|
blarzgh posted:gently caress yes, haha. I understand that the garnishment is basically a second suit that is brought against the bank that they use, is it likely that the attorneys fees for that be added into the garnishment, so I'd just have to front the money until it's recovered by the garnishment? Also, how likely is it for Texas judges to hold someone in contempt and put them in jail for refusing to answer discovery questions about where they bank? Because that would be even more gratifying than getting my money back - having her sit in jail and think about it for a while.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Actually in this case insurance co. has refused coverage because the driver was under the influence of drugs. The answer is maybe. Some auto policies may have a clause in them that exempts them in the case of a driver under the influence. Some will not. Regardless, the company is going to be on the hook and will probably have some sort of other business liability insurance to cover gaps in the auto policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The answer is maybe. Some auto policies may have a clause in them that exempts them in the case of a driver under the influence. Some will not. Regardless, the company is going to be on the hook and will probably have some sort of other business liability insurance to cover gaps in the auto policy. Yeah, that's fair. I was specifically thinking of the auto insurance because general purpose insurance isn't very common here so there's usually no fallback in these cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
I just handled a case where the company's insurers paid $X million to settle a case where their employee, after taking the vehicle out with a couple coemployees to the local bar several hours after clocking out, and boozing for four hours, clipped a guy on the way back to the bunkhouse. He pleaded guilty to everything, and there were major course and scope and coverage issues. But the companies still paid a pretty penny rather than let the case move forward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
In california, insurance can't exempt liability coverage for dui. I'm surprised that doesn't exist everywhere as it is contrary to public policy and MADD may be the only lobbing group more powerful than insurance companies (well and the NRA).
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
The Mandingo posted:I understand that the garnishment is basically a second suit that is brought against the bank that they use, is it likely that the attorneys fees for that be added into the garnishment, so I'd just have to front the money until it's recovered by the garnishment? Yes, you can generally recover the cost of collecting a judgement in Texas, including attorneys fees, and yes, if they don't respond to discovery, or the subsequent motion to compel, the Judge will issue a bench warrant for their arrest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
nm posted:In california, insurance can't exempt liability coverage for dui. I'm surprised that doesn't exist everywhere as it is contrary to public policy and MADD may be the only lobbing group more powerful than insurance companies (well and the NRA). No it's not? The public policy of seeing injured people get taken care of is paramount. Insurance companies are a lot better equipped to handle that than some poor judgment proof drunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:The public policy of seeing injured people get taken care of is paramount. I offer as counter example the lack of public health insurance to see that injured people are taken care of.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:No it's not? The public policy of seeing injured people get taken care of is paramount. Insurance companies are a lot better equipped to handle that than some poor judgment proof drunk. You are misreading what he said
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:No it's not? The public policy of seeing injured people get taken care of is paramount. Insurance companies are a lot better equipped to handle that than some poor judgment proof drunk. I'm saying excluding duis from insurance coverage is contrary to public policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah usually only the punitive aspect of DUI liability is allowed to be excluded. But in commercial policies the issue is whether a drunk is in the course and scope, since obviously that's not part of the job description. However if you exercise so little supervision and control over your employees they get tanked and crash the company car...
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:You are misreading what he said Yep
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This never survives them seeing the dashcam video, wherein they realize their carefully constructed recollection of events is completely false.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Nakar posted:That usually worked but a couple times I had flawless video of a person very obviously never ceasing movement for even a split-second at a stop sign and they still insisted they'd fight it. The judge would come back after the docket was done for the day and ask first whether they saw the video ahead of time (always), and then why the hell they thought they had a chance. That is one thing my dashcam showed me: I would slow down to a crawl at a sign, but didn't actually stop most of the time. As in, the car would rock backwards, and I would go when it was my turn. I actually do that now but after driving like that for so long it feels weird. Still, better than getting a ticket. sleepy.eyes fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
Bought a rather expensive book on cross examination, open it up with a nice bottle of Pellegrino, and the first paragraph says "If you came looking for legal citations to assist in the task of cross-examination, buy another book." I just got trolled pretty hard. Tia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:That is one thing my dashcam showed me: I would slow down to a crawl at a sign, but didn't actually stop most of the time. As in, the car would rock backwards, and I would go when it was my turn. I actually do that now but after driving like that for so long it feels weird. Still, better than getting a ticket. If you aren't coasting through every stop sign you're driving completely wrong (assuming you're white)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
When is it appropriate to make a will? I ask because my wife is thinking that we should create a will. But we currently don't have any kids...we are both each others' primary beneficiary for all our individual financial things that require a beneficiary, and all our other financial things are joint. What I'm really wondering here is if we have a will, do we then have to go back through all our financial things and re-do the beneficiaries to match the will? Like, if my work-provided life insurance says my wife is primary and my parents are secondary, but our will says that if we both die then both our sets of parents split everything 50/50, which one wins? Same question if we have kids and we don't update anything...the will may say that our kids get stuff, but our old life insurance may state that our parents get stuff. Or maybe my wife wants us to make a will so she can bump me off and take all my stuff...but jokes on her since all she'll really get is my student debt. Oh yeah, so how does that work? If I die, would debtors have a claim on any joint stuff to settle my individual debt? I know that the loan can't transfer to anyone, but the question is about anything I have joint ownership of. I guess the house would be an example...since the house is in both our names, would a debtor have any claims on it and essentially force my wife to pay my student loans after I die?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:When is it appropriate to make a will? Your other questions may depend on where you live and what the rules are for joint/separate property between spouses. The fact you have these questions means that for peace of mind you might want to have a sit-down with a wills lawyer and just see what they think about your potential challenges and needs and how that could shake down if one of you dies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Federal student loans are discharged upon death of the borrower.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Is that taxable income to the estate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
No, so long as you died after making 120 on time payments whole employed in a PSLF qualified job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Is that taxable income to the estate? Yes
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
So several co-workers in various departments have apparently been overpaid quite a bit. They've all been asked to pay it back within their next three paychecks(which isn't feasible for any of them really). But is the company allowed to offer a deal to only a few of those affected by the mistake and expect full repayment from others?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Quabzor posted:So several co-workers in various departments have apparently been overpaid quite a bit. They've all been asked to pay it back within their next three paychecks(which isn't feasible for any of them really). If you're in a good state, your state law likely defines the period of time where the overpayment must be paid back. It is generally over the same period of the overpayment. (For example, if you were overpaid for 5 paychecks, you get 5 paychecks to pay it back in.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
nm posted:If you're in a good state, your state law likely defines the period of time where the overpayment must be paid back. It is generally over the same period of the overpayment. (For example, if you were overpaid for 5 paychecks, you get 5 paychecks to pay it back in.) Well thats good assuming that applies for Wisconsin. Because it started early this spring for at least a couple of them and it's a few dollars per hour mistake.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yes wait really? that's hilarious
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
I have a rental housing question-Oakland, CA. I signed a month to month lease for the downstairs unit that was supposed to be done with renovations 2 days after I moved in. To give the workers space, I moved into a small upstairs unit that's a lot worse. Well over two weeks later and not a single thing has been done to the downstairs unit. It's a converted house, just two units in the whole place. I've found another place to live and am moving out Wednesday. Does the property manager have any leg to stand on to keep my deposit or the extra money that I paid for the downstairs unit? I'm willing to pay for the time I've spent in the upstairs. I feel like since I was never inhabiting the place I signed for, the lease never started in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
The standard california lease has section on the unit being uninhabitable. What does your lease say? You may have other options under the law, but tha is a good starting point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
The property manager said she was going to give me a copy of the lease, and she never did. Also, I don't even have keys for that unit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
You signed a lease but didn't retain a copy for yourself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
She said she would make a copy and give it to me next time she came by, but she said she kept forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
She isn't going to give you the money back willingly. What is cali small claims like
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
compshateme85 posted:She said she would make a copy and give it to me next time she came by, but she said she kept forgetting. Are you even sure she owns downstairs?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Well she emailed me back and said I would get my money back, and to let her know where to send it. Fingers crossed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
Ask for it in a money order
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Ask for it in a money order I asked for cashiers check or money order.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
My car was hit while in my office parking ramp while I was working. The woman who was driving and a manager of our office building were waiting for me when I arrived at my car. The damage will probably be under $1200 to repair as it was to a plastic molding and no metal panels were damaged. I am getting two estimates from local shops. The woman's husband showed up and asked if we could settle without getting her insurance involved. He would pay cash for the damages. I'm willing to do this but I want to have a document signed that states that they are no longer liable for any damages and that I am released of any liability for any damage to their vehicle. My concern is that they could come back later and claim I hit their car. This is just a 'cover my rear end' document. I don't expect them to try anything shady; especially with the office manager as a witness. I want to keep this simple and not make the signature page too convoluted with legalese. Any suggestions? *edit: I just spoke to my insurance company and they said that privately settled accidents aren't a problem and that I wouldn't have any trouble with them or legally in the state of MN. I have a form that, if signed, would release myself and the person who hit me from any further action in regards to this incident. I will still talk to my personal insurance rep as a double check...but I feel more comfortable about this. Thanks. Deegan fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Yeah, go through their insurance. Edit: what I'm saying is the internet lacks the legal sophistication to craft the document and situation that you want; proceed at your own risk. It seems difficult to imagine that they would straight up lie and claim that you hit their car, even after they paid you and considering you should have pictures of your damaged car in the parking spot and I would assume some proof that you were inside the building when the accident occurred. However, you won't find the ability to properly arrange the legal situation that you want here on the internet. The only way to be sure is to go through insurance. Barring that, you will need to assume whatever risks there are of this situation not working out, like for example the body shop discovers frame damage after they take the bumper off, etc. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yeah, go through their insurance. Ok, this is good advice too. I don't like conflict and I'm not looking for a payday. I'll talk to my adjuster and get his advice too. If I decide to go through insurance I'll give him a heads up that I'm doing it. Thanks for your advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
I didn't give you any advice, only legal information.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2016 20:49
|
|