pg1067

Members
  • Content count

    52,490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

Everything posted by pg1067

  1. No lawyers from Oregon and no one meeting these criteria posts here regularly. Seek advice from a local attorney.
  2. So...what is your question? Are you asking if your statement that one has "120 days to bring [an] action [to contest the trust] after being served with [a] [P]robate [C]ode 16061.7" notice is not correct? If so, the answer is that your statement is correct. See Probate Code sections 16061.7 and 16061.8.
  3. Anyone can dispute anything. What are you talking about when you refer to "the 120 day expiration date"?
  4. You didn't ask a question, so I have no idea what the purpose of your post is. If you do have a question, you'll also need to provide significant clarification of the relevant facts. Is there some relationship between the two trusts? If so, what is the relationship? Why? What was "made under duress"? The amendment? The second trust? Both of them? Who was under duress? What was the nature of the duress? Whose doctor? What records? Won't release them to whom?
  5. This only applies to non-binding arbitration ordered by the court after a lawsuit has been filed. It doesn't apply to the OP's situation.
  6. Your word versus his. Without impartial witnesses or video evidence, this isn't something that can be resolved. I assume you didn't have collision coverage on your car. Otherwise, you wouldn't be here. However, if you did have collision coverage, why on Earth haven't you made a claim against it? With collision coverage, your own insurer will pay to repair your vehicle (less the deductible), regardless of fault. If you didn't have collision coverage, then you probably also didn't have rental car coverage. If those assumptions are correct, then your only recourse is to sue the other driver. If you do it in small claims court (which you can if your damages are under $10k), then neither of you will be allowed to be represented by an attorney, so the playing field will be even. Of course, you'll probably be countersued, and there's a possibility that you'll get the same result for the same reason, but you have very little to lose other than your time and the filing fee.
  7. I'm not sure what "this" refers to, but your post is so vague and scattered that I can't really understand anything that is happening other than that the property you rent has bedbugs, but I doubt that's what you want explained. Assuming "them" refers to your landlord, you wrote that you're suing your landlord, so what more do you want to do beyond that? You're free to hire lawyers to represent your fellow tenants. Beyond that, you can't do anything for them. Query why you don't just move.
  8. I have no idea what this means. "Fine" with whom? It's certainly "fine" with me. If your intent was to ask if it's legal, the answer is yes. Ok, I've said those things. Now what? HO-4 is a form for residential renter's insurance. It has nothing to do with CGL coverage or non-residential property.
  9. Not sure how you expect anyone here to know why some unknown landlord of an unknown building has imposed this requirement. If you want to know why Person A has done something, asking Person A is far more likely to lead to the correct answer than asking Persons X, Y and Z. In other words, ask the landlord.
  10. You didn't ask any questions in your post, so I'm unsure what sort of response you're seeking or expecting. I'm also not sure what the purpose is of attaching pictures of the persons involved in your situation. If you post here further, please make an effort to use proper capitalization and punctuation and don't post in all bold. Your post is incredibly difficult to read and understand. I therefore suggest that you summarize your original post and edit out all of the unnecessary detail.
  11. Depends on the applicable state law and the terms of the guardianship order. Why would you expect to meet people from the courts? Not really sure what you mean by this. Odds? This isn't a casino. You either are or you aren't. No. A person subject to a guardianship does not "choose" his/her guardian, and it's not like anyone from the court in Georgia would have knowledge of your mother's death unless someone reported the death to the court. The starting place would be the court in Georgia in which you appeared in 1996. However, the clerk there isn't going to be able to tell you anything other than whether or not a guardianship case was filed, but you should be able to order copies of public record documents. I don't follow your reasoning. If we assume that your father hired a probate lawyer to assist with the administration of your mother's estate, there is no reason at all why that lawyer would know anything about any guardianship (unless your father told him about it). I'm not sure why you care, but your communication with someone else's lawyer is not privileged. Yes. Here's the bottom line. I cannot imagine why a court would have ordered a guardianship over a minor child with the child's mother as the guardian. It would be pointless since a child's parent is already the child's guardian. If such a guardianship had been awarded while you were still a minor, it should have terminated when you turned 18 unless the guardianship order says otherwise. According to you, you have no knowledge of a guardianship order and no one has shown you any such order. Until and unless someone can prove that a guardianship is actually in place, I can see no reason for you to believe one does exist.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.