|
Question about rent increases. I moved into my place in August 2019 and initially signed a 12-month lease. I paid first and last months rent, as well as a deposit. My lease went month-to-month after the 12th month. A few months later I got a dog and agreed to a rent increase and pet fee, so I signed a new lease for 12 months. This February the landlord raised rent again and wanted me to sign another 12-month but I declined and he agreed to month to month again. My rent is now roughly $150 higher than August of 2019. Yesterday I turned in my notice to vacate the premises and turned in my April rent check. I also said “this will be my last check since I paid my final months rent in August 2019”. He told me that I would owe $150 in April because rent had increased since then. I told him no, I paid the 2019 amount in advance, and it covered the last month of my tenancy regardless of when it was. He said that since my subsequent leases raised the rent, it was “common sense” that I would owe the difference. None of the subsequent leases mentioned anything if the sort, and the wording on my original lease states “tenant has paid X$ for first and last months rent”. Am I right?
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2022 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
That’s incredibly location specific.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 02:02
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:the wording on my original lease What does the wording on the newest lease say
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
I have a question about a business trust issue. This doesn't affect me directly, but some details about the situation don't make sense to me. So starting out we have Person A, Person, B, and Person C on the trust. A has a medical issue and is temporarily removed from the trust B and C make agreement to "get" a lot of shares in a company (I'm not clear on whether they were transferred or purchased) A returns to the trust C becomes extremely difficult to work with, and trying to benefit themselves instead of the trust. Their actions aren't quite criminal, but are rather stupid and beligerrant. A and B remove C from the trust A and B would like to sell the shares, but are told they need approval from C. C is an idiot and refuses to give approval, even though they would gain from the sale, just to spite A and B. Do A and B really need approval from C if C was removed from the trust? Is there any way around this given that C is an idiot?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2022 22:04
|
|
|
The lawyer who helped your friends set up this trust, what does he think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 02:44
|
|
|
I have a hypothetical question about car on jogger impacts. I drove past a jogger tonight on curvy blind corner roads. The jogger was running in my lane, against traffic, about a third of the way into the lane since there was no sidewalks. Now I assume had someone hit the jogger, there world be hell to pay, but at what point does the joggers actions deflect some of the blame off the driver. Would they possibly not be at fault (depending on jurisdiction, judge, etc) if they were driving at an appropriate speed to the conditions and hit a pedestrian who was a third into their lane around a blind corner? Can I run over joggers if I have a good fringe on my car?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 05:12
|
|
|
If you can't stop in time you are "driving too fast for conditions." The speed limit is the maximum allowable speed, not the required speed. I learned both of those from Judge Judy, not law school, so ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 07:29
|
|
|
It is my understanding that the driver who hits a pedestrian / rear ends someone / fails to stop for a biker has a cliff to climb to prove that they were not at fault. Usually, the pilot of the 2 ton piece of metal is extremely liable for making sure they are not endangering those that do not have direct control over said hunk of metal, so there's that. Now, exceptions exist and I'm sure someone has gotten somehow escaped fault for rear ending someone, but the facts seems to matter a lot here. IANAL.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 07:59
|
|
|
My old boss had a sister who hit and killed a homeless woman in Texas about a decade ago. The story went that she was wearing dark clothes, walking down the middle of the road, on a bad corner, in an area with no lights. Allegedly she had some legal trouble, but it was eventually dismissed as a sad accident. The fact that she was homeless and probably didn't have anyone to raise hell assuredly contributed to the outcome. I imagine it would be different if it was a housewife in the suburbs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 10:38
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:I have a hypothetical question about car on jogger impacts. I drove past a jogger tonight on curvy blind corner roads. The jogger was running in my lane, against traffic, about a third of the way into the lane since there was no sidewalks. Doesn’t seem like the jogger was doing anything wrong. Running against traffic is safer since you can see the oncoming cars and react if they don’t get over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 11:42
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Doesn’t seem like the jogger was doing anything wrong. Running against traffic is safer since you can see the oncoming cars and react if they don’t get over. Literally the law in Norway. Exception for when you are walking a bike, then you have to be on the right side (with the traffic, not against).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 12:19
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Doesn’t seem like the jogger was doing anything wrong. Running against traffic is safer since you can see the oncoming cars and react if they don’t get over. Yeah, that part was good, I was just uncomfortable how far out into the lane they were. Thankfully I wasn't driving like a moron around those blind turns so had plenty of time to stop and go around them. I figured it's on the person driving, as that makes the most sense. Just curious about whether mitigating circumstances exist or not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:30
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:Yeah, that part was good, I was just uncomfortable how far out into the lane they were. Thankfully I wasn't driving like a moron around those blind turns so had plenty of time to stop and go around them. The easiest way to kill someone and get away with it is in your car. Your question, though, is very state specific. Each state is going to have their own rules about pedestrian responsibilities and how much (if any) they can be held at fault for being hit by a car. Here's one personal injury firm's breakdown of the laws across the different states: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PEDESTRIAN-AND-CROSSWALKS-50-STATE-CHART-00214802x9EBBF.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:47
|
|
|
Negligence is incredibly detailed and specific as noted above. It’s very hard to sort out on forum comments
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s very hard to sort out on forum comments What if you were to make a shopping cart analogy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
sephiRoth IRA posted:I have a hypothetical question about car on jogger impacts. I drove past a jogger tonight on curvy blind corner roads. The jogger was running in my lane, against traffic, about a third of the way into the lane since there was no sidewalks. Imagine you did hit them, and the State decided to prosecute you - assuming they have no reason to think you ran them over on purpose. If you killed them, and the State tried to prosecute you, the State would have to prove that your driving constituted: "...an unjustifiable risk of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.” (Section 6.03(d) of the Texas Penal Code, criminal negligence), or that your driving was “reckless” to the degree that you were cognizant of the fact that it will kill another person, but consciously disregarded the significant and unjustifiable risk involved.(§19.01 of the Texas Penal Code) Then, after the State put on its evidence, and your attorney put on your evidence, a Jury would listen to the facts and decide if your driving rose to one of those levels, beyond a reasonable doubt. Lets say you didn't kill them, but just maimed them, and they sued you for negligence. The jury would hear the arguments and evidence and decide whether you failed to "act as a reasonably prudent person, given the circumstances" by a preponderance of the evidence. Now, imagine you're a juror, given these squishy terms, and nebulous ideas, and being asked to make a decision. Now you understand why there's not a hard and fast answer one way or the other, and how the amount of feet he might be into the lane, the speed limit, your actual speed, the bend in the road, the time of night, etc. might all influence your decisions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 15:25
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Imagine you did hit them, and the State decided to prosecute you - assuming they have no reason to think you ran them over on purpose. Thank for this and to others weighing in. Definitely answered my question, even if the answer is "it's loving complicated"
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 15:57
|
|
|
Even as a jogger, I do think some pedestrians are incredibly foolish in how they act. Walking at dusk on a busy road in dark clothing with traffic, you are one inattentive driver away from a deadly accident.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 16:11
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Even as a jogger, I do think some pedestrians are incredibly foolish in how they act. Walking at dusk on a busy road in dark clothing with traffic, you are one inattentive driver away from a deadly accident. I mean, there's a whole industry of pedestrians throwing themselves on the hood of moving vehicles to scam insurance companies. God forbid you hit anyone, but imagine killing someone who genuinely tried to get themselves maimed, but you can't prove it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 16:26
|
|
|
That's why I like having a dashcam. If someone literally threw themselves on the hood of the vehicle, it would probably be visible on the dashcam and (hopefully) admissible in Florida.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 17:47
|
|
|
BigHead posted:I mean, there's a whole industry of pedestrians throwing themselves on the hood of moving vehicles to scam insurance companies. God forbid you hit anyone, but imagine killing someone who genuinely tried to get themselves maimed, but you can't prove it. I second-hand know a guy like this. He always had some scam cooking. One of them was to have his girlfriend hit him with her car. I don't know all the details, but I guess she hit the gas when she should have hit the brakes and completely crushed his legs. He got busted for insurance fraud and now wears leg braces and uses a cane for the rest of his life. That's my cool story for today.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:What if you were to make a shopping cart analogy? Imagine if the prices and products available at the market were printed on the little text thing in the fold down that used to tell you what aisle everything was in. The thing is that the placard is different depending on what shopping cart you were born into, and also what your shopping family's socioeconomic status was. Ok, but what if you hit them with a shopping cart?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 18:19
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I second-hand know a guy like this. He always had some scam cooking. One of them was to have his girlfriend hit him with her car. I don't know all the details, but I guess she hit the gas when she should have hit the brakes and completely crushed his legs. He got busted for insurance fraud and now wears leg braces and uses a cane for the rest of his life. That's my cool story for today. This is loving funny
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 19:02
|
|
|
Just be a state Attorney General.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 20:48
|
|
|
Is 0.5 x medical expenses a good settlement offer
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 22:17
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Is 0.5 x medical expenses a good settlement offer Do you have any idea how much of a lien your insurance/doctors have on your settlement? Depending on circumstances, you could owe 1 x medical expenses, in which case taking half of that in a settlement seems short sighted. I don't know that we're going to be able to give a fact intensive question like this a good answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 22:21
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I second-hand know a guy like this. He always had some scam cooking. One of them was to have his girlfriend hit him with her car. I don't know all the details, but I guess she hit the gas when she should have hit the brakes and completely crushed his legs. He got busted for insurance fraud and now wears leg braces and uses a cane for the rest of his life. That's my cool story for today. Saints' Row insurance scam minigame getting serious
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 22:44
|
|
|
Are there laws against mad scientists just releasing their freakish creations into the environment? Not bioweapons, more like tomacco.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2022 22:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Do you have any idea how much of a lien your insurance/doctors have on your settlement? Depending on circumstances, you could owe 1 x medical expenses, in which case taking half of that in a settlement seems short sighted. Yeah I know it's not something that's answerable. I know that how much I would get and how much my health insurance would get is a negotiation between my lawyer and my health insurance (that paid for most of my medical bills)? Is there a ballpark for what they try and get? Like, half? quarter? 3/4? I know they put a lien on it but I don't know how much exactly it was for, I assumed it was basically 100% of what they paid out but I'll check. Does it make a difference on what the source of the payment is from? Like the guy that hit me has a 100k policy and if they want half of that it kind of makes sense but if they want half of my 100k underinsured motorist policy that's effing bullshit. I pay for that policy myself for my own benefit, not so that BCBS is less out of pocket, you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Yeah I know it's not something that's answerable. All of these are questions your lawyer can answer. He'll certainly have already done the math including his cut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I know that how much I would get and how much my health insurance would get is a negotiation between my lawyer and my health insurance (that paid for most of my medical bills)? Is there a ballpark for what they try and get? Like, half? quarter? 3/4? This is a variable number though right, like people might have different experiences or opinions on it? Like I know they're entitled to recover 100% if they can but also any offer I have to agree to it and they have to agree to it and I'm obviously not going to agree to a settlement where I don't get anything. Here's another one maybe, you're making a settlement offer that's coming out of pocket for your client, you presumably don't offer 100% of what he's willing to pay right off the bat, what do you offer? 25%? 50%? 75%? bird with big dick fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Apr 5, 2022 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 01:52
|
|
|
This probably is an insurance question and not a legal one, if so I'll look for a different place to post this question/scenario. A couple of weeks ago I was driving into the parking lot at my office when a chain-link fence gate that is supposed to be secured at the entrance swung closed and hit the side of my car, causing denting and paint damage to the passenger side of the car. Nominally the gate is secured to a grounded post when it is open, but the post had broken off at the ground and the gate was swinging freely on a very windy day. I would have thought that my multi-national billion dollar employer would have just paid me out to repair the damages but they, of course, declined to do that and instead instructed me to file a claim with my auto insurance company. I was predicting that my insurer would pursue my employer to recover the damages and I would be refunded my deductible after the claim was resolved, but I just found out when filing the claim that my insurer won't pursue my employer unless they knew that the gate was not in proper working order at the time of the incident. So now I'm out the cost of my deductible to get my vehicle repaired after it was damaged by a piece of the property where I work, and my management doesn't even want to reimburse me the cost of my deductible. I would say it's not great for employee morale and retention to not lift a finger to make them whole when their personal property is damaged at work, but  never do anything you're not legally required to do, I guess. I'm pretty sure that I could contact a local attorney and/or pursue damages in small claims court depending on the cost of the damages, but I'm not in a position where I can sue my employer at the risk of losing my job at the end of it over a few thousand dollars. However, is there anything I can do to compel my insurance company to pursue my employer or their insurer for the damages short of sending a threatening letter from an attorney? Begging and pleading management to do the right thing and treat me the way they'd like to be treated if the same thing happened to them has gotten nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 16:28
|
|
|
Lawnie posted:This probably is an insurance question and not a legal one, if so I'll look for a different place to post this question/scenario. I had something similar happen with damage to my car in the parking lot (less of a claim against the employer than you probably did). My ask was essentially for the employer to cover my deductible, which was approved, then denied by the legal side, and I just said whatever, it's only $100. Later one of the partners came by after hours to say, "Hey glad we were able to get it worked out", and I mentioned that the legal side said they wouldn't pay. The partner then asked what my deductible was, then whipped out his money clip on the spot and peeled off a $100 bill and handed it to me. Hey, free money, but way to make me feel like crap about it. It sucks that you essentially would have to take your employer to small claims court, which probably isn't a net positive on compensation when considering your whole career. But the employer has an interest in not setting a precedent for strict liability for damage to cars in the parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 16:43
|
|
|
Devor posted:I had something similar happen with damage to my car in the parking lot (less of a claim against the employer than you probably did). My ask was essentially for the employer to cover my deductible, which was approved, then denied by the legal side, and I just said whatever, it's only $100. Yeah, it could be made (close to) right by the head of the department, who obviously has discretionary control of the budget, simply writing me a check to cover the deductible. However I’m leaving her department in a couple weeks for a promotion she didn’t think I was qualified for so I’m pretty sure her refusal is just a bit vindictive in nature. Anyway, thanks for the commiseration and validation that I’m being hosed, but legally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 18:01
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:Ok, but what if you hit them with a shopping cart? My sister was working retail when a kid joyriding around on a shopping cart hit her foot while she was on the job. I don't think she pursued any kind of action with or against anyone and has spent a couple decades with pain from it. Given the particulars (parents not necessarily liable for the acts of their children, the grand bargain of workers' compensation, limited actual damages in the time frame) I don't think it would have mattered if she had but that's my shopping cart story.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2022 18:36
|
|
|
 checkmate
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 02:31
|
|
|
Lichtenstein is getting played like a fool by its neighbors. Bolivia is landlocked but believes that it has a historical right to a passage to the sea (which was annexed by Chile in the 1800s), so they proudly maintain a navy on rivers and the big rear end lake they share with Peru... Just in case. But this is just sad: quote:Landlocked Bolivia has not reconciled with the loss of its coast to Chile and the Navy exists to keep the hope alive of recovering its coast by cultivating a maritime consciousness. The Bolivian Navy takes part in many parades and government functions, but none more so than the Día Del Mar (Day of the Sea) in which Bolivia, every year, re-vindicates its claim for an unspecified sovereign access to the sea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:they proudly maintain a navy on rivers and the big rear end lake they share with Peru Are you threatening me?
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
Bolivia also has a merchant ship register, they do not have the best reputation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 12:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 09:23 |
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Are you threatening me? Settle down, Beavis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2022 14:43
|
|
