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

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 03:55

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

Per posted:

If I'm a non-American tourist driving in the US and I am stopped by police, can I invoke the 4th amendment if they ask to search my car?

If your question is whether or not you get the same Constitutional protections as an American because you're not an American, the answer is yes.

If your question is whether or not you can invoke the fourth amendment if an officer asks to search your car, the answer is far more complicated. Yes, you can, but it might not protect you. In very simplified terms however, the officer can still search your car if there's a warrant out for your arrest or if there's this thing called probable cause to search your car. PC is hard to explain in brief but the PC can be established by an observation the officer makes at the time of the stop, as well. You'll also have 99 problems if the canine come. Should you be the victim of an illegal search and the cops find the drugs you intend to bring into the country that way you'll have to invoke something called the exclusionary rule, but at that point a real live lawyer will be handling your case because without one you'll be big daddy hosed rather than just plain ordinary hosed.

If you get stopped and you're worried about a search, being polite and explaining your hesitancy regarding a search as an element of personal exigency is by far your best chance. Dramatically crossing your arms and declaring the protective powers of the fourth amendment is not the preferred tactic.

# ¿ Nov 14, 2010 08:16

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

joat mon posted:

I expect the purpose of the affidavit is a CYA for the organizers in case a copyright owner decides to go after them, since they probably have more money to pay a judgment than you do.

This is almost certainly what's going on here, and you're judgment proof because you're poor. You're fine.

That being said I think joat mon is right in that you should probably just not lie about stuff on affidavits.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2010 13:55

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

Alchenar posted:

To escape his engagement without exposing himself to Breach of Promise?

I think (er, HOPE) he's trying to evict the SISTER.

# ¿ Nov 29, 2010 01:52

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

Alaemon posted:

The best in Mid-Michigan? I can certainly name a few people who'd be likely to consider themselves "the best," though it's a decidedly subjective field.

Great big internet, small small world.

I'm trying to figure out who this is too.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2010 00:36

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

ZombieLenin posted:

I am pretty sure that I do qualify. The question being I suppose will my invoking my right to FML will the University then remove my tuition remandment, and thus my medical insurance?

I'm also curious if there is any other way to go about asserting my right to what amounts to probably three loving days off (given the nature of TA work). And I really really wish there was a way for me to punish this woman for failing to make reasonable accommodation for childbirth.

There is, of course, for my wife, but not for me as far as I can tell.

I obviously don't know the specifics of your situation, and I don't know anything whatsoever about CA's FMLA clone, but I can tell you unfortunately that many types of student/professional hybrid positions like university teaching assistants and medical residents are not covered by FMLA by special exception.

Be more than just "pretty sure." Good luck. I hope you're get time off.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2010 10:33

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

Robo Olga posted:

Help me legal thread I need advice. I live in Kern County California. I've posted multiple times about my landlords in this thread and received very helpful information.
Well December 19th the ceiling in a back room addition collapsed. We called and emailed the landlords multiple times but did not hear back from them until the 26th. The email was quite confrontational, blaming us for the collapse because we should have driven to their house(~50 miles away) to let them know instead of phoning or emailing. They stated they would send a repair person out but that they would not be providing notice as to when. This sparked an exchange back and forth with us saying that if the repair person was coming that day or the next we understood that 24 hours notice would not be possible but if it was going to be any later than that we needed to know the day at least and we reminded them of the civil code that covers this. The best they would do would provide was "maybe between Tuesday and Friday". We asked for the repair persons name so we could call them and find out when they were coming but they would not provide that. When we advised them that we had spoken with base legal and that a range of dates just wasn't acceptable since someone needed to be in the house they wrote back that they had contacted their attorney because we were breaking the law.
We wrote back again asking for the name of the repair person and the name and phone number of their attorney. They wrote back this afternoon saying that they, the landlords, along with a repair person and the police would be coming by sometime tomorrow. The police being necessary because of the way we were acting.
Something else that may be relevant is that we had the city building inspector out today who told us that the addition where the roof collapsed was installed "illegally" and upon checking no permit had been issued. We think this may be why they are refusing to give us the repair persons information, in the past they have sent their friends out to the home and lied about them being licensed contractors.

That's a lot of background for my question, sorry for the wordiness. Base legal has advised us that the home is no longer considered habitable and we need to move out. We will be out by tonight. My question is should either my husband or myself be present whenever they show up tomorrow or would sending them a registered letter advising them we are leaving be better?

Edit, should add base legal is now closed for the day and we received the email from them about the police too late in the day to get in touch with anyone there

This isn't answering your question definitively and might be already saying something that you already know, but for the purposes of helping you understand what's going on I'd just like to say this: your lawyer is going to help you make a claim that an implied contract of habitability, which accompanies any residential lease, has been broken. This claim should be able to get you out of your lease completely and maybe earn damages too should situations be perfect, but in order to have such a claim be enforceable you will need to leave the premises; not doing so would mean that the apartment is habitable per se. That might not make sense but them's the laws.

I think this means that you should go the "registered letter" route as it would increase the chances of the lease being abrogated due to uninhabitable conditions.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2010 23:36

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

you ate my cat posted:

I have a very small question. Certain people at work seem to be unable to not text constantly during work. I am not one of these people. My employer has responded to that by threatening to confiscate everyone's cell phones if they are caught using them. While it's funny to watch everyone freak out about it, it got me thinking. Is it legal for an employer to confiscate personal property?

I know they can prohibit you from using them at work, and can discipline/fire you for it. I guess I'm more interested in the legality aspect of it. I did some Googling, and responses range from "Absolutely not" to "It's private property, they can take anything from you that they want" which is obviously not true at all. This is in PA, if that makes any difference.

They can probably make it a condition of your employment unless you're working pursuant to a contract. If they do that, it's legal to take the phones.

The "private property" answer concerned the viability of a fourth amendment seizure challenge to the practice. Such a challenge would be groundless because your employer is a private party - not the government.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2010 23:40

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

hypocrite lecteur posted:

City bylaws are passed by the city and are usually summary offences with a fine or a little bit of jail time. They're enforced by the cops or, more often, by bylaw officers and other agents of the city. If the city statute says 11pm, and you shut it down before that, yes the cops won't do anything (and have told you so).

Your relationship with your condo association is entirely different and has absolutely nothing to do with city bylaws.It's an ongoing contractual relationship, and operates as defined in the contract and as modified by statute. If the rules say that "disruptive behaviour" is judged subjectively by Joebob and Jimsue, it's really not sufficient to say "oh but they're in breach for x, y, and z and are smelly jerks anyways". Again, I'd be careful and do a bit more work on it before proceeding

You should listen to this, Slim. I tried to write something of the same nature but it came across as condescending so I gave up.

I'll say this - right now, you seem to have an emotional and self-righteous attitude about what's been going on. Maybe they ARE a bunch of poo poo heads, but if your condo association agreement says that you may not do X, X is what controls when it comes to living arrangements and fines may be assessed for breaches of X. The law of the city is irrelevant and what other transgressions that occurred against you are irrelevant too. I say that you're being emotional and self-righteous not because I want to hurt you or make you feel bad, but because letting those emotions lead you into making a legal confrontation when the facts do not sound like they are on your side is a bad idea in general terms.

As always, check with an actual non-internet lawyer before you do anything if you decide to challenge either your fine or any eviction that may or may not occur in the future should you refuse to pay your fine. But based on what little I know about condo association contracts and the liberal deference given to their bylaws, you're probably in the wrong here no matter how bad of people they may be.

Again, please don't take this the wrong way. I genuinely hope that you come to an amicable agreement and that there aren't any future problems with your tenants' association.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2011 08:32

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

Kamakaze9 posted:

First of all this took place in Kansas City in case that makes a difference. But I'm really just trying to find out for personal reference (No action is being taken). I am curious as to which information is required for a liability waiver.

I went out to play some laser tag with some friends today and saw that they were making everyone fill out release forms. I thought ok he's covering his rear end, whatever. But as I started filling it out, he wanted address, phone numbers, email and birth date. Assuming all he really needed was name, signature and date, that was all I provided. He came up to me later asking why I hadn't filled out the rest of the "form" (9x6 index card). I also want to note that the statement we signed was a single sentence along the lines of "I release XXX of any liability that could happen during the game.". I responded that I didn't feel comfortable giving him the rest of the information. He then told me that if I did not fill out the rest of it I would not be allowed to play. When I ask for reference saying I was required to give all that information, he said it doesn't matter. "I'm the owner and if you don't abide by my rules, you don't play." We ended up leaving. Later one of my friends received a call on her cell phone from the guy, with "Oh, wrong number." We only recognized the number because we were trying to call ahead and make sure they were open.

I have signed waivers before, sky diving, zip lining, riding atvs, scuba diving and they were all several page documents that required multiple signature and quite a bit of information. But they also had the laws pertaining to it all in writing right there.

Anyway something seems weird to me and I wanted to get some clarification on the subject. I am not opposed to reading it for myself if someone just wants to point the way. I tried Google but it is rather unhelpful as I only get waivers and such for ten thousand companies. Any insight you could give, would be appreciated.

A liability waiver is a cost-reducing document that makes unconventional, dangerous, or ultra-dangerous activities affordable for individuals so that they may participate in them. In this way, it benefits both you and the business - the business owner gets to limit costs due to the assurance that he need not either set aside money should lawsuits arise nor pay expensive liability insurance, and you get the benefit of not having to pay $100 for laser tag or $5000 to skydive. That's why he wants to "release [himself] of any liability that could happen during the game." The few indemnification agreements I've drafted have been a little more artful, but chances are the guy is a small business owner and drew it up on his own.

If you're asking whether it's alright to demand your information in exchange for allowing you to use the service, the answer is almost certainly yes. He's entitled to try and limit his liability.

If you're asking whether he can kick you out for not signing, the answer is yes without a doubt. The agreement you enter into at a laser tag place is for him to provide a game at a price he advertises to you. That price is offered because of the cost-saving function of the waiver. So if you don't sign, you don't play.

If you're asking whether the agreement, had you signed it, would have been enforceable, that would depend on 1.) what state you're in and 2.) the PRECISE language of the document.

If you're asking whether the waiver is unfair somehow because it didn't cite "laws pertaining to it," then the answer is probably not. Some states manage liability waivers through statutory enaction or through constitutional provision, but most do it via common law, including the jurisdiction I'm familiar with. If it's common law, there are no "laws pertaining to it" - it's just a practice that's enforced through judicial reliance on common law precedent. A lot of our laws work this way.

If I failed to answer your question, let me know and I can see if I can help more.

# ¿ Jan 3, 2011 08:47

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

Positive Housemouse posted:

Is videotaping my friends and I scaring Chihuahuas illegal?

I hope not.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2011 22:17

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

ShadowHawk posted:

I was suing a company in Northern California, and on the day of the trial the company had sent an attorney and two very large, neckless, men. The neckless men never spoke. I got the impression that they drove quite a long way, since they likely drove from southern California to get to the courthouse.

Were they there just to intimidate me? Or is there some more reasonable explanation?

They might have been other attorneys, or clerks if the attorney was with a firm. I cannot imagine that a company would bother sending muscle to intimidate a kid suing them in small claims court.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2011 02:03

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

ShadowHawk posted:

On that note, how many attorneys look like huge neckless goons?

i am literally shaped like one of the mooninites and if you get back to me in a year i'll qualify

# ¿ Feb 2, 2011 07:20

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

baquerd posted:

So is your claim that a quiet, fat, not pleasing to look at lawyer is just as good at swaying a jury or that they practice anyway despite their disadvantage?

no but I would claim that the profession is not some hyper-efficient free market system where any physical characteristic constituting a vocational disadvantage results in instant disintegration of the host

Jesus Christ are we really debating whether some lawyers are big and some are small? YES IS THE ANSWER

# ¿ Feb 2, 2011 13:28

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

Hey guys I have comited horible tort and i may loose my house but my question is - is lawyer is too big???

plz respond

EIDT: ok fired lawyer but is new lawyer to small?!?!!! is VERY small!!!!

Feces Starship fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Feb 2, 2011

# ¿ Feb 2, 2011 13:34

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

Solomon Grundy posted:

First, what does tort deform have to do with IP litigation? IP litigation is almost all federal statutory law. Torts are typically state common law. IP litigation is usually well-resourced company v. well-resourced company, while tort litigation is usually joe sixpack v. sam stooge's insurance company (by proxy).

Second, the United States Court system is based upon the premise that anybody, whether rich, poor, giant company, or your next door neighbor, can have access to a court system that treats everyone the same. It is the one place to take greivances, big or small, and address injustice. Tort reform necessarily changes the playing field, by arbitrarily restricting access to the courts, or capping the remedies available, without relation to the facts of the case. This disproportionally favors the wealthy, who benefit from caps and restricted court access the most. The wealthy get enough breaks as it is.

Third, tort reform is premised upon a big lie. Thousands of lawsuits are filed every day, and, by and large, they are handled in a professional, and relatively efficient way. Every once in a while, you get a nut who sues for millions of dollars over a pair of pants, and the story is so odd that it gets reported in the media. You get media reports of abberational lawsuits once a month or so, and all of a sudden everyone thinks that there is an epidemic of nutty lawsuits when there really aren't. And the insurers foster this belief and smile all the way to the bank, because when you pass tort reform, the insurers no longer have to pay as much on the risks that they insure, and that they have collected premiums on for years.

Fourth, if someone issues discovery which seeks proprietary information, the target files a Motion for Protective Order, asking that the court not permit the discovery, or else only permit it on certain terms that will maintain confidentiality. Then a judicial officer hears the motion and the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties, and makes a decision that will hopefully balance all of the concerns and rights of the parties. Aww, but gently caress it, it is better that we just close the courthouse doors, pass tort reform and prohibit people from filing lawsuits or doing discovery.

Fifth, there is no objective way to measure what is, or is not, a baseless lawsuit prior to filing. What you may believe to be a baseless lawsuit is an opinion likely not shared by your opponent. And everyone who gets sued always thinks the lawsuit is baseless. That's human nature. But ultimately, there is a mechanism for determining what is, or is not, a baseless lawsuit once the case is filed. It is called a jury. But you have to go through the process to get there.

A+++++ would read again

Great recap Solomon.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2011 21:34

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

Apollodorus posted:

Well, that's sort of encouraging. But I am sort of nervous about our ability to get an apartment--it looks like a landlord would be within his/her rights to refuse to lease us a place if it looked as though we were going to be (technically) breaking the law.

EDIT: VVVVV Okay, good to know. Makes me feel better. VVVVV

Don't feel "better," feel totally completely and totally without fear or worry about this situation.

The law is federally preempted, unconstitutional, and unenforced. There is a zero percent chance anything bad happens to you in any way because of this ancient law.

# ¿ Mar 18, 2011 21:40

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

Dolphin posted:

My girlfriend has been the victim of sexual harassment on a daily basis. This includes:

-On the day after her boss's birthday he asked if she had sex on his birthday
-He gives her the middle finger on a frequent basis
-Touches jewelry on her neck (this happened today, he grabbed a pendant that was on her breasts)
-Has on occasion called her a bitch in a 'haha, I'm cool because I can call the women I work with a bitch, lol" way
-Constantly looks down her shirt
-Invited his staff (all female) to a local "burlesque" show with nudity and sexually explicit material (dildos, etc)
-Made other inappropriate sexual comments "know what I'D like to do you to?"
-Other things, too numerous to cite

She has expressed her discomfort from time to time, but not directly because she's afraid to put her employment in jeopardy. Her job is our only source of income right now, and because of the way she is employed, unemployment benefits would be difficult to work out (she is technically employed through an employment agency). She is going to talk to another employee tomorrow who has expressed similar discomfort related to the boss (who was recently "fired" by having all of her hours cut).

My question then is what can be done here? Does she have a leg to stand on in court for a sexual harassment case? She's applying to other jobs, but I feel like this guy is going to keep doing this kind of poo poo to all the women he employs if we don't do anything.

With all these details I'm hesitant to say what jurisdiction we're in, but we're in Michigan.

As a law student with practice experience in employment and labor law as a summer associate in Michigan, I can tell you two things:

1.) From now on, everything must be documented. Any emails with derogatory comments in them must be saved. Any time the boss does something discriminatory she should write down what happened and on what day.

2.) You absolutely must contact a lawyer because of the difficulty of sexual harassment cases and, perhaps more importantly, because of the potential "employer" issue stemming from the temp agency relationship.

Employees should not have to tolerate this sort of behavior. Please contact someone soon.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2011 01:24

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

kinkster posted:

I'll likely be in a typical high school "fight" soon. I found out a friend of mine had been making out with my then-girlfriend, so I texted him (obviously pretty pissed) that he should man up and either fight me or just let me have a few punches. I told him we'd be square after that and that my intent was not to beat him to pulp or anything ridiculous.. he said he would try to sue me.

I asked a few mutual friends what they thought I should do and they agreed I should kick his rear end. Given that Ive already said I am, I can't (and don't really want to) avoid it.

However he thinks we're cool and that I've gotten over it. How should I best go about this so that a judge would throw out his case? I don't think he still has my "lets fight" texts on his phone as it was a few months ago. What evidence he might have is that: his mom read my texts, and a number of people around town know that Ive expressed a desire to beat his rear end. I think it unlikely that he could convince anyone to testify, unless the court required it. Except for his mom.

Should there be witnesses present? I'm guessing there will have to be because it'd be creepy as hell to stalk him or some poo poo.. most likely he'll be with some of our mutual friends, and then I'll come by and tell him to come outside because we're gonna duke it out weather he likes it or not. I doubt it will be a very vicious or anything.. like I said just your typical squabble between two skinny 17 year olds.

wtf is this poo poo

grow up

# ¿ Apr 9, 2011 20:45

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

fullroundaction posted:

He was a minor when he played in our Bowl Game, and we had a signed form from his parents. They're telling us that now that he's an adult the form is "legally nullified" or something similar.

I'm only familiar with the law in Michigan, but recent court decisions have decided to interpret contract law in such a way. It actually makes sense when you think about it; a parent shouldn't be able to bind their child and limit his ability to bring suit against people who are using his likeness during his adulthood just because he's underage at the time of the signing. It's a big time bummer but it means the forms your company used were inadequate.

On the other hand, this emerging doctrine in Michigan replaced a doctrine that said parents could so bind their children, so your question is highly jurisdiction specific.

# ¿ Apr 21, 2011 06:28

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

AnnaBanana posted:

The beginning of this thread said it wasn't good for "do you have a claim," but the past few pages have people arguing about having claims, so I thought I'd try my luck.

I live in Pennsylvania. A few months ago, I filed an anonymous complaint with my company's hr department via email. These were things I had complained to my boss about before several times that were pretty serious (hygiene issues with the store, OSHA laws being violated). Within a week of the letter being sent, everything was fixed.

Last week, months after the letter was sent, my boss took me into our stock room and asked me if I ever filed a complaint with our HR department. He said no matter what I answered, he has his ways of finding out. After asking him several times if he was asking if I filed an anonymous complaint, he kept yelling at me that he has his ways of finding out, so I said I did because I felt scared of him at that time. He went on to tell me I had to tell him everything I complained about. He brought my other co-workers into the back room to say everyone had to complain to him before they complained to corporate. Everyone knows someone wrote a letter, but nobody knew who. Now everyone knows it's me, and my work is going to suck because I look like a whistle-blower.

What can I do? I feel if I report this to HR I'll be transferred to another store, which would be a pain in the rear end. It doesn't even mean the people at the store I'll be transferred to won't know what I did, because people are friends with people in other stores.

[Edit] If it matters, the day it happened, I wrote everything down so I have a record of what exactly happened and was said.

In most states, there is a piece of legislation called a whistleblower's protection act that deals with circumstances of this very nature. Look it up. Contact an employment lawyer for specific counsel. You may have a claim if an adverse employment action is taken against you. I am not your lawyer.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2011 05:57

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

Choadmaster posted:

I kinda figured you had to get served within a week or so, but that's what I get for knowing nothing about anything. So... Make it 30 days from the date of service. The legal system is full of byzantine loopholes and exceptions and poo poo (or so it seems to us laymen!) what's the harm in a fairly straightforward one that potentially keeps people from getting screwed over?

Here's the issue with "you just have to plan for it": This means figuring out the SOL, hiring a lawyer, preparing a counterclaim, and hanging around (or hiring someone to) in the courthouse for a few hours on that last day, just in case the other party decides to file suit. After any and every thing you do that could involve a lawsuit. That's an absurdity.

Take my friend's case, for example. Some old lady pulls out of a parking lot into oncoming traffic and he T-bones her. Clearly 100% her fault, her insurance assumes responsibility and pays everything off, and he goes on with his life, which happened to include moving out of state not long after. On day 364 he should have had someone waiting in a courthouse on the other side of the country with a counterclaim prepared just in case someone he hadn't heard a peep from in a year decides to sue him?

Don't let me insult your intelligence here, but one of the things that may be tripping you up is the difference between counterclaims and defenses. Take your hypothetical. Your friend has grounds to sue. He has a year to do so. He chooses not to. All of a sudden he wants to because he gets a suit brought against him. He's entirely able to defend against it - he can bring witnesses, he can make his arguments, he can deny wrongdoing and the judge gets to decide on the preponderance of the evidence. He can even ask for the plaintiff to pay his court fees at the end if he feels the suit has been brought maliciously. All that is barred is his ability to bring a counterclaim, which is properly a separate claim, and which he was totally fine with letting go for a whole year. Why should the law make an exception to cover his sudden change of heart?

# ¿ Apr 28, 2011 12:26

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

Please, please listen to nm

# ¿ Sep 14, 2011 19:40

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

Just so you know, banks requiring arbitration clauses aren't atypical - in fact, you probably had one before from when you first opened your account and this new update just has some changes to the details.

I wouldn't be surprised if the credit union you're going to switch to also has such a provision, but more power to you if it doesn't! Arbitration blows.

# ¿ Dec 9, 2011 05:08

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

This is about subleasing in New York City.

New York Real Property Law 226-b is the subletting law that says that a landlord can't "unreasonably" withhold your request to sublet your apartment, and if he does or if he doesn't respond that's permission. Also, the caselaw shows that almost any ol' denial of your request to sublet is unreasonable, so it pretty much (although not entirely!) gives tenants the right to sublet their apartments. Trouble is that it says in that statute that this particular provision only applies to buildings with four or more apartments in it. I live in a brownstone with three apartments and I reallllly need to get a sub-lessee for my last three months of my lease, but I have a feeling my landlord isn't going to be thrilled about that.

I'm aware that this law doesn't apply to me (less than four units), but does anybody know what statute or regulation WOULD pertain to me? I've done a lil Westlaw'in but so far I'm not sure how to proceed.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2012 22:57

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

Meta Ridley posted:

Except she needs to see a chiropractor and is still in pain. How is that being made whole? She should pay out of pocket to see a chiropractor?

also IMO the fucker should be liable for punitive damages, it was a hit and run. If it were a genuine accident where they stop and try to help then yeah, but he could have easily killed someone then speeds up to drive off, and lies his rear end off when the police get him. i guess i think she deserves at the very least enough to cover ALL her medical bills sustained, her mental anguish (she has told me how traumatized she is by it) and punitive damages for the guy being a fucker.

she isn't looking for a windfall so gently caress you for making a character judgment of someone you don't know too. She would be happy with just a new cheap car, I am the one who thinks she should be fully made whole.

If an individual is lobbying for punitive damages (which you will never ever get in this situation) and if that individual is a party in the lawsuit, then that lobbying party is pretty much asking for a windfall yeah.

Look I understand you're upset because what happened was very unfair and very terrible. But if people got punitive damages for every unfair and terrible thing that happened our system would cease to be a tort system anymore and would become some sort of money thunderdome.

Sorry about your mom. I hope she's back to full strength very soon.

# ¿ Jun 21, 2012 12:55

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

Choadmaster posted:

Out of curiosity, does the right to a speedy trial not enter in here?

For felonies, the speedy trial right attaches at the moment judicial proceedings begin. It's NOT the moment of arrest. That's not the rule for misdemeanors or for state constitutional standards, but that's the best answer on an internet forum you're gon get.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2012 20:42

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

I have a question regarding a large portion of my security deposit that was withheld. I'm pretty sure I know the answer based on the research I've done but I want any additional advice that maybe someone in a similar spot in the past can provide.

I lived in an apartment in New York City for two years and paid a security deposit equal to one month's rent at the beginning. During the time I was there, I installed shelves which required drilling into the walls and brought up a dishwasher (one of those portable ones that wheels around). When I left the apartment, I cleaned thoroughly, but left up the shelves and the dishwasher. I'm a clean freak and I've never had a cent deducted from a security deposit for cleaning before in all the times I've rented. Both the shelves and the dishwasher were in perfect condition and had no visible defects. I didn't take any pictures because I am an idiot.

After my landlord informed me that a large portion of my security deposit would be withheld because of "damages," I requested an itemized statement through the mail. Today that arrived. It is handwritten on a piece of paper and says:

$500 - holes in walls, cleaning

Included is a check for the amount minus the $500.

The lease does not mention a cleaning fee, or a fee for holes in walls.

I know not to cash the check, but what is the next step here? Sending a letter? Making a phone call? In this communication, should I just try and talk the number down by denying any damages and then requesting something like $100 off? Should I deny all damages and threaten to bring suit? Even if I did sue, I don't have pictures so could I win?

# ¿ Aug 20, 2012 13:40

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

Yeah the only thing that is aberrant is that I've rented tons of places before and never lost anything from my security deposit, let alone five hundo. So I guess an ultra-pedantic way of putting it is that "the amount charged seems to be substantially higher than what other landlords have charged for equivalent damages in that market."

# ¿ Aug 20, 2012 17:26

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

No nern. No. Don't do it nern.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2012 18:59

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

I have a buddy that put down a (fairly substantial) deposit to a trade school. Trouble is that he may not be able to secure a loan to cover the tuition to the school. Setting aside the wisdom or foolishness of this decision, can anyone point me in the direction of legal theories that might allow my buddy to get his deposit back if he is not able to acquire loans sufficient to pay tuition? I'm thinking of something like frustration of purpose?

I'm not getting paid for research into this legal issue and I don't expect anyone else to burn time, but if this strikes a chord with anyone in terms of familiarity I'd appreciate some direction.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2012 22:22

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

nm posted:

Name
General Delivery
City, State Zip+9999

For the purposes of Michigan's state sex offender registry, homeless individuals have 123 Homeless Street listed as their residence. True story

# ¿ Oct 24, 2012 02:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 26, 2024 03:55

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

No WAY. Someone could be BILLED but not PAY?!?! Why I'm just a simple countray lawyer I wouldn't know NOTHING about such FOOLISHNESS nosiree yes let me be unequivocal all clients pay and that's that yes sir that is a totally correct statement of the way that things are for lawyers in today's world

# ¿ Dec 8, 2012 13:52

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