• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RetiredinVA

  1. This may be interesting to attorneys practicing in New Jersey and do real estate work. But it is unlikely to be of any interest to anyone on this site. (Fairfax County, Virginia, where I practiced for many years, started this type of requirement probably fifteen years ago.)
  2. Your post is difficult understand. When did your claim arise? What was the basis of the claim? When did you file the late notice of claim? When did the court authorize the filing of the late notice of the claim? What do you mean by "archiving" the claim? Are you confusing the statute of limitations with bring the necessary suit with the time limit for filing a notice of the claim?
  3. You have not indicated whether all of your loans are from the same lender. If there is more than one lender then it would be entirely proper to report the default on each loan separately. The entity to which you made your payment in probably a loan servicer, not a primary lender or creditor.
  4. Exculpatory evidence is not presented during the indictment process. Indictment is not a trial. The grand jury merely determines if it is probable that a crime has been committed and that the defendant was the perpetrater. Also, this is the first time I have ever heard of a motion being filed by a defendant to reduce a charge from a felony to a misdemenor. Prosecutors will often file a motion to reduce a charge, but it is almost always in conjunction with a plea bargain. If you want to have the charges reduced, indicate to the PD that you might plead guilty in return for a reduction in the charges. That may be acceptable to the prosecutor. Your conflict with the public defender obviously stems from your misunderstanding of the criminal procedures.
  5. The attorney can only be charged with malpractice by his or her clients. Neither you nor your sister were clients. If the trust was not set up the way you would prefer it had been set up it may be because that is how your parents directed the attorney to set it up. I must say the description of your sister's loss of benefits is very confusing. How could the wording of a trust cause a loss of your sister's SSDI benefits?
  6. If the emergency brake was on and the transmission was in first gear the car would have to be put on a dolly to tow. No competent tow truck operator would tow a vehicle in the condition you suggest without taking the necessary step of putting the wheels on a dolly.
  7. It is legal until you have a signed lease.
  8. Although the business may own the building, if you own the business then the building is an asset to be dealt with in the bankruptcy. Upon filing, everything you own "belongs" to the bankruptcy court. So the bankruptcy court will own the business that owns the building.
  9. Bankruptcy includes everything you own and everything you owe. Simple isn't it.. I would strongly advise you to get a lawyer. The elements you mentioned, i.e. commercial realty, trust fund taxes, and a commercial mortgage are going to necessitate legal help.
  10. I did not say "anal retentive lender". I said "anal retentive title insurance company". There is a difference. Title insurance companies are reluctant to issue insurance on any property when there is even the most remote chance there may be a claim against the title. Most lenders require clear title insurance, without exceptions. If I referred to any lender as being "anal retentive" I would be referring to the one requiring the clear title insurance. Your posts still do not make much sense. As rephrased, you said your corporation was a plaintiff in a partition action. That means the corporation owned some interest in the property in co-tenancy with another party or parties and was seeking to have the property divided or sold. Sometime during the pendency of the partition action a lender recorded a trust deed, I would assume securing some kind of loan to one or more of your co-tenants. You have not indicated whether there actually was such a loan, to whom it was made, and whether it was properly secured by some interest in the property. Your reference to "lender" is also confusing. Your post indicated you needed to have title cleared because of an objection by a title insurer. I assume that was causing a problem with an entity who was either purchasing or financing the property. So that would be a problem with a lender we might call Lender A. There is a second lender, call him Lender B, who allegedly made the loan that gave rise to the trust deed. I believe you were referring to Lender B in your most recent post. You suggest Lender B is an expert and is protected from suit, etc. It is not clear what that has to do with anything. So here is my question: Did lender B lend money to you or to a co-owner of the property that was secured by the trust deed? I also assume the partition suit resulted in a sale or transfer of the property to your corporation. If the corporation subsequently conveyed the property to you I doubt that would form a basis for you to intervene in the case that involved the corporation. BTW, punitive damages are almost impossible to get in any matter involving business transactions. So I would not hold any hope that any lawyer would consider taking your case on a contingency basis.
  11. If you are entitled to any compensation it would be based on the difference between the value of a vehicle with an eight speed transmission versus a six speed transmission. The dealership made representations regarding that fact, not regarding future operating expenses. Run a KBB value determination between the two transmissions to get a valid basis for negotiation.
  12. Whoa! In your response you (finally) said you were the plaintiff in the case. If you were the plaintiff, or any other party, you can't "intervene". Intervention means entry into a case by an entity with an interest in the issues in the case who is not already a party. What you are looking to do is to correct the court's order by including language that probably should have been included but wasn't. You further indicated that the issue of the trust deed filed after the initiation of the suit was known to the parties and argued. But language regarding the trust deed was not included in the final order approving the sale of the property. Obviously, I have not read the final order but I am sure the order approving the sale of the property implicitly approved the sale as not subject to liens not mentioned in the order. One way to correct the problem would be to petition the court to reopen the case. But that would require notice to the alleged lien holder and the former defendant(s). Asking the court to reopen the case to "correct" the final order may, and probably would, be fruitless and denied by the court. You are not asking for correction of a clerical error, like a misspelled name or incorrect date. You are asking the court to make a ruling it did not make three years ago. If it were at all possible to do so, it would require an evidentiary hearing, since it is unlikely the judge would be the same judge and would remember the facts and issues of the three year old case. Your problem is not with whether there should have been language explicitly ruling that the after filed trust deed was invalid. Your problem is with the anal retentive title insurance company. I suspect the only realistic course is probably a suit to quiet title.
  13. First, an order was entered in the partition suit. That means the case is over. Second, the facts you have stated do not explain why you believe the case should be reopened. All you have alleged is that some sort of trust document was recorded after the partition suit was filed and you want it to be declared invalid. No explanation as to the nature or origin of the trust deed and whether any of the parties to the suit were aware of its existence. Third, you have contacted an attorney about this matter who has apparently recommended a couse of action. I suppose the attorney has reviewed the detailed facts, which we can't do. Why would you believe we would be in a superior position to rcommend action?
  14. If the child was his and yours that changes the situation considerably. I suspect you will have to have paternity established since you are not married. Once it is established that the child is his, the child will have a claim to part of the estate. I did not practice in Texas and am not intimately familiar with Texas intestate succession laws. You really need to consult a Texas probate attorney ASAP.
  15. Since he is still married his spouse is entitled to inherit his marital property. Strangely you did not mention his daughter until the last word. Is she his daughter by you or by his wife? It can make a big difference. Consult a probate lawyer to determine your rights.
  16. I didn't practice in Tennessee and I am reluctant to say with certainty your cotenant can sever a joint tenancy by transferring the interest to himself. But in some states that is possible. That is why I said "it may also be possible" rather than stating that as a certainty. I suggest you consult Tennessee counsel for a definitive answer. Otherwise I would say the cotenant can sever the survivorship by transferring the interest.
  17. Yes, the other tenant can sell his part of the title to the property( if he can find a fool interested in buying it). However, transferring property held in joint tenancy to a third party will convert the tenancy to tenancy in common and eliminate the right of survivorship. It may also be possible to convert the joint tenancy to tenancy in common by transferring the interest property to oneself. The person transferring his or her interest does not have to inform the other party. Only tenancy by the entireties cannot be sold by only one of the tenants. But tenancy by the entirety is only available to married couples.
  18. Who else uses the washer?
  19. It may be unethical and immoral but it is legal. There are few laws that regulate any thing about employment other than minimum and overtime pay and illegal discrimination.
  20. Little if any chance. I believe the document you are referring to is the affidavit used to get the warrant. There is no process to challenge it except at trial. Your attorney (you do have an attorney, right), can try to impeach the officer during cross examination. When he does the officer will say, "I didn't have my notes when I did the affidavit. Sorry." And the jury will say "Okay." and you will be convicted. The issue is whether you had the pipe, not when you had it.
  21. This is not the place to seek legal help. You need to find legal aid or other assistant.
  22. Your description of the property sounds very unusual. You asked about restrictions on "a house or condo". It seems the property you are talking about is a hotel or motel or part of a hotel or motel. Correct? Are the rooms sold one at a time? You said the developer retained one unit so there can never be 100% approval to the restriction. It probably does not make a major difference though. When you bought the property you must have known that the developer required rentals to be managed by his company. If you didn't know that it is on you.
  23. Of course there are illegal deed restrictions. Historically many deeds restricted ownership of property to white people, or excluded negros or Jews. Such deed restrictions have been held to be unconstitutional. But unless the deed restriction is contrary to some recognized civil right, it will be upheld. The most common deed restrictions are those imposed in the covenants and restrictions in condominium and planned communities. Such restrictions, such as the one you cited, will almost always be held to be legal. Restrictions on rental of properties can be very valuable to the condominium owners. If a condominium evolves into a primarily rental community it can become impossible for a prospective purchaser to obtain a mortgage and can render the units essentially unsalable. In your case, the developer is trying to prevent the condominium from turning into a hotel. The restriction would almost certainly be upheld.
  24. Virginia courts lose jurisdiction of cases after 20 days. There is no going back under the circumstances you described.