|
Also, if you have $50k in assets, you should hire a lawyer. Free wills are for broke grandmas who want to make sure their grandson gets her 1986 ford taurus and granddaughter gets her cat collection. Simple wills are cheap and complex wills for large estates are cheaper than contested wills.
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Droo posted:I am using Quicken Willmaker 2016 (updated from my previous 2009 version) which gives you a somewhat freeform box to enter each specific bequest. Well, fuckin don't. The quickest way to buy your heirs litigation is to give the money to third parties (or disinherit one of them), and the best thing to do to make it easy on people challenging your wills is to try and do it yourself. Pay the $600 to have a lawyer do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
I'm in Seattle. My landlord is being a dick about my security deposit and it's possible that I'll have to take it to small claims court. However I am moving back to Wisconsin. Is it possible to handle that stuff by phone or Skype or something? Or could I force the landlord to cover my travel expenses if I won?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Probably not on both counts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
So basically if I'm not in the area anymore I can't take my landlord to court?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:So basically if I'm not in the area anymore I can't take my landlord to court? You have to show up for court, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:So basically if I'm not in the area anymore I can't take my landlord to court? You'll have to balance the cost of traveling back to Seattle to appear in court with the amount of damages you'd win. If you landlord knew you were moving out of state, he may have already done that calculation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Little known rule if you move far away, every landlord will keep your security deposit because they know it'll cost you too much to come back and fight them. I factored losing my security deposit when I moved from San Diego to Louisville. You can try bluffing, that's about it. Seattle security deposit is what, 2500? At least it'll be cheaper to get by in Wisconsin!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Ha, yeah maybe he already thought of it. Fortunately it's not a super huge deposit and I'll live without it. Just wow landlords are all loving scum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Little known rule if you move far away, every landlord will keep your security deposit because they know it'll cost you too much to come back and fight them. I factored losing my security deposit when I moved from San Diego to Louisville. If you are just going to write it off, you might as well try one of the websites that offers to fight for you. Some have decent reviews, and most are on contingency. I would do it just to be a pain in the rear end of a scamming slumlord, but I'm just vindictive like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
bigpolar posted:If you are just going to write it off, you might as well try one of the websites that offers to fight for you. Some have decent reviews, and most are on contingency. What are these sites? I have PMs if you don't want to post about it on here for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
HondaCivet posted:What are these sites? I have PMs if you don't want to post about it on here for some reason. You can google for them, but the only one I've personally talked to people who used it is http://securitydepositrefund.org. I've never used them, no personal experience, but word of mouth was that they were decent in Florida. Not sure how good they will be in your state, you should do your own research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
So this may be a dumb question, but I'm curious as my cousin is getting divorced and things just went from 0 to poo poo-town with a surprise court filing from her ex. How is it ethical for a lawyer to make false claims in court filings? Not like "oh yeah, that's a gray area", but "this can be easily proven false and the filing party knows it". Are there legal ramifications for the party making those false claims later on? From an ethical standpoint is the lawyer in the clear as long as they don't know that the claims are false? I've never talked to a divorce lawyer, but I'd assume that they would ask if you can prove the things you're claiming in your filing? Or is it just expected that people in these kinds of situations make crazy claims and the judge will reconcile everything? Maneki Neko fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jul 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Maneki Neko posted:From an ethical standpoint is the lawyer in the clear as long as they don't know that the claims are false? Basically, yes. Also, try and prove that the lawyer knew they were false. And one thing you learn in this job, is that everybody lies, to their cousins, their lawyers, and especially to themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
In court, and in filings with the court, we often will be making claims our clients have said. "She's a cheating whore" is really "my client says she's a cheating whore." It can be difficult to separate the lawyer from the client some time. And some lawyers will make whatever accusation their dumb client tells them to. But it's not necessarily an ethical violation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Maneki Neko posted:So this may be a dumb question, but I'm curious as my cousin is getting divorced and things just went from 0 to poo poo-town with a surprise court filing from her ex. Complaints are allegations, and typically aren't verified. Because of all the procedural safeguards facing a whack job complaint I can't imagine the ethical bar is very high, that's what responsive pleadings, discovery, and msj/msa are for. Generally the judge won't chime in unless a party invites her to do so via a motion etc. ymmv by jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Since court proceedings are adversarial the judge is going to assume if a materially false statement is made by a party that the other party will state such in their own pleadings (or response) and that both sides will then back up what they present with evidence. If a provably false statement is not backed up and proven false, a judge or jury isn't going to overlook that. If they lied you can file a document that says "claims X, Y, and Z are false because A, B, and C," that's your safeguard. It's an enormous ethical gray area beyond that. The attorney doesn't always know everything the client does and is reliant upon their client to provide them with accurate information. While it's very possible that the other side's attorney knows the claims made are false, it's impossible to prove and the easiest dodge in the world is "my client assured me that his statements were true and I would be in breach of my duty to zealously represent my client if I tried to exclude his claims because I wasn't 100% sure that he was being honest with me" or even "my client outright lied to me and the court, whaddaya gonna do?" You will practically never nail a lawyer on that unless he's done something dumb like record himself outside of privileged communications bragging about lying in filings or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
There's an editorial in the Washington Post by Matt Miller saying Comey's commentary during the statement declaring no recommendation of charges on Clintonemailgate4 is an abuse of power and a violation of the FBI's norms of conduct in reporting charge recommendations. Is that an accurate account, or is there some precedent for the sort of editorializing Comey did?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Comey was in a no win situation and was trying to cover his rear end for the inevitable congressional hearing. Police come out all the time and explain why or not they are recommending charges in high profile cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
I don't know that there are any formal guidelines for how, or whether to say, "this is what we think happened, and that's why we aren't filing charges," but it does happen, although he does seem to concede that he went a little far out of bounds.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't know that there are any formal guidelines for how, or whether to say, "this is what we think happened, and that's why we aren't filing charges," but it does happen, although he does seem to concede that he went a little far out of bounds. Considering he knew that the moment he said "no recommendation" that he would be sitting in front of members of both houses getting grilled for not ruining Clinton's presidential chances, I figure he wanted to get his message out first and set up his inevitable defense. He was hosed before he stepped on that stage. Either say prosecute with no real evidence and get eviscerated in court and by one half of the political spectrum, or do what he did and get eviscerated by the other half. Comey is in full CYA mode and trying to shield his agents from the shitstorm that's raining down on him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Are polygraphs actually used in criminal cases in the way that laypeople think they are? If not, are they used in the way hearsay can be, like to demonstrate someone's behavior or thinking?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Considering he knew that the moment he said "no recommendation" that he would be sitting in front of members of both houses getting grilled for not ruining Clinton's presidential chances, I figure he wanted to get his message out first and set up his inevitable defense. Hes got plenty of evidence of gross negligence; his comments are basically 'she hosed up real bad, and we have no way of knowing if top secret information was stolen by hackers.' hes in position to elect the defacto next president of the united states and is choosing not to do anything about it. In other words, if he does prosecute, win or lose, he'll be buying the election for Trump. If he doesn't, then Hillary will probably win. This is what I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Are polygraphs actually used in criminal cases in the way that laypeople think they are? If not, are they used in the way hearsay can be, like to demonstrate someone's behavior or thinking? How do lay people think they're used? I was under the impression that everybody thought polygraph test results were inadmissible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:How do lay people think they're used? I was under the impression that everybody thought polygraph test results were inadmissible. Gosh, I wish. People seem to think that a polygraph can be used to determine whether you perjured yourself, for one. Some folks seem to think that a polygraphed interrogation where a suspect is asked "did you do this crime" and they deny, but the poly says they lied, means that the poly can be used as proof that he did it. I couldn't imagine that they could be used in either case, but hell, fingerprinting and bite analysis are still used despite no scientific basis for their accuracy soooo
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
I think in Texas they're only admissible in as character evidence in probation hearings or something. Basically every state is different as to whether and what for they are admissible, but I don't think they are considered gospel anywhere by any stretch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
My wife and I are in the process of buying our first house (in Texas), and we just received the "Commitment for Title Insurance" and "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" from the title company. The house was built in 2005, and most of the stuff in the second document seems to be from the early 2000s except for an HOA addendum from 2013. Is there anything I should look out for in either of these documents?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Look for blacked our language restricting gays, blacks, and Hispanics from living there. My house came with such a covenant. Neat to read. Read the hoa stuff especially, but unless you're a lawyer title stuff can be really dense and confusing. If you're legitimately worried about it, retain a real estate attorney to review and advise you. Practically speaking, what kind of restrictions or easements would cause you to back out of the deal?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Look for blacked our language restricting gays, blacks, and Hispanics from living there. My house came with such a covenant. Neat to read. I have no idea what kinds of restrictions or easements even exist in general. Where could I go to find that information? I'll look for the things you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
hooah posted:My wife and I are in the process of buying our first house (in Texas), and we just received the "Commitment for Title Insurance" and "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions" from the title company. The house was built in 2005, and most of the stuff in the second document seems to be from the early 2000s except for an HOA addendum from 2013. Is there anything I should look out for in either of these documents? If the house not being in an HOA wasn't disclosed by the seller, you may be able to back out of the sale if it matters to you. After my current experience with a busybody wannabe HOA I'm probably never going to buy another house that has ever been breathed on by one. When I bought my house, there was no HOA documents. Then I started getting bills for dues. Made me hopping mad because "No HOA" was the number 1 criteria my wife and I gave our realtor, and we refused to consider any houses in one. Turns out my neighborhood was built in 3 stages, with houses originally in an HOA. My house was built in the first stage, and that particular HOA disbanded because they didn't file all their required paperwork a decade ago. The new HOA is trying to claim they inherited all the houses from the defunct HOA, but they apparently can't force us in without consent. They can sue me and file groundless liens on my house that I have to pay to fight, though. And our retarded legal system lets them get away with it. Too bad for them I have the money to fight them and a burning hatred of HOAs to motivate me. Looks like I'm going to be making some lawyer really happy in the near future, if they follow through on their threats. Just wish I could sue them for what the defense of their baseless claims is going to cost me. So, my advice, never buy a house that is in an HOA or ever was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Yeah, too late for that. We knew there was an HOA going in, but it doesn't seem too crazy. I definitely wish you luck, though, that's some bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
bigpolar posted:If the house not being in an HOA wasn't disclosed by the seller, you may be able to back out of the sale if it matters to you. After my current experience with a busybody wannabe HOA I'm probably never going to buy another house that has ever been breathed on by one. Get a bigass flagpole to hang a gigantic American flag outside your house, as ostentatiously huge as possible. Let 'em sue you over that!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
HOAs are perhaps the worst legal structure in American law. At a minimum, they're up there. I have trouble thinking of any other entity less defensible.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
hooah posted:I have no idea what kinds of restrictions or easements even exist in general. Where could I go to find that information? I'll look for the things you mentioned. What you just asked is "please tell me about real property law." If there's something in particular you're worried about or don't understand it's with it to ask a lawyer. But remember that your solution is to back out of the sale. Its too broad a question to really answer succinctly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:06
|
|
|
hooah posted:I have no idea what kinds of restrictions or easements even exist in general. Where could I go to find that information? I'll look for the things you mentioned. Schedule B of your title commitment, "Reservations and Exceptions from Conveyance." (Edit: sometimes its schedule C)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:What you just asked is "please tell me about real property law." If there's something in particular you're worried about or don't understand it's with it to ask a lawyer. But remember that your solution is to back out of the sale. Its too broad a question to really answer succinctly. hooah posted:I have no idea what kinds of restrictions or easements even exist in general. Where could I go to find that information? I'll look for the things you mentioned. I mean, I'm just an idiot on somethingawful dot com, but I feel like if you're about to shell out a lot of money on a house, probably the most you've ever spent in your life, you should probably pay a real life lawyer some money instead of asking Internet lawyers  Not that SA Internet lawyers aren't good lawyers, I just mean, they're not gonna do it all, especially for free on a comedy forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Yeah, that's perfectly reasonable. I just thought maybe there are some common things to beware of. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
It all really depends on the kind of home and location of it, and what your intended uses are. Check out the home buying thread in ask tell as well. The answer to all your questions is "buying a house is a bad idea."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:It all really depends on the kind of home and location of it, and what your intended uses are. Check out the home buying thread in ask tell as well. The answer to all your questions is "buying a house is a bad idea." Yes Except for like me where I plan to live here until death and the rent ownership price ration is like 10:1
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:40 |
|
|
Do you not have a real estate agent?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2016 00:52
|
|