|
Brut posted:Alright well looks like it's fine for now because after a screaming match with his wife who is (just barely) more sane than he is, he finally moved his truck somewhere else, I'm still interested in the answer though in case this happens again, as far as whether or not I'd be liable for anything if I get his car towed. Seems like calling the cops when they're blocking your cars in is the best bet. There are no posted parking signs, you don't have a written parking agreement, and you're not the property owner.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2010 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
Today I got my oil changed at an independent shop where the mechanic is a friend of my mother's. Last time I make that mistake. The rocket scientist didn't screw on the crankcase cap when he was done. It's right on top, you can't miss it if you've ever seen under the hood of a car. In fact, it was in the way of properly closing the hood because that's how I noticed something was wrong when I got in the car. If I had driven the car and damaged the engine through loss of oil, would they realistically be on the hook for fixing or replacing my engine? If I pay someone to change my oil, it's because the weather is crappy and I'm not in the mood to jack up the car and make sure the drain plug is tight, the oil filter has actually been replaced and is properly connected, etc. If I was going to go through that, I'd just change the oil myself. Obviously if the low oil pressure light comes on I should not continue to drive, I should regularly check the oil level, etc, but how far do I need to go to have mitigated my damages as the law is concerned? And it sounds backwards but next time I pay someone to change the oil, I'm just taking it to Jiffy Lube.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 08:29
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes, they'd be liable if you stopped when the light comes on (FYI, oil lights are basically, "you need to buy an engine" light. if the pressure is that low, it is hosed). This was the decent mechanic who worked at an independent shop who wasn't a pimply faced 16 year old kid. There is one Jiffy Lube that I will go to (the others I've seen are sketchy) and those guys have been doing my oil for three years and never hosed anything up. It's never cost me less to have them do it than it would have for me to, but I'm paying for the convenience. Besides, they get it done in about 10 minutes, they have a clean place to sit and wait, and they're NICE to me. I came back inside to wash my hands after putting the cap back on my car and he asked why my hands were oily, I said because the cap wasn't on the top of the engine. He grunted at me like I'd made a comment about the weather. But thank you for addressing the question I asked. I wouldn't have to go over a shop's work, right, I'd just have to stop driving it when I was given an indication that something was wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2010 07:46
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Right. But did your car suffer any damage in this instance? Because if no, then you really don't have a cause of action (unless they somehow didn't swap out your oil or otherwise defrauded you) No damage this time (knock on wood), my question was really for future reference.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
In Iowa, the unemployment insurance guidelines state that to be eligible, you have to have lost your job through no fault of your own. Worded that way, it seems like the only way to get unemployment benefits in this state is to be simply laid off. Is there some situation I'm not aware of?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
Questions threads draw me in like honey draws flies. Sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2010 08:18
|
|
|
Bandwidth Wagon posted:I live in Virginia and received a ticket for "Fail to stop for a red light" with the law section listed as this. I was making a right hand turn at the intersection and didn't come to a full stop before doing so. I'm not so concerned about the fine as I am about how my insurance rates might go up with this on my record. Is it worth showing up to court or should I just suck it up and pay it? What would I even do if I went? Is there any other way I might resolve this without going to court? Are there additional court costs if I were to show up? Basically trying to decide what my best course of action is here. Call your Clerk of Court in the county/city where you were issued the ticket. Most places have some sort of defensive driving course available to avoid points on your license. The Clerk will know this, and will also know whether you have to be present in court to request this class or whether you can request it and pay the fee for it by mail. The Clerk will also know deadlines and structure of fees and fines. Your first call for traffic related matters should be the Clerk of Court because they're very knowledgeable and laws differ so much even from city to city. They can't give you legal advice but they can tell you how the process of dealing with tickets goes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 09:25
|
|
|
Bandwidth Wagon posted:That's definitely great advice. What i'm concerned about is that points on the license are different from how the insurance company evaluates your DMV record. I might be able to avoid points, but the infraction would still show up and i'd still get hit on my insurance. In any case, I can talk to the clerk of the court and find out what they have to say about things, thanks! If you take the class to keep the points off your license, I don't believe there's anything there for the insurance to ding you with. Sometimes the class costs a little more than the ticket but it's usually worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
IceWolfe24 posted:I understand your confusion as I probably should have worded that better. When we lost the house to foreclosure, I was told by the mortgage company that there would be no residual debt from it, as they would be able to sell the house for what we owed. There also was no divorce lawyer, as after that house, we had really no assets outside of two cars, so we did the divorce pro-se. After the divorce was finalized, I heard back from the mortgage company stating that they sold the house at a $85,000 Loss. Thus the situation I am now in. Do you have that agreement from the mortgage company in writing anywhere?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
You signed on as a volunteer, they told you verbally that you would actually be paid (although you were a volunteer), you signed a contract that used the word volunteer and did not mention payment, correct? Until you have paperwork that says they're going to pay you and you are an employee rather than a volunteer, they're not going to cough up any money until they're legally obligated by a lawsuit. I'm not an attorney so I have no idea whether they could be obligated to pay you any money, but even if they could your legal fees would be far more than what they owe you. Don't delude yourself. You are not going to potentially make more money when they have huge revenue because you're a worker, not a shareholder. Either you're doing this for fun or a paycheck, and it doesn't sound like the paycheck is all that great. Cut your losses and move on.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
Be glad you're only getting warnings. You keep breaking the law and he keeps pulling you over, that is not harassment. Get more rest so you're not falling asleep when you drive home and learn to set the cruise control.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
Unless she was pulled over in a county where court appearance is mandatory. Where I live, you can pay a fine by mail. One county over, you must appear in court for all traffic citations or they WILL issue a warrant for your arrest. Call the clerk of court in the county she was given the ticket and ask them what procedure is. They are nice, they know drat near everything, and they will help you with this.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2010 19:08
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:keep in mind, he didn't get a bank account with this information, he got a scene card or points card, which anyone can get and where the only relevant material is a phone number and/or address. if he doesn't go sign up for a chequing account with the bank and just tells them to go away he's fine He would be fine if he told the bank to just move on, but he's asking about what would happen to him if he took the bank up on their offer to get a checking account in the name of Santos L. Halper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2010 21:41
|
|
|
Better to get it cleared up now and know where you stand rather than going to jail for having a suspended license you didn't know about. Plus any associated fines WILL accrue even if they don't let you know about them. Don't ask me how I know.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
Was I having a dream, or isn't it completely illegal for cops to set up checkpoints and just pull over X number of cars that are not seen to be performing any violations and request licenses and registrations? I'm not talking about times they set up with five cars in busy areas on summer holidays and they wait for drunks and speeders and whatnot to pull over, I mean pulling over drivers who aren't visibly breaking any laws.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 08:52
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:Why would that be illegal? You basically agree to allowing the cops to stop you anytime they want when you get your license. I don't know how they do things in Soviet Russia but holding a driver's license in America does not give police the right to stop you whenever they feel like it just because. e: Although further research suggests in some states that's just fine. Looks like regulatory stops are basically exempt from the 4th amendment but depending on the state, they may or may not be allowed to use them as sobriety checks. Answered my own question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 09:19
|
|
|
Mr. Belpit posted:Virginia: In some places you have to show that your tags were current when you were pulled over, in others all you have to do is get them renewed before your court date. The clerk of court is really nice and really helpful and they'll tell you what kind of grace period you have to come to court/get fines paid and whether yours is a place that requires updated registration or proof that it already was. Regardless, they're not going to throw out the charge just for you showing up. You may still pay court costs when the judge throws it out. The clerk for traffic court will know what's required and will tell you. Don't stress yourself. It's traffic court. I got nailed once for expired tags and the cop couldn't be assed to unfold my registration (which my insurance card was folded into) so I couldn't find my card. Out of about 25 people, I was one of three wearing pants and literally the only person not wearing blue jeans. I'm not really sure what you could say to the judge besides obscenity that would cause a problem. He may not be lying in this case, but in my dealings with them, the police will totally lie about what they will and won't throw out in traffic court. Sometimes they don't actually know and sometimes they're just lying. Talk to the clerk, they're cool and they know stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 07:59
|
|
|
Offrampmotel posted:I think that once those flashing lights come on and you're pulled over you're not going to trick the officer into saying, "Oh...never mind." Haha but apparently you can influence them. I got pulled over for having a back light out and when the officer comes up and asks me if I have my stuff, I say, "I sure do!" proceed to hand him my registration and then pull my insurance card and license out of my checkbook and hand it to him. He says, "I pulled you over because your license plate lamp is out but considering this is the most organized I've ever seen someone for a traffic stop, I'm not going to worry about it." Sorry I just had to share that. I'm not saying that "Sure, officer, search my car!" is going to get you any brownie points but I've gotten out of equipment tickets on my beater just by treating cops like people. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 02:43 on May 15, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
I have a friend who has told her husband she doesn't want to be married to him anymore. They're not staying together right now, but they're not yet legally separated. At this time he's saying he wants both of their cars because even though both of their names are on the loan, he's the "primary" on the car she drives, and his name may be the only one on the title for that car. She isn't sure because she "never looked at it." (Guess who is learning exactly what not to do when they get married?) He owns the car he uses. Is it kosher for one spouse to end up with both vehicles even though other assets are being divided fairly equally? I understand division of assets gets complicated, but that doesn't sound even remotely right. With her name on the loan for e: Ha, state might be useful. NE, not a community property state as far as I know. The loan on the vehicle my friend drives was acquired by both spouses during the marriage. He owned the other car before the marriage. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 08:02 on May 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
What The Fucktrain posted:Are you sure about this? My mother is a registered nurse and knew it was an anti-psychotic and from what I can see it is used for just schizophrenia and bipolar disorder related instances. And I would consider something that is used to control either or those, especially the former, rather strong compared to anxiety medication. I'm not sure about the obesity/diabetes thing but I did see something dealing with an increased risk of stroke, which he had already suffered from before getting the prescription and subsequently died from another a few years later. Your idea of what makes a medication "strong" or what is a "strong" medication is strange and uneducated. Anxiety is not depression nor schizophrenia, although sometimes the disorders tend to show up in the same patients. Major depressive disorders, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia are not difficult to treat because the patient isn't getting a "strong" enough medication, they're difficult to treat because they require talk therapy and a patient with the ability and willingness to stick to treatment, not to mention that all disorders are not entirely understood. Zyprexa is not "stronger" than say Xanax. It is a different medication that works in a different way for a different disorder. Zyprexa has off-label uses that don't only include the ones the FDA has approved it for; that's the definition of off-label. I have no idea about the law you're asking about but you need to educate yourself on these drugs if you're going to insist they make a difference in your case.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
I know trees/property line issues have been addressed somewhat. My mom lives in Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and her neighbors have a tree that has limbs overhanging into her yard. I understand she is allowed to have those limbs trimmed as long as it doesn't harm the tree. I'm curious of the right to trim those branches constitutes an obligation. Plus, part of the base of the tree seems to be over the property line into her yard. Does a surveyor or someone have to come out to draw out the property lines and determine who owns the tree? An agent with her current insurance company says that my mother is liable for any damage to her property if the whole tree comes down, but her previous insurance company claimed the neighbor was liable. It seems crazy to be liable for damage without having the authority to remove the hazard in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 01:58
|
|
|
I am not giving you legal advice because I am not a lawyer, I am giving you general information. Typically the fine is treated as a civil thing as if it was a debt owed to the store, except if you don't pay this debt they involve the police. I have heard of fines up to around $300.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 04:57
|
|
|
I understand the burden is lower for civil suits versus criminal charges, but wouldn't the retailers have to demonstrate some sort of loss in order to collect damages? I can understand if you see someone stick something in their purse or their pocket, but if someone forgets something on the bottom of their cart or something similar, shouldn't the retailer have to show some sort of intent if the person brings it right back when it's brought to their attention? All this talk about trying to make would-be thieves pay for the cost of their security measures sounds like bull crap considering the vast majority of retail theft is done by employees and the other greatest retail loss consists of time clock abuse.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
I guess I was thinking of the shoplifting thing from the perspective of someone wrongly accused. Obviously if I found a store pulling the "pay us or we turn you in" business on me, I'd lawyer up if I hadn't done it (and probably if I had), but I'm curious about what strategy that lawyer might take to show their client doesn't owe the store anything. Wouldn't they have to produce a witness or video to show someone actually taking something off the shelf to prove it wasn't something they just brought in? It's just so hard to believe that a store can take you to court and just demand that you pay them. At least if they pressed charges, you could take it to trial and they'd have to provide more proof, right?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 02:11
|
|
|
Lots of places with hate crime laws on the books don't even protect gays, so with no legal training I'm going to say that Giants fans are not a protected group of people. Hate crimes are crimes against very specifically defined groups that vary depending on your state, otherwise every assault or battery could be classified a hate crime.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2011 18:13
|
|
|
areyoucontagious posted:Idiot, completely remove this post. like go back, edit it out. Striking it out does nothing, see how easy it was to bring back? Questions for the lawyers: Would this guy buying a carbon receipt book and issuing receipts to the roomie that they both date be sufficient to show when the rent was presented? I was under the impression that the date on a check indicates the date it was written and isn't meant to serve as the date it's presented. I know people will informally take it as the presentation date lacking any other documentation, but wouldn't issuing receipts clear all that up? My lease has a clause that says prior failure to enforce lease terms doesn't prohibit future ability to enforce lease terms. Would this sort of clause hold up in Texas? BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 07:05 on May 27, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
My apartment complex today left notices on doors that they would be coming in sometime within the next 3 days to do yearly inspections. I live in Iowa. I'm pretty confident the landlord is required to give 24 hours notice before entering my home except for emergency. The lease claims they can enter any time if reasonable. Does "sometime in the next 3 days" constitute 24 hour notice?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2011 05:59
|
|
|
There is a place where cops pull you over and don't ask for the registration to the vehicle you are driving? Texas really does seem like a crazy place. If you check with the clerk of court, they can let you know what requirements there are for presenting the documents. I wouldn't think they could make you pay late fines on something you already paid, but who knows cause Texas sounds like a place where up is down and the sky is green. The clerk of court really can give you a lot of useful information specific to the court where this will be handled. You probably already know this but take it as a lesson to save all receipts you get from paying fines to any organization that can arrest you or take away your license.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
In Iowa we have a registration sticker that goes on the license plate but they still ask for your copy of the registration every single time. You're required to carry it in the vehicle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
So how's it work when the apartment you lease is destroyed through fire or natural disaster? Are they required to find a place to house you, or just to release you from your lease? Are they required to prorate the remainder of your rent for the month? I assume they'd have to give back your security deposit unless you did something drastic like punch holes in the walls, right? I live in the potential flood area in Iowa. My lease doesn't have anything about this. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jun 13, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2011 04:54
|
|
|
Just out of curiosity, how in the world could a ticket written 2 years ago just be going to trial now? Isn't there a right to speedy trial?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
I'm passing familiar with the concept of being added as an authorized user to someone's credit cards to piggyback on their good credit and increase your own score. My mother added me as an authorized user to her Discover card some time ago so I would be able to use it in an emergency. I actually didn't know about it until I ran my credit reports several months ago. At no point was my SSN provided to them (by her or by me) and I certainly didn't sign any credit agreements with them. I don't suspect anything nefarious here because she'd gain no benefit in trying to use my credit (don't have any). It seems obvious that if being an authorized user can affect your credit positively, it should be able to affect your credit negatively, but how can it affect you if you never sign any agreement with that company?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
JohnnyHildo posted:The Federal Reserve's Regulation B requires any credit issuer that reports credit information to credit reporting agencies to also report the information for a spouse if that spouse is a co-account holder or an authorized user. As this Federal Reserve working paper indicates, creditors tend to report all authorized users without regard to spousal status, sometimes resulting in people with lower credit scores "piggybacking" on the credit of someone with a higher credit score. What confuses me here is that it seems as though someone could simply give a creditor your name and have your credit affected, even though you have no agreement with that company. Is that the case? I discussed it with my mom, and if this card can hurt me (due to utilization ratio, currently), I won't have any trouble being removed from the card. If the card can't hurt me I don't want to do that, because she did add me in case of emergency. I guess that would go for any cards, not just this one. Been curious about the concept for a while anyway. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Jun 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:In theory, you can't be fired for taking legitimate medical leave even in an at-will state. In practice, proving why you were actually fired is easier said than done. If you live in an at-will state, do they have to write a reason on the pink slip? Do they have to stand by that if someone tries to sue for wrongful termination?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2011 03:03
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:^^^ Do you want this thread? That thread just needs to close, there is no legal guidance in there anymore and just a bunch of people with questions that don't get answered.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Loopyface posted:They're looking for illegal drugs, not Adderall. But, if you're really worried, bring your prescription to the test. The fact that you're on ADHD medicine should not be relevant or released to your prospective employer. This is not all true. A controlled substance becomes illegal when you don't have a valid prescription for it. They aren't just looking for street drugs when they test you, because people abuse prescription drugs all the time. Adderall is an amphetamine, so it's gonna pop on a UA.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
I'm not a lawyer so this is not legal advice. As far as I know, a check is basically good indefinitely, and I'm not sure you can force someone to cash one at a specific time. I wonder, though, if you could cancel the check, send him a (certified mail) letter that you've done so, and include a money order or cashier's check (whichever is more traceable) to cover it. At least that way you wouldn't have to keep track of a check that could debit at any time. For almost a year I paid my rent solely in money orders and got receipts from my apartment in addition to my money order carbon copy. Between my bank and the management company, it would often take 2 weeks for a rent check to clear.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
Does consanguineous marriage even matter if the ancestor is from 200 years ago?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2011 02:43
|
|
|
I live in Nebraska. I've been dealing with the same sketchy rental company for the last five years because I can't think of a good way to leave without getting hit with a bunch of ridiculous fees. My reasons for wanting to leave are mainly annoyances with the one point that the hallway on my floor is practically a cloud of marijuana smoke. The management is allergic to honesty and competence. The apartment leases always have a clause about either me or management/property owner having to notify the other with no less than 60 days left until of the end of the lease whether it's going to be renewed. Since I've never encountered an entity that will hold a place for 60 days, is this the trick I think it is to accrue fees or make people stay because it's easier? Is there a simple way around this? If management waits until the last month of my lease to let me know whether they want me to renew or if they actively wanted me out, does that mean I don't have to give them 60 days? 30 days seems like the standard. I would expect to give 30 days notice if I were not going to renew the lease. 60 days seems stupid. The other thing is that rental rates are different based on whether your lease is month to month, 6 months, or a year. If my lease expired and neither party made any mention of it (if I don't sign another lease), would either party still have to give 60 days notice if I were going to leave (provided it weren't an eviction for non-payment or something similar) and could they force me to pay higher rent? e: I forgot to mention that with month to month, people still sign a lease. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:29 |
|
|
How's that work if you refuse a breathalyzer and demand a blood test? You're arrested, car impounded, etc? Are they even allowed to e: refuse to conduct a blood test?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2012 00:57
|
|