• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. In fairness, the state tag is rather small and placed above the large blue bar that tops the first post in the thread. That location is not where I would first expect to look for the state information, but rather I'd first look to see it in the first post of the thread. IMO if it were prominently featured there that would be the best spot for it. Alternatively, if you keep it where it is, at least make it bigger and more noticeable. As it is now, it is kind of easy to overlook.
  2. In Georgia it appears that the age of consent for sex is 16. This means that there would not be any statutory rape problem for the 19 year-old having sex with the 16 year-old.
  3. Well you don’t want any “haters” to respond but then slam some folks as “smart ass wanna be an attorney punks” just a few sentences before. The irony there is just too rich.
  4. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) has two basic rules regarding pay for a non-exempt employee: (1) the employee must be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all work the employee does for the employer and (2) if the employee works more than 40 hours during a single work week then the employee must be paid over-time for all the time worked over 40 hours. With regard to being on call, the federal Department of Labor (DOL) Fact Sheet # 22 says the following: “On-Call Time: An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises is working while ‘on call.’ An employee who is required to remain on call at home, or who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached, is not working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee’s freedom could require this time to be compensated.” So, as to your time at and near home with the pager, that was almost certainly not work time and thus you did not have to be compensated under federal law for that. Of course, you did have to be compensated for the work you actually did when you did get paged. It sounds like the employer did that and so I do not see any obvious violation of the FSLA in what what you stated. Even if there was a violation, however, it is too late to pursue it because federal law sets a two year statute of limitation (SOL) on claims of unpaid minimum wage or overtime, and that on call time was back in 2012. Arizona similarly sets a two year SOL for such claims under the state minimum wage law, or three years if the violation was willful. Either way, again it is too late to pursue it even if the employer violated the state law. As to your current situation, employers are free to change your job duties and hours at any time. They can assign you a ton of work to do. And they can increase how much work you do without an increase in the rate of pay you get. So long as you are getting paid minimum wage, getting paid for all the time you do work, and getting paid over time for the time over 40 hours a week then the employer is not violating either federal or state law. And if the new work that the employer gives you changes your classification from non-exempt to exempt, then the employer is generally exempt from those requirements. It’s not clear exactly how you are getting paid now or what your work involves so I cannot say if there might be some violation of federal or state law regarding your pay. As for the leave, it will matter a bit exactly what your employer’s vacation pay policy is. It may well be, however, that the employer was entitled to revoke the approved vacation and instead treat the time as unpaid FMLA leave given your circumstance. However, while out on FMLA the employer is required to maintain all your benefits, including your health benefits. The fact that the employer suspended the benefits right as the FMLA started is troubling. I suspect that there was miscommunication between the manager and HR as to what your status was, but whatever the problem was they need to fix that to ensure you get the health benefits you were entitled to receive. That happened back in February. Has the issue on the benefits been fixed? If not, what has the employer told you about that?
  5. That won’t help. Your father would have had to be an American citizen at the time of alleged ADA violations to be able to sue the U.S. employer when the violation occurred outside the U.S. Getting him citizenship after the fact doesn’t do any good.
  6. A title insurance company may list pretty much anything as an exception to the policy, and they typically will except anything found in the public record that might result in a claim to an interest in the property. Feel free to look for another title company to see if it will be willing to cover you for those items, but I suspect most will be reluctant to do so. Insofar as getting the deed of trust removed, I think it is extremely unlikely that you can make a good case for attempted extortion here and the prosecutor is thus unlikely to be willing to pursue it. And if the lender is, as your post hints, located in a foreign country you can forget about that altogether. In any event, a prosecution for extortion would still not solve your problem of the deed of trust being in the record and clouding title to the property. Instead, in the end I think you'll have to do a suit to quiet title to resolve that. This basically is a civil problem, not a criminal one.
  7. Take the deed to a property or probate lawyer in the state in which your father’s property is located for advice. There is no way to determine without reading the actual deed what the state of the title is. If the property was a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship and if your father has already died, then his interest in the property ended the moment he died and your uncle, as the other joint tenant, succeeded to your father’s interest in the property. Since your father’s interest in the property ends the moment he dies the property does not get included in your father’s probate estate. His will only affects the property that is included in his probate estate. If your father has not yet died and is competent, he can break the joint tenancy in the property to ensure that his part of it goes to his estate and thus is affected by his will if he wishes. If the will is the only thing that indicates he wanted the property to go to you then you may be out-of-luck here if the property is determined to be held as joint tenants with a right of survivorship with your uncle. But if there is something else too that indicates that, then depending on what that is perhaps some argument might be possible that would get his share of the property to you. That would be a long shot, probably, but something you could discuss with a probate lawyer if you have anything else to work with.
  8. BCook, what you need to understand is that the 80/20 rule to which you are referring does not itself give you an answer to your question. Federal law generally requires that housing providers, including HOAs, not violate the anti-discrimination provisions of the federal Fair Housing Act. Under that act, it is illegal for such housing providers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, handicap or familial status (families with children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal guardians; pregnant women and people trying to get custody of children under 18). However, there is an exception in the law to allow senior communities to exclude younger families with kids, i.e. to discriminate on the basis of familial status. But to meet that exception, one of the requirements of the rule is that the senior community must ensure that at least 80% of the units are occupied by at least one person age 55 or older. Note that if a unit is empty it is not occupied by at least one person age 55 or older and that counts against the community the same as if the unit was occupied by only persons under age 55. In other words, your plan to keep the unit vacant doesn’t solve the problem the unit won’t count towards meeting the 80% requirement under federal law. So, it matters here very much what the details of the community are and what the HOA rules are whether what you plan would be allowed. The community doesn't have to allow it. See the Department of Housing and Urban Development page on the rule, and check out the links on the bottom of that page for more information:
  9. Ask the HOA about that. It will depend very much what the HOA rules say about ownership by persons under age 55.
  10. It is not a crime in Indiana for step-siblings (siblings related only through the marriage of their parents and not at all blood related) to date or marry. It may, however, still be illegal for the two of you to engage in any sexual activity depending on your ages at the time of the sexual act. As for what CPS might do, that depends on all the details of what you two do together and how your parents respond to it. While it may not be illegal for step-siblings to date or even have sex there are a lot of people who would still see that as morally wrong and if it has an adverse impact on the family and particularly the other kids in the house then it may well be that CPS would act. Until you are 18 your parents have the right to dictate what you may and may not do. I know teens hate to hear that and are always pushing for greater freedom from their parents, but the bottom line is that you are still under their control until you hit 18, and you both could face unwanted consequences if you do not follow what your parents tell you to do about this relationship. One of the risks here is that should this romance go sour (as the vast majority of teen relationships eventually do) it will have a long-term negative impact on your whole family. It would be better, I think, for the two of you and your family, if you looked for dating relationships outside your family.
  11. The federal government does not now define marriage at all ever since the Defense of Marriage Act was effectively killed by the Supreme Court. Rather, it is state law that defines what constitutes a marriage. If the state recognizes you as married, then so does the federal government. That means that for federal tax purposes you are married, and Social Security will consider you married, too. That may mean that your partner would lose his disability benefits. There is typically no great advantage to filing a joint bankruptcy petition as a married couple rather than each of you filing for bankruptcy separately other than perhaps a cost savings in the bankruptcy proceeding itself. Don't get married just to facilitate the bankruptcy.
  12. It takes quite a bit of time to implement a design change like this. It started well before the recent influx of posts by IL inmates asking questions on these forums. And the drop in posts on this site is among all boards, not just the few that the inmates posted on. The jail makes its own decisions about what content inmates may access. My guess is that after monitoring use by the inmates they decided that access to message boards was not what the jail wanted and imposed the restriction to just the case law. Chances are that the jail staff did not know message boards were a feature of this site when it approved use of it for legal research until the staff actually saw the inmates using that feature. I doubt very much that the company that owns Findlaw went to the jail and asked for the block on inmate access since the site could simply ban any inmate members who abused the message boards all on its own. Given that, there is no need to make the extra effort to have the jail ban access to all inmates.
  13. I use Firefox, but on a Mac. No problems with hitting the link for unread posts and getting them all on one page, as before (but with the new look, obviously). The link for unread posts is in a different spot that before and doesn't jump right out at you though. While I like that apparently the automatic conversion issue of turning (b) and (c) into emoticons/symbols has been fixed, I do not like that the option to select from different types of fonts is gone. I also see that when using preview mode it does not show the post exactly as it will appear when actually submitted, which kind of defeats the purpose of the preview feature.
  14. Not so. Cash transactions of $10,000 or more (or a series of related cash transactions that total $10,000 or more) are reported to the Treasury. Cash transactions include certain cash like financial instruments, like bearer certificates and the like. But transactions by regular check, wire transfers to/from a U.S. bank account, etc., are not subject to the requirement for automatic reporting because the government can trace the money by following the accounts involved using subpoenas, etc. A financial institution must report transactions, however, that appear to be suspicious regardless of amount, which would include transactions that are unusual for that customer or that bear indications of some kind of illegal activity, like money laundering.
  15. So your mother had a contract for the sale of the home and died just before the closing. Generally her estate would have been obligated to continue with the sale of the home, too, so her death would not be a basis for voiding the sale of the home. The proceeds of the sale would go to her estate to be divided as her will directs or, if she had no will, then as the state intestate succession law provides. I’m not sure what this question has to do with the issue about the sale of the home. But in any event, I agree with pg1067 that you likely lack standing to challenge her will. In order to have standing, you must be able to show that you would get something from the challenge if it succeeded. The effect of a successful challenge to the will is either that the estate gets distributed under the intestate succession law or under a prior will of the decedent, if there was one. As pg1067 correctly noted, in no state does a step-child inherit from his/her step-parent under the intestacy law (which is the law that says who inherits when there is no will) when there are still living blood relatives of the decedent. So, unless you had a prior will of your step-mother that gave you something, challenging the will would be pointless because you still wouldn't get anything if you got the current will tossed out. Even if you had standing, you need to state some basis for invalidating the will. Simply not giving you anything isn't good enough. You have to prove that the will was defective in some way, either that the will was improperly executed (i.e. not signed by your step-mother or lacked the necessary signatures of witnesses), that she was incompetent when she signed the will, or that she was induced to sign the will under fraud, duress, or undue influence. You’ve not indicated that there are any of these sorts of problems that might allow for a successful will challenge.