|
Volmarias posted:It's not about the money, it's the deterrent effect on the defendant. Class action lawsuits can cause actual financial damages and make a company think twice, because the $30 damage is now multiplied by a million, which will (hopefully) cost them more than their bad behaviour. This isn't always how it works out (my favorite being Sony giving their customers $0.50 coupons in exchange for intentionally installing malware on their customers computers) but it's the intent. It isn't much of a deterrent since companies still do poo poo that ends up with a class action suit, and making people whole should be one of the goals. From the perspective of the poor person, they got ripped off by both the banks and the class action lawyers. There is a simple solution, make sure the settlement makes everyone whole. That may bankrupt a bank or two but that will create a much stronger incentive not to pull poo poo like this.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Volmarias posted:It's not about the money, it's the deterrent effect on the defendant. Class action lawsuits can cause actual financial damages and make a company think twice, because the $30 damage is now multiplied by a million, which will (hopefully) cost them more than their bad behaviour. This isn't always how it works out (my favorite being Sony giving their customers $0.50 coupons in exchange for intentionally installing malware on their customers computers) but it's the intent. Breyer made this very point in his dissent in AT&T v Concepcion a few years back, but the conservative wing of the court still ruled to gut class actions (by allowing forced arbitration clauses that bar class suits).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:Just add user-specified priority to checks and use that + timestamp to order things. If it's a credit card, you do know what kind of industry the merchant is in from the MCC (merchant category code), which is how your credit card that gives 5% cash back only for restaurants works. In a check-less world, banks could support a scheme which did let the customer say "process rent first, then car payments, then utilities, etc."
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:It isn't much of a deterrent since companies still do poo poo that ends up with a class action suit, and making people whole should be one of the goals. From the perspective of the poor person, they got ripped off by both the banks and the class action lawyers. There is a simple solution, make sure the settlement makes everyone whole. That may bankrupt a bank or two but that will create a much stronger incentive not to pull poo poo like this. I, too, long for a just world that will never be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:It isn't much of a deterrent since companies still do poo poo that ends up with a class action suit, and making people whole should be one of the goals. From the perspective of the poor person, they got ripped off by both the banks and the class action lawyers. There is a simple solution, make sure the settlement makes everyone whole. That may bankrupt a bank or two but that will create a much stronger incentive not to pull poo poo like this. There are legitimate reasons why you might not want to force this - plenty of lawsuits are about conduct that exists in a grey area, and forcing every settlement and judgment to come down as "one side is completely wrong and must pay every cent of every possible bit of damage" is extreme in that case. Not every class-action settlement comes out of moustache-twirling evil. Of course, if you allow the use of class action bans and mandatory arbitration as a way to remove all penalties for some types of moustache-twirling evil, a lot more people are going to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:There are legitimate reasons why you might not want to force this - plenty of lawsuits are about conduct that exists in a grey area, and forcing every settlement and judgment to come down as "one side is completely wrong and must pay every cent of every possible bit of damage" is extreme in that case. Not every class-action settlement comes out of moustache-twirling evil. You can allow flexibility in the judgment. But I haven't heard of a class action that resulted in anyone but the lead plaintiff and legal team getting anything other than peanuts. You can tell the poor person who got screwed "see, it's about sending a message" but they are still out $100 minus the 50 cents they got from the settlement. So in the ordering case, you can run the numbers, see what the customers would have paid with whatever ordering the court finds that the banks should have had, and order that be restitution. The victims would still be out at least one overdraft charge, which is fine if they did overdraft their account.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:You can allow flexibility in the judgment. But I haven't heard of a class action that resulted in anyone but the lead plaintiff and legal team getting anything other than peanuts. You can tell the poor person who got screwed "see, it's about sending a message" but they are still out $100 minus the 50 cents they got from the settlement. Again, it sure would be nice to live in a world where this would happen, instead of the one where a trillion dollars of narco money laundering gets swept under the rug.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:You can allow flexibility in the judgment. But I haven't heard of a class action that resulted in anyone but the lead plaintiff and legal team getting anything other than peanuts. You can tell the poor person who got screwed "see, it's about sending a message" but they are still out $100 minus the 50 cents they got from the settlement. A few years back, I got a couple hundred dollars from United health Care as part of a class settlement. I would have had zero idea I was even defrauded otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
lol if you don't act individually in arbitration over a $35 overdraft fee
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Waahh I chose the path of least resistance and sided with my lovely father and ignored my mom and she left me out of the will. I want to sue!https://www.reddit.com/r/relationships/comments/6o8ra3/my_mom_f50s_cut_me_m30s_out_of_her_will_because/ posted:My mom (F50s) cut me (M30s) out of her will because she thought I took my dad's (M50s) side in the divorce.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
Mom also had to know that cutting the son out would destroy anything relationship her children had with one another, so BWD (Bad With Death).
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
The thing about staying "neutral" or playing peacekeeper is that it isn't often done in consideration of the involved parties and their well-being. It's just to avoid or minimize discomfort on the part of the person who needs to weight the situation and make a decision based on this. It's kind of ironic because it's a pretty selfish move that people can play off as being noble or virtuous because "I don't want conflict."
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
It's also pretty selfish to ask your kids to take a side in a divorce  Not being around for his cancer-having Mom was poo poo, but you shouldn't be forced to cut your dad out of your life. It's lovely he had an affair but if everyone cut out the parent who cheated, there'd be a ton of people not talking to parents.
Nail Rat fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jul 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
I think I shared this story before. My sister's husband's grandmother died 10 years ago. She has a big family, with probably 25 or more grandchildren. She had a house that was fully paid off, free and clear. She decided in her will to put that in a trust with her children, and having that be a sort of 1-2 year crash pad for the grandchildren and their families who need it. Hey, living rent-free for 2 years is a great wedding present, right? It has gone exactly as poorly as you expect it would. The people living there don't want to move out after 2 years, because they're broke and haven't saved any money and can't afford a new place, so maybe they stretch it to 3 1/2 years. And there's arguments when it's becoming available of who "deserves" it more, whether because they already have kids, they're students with low income, etc. It's a nightmare. The smarter thing to do would have been to sell it, distribute the cash to the children, and have their parents subsidize the rent for their kids if they wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:It's also pretty selfish to ask your kids to take a side in a divorce You're not wrong, but I think in this case, the poster's words betray his lack of emotional awareness and self-centered, perhaps overly coddled attitude. His mom did a great job of remaining in good terms with him despite feeling betrayed, and he selfishly continued ignoring her emotional needs over his dad's because "she's more flexible." He also states that his dad was always the "cool one." I don't know him or his family, but I sure as hell know my own brothers, grown-rear end men who always take the path of least resistance and are oblivious to their endless selfishness and pain/financial strain they impose on my parents because my mom is too nice to tell them to gently caress off. It's always going to be about them until the day she dies, and as this post suggest, perhaps even after as well. Homeboy is probably not a bad person, just selfish and oblivious to the hurt his mother went through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
KingSlime posted:You're not wrong, but I think in this case, the poster's words betray his lack of emotional awareness and self-centered, perhaps overly coddled attitude. His mom did a great job of remaining in good terms with him despite feeling betrayed, and he selfishly continued ignoring her emotional needs over his dad's because "she's more flexible." He also states that his dad was always the "cool one." The mother wasn't a saint either - according to the OP, his father would not have come to the wedding without his wife, and she wouldn't go to the wedding if dad's new wife was there, so mom was asking the son to choose which parent would attend his wedding. That's a lovely thing to do. Just go to the drat wedding, he's your only son. Make some passive-aggressive comment to your ex's new spouse and move on. And dad also did a lovely thing but I don't think "I'd like to bring my spouse to the wedding" is an unreasonable request. canyoneer posted:It has gone exactly as poorly as you expect it would. The people living there don't want to move out after 2 years, because they're broke and haven't saved any money and can't afford a new place, so maybe they stretch it to 3 1/2 years. There's a great book called "Beyond the Grave" by Gerald Condon that has a whole mess of horror stories about bad estate planning. It's a veritable mine of BWM/BWD stories.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Just go to the drat wedding, he's your only son. Which is exactly what she did. She swallowed her feelings and was in attendance for the sake of her son even if she raised complaints at first. This is why I feel that she was good at trying to keep resentment from ruining her relationship with her son. It's not unusual to be focused on your own life and neglect checking in with either parent (it happens), but him going to the internet to whine about money that was never his from a parent that, as per his testimony, he probably neglected towards the end, is exactly the kind of thing that selfish and inconsiderate grown rear end babies do. He chose to actively maintain a close relationship with the dad who cheated while not tending to his dying mother anywhere near to that degree. Fair enough, but actions do have consequences and "not choosing a side" is still an active, deliberate decision. I think him refusing to acknowledge any autonomy bugs me more than anything. That's my stab at interpreting this whole mess anyways. Like I said, can't really know unless we were there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
It's bad with money if your parent is asking you to choose sides in an unpleasant divorce to not choose the one that has cancer and a lot of inherited wealth. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
BWM: developing a bond with poor Dad. Align yourself with successful and wealthy people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
OctaviusBeaver posted:BWM: buying a house in Canada What does this look like if you compare the bubble areas (Toronto and SF)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
KingSlime posted:It's not unusual to be focused on your own life and neglect checking in with either parent (it happens), but him going to the internet to whine about money that was never his from a parent that, as per his testimony, he probably neglected towards the end, is exactly the kind of thing that selfish and inconsiderate grown rear end babies do. He mentions that his wife just had a kid when his mom had cancer. I'm not married, I don't have kids. I do have a close friend that I am a primary caretaker for as they have cancer that will likely be terminal. It's exhausting mentally. It's like you are on-call every day. I used to love to go hiking, and I haven't been on anything but a short walk this year because I need to be available in case my friend needs help and I try to be no more than a half-hour away. I've been BWM by eating out a lot more because I'm too drat tired to cook anything but frozen foods that I can put in the oven or in the microwave. If I sleep six hours it's a miracle. I imagine it's like that if you have a newborn baby as well. I can't imagine doing both. There are people who do that, and as far as I am concerned they are saints. The daughters definitely deserved more for being caretakers for their mother, without a doubt. It shouldn't have been equal shares all around. If he got some small share and complained about not getting the same as his sisters, I'd have given him the smackdown personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
All in all it sounds like a family full of lovely, petty people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Also, if the Dad really did cut his sisters out of his will then he'll have all that coming to him eventually, assuming that his dad doesn't have more kids with the new wife.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Killing the Dad is the only solution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Inheritance stuff always brings out the worst in people. It's depressing how horrible family members will treat each other for a bigger piece of the pie, perfectly willing to destroy relationships to see who can screw the others the most.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
I found this thread on reddit about estate horror stories and found this gem:quote:One client left a specific gift of $10K to one son, and left him out of the per stripes division of the residual estate, which was sizable at the time the will was drafted. This was intended as a serious disinheritance, which he apparently talked about all the time to make the disfavored son feel bad. However, by the time he died he had a serious reversal of fortune and his estate was about $10K, so he effectively disinherited the "good" children and left the black sheep everything. The bad kid appeared very poor, compared to the others, and the look of grateful surprise on the poor kids face was almost as priceless as the shock on the others who thought they were getting rich.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I found this thread on reddit about estate horror stories and found this gem: ahaha perfect
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I found this thread on reddit about estate horror stories and found this gem: That's almost fairy tale level of irony. Just needs a bad fairy and a talking fox.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
quote:My mom took care of my paternal great-grandfather when he was dying. They didn't know each other before then but him and my mom got along well. In my great-grandfather's culture women aren't supposed to smoke publicly but he made an exception for my mom because she's really cool. They would often share a smoke on the front porch together like Bilbo and Gandalf. GWM
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Weatherman posted:That is some lovely, lovely logic that is nothing but a weaselly excuse to gently caress your customers. The only objective way to order the transactions is in the exact sequence that they were received. And I don't mean "lol our system just happens to receive big transactions first heh heh". Those loving banks can measure microseconds when they want to charge interest—they can well handle marking time stamps from POS terminals. It's good logic if you're paying by checks and the bank isn't covering your whole NSF (i.e. They're bouncing checks). Most people would gladly pay the extra fees to avoid bouncing a rent or car payment over say, a grocery bill. It doesn't hold up if the bank is covering the full deficit. Everyone has a limit where the bank will pay any checks automatically. If your limit is $500 and you have $1k in the bank but checks for $900, 200, and 300 come in then the bank should clear the first two so you only pay one NSF fee. The fact they don't is why they get hit with lawsuits. Having a policy of clearing the largest checks first isn't an issue and is generally good logic. It's clearing them in the wrong order even when you weren't going to bounce anything that is lovely. Again, this is check debits. It doesn't really apply with debit cards which I think are first come, first served. monster on a stick posted:Eh, no, you can set up your rent and car payments to use automatic bill pay... Again, this is all paper checks, which are antiquated by modern standards (I don't work in banking anymore). The only places I've seen that almost always require checks are landlords and child care providers. Both of which you never want to bounce if you can avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I found this thread on reddit about estate horror stories and found this gem: From that very same post, quote:Rich old lady leaves her entire sizable estate in a trust for the care and maintenance of her dog, as long as the dog shall live. On the dog's death, the trust paid out in full to the son. Apparently the son had Rover put down the day after the funeral and presented a demand to the trustee the very next day for the trust payout. She should have seen that one coming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
oh my god surely there was language there to try and discourage such actions? it's pretty drat hilarious though, nothing like a good ol' story of legal loophole fuckery to make things interesting in the afternoon
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
That's one way to do it, I guess. Depending on the dog, I may have just tried to milk that for a while. Oh, Rover here would be a lot happier if we lived in a nice Penthouse. Oh, and if I took him to the park in a Porsche. I mean, mom would have wanted her dog to have all the best, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
I like your plan. Get a snazzy party pad and invite some bitches over! it's all gold
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
KingSlime posted:oh my god surely there was language there to try and discourage such actions? If she had an actual lawyer, they would have pointed out the obvious loophole, at which point senile old lady would have said "my son would never put down Fluffy!" Otherwise she wrote the will herself and nobody was there to point out the flaw. Or it's a bullshit story because reddit but it's still entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Can you deduct the rent of your dog's sweet bachelor pad if you're acting on behalf of the estate in securing it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
KingSlime posted:The thing about staying "neutral" or playing peacekeeper is that it isn't often done in consideration of the involved parties and their well-being. It's just to avoid or minimize discomfort on the part of the person who needs to weight the situation and make a decision based on this. "My friend's" parents divorced when he was 14, living in eastern Europe where nobody has money for lawyers, so the parents had to communicate through him in order to settling bullshit like banking information for alimony payments. The kid just wanted to have a halfway normal childhood, and leave the adult bullshit to the adults. If the adults couldn't afford a lawyer, they could have at least communicated via snail mail. But when the child is 23, I guess you have a point. GWM: Not hiring a lawyer because you are too poor. BWM: Hiring a lawyer 10 years later using the kid's finances, for an unrelated case that is next to impossible to win (medical). 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
KingSlime posted:The thing about staying "neutral" or playing peacekeeper is that it isn't often done in consideration of the involved parties and their well-being. It's just to avoid or minimize discomfort on the part of the person who needs to weight the situation and make a decision based on this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
GWM: Be an only child. Though I have two half-brothers on my mother's side, and I have no idea what her financial situation is like (she's a pretty bad person and probably a narcissist) and I can only fearfully wonder what I might be on the hook for. She did quit what seemed to be a steady, if probably existentially draining job as the site manager of an inactive graphite mine with a long history of poor management. I'm talking building-sized machinery built on site and never used, and bags of top-quality graphite laying around unsold. Visiting that place was eerie, like walking into a Borderlands setting. Probably BWM? Her last contact with the place after she quit was her former boss texting her asking for the address of the mine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Suspicious Lump posted:What screams out at me is the OP clearly favored one parent over the other. The true neutral peacekeeper would have requested both parties not bring their new partners to their wedding or if both are ok with it, both bring their new partners to the wedding. It's pretty clear he didn't give a gently caress about his mom because she made it clear how uncomfortable she is with the situation. I love the crap he spews: "very hard for my family to deal with" this is what I would say if my father died because he's a dick. It's his wedding, not hers. He did some other poo poo things but if he wants his stepmom at his wedding, his mom should respect that. She's clearly also part of his life. It's part of the whole divorce thing that your kids will be interacting with step parents eventually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 14:48
|
|