|
Kneel Before Zog posted:Will all you white knights feel better about yourselves to know I got the health department involved with regards to the mold lawsuit and this saved my rear end, probably. It was the smartest thing to do in that situation. The landlord may have made a mistake but I feel confident that you guys are making a mountain out of a mold hill in this case. But if trying to tar and feather me over the handling of a situation to the best of my knowledge makes you feel better irregardless of knowing the actual facts of the matter, which are that the mold found is found in 99 percent of all homes, than carry on. I'll see myself out. Black mold isn't found in 99 percent of all homes lmao.
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
This thread is really the gift that keeps on giving.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:27
|
|
|
LordPants posted:This thread is really the gift that keeps on giving. Like herpes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
I keep hoping one of Zog's 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
I knew poo poo got real when I saw thirteen new posts. I love this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
DiHK posted:How might I go about finding out about any possible debts my father owed? Typically you would have to give notice to the creditors. The person charged with handling the estate would basically get all the mail, and when bills came in you would let them know that way. There may be some duty to provide other forms of notice, like publication (think obituary published in a newspaper). I don't do estate law, and I don't practice in Alabama. quote:How might his wifes possible debt play into this? Her estate (possible lurking sister) would get half of whatever's left after fees and dads possible debt. I am guessing that if she had debt solely in her name it would not be counted until after her part of the estate is delivered.... Presuming your father owned the land free and clear (no mortgage) and dies with a wife and one child, you. I am presuming there are no other children of your father. The wife gets 1\2 of your father's estate and you get the other 1\2. Here is where things get interesting. If the wife is not your biological mother, and never adopted you, you do not inherit anything from her. I am presuming this is the case because you refer to her as the wife, and not your mom. Her estate would pass to her biological\adopted children, and if none, then her parents; if no parents, then her sister\brothers; if no sisters\brothers then grandparents; if no grandparents, then any children\grandchildren\great grandchildren etc, of the grandparents. This is why it is important to determine what you got when your father passed. If the wife had debt, any creditors would turn to her estate to satisfy those debts. If her estate included an ownership interest in the property, then it could, in theory be used to satisfy those debts. This involves so many different aspects of law I do know about in Alabama, which is why you need an attorney.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
I'm from Littleton, Colorado and I am having fairly serious shoulder surgery (labrum reconstruction). The surgery is not till the end of may. I'm going to have to take at least 7 days off from work and everything and post surgery I'm going to be in. Sling. My question is I'm in a position where I need to work and have some cash coming in. Do I have to disclose to a employer that I will be effectively losing the use of an arm and the ability to drive for 2 months? Or can I just get hired on and when I get the surgery just say tough poo poo I can't be legally fired for this? Edit: The only places I am going to apply at are places where doing the actual work would be feasible one handed. So ideally it wouldn't interfere that much. I might be a little slower but I could still do it. Chocolate fucked around with this message at 08:23 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
Time to repost this: Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Typically you would have to give notice to the creditors. The person charged with handling the estate would basically get all the mail, and when bills came in you would let them know that way. There may be some duty to provide other forms of notice, like publication (think obituary published in a newspaper). I don't do estate law, and I don't practice in Alabama. It's the newspaper method for Alabama, what I was asking is if there was any way I could sniff out possible debt before I take over the land (if dad had a large amount of debt then becoming administrator of the estate is a waste of time and money). You are correct in your assumptions. Not My mom, I am the only child, owned land, she has a sister somewhere, etc. Thats great news about her debt not coming from my half, because any debt is more likely on her name than my fathers. One thing that seems wacky for a layman's perspective is that if my intention were to keep the land and not liquidate it, how are monetary estates derived from actual property for the wifes half? I would have to pony up the wifes half in cash, yeah? And this is all based on an appraisal of the lands value? Whose appraisal, the states/counties? If theres a destroyed trailer on the land would it raise or lower the value? Having it removed before an appraisal would good/bad? Again, I do have an attorney for it now, I'd just rather waste you guy's time with dumb questions that his time. That and the process of hashing it out like this is helping me get a better handle on the whole situation. Thanks yall!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
DiHK posted:I would have to pony up the wifes half in cash, yeah? You would have a tenancy in common with her heir(s). You get half and the other half goes to them and is divided however amongst them. Sounds like there is probably only 1, so you would have one cotenant, 50/50 between y'all.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
DiHK posted:If theres a destroyed trailer on the land would it raise or lower the value? Having it removed before an appraisal would good/bad? Good, and may lower your taxes too.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Good, and may lower your taxes too. This is probably true, but be aware that a half-acre of land in Alabama that has previously held a destroyed trailer probably isn't that valuable to begin with.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
It's not, after everything I might get 30g's out of it, but only if everything goes perfectly.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
DiHK posted:It's not, after everything I might get 30g's out of it, but only if everything goes perfectly. I think you might be an order of magnitude off. (I hope not)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
Chocolate posted:I'm from Littleton, Colorado and I am having fairly serious shoulder surgery (labrum reconstruction). The surgery is not till the end of may. I'm going to have to take at least 7 days off from work and everything and post surgery I'm going to be in. Sling. My question is I'm in a position where I need to work and have some cash coming in. Do I have to disclose to a employer that I will be effectively losing the use of an arm and the ability to drive for 2 months? Or can I just get hired on and when I get the surgery just say tough poo poo I can't be legally fired for this? The bad news here is that FMLA is not going to cover you in a brand new job.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
The internet never lies!!! Value is consistent with surrounding properties but it seems to count the trailer as an asset. I'm still confused with the liquidation process where the wife's estate is concerned... as Admin of Estate am I allowed to sell the whole property under the assumption that I will honor the wife's estate? The lawyer I talked to indicated that her half would be held by the court for a number years until the state absorbed it(or she claimed it). Does the cotenant thing restrict my actions?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
You can't sell something you don't own. You can sell your 50% stake if someone would buy it. Her sister sounds like the proper heir of the other half. Get in touch with her and try to work something out. edit: or I mean, have your lawyer handle that probably. Dogen fucked around with this message at 19:26 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
DiHK posted:The internet never lies!!! You might also ask the lawyer about whether you can pay his/her fees from the estate/sale of the land, that way you and the sister will bear the cost equally.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
DiHK posted:It's the newspaper method for Alabama, what I was asking is if there was any way I could sniff out possible debt before I take over the land (if dad had a large amount of debt then becoming administrator of the estate is a waste of time and money). You mentioned your father passed sometime ago, there may be laws about how long creditors have. My guess is if there were legitimate debts, they would have been paid one way or another by now. I've done only limited work in probate and I have relied typically on having all mail of the decendent forwarded to me for 90 days, and determined bills that way. The only advice I can give on this is check with the county recorders office to see if there is a lien on the property. quote:You are correct in your assumptions. Not My mom, I am the only child, owned land, she has a sister somewhere, etc. Thats great news about her debt not coming from my half, because any debt is more likely on her name than my fathers. There were a lot of ins and outs of the hypothetical I posed that could easily be affected by a lot of variables not mentioned in my post. This is why it is important to figure out who the land passed to, and how it passed. quote:One thing that seems wacky for a layman's perspective is that if my intention were to keep the land and not liquidate it, how are monetary estates derived from actual property for the wifes half? I would have to pony up the wifes half in cash, yeah? And this is all based on an appraisal of the lands value? Whose appraisal, the states/counties? I am unsure what you are asking. Appraisal's are usually paid for, either the buyer\seller brings their own or they agree on one. Title or other insurance company might bring their own? Determing how\if you could gain ownership of the full piece of land depends on the terms of how it was owned and passed. I'm not even going to get into all here because 1) I don't know Alabama law well enough and 2) just superficially browsing the results of my cursory search have me breaking out into cold sweats thinking about first year law school fee tails and rule against perpetuities. quote:If theres a destroyed trailer on the land would it raise or lower the value? Having it removed before an appraisal would good/bad? I clerked for a judge who gave me some wisdom in my early days that has stuck with me. He said something to the effect that the only thing that trumps the law is common sense. He said it in a context that really rung of sagely wisdom, and not the sarcastic tone I'm sure is coming across via the interweb.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
I live in Idaho, and I'm being sued in Baltimore, Maryland for six grand. I don't want to shell out money for a lawyer and travel costs over six grand (travel alone is going to cost at least a thousand dollars), and so I'm wondering if there's anything like where I can state my case in writing, waive my right to a trial, and ask a judge to issue a summary judgment.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
loinburger posted:I live in Idaho, and I'm being sued in Baltimore, Maryland for six grand. I don't want to shell out money for a lawyer and travel costs over six grand (travel alone is going to cost at least a thousand dollars), and so I'm wondering if there's anything like where I can state my case in writing, waive my right to a trial, and ask a judge to issue a summary judgment. Hire a Baltimore attorney. Travel may not be necessary. Edit To answer your question I guess: yes sort of but you will gently caress it up pro se. Yes it sucks you have to pay an attorney to defend against " bullshit" suits but that is life in our imperial republic. euphronius fucked around with this message at 23:30 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
I just had a doozy. I live in Massachusetts. I was riding my 50cc scooter around, running some errands, and came to a red light at a minor intersection. The light changed, and I started moving forward. However, some rear end in a top hat on a bicycle ran the red (rather fast, he was moving downhill), causing me to have to take a hard turn while braking, eventually bailing off of my bike, otherwise I would have hit him. I got a pretty bad gash on my arm, and had to go to the ER for 6 stitches. My bike is also completely screwed (but still runs thankfully), and based upon my knowledge (I've always worked on it) I'm looking at at LEAST $500 in parts alone to fix everything that was damaged. The thing is, to get the guy who caused this whole thing to actually stop, I had to get back on my bike, chase him down, and ask him to stop. I must have looked like the Terminator with the blood running down my arm, nothing stopping me. Anyway, he stops, I call the cops. He admits that he ran the red light. However, the cop said that here he can't be deemed responsible, as it was an MVA and he wasn't in a motor vehicle (I don't see why -- bicycles have to follow the same traffic laws). Is the cop wrong? Should I go talk to someone else at the station and get this handled? Otherwise, my insurance company will view it as my fault and may not cover it. If the cops won't do anything, am I going to have to take this to small claims? I'm going to be out: - $500+ in parts - If translated to someone else doing the work, I'd say ~$300 in labor - And whatever my ER bill is. Based upon my health insurance, and having to go there a few months ago, that will probably be another ~$300-500 depending on the breakdown. So, worst case scenario, that's $1300 that there is no way in hell I am paying.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hire a Baltimore attorney. Travel may not be necessary. Thanks, I'm just weighing my options - I'm assuming I'm going to lose, so I might as well lose inexpensively.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
In almost all legal situations hiring an attorney will cost you less money in the long run as compared to winging it pro se. Unless you have nothing. But then you couldn't afford an attorney anyway and suing you is pointless.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
A local DWI attorney is airing commercials stating that if you are pulled over for DWI, you should refuse to perform any field sobriety tests until consulting with an attorney. However, in NY we have an implied consent rule. If you refuse to take the BAC test, you are subject to a $1000 fine, your licence will be suspended, and you will be required to install a BAC test ignition interlock on your car. Do I really get to talk to a lawyer before I blow the breathalyzer?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:18
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:A local DWI attorney is airing commercials stating that if you are pulled over for DWI, you should refuse to perform any field sobriety tests until consulting with an attorney. However, in NY we have an implied consent rule. If you refuse to take the BAC test, you are subject to a $1000 fine, your licence will be suspended, and you will be required to install a BAC test ignition interlock on your car. Have you considered just not driving while intoxicated?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:A local DWI attorney is airing commercials stating that if you are pulled over for DWI, you should refuse to perform any field sobriety tests until consulting with an attorney. However, in NY we have an implied consent rule. If you refuse to take the BAC test, you are subject to a $1000 fine, your licence will be suspended, and you will be required to install a BAC test ignition interlock on your car. No. Issues with the DMV aren't criminal persay. Its a provision of your license. You are free to refuse the tests, and considering that most of the tests are designed to make you fail, there is a certain logic it to it. Anyway you shake I hope you have 5-10 grand to blow, and a nice bike, because you are going to suffer one way or another.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Per se, not persay, like pro se not hearsay.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Apr 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:A local DWI attorney is airing commercials stating that if you are pulled over for DWI, you should refuse to perform any field sobriety tests until consulting with an attorney. However, in NY we have an implied consent rule. If you refuse to take the BAC test, you are subject to a $1000 fine, your licence will be suspended, and you will be required to install a BAC test ignition interlock on your car. These is a new case out that limits the ability to force a blood draw, but it does not prevent it in all cases. I know Minnesota does allow you to talk to an attorney by phone before providing a sample and there are cases where I might recommend that (but certainly not all). California does not. NYS? I have no clue.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Starpluck posted:Let's say hypothetically you get pulled over for a DUI in California. This is going to be your third offense, would it simply be better to outright refuse the test and eat the penalties as it'd be less severe than a third DUI conviction, or, will the officer just make you perform a blood test at the station either way? Nope. You are presuming that if you refuse the tests no criminal action can be taken against you.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Nope. You are presuming that if you refuse the tests no criminal action can be taken against you. Actually, California can and often will force a blood draw. The new supreme court case has a bunch of holes the cal supremes will blow massive holes through. If they don't force a blood draw, you get a nasty jury instruction, but it sure is less nasty than a .15 blood test.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
nm posted:These is a new case out that limits the ability to force a blood draw, but it does not prevent it in all cases. In Alaska, Refusal to Submit to a Chemical Test is exactly equal to - in every way - a charge of DUI. They carry the exact same penalties and both count the exact same for presumptive ranges on second and subsequent DUIs / Refusals. There isn't a jury instruction for a presumption on the DUI or anything, it's just simply a second crime. We just have to prove the DUI through the "dude was too drunk" theory rather than the "dude was over .08" theory. The elements for Refusal are essentially a) you were under arrest for DUI, b) you were told Refusal is a second separate crime, c) you knowingly refused to blow. You get to talk to an attorney if you ask for it prior to the blow into the machine, and I've never heard an attorney say "don't blow." Except for one lady who called her Tennessee tax attorney (??) for advice, and she said don't blow. \/\/ I'm talking about the official blow at the station, not the field sobriety tests. And now that you mention it I've never actually read that case law, though I'm sure it exists somewhere. BigHead fucked around with this message at 07:24 on May 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
I feel like I should be writing my government name in all caps but by what rationale has that law stood? Hasn't some not-insane person at some point said, “hey hold up guys this is what amendments four and five are all about"? Probable cause seems not that rigorous a standard to meet in the first place, but in some instances it doesn't really seem like a major consideration.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Guy Axlerod posted:A local DWI attorney is airing commercials stating that if you are pulled over for DWI, you should refuse to perform any field sobriety tests until consulting with an attorney. However, in NY we have an implied consent rule. If you refuse to take the BAC test, you are subject to a $1000 fine, your licence will be suspended, and you will be required to install a BAC test ignition interlock on your car. Here, you can refuse FSTs and the preliminary breath test (the handheld one the cop carries around that isn't admissible in court and probably hasn't been calibrated in years) without any implied consent issues; it's the Intox (the one they use at the station after you've been arrested) and/or the blood draw that you have to do. People get a chance to call an attorney beforehand, so that advice would be generally sound. Refusing the tests at the station won't really get you anywhere, since the cops will get a search warrant and draw your blood whether you'd like them to or not. Makes for fun police reports.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
zzyzx posted:Here, you can refuse FSTs and the preliminary breath test (the handheld one the cop carries around that isn't admissible in court and probably hasn't been calibrated in years) without any implied consent issues; it's the Intox (the one they use at the station after you've been arrested) and/or the blood draw that you have to do. People get a chance to call an attorney beforehand, so that advice would be generally sound. I am by no means advocating the following, and this is not legal advice. There can be advantages to refusing the fst and getting taken to the station: time. In trial the state will present evidence that your bac follows a geometric curve, and that if they know your bac at 11pm they can predict what your bac is at 10pm. This way if you go to station and then consent to a breathalyzer, and blow a .07 they will say one hour ago it was .08 or higher. This can be attacked by competent DUI attorney, mostly because its not necessarily true. What if you live 5 minutes from the bar and take 5 shots and get in your car and drive away. Your bac will be a lot higher at the station than it was at the bar. Medicine and science can undermine the geometric graph approach, but your talking a trial (or threat of trial) at that point, which has its own risks and costs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Edit: Me am driving bad! Yeah I don't think I'm going to get the information I want from this thread, and I'm sure I'll be better off just talking to my lawyer aunt about my situation. I just feel bad that I keep bugging her with my legal issues while she's dealing with cancer! I'm such an rear end!
Math Debater fucked around with this message at 21:20 on May 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Your probation conditions are probably on paper somewhere. Stop driving like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm a pretty bad driver and should move to a location with better public transportation!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 03:01 |
|
|
Math Debater posted:Yeah, I'm a pretty bad driver and should move to a location with better public transportation! Or take some responsibility and work on being a better driver.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2013 19:35
|
|