|
Gross. Easements
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Sorry if this is a common question, but there are 900 pages in this thread and I didn't read most of them.... How and when should I go about establishing a relationship with a lawyer that I don't need now but could need at some point in the future (e.g. criminal defense, real estate, etc), and how can I make sure the lawyer is competent and I'm not walking into some dumpster fire like Richard Liebowitz? Is this something that is easily done at the point where I see the need coming, or is it something that should be done ahead of time just in case? Like is there some equivalent to a general practitioner, where you'd see them for simple things but get referrals for anything more complex?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:50
|
|
|
I'm really curious about Richard Liebowitz. The dude seems obviously incompetent and constantly acting in bad faith, but is allowed to take up enormous amounts of court time. It sounds like he's going to probably get a pretty mighty backhand here from the courts, but is this behavior just that uncommon that it seems to take years of obviously bad behavior before real consequences start to happen?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 07:54
|
|
|
gwrtheyrn posted:Sorry if this is a common question, but there are 900 pages in this thread and I didn't read most of them.... Bodies are complex machines full of stuff that can go suddenly wrong at any moment, so it makes sense to have a professional look at them every so often. Does your day-to-day life involve a lot of complex legal transactions that could go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What happens in the majority of cases with a neighborhood is that the developer buys up a big rectangle of land, draws up a plan in the shape of the neighborhood with roads and everything, takes that Plan to the city and asks the City to give them a plat that recognizes the new division of the properties. Along with this plat and plan for development, the city executes a contemporaneous document with the Developer call the "Development Plan." Interesting stuff. This is basically my job, or at least a big part of it, with the most notable difference being the multitudes of deals and sub-deals (national standard and not) that in aggregate make up the "basically a contract" which is partly enforced in public authority statutes and partly just private contract case law based. It's a type of arrangement that is unique in our system at least. By my count there's at least 14 different laws on the books that directly impact the contents of such contracts (and about 40 including ordinances, codes and regulations just to do with underground infrastructure), including a special law just for that kind of deal. So I could probably talk about this stuff for absolute ages (and I do, at conferences and presentations and such) but suffice to say the basic setup is pretty simple: a developer wants to build a plot and goes to zoning for a zoning plan that allows it. The level of detail varies. Then that plan gets interpreted (by me) and we come to an understanding about what fulfilling the plan means in actual real life (you're done when I say you're done). Then the county/municipal authority takes ownership over everything public including water, sewage and drainage mains, roads, public greens, parks, bike roads, town squares, trees, lamps, and every single bit of it up to code for absolutely free or the developer can gently caress off. Oh yeah and of course if I want a hiking trail or a statue or a historical dig, basement parking, central heating, public services, a particular architecture, size of apartments and/or buying the entire building for public housing I get that too, and only pay if I'm literally buying for public housing. The developer gets to write of VAT though. Unless I want part or all of the write-off. But mostly they get the write off. Roads are interesting. Much like has been said, a road needs not be owned by the govt. to be a public road. I solve that a number of ways which in all cases results in a form of public road. There's no way to tell the difference without looking at the zoning regs. There are private roads, but they are usually small farm roads and basically no roads built by a developer are ever private. Water and sewage mains are by law not allowed for private ownership in new developments over a certain size and in all cases where possible public water use is mandated by law. Drainage is preferrably solved locally by plot. Whatever the actual solution is the developer will be voluntold what to do. HOA are a tricky subject. I can mandate their formation but they are almost always restricted to common areas (winter maintenance of roads, communal areas, playgrounds) and usually never affect private property. There's a good neighbour law that solves all that poo poo (or more regularly, doesn't). The HOA equivalent for loving sure doesn't fine or tow parked vehicles, as that is police or county parking authority only. It is interesting as hell reading about how you guys do things in the US, loving these posts. As an aside, for everyone who is interested in zoning, development and city infrastructure there's an amazing youtube series using Cities Skylines as a platform for demonstrating concepts that I really love and recommend: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwkSQD3vqK1Q4BP-itzN6gMpJBTsfPucy
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:30
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Bodies are complex machines full of stuff that can go suddenly wrong at any moment, so it makes sense to have a professional look at them every so often. Does your day-to-day life involve a lot of complex legal transactions that could go wrong? For the most part no, but anyone can end up in jail facing charges at any point in time, and I might buy a house soon, but I also might put it off for another year like i have for the last 6 years. The GP analogy was mostly about how to find lawyers in specific areas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
jfc this is just layers upon layers of insanity. I mean, I kind of get why it is the way it is, but it kind of boggles my mind that something like a city-maintained road could ever be privately owned, and similarly why anyone would WANT to retain ownership of the land a road is on that has to be so insanely encumbered that it's only useful to own if the city just up and dissolves (except to enforce parking restrictions lol). So when it boils down to it, would it be accurate to say: An HOA has the authority to enforce parking regulations IF: 1) the street is private and under the control of the HOA (ownership/designee, regardless of who maintains it) OR 2) State/local law authorizes an HOA to enforce parking restrictions on certain public streets. This is all understanding that "public" is not all that it's cracked up to be, but I'm trying to distill this to the core elements of what would give the HOA any authority. Because it sounds like that absent the above 2 conditions, they have precisely zero authority on public streets. This is a bit confusing, because I thought previously we were discussing that the CC&Rs are basically a contract between the HOA and homeowner, so it seems that this is not entirely correct, in that a contract can be about basically anything, but the CC&Rs are limited to the applicable property. Follow-up: how does one determine if a street is properly "public?" The local GIS seems to show private streets, but the map I was looking at was a "street maintenance map," so in context it doesn't seem to be the right definition of private vs. public.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 13:14
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:jfc this is just layers upon layers of insanity. I mean, I kind of get why it is the way it is, but it kind of boggles my mind that something like a city-maintained road could ever be privately owned, and similarly why anyone would WANT to retain ownership of the land a road is on that has to be so insanely encumbered that it's only useful to own if the city just up and dissolves (except to enforce parking restrictions lol). The definition of public and private streets will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Private streets in Florida are ones not maintained by the municipality or the county and are owned privately either by a single owner or by a group of owners as tenants in common. This does not mean that traffic enforcement and other such things does not happen on private streets. They can. Likewise, HOA enforcement on public streets is possible. HOA CC&Rs are just the guidelines that the HOA uses to operate. The HOA itself is not established by the CC&Rs, but rather it is established as a part of the title to the land. Like explained earlier, most HOAs spring up out of developers buying empty plots of land and then building on and subdividing them. The HOA is literally built into the deeds dividing the larger plot of land and are difficult to remove.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 13:31
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:jfc this is just layers upon layers of insanity. I mean, I kind of get why it is the way it is, but it kind of boggles my mind that something like a city-maintained road could ever be privately owned, and similarly why anyone would WANT to retain ownership of the land a road is on that has to be so insanely encumbered that it's only useful to own if the city just up and dissolves (except to enforce parking restrictions lol). First, it's helpful to avoid trying to simplify complex legal issues like that. All you're doing is picking one possibly incorrect interpretation out of many. When law nerds say that this is specific to that exact loving street and that specific HOA in that specific city in that specific state, it's because that's true. If law was simple, lawyers would finally be freed from their hellish drudgery. Not the US, but as a note: With the recent strangling of municipal and county road budgets, regional authorities have begun dereguating and dezoning public roads on private land so they can force the private land owners to mantain the road. Pretty dumb in my opinion, but since the regional authority decides if the land owners can charge tolls to admit the public (and if course, deny such requests) they can remove the road from their maintenance budget and not have ola q public have to pay for it either. Yeah this totally won't bite us in the rear end. I know it's not helpful to you, but basically our roads are public unless you see a sign stating they are not. That's usually how you tell as a regular traveller. Mind you, that doesn't mean it's not a semi-public road with restricted access, and it might also not be a road in winter (if it's not winter maintained, it goes back to being nature temporarily, which still doesn't mean you can use the snow on top of the road for things such as snowmobile tracks or ski tracks or public access anymore which you could normally do, because the land itself may be restricted in its use). But I have to say I really appreciate how easy and organized our road laws are in Norway comparatively. Unless there's an easement, historical usucaption, allodial right, real co-ownership or forced private road access by statute, then it gets complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 13:55
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Get started on Easements In Gross, blarzgh! Gotcha, bitch! Easements in gross are just personal (read, business) easements that attach to the grantee rather than the land, for a particular use, i.e. gas pipeline easements, utility company easements for powerlines, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 14:07
|
|
|
Land Ownership isn’t binary. A piece of land could have 100 ownership interests Even fee simple isn’t 100% undivided, name notwithstanding “Private land!!l” and it’s worship is a white supremacist chant that has grown up in a segregationist swamp. It’s ideology, not legal reality. Well I guess in our segregationists white supremacist regime ideology does have legal reality but you know what i mean.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 14:33
|
|
|
When you come right down to it even ownership as a concept is legal fiction  I'll take my gold fringe in triplicate
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
DaveSauce, I think you’re also making the classic layman error of assuming the terms public and private mean something big and important. The differences are much smaller than you think. Like, just because it’s a “private” road doesn’t mean that you can’t be forced to let other people into it (easements), or that the police can’t enforce speed limits and other traffic laws (they sure could, depending on the statutes), or that the government can’t regulate the toad (they can. Think about whether they could set a speed limit in parking lots. Or if they wanted to, limiting what can be done on driveways.). Fights between private entities (developers and businesses and homeowners) and public entities (cities, counties, zoning boards, states) about control of private property is the core of zoning and takings litigation, and there’s tons of moneys and fighting involved. For instance, there’s one Supreme Court case from a while ago about whether or not a mall could kick out some folks handing out anti-war propaganda. Or maybe religious proselytizing. I think the answer was the mall had to let them be there, even though it was “private” property. And by the same token, “public” doesn’t mean that private entities can’t get involved. Government entities cooperate with and delegate power to ostensibly “private” businesses all the time. That’s why a power company can use eminent domain to condemn a power line route, and build the line, and fight with the landowner later about how much to pay them. There are public-private partnerships. There are quasi-governmental entities set up, for instance to run the 911 dispatching service. You’d think it would be public, but in my state the counties all got together and agreed to set up a separate entity to handle all of that for everyone. It has gotten really complicated and messy for political reasons. Even your “default” setting for public areas had private action-a private tow company taking your car, instead of the police or a public employee towing it. So the idea that an HOA can assume some of the zoning, regulatory, and parking enforcement power isn’t really all that far-fetched. It just seems that way at first because we have this erroneous notion that there’s a huge gulf between something public and something private.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 14:52
|
|
|
That's a good point. Even if you have some remote private land that you've built yourself a cabin of solitude in with your own two hands, you're still not allowed to hunt lost hikers and visiting goons for sport through the dense Norwegian woods. Although as with the HOA examples, even if you're not allowed to, if the police can't or won't enforce it, it doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
sullat posted:That's a good point. Even if you have some remote private land that you've built yourself a cabin of solitude in with your own two hands, you're still not allowed to hunt lost hikers and visiting goons for sport through the dense Norwegian woods. Although as with the HOA examples, even if you're not allowed to, if the police can't or won't enforce it, it doesn't really matter. On a tangential note, how are fighting sports legal? Like in football you aren't trying to inflict grievous bodily harm on your opponent necessarily, but in boxing you're going to be punching them in the face repeatedly. What's the loophole there that keeps fights from being underground spectacles?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:On a tangential note, how are fighting sports legal? Like in football you aren't trying to inflict grievous bodily harm on your opponent necessarily, but in boxing you're going to be punching them in the face repeatedly. What's the loophole there that keeps fights from being underground spectacles? Statutes often have loopholes because legislatures can carve out special rules for different things. The other loophole, generally, is the idea that you knew what you were signing up for when you decided to play the game. Combine these, and it’s why boxing or UFC is legal, but underground street brawls are not. The second rule is also why there have occasionally been negligence lawsuits brought by players injured after particularly dirty hits in basketball or baseball or whatever, claiming that they assumed the risk of ordinary jostling and fouling, but a deliberate or outrageous hit was so far outside the norm that the offender owes them medical bills or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
Violent sports are licensed For tort, it’s assumed that the would be plaintiff assumed the risk by participating. Does not include violence not reasonably related to the sport
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
sullat posted:That's a good point. Even if you have some remote private land that you've built yourself a cabin of solitude in with your own two hands, you're still not allowed to hunt lost hikers and visiting goons for sport through the dense Norwegian woods. Although as with the HOA examples, even if you're not allowed to, if the police can't or won't enforce it, it doesn't really matter. Though to be fair, it's only illegal if they catch you. VanSandman posted:On a tangential note, how are fighting sports legal? Like in football you aren't trying to inflict grievous bodily harm on your opponent necessarily, but in boxing you're going to be punching them in the face repeatedly. What's the loophole there that keeps fights from being underground spectacles? They used to be semi-illegal in Norway because you couldn't consent to being knocked unconscious (which is its own special kind of assault/bodily harm type charge). It was banned through it's own legislation, until the law was replaced with a law on knockout fighting in I think 2015. Literally called the knockout law.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
I think the quiet question was 'I need legal advice on setting up a battle royal on my private island'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:So when it boils down to it, would it be accurate to say: HOA can also regulate conduct of HOA members, even without delegated state power. Like HOA could say 'Members may not park RVs on the street in front of their houses' and fine HOA members that do anyway, even if they otherwise have no control over the street and the state isn't authorizing anything. In that situation they can't fine some non-HOA person that never agreed to it. The HOA members are agreeing to limit what they can do for their collective benefit, the public isn't involved. Like you could probably also have an enforceable requirement that all HOA members go volunteer for an hour each month at the local public library. It doesn't control the public, and it doesn't matter that the library isn't controlled by the HOA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Statutes often have loopholes because legislatures can carve out special rules for different things. The other loophole, generally, is the idea that you knew what you were signing up for when you decided to play the game. Combine these, and it’s why boxing or UFC is legal, but underground street brawls are not. Hardcore BDSM with wounding is perfectly fine if you arrange it as a competitive sport
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:15
|
|
|
Outrail posted:I think the quiet question was 'I need legal advice on setting up a battle royal on my private island'. Inspiration from the mod Hunger Games thread in GBS, surely
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:regulate the toad 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:Inspiration from the mod Hunger Games thread in GBS, surely The easy option would be posting a 'I bought an island! Goon paradise project' thread in GBS and let things unfold organically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
Oh my god this isn't a photoshop 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
I meant what I said.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 19:36
|
|
|
As I understand it, statutory law can impose penalties (including felony convction penalties) without considering mens rea, whereas "normally" criminal law always permits mens rea as a factor in the case. The example I always hear about in this regard is statutory rape, where the court cannot even consider whether the defendant knew or could have reasonably known the victim's age, which could inform a question of criminal intent; instead, the court simply considers "was the victim under the age of consent" and "did the alleged actions that constitute statutory rape occur" and if so, that's it, guilty verdict and now we mechanically apply the statute-mandated penalty. I would like to discuss with other people this principle, but use a different example than statutory rape. Can anyone suggest a useful illustrative example of statutory law(s) that, because of how they're written, do not allow any defense that is based on the defendant's actual or ability to have known they were committing an offense?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:32
|
|
|
You’re looking specifically for criminal laws, correct? Because strict liability offenses are common in civil litigation. Your best bet is probably going to be state level possession offenses (either drugs or contraband).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Statutory rape is a statute It wasn’t a crime at common law. Hence the name “statutory” rape (I’m 99% sure it wasn’t a common law crime)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:44
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:As I understand it, statutory law can impose penalties (including felony convction penalties) without considering mens rea, whereas "normally" criminal law always permits mens rea as a factor in the case. The example I always hear about in this regard is statutory rape, where the court cannot even consider whether the defendant knew or could have reasonably known the victim's age, which could inform a question of criminal intent; instead, the court simply considers "was the victim under the age of consent" and "did the alleged actions that constitute statutory rape occur" and if so, that's it, guilty verdict and now we mechanically apply the statute-mandated penalty. You’re looking for the term strict liability as said by my esteemed colleague above. You’re wrong on your initial paragraph re: statutory and “normal” criminal law. In the USA at the federal level there is no common law criminal offense. All offenses are based upon statute. Most states have followed suit but I can’t say all have completely eliminated common law crimes. Regarding mens rea, different offenses will have different requirements. Some require intent. Some require knowledge. Some require a reckless indifference. Some require no mens rea at all. Strict liability offenses require no mens rea. If you commit the offense, you are guilty. Statutory rape is the textbook example. Garnett v. State is the best SCOTUS case to look at, in my opinion. Another strict liability is possession of a cocaine. Doesn’t matter what your intent is. If you have coke on your person, you have committed the violation. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Jul 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:46
|
|
|
US Law is very complicated !!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
Thank you, "strict liability" is proving to be the right search term. The cocaine example is a good one. I wonder where I got the idea that there was a difference between statutory law and... not common law, but laws passed by legislatures? Maybe I'm conflating the division between statutory and common law, and some other thing. Like, if an agency (say, the fish & wildlife agency) posts a "no fishing" sign, and has a rule that imposes a penalty for anyone caught fishing in a no-fishing area, and you have to pay the penalty if you're caught fishing even if the sign fell over or was stolen because of how that rule was written... but no legislative body ever passed such a law, it's just a rulemaking power granted to the agency (somehow? By whom? Maybe purely via executive power?) to create and impose such rules? What is that sort of rulemaking called, in official legalese? I'm looking for examples of rules we have to follow where someone who is innocent of intent gets screwed because the law never bothered to give a judge or a jury the ability to consider intent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:54
|
|
|
Rule making IS a (delegated) statutory power But before that you are dipping your toes into fish police and man stop now that is a deep deep pit
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
DUI-drugs in some states is based on 'any amount' of controlled drugs or their metabolites in one's system, which tacks pretty close to strict liability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
I haven't been posting all that long in this thread but you might have already gathered: I really enjoy posts that elaborate on the deep deep pits of the law. You might even say I intentionally try to instigate them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Another strict liability is possession of a cocaine. Doesn’t matter what your intent is. If you have coke on your person, you have committed the violation. For the feds, at least, it still requires mens rea as it must be knowing possession of the cocaine. If you can somehow convince the jury you didn’t know you had it (though IIRC it doesn’t work if you claim that you didn’t know it was cocaine? but a crim lawyer would know, I am but an IP nerd), you’re free. Though, uh, good luck on that. And at least some states have eliminated that requirement. There was a SCOTUS case a while back that might be informative on this, McFadden v US.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
Felony murder is also weird in the way you are asking )it should be abolished (
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Felony murder is also weird in the way you are asking )asset forfeiture too plz.(
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:When you come right down to it even ownership as a concept is legal fiction
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2020 02:04
|
|
