pg1067

Members
  • Content count

    51,444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I don't disagree with this, but, at least in California, the amount of child support is determined, in part, on how much time each child spends with each parent. That being the case, the issue raised by the OP will, eventually, impact the child support determination. I couldn't agree more.
  2. I don't typically hold anything published at the Huffington Post in any sort of high regard, and the lawyer who wrote this apparently practices in Missouri. With that said, the bit you quoted is fairly accurate, but it doesn't say anything about "abandonment." For starters, most divorce cases are resolved by stipulated judgments -- i.e., mutual agreements between the parties. If the court has to make a ruling on custody, the default is to preserve the status quo for the children, if possible. If Spouse A moved out of the marital home four years ago and the kids have been spending most of their time with Spouse B, then the court will likely award primary physical custody to Spouse B, with Spouse A having liberal visitation. In this regard, being the parent who moves out could work to your disadvantage. However, you said you're contemplating a somewhat unusual equal time arrangement. If you end up following that, then there's no advantage or disadvantage to either of you. Even if you move out and don't follow the arrangement, as long as you remain an active part of your kids' lives, then you should be ok. What you need to keep in mind is that so-called 50/50 time splitting arrangements generally don't work -- at least not for very long and not as kids get older. Therefore, the reality with most divorced couples is that children will spend a majority of time with one parent, which means that the other parent will get less time. That's not because of who "deserves" what; it's a simple practical fact of life, and making statements to the effect that someone is getting "less time with your children than you truly deserve" is silly and counter-productive. What's important is that you take steps to ensure that both parents remain an important part of the kids' lives
  3. Why your friend wouldn't have asked these questions to her lawyer is unfathomable. If your lawyer tells you something you don't understand, ask for an explanation. As far as I know, no lawyers from NY post here regularly. I googled "new york rohrs credit," and one of the results was an opinion for a case called Rohrs v. Rohrs, which seems to discuss the issue quite clearly.
  4. It's certainly not correct that "it will show the court that [you] abandoned [your] kids." In fact, that's patently absurd. When married parents decide to divorce or separate, one of them typically moves out. Abandonment is a lot more than simply moving out of the family home. That said, it's certainly possible that it may impact an eventual custody decision. I'm not really sure I understand what this means. The arrangement you described will have nothing to do with child support. Likewise, if you engage in the revolving door arrangement you described, that will be what matters -- not the terms of any agreement. I don't know what you mean by "shared custody," but California law certainly provides for various types of custody. You can create any agreement you like, with or without an attorney. As with anything else, if you hire a knowledgeable professional, you're likely to get a better result than if you try and do it yourself. Be aware, however, that most agreements of the sort you seem to be contemplating are legally meaningless.
  5. Duplicate thread. See http://boards.answers.findlaw.com/topic/238421-purchased-custom-wheels-been-waiting-a-year-now-to-get-my-last-wheel-returned/
  6. Of course. Did you really think the answer might be otherwise?
  7. If it was so obvious to you.... Never mind. If you look at my prior post, I wrote "that she'll have the burden of proof," but I said nothing about beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the burden of proof in criminal cases, but the burden of proof in most civil matters (including this one) is a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, all she has to do is convince the judge or jury that it's more likely than not that she is correct. It's a much lower burden than the criminal standard, and her testimony certainly could be believed over yours, but we have no way of predicting the likelihood of any given outcome.
  8. She claims you owe her nearly $4k for unpaid rent, and you apparently claim that you did pay her -- in cash and without getting any sort of receipt. Your follow up post confirms that is true. With that in mind, if she takes legal action, how will you prove that you paid? Saying, "if i had an extra $3945 lying around id know about it," is all well and good, but it isn't evidence. She'll testify that you didn't pay, and you'll testify that you did. How that plays out in front of a judge or jury is impossible to predict, and the only thing you have going for you is that she'll have the burden of proof. Needless to say, paying something as important as rent in cash and without any sort of documentation is nothing short of foolish.
  9. The two motions seek different things, so asking which is "most [sic] effective and appropriate" is like asking which is better: a rock or a stick. As far as whether you can combine them into a single motion, that's something to discuss with a local family law attorney.
  10. Outside of a lawsuit, you probably won't. The answer to the second question is not necessarily, and the answer to the first question depends on unknown facts. Let's say the business is called Speedy Auto Repair and, at the time you brought your car in, the business was owned by a corporation called Speedy Auto Repair, Inc. ("SARI"), and all of the shares of SARI were owned by David Jones. While you were there, Jones sold his shares to Barbara Smith. Smith is now the "new owner," but the business entity form is the same, so you would sue SARI. On the other hand, if, at the time you brought your car in, the business was owned by Jones as a sole proprietorship, then you would probably want to sue both Jones and Smith and then figure out which is responsible (of course, if this is a small claims level case, there's no discovery, so that would happen until the time of trial). Starting with a BAR complaint would be smart.
  11. Depends on the terms of the agreement pursuant to which the new owner purchased the shop. It also depends on the shop's business entity form (e.g., corporation, sole proprietorship, etc.). I'm sure you're capable of doing any number of things, including a complaint to the Bureau of Automotive Repair and a small claims suit.
  12. Despite your use of a question mark, this sentence isn't a question. If your intent was to ask whether your "impression" is accurate, the answer is that it depends on additional facts. What sort of ad? Posted where? What does it mean to post an ad "in someones [sic] name"? For what is the person's image being used? I assume that "said company" means a business entity that posted the ads about which you're asking. Correct? How did the person in question "suffer[] irreprible [sic] monitary [sic] damage"?
  13. How could we possibly know? Ask them. As noted above, the first -- and most obvious -- thing to do is make an inquiry. Ultimately, if you aren't satisfied, you can sue. However, I suspect you may have difficulty proving that this item was taken if it is not on the seizure inventory.
  14. You might consider answering the questions I asked in my first response in this thread.
  15. We don't know your sister and, therefore, have no way of knowing what might persuade her to do this. Sorry, but you should have thought of that before you elected to commit criminal fraud. You can defend against the lawsuit by claiming that you weren't driving and that your sister was driving. Whether anyone will believe that after two years is anyone's guess. Maybe that will induce the plaintiff's insurer to add your sister to the lawsuit. Or you could file a third-party claim against her. The problem with that, of course, is that she can use your prior admission(s) that you were driving against you and claim that you are now changing the story just to get out of paying (which, in fact, is exactly what you would be doing). Hard to imagine that you still have a ticket to pay or a license suspension to deal with after two years. Yeah...probably.