|
Pre-game: assume US laws, california if you're pedantic. I live in a complex with shared sets of coin-operated laundry machines and dryers. Each time I wash, the clothes get musty with a smell I can best describe as damp mold burning. It's gotten so bad I've borrowed a nice neighbor's machines but it's a bullshit imposition on them. This is pretty hosed and I was wondering if there's any legal precedent concerning the condition of public laundry machines. I'm not so bold to think a landlord must provide a washer/drying in some kind of order without representation on a lease, but I thought since there's a private company charging for the service, that I may be protected under some consumer law concerning public health. I guess my question is, do laundry's have a responsibility to clean their machines?
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
joat mon posted:Not knowing your jurisdiction, judge, relationship between the two courts and the two actions (though I suspect it's all under the same case number, so same case), jurisdictional and local rules, I can without a shred of authority say "probably not." Thanks. The attorneys I've spoken with have given me quotes that range from $6,000 to $20,000. We don't have any martial assets to speak of. The house is worthless. Her attorney already waived alimony (spousal support in NY). The only matters of contention are custody and child support. I'm a man so I'm never going to win custody anyway and the family court ruling regarding child support was very much in my favor. I think I've done a pretty good job representing myself so far. If I had the money I'd get a lawyer, but I don't think it's worth it spending ~$10,000 to protect less than $10,000 in assets. edit: In regard to child support my wife was asking for $1,400 per month. I claimed that I spent as much time with the children as she did, if not more, and I shouldn't owe anything. The lawyers I spoke with both said "There's no way she's getting $1,400 and there's no way you're 'getting away' without paying anything. It's going to be 700-800 per month." I got $780 on my own and saved the $6,000 in lawyer's fees. oh snap fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Dec 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 14:07
|
|
|
Good luck going pro se in a contested divorce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 14:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Good luck going pro se in a contested divorce. Thanks, we're gonna end up signing an agreement anyway so this is all moot. The strategy on the part of the court is to make you go through 5,000 pre-trial conferences and mediations before you even see a judge. There's no way this is going to trial, especially since there are no assets and another court has already set the child support amount.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 15:49
|
|
|
Lief posted:Pre-game: assume US laws, california if you're pedantic. Does the landlord own the machines or are they leased/licensed from a different company? Also, check and see if your lease actually does say anything about laundry machines. Also, I assume you were promised laundry machines on-site when you leased, and that played a part in your decision to lease in that building?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
US, California law We're purchasing a foreclosure home through a standard sale from BofA. They've been pretty lovely, and we've now blown through 2 escrow close dates, all from situations out of our control. The last week they needed to sign a single piece of paper so we can fund and we've gone a full week with zero contact from them other than the seller's agent saying "they're working on it". We sold our old home are are currently paying rent to the new owners. We've also rented moving trucks and storage lockers that have gone wasted since we've had to cancel and will end up renting them again. Would there by any chance of me getting reimbursed for the rent and moving costs incurred from these setbacks if I tried to take them to small claims? I'm looking at about $1200 in rent and $300 in wasted moving costs so far with no ETA in sight, not to mention the 1st month mortgage we're paying on a new house we don't live in. If not, would sending them a letter from a lawyer at least help to move them along, or would they instead clam up until everything is resolved? FCKGW fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Dec 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Let it go. Because it's not feasible or because it's not worth the time and effort, or both? I really don't care about the time or effort. These people are really huge assholes and it annoys me that they got free labor. If there's nothing I can do about it that's fine, but if there is I'd like to go the goony route.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 04:04
|
|
|
Brady posted:Because it's not feasible or because it's not worth the time and effort, or both? I really don't care about the time or effort. These people are really huge assholes and it annoys me that they got free labor. If there's nothing I can do about it that's fine, but if there is I'd like to go the goony route. Because it's $40
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 04:31
|
|
|
oh snap posted:I'm a man so I'm never going to win custody anyway Sounds like you're making really well-informed decisions and accurately predicting what the outcome of these proceedings would have been, just like a real, trained attorney would. "Yeah, I just pled guilty to the crime, because I'm black so I would've been guaranteed to get convicted anyway. Everybody knows that." -- Noted pro-se litigant oh snap, 2013.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
I'm located in Cincinnati, OH. I live in an apartment where I've had problems with the water for the past 2 months. I live in a building with five apartments, one of which (on the main floor) wasn't rented out when I first moved in at the end of June. Come October, when a new tenant moved in, water flow to the third floor (where I am located) became problematic. It's worst when someone is using the washing machine in the basement. Water flow will halve in strength and eventually come to a complete stop (i.e., no water coming out of any tap in the apartment). After telling my landlord this in October, they immediately sent the city in, who determined the problem is due to plumbing in the building, and that the water is flowing into the building from the city at the appropriate strength. I have suspicions about what is causing the problem, namely a poorly repaired pipe in the basement that moderates flow up to my apartment. Water is included in my rent. I've talked to the property manager about this for two months, and just get emails with vague updates that lead to no significant change. This is getting ridiculous. Sometimes it stops in the middle of my shower. I've been patient, I've been nice. I pay my rent on time every single month. Finally today I sent an angry email (which is really counter to my usual approach), to my property manager and to the landlord saying that I'm getting fed up. That we have a legal agreement where they promise to provide basic services (including water) and that I promise to pay rent. And they're not living up to their end of the bargain. I told them that if it's not repaired by the end of the month I'm considering withholding my rent. Was this stupid? I just feel really powerless in this situation and I'm reaching the end of my patience. What are my options?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 18:18
|
|
|
I recently paid off my mortgage. I'm currently single and dating and never been married. You always hear about how after divorces, the wife ends up getting the house, and most of the poo poo (which im guessing may or may not be exaggerated). My question is, what are the required circumstances for a woman to take ownership of the home? Could a woman marry me, and if we divorce a year later, she gets my house? Do we have to be married for a certain amount of years, does she have to have a child with me, and have contributed her own earned income towards the mortgage? How does it work? *edit* I'm in California. MeatRocket8 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Dec 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
^^^^^^ You need to mention your state, different states have radically different divorce laws. testifeye posted:Was this stupid? I just feel really powerless in this situation and I'm reaching the end of my patience. What are my options? Here is the relevant statute concerning your situation: quote:(A) If a landlord fails to fulfill any obligation imposed upon him by section 5321.04 of the Revised Code, other than the obligation specified in division (A)(9) of that section, or any obligation imposed upon him by the rental agreement, if the conditions of the residential premises are such that the tenant reasonably believes that a landlord has failed to fulfill any such obligations, or if a governmental agency has found that the premises are not in compliance with building, housing, health, or safety codes that apply to any condition of the premises that could materially affect the health and safety of an occupant, the tenant may give notice in writing to the landlord, specifying the acts, omissions, or code violations that constitute noncompliance. The notice shall be sent to the person or place where rent is normally paid. Send a letter via certified mail so you have documented proof of the situation, and quote the relevant statute. Mention that you only want to discuss this issue via paper mail, and don't reply to phone calls or E-mails about this issue except to ask them to send letters. You should probably send your next rent check too, because the 30 day clock only starts after you can prove you sent him written notice. After that you can go to court or terminate the rental agreement. Konstantin fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Dec 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 18:35
|
|
|
So emails don't count as proof of written notice? Here's the issue - I don't really want to terminate my lease if possible. The apartment isn't great but it isn't horrible, I just want my water flowing. I'm in a situation that I won't know where I'll be living next year (and though I know for certain it won't be this apartment), I don't want to have to find a six-seven month lease right now. I don't want to threaten to move out, I just want them to fix it. I have no problem actually paying the rent, I just thought threatening to withhold it would maybe motivate them to DO something? Was the email a stupid move? testifeye fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Dec 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 18:43
|
|
|
ChocNitty posted:I recently paid off my mortgage. I'm currently single and dating and never been married. I always thought it was asset acquired during the marriage but IANAL.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
My boyfriend (Dave) works at a popular auto parts chain store in the state of Georgia and is currently under consideration for promotion to assistant manager at another store in the chain nearby. The manager (Albert) hired a girl he knows (Betty) to work at the store. The girl (Betty) would flirt with other employees and on at least one occasion, push her chest into the chests of male employees. One such male employee (Carl) is pursuing a sexual harassment complaint against the chain, alleging that because the girl (Betty) is a friend of the manager's (Albert) outside of work, that the flirting and other behavior made him uncomfortable and caused other problems. (I do not have access to the direct wording of the complaint.) The guy (Carl) often works with my boyfriend (Dave) when the two of them are the only ones in the store, often closing the store together. He (Carl) has taken to confiding in my boyfriend (Dave) about the legal suit and his feelings about what has happened. Yesterday, the employee (Carl) told my boyfriend (Dave) that he was carrying a concealed mini-tape recorder to work and recording conversations at work. Does my boyfriend (Dave) have any obligation now to inform someone within the company of the recordings? We don't care if they're legal evidence or not - that's for the company itself to wrangle with - but they are illicit, and especially as he's applied for a promotion, my boyfriend worries that this knowledge could put him in a bad situation. Edit: Added the state. Viriatha fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:21
|
|
|
Viriatha posted:My boyfriend (Dave) works at a popular auto parts chain store in the state of Georgia and is currently under consideration for promotion to assistant manager at another store in the chain nearby. What state are you in? In states like California, it's illegal to make electronic recordings of conversations with people without their knowledge. I'd worry that if he knew it was going on, and it turns out there's a criminal statute involved, he might get in trouble if somebody found out he knew it was going on and didn't tell anyone. That said, IANAL, YMMV E: I should qualify, there might be a duty arising out of his employment contract to report illegal activity of other employees to his employer Incredulous Red fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:33
|
|
|
State of Georgia; added to post. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Viriatha posted:My boyfriend (Dave) works at a popular auto parts chain store in the state of Georgia and is currently under consideration for promotion to assistant manager at another store in the chain nearby.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 03:01
|
|
|
So, uh, can my landlord force me to keep my blinds down? I'm currently renting a small room in a single-family home in a gated community. My room doesn't have an overhead light in it, so during the day, I prefer to have my blinds up to get some natural light in the room. Every time I put the blinds up, the landlord gets on my case, and starts talking about how the community is "very private" and he insists that I put my blinds down--basically turning my room into a bat cave. (Prior to moving in, I was promised a light source--and they gave me a small, single-bulb lamp that lights roughly one corner of my room). This is probably a stupid question, but are there any legal grounds for him to force me to keep my blinds down? There's definitely nothing in the lease about it. The only thing I can think of is some home owner's association clause or something. I am in Virginia, by the way. Apologies for the dumb question, but my landlord is being a bit of a douche about really insignificant poo poo. Three more months and I'm out of this poo poo poo poo-hole. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
B B posted:So, uh, can my landlord force me to keep my blinds down? I'm currently renting a small room in a single-family home in a gated community. My room doesn't have an overhead light in it, so during the day, I prefer to have my blinds up to get some natural light in the room. Every time I put the blinds up, the landlord gets on my case, and starts talking about how the community is "very private" and he insists that I put my blinds down--basically turning my room into a bat cave. (Prior to moving in, I was promised a light source--and they gave me a small, single-bulb lamp that lights roughly one corner of my room). He could always decide not to renew your lease, I guess. Other than that, I'm not sure there's much he can do other than bitch at you about the blinds when he sees you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 06:18
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:He could always decide not to renew your lease, I guess. Other than that, I'm not sure there's much he can do other than bitch at you about the blinds when he sees you. Well, I'm on a six-month lease that ends in March, and I definitely don't want to live here any more after the lease is up. So, I don't really care if he doesn't want to renew my lease, because I'm going to inform him in February of my intent to vacate at the end of the lease.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 06:23
|
|
|
B B posted:So, uh, can my landlord force me to keep my blinds down? I'm currently renting a small room in a single-family home in a gated community. My room doesn't have an overhead light in it, so during the day, I prefer to have my blinds up to get some natural light in the room. Every time I put the blinds up, the landlord gets on my case, and starts talking about how the community is "very private" and he insists that I put my blinds down--basically turning my room into a bat cave. (Prior to moving in, I was promised a light source--and they gave me a small, single-bulb lamp that lights roughly one corner of my room). That actually might change things legally, so it isn't a smart rear end comment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
nm posted:Are you sure they're not sick of seeing your rear end naked? For example: http://hamptonroads.com/2010/04/n-va-man-acquitted-indecent-exposure-his-home
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 07:33
|
|
|
nm posted:Are you sure they're not sick of seeing your rear end naked? Yeah. I am never naked in my room (and if I were, I'd be smart enough to put the blinds down). I have a bathroom connected to my room, and I always change in the bathroom. This whole "keep-the-blinds-down" thing started the second day I was there; there hadn't really even been enough time for him to see my junk, even if I were less than careful about that sort of thing. The dude was sitting in the living room when I got home from work my second day living there, and demanded that I keep blinds down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
B B posted:The dude was sitting in the living room when I got home from work my second day living there, and demanded that I keep blinds down. "Virginia Residential Landlord and Tenant Act, section 55-248.10:1 posted:§ 55-248.10:1. Landlord and tenant remedies for abuse of access. You're absolutely right - I missed that he's a boarder/lodger. VVVVVV joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 13:38
|
|
|
joat mon posted:This would bother me more than the blinds - and there is a specific provision against it in VA's landlord tenant act. Isn't it possible/likely he's a lodger? e: I ask because he's living in a room in a family home but everyone else seems to have skipped over this point
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Sounds like you're making really well-informed decisions and accurately predicting what the outcome of these proceedings would have been, just like a real, trained attorney would. I know you're trying to be snarky, but everything you said is true. Every "real, trained attorney" I've spoken with has said that winning custody is near impossible for a man. In NY, 90% of divorces are settled out of court and of those that go to court the mother is awarded custody 80% of the time. If the odds of this going to court and my winning custody are ~2% I don't think it's worth it. Especially since there's an offer on the table that's very much in my favor. To go with your "black person accused of a crime" stupid analogy, I am guilty of being the childen's father, no denying that. If there's an offer on the table for dramatically reduced child support and increased parental time I think I should take it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:27
|
|
|
Reminds me of one family law firm in my town that bought a bunch of ads during football games and marketed themselves as a "men's divorce attorney". Apparently all those other divorce attorneys are feminist bitches that work to actively screw over their male clients.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
oh snap posted:I know you're trying to be snarky, but everything you said is true. Every "real, trained attorney" I've spoken with has said that winning custody is near impossible for a man. In NY, 90% of divorces are settled out of court and of those that go to court the mother is awarded custody 80% of the time. If the odds of this going to court and my winning custody are ~2% I don't think it's worth it. Especially since there's an offer on the table that's very much in my favor. Well it is nearly impossible for a man, but this is because 90% of the time in a marriage the woman is the primary caregiver and for obvious reasons of stability and not letting men have their cake and eat it we give primary custody to the person who was the primary caregiver in the relationship. Also I'm sorry but from the perspective of your children it is much better for them to have a single home from which they take time out to spend time with you than for them to be splitting their time between two homes. At best it's just outright inconvenient for them, at worst (and there are a lot of at-worst failed marriages) you literally end up causing severe personality disorders as the kids try to compartmentalise the two lives they have with two people who absolutely hate each other. A presumption of primary custody with one parent saves a lot of grief in the long run. You appear (in general terms) to be getting a pretty good deal on your divorce. Congratulations. Remember that this isn't 'the end' of things by a long shot and that your future happiness is going to be largely dependent upon you maintaining as cordial relationship with your ex as possible. This still makes you the 1 in a million pro-se litigants for whom things work out. Doing anything beyond pleading mitigation for a guilty-plea parking ticket without a lawyer remains a terrible idea and should not be encouraged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Well it is nearly impossible for a man, but this is because 90% of the time in a marriage the woman is the primary caregiver and for obvious reasons of stability and not letting men have their cake and eat it we give primary custody to the person who was the primary caregiver in the relationship. Yeah I get everything you've said. For reasons that I don't want to get into here we would be sharing custody one way or another. My soon to be ex-wife and I get along better than ever. I understand that it's usually better for kids to have one designated home, but my wife can't watch the children 3-4 nights per week for scheduling reasons. Since we get along great I don't see it as an issue of shuttling kids back and forth between two warring parties, but rather two adult camps getting along and making the best of the situation. Ok that's all, I don't want to turn this into oh snap's personal divorce thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 15:47
|
|
|
B B posted:Yeah. I am never naked in my room (and if I were, I'd be smart enough to put the blinds down). I have a bathroom connected to my room, and I always change in the bathroom. I don't think your landlord can force you to keep your blinds down, especially not during the day. Can you explain the layout of the community? Is your window really close to someone else's window? Does your landlord live on site? Does your lease have a provision that you agree to keep your blinds down?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 16:57
|
|
|
Speaking less legally, have you told your landlord that the room is unacceptably dark without the blinds up? You said you were promised lighting and got a lovely lamp, so tell him that you'll leave the blinds down when he gets you a real light. He can't force you to keep the blinds down, but three months with a landlord that hates you is going to be rough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 17:02
|
|
|
entris posted:I don't think your landlord can force you to keep your blinds down, especially not during the day. Sure thing. I should have definitely been a bit clearer about my living situation in my original post. I am definitely in a "boarding" situation in that I am renting a bedroom in a family home, where my landlord, his wife, his daughter (occasionally), and another renter live. I live on the top floor of the house and share a bathroom with the other renter; the landlord and his wife live on the bottom floor. My lease grants me access to common areas (laundry, kitchen, living room, etc.). In terms of the layout, it's a pretty typical neighborhood. I live on a street of a gated subdivision; there are houses lining both sides of the street. I live on the street-facing side, so my window does face the street and other houses. My window isn't close to the opposing house's--it is at least 50 yards away from the house where I live. My lease doesn't specifically mention the blinds in my room. Ashcans posted:Speaking less legally, have you told your landlord that the room is unacceptably dark without the blinds up? You said you were promised lighting and got a lovely lamp, so tell him that you'll leave the blinds down when he gets you a real light. He can't force you to keep the blinds down, but three months with a landlord that hates you is going to be rough. I tried to ask why he wants me to keep the blinds down, but all I got was a line about how a lot of old people live in my neighborhood, and they are all "very private." I guess I should also mention: my landlord is from Korea, and his English is pretty bad (and, to be fair, my Korean is even worse--or, rather, nonexistent). When I initially viewed the place, their daughter (who speaks fluent English but is very rarely around to serve as an intermediary) showed me the place. As a result, communication with my landlord is pretty difficult. B B fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 17:20
|
|
|
oh snap posted:I know you're trying to be snarky, but everything you said is true. Every "real, trained attorney" I've spoken with has said that winning custody is near impossible for a man. In NY, 90% of divorces are settled out of court and of those that go to court the mother is awarded custody 80% of the time. If the odds of this going to court and my winning custody are ~2% I don't think it's worth it. Especially since there's an offer on the table that's very much in my favor. You keep saying you're not going to get custody, but then you also keep saying you're going to get shared custody. Joint custody = you get custody. Maybe not 50/50 or even close to it---which is odd since you mentioned much earlier in the thread you have been taking caring of them an equal amount---but you are still getting custody. You also mentioned upthread that you had just done a "paint-by-the-numbers" discussion with the attorneys you did initial consultations with. That is helpful for a general overview of the divorce process, but not for your specific case. I don't know and don't want to know all the nitty-gritty personal details in this matter, but do bear in mind that a family law attorney who did might have given you a different picture about getting more time with the kids. Though if all of them were saying almost never get custody, they're loving morons. Most fathers get partial physical and legal custody. Almost every father who actually fights for it, in fact, will get substantial custody awarded (by fight I mean doesn't assume horror stories about men getting shafted and women having all the rights in divorce court are Gospel truth). Plus the attorney would probably have had an easier time getting that bullshit "Oh there's no conflict of interest just because I worked as the other side's attorney on another matter involving intimate knowledge of our household finances" dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
ibntumart posted:You keep saying you're not going to get custody, but then you also keep saying you're going to get shared custody. Joint custody = you get custody. Maybe not 50/50 or even close to it---which is odd since you mentioned much earlier in the thread you have been taking caring of them an equal amount---but you are still getting custody. Yeah you're right. What I meant to say is: I don't think I'll ever be considered the primary custodian. The best I could hope for in court is joint custody and a reduction in child support based on the amount of time I spend with the children. That's already on the table outside of court, so why bother fighting it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:37
|
|
|
Edit: Never mind.
Sir Sidney Poitier fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 19:54
|
|
|
oh snap posted:Yeah you're right. What I meant to say is: I don't think I'll ever be considered the primary custodian. The best I could hope for in court is joint custody and a reduction in child support based on the amount of time I spend with the children. That's already on the table outside of court, so why bother fighting it? Because you're poorly positioned to know what a good or even normal set of concessions looks like, numbers-wise, since you haven't seen the outcomes of many of these cases like a divorce lawyer would. You can understand the procedure fine and still get hosed because you don't have a sense of what the judges and attorneys in your area consider reasonable or fair. This, plus accepting untrue stereotypes as true (men never getting custody; men seldom get exclusive custody, but that's because exclusive custody itself is rare absent a total lack of interest by the parent, since it's not seen as being in the child's best interest,) are the reasons why proceeding pro se is such a horrendous idea; lack of experience and familiarity with outcomes means you won't even realize you were screwed until long after its way too late.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 20:22
|
|
|
On the way home from class I drove past a stopped school bus that DID NOT have a stop sign/flashing lights on until after I was halfway past the bus (if that makes sense). I wouldn't have given it a second thought, however after I did pass, some guy who stopped leaned out of his truck and screamed "good job, rear end in a top hat!" I've been sort of worried since, though I maybe think he could have misunderstood what happened. What are the chances that I would get in serious trouble for this? Should I be concerned? Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
SlenderWhore posted:What are the chances that I would get in serious trouble for this? Rather small. Yes, because it's bad to run over kids. Think of a slowing or stopped bus as a yellow light and a bus with the lights on as a red light. Don't try to beat the light. (not saying you did - just be careful) And if you're in Oklahoma, watch out. If you get caught (by a cop) your driver's license will get revoked for a year. SlenderWhore posted:I've been sort of worried since Nice post/avatar combination.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 01:33 |
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Because you're poorly positioned to know what a good or even normal set of concessions looks like, numbers-wise, since you haven't seen the outcomes of many of these cases like a divorce lawyer would. You can understand the procedure fine and still get hosed because you don't have a sense of what the judges and attorneys in your area consider reasonable or fair. This, plus accepting untrue stereotypes as true (men never getting custody; men seldom get exclusive custody, but that's because exclusive custody itself is rare absent a total lack of interest by the parent, since it's not seen as being in the child's best interest,) are the reasons why proceeding pro se is such a horrendous idea; lack of experience and familiarity with outcomes means you won't even realize you were screwed until long after its way too late. I agree with this statement in its entirety. Going pro se in a contested divorce is dumb. It is slightly less dumb in a non-contested divorce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2011 23:23
|
|