|
blarzgh posted:From: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/evictions.shtml Thanks blarzgh. This is a friend's building and the UD has been served but because it was posted/mailed it sounds like the tenant gets more than 5 days to file an answer. So she's waiting for the answer and expects the tenant to request a trial. This could push things out another month or more, by which time the sale should close, so we're wondering who needs to show up at court after the sale has closed, my friend or the new owner or maybe both?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 01:35 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:54 |
|
socketwrencher posted:Thanks blarzgh. This is a friend's building and the UD has been served but because it was posted/mailed it sounds like the tenant gets more than 5 days to file an answer. So she's waiting for the answer and expects the tenant to request a trial. This could push things out another month or more, by which time the sale should close, so we're wondering who needs to show up at court after the sale has closed, my friend or the new owner or maybe both? The actual answer is either procedural, and specific to California law, or generally related to the right of entry and possession, which I'm having trouble understanding how the former owner of the property would have standing to evict someone from property they don't own anymore. There's also the issue that the soon to be former owner is one who brought suit, but the soon to be new owner is not a party to the suit. Understand that a person generally has to be a party to a lawsuit to obtain relief, which means they had to have appeared formally, and filed their own claim. You can't just show up, and say "well I'm a part of this now." I think you've just got one too many things going on to go through this process without paying a local attorney a few hundred bucks to guide you. I'm going to also suggest, that California probably has more particular laws relating to tenants during a change in ownership. Texas does not have such a thing other than general federal statutes concerning tenants in foreclosure, but you can never trust the goddamn hippies to make anything simple.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 03:25 |
|
woozle wuzzle posted:??? understood that this is a thread full of 'attorneys' but why mock that question? seems legitimate to me that people without access to lawyers should be able to make fundamental decisions about their own lives. it was an honest question, and i'm a bit surprised the answer is no.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 09:14 |
|
close to toast posted:understood that this is a thread full of 'attorneys' but why mock that question? seems legitimate to me that people without access to lawyers should be able to make fundamental decisions about their own lives. it was an honest question, and i'm a bit surprised the answer is no. It's a good idea to go to a lawyer, even if you get an answer in this thread, because your questions are based only on the potential legal issues you see when you ask the question. If a lawyer gets a look at the actual documents involved in a case, they may see several more legal issues that you didn't spot.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 11:28 |
|
close to toast posted:understood that this is a thread full of 'attorneys' but why mock that question? seems legitimate to me that people without access to lawyers should be able to make fundamental decisions about their own lives. it was an honest question, and i'm a bit surprised the answer is no. I don't disagree with you, philosophically: it should be possible to perform such fundamental life decisions without a lawyer. But lawyers are needed for half of everything that should be simple. Buying a house, getting disability benefits, making out a will, etc. You might argue that lawyers created the system to be unnecessary complicated to justify their fees. There's definitely something to that. But the primary function of the lawyer is to think of things you haven't thought of, not because they're any smarter than you, but because they make it their business to know the corner cases. For example I know jack poo poo about end of life decisions, but a wills and trusts attorney will know all about it. They'll think of the 20 situations that don't show up on first look. What if you're physically/mentally fine, but you're in severe pain and limited communication? I'm sure there's lots of gray areas about weird injuries that only half incapacitate you. What if your designated pull-the-plug person dies before you, or is alive but backpacking in Algeria? What if your second and third choices also die before you? What if your kid or aunt religiously disagrees with your choice, and fights it in court? What if what if... I'm Mr. Smartypants, so why do I need to pay some pigfaced guy $500 to look at my house closing documents to tell my family if we can buy a house? Because he's seen ten thousand deeds before, and will think of 20 things I didn't think about. Technically, I could do it myself. But if I want it done right, I should pay the pigman.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 14:44 |
|
The All New Legal Questions Mega-O-Wamma: Pay the Pigman
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 14:54 |
|
I'm in California, and am wondering what options I have concerning my final paycheck. My last day of work was Wed July 16. I went into the office Thurs July 17 and was laid off. Just today (July 25) I received my final paycheck by the usual direct deposit method. It only covered my final 3 days of work in the pay period, and did not include accrued vacation. My questions is, what can I do now? Is it a "big deal" if I call a lawyer about this? (As in, what can they do? Will they write a letter to my former employer? Is this vindictive/unnecessary?)
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:03 |
|
You might want to start by calling HR and seeing how they usually handle his - it could be coming on a different check thats not part of the payroll schedule, or it could be in the mail.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:12 |
Did you call HR? At least where I'm at, those vacation days pay out later on, in a separate check, sometimes taking an extra pay cycle or so. And also often not by direct deposit, it may come on a physical check.
|
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:12 |
|
I worked for a small firm, as in the two partners, one other employee, and myself, so there is no HR. (If anything I was HR!)
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:14 |
Well, then, did you try just asking them what's up? e: vvv and so the beater has become the beaten
|
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:20 |
|
Talk to them if possible, if you get the lawyers invoked at such an early stage everything might get really complicated. If they tell you to gently caress off, then talk to an employment lawyer.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:20 |
|
I sent an email to them last Friday July 18 that was two sentences long: just letting them know that unused vacation time needed to be included so here's how many days I've used. No response. I'm hesitant to contact them again because I know them, and nothing will happen. How will this get complicated? Can you please explain to me what a lawyer would do in this situation? It's not the unpaid vacation I'm concerned about, it's the fact it took them over a week to issue the final paycheck, and in California employers need to pay for the extra time if they do not issue the final paycheck immediately. ETA: Apparently I can file a Wage Claim with the Dept of Labor. Would this be a better (less severe) course of action than a lawyer? http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm pandariot fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jul 25, 2014 |
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:24 |
Have you tried just going to talk to them in person? Email is super easy to ignore. That's usually a better way to elicit an actual response. Unless you were, say, escorted from the premises, then showing up demanding money might be detrimental. The point is, the lawyer should be your last resort.
|
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:26 |
|
pandariot posted:ETA: Apparently I can file a Wage Claim with the Dept of Labor. Would this be a better (less severe) course of action than a lawyer? http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm This is EXACTLY what you should do. Although I'd call them and tell them you need your PTO right now or you'll be forced to file a claim. Any CA employer should know what that means. If they don't wire the cash right away (it was due upon termination, or 72 hours after you notified them you quit) tell them you'll file with the labor board. Have you check stubs ready that show your accrued PTO and salary. Also have bank records to show that they mishandled your final paycheck (it was also due the day of termination). You'll be fine. I am not a lawyer, but I have worked for many CA companies and have many friends in CA who have been through this exact thing. CA is so worker-friendly that there are entire companies dedicated as "Professional Employer Organizations", where they hire your employees into a shell company and you pay the PEO so that the liability is on them.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:37 |
|
close to toast posted:understood that this is a thread full of 'attorneys' but why mock that question? seems legitimate to me that people without access to lawyers should be able to make fundamental decisions about their own lives. it was an honest question, and i'm a bit surprised the answer is no. If you really don't have the funds to access an attorney (we're talking income less than around 150% of federal poverty and minimal assets), your local legal services agency may be able to help you with wills and advanced directives.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:38 |
|
What Motronic said. California law provides a waiting time penalty on your employer equal to your daily rate of pay for each day the check is late. Unused accrued vacation time needed to be on that final check, too, by the way. They're considered wages just like worked hours.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 17:46 |
|
Motronic posted:This is EXACTLY what you should do. Although I'd call them and tell them you need your PTO right now or you'll be forced to file a claim. Any CA employer should know what that means. I called them, and they said something about pro-rating vacation days over the calendar year or some such. I told them that wasn't my understanding. He was being really difficult, so I just said, listen, I want to settle this, I don't want to file a wage claim with the Dept of Labor - and then he got nasty. He said he'd look into it and let me know. I wish I had just filed the loving claim. I worked for them for 6 years and I can't believe they are even doing this.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 18:01 |
|
pandariot posted:He said he'd look into it and let me know. I wish I had just filed the loving claim. I worked for them for 6 years and I can't believe they are even doing this. If I were you I'd call at 3 or 4 PM and ask where the check is (be ready with a number for what you are owed). If they can't hand it to you or wire it start your wage claim. You have the weekend to wade through the paperwork on the web site. And call the Dept of Labor if you have any questions. They are on your side.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 18:04 |
|
pandariot posted:I'm in California, and am wondering what options I have concerning my final paycheck. Did your paycheck have gold fringes?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 18:43 |
|
pandariot posted:I called them, and they said something about pro-rating vacation days over the calendar year or some such. I told them that wasn't my understanding. He was being really difficult, so I just said, listen, I want to settle this, I don't want to file a wage claim with the Dept of Labor - and then he got nasty. I'm not sure how trying to resolve it amicably is going to (or did) prejudice you against a DoL wage claim. If you're hoping someone will just "be nice to you" because "its the right thing to do," then your expectations of this situation include emotional factors that are not conducive to resolution. Tl;Dr - chill out, file the claim if you're entitled to it.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 20:47 |
|
pandariot posted:I called them, and they said something about pro-rating vacation days over the calendar year or some such. I told them that wasn't my understanding. He was being really difficult, so I just said, listen, I want to settle this, I don't want to file a wage claim with the Dept of Labor - and then he got nasty. Don't freak out about not filing the claim before talking to them. It doesn't matter. You can still file it and honestly, why wouldn't you? Even if they do send you the vacation pay, it's not as if you can't still ding them for the waiting time penalty.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 20:49 |
I assume the circumstances of your departure were less than amicable, since it sounds like you were totally blind-sided, but if that's not the case, there is always one other factor to consider here: do you intend to use them as a reference? Because if you do, pissing them off may not be in your best interest, especially when the company consists of three people, now. But it sounds like they're probably dicks anyhow so yeah, file it. You can keep it on your resume, just don't list as a reference if you don't want to.
|
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 21:02 |
|
-
Starpluck fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jul 26, 2014 |
# ? Jul 25, 2014 21:25 |
|
I just got a new dashcam in the mail, and I was wondering, can I be compelled to provide footage if it would incriminate me as at fault? Would not going out of my way to prevent the video from being overwritten constitute "destroying evidence"? I drive pretty defensively but I'd like to know my rights with these things anyway.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 22:48 |
|
ibntumart posted:Don't freak out about not filing the claim before talking to them. It doesn't matter. You can still file it and honestly, why wouldn't you? Even if they do send you the vacation pay, it's not as if you can't still ding them for the waiting time penalty. Update of sorts: they emailed me that I am not entited to vacation pay according to the employee manual, and he's pro-rating his calculations. According to him, since I've used 7 out of 10 possible days, he thinks that they actually overpaid me. I'm wondering if I shouldn't still file the claim for how long it took to isse the final check. I'm very surprised how nasty they got so quickly. I do not need them for a reference actually. I'm switching careers and have already been hired for a part time position in my new career path starting next week.
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 23:13 |
|
In that case, what have you got to lose by filing the claim?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 23:17 |
If a company like that were going under (two owner/operators, one employee remaining, one recently fired) who would get to collect first, unpaid employees, or secured creditors?
|
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 23:19 |
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:In that case, what have you got to lose by filing the claim? What do I have to lose? That's my question. It seems like a big deal that could potentially cost me time or money. Is it more common than I think? Can they sue me for "overpaid vacation" time?
|
# ? Jul 25, 2014 23:24 |
|
pandariot posted:What do I have to lose? That's my question. It seems like a big deal that could potentially cost me time or money. Is it more common than I think? Filing a wage claim with the DLSE is free. It's not particularly complicated to fill out, though you might need to give them additional documentation to back up your vacation pay claim. But the actual form itself shouldn't take too much time. And yes, wage claims are common. I have a feeling from what you've said about your employer this won't be the first one their payroll department has seen. pandariot posted:Can they sue me for "overpaid vacation" time? If you took vacation days you hadn't actually accrued yet (presumably because your employer thought you'd be around the rest of the year to have accrued it), then yes, your employer can go after you for the overpayment. What they can't do is deduct it from your paycheck. The question is whether the amount your employer claims you owe is something they're likely to sue over, which no one in this forum can tell you. Also, keep in mind that even if you don't file a wage claim with DLSE, that doesn't mean your employer will decide to be nice and not try to dick you over with a lawsuit. Also, of course, it could be the employee manual doesn't say what your employer claims, or that you don't fall under whatever rule they are talking about.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 00:05 |
|
pandariot posted:Update of sorts: they emailed me that I am not entited to vacation pay according to the employee manual You're in California, you're entitled to vacation pay. California considers accrued vacation to be wages, the employer can't create a policy in the manual that would keep them from you. Now, if you got access to 10 vacation days before accruing the time off, it's possible he's right that he overpaid that. However, if it's a setup where you lose any saved vacation at the end of the year and get access to the next year's worth immediately at the beginning of the next year, that's also illegal in California; you can't take away saved vacation at the end of the year like that.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 00:53 |
|
When I was in the US Army, you got so many days of leave per year and there was a use/lose if you were over at a certain date. If you are in the military, stationed on a base in CA, and lets just say your home of residence is also CA, would state law have any bearing?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 01:00 |
|
blarzgh posted:The actual answer is either procedural, and specific to California law, or generally related to the right of entry and possession, which I'm having trouble understanding how the former owner of the property would have standing to evict someone from property they don't own anymore. This is really helpful, thanks. My friend hired an eviction service and they haven't been responsive on this issue. Guess you get what you pay for. After reading this, it seems probable that the current UD will be invalid once the building changes hands and it'll be the new owner's responsibility, which I'm sure is going to complicate matters. I appreciate the feedback.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 02:15 |
|
I have a situation with insurance fraud / filing a false insurance claim. I don't know if there is a difference between the two, but here's the story: For my wedding in March this year, I rented a home for the wedding party to get ready prior to the wedding. On that day, one of my wife's bridesmaids was backing out of the driveway and scraped the poo poo out of the side of her car against a stone pillar. She brushed it off and said it was no big deal since she's supposed to get the rest of her car's other dents and scratches fixed. I, along with 3 of my groomsmen and one other bridesmaid, witnessed the incident - my wife was not present. Today, my wife got a call from the dumb bridesmaid and was asked to not to pick up the phone call from the latter's auto insurance company as they're calling my wife to investigate and verify the bridesmaid's story. Apparently, the bridesmaid told the insurance company the incident happened in January and that it was a hit and run. The bridesmaid asked my wife to tell the insurance company that she did not see anything. I thought the bridesmaid is doing this to get money to cover fixing the scratches from scraping the stone pillar, but she mentioned a dent in the back of her car, which is whole other incident. Now, I don't know the full story, but I don't care - I just don't my wife or me to be involved in this. My wife is going to tell the bridesmaid to get bent, leave her out of this shady business, and that we're done with her. My question is, do we need to do anything further beyond this? We don't want to report her or anything and just want to be separated from it all completely, but the insurance agent keeps calling my wife. Are we tied to this in any way where we can get in any kind of legal or non-legal trouble if we ignore the insurance agent and never talk to the bridesmaid again?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 04:29 |
|
Hand of the King posted:I have a situation with insurance fraud / filing a false insurance claim. I don't know if there is a difference between the two, but here's the story: DOUBLE LATE NIGHT EDIT: the following is assuming here in the United States. Two facts: 1) A non-party (to a lawsuit) cannot be compelled to testify or produce evidence in a civil matter, except by subpoena. 2) Lying to the insurance company would constitute conspiracy or aiding and abetting the commission of civil fraud, thereby exposing you to a lawsuit from the insurance company and possibly criminal charges. Whether you choose to speak to the insurance company or not is your decision. In no event should you lie for the bridesmaid, so good on you. Also understand, that as a practical matter if your wife does not speak to the insurance company they will likely deny bridesmaid's claim. The insurance agent will probably keep calling for few more weeks. EDIT: as a final thought, on the 0.00001% that police do get involved, I feel better knowing that you know better than to lie to them. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Jul 26, 2014 |
# ? Jul 26, 2014 06:25 |
|
SkunkDuster posted:When I was in the US Army, you got so many days of leave per year and there was a use/lose if you were over at a certain date. If you are in the military, stationed on a base in CA, and lets just say your home of residence is also CA, would state law have any bearing? Federal law always overrides state law unless the feds specifically write an exception allowing state law to govern. I doubt it.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 11:47 |
|
blarzgh posted:DOUBLE LATE NIGHT EDIT: the following is assuming here in the United States. Thanks for this post. Do you or anyone recommend that she keeps ignoring the call from the insurance agent or answer and tell them she doesn't know what the bridesmaid is talking about (i.e., not corroborating the false story) and doesn't want to be involved?
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 16:48 |
|
Hand of the King posted:Thanks for this post. Do you or anyone recommend that she keeps ignoring the call from the insurance agent or answer and tell them she doesn't know what the bridesmaid is talking about (i.e., not corroborating the false story) and doesn't want to be involved? No one here should have a recommendation for you; I'm having trouble seeing how your life will be different either way. Of course, if she does say she didn't see anything, they'll ask her if she knows anyone that did.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:12 |
|
blarzgh posted:I'm not sure how trying to resolve it amicably is going to (or did) prejudice you against a DoL wage claim. Thank you all for your thoughts and opinions. And you're right, I am being emotional about this, but I'm mostly just scared. I'm scared to file the claim, I'm scared it will make them angry, I'm scared of how they will retaliate.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:14 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 09:54 |
|
Zero VGS posted:I just got a new dashcam in the mail, and I was wondering, can I be compelled to provide footage if it would incriminate me as at fault? Would not going out of my way to prevent the video from being overwritten constitute "destroying evidence"? I drive pretty defensively but I'd like to know my rights with these things anyway. The most I've ever thought about criminal law was in law school, but I do not believe the Fifth Amendment would extend to protect evidence like dash cam footage, as obtaining the footage doesn't require you to be a witness against yourself. They can take a sample of your blood or obtain video from your phone, so why not your dash cam footage? There's no real Fourth Amendment issue either, as they'd have no problem getting a warrant for the footage. In a civil liability situation, the other party could definitely obtain the footage in discovery if they knew to request it. Destroying the footage could expose you to obstruction of justice (criminal) or spoliation (civil), both of which carry less than great consequences. I'm not familiar with wiretapping laws at all, but it also seems like recording audio from the cabin without your passengers' consent could be an issue in some jurisdictions. None of this is legal advice, it's just my feeling after googling for a bit because I've got a cam on the way as well. Some of the criminal practitioners in this thread would know better.
|
# ? Jul 26, 2014 17:24 |