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

«‹›1163 »

Solomon Grundy: Feb 10, 2007; Born on a Monday

zharmad posted:

Real estate question.

I'm confused - did your parents grant you an interest back in 1997, then transferred the rest of their interest to you in 2008/2009? If so, what prompted the second transfer?

# ? Feb 15, 2010 02:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Sep 23, 2023 18:12

Richard M Nixon: Apr 26, 2009; "The greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker."

Thanks to all who replied, that is fantastic. :iamafag:

# ? Feb 15, 2010 03:12

entris: Oct 22, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

zharmad posted:

Here's a question for someone a little more familiar with real estate law than I am.

Background
My parents owned two parcels of land that they had a mortgage balance of about $20,000 on in 1997, and they had fallen on somewhat hard times to the point where they were no longer able to make the payments. I had the money set aside to pay off the mortgage, and after discussing it with my parents I agreed to pay it off the mortgage on the condition that I be given ownership of the parcels with my parents, using joint tenancy with full rights to survivorship. One of the parcels has a house on it that I was living in and still do, and I didn't want to create an issue with my siblings having any claim to my house when my parents passed away. My parents quit claim to myself and themselves.

So this first quit claim deed has both of your parents listed as the grantors, and you + your parents listed as the grantees, as tenants in common or joint tenants? So you are saying that at this point, you and each parent now has a 1/3 share in the property?

quote:

In late 2008 my father quit claim to me

And now you are saying that in 2008, your father transferred his 1/3 share in the property?

quote:

and in November 2009 my mother quit claim to me on both parcels.

And now you are saying that in 2009, your mother transferred her 1/3 share in the property?

quote:

The current situation
I applied for a farm operating loan with the USDA in November 2009 and was set to close around the end of December, when the title company did the title search the underwriting felt that the quit claim deeds my parents executed were not valid because, even though they both quit claim on the properties the underwriter felt that the title on the property was tenancy in entirety, which to my understanding would have been true if they were the sole owners, however, since I had ownership since 2007 as well I felt the title was joint tenancy. I looked for some case law but wasn't able to find anything that related specifically to my situation. I'm really just looking for case law or something I can show the underwriter that shows the lien does not attach to the property.

Well, if your parents originally owned the property as tenants by the entirety, then the only way for you to get an interest would be for both of them to jointly execute a deed transferring an interest to you. If that first quit claim deed was invalid, or it didn't have both of them on the deed, then they didn't break the tenancy by the entirety.

The 2008 and 2009 transfers wouldn't break the tenancy by the entirety, you need to tell us more about the supposed 2007 transfer. Are you certain the transfer had both parents on the deed as grantors? Are you certain the transfer was validly executed?

Edit: There may be an issue of a "voluntary" or "fraudulent" conveyance. Your parents transferred the property to you after 2006 and 2007, when they allegedly underpaid their federal taxes. If it looks like your parents purposefully transferred the property to you because they thought they might get caught for tax underpayment, then that transfer might be disregarded in your jurisdiction. I'm a little hazy on this part of the law, so take this with a big grain of salt, but between 2006 and 2009, it looks like your parents underpaid their taxes, transferred a big chunk of property to you, and then got audited and penalized by the IRS. "Voluntary" and "fraudulent" conveyances are used by debtors to try and get assets outside the reach of creditors, which is what the IRS has become. I'm not saying your parents did this, but the timing certainly raises a red flag. If a court in your jurisdiction concludes that your parents were trying to use the quit claim deeds to prevent the property from falling into the hands of creditors, the transfers can be voided.

I think the real answer here is that, given the potential IRS tax lien on the property, you need to hire a real estate attorney to look into the transfers to you.

entris fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Feb 15, 2010

# ? Feb 15, 2010 04:41

zharmad: Feb 9, 2010

entris posted:

Well, if your parents originally owned the property as tenants by the entirety, then the only way for you to get an interest would be for both of them to jointly execute a deed transferring an interest to you. If that first quit claim deed was invalid, or it didn't have both of them on the deed, then they didn't break the tenancy by the entirety.

The 2008 and 2009 transfers wouldn't break the tenancy by the entirety, you need to tell us more about the supposed 2007 transfer. Are you certain the transfer had both parents on the deed as grantors? Are you certain the transfer was validly executed?

Correct. The first deed was written as "zharmad's father and mother, as husband and wife, hereby convey and quit claim to... zharmad, a single man, and zharmad's father and mother, husband and wife, as joint tenants with full rights to survivorship."

It was on the second deeds that they quit claim only to me individually.

entris posted:

Edit: There may be an issue of a "voluntary" or "fraudulent" conveyance. Your parents transferred the property to you after 2006 and 2007, when they allegedly underpaid their federal taxes. If it looks like your parents purposefully transferred the property to you because they thought they might get caught for tax underpayment, then that transfer might be disregarded in your jurisdiction. I'm a little hazy on this part of the law, so take this with a big grain of salt, but between 2006 and 2009, it looks like your parents underpaid their taxes, transferred a big chunk of property to you, and then got audited and penalized by the IRS. "Voluntary" and "fraudulent" conveyances are used by debtors to try and get assets outside the reach of creditors, which is what the IRS has become. I'm not saying your parents did this, but the timing certainly raises a red flag. If a court in your jurisdiction concludes that your parents were trying to use the quit claim deeds to prevent the property from falling into the hands of creditors, the transfers can be voided.

I think the real answer here is that, given the potential IRS tax lien on the property, you need to hire a real estate attorney to look into the transfers to you.

There is not really an issue of voluntary or fraudulent conveyance, because the transfer was done before any assessment of underpayment was made. The liens list the date of assessment as 12/17/2009, and since I did pay money for the property, my interest predates the assessment. It could look as though it was transferred fraudulently, however the transfers were conducted before any audit even began.

I guess the big issue right now is if the deed in 2007 really changed the title from tenancy in entirety to joint tenancy or not.

# ? Feb 15, 2010 05:12

entris: Oct 22, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

zharmad posted:

There is not really an issue of voluntary or fraudulent conveyance, because the transfer was done before any assessment of underpayment was made. The liens list the date of assessment as 12/17/2009, and since I did pay money for the property, my interest predates the assessment. It could look as though it was transferred fraudulently, however the transfers were conducted before any audit even began.

I guess the big issue right now is if the deed in 2007 really changed the title from tenancy in entirety to joint tenancy or not.

Yeah that sounds like the issue. Probably a ten-minute consult with a real estate attorney, who can look at all of the deeds, will solve the problem.

# ? Feb 15, 2010 05:21

Solomon Grundy: Feb 10, 2007; Born on a Monday

zharmad posted:

There is not really an issue of voluntary or fraudulent conveyance, because the transfer was done before any assessment of underpayment was made. The liens list the date of assessment as 12/17/2009, and since I did pay money for the property, my interest predates the assessment. It could look as though it was transferred fraudulently, however the transfers were conducted before any audit even began.

Yikes - I wouldn't dismiss the prospect of the IRS attempting to unwind the transaction as a fraudulent transfer. Federal tax liens are nasty business.

# ? Feb 15, 2010 11:53

zharmad: Feb 9, 2010

Solomon Grundy posted:

Yikes - I wouldn't dismiss the prospect of the IRS attempting to unwind the transaction as a fraudulent transfer. Federal tax liens are nasty business.

I'm not dismissing it out of hand, however, the IRS thing isn't set in stone, as I said, it's in tax court right now, and I'm pretty certain the court will at least order the change of venue that my parents filed during the audit to stand, which the examining officer chose to ignore.

# ? Feb 15, 2010 15:45

Vander: Aug 16, 2004; I am my own hero.

I thought one couldn't transfer property to themselves... Was I not paying attention in property class when they said you could?

# ? Feb 15, 2010 18:43

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

Vander posted:

I thought one couldn't transfer property to themselves... Was I not paying attention in property class when they said you could?

Our example where they said you couldn't was specifically with regards to joint ownership too.

# ? Feb 15, 2010 18:59

Dru: Feb 23, 2003; they were smoking MARIJUANA! in the CHURCH!

Simple legal question

I reside in Canada, Manitoba to be precise, and I am getting married

Due to some serious dumbfuckery by my aunt and her (now) ex-husband, My grandma lost her mothers ring in her daughters divorce(it was worth a shitton and it was the only option to split things evenly and lots of other nasty poo poo done because they hated each other). MY grandmother wants to leave me her good china, some jewelery and the family bible, all worth a good chunk.

What I want to know, in terms of writing a pre-nup, is can we simply say that items or money recieved as an inheritance are our property and can\t be involved in case of a divorce. This is my only reason for needing a pre-nup(we're on the verge of poor as gently caress and we're both working equally hard), and I will go to an actual lawyer(or something similar) to have it done. But can we just say 'All things recieved as inheritance belong only to the person who inherited them?'

# ? Feb 16, 2010 01:44

Feces Starship: Nov 11, 2008; in the great green room
goodnight moon

JudicialRestraints posted:

Our example where they said you couldn't was specifically with regards to joint ownership too.

Well, couldn't you always by means of a "straw," and then didn't subsequent cases clarify (at least in CA and I was given the impression further states followed suit) that you didn't actually need to go through with that insane horseshit?

My understanding is, tax issues aside since I know nothing about tax, that Zharmad's folks turned their tenancy-in-entirety into a joint tenancy with Zharmad with full rights of survivorship, and that's entirely doable in theory. Then it looks like they conveyed the land strictly to Zharmad solely, and that too should be just fine. There's got to be something going on in the details. lovely answer, I know.

zharmad posted:

I guess the big issue right now is if the deed in 2007 really changed the title from tenancy in entirety to joint tenancy or not.

Three things that may assist you or may not:

1.) You can't have a tenancy-in-entirety with you and your parents on a deed. TIE is available only to married individuals. So if there's a concurrent estate with you and your folks on it you've got yourself either a tenants-in-common or joint tenancy. You certainly shot for the latter, but...
2.) Joint tenancy is really, really hard to attain. You've got to be nutty specific about your desires for a joint tenancy for the new concurrent estate to be evaluated as such; courts will find any excuse they can to turn the thing into a mere tenants-in-common estate. It sounds from your description that the language was pretty explicit but you should keep that in mind.
3.) Tenancy-in-entirety can only be transferred with the simultaneous consent of both spouses that make up the TIE. Did they perform this 2007 transfer at once?

AGAIN not a lawyer just a law student

# ? Feb 16, 2010 01:47

zharmad: Feb 9, 2010

Dru posted:

Three things that may assist you or may not:

1.) You can't have a tenancy-in-entirety with you and your parents on a deed. TIE is available only to married individuals. So if there's a concurrent estate with you and your folks on it you've got yourself either a tenants-in-common or joint tenancy. You certainly shot for the latter, but...
2.) Joint tenancy is really, really hard to attain. You've got to be nutty specific about your desires for a joint tenancy for the new concurrent estate to be evaluated as such; courts will find any excuse they can to turn the thing into a mere tenants-in-common estate. It sounds from your description that the language was pretty explicit but you should keep that in mind.
3.) Tenancy-in-entirety can only be transferred with the simultaneous consent of both spouses that make up the TIE. Did they perform this 2007 transfer at once?

2.) I even took steps to ensure any beneficiaries of my parents estate would not interfere with the property (which is farmland that I farm), so I convinced my siblings to sign a notarized agreement giving me exclusive right to use (e.g. farm) the property for 99 years, disavowing any right to the proceeds or to interfere with me.

3.) The 2007 deed had both my parents as signatories.

I am speaking with an attorney on Wednesday about this to get a professional opinion, so I'll let you know what he thinks then too.

# ? Feb 16, 2010 02:41

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Through what I assume is some sort of logistical error, I ordered something and got it, then received another one a few weeks later and was not charged for it. I'm going to call them and let them know when I have time this week, but out of curiosity, would keeping it and not telling them about it be legal under the anti-scamming law that allows you to keep stuff for free if it's shipped unsolicited?

# ? Feb 16, 2010 16:23

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

GWBBQ posted:

Through what I assume is some sort of logistical error, I ordered something and got it, then received another one a few weeks later and was not charged for it. I'm going to call them and let them know when I have time this week, but out of curiosity, would keeping it and not telling them about it be legal under the anti-scamming law that allows you to keep stuff for free if it's shipped unsolicited?

Is it an individual or a merchant that normally sells whatever it is you ordered?

# ? Feb 16, 2010 17:48

Pabstsmear: Aug 12, 2008; Harder than Medusa's optometrist.

So for the last two years, i've rented in an awesome house (In California, to give y'all more info) with two roomies i've known for a while and get along with great. Our agreement is with a property management company, who collects our rent, takes a bit for themselves, and gives the rest to the owner of the house, a guy we'll call Bob. Bob calls us up about a month and a half ago and lets us know he's going to be shortselling the house, and that realtors are going to start coming by to show the place soon. Over the course of the next couple weeks, folks show up to check it out. We're not sure if anyone's biting, but it's not really our business, so we don't know if official offers have been made.

Around the beginning of this month, we come home to a notice of foreclosure addressed to him, hanging off our front doorknob. We didn't open it, because it was addressed to him. We talk to him, and apparently he's over 100K behind on his mortgage payments. He hasn't paid in over a year. So it sounds like the bank is going to seize the property.

So here are my questions:

If we end our contract with the property management company (we are on a month to month), their job is done and they have no real claim on the house. At that point, who are we paying rent to? Does the landlord still own it? Does the bank? Is there any way to work this to get a rent-free month or two out of this?

If the bank is seizing it, how does that affect our deposit?

Pabstsmear fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Feb 16, 2010

# ? Feb 16, 2010 21:45

GWBBQ: Jan 2, 2005

Incredulous Red posted:

Is it an individual or a merchant that normally sells whatever it is you ordered?

An online store.

# ? Feb 16, 2010 22:02

CaptainAttitude: May 31, 2003; This haircut was a good idea.

Is there any way to make an abandoned vehicle legally mine? It's in the garage of an abandoned house in Utah. 1989 Cadillac with less than 50 miles on it.

# ? Feb 16, 2010 22:25

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

CaptainAttitude posted:

Is there any way to make an abandoned vehicle legally mine? It's in the garage of an abandoned house in Utah. 1989 Cadillac with less than 50 miles on it.

Maybe start here?

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Title-to-an-Abandoned-Vehicle

# ? Feb 16, 2010 22:56

Andy T: Jun 11, 2008

Noise issue with tenants in my condo building
I own a unit in a condo high rise. Everything was fine until four months ago, when tenants moved into a unit above me. Every morning around 6am there is loud and heavy stomping that makes my ceiling shake from the walking around. They also appear to have kids that run around their unit in the evenings making the ceiling shake too. The condo documents make a provision for "quiet time" between 11pm - 8am during which tenants/owners MUST maintain quiet. I have talked to the tenants from upstairs to no effect. I also wrote a formal complaint to the board of trustees. They sent some letters to the owner and tenants but the noise is still continuing. It's pretty bad and prevents me from getting normal rest.
I am going to write another letter to the management association. Is there particular language I can use to make my point better. Also, what other tools are available to me to make this stop? I am in USA, MA.

Thanks!

# ? Feb 17, 2010 15:53

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

Andy T posted:

Noise issue with tenants in my condo building
I own a unit in a condo high rise. Everything was fine until four months ago, when tenants moved into a unit above me. Every morning around 6am there is loud and heavy stomping that makes my ceiling shake from the walking around. They also appear to have kids that run around their unit in the evenings making the ceiling shake too. The condo documents make a provision for "quiet time" between 11pm - 8am during which tenants/owners MUST maintain quiet. I have talked to the tenants from upstairs to no effect. I also wrote a formal complaint to the board of trustees. They sent some letters to the owner and tenants but the noise is still continuing. It's pretty bad and prevents me from getting normal rest.
I am going to write another letter to the management association. Is there particular language I can use to make my point better. Also, what other tools are available to me to make this stop? I am in USA, MA.

Thanks!

Sounds like a covenant. You could sue to get an injunction.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 18:27

Hawkperson: Jun 20, 2003

Pabstsmear posted:

If we end our contract with the property management company (we are on a month to month), their job is done and they have no real claim on the house. At that point, who are we paying rent to? Does the landlord still own it? Does the bank? Is there any way to work this to get a rent-free month or two out of this?

First of all, I ain't a lawyer and the only reason I know this is because I listen to Handel on the Law a lot, which is a question-and-answer radio show headed by a lawyer who specializes in surrogate parent rights, not real estate. That said, when the house is foreclosed on, the bank will own the property and you can renegotiate your rent with the bank. The bank actually kind of wants you to stay, because if you leave no one will be taking care of the house and it would be harder to sell. So when the foreclosure goes through, tell them you'll make the house nice and pretty for potential buyers in exchange for seriously reduced or zero rent. Of course, when the bank finally sells the house, you will probably have to vacate or at least pay a reasonable rent for the area.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 19:44

Mega Shark: Oct 4, 2004

I am in Florida. I did contract work for a Web company that is based out of New Jersey.

I signed a contractor agreement and I was paid half up front over PayPal. We agreed on an aggressive schedule, yet the lady didn't get me everything fast enough, so the schedule slipped.

I completed 99% of the work and without warning she filed a dispute with PayPal for the money she had paid me. I won that dispute.

She then decided to issue a chargeback on her Visa, that she used to pay PayPal. PayPal asked me for the same evidence I had already provided them for them to use to talk with Visa. Six weeks later and I was informed that Visa has decided in the ladies favor and I'm out the first 50%.

I'm told that I would have to sue her in a New Jersey court. Its only $175, but $175 is still a lot of money and its money that I worked hard for. Do I have any options that don't entail spending more money than the $175 I'm owed?

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:01

Vander: Aug 16, 2004; I am my own hero.

Likely not. Even just getting yourself to Jersey to contest the charge will cost you that much.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:06

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

Vander posted:

Likely not. Even just getting yourself to Jersey to contest the charge will cost you that much.

For laughs sake, could he get diversity on this?

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:09

Mega Shark: Oct 4, 2004

Vander posted:

Likely not. Even just getting yourself to Jersey to contest the charge will cost you that much.

That's what I thought. I'm just wondering / hoping if there is some magical, secret "thing" that I can send that does something similar without having to physically be in New Jersey. I feel so used over the whole drat experience. Everything was legit about her business and I gave her an EXTREMELY low rate for the work because of the remaining contracts she had on her plate.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:10

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

ODC posted:

That's what I thought. I'm just wondering / hoping if there is some magical, secret "thing" that I can send that does something similar without having to physically be in New Jersey. I feel so used over the whole drat experience. Everything was legit about her business and I gave her an EXTREMELY low rate for the work because of the remaining contracts she had on her plate.

Was your contract written? If your rate was as low as you claimed it was you can sue under quasi contract for the fair market value of your work. I.e. if you can cheaply prove that your work was worth a couple thousand you may conceivably get that much, especially if you delivered work to her under the auspices of the contract that she violated.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:13

Vander: Aug 16, 2004; I am my own hero.

JudicialRestraints posted:

For laughs sake, could he get diversity on this?

It's been a bit since Civ Pro, but I think so. I'd love to be in the Courthouse when those papers are filed.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:17

quepasa18: Oct 13, 2005

JudicialRestraints posted:

For laughs sake, could he get diversity on this?

It would depend on whether the value of his claim exceeds $75,000.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:23

Mega Shark: Oct 4, 2004

JudicialRestraints posted:

Was your contract written? If your rate was as low as you claimed it was you can sue under quasi contract for the fair market value of your work. I.e. if you can cheaply prove that your work was worth a couple thousand you may conceivably get that much, especially if you delivered work to her under the auspices of the contract that she violated.

I'll need to get on my other computer to see, but yes, the contract was written.

Given the circumstances and the fact that I was almost complete, could I also sue for the remaining balance beyond the first 50% at fair market value?

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:27

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

quepasa18 posted:

It would depend on whether the value of his claim exceeds $75,000.

But he might be able to get her in Florida state court. Does an Internet contract meet the minimum contacts test?

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:28

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

ODC posted:

I'll need to get on my other computer to see, but yes, the contract was written.

Given the circumstances and the fact that I was almost complete, could I also sue for the remaining balance beyond the first 50% at fair market value?

My general understanding is that for an uncompleted contract, breached by the other party, you can sue for the value of the work done (although the theory of recovery in NJ may also be unjust enrichment in which case the value you can sue for is the fair market value of the work delivered).

If you can prove that this value would be over $75k (ha), you can sue in federal court and not have to go to NJ.

There may also be other fraud statutes in NJ that you may be able to sue under instead of breach of contract which could give you punitive damages.

That said, I'm not a lawyer, and I know nothing of the laws of either state in question.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:31

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

JudicialRestraints posted:

My general understanding is that for an uncompleted contract, breached by the other party, you can sue for the value of the work done (although the theory of recovery in NJ may also be unjust enrichment in which case the value you can sue for is the fair market value of the work delivered).

If you can prove that this value would be over $75k (ha), you can sue in federal court and not have to go to NJ.

There may also be other fraud statutes in NJ that you may be able to sue under instead of breach of contract which could give you punitive damages.

That said, I'm not a lawyer, and I know nothing of the laws of either state in question.

Why can't he sue in Florida?

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:34

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

Incredulous Red posted:

Why can't he sue in Florida?

If he can get service on her, I don't know why not. I'd also say that he should aim for quasi contract recovery because he might be able to get significantly more.

P.s. you should probably make sure that your state recognizes this sort of recovery.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:37

Yuji: Feb 25, 2006; Only you can set you free

I have a question about the California Vehicle Code.

My friend moved from one county to Santa Clara County last August and she failed to notify the DMV of her change of address within 10 days. She says that she didn't know about that requirement, but I know that pleading ignorance won't save her.

My question is: How likely is she to face consequences for her late notification and what might those consequences be? The text of VC14600 that establishes the 10 day limit only describes the limit itself. The only thing I was able to find about any punishment is this page that lists a $214 fine for late notification. Does anyone else know more about any potential consequences or their likelihood?

Also, the DMV's "Change of Address" form itself omits any questions about length of time since the move. If she just snail-mails the form, how likely does anyone think that there will be trouble?

Thank you!

# ? Feb 17, 2010 22:38

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

Yuji posted:

I have a question about the California Vehicle Code.

My friend moved from one county to Santa Clara County last August and she failed to notify the DMV of her change of address within 10 days. She says that she didn't know about that requirement, but I know that pleading ignorance won't save her.

My question is: How likely is she to face consequences for her late notification and what might those consequences be? The text of VC14600 that establishes the 10 day limit only describes the limit itself. The only thing I was able to find about any punishment is this page that lists a $214 fine for late notification. Does anyone else know more about any potential consequences or their likelihood?

Also, the DMV's "Change of Address" form itself omits any questions about length of time since the move. If she just snail-mails the form, how likely does anyone think that there will be trouble?

Thank you!

Was she actually cited for something or what?

# ? Feb 17, 2010 23:09

Ortsacras: Feb 11, 2008; 12/17/00 Never Forget

Incredulous Red posted:

But he might be able to get her in Florida state court. Does an Internet contract meet the minimum contacts test?

Yeah, it definitely would - she hired a citizen of that state to perform work in that state, so I can't see a court saying that isn't enough.

The choice of law question might get a bit tricky, but as a jurisdictional matter I don't think there's any problem with it.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 23:11

Incredulous Red: Mar 25, 2008

Ortsacras posted:

Yeah, it definitely would - she hired a citizen of that state to perform work in that state, so I can't see a court saying that isn't enough.

The choice of law question might get a bit tricky, but as a jurisdictional matter I don't think there's any problem with it.

THE LAW IN FLORIDA posted:

48.193 Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state.

(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts:
Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.
Committing a tortious act within this state.
Owning, using, possessing, or holding a mortgage or other lien on any real property within this state.
Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting.
With respect to a proceeding for alimony, child support, or division of property in connection with an action to dissolve a marriage or with respect to an independent action for support of dependents, maintaining a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this action or, if the defendant resided in this state preceding the commencement of the action, whether cohabiting during that time or not. This paragraph does not change the residency requirement for filing an action for dissolution of marriage.
Causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury, either: 1. The defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state; or 2. Products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.
Breaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.
With respect to a proceeding for paternity, engaging in the act of sexual intercourse within this state with respect to which a child may have been conceived.
A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.
Service of process upon any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as provided in this section may be made by personally serving the process upon the defendant outside this state, as provided in s. 48.194. The service shall have the same effect as if it had been personally served within this state.
If a defendant in his or her pleadings demands affirmative relief on causes of action unrelated to the transaction forming the basis of the plaintiff�s claim, the defendant shall thereafter in that action be subject to the jurisdiction of the court for any cause of action, regardless of its basis, which the plaintiff may by amendment assert against the defendant.
Nothing contained in this section limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereinafter provided by law.

Go get her Tiger.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 23:13

entris: Oct 22, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

What's the end game for ODC here?

He sues her in Florida, she ignores the suit, he gets a default judgment. Now he has to get a judgment lien on some of her assets, which means he's gonna have to bring a creditor's suit in her home state anyway. At that point, he's probably already surpassed the $175 mark.

He sues her in Florida, she actually (and stupidly) comes down and defends the suit. Maybe he can get her to settle. If she won't settle, then he has to fight over jurisdiction which means hiring an attorney, which means the $175 is gone. If he wants to fight pro se, I guess he could do that. But if she's bitchy enough to defend in Florida, she's probably bitchy enough to hire an attorney.

And even if she defends in Florida, and he wins, he still has to get his judgment lien attached to some of her assets. Although I guess if she shows up in person, the judge could make her write out a check or something. But who is stupid enough to fly down to Florida to defend a $175 suit?

I say that you should just chalk up the $175 to a lesson learned about performing contract work. The lesson is that you should get a deposit or payment for your work first, and then perform the work. Let them come after you if you fail to perform acceptably.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 23:39

Yuji: Feb 25, 2006; Only you can set you free

Incredulous Red posted:

Was she actually cited for something or what?

She has never received a citation for this.

That said, she did get a speeding ticket last year and the officer asked her whether the address on her license was current. She doesn't remember what she said, but the officer let it go. When this happened the address on her license was technically wrong: at that time she had moved out of her parent's house (the listed address on the license) and was living full time with a friend.

The above was the only incident having anything to do with the address on her license.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 23:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Sep 23, 2023 18:12

JudicialRestraints: Oct 26, 2007; Are you a LAWYER? Because I'll have you know I got GOOD GRADES in LAW SCHOOL last semester. Don't even try to argue THE LAW with me.

Could ODC sue VISA? He DID have a deposit but VISA canceled it.

# ? Feb 17, 2010 23:54

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

«‹›1163 »