• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pg1067 last won the day on February 20

pg1067 had the most liked content!

About pg1067

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  • Birthday
  1. I'm not going to dig through that gigantic block of text (and neither will a lot of the other regulars here). Suffice to say if your daughter isn't happy with her living conditions, she should move.
  2. Again, no. The estate tax is imposed on the estate if the value of the estate equals or is greater than $5.49M (for persons who die in 2017). It is not imposed on the beneficiaries. Who the heck is Jarvis, and what does he/she/it have to do with the subject of this thread? The laws in Maine and Maryland also have nothing to do with the subject of this thread either.
  3. Depends on the terms of the contract with the seller and any contract with the park owner or management company.
  4. Aside from the first one (the answer to which is yes), these questions go way beyond the scope of an Internet message board. If you want an analysis of how such published case applies to a hypothetical set of facts, you should seek input from a local attorney. Any chance your college has a law school or a pre-law program such that you could consult with one of those professors?
  5. No. There is no federal inheritance tax, but there is an estate tax (the threshold for which is $5.49M for persons who die in 2017). An estate tax and an inheritance tax are not the same thing. As explained at the above link, an estate tax is a tax on a person's right to transfer property upon death. By contrast, an inheritance tax is a tax on assets received by a beneficiary to an estate. Estate taxes are imposes on estates, whereas inheritance taxes are imposed on beneficiaries, so it makes no sense to refer to an "inheritance tax on estates." California imposes neither an estate tax nor an inheritance tax. Told by whom? And are you actually talking about a "law on inheritance tax" or some law relating to estate tax? State law or federal law?
  6. That's not correct. Commission is nothing more than a means of paying someone. First of all, it matters whether you are an employee or an independent contractor (note that this link is to the IRS's discussion of the distinction, which may or may not exactly match the definition used in your state). If you are an employee, then it matters whether you exempt or not exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act. If you are a non-exempt employee, then you must be paid overtime, regardless of how you are paid. You can still be paid by commission, but your pay must be equal to or greater than what you would be entitled to the applicable minimum wage and overtime laws. You can seek other employment or consult with a local employment attorney for a thorough review of your situation and advice. If you think you're not being paid fairly, then you should do those things.
  7. Despite your use of a question mark, this sentence isn't a question, but you'll obviously want to ensure that you provide clear evidence that any increase in income will be temporary. They're based on income as of the time of the calculation. That's faulty logic, but what you should do proactively is consult with a local attorney who can review the entirety of your situation and advise you whether it would be better to initiate the divorce or to wait for your wife to do so.
  8. What does "fault was given" mean? Given by whom? It's now been 24 days since the accident (23 when you posted about this). Why haven't you arranged to have your car repaired by now? Did you report the accident to your own insurer (even if you didn't make a claim against your own policy)? If not, why not? You said you only "miss[ed] a couple days of work." Does that mean you obtained a rental car? Obviously, there are lots of things you can do "to get this resolved," but it would be helpful to know what has happened in the 3 1/2 weeks since the accident (beyond some adjuster telling you that he "can't give any information"). The bottom line is that, if the other driver's insurer is taking to long to make a determination of your third-party claim, you may need to have the car repaired through your own insurance, the result of which will be that your insurer will pursue the other driver's insurance for reimbursement (including your deductible).
  9. Posted where? Indicated to whom and in what context? Even if it is objectively likely that the HOA won't prevail, that doesn't necessarily mean the lawsuit is frivolous. Again, posted where? The premise of this statement is true, but it's not clear from what you've told us whether you gave any legal advice (hence my questions above). If you had given legal advice, it makes no difference that the person to whom you gave the advice knew you aren't an attorney. As you described it, you "posted" an interpretation of "the governing documents" and "the county code" as they apply to a particular situation. It's possible that could constitute legal advice. Of course not (and, I find "adjusterjack's" statement to the contrary to be particularly surprising because, if it were true, then he would have committed thousands of crimes on this and other message boards). Also wrong. Making comments about a particular situation isn't necessarily the practice of law -- nor is making generalized statements about what the law does and doesn't permit.
  10. Told by whom? What does "removed from the estate" mean? What taxes are you talking about? What are you talking about? Estate tax is based on the value of the estate, not simply the decedent's residence. While the original post is obviously lacking in relevant facts, it's rather obvious that the OP is not talking about the lemon law, and the term "cooling off period" can be used to describe any period of time in which a particular action may or may not be taken. Unless the court orders otherwise, the executor may be begin to act in that capacity as soon as the court issues the order appointing the executor and the letters testamentary. I think that's what you're asking here. Contesting what? If a person with standing wants to contest a will or the appointment of an executor, such person has plenty of time to do so after the would-be executor files the petition to probate the estate and seeks appointment as executor. The time to contest these things is after the petition is served and before the hearing is held, not after the hearing is held and the appointment is made. There is no inheritance tax in California. Nor is there a federal inheritance tax.
  11. This question is unanswerable because you provided no relevant facts (and your follow up post didn't really help matters). What do you mean when you say that "two wills [have] 'come into play'"? Are you talking about a situation in which a living person changed his/her will (your follow up post seems to indicate that's not what you're talking about, but it's anything but clear)? "RetiredinVA" directly asked this very question, but you ignored it. If you ignore requests to clarify what you're asking, then we will have no way of providing useful information in response. As far as there being a "newly assigned executor," the only way that an executor can be "newly assigned" is by the probate court entering an order removing the former executor and appointing the new executor, and that could only happen by way of a noticed petition served on the former executor (and others). Therefore, there is no way the former executor would need to be notified after the fact about "the change in power/designation"? Telling us the situation is "strange" and "odd" tells us precisely nothing unless you explain why you think those things. What does "most wills are not always as clearly stated"? "As clearly stated" as what? The best thing you can do for your friend(s) is refer them to a probate attorney (especially if some person is "clearing the estate").
  12. Of course it's not illegal. It is an incredibly common condition of probation that the criminal is not allowed to associate with other convicted criminals. I assume "this man" refers to the probation officer. If so, what makes you think the PO "discuss[ed] [your] sons' [sic] record with someone else"? More than likely, the PO simply told your son's friend that he is not allowed to associate with other convicted criminals while he is on probation. And, even if the PO did specifically refer to your son, all he would have had to do was say, "you're not allowed to associate with him while you're on probation because he is a convicted criminal." Nothing wrong with that (and, as noted in prior responses, while the criminal file may be sealed from public view, it's certainly not sealed from law enforcement). No. Even if something improper had occurred, you have no standing to do anything.
  13. Visits (plural)? How many visits are we talking about, and why were multiple visits needed over a relatively short period of time? You're obviously free to talk with your friend about buying the dog from her. That you took care of the dog at the owner's request and falsely "microchipped [the dog] in [your] name" and didn't give the vet the owner's name (apparently falsely representing yourself as the owner) doesn't give you any legal claim. Did you tell your friend in advance that you were going to microchip the dog? Did she ask you to do that? Why didn't you "microchip[] [the dog] in [your friend's] name"? Why didn't you tell the vet that it was your friend's dog and that you were simply watching it for her? It's not your dog. It was only given to you to take care of at the owner's request. If you refuse to return the dog, it could be charged as a crime ("Ted's" boat example above is a good one). What's difficult to understand about that?
  14. There are probably dozens or hundreds of reasons why something like this might happen. What purpose would it serve for anyone to guess about your situation? Pay the state back for what? Obviously, some folks are easier to locate than others. It's obviously possible that your child(ren)'s father may be in another state, and it's rather clear that he is harder to find than you are. There are two basic ways to collect child support from a recalcitrant payor: (1) rely on the state to do it; or (2) do it yourself (either personally or via an attorney). Since you can no longer rely on the state to chase him down, you'll have to hire an attorney or do it yourself. Let's start with step #1: do you know where he is? Do(es) your child(ren) know where he is? Also, how much in total is owed?
  15. The link that the moderator removed was for a lawyer or law firm in Toronto, so I'm sure you're correct about this.