatory. Throw in something about a restraining order if he does not comply. Hopefully you have an attorney friend who is willing to draft it for you. Alternatively you can state on your application that it is not okay to contact that reference and explain your story. Not your attorney, and not an employment laywer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:Also not a lawyer, but my parents did what you suggest several years back and when they had another claim on the same vehicle the adjuster noticed the unrepaired damage from the first claim. This got them in quite a pickle and basically the insurance company subtracted the value of the unrepaired damage related to claim 1 from their payout for claim 2. You don't profit, if you choose to keep the money then you are still stick with a devalued car. Insurance is about keeping your net-worth the same; you get to choose what form you take that worth in. Trying to claim repair for the same damage twice is insurance fraud though and you should always note pre-existing damage when you make a claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:Also not a lawyer, but my parents did what you suggest several years back and when they had another claim on the same vehicle the adjuster noticed the unrepaired damage from the first claim. This got them in quite a pickle and basically the insurance company subtracted the value of the unrepaired damage related to claim 1 from their payout for claim 2. Oh yeah they will do this. I got hail damage once and I was told I could keep the check (it was something ridiculous like $3500) but if I didn't use the money to fix the hail damage, I'd never be able to make another claim for hail damage because there is no way to tell whether or not the damage is new or from the first hail incident. I assume it would be the same for any type of damage to the car. So yes you can keep the money but it's a gamble; do you want to risk getting in another accident and not be able to make a claim on it? If you want to take the risk, keep the money. If you don't want to take the risk, use the money to fix the car.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Like Brown v Board of Education. insanityv2 posted:waht? Brandeis Brief
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
I have a landlord/tenant question in Kansas. My current roommate is moving out and she just signed a lease for a new place in August. Anyway, she got to calling around to some places and she thinks the landlord may be ripping her (and the other tenants) off. Basically, the rent is X amount, and then the landlord charges an extra amount (set amount each month) for water, electricity, gas, and trash service. The landlord is charging $15 a month per tenant for trash service. There are 5 tenants so he is getting $75 a month for trash. My roommate called the trash company and their service fee for one trash can is $17 a month, and $5 for each additional trash can. She says there are 2 trash cans at the complex, so the landlord is most likely paying $22 a month for trash. But he is getting $75 a month from the tenants and (we assume) just pocketing the rest. Also, he is charging each tenant $15 a month for electricity, but he doesn't pay the electricity bill. There are 4 meters in the complex (it's actually a divided-up house) so each unit has to get the electricity bill in their name and pay the actual amount of electricity that they use. But the landlord is still charging each tenant $15 a month for electricity! So we assume he is just pocketing the $75/month for "electricity" as well. The amount he is charging per month for the water bill and the gas bill are in line with what the average monthly costs are, as my roommate called the water and gas companies to get estimates. So I don't think there is any weirdness going on there, it's just the trash service and electricity bill that is bugging her. This is a college town so I think this landlord is just assuming that he's only going to be renting to dumb 18 year olds who don't know any better. But my roommate has been calling him out on this stuff and he's basically just like "Well you shouldn't have signed the lease if you didn't agree with it, I pay the bills and I can charge what I want". I am just wondering if all of this is legal (charging the tenant more for services than they actually pay). He also has some weird stuff in the lease, such as you have to pay $20 for each nail hole you put in the wall. I think that's a little extreme, is that legally enforceable as well or are small nail holes considered normal wear and tear? razz fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Feb 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
razz posted:This is a college town so I think this landlord is just assuming that he's only going to be renting to dumb 18 year olds who don't know any better. But my roommate has been calling him out on this stuff and he's basically just like "Well you shouldn't have signed the lease if you didn't agree with it, I pay the bills and I can charge what I want". I am just wondering if all of this is legal (charging the tenant more for services than they actually pay). He also has some weird stuff in the lease, such as you have to pay $20 for each nail hole you put in the wall. I think that's a little extreme, is that legally enforceable as well or are small nail holes considered normal wear and tear? This all sounds perfectly legal if it is spelled out in the lease that the electricity charge is not actually for the supply of electricity. Nail holes are not typically normal wear and tear, but they can be fixed in like 5 seconds with some putty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
baquerd posted:This all sounds perfectly legal if it is spelled out in the lease that the electricity charge is not actually for the supply of electricity. Nail holes are not typically normal wear and tear, but they can be fixed in like 5 seconds with some putty. How would you even put such a clause in a lease? "Tenant must pay a $15/month electricity fee to the landlord but this fee does not include electricity"? That seems weird. I told my roommate that this whole "conflict" only occured because for some reason the landlord decided to list out dollar amounts for each of the bills. So basically it's like (and I am making up some of these numbers because I don't know what they all are): Tenant must pay $400 rent plus $15 Electricity $30 Gas $30 Water $15 Trash per month When he should have (in my opinion) just said "The rent is $490 a month and the tenant is only responsible for the electricity bill". Still wondering about the trash service thing though. Can he legally charge more than it costs? Because he doesn't give the tenants an option to choose. So my roommate and the girl she is moving in with are paying the landlord $30 a month for trash, but if they paid for their own trash service they could get it for $17 but the landlord says they can't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
razz posted:Still wondering about the trash service thing though. Can he legally charge more than it costs? Because he doesn't give the tenants an option to choose. So my roommate and the girl she is moving in with are paying the landlord $30 a month for trash, but if they paid for their own trash service they could get it for $17 but the landlord says they can't. Yes. Can charge whatever he wants for whatever he wants, it's a contract. If you don't like it, negotiate the clause out, or don't sign it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Any immigration lawyers in this thread? I want to get my foreign girlfriend permanent residency and a work permit in the United States ASAP. Here's a bunch of information about us; I have no idea how much of it is pertinent. My girlfriend and I have been together for almost three years now. We met in Chicago in 2010 while she was an exchange student and I was bumming around, working crummy jobs while taking time off school. She is a Canadian citizen (also a Turkish citizen because her father is Turkish, but I don't think that's relevant?) and I am an American citizen. When we met, she was in the country on a lengthy student visa of some sort. She has since spent a lot of time here on 3-month tourist visas but this is getting less and less feasible because she can't get a job here. I am currently living in Tucson, my hometown, finishing my undergraduate degree. She is currently living in Vancouver, her hometown working a series of crummy jobs. She can't really begin a career in Vancouver because she is eventually (within the next year hopefully) going to move to Arizona and she's beginning to feel adrift. I've been trying to research what to do for about a week and I'm getting very frustrated with the complexity of everything. I need help, but because I'm a student and I work for minimum wage, I don't think I can afford to consult with a lawyer. It seems like the easiest and quickest route to take would be for us to get married, and that's not something that either of us are opposed to. A courthouse marriage to get her residency and work permit, and then a wedding ceremony after I graduate and we both have jobs. That's my line of thinking, anyway. What I need is advice on the particulars of what to do and when to do it. I'm going to Canada in three weeks and I'm going to do the romantic proposal thing - the whole nine yards, etc. To get legally married, (in the U.S. or in Canada) do you need to apply and wait for approval, or can you just show up at the courthouse? Is it more difficult if one person is foreign? Would her U.S. permanent residency application be easier, quicker, or less likely to be denied if we were married in America as opposed to Canada? Depending on the answer to the above two questions, we may just marry while I'm in Vancouver to get the ball rolling. After we're married, and she applies for permanent residency, does that include getting and SSN and work permit, or does she apply for those separately? Basically, I'm desperate for some sort of workflow or step-by-step instructions on how to get my love into the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
GirlBones posted:Basically, I'm desperate for some sort of workflow or step-by-step instructions on how to get my love into the country.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
Ok, to provide you with a little more than the flowchart... first off, I am not a lawyer. I do work in an immigration firm directly handling cases so I am not just making poo poo up. But you should really get a lawyer to help you - your situation is not that complicated and it shouldn't be that expensive. A lot of lawyers will do a free consult and many immigration practices work on flat-fee basis, so call your city/state bar, get some referrals, and look around. Seriously. Unfucking an immigration mess is 15x more expensive than getting it right from the get go. So, first off: your girlfriend is Canadian. Assuming that all that time she spent on a student visa culminated in some sort of degree, she would almost certainly be eligible to work in the US in TN status. This is pretty much the cheapest and easiest form of work authorization available to anyone - all she needs is a letter from someone in the US who wants to hire her explaining her position and qualifications that she takes to the border. So there is no reason that she shouldn't already be looking for work in the US on that basis. Now, setting that aside, there are a couple of routes that you crazy kids could take. I will try to lay them out here for you: 1) You can apply for a Fiancee visa (the K-1). This is an application you file with USCIS, and once it is approved she goes to the consulate in Canada and gets a visa to enter the US in order for you to get married. Once she enters, you have 90 days to get married and apply for the green card. Hooray! The upside is that you don't have to have all the marriage stuff sorted out in advance, the downside is that it isn't really any faster than your other options. 2) You can get married first (in either the US or Canada), and then file a spousal petition for her (the I-130). Once the I-130 is approved, she goes to the consulate in Canada, has an interview, and then gets issued an immigrant visa to enter the US. She comes into the country, a few weeks later she gets her green card in the mail. Hooray! The upside is that you can get married in Canada or on a trip to the US and then return to Canada, and you don't need to worry about her arranging/maintaining status while this is all going on. Downside is that she has to go back to Canada to wait for it to all process, and she might not be able to enter as a tourist while the immigrant process is ongoing. 3) She can enter the US, you guys can get married, and then you can file the I-130 (as above) along with a concurrent I-485 (permanent residence application) before her status expires. She would get an interim work authorization while the applications are pending and once you guys have been interviewed and so on, she would get her green card. Hooray! The upside of this is that she gets to join you in the US much sooner, she'd get the interim work authorization in 60-75 days, and you can start your life together while stuff is processing. The downside here is that she needs to enter the US appropriately in order to do this - and I would not recommend doing it with the visa waiver she has been using. While it is technically allowed and I have seen people do it, there is a reasonable chance that USCIS could determine that she lied about her intent when entering as a tourist, and that can screw everything up (because now she has commited fraud for the purpose of immigration benefit). Even if the chances of that happening are low, it is such a mess you should avoid it entirely. Now, there are a couple problems in common with ALL of these approaches. There are: 1) You will need to prove you have a real relationship. This standard is actually lower for the K-1, but it's still there. Basically there is a lot of fraud, and USCIS will require that you can show you have a real intent to join your lives. How are you going to do this? It can be copies of emails and phone records and pictures of you together with family/on vacation, affidavits from your parents and copies of itineraries for times you travelled together. But you need it, and if you don't have it you need to start collecting it ASAP. 2) Whatever route you take, someone is going to have to vouch for their ability to support her when she in the US - she will not be allowed in if USCIS thinks she will be a public burden. Normally this would mean that you show your income and promise to support her, but if you are a broke-rear end student you may not meet the income requirements. If not, that means someone else needs to step up and co-sponsor her. Like your parents. This is not a joke, whoever agrees to do this will be responsible for supporting her, even if you guys break up and get divorced. Until she leaves the US or naturalizes, they're on the hook. Do you have someone that can do this? I want to reiterate that the above is a totally generalized guide that has no real awareness of analysis of your personal situation, like whether your girlfriend killed someone in a concentration camp or if you are a serial bigamist. This is why you need a lawyer, who will review all your specific information and provide you with guidance best suited to your actual situation. At least talk to some lawyers, you can almost certainly do that for free or a nominal fee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Is there a protocol for seeking a second opinion from a different lawyer? We're in a bit of a real estate dispute in Ontario. I'll sum it up as concisely as possible. - After building/septic/well inspections, we put in a final offer on a house the owner had built 20 years ago - Our lawyer discovered that they had gotten an occupancy inspection in August shortly before listing their house - The township did the inspection and created a list of deficiencies and engineer reports they needed to get their occupancy permit - They did not resolve any of them - They did not disclose the deficiency notice to us Our lawyer sent them a letter stating we wouldn't close on the property unless they provided an occupancy permit (it's not legal to live there without it). They sent back a letter saying they wouldn't address any of it. We replied that we expect our deposit back then following section 10 of the standard real estate contract in Ontario. They then replied that they would sue us if we didn't close and that they would address some deficiencies but not the ones we were aware of because our inspection and would "be prepared to discuss what is required to get the permit". Our lawyer's plan is to just send back another stating we need the occupancy permit to close. I like my lawyer and I have used her before but she is young and I do not think she has been in any real estate deal that has gone this sour. The contract pretty clearly states that they're responsible for fixing all deficiencies registered against the title before a certain date or the contract is void and our deposit is returned. I think she should be a little more aggressive, especially considering they were trying to get away with not disclosing the deficiency list and the lack of occupancy permit. If we had closed without checking with the township, we would have been responsible for all the final inspections and resolving them and the already noted problems before it would be legal for us to live there with a price tag of up to 5-40k depending on the results of the engineering reports. Should I tell her I'd like to get a second opinion before doing it or just go ahead and start calling? If anybody has any other input on this, I'd love to hear it as well. Also for potential homebuyers, always check with your municipality BEFORE submitting your final offer (if possible).
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 03:36
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:I like my lawyer and I have used her before but she is young and I do not think she has been in any real estate deal that has gone this sour. This is basically how every single real estate transaction ever goes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Wow, thanks Ashcans! That was a really great post and pretty much exactly what I wanted. I didn't think I was going to get any help after goat man's asinine response. If you wouldn't mind answering a couple more questions for me, mostly about the third option you listed, I'd really appreciate it. You said she needs to "enter the country appropriately." What does that mean? You're right in assuming that she's been doing that visa waiver thingy (I think that's what it is - where they just stamp your passport at customs after a few cursory questions and send you on your way) and when you do that, IIRC, you promise them you intend to go back to Canada. Is there a kind of visa she can get that would allow her to live in the US while we wait for the I-130 and I-485 to be processed without increasing the likelyhood of a denial?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:This is basically how every single real estate transaction ever goes. I'm not a Canadian lawyer, and so I can't comment on the specifics, but in the general sense of "some issue comes up about the physical state of/title to the property, one side says "this is really important, sort it out" and the other side says "No it's not, gently caress you"" this is pretty common. If your lawyer is an employee of a law firm, you can insist that one of the partners takes over, at the cost of (a) destroying your relationship with your lawyer (b) spending more money on a more expensive lawyer doing the job and (c) feeling an idiot if he decides to pursue the same strategy anyway. If she is a partner, or the firm is her, then there's no particular protocol about sacking your law firm if you don't mind burning bridges, but yet again, you may find the new firm just takes the same approach. I mean, how much more aggressive do you want than - "do this or we don't complete - and we'll insist on our deposit back"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
GirlBones posted:You said she needs to "enter the country appropriately." What does that mean? You're right in assuming that she's been doing that visa waiver thingy (I think that's what it is - where they just stamp your passport at customs after a few cursory questions and send you on your way) and when you do that, IIRC, you promise them you intend to go back to Canada. Is there a kind of visa she can get that would allow her to live in the US while we wait for the I-130 and I-485 to be processed without increasing the likelyhood of a denial? I started to put together a reply for you, but this is getting into stuff that either has be addressed specifically to your situation (which I don't think is appropriate for me as a non-lawyer, and not really what this thread is intended for) or requires that I give you lots of general information on how intent functions in immigration and allow you to apply that knowledge yourself. I don't think you have PMs, but if you want to shoot an email to the address in my profile I can send you some resources that point you in the right direction? I don't want to clog this thread with tons of discussion of immigrant intent rambling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
General Panic posted:If she is a partner, or the firm is her, then there's no particular protocol about sacking your law firm if you don't mind burning bridges, but yet again, you may find the new firm just takes the same approach. I mean, how much more aggressive do you want than - "do this or we don't complete - and we'll insist on our deposit back"? Thanks for your advice, I guess I just panicked a bit with the lawsuit threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2013 22:01
|
|