|
There is no way it covers civil litigation defense. Laughable on its face
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Here is what I can tell you about pre-paid legal services insurance from my perspective: About once a year, we get a phone call from one of these companies. They tell us, "we have a potential client here, who needs representation under our policy. Their issue is, XYZ. Under their policy, we pay $125-$175/hour for up to 5/10 hours for this type of case. Is your firm interested in handling it?" We tell them, "Blarzgh's rate is $325/hour, and the kind of matter you've described could take 1 hour, or 100 hours and it is impossible to tell, even if we got a much better description of the facts. The hourly rate is not negotiable, and they will have to pay a retainer." They say, "OK, thanks, bye!" and presumably sally off to find some shmuck of an attorney so desperate for work that they'll agree to mow a lawn for half the going rate, without knowing how big the lawn is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 20:31
|
|
|
Yeah, $200/yr is about 1 hour of attorney time. If you are likely to consume more than one hour of attorney time in the next year, it may be worth it. However, the quality of attorney you get for your money varies drastically and you have much less control over that than you want. If what you're doing doesn't need a good attorney (you want a few demand letters sent and who cares if you get paid but if you get paid it's more than $200) then sure, fine. But you're not getting coverage for a significant legal matter because I'm sure there's an exception in the policy somewhere that if the policy has to shell out decent bucks for a lawyer, then you're not covered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Given the significant mismatch between affordable legal services and people that actually need legal assistance I don't think an insurance program is gonna work until some really significant government subsidies get put into place but that's just my 2 cents
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Also you can negotiate a flat rate lower than that for your prospective real estate issues and oh my god do not use a prepaid service to set up a trust, the trust will pay that expense and you will save orders of magnitude getting that set up right by someone with expertise than litigating it to death against your relatives in the future
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
looks like this guy will handle your estate matters for only $9.95 https://sites.google.com/site/seaboardestateplan/home/plain-trust-based-estate-plan seems legit
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 23:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think all offices should allow men to attempt to pump breast milk three times per day so as to avoid gender discrimination. I will do so in protest today and report back. Just wondering how this went, it’s been a few days and I don’t think we got an update
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 05:12
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Just wondering how this went, it’s been a few days and I don’t think we got an update Nothing came out!?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
Toughened your nipples, didn’t it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Toughened your nipples, didn’t it? Nipples these days, they've all gone soft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
All I can safely conclude, at this point, is that my nipples have some very problematic gender biases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:All I can safely conclude, at this point, is that my nipples have some very problematic gender biases. Have you considered enrolling in pre-paid wet-nursing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
So, my Mom is in the hospital. I won't describe what happened, but it looks like she'll be okay. But the admission Lady asked if she had a living will or power of attorney. My mother and I have discussed at length about power of attorney. She wants it, I want it. She basically wants to grant me full power of attorney in any and all cases if she is incapacitated or unable to give informed consent. How do I do this? Does it require a lawyer or can she just write a letter saying, "I grant my son *John Smith* full power of attorney over any and all medical issues in the event I am incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving informed consent"? And we both sign it, maybe with a witness. I just worry, she's getting old, and I don't want to pay $Texas for something I can legally do on my own. *EDIT: We live in Illinois if that ,matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 10:51
|
|
|
You need an attorney to draft the PoA to ensure it is effective. For example, general powers of attorney do not always survive a type of incapacitation as you’re describing. In FL it would have to be drafted as a Durable PoA to include whatever powers you’re granted. Each state has their own laws regarding these, and if you want to ensure it’s efficacy then get an experienced attorney to draft it for you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
Also she needs to hire the attorney and direct the attorney etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 13:24
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:TREE LAW TREE LAW UPDATE I realized I didn't even need to do the "final email" because I realized that I'd just been emailing back and forth with the HOA PM without filing a formal complaint and filing a formal complaint seems like it would be a prereq for a lawsuit and filing a formal complaint spurred the HOA board into actually responding, and they made an appointment to come look at the situation, which happened this afternoon. Prior to this though, the PM guy cited this part of the CC&Rs:  This is an addition to the CCRs that was added because this subdivision in total took like 40 years to develop and had a half dozen or more different developers and towards the end they decided they needed some more rules. Couple things here IMO: 1. This was written by/for a developer that was pre 2006 and not the one that built my house in 2017. But the sections 7&9 definitely are my house/my part of the subdivision. 2. No houses in the entire 600 house subdivision are considered "view houses" by the HOA and that doesn't stop them from mentioning protecting views a half dozen times in their various docs. 3. 10.04.5 says the developer can gently caress up my view. The developer is long gone, they didn't gently caress up my view, an HOA homeowner did. I think the only reason these extra provisions exist is because the developer knew they were gonna gently caress the view of the uphill side of the street when they later built the downhill side of the street. My house was built in 17 but the people uphill from me was built in 05 or 06 and my house absolutely destroyed their view but that was obviously always going to happen. Also could be planning for poo poo like there's a huge rear end water tank up here what if they had to move it 100' uphill for some reason and screwed someones view because of it. Like 80% of the poo poo in these extra provisions is "I can run a caterpillar over your backyard whenever I want because its the only way to access the foundations I'm building uphill from you." But the backyard in this case was just dirt or desert floor so who cares theyre just protecting themselves legally. 4. They say rights are not created by this Declaration but that isn't the same as saying they don't exist, and the rest of the HOA docs say they DO exist because they talk about them constantly. 5. Other parts of these "special provisions" that are only applicable to 7&9 make it clear that they're not all in perpetuity, because they specially mention the ones that are in perpetuity (things about not loving up drainage channels if they happen to come through your property). There are several sections specifically called out as existing forever and the stuff about we can gently caress up your views if we want to is not one of them. So with regard to the visit by three members of the HOA board: 1. They acknowledged that this sucked and my view was gonna be hosed. 2. They stated that the HOA wasnt obligated to prevent it because of the CCR thing above but then acknowledged that none of the houses anywhere in the HOA were legally "view houses" so no one anywhere has a "protected view" which in that case why do the CCRs/R&Rs, and the "guidelines to external changes" mention protecting views literally a half dozen times. 2a. They wanted to check the approved landscaping plan to see if those trees in those positions had been approved by the Architectural Committee. If they're not able to or obligated to prevent it why does that even matter? Like if they ARE on there (HOA hosed up and approved it) then tough poo poo for me, but if they're NOT on there (homeowner lied to the HOA) then maybe they'll do something about it? It either violates the terms of the HOA or it doesn't and if it does then it shouldn't matter whether it was the HOA or the homeowner that hosed up. IV. They said they spoke with the HOAs lawyer and he/she said that the first sentence in the "there's no view easements" 10.04.5 is all that really matters and the fact that the entire rest of the paragraph only talks about the developer loving up peoples views and the fact that the all the HOA documents talk about protective views doesn't matter. When asked why the CCRs then talk about view protecting nonstop when they aren't protected they didn't have any answer. 5. Here's the start of this extra part of the CC&Rs. The three statutes they call out as existing in perpetuity are about drainage, retaining walls, and something about easement encroachment that to me reads like total gibberish but tbf I'm fairly drunk so I'll post it below also. F. I think I'm in the right both legally and morally. Like if views aren't protected thats fine then you need to say that in the HOA docs. What we've got are HOA docs that say views are protected and the HOA telling me and acting as if my views aren't protected. VII. I know this is not legal advice but am just interested in those of the legal persuasion weighing in and letting me know if they think I'm at least 50%+ in the right here because I really think I am and because of that would like to gently caress them with the long (bird) dick of the (tree) law.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 05:52
|
|
|
That’s an insane amount of words for me to read for free
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 06:08
|
|
|
Buddy this is where you go to a local attorney and dump all of that on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 07:31
|
|
|
Yup. Lawyer up
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 10:22
|
|
|
I would charge a $2500 retainer for that case. Probably only spend $1000 of it, but could be more. Edit: that's not including filing a lawsuit. If it came to that, we're talking as much as 10x that
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:That’s an insane amount of words for me to read for free I know im sorry you dont have to
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
This is the thing that makes me thing this is a slam dunk and the HOA people are all lying morons:quote:Be aware that per the CC & R’s (sections 3.10 and 4.04), the A/C has a responsibility to Their own stated interpretation of their own CC&Rs says that either they or the homeowner hosed. I don't see any other way to interpret that. How could anyone with a functioning brain consider allowing someone to plant 8 40' tall trees to be "protecting views." I guess I wait a week or two for them to tell me to gently caress off and then go hire a lawyer and hope they don't push it to a trial. Thanks everyone/anyone that read my 6 pages of jabbering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
So, you're going to lose. You need to take this to a lawyer and on the internet we can't help you, but you're probably going to lose. That paragraph you just quoted said they have to "consider" view protection. They can "consider" it and then say "gently caress it" after "consider"ing it. Also blarzgh, $25k for a lawsuit is cheap. You need to raise your rates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 19:28
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:This is the thing that makes me thing this is a slam dunk and the HOA people are all lying morons: Yeah, you'll really have to take this to a local lawyer. I read this on the shitter for free because I'm not a lawyer and can't get paid for it anyway, but my first thought was that this is more about the (albeit ridiculous and contradictory) contract with the HOA than the trees. But it does seem to include elements of tree law, and whatever bizarro laws about HOAs that may or may not exist where you live. Basically, the question of which clauses hold when part of a contract is unenforceable or contradicts another part is a whole branch of law. All of it is dependent on the specific contract, the purpose of the contract, and where the contract is applied. I'm not going to go back and read, but consider 1. What harm do you think is being done to you (my view is obstructed, I want to put up my own trees, etc) 2. Why you think it should be/should not be allowed, and 3. What outcome do you want. Any competent lawyer you hire can read the contract and see what points contradict others, so I think if you boil it down to those 3 points and take that to a lawyer, they can really take it from there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:So, you're going to lose. You need to take this to a lawyer and on the internet we can't help you, but you're probably going to lose. That paragraph you just quoted said they have to "consider" view protection. They can "consider" it and then say "gently caress it" after "consider"ing it. a basic CCR case can be done pretty cheap. There's no discovery to speak of, little settlement activity, only a single issue for trial, and they generally get resolved quick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
No I'm with that guy you're basically giving it away at that rate. You slut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
Have you tried calling the dude who owns the lot and asking him to plant smaller trees that won't block your view? Offer to buy them for him. It'll be cheaper in the long run. Probably too late now since you've already pissed him off by going to the HOA first, and also since you waited a year
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
: Hello! I wrote a news story about an “alleged” Russian mobster that blew up. He’s suing me for defamation now. Not sure what to do...
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
Pillowpants, if you came to this thread then I should mention that, as long as you haven't in fact written a whole bunch of libelous things, there are lawyers out there who might very well take you case up pro-bono. Well, if you are in the US at least. There are a slew of organizations out there set up to defend the first amendment and lawyers who take that up as a cause. Out of curiosity, which state are you being sued in, which state do you live, and where does the guy suing you live? It makes a big difference since some states have strong anti-SLAPP statutes and others do not. Also, did you write that article in a professional capacity and is your employer hanging you out to dry? If you were blogging by yourself did you do any research about your potential legal exposure before publishing that blog post? [edit] I know that this guy: https://twitter.com/Popehat has helped amplify shouts for legal assistance for first amendment matters before. [re-edit] But yeah, the general thread advice still stands, find some way of getting hold of a lawyer. Munin fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Nov 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Munin posted:Pillowpants, if you came to this thread then I should mention that, as long as you haven't in fact written a whole bunch of libelous things, there are lawyers out there who might very well take you case up pro-bono. Well, if you are in the US at least. It was on Grant Stern’s website. He said he’s already got a pro bono lawyer, and he is pushing to fight it. I live in N.H., The plaintiff lives in Florida, and he’s suing me in Arizona - because the Arizona republic wrote a followup to my story and it’s preventing him from building in the area he wanted to
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
Looks like AZ has an Anti-Slapp statute: https://anti-slapp.org/arizona This is not legal advice. You’ll need a local lawyer to tell you if your situation may fall in the statute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:43
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:It was on Grant Stern’s website. He said he’s already got a pro bono lawyer, and he is pushing to fight it. Not a lawyer, have been a journalist. You need a lawyer in Arizona. Not anyone who is affiliated with whoever’s representing the Arizona Republic. Here are some organizations that provide legal assistance for journalists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:51
|
|
|
Does it matter that they wrote an actual Fake hit piece about me after I wrote my story?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Does it matter that they wrote an actual If they said something defamatory in it, it’s a potential counterclaim.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 00:56
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:It was on Grant Stern’s website. He said he’s already got a pro bono lawyer, and he is pushing to fight it. kk, that's at least something. Who is being sued and are you personally one of the defendants? Who exactly is the pro-bono lawyer representing? You might very well still need your own lawyer to advise and represent you on some matters since, if they are not your lawyer, they might do something that might disadvantage you if it improves the position of their actual client. [edit] basically what AlbieQuirky said but more verbose. There is this list online of groups which can put you in touch with lawyers: http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/nonprofit-legal-assistance
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Looks like AZ has an Anti-Slapp statute: https://anti-slapp.org/arizona If they are full of hubris it is good news since it's easier to get them to gently caress of (based on the assessment and advice of your lawyer and probably some monkeying about in court). If they have a good lawyer it means that they assessed their case and found that it has a very good chance of clearing these hurdles which makes having proper legal representation on your (Pillowpants) side all the more important. The bit about them apparently being able to point to actual damages they suffered would definitely make me more worried if I was on the receiving end of that suit. IANAL etc though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
My non-laywer opinion is that HOAs suck major poo poo and you made a mistake buying a house in one in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 06:30
|
|
|
Saucer Crab posted:My non-laywer opinion is that HOAs suck major poo poo and you made a mistake buying a house in one in the first place. I am a qualified judge in the Court of Public Opinion, and I rule in favor of this man
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
I wrote a story using only hard evidence. Posted the link because people here already I know who I am.
Pillowpants fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Stop posting things that are super easy for the opposing lawyers to google and find Jesus Christ
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2019 15:21
|
|