|
If anyone still remembers Chicken Battle - It looks like the neighbor might be giving up on the lawsuit track. He did make a formal complaint to the city and they pretty much told him to kick rocks since I'm not breaking any laws.
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
Nice! Always satisfying when a busybody has to buzz off.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2019 17:35
|
|
|
Freedom to Flock in peace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
I bought an engagement ring from a well known retailer in July, I was told 2 weeks for it to be made. 2 weeks went by and no ring. I tried calling but the line was disconnected. Researching online I discovered they closed all of their locations except 1 in Houston. I called the GM directly on his cell phone and he kept telling me my ring would be ready the next Friday, that Friday would come, and he would ask for more time. Fed up, I contacted the remaining store and customer service to see wtf was taking so long. I got a customer rep to reply to my email, telling me my ring would be in my hands by Sept 17. On Sept 19th, I tried emailing again and got an auto-reply that the rep no longer works for the company. I got another rep to reply stating that I could get a refund, I said yes and gave an address for a check to be mailed. Now it has been a week and a half and they have ignored daily emails asking for updates. What should my next step be? Contact a lawyer? File in small claims court in Dallas where I originally bought the ring? I just want my money back so I can buy a new ring and loving propose like I intended to do in August. I have my original receipt s and all email exchange s between the company and myself saved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Xinlum posted:I bought an engagement ring from a well known retailer in July, I was told 2 weeks for it to be made. 2 weeks went by and no ring. I tried calling but the line was disconnected. Researching online I discovered they closed all of their locations except 1 in Houston. Chargeback with your credit card company?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:14
|
|
|
Small claims them assuming the ring is inside that jurisdictional amount. Good chance they just pay up after getting served.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i? I hear Rome is nice to visit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 03:58
|
|
|
OK I have a bench warrant for failure to appear. I thought it was this month instead of last. It wouldn't matter as I was sick enough to be admitted to ICU the next day and spent 4 days in the hospital. How hosed am I? I am going to send a message to my lovely lawyer, but she doesn't like to answer very quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 08:11
|
|
|
The Creature posted:OK I have a bench warrant for failure to appear. I thought it was this month instead of last. It wouldn't matter as I was sick enough to be admitted to ICU the next day and spent 4 days in the hospital. How hosed am I? I am going to send a message to my lovely lawyer, but she doesn't like to answer very quickly. You probably can just call the court and explain, ask for a new date and then show up and pay your fine. Or you can call your lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i? Are you civil service
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 13:11
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i? Which cabinet member are you? Stephen Miller?
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i? We had this exact situation when a governor wanted to change a law and some prosecutors wanted to testify on the bill without toeing the company line. My coworker filed a leave slip so he was taking the day off and convinced the committee chairman to subpoena him. A private citizen complying with a subpoena on private time is a pretty good defense. I can't remember if you are private or government but if you are private then you are hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i? What you have, sir, is a book opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
The Creature posted:OK I have a bench warrant for failure to appear. I thought it was this month instead of last. It wouldn't matter as I was sick enough to be admitted to ICU the next day and spent 4 days in the hospital. How hosed am I? I am going to send a message to my lovely lawyer, but she doesn't like to answer very quickly. Call your lawyer Also find those hospital records
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:So lets say I work for a government agency that and have been asked to testify in a deposition in front of a congressional hearing and my boss is saying that if i go and testify i'll be fired. how hosed am i? Well https://mobile.twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1179452198054440960
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Incoming "the state department doesn't have enough lawyers to staff all the depositions to exercise bad-faith objections of executive privilege" argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 18:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Call your lawyer Left a message and sent emails. I have my hospital paperwork on hand as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
couple unwittingly buys meth house So, uh, homeowner's insurance probably wouldn't cover this, but wouldn't you expect title insurance to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
Why do you think the title is defective
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:couple unwittingly buys meth house The remedy is to unwind the sale and get back the money you paid for it, and the seller gets back Casa Metha
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Specific performance? I doubt it. Maybe Probably just get damages. Was there any fraud tho ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Why do you think the title is defective/was there fraud? article says posted:Most states require home sellers to disclose to buyers the material defects in their property, according to Nolo Press, a database of legal articles. Missouri specifically requires sellers to disclose if their property was used as a site for methamphetamine production.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Huh interesting facts. I wonder what really happened.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Huh interesting facts. I wonder what really happened. Well yeah, same. I know NOLO isn't the most rigorous legal source or anything, but pretty much everywhere requires sellers to disclose known defects. Hell, in some places you have to disclose if you think the place is haunted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Specific performance? I doubt it. Maybe Not specific performance; equitable rescission. Similar elements though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
He said, "why do you think title was defective." Title is related only to the chain of ownership relating back to the first land grant. Nothing to do with fraud. For example: Joe stakes out 40 acres 200 years ago. Joe gives 20 to Paul and 20 to Steve. Steve gives his 20 to Sandra, Sandra to Jean, then Paul's Great Great Grandson reacquires the 20 and now owns 40 again. However, Sandra secretly gave 5 away to Julius, and now when Paul the Fourth tries to sell it, there is a defect in the title. Paul the Fourth had title insurance when he reacquired the 20 acres, and that insurance policy stated that there was no issues, and that he's own the 40 clear of any other claims of ownership. When that turns out to be wrong, the title insurance company now has to pay out on the policy because they hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Do you think the insurance company has a right of offset against whatever the couple raises off go fund me to fix the house
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 21:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Do you think the insurance company has a right of offset against whatever the couple raises off go fund me to fix the house I highly doubt it. I can't see any contractual subrogation of charitable gifts made by unknown third parties. Edit: for reference, when someone totals your car and its their fault, they are liable to you for the damages. An insurance company pays you first, though, and quicker than going to court and getting a judgment. In exchange for that instant pay out, they get, in return, all your rights to sue that guy and all your rights to damages from him. That right is called "subrogation." It requires 1) them paying out, and 2) you having a legal claim for damages against someone. Its not subrogation if they haven't paid anything, and its not subrogation if you don't have a legal claim against the person. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Oct 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
TREE LAW I bought a new house in 2017 with an HOA. The HOA is $18/month and afaik all they do is send you nasty grams about weeds and maintain a couple common areas that no one cares about. There’s like 600 houses in it though and it’s managed by some third party property management company that is the only real point of contact on the HOA website. My house is on a hillside. It has a nice view. The builder told us that we can’t even extend the 6’ privacy fence down the hillside because of neighbors view considerations. I looked at the HOAs website and their mission statement is something like “In order to protect property values and the beautiful views the neighborhood is known for blah blah blah” and if you look at the landscaping guidelines it mentions protecting views literally 4 times in 5 pages. None of the houses came with landscaped backyards, you had to take care of it yourself. You have to have a landscaping plan approved by the HOA. My neighbor planted 8 pine trees with mature heights of 40’+ along the hillside below our houses that are going to be real bad for my view to the south which is the good part of the view. The trees are on their property also, though right against the boundary. When they did this I emailed the HOA and said “Uhhh what’s up” and they said “We can’t tell you anything due to privacy laws but your neighbor followed the procedure.” So I wait a year, the trees grow 18”, they’re now officially blocking (some of) my view. I send an email to the HOA explaining the situation, sending a picture, and asking how/why this was acceptable. After a few weeks someone responds and says they’re working on it and should have a response from the “architectural committee” within a week. That was 5 weeks ago. The lot and view is the only reason we bought here. I would estimate losing the view will drop my lot value $20,000 or more. It seems like either: 1. The HOA just rubber stamps everything because they’re lazy/stupid/whatever Or 2. The neighbor planted these without putting them on the plan submitted to the HOA. I have not talked to the neighbor about it because: 1. They’re homeschooley religious weirdos. Like those people in CA that are in prison for chaining their 13 kids to the radiator or whatever 2. I doubt they’re gonna just chop down thousands of dollars worth of trees because I asked nicely 3. I’m a weirdo 4. I don’t want to It’s now been almost two months since I sent the first recent email (Aug 8), 5 weeks since they responded (Aug 27), and 2.5 weeks since I sent a follow up “hey what’s going on” email. My current plan is to send a final email saying “Hey, it’s been two months, I need some kind of answer here or I’m going to have to explore other avenues of redress” and then if I don’t get a response within two weeks or so I find the best goddamn tree lawyer west of the Mississippi. But I wanted to see what others thought about this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:He said, "why do you think title was defective." Title is related only to the chain of ownership relating back to the first land grant. Nothing to do with fraud. I think I get it now. So in a case like this, someone would basically be limited to whatever statutory or common law remedy there is for fraud in the sale, right? Unless there's some other kind of purchase insurance product that I don't know about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Meth house law is def new to me That was not in law school
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:TREE LAW Go get the tree lawyer now. An HOA run by a servicing corp. is about as nameless and faceless entity as exists. The person who "manages" your HOA is probably a computer and the equivalent of a call center worker. If a $500 letter is all it takes, great. If not, then even a small trial on the matter will be cheaper than your estimated loss in property value, plus most states (I ASSUME) allow you to recover attorneys fees for the enforcement of Deed Restrictions (which is what these are). Find a lawyer who specifically does HOA work, and who represents HOAs (not yours, obvs). They'll be cheap, and they'll know what to do. If you're having trouble googling one, call a family law attorney and ask them who they'd use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:TREE LAW Lots of potential issues here that you'll need a lawyer for. https://www.echo-ca.org/article/tree-disputes-hoas-what-law-says quote:View/privacy issues. Usually this comes up when a tree is removed. We all like to look at trees, but sometimes they block views and must be removed. Privacy issues come up when trees serve as noise or privacy barriers. This must be balanced against the needs of the association. For example, if someone lives in a condo and a neighbor plants a tree on his first floor balcony that grows to block the view of the person on the third floor, guess what is going to happen? The tree will be removed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:14
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:I think I get it now. So in a case like this, someone would basically be limited to whatever statutory or common law remedy there is for fraud in the sale, right? Unless there's some other kind of purchase insurance product that I don't know about. So, typically when you have a breach of contract, your remedy is money. No matter what the contract was about, the remedy is exclusively money, and specifically enough money to put you back in the position you expected to be in when the contract was performed. Basic example: I hire you to mow my lawn for $50, I pay you, you don't mow my lawn. Remedy: No, the court won't force you to mow my lawn, that like, slavery, but they will make you pay me $50. However, a select number of things have been deemed "too special" for money to adequately compensate for contract damages - the obvious, and almost exclusive case is real estate. When, in a breach of contract case, this "too special" kicker comes in, that opens the door to other kinds of remedies. One is 'Specific Performance" as Euphronius mentioned - thats where the Court can force the party to go through with the contract, even if they don't want to. Generally, something like the seller tries to back out of a real estate deal because they found a little bit better price elsewhere, and the buyer wants to force the sale to go through. The buyer puts the amount of the agreed sale price into the court register (like, literally a cash register) and wins the lawsuit, so the Judge orders that the Seller take the money and give the buyer the house. The other special remedy is "Rescission" which is on the other end. The same thing, but in reverse; the Court orders that the seller give BACK the money, and the buyer gives Back the house. In the case of Fraud in a Real Estate Transaction (which is a special kind of fraud), you can also get special damages on top of unwinding the sale in many cases. The whole purpose of the Seller's Disclosure Sheet that says, "I Did Not Cook Meth In This House" among other things is actually so the Seller can prove that they buyer knew about all the potential bullshit they might complain about later. The practical effect is that if you lie on that disclosure, the Buyer can sue for damages, or sue to unwind the sale. euphronius posted:Meth house law is def new to me Not me, LOL
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
The very basic, practical problem for This Meth House is that the best day in Court for the buyers is an order from the Judge that the sellers give back the money and take back the house. And hey, probably tack on some attorneys fees for good measure. But the money has to still exist somewhere, judgment and order notwithstanding, and/or the sellers would have to qualify for a loan. Meth People Aren't Good With Money. They almost certainly don't have it anymore, and probably wouldn't qualify for a loan to buy the place back. Those people are probably hosed :sad face:
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
And figuring out money damages is relatively easy But again money judgments are usually worthless So the lesson is : do not let people defraud you into buying a meth house
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The very basic, practical problem for This Meth House is that the best day in Court for the buyers is an order from the Judge that the sellers give back the money and take back the house. And hey, probably tack on some attorneys fees for good measure. Assuming they started the meth habit after having jobs and getting a mortgage vs owning the MethHouse outright, wouldn't it possibly be the bank's title/house/mortgage the meth heads may or may not have defaulted on over said meth bust? If so, would the new owners be fighting a bank for money instead of methheads?
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I highly doubt it. I can't see any contractual subrogation of charitable gifts made by unknown third parties. The article said that the insurance company denied the claim and that the couples lawyer suggested suing the insurance company. So it’s a first party claim, not a third party claim / subrogation as I understand it. So if they get $40k to fix the house from go fund me, and it’s $200k to fix it, would the insurance company be on the hook for $200k or $160k I made the original post facetiously but now I’m kinda interested. I don’t do a lot of insurance litigation. Considering insurance companies like paying the least amount possible, you’d think they’d have something address crowd funding at this point Also the house was seized and sold at a police auction it looks like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:22 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:The very basic, practical problem for This Meth House is that the best day in Court for the buyers is an order from the Judge that the sellers give back the money and take back the house. And hey, probably tack on some attorneys fees for good measure. I think in the story somewhere is that the house is on record as being a civil forefiture for meth, so the city may have hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2019 22:32
|
|
