|
SlayVus posted:Sumter County, GA, USA - My mom is trying to keep goats in her backyard and I believe they are considered farm animals. She lives in the city and doesn't seem to understand that this is a bad idea. Is there something I can show her that this is a bad idea and can get her in trouble? The only question we can answer is whether there is a penalty for keeping the animals within the city limits, and if so, how to find out. The City's Municipal Code (or whatever its called in Georgia) will contain the ordinances that prohibit her having the goats, if there are any. If they aren't available online, they'll be available at City Hall.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
SlayVus posted:Sumter County, GA, USA - My mom is trying to keep goats in her backyard and I believe they are considered farm animals. She lives in the city and doesn't seem to understand that this is a bad idea. Is there something I can show her that this is a bad idea and can get her in trouble? I'm not a lawyer, and you should definitely do your own research, but: The Sumter County Code seems to say having one goat that is kept >25 feet from the property boundaries would be okay in Residential areas, as long as it "is not allowed to become a nuisance". That's obviously open to interpretation, so you could be rolling the dice. http://library.municode.com/HTML/13121/level3/PTIICOOR_APXAZO_ARTIVGERE.html#PTIICOOR_APXAZO_ARTIVGERE_S4.13ANREDI quote:Sec. 4.13. Animals in residential districts. blarzgh posted:The only question we can answer is whether there is a penalty for keeping the animals within the city limits, and if so, how to find out. The City's Municipal Code (or whatever its called in Georgia) will contain the ordinances that prohibit her having the goats, if there are any. Even in Georgia they've figured out how to put these things online 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'm not a lawyer, and you should definitely do your own research, but: Note that the Americus city ordinances appear to have a '300 feet from the neighbors' rule that would be more restrictive than the County rules. (assuming mom is in Americus)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Edit /\ /\, beatenDevor posted:I'm not a lawyer, and you should definitely do your own research, but: State Laws > County Laws > City Laws The above is the county ordinance, and a municipal ordinance (if the house is in the city limits, or within the city's extra-territorial jurisdiction.) You need to find the municipal ordinance next. Devor posted:Even in Georgia they've figured out how to put these things online
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
The main thing, and this is important, is that when you talk to her again tell her it's a baaaaaaaaaaad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Note that the Americus city ordinances appear to have a '300 feet from the neighbors' rule that would be more restrictive than the County rules. (assuming mom is in Americus) I blew right past "the city" since I didn't see any proper nouns other than Sumter County. Some of us don't assume every county has only one municipality 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Apparently, she already bought the goats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:The main thing, and this is important, is that when you talk to her again tell her it's a baaaaaaaaaaad idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:Apparently, she already bought the goats. Tell her to enjoy the stench and the fact that they will eat everything they can get to. Goats are awful animals and the only good use for them is jerk goat ( or goat curry.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Tell her to enjoy the stench and the fact that they will eat everything they can get to. Goats are awful animals and the only good use for them is jerk goat ( or goat curry.) You are full of derp.  DERRRRP!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Some cities allow small amounts of livestock for personal use. Like having two egg hens is A Thing in Portland apparently.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:52
|
|
|
Javid posted:Some cities allow small amounts of livestock for personal use. Like having two egg hens is A Thing in Portland apparently. Goats are notorious escape artists, too; they're a serious bitch to keep locked up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
As always, just because it's legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Question! If I want my wife to be able to legally sign documents on my behalf, do I just need to grant her power of attorney? I'm 34, I don't plan on passing away. But I am currently working out of state and my father did just pass away. I didn't plan on returning until work has completed. I don't even know if I will need to sign anything while I'm away, but I'd like to have her readily available if my John Hancock is needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Kramdar posted:Question! Speaking practically, a power of attorney document is more for the benefit of third parties than it is for the relationship between you and your wife. You can orally authorize people to sign things on your behalf, the issue is making other people believe that you did. Find a local attorney and you shouldn't pay more than a couple hundred bucks to have one done. It will be well worth the cost. There are hidden issues, like dealing with 3rd parties, the term, revocability, and breadth of the power of attorney that your local lawyer needs to discuss with you before you execute anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You can orally authorize people to sign things on your behalf, the issue is making other people believe that you did. That might be good for now, especially with the ability to have people call me directly if necessary. I guess if there are any issues with selling the house or signatures need to collect on assets (if this is how things work), power of attorney would be most useful?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Kramdar posted:Question! A PoA would be the way to go, but you should put in some limitations as to time and scope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
How much personal information would be required from both parties to make a verbal contract on a voice recording? Would both parties declaring their full names and like "I agree to these terms" be enough? I'm asking from a hypothetical, obviously it is ALWAYS best to get it in writing with witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Kramdar posted:That might be good for now, especially with the ability to have people call me directly if necessary. I guess if there are any issues with selling the house or signatures need to collect on assets (if this is how things work), power of attorney would be most useful? I think you missed the point of my response. joat mon posted:A PoA would be the way to go, but you should put in some limitations as to time and scope. What you're asking about is how to give cart-blanch control over your entire fiscal life to another person. If you have concerns about the management of your estate and your affairs during a lengthy disposition, then speaking with an attorney is a good idea. If you're only concerned with limited transactions which could need your signature, then why exactly won't you be able to have documents fed-exed to you for your signature, or scanned to you via email? blarzgh fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:How much personal information would be required from both parties to make a verbal contract on a voice recording? Would both parties declaring their full names and like "I agree to these terms" be enough? I'm asking from a hypothetical, obviously it is ALWAYS best to get it in writing with witnesses. Whether or not two parties had a contract, oral or written, is a question of fact. Plaintiff: "We had a contract for the sale of the business!" Defendant: "No we didn't!" Jury: "We believe you, _____________."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Whether or not two parties had a contract, oral or written, is a question of fact. This is a really good way to explain that. Blarzgh is good. I had a trial yesterday on this exact issue. My client was always going to lose, I told her she was going to lose, I tried to get her to settle because it was a pure fact question for which we had no evidence except "No I didn't!." She lost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Kramdar posted:Question! If it's simple stuff, like Blazrgh said, just have her sign it, it should be fine. If it's complex, like selling real property, then get a poa from whoever is cheap. In my state I can meet a client, advise on the law, draft and execute the poa in about an hour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
SlayVus posted:How much personal information would be required from both parties to make a verbal contract on a voice recording? Would both parties declaring their full names and like "I agree to these terms" be enough? I'm asking from a hypothetical, obviously it is ALWAYS best to get it in writing with witnesses. I don't understand why you would do this in an era where email exists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
"What is a contract?" is a great question. Or "How is contract made?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
How is contract formed? how is contract formed how girl get perfromance
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:How is contract formed? This one weird trick CONTRACTS don't want you to know about! Thanatosian posted:I don't understand why you would do this in an era where email exists. I suspect this poster wishes to surreptitiously record another person and later claim they had a contract.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I suspect this poster wishes to surreptitiously record another person and later claim they had a contract. Dear legal thread: Hypothetically, what is a "Two-party" state?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This one weird trick CONTRACTS don't want you to know about!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Said poster had best watch it if they're in an all-party-consent state. He's probably up to some shady poo poo all around on this deal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:If it's complex, like selling real property, then get a poa from whoever is cheap. In my state I can meet a client, advise on the law, draft and execute the poa in about an hour. My father's house is in probate. I just can't depend too much on docs getting sent to me in a timely fashion. That sounds like the best thing, since I'm just trying to help speed everything along. Thanks for all the advice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Kramdar posted:My father's house is in probate. I just can't depend too much on docs getting sent to me in a timely fashion. That sounds like the best thing, since I'm just trying to help speed everything along. Thanks for all the advice. If you're the executor you should speak to a probate attorney. If you're not the executor they should have the probate attorney do this for you if it's necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:If you're the executor you should speak to a probate attorney.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
So, hypothetical situation: A dependent (let's say a young child) is injured on private property and this requires a brief trip to the ER. Somehow, the child's medical insurance company finds out or suspects the accident occurred on private property and sends a letter asking the policy holder for details. The policy holder has no desire to throw the owner/operator of the private property under the bus as the injury was no one's fault. It's unclear if the policy holder can just neglect to respond, so would it be a Bad Idea to just say respond that they were not present and can't give further details?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:So, hypothetical situation: Yes insurance fraud is a bad idea. e: or acting in a way liable to create the impression you are committing insurance fraud. Like a parent claiming not to have been supervising their child when they were injured but not answering who was supervising them. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Apr 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Yes insurance fraud is a bad idea. Risking getting caught, having the claim refused, possibly charged with insurance fraud, and ending up in the "risk pool" comprising fraudsters is obviously OP's decision. Some people like to live on the edge. Also, if I were an insurance investigator handling a claim for a mysteriously injured child, I'd send a report to child services. If anything shakes loose the details, that would.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
See that's the thing, this is an entirely run of the mill scenario, so the investigation is pretty strange. On the other hand, insurance companies these days do seem to be looking for every excuse to pass the buck.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:See that's the thing, this is an entirely run of the mill scenario, so the investigation is pretty strange. On the other hand, insurance companies these days do seem to be looking for every excuse to pass the buck. Well obviously, this is literally how their business model works. Insurance isn't just about a pooled pot of money to pay out for losses, it means that instead of you having no money to sue someone who damages you and getting hosed over, you get your payout and the insurance company still has enough money to hire lawyers to make whoever's really responsible for your damage cough up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
FordCQC posted:So, hypothetical situation: IANAL, however, as someone who does work for the insurance industry: it is highly unlikely that it is "unclear if the policy holder can just neglect to respond." Check the policy, and there is almost certainly some sort of clause in there about the policy holder being responsible for cooperating in any sort of investigation by the insurance company. Additionally, keep in mind that making a material misrepresentation is grounds for flat denial in many jurisdictions (they generally do not need to prove fraud for this sort of denial).
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:IANAL, however, as someone who does work for the insurance industry: it is highly unlikely that it is "unclear if the policy holder can just neglect to respond." Check the policy, and there is almost certainly some sort of clause in there about the policy holder being responsible for cooperating in any sort of investigation by the insurance company. Additionally, keep in mind that making a material misrepresentation is grounds for flat denial in many jurisdictions (they generally do not need to prove fraud for this sort of denial). Out of curiosity, do you know if there are special risk pools for people who defraud, lie or otherwise don't cooperate with their own insurer's investigation? Normally, I'd assume that they just get denied coverage but that option seems quaint in these days of mandated insurance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 06:37 |
|
|
patentmagus posted:Out of curiosity, do you know if there are special risk pools for people who defraud, lie or otherwise don't cooperate with their own insurer's investigation? Normally, I'd assume that they just get denied coverage but that option seems quaint in these days of mandated insurance. I will tell you that generally speaking, it's a bad idea to lie to your insurance company, even over a relatively small amount of money. You're probably only going to lie about an insurance claim once or twice in your life, and insurance companies have people in their employ who spend decades doing nothing but catching people lying about insurance claims. Additionally, some jurisdictions have anti-fraud statutes that legally compel insurance companies to investigate when they suspect fraud, so even if investigation is more expensive, frequently they'll do it, anyway. I think there's an insurance thread in the Business/Finance subforum that could probably better answer your question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2014 22:30
|
|