|
Hey I think at least half of us are lawyers. Some of the best advice actually comes from industry people, especially when it's insurance related.
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Traffic Ticket Industry
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
nm posted:I hate the internet. If you want to step up that feeling a little bit, you should know that the GamerGate people have their own wiki, which not only includes an article on the judge for the restraint order, but features pictures of him and his dog taken from his facebook. Good job not being creepy weirdos, internet.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:18
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They aren't witnessed so there is no one to testify as to capacity. I need an official legal opinion on the validity of this will. I am asking for legal advice so I can cut my kids out of the will. quote:Troy Phelan is an elderly multi-billionaire who doesn't want his fortune to fall into the hands of his greedy, obnoxious children and ex-wives. He tricks his heirs into thinking he is about to sign a final will -- including having psychiatrists present at the signing to verify his sanity. Once the psychiatrists agree Troy Phelan is undeniably sane, he quickly pulls out a separate holographic will, signs it and then runs for a door to a terrace and leaps over the railing to his death. The new will blocks his ex-wives and children out of their inheritance except for one child, Rachel Lane, a missionary living in the Brazilian jungle. Rachel Lane is unknown and a huge surprise to the Phelan children. A mass of seedy lawyers appears to represent the aggrieved heirs in challenging the will. This is in Virginia.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I need an official legal opinion on the validity of this will. I am asking for legal advice so I can cut my kids out of the will.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
quote:Troy Phelan is an elderly multi-billionaire who doesn't want his fortune to fall into the hands of his greedy, obnoxious children and ex-wives. He tricks his heirs into thinking he is about to sign a final will -- including having psychiatrists present at the signing to verify his sanity. Once the psychiatrists agree Troy Phelan is undeniably sane, he quickly pulls out a separate holographic will, signs it and then runs for a door to a terrace and leaps over the railing to his death. The new will blocks his ex-wives and children out of their inheritance except for one child, Rachel Lane, a missionary living in the Brazilian jungle. Rachel Lane is unknown and a huge surprise to the Phelan children. A mass of seedy lawyers appears to represent the aggrieved heirs in challenging the will. Second holographic will would be I think successfully challenged based on lack of testamentary capacity.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Second holographic will would be I think successfully challenged based on lack of testamentary capacity. Yes, those psychiatrists were clearly on the take.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ffort-under-way A sad little story but a good cautionary tale for people who do online fundraising. People tried to raise money for the family of Tamir Rice, the family's attorney apparently thought it was fraudulent? And ordered it seized and placed into a trust. Later, when the family got different lawyers pro bono, the original lawyers asked that the trust give them their attorney's fees. All the coverage of this is talking about how the first attorneys are malicious, but I don't see what's really immoral about it, though I can see how it might be a tad insensitive. I think it's wrapped in confusion because there was that weirdo racist guy who shits on floors yammering on Twitter about how he thought the fund was fake.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yes, those psychiatrists were clearly on the take. testamentary capacity is a legal concept not a medical one. Though medical evidence can play a role.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
Andy Dufresne posted:Scraps and blarzgh might be interested in this, or they may not. Carrollton, TX. It turns out Atmos is just an incompetent company. They did in fact send me a nasty letter asking for the deposit on my new account. I received my first bill a few days later with deposit + usage and it was totally devoid of late warnings. Still no explanation for why their cs agent had no idea about the letter + call. So, the scam is still available if anyone wants to take it over.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
I'm sure this'll get real far: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/05/nebraska-woman-sues-all-homosexuals/
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Second holographic will would be I think successfully challenged based on lack of testamentary capacity. drat. Well, now that I hold the sincere belief that you and I have formed a lawyer/client relationship: how do I establish testamentary capacity? And don't say "don't leap off your balcony to a sensational death right after signing the will", that's a crucial part of the plan.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
Capacity is assumed. You have to challenge it. Generally.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
If a widower single marriage husband in Minnesota with no debt dies without a legal will, and his only two children, who are adults, and also live in MN are amicable with the division of his assets, are there any any potential pitfalls, or do things like this generally go pretty smoothly?
Skunkduster fucked around with this message at 06:34 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 06:29
|
|
|
In this theoretical example how big is the estate and is there real estate.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In this theoretical example how big is the estate and is there real estate. The house needs a lot of repair and is probably worth less than 70K. There is maybe another 50K from life insurance, savings, etc. One sibling will take the house, then whatever cash is available from savings and insurance will be split evenly after covering death expenses. It is a lopsided split, but the sibling getting the short end of the stick (theoretically me) is fine with it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Well it's not a hypothetical any more. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
I'm in love with that exchange.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:The house needs a lot of repair and is probably worth less than 70K. There is maybe another 50K from life insurance, savings, etc. One sibling will take the house, then whatever cash is available from savings and insurance will be split evenly after covering death expenses. It is a lopsided split, but the sibling getting the short end of the stick (theoretically me) is fine with it. the $500-$1,000 the lawyer will cost to make it all happen will be totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well it's not a hypothetical any more. Sorry. Well played, sir. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
I'm in California and recently accepted a job with a sign-on bonus. The wording in the offer letter was "In addition, you will receive a one-time signing bonus of $[bonus], net of required taxes and withholdings [...]" On the paystub where the bonus was reflected, the $[bonus] amount was applied to the gross and then the taxes taken out, rather than being grossed up such that the net was equal to $[bonus], as I had anticipated. Is this my naivety to legal language? Is this a standard way of phrasing this? Because it seems odd to me to specifically use the word "net" if the amount is being applied to the gross. I asked HR and they sent me a terse response that amounted to "sorry you were confused."
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
What's your problem? You thought you were getting more?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:What's your problem? You thought you were getting more? Yes, he thought it was post tax not pre tax
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:I'm sure this'll get real far: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/05/05/nebraska-woman-sues-all-homosexuals/ 1. That alone was worth my  2. Never before have I been so happy to live in the home of the United State District Court of Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, where Never before has Our great Nation the United State of America and Our great state of Nebraska; been besiege by sin: She sounds an awful lot like my schizos when they go off they meds
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
KnifeWrench posted:I'm in California and recently accepted a job with a sign-on bonus. The wording in the offer letter was "In addition, you will receive a one-time signing bonus of $[bonus], net of required taxes and withholdings [...]" Sorry you were confused.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
I'm not currently entertaining any offers of employment, but hypothetically, if I was offered a sign on bonus, how would I figure out what I'm actually going to get? Should I just ask them "Hey, Is this going to be a bonus of $1000 and then you'll take out a huge chunk of taxes so I'll get a $600 bonus or is it going to be a $1500 bonus that you take $500 from to make it end up as $1000?"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'm not currently entertaining any offers of employment, but hypothetically, if I was offered a sign on bonus, how would I figure out what I'm actually going to get? Yes, generally asking questions is a good way to figure out what's going to happen.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
They have to take out withholding taxes equivalent to if you made that bonus every pay period in the tax year. You get back extra taxes at the end of the year .
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
Why are people confused that they have to pay taxes on income?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Why are people confused that they have to pay taxes on income? In their minds, a bonus is not income.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Why are people confused that they have to pay taxes on income? The phrasing "net of taxes" implied to me, as a relative layperson, not that taxes do not exist, but that the pretax bonus would be higher such that the net amount would be the cited number. But thanks for not reading and assuming I'm just a moron.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
No bonus numbers are always pre tax.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm the one with the reading comprehension problem here.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
At my current company, I have occasionally gotten bonuses that take taxes into account. It's really neat to get a bonus check for $100 with a paystub that shows that they actually paid me $129 or whatever and took out $29 for taxes so that I'd get a $100 check.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'm not currently entertaining any offers of employment, but hypothetically, if I was offered a sign on bonus, how would I figure out what I'm actually going to get? Why would it matter? You'll have to pay the same taxes on it later anyway (the same assuming your withholding stuff was filled out properly). Income is taxable. SURPRISE!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Why would it matter? You'll have to pay the same taxes on it later anyway (the same assuming your withholding stuff was filled out properly). Well, it matters if you're not thinking like a BEEP! BOOP! robot accountant. When you get a $50 bonus for good teamwork or whatever, it sucks when your check is actually for $38. They're considerate enough to advertise a $50 bonus and then give you $70 which comes out to $50 after taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Adults know that income is taxable. Witholdong is different for every employee.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Adults know that income is taxable. Maybe it depends on the place, but bonuses often get withheld at the highest bracket, just to make things easy for the payroll department.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Maybe it depends on the place, but bonuses often get withheld at the highest bracket, just to make things easy for the payroll department. Yeah exactly
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:48 |
|
|
Motronic posted:Why would it matter? You'll have to pay the same taxes on it later anyway (the same assuming your withholding stuff was filled out properly). ... No, you won't have to pay the same taxes on 1000 pre-tax and 1000 post-tax. That's kind of what post-tax means. Have you guys just not heard of a gross up? (Pretty commonly discussed in conjunction with benefits for gay couples when they're taxable while benefits for married couples aren't.) He was dumb to think he was getting a gross up. You're dumb to think that there's no difference.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 02:55
|
|