|
Except that isn't the case at all. I have receipts for everything in my name with my money out of my bank account.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
astrollinthepork posted:Except that isn't the case at all. I have receipts for everything in my name with my money out of my bank account. And I still have the receipt for my Taylormade driver that I sold to my cousin last month for cash. If we haven't answered your question, please rephrase it and we'll try our best.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Does he have any evidence you sold it to him? Neither does she. What are the rules in Ohio regarding individual property owned separately by two people who lived together? Two people who are not in an intimate relationship or married.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
astrollinthepork posted:Does he have any evidence you sold it to him? Neither does she. 1) yes, he does: his testimony. 2) Rules? Its your property - she took it. That's not your issue. Your issue is where your remedy lies. The cop you spoke to doesn't think that it's a criminal case. Either convince him or his superiors otherwise or go to small claims court. And before you ask, yes the cops can decide they don't believe you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 06:20
|
|
|
Okay and what I'm asking for is something I can point to help me convince these cops when they try to drop the civil excuse again. If rules exist that dictate that my property is suddenly hers then let me see them.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Unrelated to discussion at hand because i don't care anymore about who ran off with whose stuff: Does your life insurance become an asset of your estate when you die, or does it go straight to the beneficiary before any creditors have a crack at it? Specifically I'm thinking of a situation where one person has a cosigner for some unsecured debt, like a credit card or a student loan. They make their cosigner the beneficiary of their life insurance policy so their cosigner isn't stuck holding the bag. Obviously surviving family members have no duty to pay the dead guy's debts, but creditors who want to collect have the opportunity to do so out of the estate, excluding a few things like a home their spouse still lives in, correct? Anyone liable for a debt like that remains liable even if the other person on the loan is dead. The only reason I'd think life insurance could be outside the estate is that you can name a beneficiary without having a will. Is this just a super complicated question of intestate succession that varies too much from state to state to answer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:The functional way it works, is it you scour the lease for every term contained therein. That means you look at every obligation that each party has under lease. For example, the responsibility to pay rent, the responsibility keep the premises clean, the responsibility to not have a pet. Unless you take to a TV court show, they seem pretty equitable (up to $5000).
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 10:04
|
|
|
Tennessee has Chancery courts, which are annoying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Tennessee has Chancery courts, which are annoying. Thats kind of baller.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Unrelated to discussion at hand because i don't care anymore about who ran off with whose stuff: Nope, it's super simple. Whomever is named the beneficiary of your life insurance policy takes the proceeds upon your death. They do not become part of your estate. Actual estate planning is required to navigate the particularities. I like to think of it as going to Vegas and betting on people's deaths. Peepaw buys a ticket at 500/1 odds that's he dies. He gives you ( the named beneficiary) the ticket. When he kicks it, Vegas sends you the check directly. Then some federal taxation stuff happens that I don't fully understand. He either needs to have it claimed as part of his lifetime exemption, or you have to go and claim it as income, or both, I'm not really sure. Edit: as cosigner, I would think that they're still holding the bag after you die, but I'm not sure of that either. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
America has equity courts in every state. For the most part they are combined with the law courts.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Life insurance goes to the named benefciary which may be the estate. If it goes to a beneficiary the benefots never becomes part of the estate. This is a separate analysis however from whether life insurance is taxable as being part of the Taxable estate for federal and state inheritance tax purposes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
astrollinthepork posted:Okay and what I'm asking for is something I can point to help me convince these cops when they try to drop the civil excuse again. If rules exist that dictate that my property is suddenly hers then let me see them. I don't think you're understanding... the cops are telling you it's a civil matter because it is, and because you haven't been able to convince them that criminal theft took place. Is your goal to get your stuff back or to try and get your "roommate" charged with a crime? There isn't some law or rule or something that will get the cops to do whatever it is you want them to. You'll have to complain at them until they either act or tell you to get lost. Cops don't care about proof of ownership or receipts or title or anything like that, courts do, so hire a lawyer or figure out how to file in small claims court. euphronius posted:America has equity courts in every state. For the most part they are combined with the law courts. I was gonna say, Virginia definitely still does equity; don't know what that guy was talking about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Edit: as cosigner, I would think that they're still holding the bag after you die, but I'm not sure of that either. They are still holding the bag, but the idea is the life insurance pays off the debt. If they choose not to use that money to pay it off, that's their problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 15:39
|
|
|
This came up in another thread and I'm not really finding a clear-cut answer searching around on the internet. My question is about bodily injury car insurance. The advice I see from most websites is "get coverage equal to the value of your assets." However, other people are saying "get millions of dollars in coverage, because injuries can cost a lot and your life will be ruined." So which is it, and how does this all work? If I have $35k in assets and $35k in insurance, for expensive injuries, can folks go after the full $70k? Can they go even further, and garnish my wages for the rest of my life? If I have $1M in insurance and $35k in assets, can they go after me for $1.035M if they have lifelong injuries, just because? What is the risk here, when can folks take your assets, what does insurance cover, and what's your general advice on bodily injury insurance? EDIT: I'm in TX, but if there's sort of a general, blanket US thing for this, it'd be good to know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Unrelated to discussion at hand because i don't care anymore about who ran off with whose stuff: At one point, in some states, you didn't even necessarily know if someone took out life insurance on you. And if it seems inappropriate to you that the same company choosing your health plan (or lack thereof) makes a bunch of money if you die... well, you're just some kind of dirty commie socialist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:This came up in another thread and I'm not really finding a clear-cut answer searching around on the internet. People can "go after you" for whatever their damages, regardless of your assets and insurance (subject to a cap in some states). If I have $35k assets and $35k in insurance, and I cause $10 million in damages to you, then you can sue me for $10 million. I'd be responsible for the $9.965 million that insurance failed to cover.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:People can "go after you" for whatever their damages, regardless of your assets and insurance (subject to a cap in some states). If I have $35k assets and $35k in insurance, and I cause $10 million in damages to you, then you can sue me for $10 million. I'd be responsible for the $9.965 million that insurance failed to cover. Would that liability be completely discharged in bankruptcy following a judgment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:This came up in another thread and I'm not really finding a clear-cut answer searching around on the internet. The bottom line on automotive liability insurance is very simple: If you hurt someone with your car, they're entitled to have you pay for the expenses you've caused by hurting them. Liability insurance steps in and covers those costs up to whatever limit you've established with the insurance company. So, yes, if you cause $50k of hospital bills and damage, and you have $35k of liability insurance, they can come after you personally to cover the other $15k. If you plow through a packed carnival and do a million dollars worth of damage, but still only have $35k in insurance and $35k in assets, you're still on the hook for the other $930k (although at that point you're looking at bankruptcy and all kinds of other crazy stuff). Some states, and some insurances, separate liability out into separate bodily injury and property damage categories, and have specific caps on per-person and total costs, but the basic principle is the same: you're on the hook to cover the costs of anything you're at fault for, but your insurance will step in to help you out up to the coverage limits. If you do hit somebody, they can't go after you for some specified amount "just because" - there has to be some justification. Almost all of the time, the insurance company will work it out and come to some kind of settlement - they cut a check in exchange for the injured person signing a piece of paper that says everything's over and done with. If you and your insurance dispute the bill, or you refuse to pay, it goes to court. Once there's a court judgment against you, they can seize your assets, garnish your wages, etc. People do tell horror stories that go something like, "my uncle's brother-in-law's friend tapped a guy's bumper at 5 mph, then got sued for $5 million in bogus 'pain and suffering' and now he's ruined," but the real world doesn't work like that. However, lifelong injuries can be incredibly expensive: if the person you hit can't wipe their rear end any more, and has to hire somebody to do it for the rest of their life, you're on the hook for all those rear end-wiper bills. This is almost always settled in one big lump payment, and people who are permanently disabled in accidents tend to get screwed rather than made whole, but the numbers can still make your eyes pop out of your head. Also, keep in mind that this is just about liability insurance - none of it covers anything that happens to you, just your legal responsibility for what you do. In very general terms: the bare minimum state automotive liability limits are almost always a bad idea, in any state. You can do an astounding amount of damage with a car in the blink of an eye. A million dollar accident is rare, but it can happen. You'll have to figure out what will fit into your own budget, and balance what risks you are willing to take with the cost of that insurance. Personally, I carry a total of $200k liability coverage, but I'm in a different state and I'm not you. Un/underinsured motorist coverage is a very good idea as well, because there are a lot of people on the road who don't have enough insurance, and you don't want to be hosed if one of them hits you (note that somebody else's un/underinsurance coverage won't cover you if you're liable, though - the insurance company will pay them, and then come after you to get their money back). There's also an auto insurance thread in AI if you have more specific questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Would that liability be completely discharged in bankruptcy following a judgment? Yes with exceptions. All liability on all car accidents is 100% dischargeable in bankruptcy except: 1. injury caused by unlawful operation due to drugs/alcohol/etc, and 2. willful & malicious intent (specifically like running down a spouse with a car). So basically if people caused a car wreck, the only question is if they got convicted of a DUI.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Would unlawful operations include a personal vehicle being operated for commercial purposes without proper licensing? Generally speaking I mean.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
No, the exception is limited to drugs/alcohol/other substances prohibited by law. Injury by unlawful operation by any other means (stealing a car, unlicensed, etc) is still totally dischargeable. Here's the code:quote:11 U.S. Code § 523(a) Note that property damage caused by DUI is still dischargeable. And wildly gross negligence and criminal behavior doesn't equate to willful & malicious. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Thanks for the responses so far. I guess my question is what's actually realistic? If you have a $1M policy and $20k in assets, is any sane person going to forgo settling with the insurance company for $1M and push for the, say $5M in actual damages they have, knowing drat well they'll never get anywhere near that? I'm just trying to figure out what a reasonable person is to think about all of this. Should we all be getting $5M liability insurance because oh dear god we might knock off someone's arms and legs and why would we ever risk it!?! Where does the "get liability equal to your assets" advice come from?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Bad math and/or a poor understanding of how insurance works, I reckon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
(For context, this was about Uber's insurance policy in an accident. Here is the actual policy http://www.scribd.com/doc/214351992/Leaked-Uber-Insurance-Policy)
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
What would be the charge for leaving a restaurant without paying? Theft of service?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
Javid posted:What would be the charge for leaving a restaurant without paying? Theft of service? Fraud.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
So I sublet my room in a house I was renting for the last half of the lease, and part of the sublease agreement was that the sub letter would pay me a $490 security deposit, which was how much I paid for the security deposit initially. At the end of the lease, the landlord deducted about $200 from the security deposit, so I covered half and paid the subletter $390. However, he thinks that this isn't fair and that he should get his entire security deposit back, and is threatening to take me to small claims court. The house is in North Carolina, but since I graduated college I moved out of state, and in any case I've always been a resident of Florida. According to Legal Aid of North Carolina, the plaintiff must start the lawsuit in the county where the defendant lives, but I can't find anything about suing someone in small claims court who's a resident of another state. What can he do, and what can I do to ensure I don't have to fly back to NC to dispute a $100 claim? e: I also found this online: quote:Even if you sue, and win, collecting from someone in Florida is nearly impossible. That's why O.J. Simpson moved there after his murdered ex-wife's family won its civil wrongful death suit against him. Can someone explain what the specifics of the law in Florida are? regularizer fucked around with this message at 23:56 on Aug 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
Suing across state lines for $100 would probably cost more than $100. Whatever internet thread he posts in asking for advice will tell him to let it go, UNLESS: There are laws regarding landlords and security deposits that may or may not apply to you, I don't know how subleasing works, but if you are subject to those it becomes a whole different picture (that probably still ends in "cost more than $100 to recover" but gently caress knows) ianal, etc
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Maricopa County, Arizona Filed bankruptcy chapter 7 in November 2013. Went before the Trustee on Dec 29th 2013, and the bankruptcy was discharged in March 2014. Per our lawyer, and the court, we volunteered the surrender of our vehicle, of which we had recently purchased, and were greatly upside-down on. This creditor filed a motion of relief from the automatic stay on June 27, 2014. We hand-delivered the papers to our lawyer's office on July 5, 2014, spoke to two legal aides and the lawyer about this issue, and were told that it was being taken care of, and that it is unlikely that the court would grant such a request. Today, we received papers stating that no response was ever filed with the courts, and that the motion had been decided, by default, in favor of the creditor. It is a weekend, and our lawyer's office will not be responding to calls or messages until Monday/Tuesday, so I have no idea as to why this motion was not responded to, or the lawyer's side of things. I am curious if there is any legal recourse that any goon could point me toward, if this was just my lawyer completely dropping the ball, and screwing us on a massive car loan that was already surrendered and dismissed. Right now, I am curious if I should be seeking another legal representative to take action against my bankruptcy lawyer. What would be the advice here? Should I wait and see what my lawyer has to say for himself, and then proceed from there, or should I start looking for some other lawyer? What type of legal representation would I seek in this instance? What possible recourse could I have here, if anyone has any experience with this? Is there a way to amend or contest this defaulted judgement, based on my current legal representative not taking the required action? How screwed are we?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
You are not screwed whatsoever and your lawyer did standard practice. When they told you it was being taken care of, it likely meant that they consented to the relief and the motion was granted without a hearing and with no answer filed by the attorney. When they said it would probably fail, they said that because the case was closed and the clerk would probably reject it. I think that you think that motion for relief means you owe on the car? It does not. All it means is that the lender has permission of the bankruptcy court to sell the car to recoup its losses. Your debt is still discharged. You don't owe them a penny, no fees no nuthun. Just once you surrender the car, the lender has to bow its head to the bankruptcy judge prior to selling it. [I'm not knocking you like you're dumb whatsoever, you see "relief" and think it means relief from the bankruptcy itself because that makes sense in normal English. But in the bizarro legal world, it only means relief from the automatic stay that prevents them from selling the surrendered car. It does not relieve them from your discharge] [And now that I've paid attention to your dates, I see the source of confusion. Once you're discharged, they don't need to file that motion. The automatic stay has expired. But some lenders file it way after the fact just because they're either dumb as hell, really scared about violating bankruptcy, or both. Talk to your attorney, and they will explain it. Obviously I can't see the relief order, but I'd betcha two dolla that you're totally fine] woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
If a defendant admits guilt at a felony arraignment in CA, does the judge generally determine the sentence right then? If so, does the defense have a chance to call people to testify as to the character of the defendant before the judge sentences? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
socketwrencher posted:If a defendant admits guilt at a felony arraignment in CA, does the judge generally determine the sentence right then? If so, does the defense have a chance to call people to testify as to the character of the defendant before the judge sentences? Thanks. I don't know about CA, but in my state the answer would be "it depends." The large majority of the time the judge would take a plea and set sentencing off for a few days, if for no other reason than to give the defendant a chance to re-think his choice to proceed without a lawyer. If it's a super basic felony (think Felony DUI, basic heroin possession, etc) then they could go to sentencing right then an there. But if it's a murder then there would be a zero percent chance of immediate sentencing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
Australia here, just wondering if anyone can help me out with something. The local registrar was witness to a breach in restraining order (the applicant approached and verbally abused the person bound by the RO) in front of the courthouse on the court cameras, and the registrar is refusing to make a statement because they 'cannot remember'. Does that constitute legal bias, and how would one go about reporting it to undergo investigation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:18
|
|
|
Imaduck posted:Thanks for the responses so far. I guess my question is what's actually realistic? If you have a $1M policy and $20k in assets, is any sane person going to forgo settling with the insurance company for $1M and push for the, say $5M in actual damages they have, knowing drat well they'll never get anywhere near that? What will generally happen is the person(s) who you ran into will file a claim with your insurance company. The insurance company will try ot pay them off and make them go away; if they don't accept the payment, the person(s) you have injured will file a lawsuit against you, and your insurance company will hire lawyers to defend you. These will be your lawyers, representing you, but paid for by the insurance company. In a case where the damages greatly exceed the policy amount, the insurance company will make a "policy limits offer." Which is to say they will offer whatever the policy limit is in exchange for a full & final release of all claims. If you have no assets, the plaintiffs' attorney is going to recognize that they're not likely to get any more, and advise his clients to go for it. I'm guessing the "coverage equal to your assets" thing comes from simple math; it's probably worth it for them to take 50% of what they're likely to ever get in exchange for not having to go through the rigmarole of filing suit and having to go through discovery, a trial, etc. It's probably just a rule of thumb (I've never heard it before, but sounds like it would make a certain amount of sense). EDIT: Also, that is all greatly simplified, if that wasn't clear. Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 07:45 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Wondering if I have grounds for a successful small claims ruling. In November of '13 I contacted an appliance repair place to fix my double oven. The top oven wasn't working and it was just in time for Thanksgiving! Oh no! They come out before Thanksgiving, but are unable to fix it as it appears the board is fried, or at least partially fried as the bottom oven still works. I give him a deposit of 450 dollars (ouch) I have to sign a thing and it even says the part will be non-refundable. I wait about a month and finally the part comes in. He installs it, and it's broken. Now both the top and the bottom oven don't work. So he takes out the "new" board and puts back the "old" one. Bottom oven works again. He says he'll get a new board and come back out when he gets it in. It is December at this point. Months pass. Around march I call..the part is on back order. In june I call...No idea when the part will get in. At this point we are getting fed up, so Hubby looks on the internet and finds the part. This is the GE fix now since they no longer make the original board. He orders it in june. At this point I call the appliance place and want my deposit back. They say NO REFUNDS and I counter how can it be a refund if the part isn't even there? We go back and forth over this point, and finally we agree that he will come out and install the part and I will have a credit at their store for future repairs. It's now August. He comes out today..lamely pokes at the new board and declares "I have no idea what this is, I won't risk installing it" never mind there are instructions RIGHT IN THE loving BOX. I'm loving pissed now. Can I take them to small claims to get my 450 bux back? for reference I live in upstate New York.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang posted:Wondering if I have grounds for a successful small claims ruling. IANAL but I'd file. I'm sure you can make an argument about them violating their end of the agreement to do the repair in a timely fashion. There has to be a basic expectation with a business that an oven repair will not take 9 months. Just because they say no refunds doesn't mean it is legally binding. The idea is they order the part from someone else, they don't want to be stuck with it. But they don't have the part. There is no reason they can't get a refund from their vendor for the part that they don't have right? If small claims costs you $50-100 to file and you have the time, why not?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
If you put the deposit on a card, I'd file a chargeback before taking this to small claims. I've found that even the threat of this is enough in most cases, since the credit card companies sanction merchants heavily if they have too many.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:If you put the deposit on a card, I'd file a chargeback before taking this to small claims. I've found that even the threat of this is enough in most cases, since the credit card companies sanction merchants heavily if they have too many. Sadly it was a check, and surprise surprise it was instantly cashed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang posted:At this point we are getting fed up, so Hubby looks on the internet and finds the part. This is the GE fix now since they no longer make the original board. He orders it in june. At this point I call the appliance place and want my deposit back. They say NO REFUNDS and I counter how can it be a refund if the part isn't even there? We go back and forth over this point, and finally we agree that he will come out and install the part and I will have a credit at their store for future repairs. If it's a non-GE part and your thing is being serviced by a GE repairman, there's probably a company policy to not use non-GE parts when doing repairs on their products. Now if you hired a non-GE certified repairman, the probably wouldn't have any problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 15:56
|
|
