|
Hypothetical question regarding a security deposit in Virginia: Someone gets a check back from their leasing company for a portion of their security deposit. They feel confident that they can contest the deductions made from the deposit due to written correspondence as well as notes made on move-in and move-out inspection sheets signed by the property manager. Should they deposit the check now or wait until they have contested the deductions made by the property management company? Does it even matter either way?
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
Horror_Business posted:Hypothetical question regarding a security deposit in Virginia: It normally wouldn't matter either way, BUT - you said "leasing company." The fact that they are a sophisticated landlord might mean that they buried some language about deposit of the check as a waiver of a right to challenge deductions in the lease, or on the check somewhere. Unless Virginia Landlord/Tenant law says otherwise, from a purely future-litigation standpoint if you can live without depositing the check until the issue is resolved, there is no risk of waiving your rights to challenge by not depositing the check, whereas there are risks associated with depositing the check. Read this as well. Fun stuff starts on Pg 20, but you should read it all: http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/HomelessnesstoHomeownership/PDFs/Landlord_Tenant_Handbook.pdf blarzgh fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:It normally wouldn't matter either way, BUT - you said "leasing company." The fact that they are a sophisticated landlord might mean that they buried some language about deposit of the check as a waiver of a right to challenge deductions in the lease, or on the check somewhere. Thanks. I skimmed that the other day. You touched on the biggest part of why I was asking - the whole idea that it might somehow waive rights or imply that it was accepted as payment in full. Am I correct in assuming that a person would typically send a demand letter and then file a small claims case if/when that gets a response that they find unacceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Horror_Business posted:Thanks. I skimmed that the other day. You touched on the biggest part of why I was asking - the whole idea that it might somehow waive rights or imply that it was accepted as payment in full. If you don't comply with all the legal prerequisites in the statute before filing suit, the court can throw your claim out. Thats the most legal information I'm comfortable with giving you without tiptoeing into the realm of legal "advice".
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Theorizing in regards to a hypothetical owner of an imaginary basketball team who recently made news for a sale under duress after making racially charged comments. The owner’s hypothetical wife claims to indemnify the sports league’s governing body from any future litigation. She might be the controlling party in the owner’s family trust. She probably has counsel to have navigated the correct routes for having her husband declared mentally incapacitated to control those funds. Depending on the will, could the heirs hold her financially responsible for violating her fiduciary responsibility to the trust in that role since she didn’t earn the money and is offering it as collateral against one of the principals? Would this basically be a situation in which the wife could tie up litigation until the owner’s death and hope nobody continues the action? EDIT: The league still be responsible for providing its own defense throughout the process and she would reimburse them if they lost? Brock Broner fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jun 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Brock Broner posted:Theorizing in regards to a hypothetical owner of an imaginary basketball team who recently made news for a sale under duress after making racially charged comments. 1) Trusts and Wills are different. Heirs take under a will; Beneficiaries take under a trust. An Executor/Administrator is responsible for distributing property by the terms of a Will; a Trustee is responsible for managing the Trust (its property) for the benefit of the beneficiaries. If the beneficiaries of the Trust can prove to a jury that the Trustee breached their duties to manage the trust properly, the trustee can be held liable to the beneficiaries for the amount of the damages they caused the trust. 2) Indemnity is "I will provide for your legal defense if needed," not 'collateral.' 3) Trustees are typically allowed to collateralize trust property in furtherance of legitimate trust objectives. 4) Some trusts are 'life estates.' This is where the big chunk of the money sits waiting fr the beneficiaries until the people who hold a life estate in the trust die. While they are alive, however, they are allowed to use the income from the trust, and invade the body of the trust for certain things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Thank you! I was just curious as to how that process might play out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
I would expect she has the personal wealth to indemnify the NBA. BTW: that doesn't just mean pay their attorney's fees if they get sued, it specifically means pay any judgment against them. Providing legal defense is part of the way an indemnor protects themselves against a judgment they might have to pay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
Horror_Business posted:Am I correct in assuming that a person would typically send a demand letter and then file a small claims case if/when that gets a response that they find unacceptable? As blarzgh said, you better strictly comply with the notice requirements to have a shot. And regarding the Sterling thing... I don't see daylight with success in that lawsuit. As I understand it, the trust owns the team. If the trust sells, and is happy with the sale, then his complaint is with the trust. The NBA didn't ban the trust, or force the trust to sell. I guess if he dies quickly it can avoid taxes. But I see it as 50% a PR pile of poo poo to talk about "constitutional rights" with a private contract that ceded authority, and 50% an attorney has hold of an incompetent billionaire's ear and will go the distance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I won't answer your question, but I will tell you that the answer lies with the nature of the breach of warranty and not specifically the transfer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
Not sure if I can get help here because I'm in Canada (Ontario), but it's worth a try. I recently moved in with my boyfriend and his 2 kids, but his ex wife still owns half the house. She is concerned that if we become common-law or get married that I will be able to take half the house in the event that we break up. They want me to go with them to a lawyer and basically sign away any rights to the house. If we were to break up in the near future (highly unlikely) I wouldn't try to do anything like that, but I understand why she is worried about it. But, I don't want to sign anything because I don't want it to screw me over in the future. For example, if we were to break up 20 years from now and I've been contributing to the mortgage during that time then I do think I would be entitled to something (half of his half, maybe). She also mentioned the possibility of me/us buying out her half, but right now that isn't financially feasible for me. In general we are all on friendly terms and she has no issues with me living with or being a "parental figure" to the kids, and I really don't want that to change. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Purple trillium posted:Not sure if I can get help here because I'm in Canada (Ontario) Biggest problem with your question. Here in the US, these issues vary from state to state, even.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
Purple trillium posted:Not sure if I can get help here because I'm in Canada (Ontario), but it's worth a try. Probably best to talk to a lawyer just to clear things up ASAP. Family stuff like that can snowball really fast really ugly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:Could I have another lil' hint please? I'm really stuck on this one. Izzy, did you end up graduating from Harvard or did you have to transfer to a different school to finish?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
IzzyFnStradlin posted:Could I have another lil' hint please? I'm really stuck on this one. Research "Breach of the Implied Warranty of Habitability," what it is, how its created, who owes it to whom. Then take it from there and go through your analysis. Future tip for analyzing law school questions: If they give you the cause of action, start with that and go back through the facts. If they don't, try every cause of action that might fit, and go back through the facts with each one. Most young law students take the facts and try to shove them into the cause of action - a proper analysis works in the other direction, by seeing how the cause of action will treat the various facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Probably best to talk to a lawyer just to clear things up ASAP. Family stuff like that can snowball really fast really ugly. Yeah, one minute its, "Oh yea, we just want you to sign a little paper..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
The Dagda posted:Izzy, did you end up graduating from Harvard or did you have to transfer to a different school to finish? "Well, you see, my law school just got its certification last year and..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yeah, one minute its, "Oh yea, we just want you to sign a little paper..." Next thing you know you get served for mistreating her kids or stealing some of their socks or doing modifications to the house without permission or... I mean everyone's got a story of friend whose relationships with their SO's ex turned absolutely venomous. All of these stories start with "I got along great with his/her ex in the beginning."
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:48
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Next thing you know you get served for mistreating her kids or stealing some of their socks or doing modifications to the house without permission or... And in their state, if she is paying child support right now, she could be tricking her into certifying that they're cohabiting... EDIT: I just realized how brilliant that would be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Thanks for all the advice. I think we are going to try to buy out her half over a fixed period of time. It seems like that will be the least complicated option. I read up on it a bit and my rights would be significantly different depending on whether or not we get married, so it's hard to predict how it will all turn out. He did have the house appraised after they separated, so he at least has his bases covered in that regard. Right now my biggest concern is keeping it as simple and mutually beneficial as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Purple trillium posted:I think we are going to try to buy out her half over a fixed period of time. It seems like that will be the least complicated option. To me that sounds like the most complicated option that is guaranteed to explode in your face and make you commit suicide. If you're going to buy her out, then get home financing and just buy her out in a lump sum. It's worth taking on mortgage interest to not commit suicide and drown your children in a bathtub and make the local news. In general, as advice to the world, do not ever go into longterm financing with family. Ever. loving ever. No, especially not then. And DEFINITELY not when the family is your fiancee's ex. It will 100% invariably result in loss of relationship with that family member. So go ahead and do it, and save yourself time by dumping your fiancee and pretending you have a protective order and just move out anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:In general, as advice to the world, do not ever go into longterm financing with family. Ever. loving ever. No, especially not then. And DEFINITELY not when the family is your fiancee's ex. It will 100% invariably result in loss of relationship with that family member. So go ahead and do it, and save yourself time by dumping your fiancee and pretending you have a protective order and just move out anyway. Otherwise, odds are great that at some point you'll have to decide between the money and the relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:In general, as advice to the world, do not ever go into longterm financing with family. Ever. loving ever. No, especially not then. And DEFINITELY not when the family is your fiancee's ex. It will 100% invariably result in loss of relationship with that family member. So go ahead and do it, and save yourself time by dumping your fiancee and pretending you have a protective order and just move out anyway. Seller financed real property keeps my office busy. Keep 'em coming, you morons!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Yeah, in general I like to stick to the sage advice of "never a lender nor borrower be" (especially when it comes to family). I think at this point I'm not going to sign anything and I'm going to let him work it out with her. The less I'm involved the better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer or anything but that is ABSOLUTELY loving INSANE. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, get right the gently caress off the board. Why would anyone in their right mind even entertain the notion of entering a legal agreement with someone they're not legally committed to AT THE BEHEST OF THEIR EX SPOUSE Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
On the subject of family and money... With the Powerball up over 200M, I got to daydreaming and thought back on something I read or watched about lottery winners having their family relations ruined by money. One thing I remember is a winner giving a one-time money gift to all family members on the grounds that if they accept it, they are never allowed to ask for money again. I guess it worked out pretty well for that lottery winner to keep everything good in the family, but how does a term like that have any legal recourse? You can take this one-time gift on the condition that you never ask for money again. If you breach that contract and start bugging me for money, the repercussions will be ???
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:On the subject of family and money... IANAL, but if the winner does it legally, whatever legal consequences for a breach they want to write put into the contract. Odds are, though, it was just a gentlemen's agreement. Fun fact: in some states, you can claim lottery winnings anonymously. Another fun fact: in some states, corporations can claim lottery winnings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:IANAL, but if the winner does it legally, whatever legal consequences for a breach they want to write put into the contract.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:the repercussions will be ??? Return of the funds you used to purchase their silence on the matter. But then you have to litigate the issue, and there go your familial relations anyways. I would expect that its likely not an enforceable contract anyways, as the value of not being asked for money is probably far far less than the amount of money given, thus classifying the original transaction as a gift, rather than a contract.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Do people incorporate after getting a winning lottery ticket as a way of anonymizing the payout? Or perhaps tax-advantage? Generally, you would get taxed once when you get the money, for personal income (probably much like casino winnings.) If you put the money into a corporation, then you would get taxed again when the corporation paid you a salary, or dividends. If I won the lottery, I would buy annuities for myself and all my family members with 30% of it, fund an investment trust with a life estate in myself with 30% of it, start an investment company with 30% of it (so I'd have something to do) and SPEND THE gently caress out of 10% of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:On the subject of family and money... That's not a contract. I'm guessing the guy gave a decent chunk of money to his relatives and said, "Now don't be a dick and come begging for money six months later because you spent all your money on hookers and blow. This is all you get, so don't piss it away stupidly." Not so much done to get back any money, in other words, but to make it so that he doesn't look like an rear end in a top hat who won't share with family while also making relatives who waste the gift look like jerks if they ask for more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Could he contractually prohibit himself from giving them any more money, rather than prohibiting them from asking?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:On the subject of family and money... I would guess they do it with a trust. A trust is an entity like a corporation that exists to crap out assets according to the structure of whoever setup the trust First thing you'd do is create a complicated trust and give a giant pile of cash to it, to be distributed out to your heathen friends and family. So them asking you for more money is irrelevant, because their money is locked up in the rules of a trust. And the trust pays out slowly, and if they violate whatever rules you setup (like don't irritate me, don't date the irish), then they lose their sweet sweet flow of money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
This reminds me of a thought experiment I had a while back after reading some (probably wrong) article claiming that some absurd percentage of men were victims of paternity fraud. Basically, could we create an organization that grants opt-in contracts that "force" men to have paternity tests in the distant future? The general idea is that, as a young single person you might see the statistics and conclude that a paternity test is worth it, but then later in life when you fall in love and trust someone you don't want to ruin things by asking for a test. But if you had no choice at that point, there wouldn't be as much emotional reason to blame you -- hence the contract. Psychologically, the contract here is like a commitment device. Legally, you can't have a contract with your future self, so we need a corporation or similar to act as a middleman. If the contract added a huge penalty if you failed to follow through, that might secure commitment, but can such a contract be valid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could he contractually prohibit himself from giving them any more money, rather than prohibiting them from asking? He could, but if he later gave them more money he would have to sue himself, and Defendant him would definitely assert a waiver, modification, or similar defense against Plaintiff him. Plus he'd have to hire two separate lawyers, and it would be a big pain at trial to keep having to switch back and forth between sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 13:23
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:He could, but if he later gave them more money he would have to sue himself, and Defendant him would definitely assert a waiver, modification, or similar defense against Plaintiff him. Plus he'd have to hire two separate lawyers, and it would be a big pain at trial to keep having to switch back and forth between sides. Why do I have this weird feeling that some sovereign citizen/freeman on the land/whatever has read your post, and it's given him a new life goal. Of course, he would represent himself as well as himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:Why do I have this weird feeling that some sovereign citizen/freeman on the land/whatever has read your post, and it's given him a new life goal. Of course, he would represent himself as well as himself. Well that shouldn't be a problem, since he would undoubtedly also attempt to preside over the case. So basically he can sit in his mom's basement making various proclamations to himself and then ignore his own wishes and do whatever the gently caress he wants instead and nobody will care or be affected. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
Javid posted:Could he contractually prohibit himself from giving them any more money, rather than prohibiting them from asking? The best way to do something like this is not a contract, but a trust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The best way to do something like this is not a contract, but a trust. That still won't keep them from asking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:02 |
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This reminds me of a thought experiment I had a while back after reading some (probably wrong) article claiming that some absurd percentage of men were victims of paternity fraud. There are a ton of issues with this notion. First of all, for a contract to be enforceable there must be an exchange of valuable consideration. If these guys are giving "Who's Dong was it Anyway, LLC" the right to demand payment from them in the future upon failure of some condition, Who's Dong has to purchase that right. What is Who's Dong giving them when they opt in to this deal in their twenties? - Free paternity test at some time in the future? You won't be able to enforce a contract that is basically a promise for future performance in the event of an uncertain condition occurring in exchange for a promise for future performance in the event of an uncertain condition occurring. - If you made them buy the paternity test right now (in their twenties) you wouldn't be able to force them to get it through a penalty later on in life. If you purchase a good or service, you're generally not entitled to liquidated damages (the 'penalty' you're talking about) because the cost of the goods or services is readily ascertainable. At least thats how it works in my state. So if the company tried to force you to pay the penalty for not getting your paternity test, the Court would say 1) Who's Dong, LLC already has this dude's money for the paternity test, and now they get to keep it and not provide the service. 2) You can't charge him an additional penalty, over and above the cost of the paternity test. A couple hundred dollars? - No Court in the Country would order specific performance on an issue like this. - How would you fund this company? Who would run it? How would it stay in business? I expect that the Secretary of State would refuse to certify this corporation as lacking "a legitimate business objective."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2014 15:41
|
|