Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›2 »

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

One other thought, if the softball game was through a league of some sort, or using a municipal field, they may have already taken out an insurance policy.

# ¿ Apr 23, 2012 05:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:17

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

some texas redneck posted:

First off, Texas, and a quick search suggests this is a Texas-only issue. That said..

My grandmother passed away early this month. Her only assets were quite literally the things in her room at an assisted care facility and a piece of furniture in storage (not worth a whole lot). Basically her clothes, her wheelchair, some photos, and the single piece of furniture. So I'm told anyway, I have no reason to think otherwise.

I googled her name today and found out that a "Muniment of Title" was filed with the county probate court by mom. She said it's to make a court record stating there's no assets, but google seems to suggest it's a way to transfer ownership of real estate without going through full probate. Asking her about it was met with... not a very positive response (I only asked what the filing meant). Mom has 2 siblings, if it matters.

So what's a "Muniment of Title"? Specifically, the public record states "<my mother's name>, Applicant, filed in the Probate Court No. # of <county name> County, on <date> an Application for the Probate of the Last Will and Testament of said <grandma's name>, Deceased, as a Muniment of Title (the said Will accompanying said application)."

I don't care to stir up any trouble in the family (there's plenty already without me saying a word), I'm just curious what's going on.

From my extremely brief research, my understanding is that it's basically a judicial declaration of title to property, and shortcuts the probate process. If grandma left everything to mom, this would tell the world that mom is entitled to the property.

If you're worried, the court will almost certainly provide the Will and the application by your mom (with fees to photocopy, probably.)

Not your lawyer, not legal advice, ramblings in my personal capacity only.

# ¿ Apr 26, 2012 08:20

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

M.C. McMic posted:

.

My question is: What recourse do we have if any? We're having trouble wrapping our minds around this. Can he just hold all of these homes hostage indefinitely? At least one other owner in the complex is looking to put their house on the market in the next few months. She won't be able to sell either.

What can we do? I mean, it's not a matter of if the homes need to be treated but when. In the meantime this offer on the home is going to fall through and end up costing us thousands of dollars. I'm not callous to this dude's situation, but his home IS going to need to be fumigated. He shouldn't be screwing others in the meantime.

I would expect that the HOA suggestion will solve the matter for you, but my plan B would be to find out if contagious insects would constitute a nuisance at common law. Just spitballing that one. Not sure if you could get a court to order fumigation, though, usually the remedy would be an injunction to stop doing something offensive (rather than ordering a positive act).

# ¿ May 2, 2012 06:08

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

colt45andashove posted:

Question regarding a business contract I have with a wholesale vendor:

For the term, it specifies "The term of this agreement shall be for one year from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated...Unless either party notifies the other within sixty (60) days of termination, the Agreement will be automatically renewed in successive one year terms as set forth herein."

Is this the same as saying 60 days advanced notice is required before the yearly renewal date? Or is it sometime in the 60 days before or after that date, if I wish to not extend for another year, I need to notify them?

It's badly worded, but pretty confident that the intention was that you need to give notice of termination before 60 days are left in the contract, otherwise it's going to renew automatically.

# ¿ May 5, 2012 08:47

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

peepoogenderparts posted:

.

My question is: Is all of this legal? I mean, the husband is, for lack of a better word, an uneducated moron. If he signs all of this stuff, and then gets the divorce papers and decides to get his own lawyer, can his lawyer come back and say, "He didn't know what he was signing because he didn't have a lawyer. And also because he's an idiot" or is it his tough luck for signing something even though he didn't understand what it was.

For what it's worth, in my jurisdiction (Alberta), the standard practice is to require each spouse to have a signed certificate of independent legal advice. Maybe it's our socialist Canadian courts, but if you don't have that certificate, the courts may very well take pity on you as an uneducated schlub.

It's a pretty good catch-22: if the matter is serious enough, the other party can't waive legal advice. And there's no need for independent advice unless the matter is serious enough.

# ¿ May 9, 2012 05:53

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Justinen posted:

Greetings lawyer goons, I come with a question regarding a claim with our automobile insurance company. We were struck by an uninsured motorist and the insurance company is refusing to pay out what we need to cover the medical bills from the accident. I have typed up a letter to the company and I was hoping one of you would be able to help me phrase it better, this is not something I have tried to do before. I will post a copy of the letter below this paragraph. I read the forum rules and if this is not the right place to ask this question I apologize.

How confident are you that the medical issues have completely resolved? If there's any chance of future costs you'd be crazy to settle right now for anything less than the policy limit.

(Not your lawyer, get a lawyer)

# ¿ Jun 7, 2012 03:51

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

ChubbyEmoBabe posted:

The 'I', Influence or Intoxication. Intoxication is, as defined, alcohol related. 'Influence' encompasses all mind/mood altering substances.

I'm pretty sure most/all state laws are defined in the DUI way even if they are titled in the DWI way.

I think in some jurisdictions the I in DWI is for "impaired". I have no evidence to support that however.

# ¿ Jun 11, 2012 04:02

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

carlcarlson posted:

My friend currently works for a super awesome company, and is possibly going to receive an offer of employment from a client of her current employer. Her prospective employer would continue to do business with her current employer in the same capacity that they are now, so her current employer would not be losing any business if she was to take the job.

This is in Texas, and below is the non-compete that she signed when she was hired several years ago.

Would her current employer really be able to go after her for the amount of fees her prospective employer has paid over the last 12 months (several hundred thousand dollars)?

Aside from her specific circumstances, this non-compete looks completely one-sided and absurd, and I'm curious how legit any of the rest of it is.

That non-compete doesn't read very well, but when it says she can't "serve" a client, it likely was intended to mean "provide services to a client as an employee of a competitor of our company" not "serve as an employee of the client".

If the client really wants to hire you, they have the leverage - they can take their business elsewhere.

# ¿ Jun 28, 2012 02:25

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

GamingHyena posted:

Why would you not have an attorney-client relationship? You start off representing that you're going to provide them a legal service (free legal advice). Then, you listen to information about their legal issues and dispense advice based on their specific situations in a setting that creates the expectation of confidentiality. The fact that you don't have enough information about them to perform a conflict check or a plan to provide future legal services is irrelevant.

If you don't think they're your clients or potential clients, why would you get in trouble for breaching their confidentiality or for a conflict of interest? If they're not your clients, then what are they?

Agreed - a pro bono organization in my province has started organizing a volunteer duty counsel program for small claims court, basically sitting in an office in the courthouse and providing 20 minutes of free advice to whoever walks in the door. The biggest hurdle in getting it off the ground was that it actually required our law society to amend their rules regarding conflicts of interest, as an on-the-fly conflict check is pretty impractical, but you'd definitely be negligent under the old rules if you didn't make the effort.

# ¿ Jul 26, 2012 04:25

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Arcturas posted:

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 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.

# ¿ Jul 27, 2012 06:31

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Alchenar posted:

In other words, 'self-help' is not the same thing as 'helping yourself'.

Yeah, in retrospect I wasn't very clear with what I wrote. I meant to refer to collecting payment against the debtor's will. Sending out the sheriff.

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.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2012 02:33

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

joat mon posted:

A consortium consultation.

My favourite remains the consortium claim on a TMJ injury. Such an awkward line of questioning.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2012 02:36

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

dos4gw posted:

I doubt his boss (assuming he's registered as the director of the company) would be personally liable for any outstanding debts .
.

Just wanted to note that some jurisdictions actually have this sort of remedy. Here in Alberta a director can be personally liable for up to 6 months of unpaid wages. The poster should at least confirm the law in their jurisdiction.

# ¿ Sep 16, 2012 02:57

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

goku chewbacca posted:

That's just it. There's no term employment contract. Pennsylvania is an At-Will Employment state. And the application in front of me, for a part-time/casual per diem 2nd job, threatens to lower the last bimonthly paycheck to minimum wage if you quit before a YEAR.

Well, at the end of the day, I guess the real question is how much is really at stake? $5 per hour between your wage and the minimum? That's $400, pre-tax, on an 80-hour pay period. At that point I'd treat it like a damage deposit when you rent - awesome if you get it, but assume you probably won't.

# ¿ Oct 6, 2012 06:44

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

SkunkDuster posted:

Hypothetically, if a dog attacked me on my property and I shot it, could I be charged with illegally discharging a firearm in city limits?

Not sure if it exists in American law, but in Canada we have a common law defence of necessity. Typical example is breaking into a cabin if you are lost in the woods in a blizzard.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2012 05:05

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

FrozenVent posted:

Don't forget to replace the firewood, for the next guy this happens to.

(Yeah I doubt that's actually in the law, but it's just common sense etiquette.)

Oh, it's the law. Canada, remember.

# ¿ Oct 27, 2012 07:29

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Well, if you're going to lie anyways, you might as well double down and take a conviction for fraud at the same time.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2012 04:06

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Gobbeldygook posted:

One of their citations is to a study of people filing malpractice suits which found that 1/3 of those filing suits said they would not have filed a suit if the doctor had just apologized to them. The University of Michigan cut their malpractice costs in half by apologizing more often.

Probably something that lawyers should take note of, as well. One of our very senior partners makes it a point to tell each and every junior about the time when he was first starting out, realized he had made a significant error on the file, and confessed to the client and advised him that he should make an insurance claim.

Client appreciates the apology and the lawyer accepting responsibility, works with lawyer to find a solution, was that lawyer's single biggest client for the next 40 years.

Granted, the more likely outcome is getting your balls sued off, but if that's likely either way I figure there's no sense being a weasel about it.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2012 07:45

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Guys, hold up. Everyone is missing the most important question of all.

Gobbeldygook, describe if this experience has left you an impotent shell of a man. Bam, loss of consortium.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2012 05:07

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Aside: Nothing more awkward then a woman with a TMJ injury and a loss of consortium claim tacked on.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2012 05:12

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Yeah, generally churches would need special zoning, because of how difficult it is to manage a property that draws zero traffic 6.75 days per week and a massive influx each Sunday morning.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2012 07:45

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

NancyPants posted:

Does an attorney have any obligation to a client to a certain standard or level of efficiency? For that matter, does he have any obligation of transparency in how he bills ahead of time or is it simply buyer beware? Just as an example, I would wonder if I'd been cheated if my attorney had a lot of technology at his disposal for which I'm ostensibly paying worked into his fee, and then I'm charged for the three reams of paper it took him to print research, the staples to keep it together, and the 10 minutes it took to itemize the supplies, then the paper my billing statement goes on, then the time to bill for the paper my statement went on...

Can't speak for every jurisdiction, but where I'm located there was until very recently a restriction on who could own shares in a professional corporation carrying on legal services. So there was no easy way to income-split the income earned as a partner in a law firm - your wife or kids couldn't own shares in your P.C.

But if there was a second, seperate partnership that provided everything under the sun except legal services (i.e. photocopying charges and every other admin/office expense), there would be no such restriction and each law firm partner could also set up a corporation in the non-legal partnership. Bang, income-split with your spouse.

So that might be the practical explanation for why it happens. But at the end of the day, that's one place where the lawyer should have a lot of discretion to reduce or write off certain disbursements and fees.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2012 04:39

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

reyalsnogard posted:

Lawyers do that, too; only they call them "technicalities."

Well, more likely it would be called "sharp practice", and is a good way to get a lovely reputation in the legal community. It's a dick move to make opposing counsel jump through hoops to fix some sort of non-compliance instead of just consenting to an amendment/extension/whatever (when the outcome is never in doubt either way).

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 03:32

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Liebfraumilch posted:

Thank you--both those who cleared up and those who answered my question. I meant the woman on the side is pregnant, yes, and wondered if the man's wife would be hit for child support payments just because they're a PA household, live on only her income, and he's unemployed. Seeing as the hypothetical payments can be based on what he hypothetically should be earning if he were employed (and he's not), it seems like it would come out of the household coffers regardless--or speed up a divorce.

Thanks again. Sorry for wordiness.

For a Canadian perspective, support is based on the parent's income alone. But we have a grid that fixes monthly payment against income, which can only be varied in the case of hardship to the parent paying support. When determining hardship, it's household income that is considered, not just the parent.

In the case of support payments based on imputed income, it's a debt of the parent alone, but practically speaking if that parent actually makes the payment it will come out of the household income. If the parent doesn't pay it, there's no liability to the spouse for the debt, although joint assets will be at risk.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2012 02:53

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Liebfraumilch posted:

redacted by request

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jan 15, 2013

# ¿ Jan 14, 2013 02:02

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Cute n Popular posted:

Hello Lawyering goons, I'm hoping you can answer a few questions on my hypothetical tech start-up for one of my business course since I'm too poor to speak to a lawyer for a project. Also, I'm Canadian.

Thanks.

If you're in Alberta, PM me and I can talk for a few minutes.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2013 03:29

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Jessi Bond posted:

I have a question about contract language in the context of professional graphic design services.

If I purchase a stock photo under a limited license - specifically, this one (on the bottom) - and use it to create artwork that I then sell to a client, who is ultimately responsible for ensuring that the use of the artwork remains within the restrictions of the license that I purchased? Can I include language in my own contract with my client that passes the responsibility on to them, or does some of it still lie with me?

For instance, the standard license above has a limit of 500,000 reproductions. If my client goes above and beyond that with my artwork without notifying me, who's in trouble?

I see this language in the terms & conditions:

(i) makes it sound like I can simply have my client agree to a contract which makes them the responsible party, but (iii) makes it sound like I myself am also still responsible for upholding it in some way, so I'm confused.

This is not legal advice, but a hypothetical agreement of this sort might be drafted to state (a) the terms of the licence, (b) that the client is responsible for complying with those terms and (c) the client indemnifies the contractor from any possible claim if the licence is breached.

Might even be worth having a seperate acknowledgment. As always, the best idea is to spend a few hundred dollars and speak to a lawyer who knows the specifics for your jurisdiction.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2013 08:58

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

mr.belowaverage posted:

edit for above:

Congratulations on being last on the train to call me an idiot. I hope lots of lawyers, who make their living on people needing assistance, think of all their clients as idiots. I don't understand the need to criticize for a bad decision, instead of being constructive. If you can't help me with investigation, that's fine. Why are you even posting a reply?

I'm not going to the media over 2 grand, I'm trying to take reasonable steps to file a reasonable claim.

I am not sassing exactly, but bewildered by the need of every poster to critique my mistake, instead of offering help.

I think most of the responses are written from the perspective that filing a claim will take a lot of time and effort, and the chances of recovery are not terrific. When you charge by the hour, those are extremely relevant concerns.

If you want to sue the guy as a side project, and don't mind sinking the time into it, there's no harm in pursuing it. Maybe you'll luck out and he'll actually be worth something. Also, if you do get judgment, try to find someone he is working for. If Ontario is like Alberta, you can garnishee that person and they are required (subject to a whole bunch of things) to pay you instead of him.

If nothing else, it's a learning experience.

Edit: it also appears that once you have a writ against the guy, you can do a name search at the land registry to see if he owns any real property. The next time he refinances his mortgage, or sells it, or dies, he'll have to pay up and get the writ removed. ( http://www.gov.on.ca/fr/information_bundle/land_registration/content/ONT06_024544.html )

None of which is legal advice.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 18, 2013

# ¿ Feb 18, 2013 03:30

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

If you really want to cover off your bases, it looks like Virginia has a registry for unclaimed property:

http://www.trs.virginia.gov/UCP/Report

You can likely send the funds there and wash your hands of it. No idea if there's a positive obligation to do so.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 09:32

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

windshipper posted:

We don't :-| Maybe my mom does, but, I've been around them with her since I was young, and never since then at least. On a lesser level, yes. When it has been obvious neglect for months, no.

Keep in mind that if you want to bring a civil claim, you'll need to be able to show the financial damages that you have suffered. I'm sure there's a way to estimate that, but it probably means finding someone with experience in that area. I wouldn't just guesstimate it.

# ¿ Mar 5, 2013 06:03

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

SkunkDuster posted:

This is just a "if I won the lottery" fantasy. Say you lived in an at-will state and won the lottery and you hated your boss and wanted to make his life hell. Could you get in legal trouble if you quit and bribed all of the other employees to quit at the same time?

Not sure how it works south of the border, but in Canadian law key employees have a fiduciary duty not to solicit clients or other employees. Which makes for an interesting tightrope when the former employee is claiming damages for the wrongful dismissal, while simultaneously asserting that he or she wasn't important at all.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2013 04:19

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

NancyPants posted:

I don't follow. Is an employee only able to claim damages for wrongful termination if he was a key employee?

No - but in the case of key employees there are the competing considerations I mentioned above.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2013 19:32

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Hyzenth1ay posted:

I won't offer Canadian advice for your specific problem, but your story is a good example of the importance of documenting each and every incident with HR. It tends to deter some of the subtle (and not so subtle) retribution that might otherwise come your way. Unfortunately, being a cautionary tale to others really isn't much help :saddowns:

# ¿ Apr 27, 2013 02:45

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

The part I don't understand is why he was even at an ex parte hearing.

# ¿ May 11, 2013 16:32

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

Alchenar posted:

Someone with obvious anger issues shows up to an ex parte hearing when someone attempts to get a restaining order against them. I'm not sure what's difficult about that scenario to understand. (unless you are just using 'I don't understand' in the wonderful way that lawyers do to draw attention to something).

Well, more the fact that he would know about the hearing taking place at all. The scenario you described is exactly why you don't have to give notice in the first place.

# ¿ May 11, 2013 17:04

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 21:17

Schitzo: Mar 20, 2006; I can't hear it when you talk about John Druce

the milk machine posted:

Be aware that this varies by jurisdiction and is not true in every state.

The other booby trap (in my jurisdiction, at least) is that someone who inherits in your will cannot be a witness when you sign the will, or it voids the gift. If I had a dollar for every time I saw a will leaving everything to the spouse, and witnessed by the spouse...

Another issue here in Alberta is that when you die, the application for probate requires an affidavit by one of the two witnesses. If you know that, you can have the witness do the affidavit at the time of signing. If you didn't know that, and die twenty years later after losing touch with your witnesses, it's a headache.

Schitzo fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Jul 24, 2013

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 02:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Legal Questions: do not communicate with the demon at all except through your genie

«‹›2 »