pg1067

Members
  • Content count

    52,479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

pg1067 last won the day on May 19

pg1067 had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About pg1067

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. Are you either of the guys? In any event, the temporary nature of the ban might make it constitutional -- depending on how long it will remain in place. In any event, either of them is free to file an interlocutory appeal to challenge the ban.
  2. The notion of "list[ing] [a creditor] as income" makes no sense whatsoever. That being said, a creditor can object to a debtors BK schedules, the schedules can be amended, or the creditor can simply file a claim. Note, however, that, in most Chapter 7 cases, unsecured nonpriority creditors typically receive $0, much less anything approaching the total amount owed. Obviously, if the creditor holds a secured or priority claim or the BK is filed under some other chapter, the possibility of receiving some amount increases somewhat, but the details matter and we have none.
  3. I agree with the prior response. More details of the case and the court's order are needed to comment meaningfully. That said, I have a hard time imagining any set of circumstances in which a blanket social media ban would be constitutional.
  4. We have no way of assessing this meaningfully. All we have to go on is your one-sided, self-interested description of what happened. I'm not criticizing you for your post being one-sided and self-interested (indeed, that is to be expected), but it is utterly impossible to give a meaningful assessment of your chances of success based on such a description. If you sue, the other party will have an opportunity present its case and rebut yours, and we have no way of knowing what that would look like. Well...for starters, you'd have to sue in South Carolina or wherever the owner lives or in the jurisdiction and forum provided in the VRBO standard rental agreement or standard terms and conditions (if such a thing exists) or your rental contract with the owner. With that said, if you sue and win, you can enforce your judgment in whatever ways are permitted by the laws of the state where you obtain the judgment. The most common ways of enforcing a civil money judgment are bank levy and wage garnishment. Since the owner has rental property, you could also serve a levy on an renter who owes the owner money, but the practicalities of that could be extremely difficult. If you really feel this way, then suing is a waste of your time and money. Have you posted a negative review on VRBO and/or submitted a complaint to VRBO. Those sorts of things may be far more effective than a lawsuit.
  5. The other option would be simply to pay the fine, but that would result in the ticket going on your husband's driving record. I don't know if that's preferable to having it on your record, but it is an option.
  6. A case of what? Admittedly, I stopped reading all of the unnecessary detail in your post about halfway through, so maybe I missed something. However, if you're concerned with how your mother is raising your sister, the first thing you need to do is discuss your concerns with your father. If he doesn't act to change things, then here are your options: (1) take a more active role in your sister's life while she remains in your mother's custody; (2) talk with your parents about your sister living with you (informally) or about you obtaining a formal guardianship with their consent; (3) contact the local child protective services authority; or (4) file a petition to obtain guardianship without your parents' consent. Sadly, the law does not yet recognize exposing children to second-hand smoke as a form of child abuse (and esp. not in a place like South Carolina), and the rest of things I read in your post mostly amount to parenting style, so I wouldn't be real sanguine about either the third or fourth options I mentioned. If you do try to pursue a guardianship (whether with or without your parents' consent), you should consult with a local attorney who handles such matters.
  7. Right, but it wasn't working properly or you wouldn't have called for a repair. If you choose to dismiss, you should dismiss without prejudice. There is no sound reason to dismiss with prejudice. If you do so, you should not have any liability for any defense costs.
  8. How did the officer acquire your husband's name, driver's license number, etc., in order to put it on the ticket? I don't know what you mean by "thrown out." If the ticket was issued to your husband, then he ought to be able to fight it successfully since he did not commit the infraction. However, you can expect that, once the cop or prosecutor realizes the error, a new ticket will be issued to you. Whether you have any basis to fight the ticket isn't apparent from your post.
  9. If you're asking whether it's legal for him to do so, the answer is yes. Can the landlord do this? Yes, of course. And, as a general matter, there's nothing illegal about doing so.
  10. Lawyers are not allowed to represent clients in small claims court in California. Even if that weren't the case, you'd likely spend at least half the amount at issue on legal fees. If the facts are as you described them, then you should have little difficulty handling this yourself.
  11. I knew that after the first sentence of your post when you indicated your washer was 13 years old and not working properly. Seriously? You think your broken, 13-year old dishwasher was worth $500?! Rule 26.1(a)(2) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure only requires that you disclose "the legal theory on which each of [your] claims . . . is based." You don't have to cite legal authorities unless doing so is "necessary for a reasonable understanding of the claim or defense." Your theory of liability is, presumably, negligence, and citing case law certainly is not necessary for an understanding of that theory. Providing you with case law that is relevant to your particular fact situation is the very definition of providing legal advice, which would be improper on a forum such as this. No it's not. The OP arguably contracted with the repair company to try and repair the washer. That the repair efforts were unsuccessful does not make for a breach of that contract. Even if that were not the case, the only damages would be the money paid for the repair work. However, the OP hasn't indicated he paid anything. The negligence theory may have some teeth, but the damages would be limited to the washer's fair market value at the time prior to when the repairman damaged it. A 13-year old dishwasher that isn't working properly probably has a scrap value of maybe $25-50. I agree that dismissing this ill-advised lawsuit without prejudice would be the smart thing to do here. P.S. FWIW (which is pretty much nothing), a rule that allows a defendant to remove a small claims suit to "regular" court for any reason other than the existence of a counterclaim in excess of small claims jurisdiction is beyond stupid.
  12. None. If you think the "old wooden fence" is not sufficient, you are free to build a more secure fence. I'm curious why you think it's only the landlord's responsibility. Is the fence on the landlord's property? Is it on your property? On the border? I would certainly hope so. I don't know anywhere animal control will remove animals simply because of barking. It's not beyond the realm of possibility. It is always your responsibility to take measures to protect yourself from physical danger. It's also not anyone else's responsibility to deal with how you feel. The dog owner's only responsibility is to ensure his dogs don't actually attack you, and, thus far, it appears he has fulfilled that responsibility.
  13. I can't tell which of the questions in your post are questions you actually want answered and which are rhetorical or which you asked during the one phone conversation you mentioned. The extent to which the school may legally communicate with you about this situation depends on the specifics of your current custody order, which you didn't share with us. For example, if the mother has full legal custody, then the school should only be communicating with her. Beyond that, this seems like a matter you ought to be discussing with the mother and the school's principal, not the psychiatrist.
  14. Of course you can do it, but I doubt that's what you intended to ask. There are circumstances in which this could be legal. However, for example, if you buy an emblem for the University of Pottsylvania and stitch it onto a jacket, selling that jacket would be trademark infringement. If you want to be more clear about what you're talking about, I may be able to provide more info.
  15. Not really clear whom you called (i.e., who are "they"/"them"?). If a lawsuit has been filed, it is already a matter of public record. Doesn't matter if you're served or not. However, most employment background checks aren't going to show civil lawsuits (esp. not small claims suits). Beyond that, you didn't ask a question. As for the reference in the subject header of your post, the applicable statute of limitations is four years from the date of accrual of the cause of action (which, according to your post, seems to have happened prior to 9/10/10). If this is a small claims matter, you can raise that issue at the time of trial (there is no "mov[ing] for dismissal in small claims court). I suggest you make arrangements with the process server to be served so that you can deal with this properly. If it turns out the suit isn't in small claims court, please advise, and I may have a couple additional thoughts for you.