|
BlackMK4 posted:My girlfriend (MY GIRLFRIEND) bought a VW Jetta GLI about 4 weeks ago with a Honda S2000 as a trade - 4k left from the trade after loan payoff - GLI was a 2006 for like 16 or 18k. The VW dealership had her approved through VW financial, until they called her credit companies over the next two weeks- they call my girlfriend and tell her that they need another $1600 cash down for VW to finance it and they have to drop gap coverage/warranty/change payment length to make it a 36/mo loan, two weeks later now they are telling her that VW still won't finance her at all and that she needs to call Wachovia and answer some questions to see if they will finance her - if they won't then she has to return the car. Sounds like a Spot Delivery Scam from the dealership. There are ways to fight it and keep the car without getting screwed out of more money, but it sounds like you don't want to keep the car, so I'm not sure how to proceed. A lawyer will have better advice, but I guess you could go down there and talk to them and if things aren't going your way, whip out your cell phone and tell them you want to see what the attorney general thinks about their Spot Delivery Scam to see if that makes them a little more helpful.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2010 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Alterian posted:
This probably varies by state, so listen to a real lawyer over me, but in Colorado, if you are fired or laid off, they need to pay you in full that day. If they don't, you can fight for something like 2-3x what they owe. They probably don't owe you poo poo for your vacation time, though. Since they laid off 80% of the staff, though, they might not have much left to give. You might be getting your last paycheck in the form of meeting room chairs and fax machines.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
TheFrailNinja posted:Yeah there were a few issues I read about, like parking & neighbors. That won't be a problem where I live. Anybody know what I can reasonably expect to charge? I'd open a phonebook, pretend to be a potential music student, and call someone who is already established in teaching. Ask them what they charge (along with anything else you're not sure about) and then adjust based on what you offer vs what they offer (i.e. charge less because you're just starting out).
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Solomon Grundy posted:Does anyone really live in Utah? There are about a million people in Utah, but I wouldn't call what they're doing "living."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
Robawesome posted:... and thus never learned of the contents of the robbery... Wait a second. Are you saying your friend called the cops on someone who stole drugs [or other illegal items] from him, because lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
czachz posted:Say you catch an unarmed person robbing your home/shop and upon confronting him he immediately flees WITH some of your property. If he's still in your house and your state has a Castle Doctrine*, feel free to shoot. *Consult your local Castle Doctrine law for specific details. Edit: And then go to jail for murder. Don't listen to me, I'm retarded. Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Aug 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 15:20
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:A Castle Doctrine typically won't help you if the guy is trying to escape. I'm not a lawyer and I know the general consensus is that us regular folks should STFU in this thread, but (at least in Colorado), if someone is illegally in your house and you have reasonable suspicion that they are committing/going to commit a crime AND reasonable suspicion that they could injure you (not necessarily kill you, any belief that you might be attacked in any way counts), you may use lethal force. If someone is illegally in my house, I'm going to automatically assume that both those things are a very real possibility and I'm going to
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:If you see someone climbing out of one of your windows then you would not be entitled to make any of those assumptions despite him technically being on your property. Grab him by the ankle, drag him in, then shoot him? Ok fine, if he's halfway out the door/window, he's got a pass, but if he's darting through the living room, he's getting smoked.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 16:28
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Practically speaking, and setting aside all civil liability issues inherent in even the most seemingly-justified use of deadly force, what property can you possibly have in your house that is worth killing someone over? At the risk of this derailing into a morality debate, for me it's more about the person invading my house than the "value" of any property they're taking. If someone violated my sense of security at home, I'd shoot to kill over a stolen ketchup packet and I'd sleep like a baby. Edit: To quepasa18, read that link I posted for Castle Doctrine info. Some states specifically state that you do not need to fear for your life to use lethal force in your "castle" (defined as home and/or car and/or place of business, depending on state). Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Aug 25, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:No offense dude, but speaking as someone who has actually shot people (in the military) you wouldn't just "sleep like a baby" because you shot some retarded meth-head who broke in your house. None taken. First off, I don't own a gun, let alone multiple guns and a concealed carry permit (although I will admit I've been considering purchasing a gun and taking safety classes). Secondly, if I could choose between "never having my house broken into" or "mowing down meth heads left and right in my living room with impunity," I would choose the former (and hope everyone would). That said, I get a strong visceral reaction when I think about someone invading my home and still stand by everything I've said. Maybe I would regret it after the fact, but it doesn't currently feel that way.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 15:22
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Speaking as someone with a nightstand gun, I would much rather let someone escape with my TV or Xbox than pull a trigger in anger. I've been stolen from before, and I get the sense of violation and anger that it engenders. That said you're talking about ending another human being's life over a couple hundred dollars worth of STUFF. Stuff that your homeowner's/renter's insurance should cover. I should have known this was going to derail and I should have kept my mouth shut, The only reason I even brought the whole thing up is because someone said that the only time you're legally allowed to shoot someone is in self-defense if your life is threatened and I wanted to point out that in at least in Colorado (and probably a few other states, like Texas) there are situations where that's not entirely true. Anyways, end of derail. I'm going to go back to polishing my imaginary guns and rehearsing my "are you looking at me?" speech in the mirror. Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 26, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
First, I swear on my imaginary stack of guns and militia propaganda that I will never dispense anything even remotely considered legal advice in this thread ever again, because holy poo poo can of worms. The remainder of this post is to clear up any misconceptions I have about the Colorado Castle Doctrine and should not be viewed by anyone as advice. Good enough? Now that we have that settled, didn't you just prove what I said about there being situations in Colorado where you could use deadly force even if your own life isn't at stake? I may have had specific details wrong (don't listen to me anyone!), but the overall statement is still true. The part you bolded where it says "and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant" suggests that if a home invader looked like he was going to flick me on the forehead, I'd have this covered, meaning my life wasn't threatened. In this purely hypothetical situation, how would this most likely play out legally (in Colorado): My wife screams and I awake in the middle of the night to find an intruder standing at the foot of my bed. In the heat of the moment, I grab the gun on the nightstand and shoot. Now, I realize that me being a reasonable person is already called into question in this thread, so I'd like your input. Would a reasonable person believe that someone in their house in the middle of the night is there to commit another crime? I can't imagine he's there because he got lost on his way to soccer practice and it only makes sense that's he's going to *at least* steal some of my poo poo and at the worse murder me or rape my wife. The wording of 18.1.704.5(2) suggests that a reasonable person needs to think that's it's possible the intruder *might* harm them, not that the intruder has to be in the process of hurting them. Is it not reasonable to think that a person who broke into my home in the middle of the night might be intending to physically harm me? I realize that there are a ton of factors potentially in play that could change the outcome (for example, if he's making a dash for the front door and I pop him between the shoulder blades, I'm going to need to hire a more expensive lawyer), so for the sake of argument, this whole scenario lasts 2 seconds because I'm dumb and keep a loaded gun under my pillow and the intruder is at the the foot of the bed when I shoot him. I just want to state that I do realize that I can't take shots from my window while the perp is running down my driveway or anything like that and that comments like "grab him by the ankle, drag him back in and shoot him" that I made earlier were said in jest. I'm really not a gun wielding psycho, guys. honest. I also realize that I should have said something more along the lines of "What about Castle Doctrine?" in my first post instead of making it a definitive statement. You guys argue for a living, and I should have known better. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:You advised someone to shoot a home invader who is fleeing with your property. I updated my original post to reflect my retardation. Sorry about my arm chair lawyerin'.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 18:53
|
|
|
entris posted:All lawyerin' is arm chair. Then I'm sorry about my scrimmage line lawyerin'. (I'm not very good at this.)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
Anjow posted:I'm in the UK, but I'd be interested in answers concerning US law too, since this is purely hypothetical and I would never dream of doing this: can one be done for drink driving if you're above the normal prescribed limit, but driving only on private land? DISCLAIMER: I AM NOT A LAWYER AND HAVE NO REASON TO BE POSTING IN THIS THREAD This is purely anecdotal, but when I was a kid, we lived in a very rural area with lots of farm land and it was quite common to see 12-15 year olds driving pick ups and tractors on their family's private land (I can't comment on whether they were drunk or not, though...heh). I don't know if it was legal or if it was just ignored by law enforcement since no one was getting hurt and it was pretty necessary for the farmers to have their kids helping them out. Also, I worked at a private airport when I was 15 and they had no problem with me driving the jet fuel tanker around the tarmac without a license, even though you'd probably need a CDL or something to drive one on the street. Again, not sure if this is because it was private or just general apathy on everyone's part. So at least in my experience in rural areas, either not all road laws apply on private land or LEO are pretty chill about it. Edit: Although DUIs are pursued with prejudice here, so underaged kids might be viewed a lot differently than drunk drivers on private land. Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Sep 2, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Farm license. Ahh, that makes sense. What's the age minimum for those? Also, does that mean it was just apathy in my airport case?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
Winkle-Daddy posted:P.S. Don't ever have children. Watching this whole thing from the side line, I have said "Fuuuuuuuuuuck" to myself so many times over this. It's ok to have children, just don't get emotionally attached to them. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 18:49
|
|
|
qxz9p posted:...assaulted by a friend... Yes, heaven forbid you do anything that prevents this national treasure from being around children. At the very least, maybe you could contractually obligate him to take an anger management course while you're at it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2010 18:16
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:You're just sort of not a smart person. You should probably apologize for that statement if you don't want to be staring down the barrel of a frivolous law suit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:You could always try the old "end run" tactic. If a fair number of your co-workers feel the same as you then you can, as a group, talk to your boss' boss (hereinafter boss**2). Cornering boss**2 in the hall or a mass unannounced appearance at Boss**2's office is best because it makes more of an impression and it avoids the BS of having boss get the first words in. Tell boss**2 outright that you're all unhappy with boss because he mismanaged the team badly enough that his previous team left him and that he's now asking you all to put in extra effort to cover his butt. You all could even ask to report to some other supervisor until boss**2 sorts things out. In other words, torpedo your boss. You forgot Step 1: Pack a parachute.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:People should also understand that they have no way of knowing any poster's qualifications, so if you actually have a real problem that could affect things like your livelihood, your home, or your family, you should spend a couple hundred bucks and talk to an attorney. Even supposed lawyers in this thread have given advice that is flat out wrong in certain jurisdictions; then there's the assorted non-lawyer posters... To be fair, it was medical goons who got that guy to taste his pee, not law goons.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Soylent Pudding posted:Is there a link to this story somewhere? I always though it was just a joke. I'm sure it's in the goldmine somewhere. It was at least 10 years ago.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:They probably also charged for the labor to change them. Depending on the religion/nationality/etc, you could be hiring a small army to change it. I see what you did there. 
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
FordPRefectLL posted:What if two corporations were 80% flesh and blood and a majority of the organs came from gay people, could the corporations get married? Duh, of course they could! Corporations can do whatever the gently caress they want!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Dumb hypothetical: What are the potential consequences for a juror falling asleep? I'm sure this varies greatly county to county (and judge to judge). I work night shifts and stay nocturnal even on my days off, so when I was sitting in the jury selection room earlier today, I was chugging 5 hour energy drinks to stay awake and still felt like I was on the verge of nodding off a few times. I imagine if you're actually selected as a juror and fall asleep, this could result in a mistrial and would be a pretty big deal, but what if you just nodded off during the selection process? There was a story in the local paper recently where a juror who (knowingly) caused a mistrial had to pay the court costs and serve a jail sentence, and I had that thought running through my head every time I nodded. Follow up question: In your professional opinion, is it better to a.) risk falling asleep, b.) sneak amphetamines into the court, or c.) just not show up and claim your summons must have gotten lost in the mail when the bench warrant is flagged next time I'm pulled over for speeding?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
Thanks, guys. My gut told me "amphetamines," but I just wanted to make sure.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
docbeard posted:Would it be better to invest in space lawyers or space lasers? Space amphetamines.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Fallschirm Guy posted:Ok, but just because I'm not paying rent doesn't mean I'm not a tenat? They agreed to let me stay there, plus they can't kick me out if its racially motivated. Maybe it's "he had sex with our under aged niece after giving her drugs and alcohol" related. Makes you think...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Real estate/divorce law question. Location: Utah. I'll skip all the E/N stuff and get straight to the point. When my girlfriend divorced her ex-husband, she wanted to get out as quickly and cheaply as possible, so she didn't hire a lawyer (I know, I know... I wish I had known her then. I would have paid for the lawyer) and basically left all the joint possessions to the ex-husband. As far as she is concerned, he can have everything. She just wants to completely sever and be done with it all. The problem is that she never got her name off their house/mortgage. He's now refusing to refinance/quit claim/whatever needs to be done to completely sever and appears to be using that as a reason to still "be in her life." They are also upside down a good $40-50K. Obviously I don't want her name on anything I own in case he defaults/dies/whatever, which is another good reason to get this taken care of. My questions: 1. Are there any options for her to get her name off the mortgage without his consent or do we have to convince him to go along? 2. She is not currently paying any part of the mortgage, but contributed in the past. Is she still entitled to anything if he sells 20 years from now without getting her name off of it? If so, this is the only real leverage I see right now. 3. Assuming he won't budge, do we need a real estate lawyer, divorce lawyer, or some other type of lawyer? Edit: Comedy option: Can she take out massive amounts of debt and use that house as collateral? Epic Doctor Fetus fucked around with this message at 13:47 on Dec 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 13:45
|
|