|
Incredulous Red posted:You're making a whole bunch of weird assumptions here. Basically this. There was a lawsuit about Quicken and Turbo Tax a while back that dealt with similar issues. (and like the guy before me said, no. If you're not a lawyer you don't get to represent people. It's one of the few good things about the legal market these days.
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Yeah.....don't forge things and file them with the IRS. Not a great plan. The fact that you're asking us for confirmation tells us that you know it's a bad idea. Don't do it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Serella posted:Do we absolutely need a lawyer for this? I'm willing to hire one if necessary, but would prefer to avoid it if possible. Why are you interested in avoiding a lawyer? Are you worried about the cost?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I'm still a little fuzzy on this. Since it's unlikely I can change any sort of legal judgement, why do I have to go to court? Can't I just pay some fine and be done with it, like a speeding or parking ticket? It depends. Read the citation the officer gave you. Does it say you need to show up? Does it say you can show up if you choose to? That's what's going to answer your question. If, like a traffic ticket, it says that you have the option to pay a fine and be done with it, you might still have the option to show up in court. That's what we're referring to when we say you might have an opportunity to get a lower/lesser ticket or offense. If you are respectful, remorseful, and explain things to the judge, he or she has the power to change the citation to something less severe. That does not always happen, see the above posters' comments for advice on handling that situation. If, instead, it's a more serious citation, you might have no choice but to appear and you cannot solve things with a simple check in the mail. I do not know much about how those work. Josh Lyman posted:My general position on the situation is that even though I don't feel like it was "my fault" and even though it was a genuine accident (i.e. there was no mistake that I would go back and do differently), someone is going to be legally liable and that someone is likely me. Okay. We need to talk about this. There are two types of "legally liable" that apply here: criminal and civil. The citation by the police officer falls under the criminal heading. From the cop's perspective, it was "your fault." You turned from a side street onto a major road, entered someone else's right of way and caused a traffic accident. Full stop. They might have been speeding, doesn't matter. They might have had their lights off, doesn't matter. It is easily possible for both parties to receive citations, and for both parties to be criminally at fault. For these purposes, you made a mistake. You merged without enough room. Liability to the other driver for damage caused to their car, on the other hand, is civil. That's what we're discussing when we start talking about negligence. For these purposes, if the other driver was speeding, or had their lights off, or swerved into you, that might reduce your liability to them. In your state, if the other posters are correct (odds are they are), you're dealing with a comparative negligence standard. That means you (or they) can recover from one another the amount you were damaged, reduced by the % that you were at fault. But if you were over 50% at fault, they don't have to pay you. All of the pieces of evidence you've collected will be useful here - pictures of the accident, the fact that you were cited and not them, etc. In reality, civil liability isn't going to be something you pay, or they pay. Instead, it's something your insurance companies fight about, and you'll probably be dealing with your insurance adjuster to handle it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
kripes posted:I live in Ontario If you're that uncomfortable with it, speak to a lawyer in your jurisdiction. That said, it seems to me to primarily say that you waive any claims for damages resulting from the records search. The authorization extends only to "searching all information and records to which it has access and which it considers appropriate for the purposes of the search." I don't really see how that would authorize them to shoot you, unless you have a very bizarre fact pattern that I am unaware of. It feels like it's primarily aimed at preventing you from suing them for some breach of privacy claim, or from a libel claim, intrusion on seclusion claim, etc. For instance, if you had a prior felony that you hadn't disclosed to your family, then their search turned that up and they used that to deny your sister her position, then your family got pissed at each other and you were cut out of the will. Something like that. That said, I am not a Canadian attorney (nor an attorney in another jurisdiction).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
Arianna Moon posted:Stuff for a lawyer. We can't give you peace of mind. Sadly, you need to speak to your public defender. The laws may be weird in your jurisdiction, and there may have been other crimes you've been charged with. Is it likely? I have no idea. Probably not, but I have literally no way to know and am speaking straight out of my rear end. Plus I'm not a lawyer. Moreover, I am not your lawyer. You need to speak to your lawyer. Generally speaking, if they collected evidence according to legal procedure, and crossed their t's and dotted their i's, even if they aren't charging you with the originally contemplated offense, that evidence is probably admissible should they choose to charge you with a separate offense (even an unrelated one, like drug possession or manufacturing or whatever). Arcturas fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Apr 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
Lord Gaga posted:You should edit your post to remove the quote. Whoops, sorry. Thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
az jan jananam posted:How legal is it for craigslist ads to state a race/age/gender/sexuality preference? I see it a lot on housing/job ads and its a bit odd. Depends how legal it is to apply those same criteria to looking for someone to fill the position. For instance, while I have not reviewed employment law anytime recently, it is probably not okay to look exclusively for white people when hiring, or exclusively for women. My hunch is that the same would apply to a craigslist posting looking for a worker. Similarly, if race is a protected class for housing in your area (presumably through a state or municipality level regulation), it would be inadvisable to say that you're discriminating on those grounds in your craigslist ad. That said, people probably do it all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
chuchumeister posted:LL/T stuff. Take pictures (including at least one alongside a newspaper to confirm the date) when you move out. It won't guarantee your deposit back, but it's a helpful piece of evidence in a dispute. Another helpful option is to do a walk-through with your landlord a week or so before the move out. This gives you a chance to potentially find a cheaper fix to whatever problems the landlord has with the unit after you leave. Again, it can't guarantee anything, but it might help. If you do a walk-through, send your landlord confirmation in writing of what you discussed. ("As you said earlier today, this is the complete list of all the problems you saw in the apartment which might affect our security deposit. 1: ...") EDIT: I need to note that a) I am not an attorney, and b) I know nothing about landlord/tenant law or disputes in LA. These just seem like helpful common-sense things to do. Arcturas fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:In general, when you play a sport you accept the risk of injury. Unless he was doing something completely outside the rules of the game he isn't liable for the injury. If this was an organized league, she probably signed a release to the effect, but even without one it's clear she knew the risks of playing. Would there be any downside to asking him nicely to help cover the cost? Even if she doesn't have a legal right, she might be able to guilt him into covering at least a small part of the fees, particularly if he was doing something either against the rules or in a grey area.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
King Lou posted:Alright. That makes sense. Just to clarify: The work was done physically in NYC but the employer was in OHIO. So by what you're saying since the employer is there the work originates there no matter where the physical work is done. If that's the case, you may want to move quickly, to try to get whatever you can before they run out of assets.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2012 19:40
|
|
|
entris posted:Pretty sure that federal laws regarding fair housing do not permit landlords to discriminate against families. edit: here we go: While I agree that the federal code appears to prohibit discriminating against families, I wouldn't read that statute to prohibit a clause saying "I am leasing to two people, no more. If any more live here, the lease is terminated." Such a clause could justify terminating the lease if they had children. Why? I read "familial status" as being the familial status of the relationships that renters have, not the status of whether they have a family or not. Hence it would be illegal to lease to a brother and sister, but not to lease to an unmarried man and woman who wanted to share an apartment. I think that is different from a situation where they want to lease to two individuals, but (perhaps to comply with fire codes) do not want to lease to three or more individuals. I might be wrong. Either way, the best bet is to talk to the landlord and get things worked out ahead of time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
dvgrhl posted:You are wrong though. It's specifically addressed here: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws/yourrights. They do make an exception for retirement communities, and there may also be exceptions for something like a college dormitory (not sure there), but basically in most cases a landlord cannot deny housing because of children. Gotcha, my bad. I hadn't done any research; clearly I ought to have done so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Last year my partner and I signed a lease with another couple who are probably going to be evicted for not paying rent. Our landlord was nice enough to allow us to stay on the premesis paying rent until July when the lease is up, but it's unclear what is going to be done about the missing rent on the apartment. A friend of ours suggested that we sue them for back rent in case our landlord holds us responsible for the remaining payments on the lease. My question is, what legal recourse do we have on this? These roommates have caused other damages beyond not paying rent, but I'm not very legally minded and I just want to be prepared if and when they are evicted. We live in RI. Euphronius is right - it's hard to say until we know all the facts. Generally speaking, leases hold tenants jointly and severally liable - that means the landlord can come after anyone on the lease for the entire amount of rent. So if they skip out and stop paying, the landlord can (but doesn't have to) come after you for the entire rent. However, you can generally then go after them for their share of the rent, alleging some variety of a breach of contract. The problem for you is that by the time they've skipped out on rent and bailed, it gets much harder for you to find them and force them to pay.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 16:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If you'll be testifying, don't wear a t-shirt that says, "Good Girls are Bad Girls Who Don't Get Caught." Unless you're a criminal defendant on trial for prostitution. In which case, totally do it!
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
You should probably take that to your dean of students, and/or schedule an appointment with the department head specifically to discuss the FERPA problem. I don't know much about FERPA, but it probably does cover circumstances like this. How did the TA get access to your parents' e-mail addresses? If you brought them into the conversation, that might have changed things, but if the TA initiated contact with the parents (on the TA's initiative, or at the parents' request) there is probably a FERPA issue.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Yeah, the real question as far as the car's alienability is going to be the title. If it has the mother's name on it, it's her car and you can't sell it without her consent. If it has both names, it depends where you live. If it only has the daughter's name on it, I imagine she can sell it herself. The loan and the title are two different things - you can cosign a loan without getting a property interest in whatever the loan is being used to purchase, though normally you don't. As far as Mr. Noncompete - that's probably a very fact specific question that will require you to speak to a Wisconsin lawyer, preferably one who specializes in employment law. Answering your question would require us to know a lot about your industry and the specific contract terms, because the law frowns on noncompetes (but only sometimes) and what you want to do may or may not fall within the scope of the noncompete.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Intoxicated is generally associated with alcohol, is what I was getting at. Yeah, I mean, you're probably right in a non-legal environment. But the crimes are identical in almost all jurisdictions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
nm posted:And this is why in states that allow it you should refuse the FSTs One of these days I should stop being lazy and hop on Westlaw and figure out where Utah sits on that spectrum.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
ts12 posted:e: also wondering what my options are when faced with someone destroying all my puckins Could always sue them for destroying your puckins. You'd get however much they're worth. Not how much they're worth to you, how much they're worth to some judge who thinks puckins are silly. Similarly, if the police don't feel like getting involved, you can civilly sue them for trespassing. Trespass laws vary around the country.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
ts12 posted:That's interesting. I guess that I always kind of figured a state like Florida would just allow homeowners to fire wildly at anyone they don't want to be there. It might. I don't know much about castle/SYG laws. But I am almost sure that you can also sue them civilly.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
nm posted:Seriously, even in juvie land that is insane. Lawyer needs a strong reprimand, bob needs to file an appeal ASAP. Even in a world where there was no plea and he was just discussing the possibility of getting a plea, that is really, really unethical.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
joat mon posted:How so? Parents talk about what seems to do best for son, attorney observes that son is at time-served point for similarly situated defendants in that jurisdiction. If he's discussing client objectives (time served vs probation) with someone who's not his client, and not discussing those same options with his client, then he's taking away his client's ability to set the objectives for the representation. Instead, he's getting direction from a third party. Ethically, he should have told Bob that he could either go for time served or go for probation, and let Bob make the choice. If it's either the parents or the lawyer making that decision, it's a problem. Even if we're characterizing the discussion with the parents as information gathering, the lawyer should have given Bob all the relevant information and let Bob make the decision, rather than making the decision on Bob's behalf.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I completely agree. I thought you were talking about it being wrong even outside the context of advising a client on a plea. Sure. If, entirely separate from his representation of Bob, he's talking to the parents about Bob's options, that's probably fine. He just has to watch out for confidentiality and other ordinary stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'll get the AV on the left if Arcturas gets the AV on the left as well. Will do, but those images are bigger than 125x125. And I'm terrible at the internet, so can't resize them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Was partly joking it would be terrible if we got identical avatars. I'll get the one on the left, you can get the one on the right. Shucks. I think it'd be better if we had the same one, though I admit I do prefer the one on the right.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The sensible and mature thing to do is to talk about it and give plenty of notice that she needs to find somewhere else to live. While you're right, I am somewhat amused that we're discussing sensible and reasonable in the context of domestic disputes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In any domestic dispute the first advice should be 'your best legal option may also be the one that gives the other side the most incentive to take every chance to gently caress with your life, you need to factor this into your decisions' Yeah, there's always an odd balance between finding quick and effective non-judicial solutions to domestic disputes, and protecting yourself should the dispute continue and require legal action. It's tricky walking the "lets be reasonable and figure this out" line without crossing over into "oh poo poo, I just gave away the house, kids, TV, and dog!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Yeah, I get that. I'm sure many people are just looking for a windfall from doctors. It just seems like a huge crying shame that there's a whole class of relatively-minor things that people can just get away with because its too expensive to do anything about. Yeah, and part of the problem is the emphasis in concrete economic damages. Pain and suffering, and how obnoxious your doctor was, and how right or wrong they were have very little to do with damages, most of the time. If the legal system appropriately valued and awarded pain and suffering damages, 1) it would alleviate situations like this where you get screwed through no fault of your own, but have little specific damages to point to, and 2) it would lead to a tremendous growth in "You took my pulse and now I can't feel my arm! GIMME MAH MONEY!" suits by people who are just making poo poo up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:I wish I was making what happened to my eye up Look, I'm not saying you're a big whiner-pants who's making a fuss to get paid off because you see easy money. You seem to have a legitimate problem, and probably ought to go talk to a med mal attorney in your area; see if they are willing to take it on contingency, or at least give you a cheap consult. But that doesn't mean that designing a legal system that lets you get paid easily for your harm wouldn't also be really easy to abuse by people who just want a quick payday. You have to understand that, as a consequence of all of those people ruining the system for you, your likely recovery is rather diminished. Also, realize that you're not going to be made entirely whole. The system views "making someone whole" as giving them money to compensate for the money they paid out. Financial compensation for financial harms. Physical harms can be compensated, but generally need to be specific and concrete. Plus, it doesn't take into account attorney's fees. If you have to pay a lawyer, that comes out of either your pocket, or your potential recovery. Basically take a look, see what you can get, but realize that in the end, if you can't get a quick settlement the primary reason to go forward is because the doctor was an rear end in a top hat and you want to make him miserable, not because you're actually going to get all your money back and compensation for your time. Arcturas fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
I wouldn't record them; an easier first step is to just tell the professor, the department head, or the dean of students. Odds are they won't really get caught, but if they're spoken to in the investigation then they'll know people are noticing and they need to cut it out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:No he said he was recording them during tests. Ironically enough, recording during tests would probably be an honor code violation by itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
She could try and submit an amended answer. I'm not entirely clear on the ordinary procedure for arbitration, and what the particular rules are, but if she's pro se I imagine the arbitrator's office would be willing to at least point her in the right direction. In non-arbitration contexts, you usually need leave of the court to amend a pleading, but the standards are pretty liberal. If she was unaware of the choice of law provision until they provided her with documents, and she moves in a timely fashion to amend her answer to raise defenses based on those documents, I would think she'd normally be fine. The sooner she does this, the better. In her amended answer she should argue that Delaware law governs the agreement, and that the Delaware SoL bars the debt collector's claims, and also do her best to provide an explanation for the late amendment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
entris posted:Also Tex. R. Prof Conduct 7.03 and 7.05, right? I find this sort of thing really hilarious when a firm will plaster the one attractive associate's picture everywhere on the website, and then leave ugly mugshots of everyone else only on their particular bios.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 20:21
|
|
oh god that would be awful.
|
Black Cat posted:Ok so I'll tell him in as nicely worded of a message possible that he can't take me to court over it. Thanks for the advice and I'm sorry for being a bit pushy, its just been a big worry for me the past few days. Wait, what? While that's the right course of action, what Alchenar said (and he's correct in saying) is that: 1) All of you, together, are responsible for the full payment of the rent. If the landlord hasn't gotten paid, he can sue any of you and whoever he sues (or asks) has to pay the full amount of the rent by themselves. 2) The tenant who's on the hook (had to pay more than their fair/agreed upon share) then has the ability to get "contribution" from the tenants who paid less than their fair share. This can include a lawsuit, including small claims actions. What this means is (and I don't recall the facts of your case, so oh well): 1) If your former roommates have paid the rent in full, the landlord cannot come after you. 2) If your former roommates did not pay the rent in full, the landlord can come after you for the remainder of the rent. 3) If your former roommates paid the rent in full, they can come after you for whatever you owe them. I believe this is the current situation? 4) If the roomates did not pay the rent in full, they can come after you for whatever they paid above and beyond their fair/agreed upon share. As a practical matter, you're probably right - they're not going to sue you, and it's not worth their time to file a lawsuit. But they could. So the key question, if a former roommate is coming after you for rent, is what the terms of the agreement were between you and the former roommate. I'm am almost entirely sure that you never wrote anything down (which was silly), so if (and when) it goes to small claims, it'll be a he-said, she-said. Things which will be relevant: 1) Whether they agreed to let you move out and not pay any more rent. 2) How you were splitting rent, when you did live there. 3) How much you did pay. 4) Whether they have other outstanding obligations to you. So, where are we? They might be able to take you to small claims court. Small claims is cheap (probably a $75 filing fee for a $350 obligation, and they can collect that filing fee from you if they win). Don't panic! Small claims really isn't that terrible. You show up, wear a suit or dress clothes, be organized, and present your information. The judges and clerks are used to dealing with disorganized, hostile crazy people, so as long as you have your poo poo together, you'll be alright. What you'll probably want to do at this point: 1) Focus. FOCUS. Write down what happened. Trim down the facts to exactly what happened that related to the rent and money. For the purposes of your liability for rent, whether you had a job, or didn't have a job, or your car getting broken into, etc, is all irrelevant. Just get the facts on the table, so that you know exactly what happened. If and when you present in court, the other facts (why you moved out) may be useful (VERY briefly) to give context, but you don't want to be super rambly). 2) Tally your liability to them. This means all the months of rent which you owed them, anything else you owed them for (utilities, cable, tv, groceries if you were sharing those, security deposits, parking fees, etc). For your own information, you'll want to do this twice; once the way you think things happened, and once they way they seem to think things happened (as if you were leasing the whole time). In court you'll only want to present the lower number, but you need to know what your potential liability is. 3) Tally their liability to you. This means everything they owed you (the remainder of your security deposit, any amount they owed you for utilities, gas, electric, cable, tv, whatever, additional fees you had to pay because they were late paying the gas bill, that sort of thing). This does not include incidental fees you incurred that they are not responsible for (damage to your car, the cost of buying a window AC unit, moving expenses because they didn't want to help you, that sort of thing). 4) Compare the costs in 2 & 3. If you owe them money, you need to know that. If you might owe them money (because of the two numbers in 2), you need to know that. 5) Send them a politely worded letter saying that you don't owe them poo poo, and even if you did, it'd cost them more money and be more of a hassle for them to collect than it's worth. If 3 is greater than 2, say they owe you X$ because of their unpaid obligations, but you may be willing to let sleeping dogs lie if they leave you alone. 6) Get your name off everything associated with that old apartment. Don't have your name on their cable service. Make them get their own cable. The next question is whether they do anything about it. 7) If they file a small claims action, you're fine. You already have all the paperwork and documentation together from 2 & 3. 8) File a small claims counterclaim for everything unpaid from 3. Include all the money for the times you covered them on cable, utilities, groceries, etc. This does two things - one, it means you can offset your damages against theirs in court (otherwise it's hard to subtract 3 from 2 in front of a judge), and two, it puts pressure on them to get off your case. 9) Pay attention to the scheduled court date. DO NOT MISS IT. If it's a time you can't attend, reschedule the court date. Your local small claims court website should have instructions and forms for requesting continuances/rescheduling hearings. 10) Get your poo poo together for the hearing. Put a binder together with all the paperwork; receipts for paid utilities, any lease agreements, etc. Put a small spreadsheet together of the obligations for 2 & 3. Get three copies of each of these, so you have one for yourself, one for the judge, and one for the opposing side. 11) Show up in a suit or nice shirt/slacks, and kick their rear end. Arcturas fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Jul 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Black Cat posted:First off, rude, second, you're just jealous. Nobody's jealous of your $30,000/year job. Get over yourself. Black Cat posted:Another question: Christ. Stop "going in on" things with people you don't know, unless you are fully prepared to eat the entire cost of it. Including late fees. And disruptions in service. But yeah, you probably can recover the late fees he caused. It'd be a small claims action, you'd want to prove that he promised to pay for whatever, that he didn't pay whatever, and that the damages you suffered due to his breach (of the agreement with you to split costs) were both the payments you had to make up and the late fees. The Texas (you're in Texas?) Bar has a pretty reasonable handbook for filing a small claims action. http://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/ForThePublic/FreeLegalInformation/OurLegalSystem/HowtoSueinSmallClaimsCourt.pdf If you've got questions about particular forms or the particular court, I've found the clerks at small claims courts are remarkably helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 00:30
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Things might be different in Freedomland but in the UK it would basically be a career ending ethical violation to accept a gift from a client. Yeah, he doesn't have to give his attorney a gift; the guy should do a good job anyways. But in the US, in most states, you're perfectly free to give your attorney a gift, so long as it isn't too big. And they're similarly free to accept it. The lines get far greyer if your lawyer tells you "Oh boy, I'm having such a hard time representing you without X...I guess I'll just find a way to manage without it!" Especially if X is sex, and s/he is representing you in a divorce proceeding.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Reason posted:This is regarding debt collection in Washington state. You don't need a judgment to begin collecting on a debt. So no, they don't have to sue you to start bothering you. Suing you just makes it an awful lot easier to do so. For instance, it's much harder to actually get a garnishment if they don't have an actual judgment. For the call to your employer, if they're a debt collection agency (i.e. a separate company, NOT Verizon), and they called your employer to tell them about your debt, that's pretty much explicitly prohibited by law, and you may be able to sue them directly. (for $1,000 in statutory damages plus attorneys fees & costs) This behavior is covered by the FDCPA, and possibly some state statutes. There are a few things that matter: who called your employer? What did they say exactly? Have they contacted you? If so, how often, what time of day, what did they say, etc? If it's Verizon calling, they're an original creditor, and not covered by FDCPA. If it's a separate company, then the FDCPA applies, and they can't talk to your employer about your debt, they can't threaten you, they can't call too often, or too late at night, they're not allowed to lie, and there are all sorts of other restrictions. These rules are regularly broken, but only because most people let debt collectors get away with abhorrent behavior. You can read the statute here: http://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fdcpa/fdcpact.shtm , though it's going to be painful to figure out what that all means. If what you're mostly looking for is ways to push back, 805, 806, 807, and 808 are pretty good ways to complain about their behavior. If you want to drag things on, validation of debt is a good place to start.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2012 17:12
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:For what it's worth, I have a feeling this is going to be jurisdiction-specific. Where I practice, you need a judgment unless the debt is secured. There's actually some pretty stiff penalties for trying the "self-help" approach instead of getting a judgment. ^ Mostly what Alchenar said, but also: Are you sure? I mean, there's no way you can show up and just take someone's stuff without a judgment (and even then, get the sheriff to do it, don't do it yourself, etc etc), but on the other hand there's nothing stopping me (creditor) from calling you (debtor) up and saying, "Would you please pay your bill?" That's how 90% of attorney's fees get paid. Nor is there anything wrong with your cable or credit card company sending you a bill saying, "You have an outstanding balance of 100$. Please pay it or you will continue accumulating late fees of $10 per month." Both of those are attempts to collect, but they don't fall under the classically prohibited "self-help" heading of showing up at your house with thugs to take your stuff and break your kneecaps.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:31 |
|
|
Schitzo posted:Edit: In retrospect, I think what threw me was the statement that "it's much harder to actually get a garnishment if they don't have an actual judgment." Where I am, at least, a judgment would be a prerequisite to garnishing a debtor. Yeah, I was pretty imprecise there as well. A judgment is almost always a prerequisite to garnishment, but in my jurisdiction pre-judgment garnishment is available if you meet pretty stringent requirements. For most purposes, you're correct.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 06:53
|
|