|
Does the prenuptial agreement mention anything about adultery having any effect on division of property? Then that.
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
IANAL, but I got divorced in Ohio in 2011. Mine was the simplest divorce possible; everything was as amicable as could be expected and we used the simpler "dissolution" process (since Ohio differentiates between the two). Everyone told me I could go it without a lawyer, and maybe I could have, but man it was so much easier to just pay someone to make sure everything got filled out and accounted for and filed properly. The dissolution cost me about $2k in lawyers fees, and an estimated $4-8k if it became a full divorce. Court fees are also higher if you go through the full process, because a magistrate gets involved earlier and does much more in terms of dividing up property equitably.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
Disclaimers: I'm not a family lawyer, and I practice in Texas. That said, the only issues you haven't mentioned are the division of property and who makes more money(i.e. whether spousal support is an issue). Those are the only things left to fight over if she intends to make it a big deal. If your combined assets less liabilities* is under, say $10,000.00 and she isn't over 40 and/or disabled, I'm not sure what there would be to fight over. *you own a car worth $20,000.00, you owe $12,000.00 on it, your combined assets less liabilities is $8,000.00.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Sonic Dude posted:IANAL, but I got divorced in Ohio in 2011. This sounds about right. Do what this man did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
quote:$2k in lawyers fees, and an estimated $4-8k if it became a full divorce. Reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:
So I was just kidding around when I said this, but I was wondering about it in actuality. Does privilege include, say, notes the lawyer may have made about what a client has said? And if so, what happens to those notes, then, if that lawyer dies mid-case? Are they still under privilege, or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
gently caress me, I have to charge more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:What about through the death of the lawyer? Privilege can extend to notes the lawyer made, although sometimes that's going to be a different privilege from attorney-client (e.g., attorney work product). If the lawyer dies, those would remain privileged. Generally either other lawyers in his firm or whoever the client hired next would make sure the notes were handled properly. Death of the lawyer does not terminate privilege.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Disclaimers: I'm not a family lawyer, and I practice in Texas. I didnt mention those add I wasn't sure if that would be to specific. I'm the bread winner and pay for most of the stuff, making about about 2x-2.5x as much as her depending if she works full time or not.... The two biggest assets and debts I'm worried about is a new car in my name that owes nearly 20k on it, and she probably can't transfer it to her name because of garbage credit and no one willing to cosign her. The other is a poo poo ton of lawyer debt she's accrued in the marriage going to court for her kid (I'm the step parent). I mean at the end of the day whatever I haven't burned every bridge I've ever made and I'm in a good career so if I get shafted it won't literally ruin my life and I'll have support from friends and family but... still.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Privilege can extend to notes the lawyer made, although sometimes that's going to be a different privilege from attorney-client (e.g., attorney work product). If the lawyer dies, those would remain privileged. Generally either other lawyers in his firm or whoever the client hired next would make sure the notes were handled properly. Death of the lawyer does not terminate privilege. If you want a real monster of an exam question: consider the issue of a lawyer concluding a case, dying, then having a professional negligence case brought against his estate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If you want a real monster of an exam question: consider the issue of a lawyer concluding a case, dying, then having a professional negligence case brought against his estate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:One of the firms I work with is defending against a case where the plaintiff died, then the lawyer representing the plaintiff died. There's another lawyer handling the case on behalf of the plaintiff's estate, now. And it's in a county with a massively underfunded court system, so one motion will take upwards of six months to get taken care of; there's a good chance it'll outlast the current lawyers, too, even though it's not a very big case. I do wonder if nestled away in legal history somewhere there's a case which was successfully concluded after the plaintiff, respondent, and their original lawyers all died (optionally judge as well).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Same disclaimers, I don't think you'll have too much trouble, as long as you hire a lawyer. I just can't imagine what she could make into a "thing." If she refuses to sign an agreed division and decree, then your lawyer pops on in and gets the divorce without her consent. If she wont agree to a split of the property, your lawyer pops on in and says, "your honor, this is what we think is fair, but couldn't get an agreement from respondent." The judge will know who is being the rear end in a top hat. Its good that you're taking the issue head on. You'll be fine as long as you stick to it. This isn't going to ruin your life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If you want a real monster of an exam question: consider the issue of a lawyer concluding a case, dying, then having a professional negligence case brought against his estate. The privilege belongs to the client, so there's no monster? (at least with regard to privilege)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I do wonder if nestled away in legal history somewhere there's a case which was successfully concluded after the plaintiff, respondent, and their original lawyers all died (optionally judge as well). Depending on how you define "concluded," I've seen this happen in water law cases.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Or depending on who it's successful for, there's some case that gets linked occasionally where a battle over an estate outlasted the participants and eventually the legal fees consumed the entire estate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
pandariot posted:I'm in California, and am wondering what options I have concerning my final paycheck. I have a follow up question to a situation that I posted about in July. In July, I filed a Wage Claim for the 3 days of unpaid vacation and the waiting time penalty (8 days). In late November I received a Notice of Claim and Conference from the Dept of Labor. After receiving the notice, my former employer emailed me offering a reduced amount for the vacation only. I responded with a reminder of the waiting time penalty, and told them if they paid the vacation in full that I would drop the claim and not pursue the penalty. Keep in mind the vacation totals about $600 and the penalty is nearly $1,800. He replied again "Your final payment was sent to you in the standard manner, in the usual time period, in full. This way of receiving your compensation (direct deposit by ADP) was agreed to and in fact put into place by you. We heard no objection from you regarding this until sometime after you had received the payment." I agreed to nothing. I had no part in issuing paychecks ever, especially after being let go. My question is: what should I do now? Regarding the conference, how will that work? If my former employer shows up hostile and making false accusations, then what? It seems like it's in my best interest to stop negotiating directly with my former employer and just wait for the conference. I'm confused about how this process works though, and would love for this to just be resolved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
pandariot posted:I have a follow up question to a situation that I posted about in July. Did you get your paycheck through direct deposit? Because that seems to be what they're referring to. And they seem to think you've been paid in full...? Did you check your bank account, see if you'd been paid for the remaining days?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
I received my final paycheck by direct deposit on July 25, which was 8 days after being let go. It included my final 3 days of work only, and did not include 3 days of accrued and unused vacation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
joat mon posted:The privilege belongs to the client, so there's no monster? (at least with regard to privilege) Except that there is a limited exception where the attorney can waive as needed in order to defend a malpractice claim. (Which I think would transfer to the estate. So still not a monster.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Did you get your paycheck through direct deposit? Because that seems to be what they're referring to. And they seem to think you've been paid in full...? Did you check your bank account, see if you'd been paid for the remaining days? I think what he is saying is that he has issued a wage claim partly for $600, which they agreed is owed, and the other part for $1,800.00 because the last paycheck was late. They are telling him they don't owe the $1,800 because "the last paycheck wasn't 'late' because you agreed to direct deposit" or some poo poo. I think the answer is: "Does the Dept. of Labor make exceptions to the deadline to pay up because the paycheck is coming by direct deposit?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
It is my understanding that the Dept of Labor will not accept that, based on this: "Other reasons commonly given by employers for not making a timely payment under Labor Code Sections 201, 201.5, 202 and 202.5 that do not relieve the employer of liability from imposition of the waiting time penalty are: Payroll checks are only paid on regular paydays, and that is when you will receive your wages." from this website: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_WaitingTimePenalty.htm **My question is: should I try to settle with my former employer beforehand for a greatly reduced amount, or is it in my best interest to attend the conference? I'm confused by this process and was hoping to hear examples from other people who have gone through this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
pandariot posted:**My question is: should I try to settle with my former employer beforehand for a greatly reduced amount, or is it in my best interest to attend the conference? I'm confused by this process and was hoping to hear examples from other people who have gone through this. You're probably not going to get a good answer to those questions from this thread. Number one, that is straight up Legal Advice, and its improper for us to try to give you that answer. Number two, is we probably don't have the answer anyways. The type of person/lawyer who knows about these is someone in California, who does them for a living. You've got your ducks in a row, and you've done everything right, thus far, so good on that. I'd be curious if a "qualified offer of settlement" like the one they may have made to you has any effect on the outcome of the conference. Also, is it a phone conference or in person?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
I wish my avatar was that good. drat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
It is a conference in person. And that's what I'm asking ultimately - my former employer is the last person on earth I ever want to see again. In the email correspondence, he has attacked me personally and made false accusations. He fights dirty, and can be a very nasty person. Since I don't know what to expect in this conference, I'm just very nervous. In asking my question here I was hoping for some kind of reassurance, like "Wage claims aren't really that big of deal, chill out!" something like that. They offered me $350. I said if they paid me the $600, I would drop the rest. They refused. If I attend the conference, and am awarded the full amount, I will receive $2,400. I'm just anxious about the whole thing because I don't know what to expect, how things usually turn out, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Wow, and the dol actually makes them pay? Agencies with teeth!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I do wonder if nestled away in legal history somewhere there's a case which was successfully concluded after the plaintiff, respondent, and their original lawyers all died (optionally judge as well). First case we read in property law was a dispute over a foxhunt that lasted ~40 years, outlasted both original parties and bankrupted both families. I've heard it said that a good lawsuit is like a good bottle of wine; its something you want to pass down to your children.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
sullat posted:First case we read in property law was a dispute over a foxhunt that lasted ~40 years, outlasted both original parties and bankrupted both families. I've heard it said that a good lawsuit is like a good bottle of wine; its something you want to pass down to your children. One of my favorite passages of Dickens is in the opening pages of Bleak House, where he describes Jarndyce v Jarndyce, a case that's been in the system for generations. quote:Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises. Innumerable children have been born into the cause; innumerable young people have married into it; innumerable old people have died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Is there a standard legalese definition for "anticipate?" I can't find it in any legal-specific dictionaries. How likely must something be in order to anticipate it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
posh spaz posted:Is there a standard legalese definition for "anticipate?" I can't find it in any legal-specific dictionaries. How likely must something be in order to anticipate it? Context?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Context? It's for a CHFA unemployed applicant affidavit. I'm staying with a friend in a tax credit apartment and they want to know whether I "anticipate" becoming employed and if so what my annual salary will be, or if I anticipate not being employed for the next 12 months. The lease runs for the next nine months. If I say I will get a job in the next year I can't get on the lease due to income limits on the whole household, which apparently includes my friend. I can't get my own apartment because I have no income. I know I should hire a lawyer in my jurisdiction but, while trying not to get all E/N here, I'm unemployed and I'm so stressed out about being unemployed and potentially homeless too I feel sick and can't sleep.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
posh spaz posted:It's for a CHFA unemployed applicant affidavit. I'm staying with a friend in a tax credit apartment and they want to know whether I "anticipate" becoming employed and if so what my annual salary will be, or if I anticipate not being employed for the next 12 months. This would be the dictionary definition of the word I think. No offense, but Trac credit property dwellers ate usually not the most sophisticated parties, so we'd use the normal definition of the word. This isn't some arm's length transaction between companies, it's you saying what your income is. Have you been hired for a job? Is a large financial windfall imminent? If not, you don't anticipate anything. If you do get a job, notify them promptly as the lease requires. This is a time when hiring a lawyer would be a really bad decision, financially. Also, getting in the lease is such a good idea. These properties are notorious for evicting once a guest is there too long and not on the lease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
I don't know whether I will get any Christmas presents. I cannot say that I anticipate Christmas presents. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't know whether I will get any Christmas presents. I'll buy you a Christmas present friendly lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't know whether I will get any Christmas presents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't know whether I will get any Christmas presents. My broke asses usually send me presents
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
My fiance wants a Roomba. We loving Party.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Have you been hired for a job? Is a large financial windfall imminent? If not, you don't anticipate anything. Thank you very much for the feedback. I feel a lot less panicky now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
posh spaz posted:Thank you very much for the feedback. I feel a lot less panicky now. Fun Fact - Most new situations are intimidating to people, even us lawyers sometimes. You'll find that once you're finished with the process you'll wonder why you were ever so worked up about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
Law thread success! Seriously though don't lie on any of those forms, don't allow over night guests, don't violate the pet policies, pay your rent and report your income. The benefits at a number of subsidized housing properties can be yanked way too easily and way too fast. Losing a cheap apartment because your roommate let his sister's cat move in for a week is surely something awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2014 00:05
|
|