pg1067

Members
  • Content count

    52,222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49
  1. At least this gives us a starting point, but I have a ton of additional questions. First, since you wrote that the corporation was the plaintiff in the partition action, I assume that the corporation jointly owned the property with someone else. Correct? Certainly, a corporation "has a right to wind down its affairs." However, only an "active" corporation has capacity to sue and be sued, and a lawsuit filed by a corporation that is dissolved before the lawsuit is resolved can be stayed or dismissed. Why do you think you should have been named as a plaintiff in the partition lawsuit? Was the corporation's interest in the property transferred to you at some point? If so, when did that happen? Going back to your original post, you wrote that a "final order confirming sale was [entered] in 2014." I assume that means the property was sold sometime in 2014 (or maybe 2013). Stated differently, it must have been sold prior to entry of a "final order confirming sale." Correct? Do you or does the corporation you mentioned still have any interest in the property? If so, what is the nature of that interest and how was it acquired if the property was sold? You wrote that someone recorded a deed of trust against the property "after the notice of action was recorded," and I assume that's a reference to a lis pendens recorded pursuant to CCP 405, et seq. Correct? If so, when was the lis pendens recorded, and when was the deed of trust recorded? You wrote that you "want . . . a declaratory judgment clarifying the previous judgment [and] declaring [the] trust deed . . . to be invalid on that basis in accord with specific provisions of law." Is the "basis" to which you refer the fact that the trust deed was recorded after the lis pendens? If so, why do you think that fact automatically invalidates the trust deed? You've told us that the trust deed was recorded after the lis pendens was recorded, but was the trust deed recorded prior to the entry of the 2014 order? If so, were the trustee and beneficiary named in the trust deed made parties to the partition suit? Who was the trustor (i.e., who signed the trust deed)? Why wasn't this issue addressed in the 2014 order or any orders that led up to that final order? What "specific provisions of law" are you referring to? With all that said, if, in fact, the trust deed is invalid, the appropriate action at this time is either a motion to modify the judgment or (more likely) a quiet title action.
  2. What additional "inspection" did you do that revealed this? In other words, rescind the transaction, which is the absolute most you'd be entitled to if you were to sue. A lot depends on how you answer my first question above. If this is something that could have been easily ascertained with a visual inspection before making the person, you may be SOL.
  3. Actually, almost nothing I asked is covered in your reply to "RetiredinVA." The focus of my prior response was on the lack of relevant facts in your original post, and you still haven't provided much of anything in that regard, and those things you did mention lack context. Right, but you wrote that you had read that a "new complaint" is necessary. The plaintiff files the complaint, and the person intervening would file a separate complaint in intervention, but the plaintiff would not file a "new complaint." And, since you've now told us that you were the plaintiff in this case, the notion of you intervening now makes even less sense. Since you have not provided anything close to enough relevant facts to say much more than that, I suggest you consult with a local real estate attorney.
  4. No. Yes. What other possibility could there be? Why would you "guess" this?
  5. This sentence is missing a subject. Who "[h]osted an after hours party"? What does "after hours" mean in this context? After what hours? You wrote that "we provided food and beverages." Who are "we"? An employee of whom? What caused you to make assumptions about who this person was (i.e., what was/were the basis/bases for your assumption)? Again, it depends on who "we" are. Section 1714(d) has to be read in the context of 1714(c), which states the general rule that a social host is not liable for injuries resulting from a guest's consumption of alcoholic beverages. Also, in order for 1714(d) to apply, not only must the defendant have "knowingly furnish[ed] alcoholic beverages" to the person under the age of 21, the defendant must have known or had reason to know the person served was under 21. Concur.
  6. The applicability of a liability waiver is a matter of law for the court to decide, so it's not up to a jury to "throw those things out" or not. Proper liability insurance, together with a well-drafted liability waiver, is the way to go.
  7. What could it possibly mean to "intervene" in a suit that was (apparently) resolved three years ago? I can't really speak to things you've read but haven't identified, but intervention does not typically require a new complaint. Hard to say without any relevant facts. And when you expressed this belief to him, how did he respond? If you want to provide relevant facts, we can take another look at this.
  8. Ok...was paternity ever established? If so, how was it established? Note that "his name is on the birth certificate" does not, by itself, constitute establishment of paternity. Assuming paternity was established (or if it can now be established), Texas law provides that the surviving spouse receives 1/3 of the deceased's separate personal property and the right to use the deceased's real property for life. The surviving child who is not a child of the surviving spouse is entitled to everything else, including the deceased's 1/2 interest in community property. Things may get very complicated here, so you would be well advised to consult with a local probate attorney.
  9. I suggest you contact the county clerk and ask (to the best of my knowledge, no one from NC posts here regularly). What do you mean by this? I'm sure the State of NC will happily accept your tax payments. I think the better question to ask is whether the State of NY (and any other state in which you might be a resident in the future) will require that you register your business and pay taxes. Note that, while federal law may allow military personnel to maintain legal residency in a particular state, for some purposes, that you are still a "resident" of NC is obviously nothing but a legal fiction. Of course, helping military personnel and families avoid things like this is probably the reason behind this legal fiction, so it's definitely something about which you ought to consult with an attorney. I would imagine someone associated with your spouse's unit could provide a referral.
  10. What do you mean by "base this . . . business out of North Carolina"?
  11. Your understanding regarding the underlined portion is not correct. A properly drafted waiver could protect you if your negligence results in a client's injury. I'll respond to these two things together. First of all, if you don't have insurance and get sued, how will you afford a lawyer to defend you? Do you have tens of thousands of dollars available for this purpose? One of the most significant benefits of liability insurance is that it covers the cost of a defense attorney in addition to the amount that it will pay in damages if someone is injured. Working as a "personal trainer" without liability insurance would be beyond foolish. As far as hiring an attorney to draft a waiver, it's possible that your insurer will require that you have one that is drafted by an attorney (as opposed to one that you find online). Even if your insurer doesn't require it, it won't cost too much, and not doing it will be penny wise and pound foolish. That would be factored into any determination regarding negligence.
  12. We have no way of knowing. First of all, posting about a crime you committed on a public message board isn't the smartest thing in the world. It's also not terribly smart to seek advice about criminal matters from anonymous strangers. I suggest you consult with a local attorney. Given the amount at issue, it's hardly the crime of the century.
  13. Can he? Well...if he is able to find someone willing to pay for only part ownership of the property, then he can sell it. Whether he can do this without your knowledge is impossible to predict. However, it is extremely uncommon for someone to be willing to buy only part ownership of property. Is this really what you intended to ask? Like everyone else, and like everyone else who owns real property, you have dozens of legal rights, and it would serve no useful purpose to try and list them all. First, he wouldn't be selling a "portion of [the] deed." Second, a "family" is not a legal entity that can can own things. What he could do is sell or otherwise transfer his interest in the property to one or more members of his family by executing a deed, and yes, that would destroy the joint tenancy (i.e., "eliminate the rights of survivorship part").
  14. Why would you tag this post onto a nearly seven year old thread? Start a new thread and be sure to identify the relevant state.
  15. Just so you know, that's usury. The maximum rate of interest allowed under Washington law is 12% per annum. Secured how? Did you record a UCC-1 financing statement with the Washington Secretary of State? First of all, the word is "disburse" (or "disbursal"), not "disperse" (or "dispersal"). They mean different things. Second, it would be impossible even for a Washington attorney to tell you much about this without reading your promissory note and knowing how it was supposedly "secured" by the money being held by the county clerk. If the money is "secured" by nothing more than the promissory note language, that is meaningless. Third, you wrote that the money belongs to your borrower "and his partners." Therefore, even if you have valid security, you're not going to get anything released without the partners' cooperation since you don't apparently have any claim against them. I suggest you consult with a local attorney, but the amount at issue is small claims level, so you probably can do that yourself.