Jump to content

adjusterjack

Members
  • Content Count

    8,955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    126

Everything posted by adjusterjack

  1. Depends on how much less. Substantially less (like 50%) maybe you'd qualify. But you'd probably be denied benefits initially and have to appeal. A good rule of thumb is this: If you are offered work, accept it no matter what. Then there's no argument about refusing suitable work. You can always apply for partial benefits and you can look for another job in your off hours.
  2. Then you might have some legal recourse against the lender. However, you wrote earlier: If, by that, you meant the full amount of the past due monthly payment, no, that would not have been the option. Once you default on the loan the entire balance becomes immediately due and payable. If you were to be successful in suing the lender, you would have to show that you had the full amount of the loan balance in cash to redeem the car with. If you didn't have the full amount of the balance available during the required notice period then lack of notice might be seen by a court as harmless error since you wouldn't have been capable of getting the car back even if you had been notified. You might want to consult an attorney about that. Sorry, but it IS reasonable and legal to sell it at auction as quickly as possible for the highest bid which is likely a low wholesale price because it's mostly car dealers that go to those auctions. Again, had you gone to the auction you would have had to outbid everybody else and pay cash for the car. That money would go to the lender after expenses and that money would not cover the loan balance so you would still owe the remaining balance. Bidding on the car is not the same as redeeming the car for the full amount of the balance. Unfortunately, once a car is repossessed, the owner loses control by default. Your loan contract (which I suggest you study) probably gives the lender and its agents (like the repo company) immunity for a lot of things as a result of your default.
  3. Yeah, signing stuff without reading and understanding them can get you in all sorts of trouble. However, I think you might have a defense. You have the option of refusing to pay and then see what happens. I wouldn't care to speculate on "what ifs" so make your choice to pay or not pay and then come back to discuss whatever consequences befall you.
  4. It's possible that the illegal bonfire could give you reason to include the homeowner as a defendant in a lawsuit but the chances of your son actually being awarded a judgment against the homeowner could be slim because the bonfire was not the proximate cause of your son's injuries. The proximate cause of your son's injuries was the act of himself and the 4 others. They could have just as easily picked up him and the couch at his request and threw him in front of a car driven by a drunk driver. The drunk driving would also not be the proximate cause of injuries. Bottom line: It's time to sit your son down in front of an experienced personal injury attorney and have the entire situation professionally evaluated. You can, of course, use your attorney. But if your attorney is not an experienced personal injury attorney it would be like having a GP read and MRI and then do the brain surgery himself.
  5. No, Robaxin does not contain aspirin. However, it does contain some of the inactive ingredients that are present in aspirin. http://www.rxlist.com/robaxin-drug.htm http://www.rxlist.com/aspirin-drug.htm It's possible that you might be allergic to one of those inactive ingredients and not allergic to aceylsalicylic acid. Either way there doesn't appear to be a case for malpractice because you weren't given anything with aspirin in it. Seriously consider consulting an allergist and get tested to determine the exact source of your allergic reaction.
  6. Staying in contact is meaningless. Paying on time is what counts. Yes, problem. If you were in default of any payment by even one day past the due date (or grace period date if there was one) the lender has the right of repo regardless of how many late payments were accepted. Yes, I think so. But your statutes are a bit confusing as to how that is supposed to work. Here's a link to the statute that addresses default and enforcement of security interest. Start at 440.9610. http://law.justia.com/codes/michigan/2011/chapter440/act174of1962/174-1962-9/174-1962-9-6/174-1962-9-6-1-/ Whether you can do anything about that depends on whether MI requires the owner to retain the plate or whether the plate goes with the car. You can call your DMV and ask about that. If the plate goes with the car then losing a year's worth of registration cost is just one of the unpleasant consequences of defaulting on the loan. Sure, it's reasonable. You defaulted and the car got repossessed. Losing the money you put into fixing things is just another consequence of default. If you think you've been wronged by the lender or repo company, you are free to file a lawsuit. Otherwise you can count on being sent to collections or eventually sued for the money and then it's likely going to cost you a lot more than the $3400 because you'll end up paying their attorney fees. You might consider bankruptcy if you are eligible and have other debts that you can't handle.
  7. While all that may be true, that the "search warrant" was signed by a probation officer raises a few questions: 1 - Was the poster on probation or if somebody else was the subject of the search was that somebody on probation? 2 - Was it a "search warrant" or just a request from the probation officer to conduct a probation search? Even if the police called it a "search warrant" it might not have been anything other than a written request by the probation officer. 3 - Even if it was a "search warrant" in the broadest sense of the term, it was not necessary for a probation search. So even if the probation officer signed an actual "search warrant" could it be deemed harmless error by the court, thus making the found items admissable?
  8. I realize that this is a few days old and unanswered but if you happen to come back looking for an answer, here it is. The US Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has no constitutional duty to protect citizens from third party harm. Here's an article about that: http://policelink.monster.com/training/articles/2152-supreme-court-police-have-no-liability-for-failing-to-enforce-a-restraining-order-
  9. Can't imagine why any of this is your business, but you can file reports with the appropriate authorities and agencies. You'll probably have to identify yourself and sign stuff. If you want to do that, then go for it. Anonymous phone calls aren't likely to result in any action. Otherwise, let it run its course. She'll eventually get caught and suffer the consequences.
  10. Somebody needs to pony up some cash to hire a lawyer in Franklin Co to sort this out. Otherwise BF stays in jail and things just get worse.
  11. Sorry, but without knowing your state or the terms of the non-compete all you get is a "maybe." Google non-compete with the name of your state and you'll find resources that will help you figure it. That's all I would have done. By the way, doesn't Company B have a lawyer to advise them on business matters?
  12. No, you were terminated for missing work. Nothing illegal about that. With 4000 employees it's a little ridiculous to claim racial discrimination. You were fired because you missed work, pure and simple. Rather a strict policy, but not illegal and certain not discriminatory.
  13. Could be legal if the subject of the search was on probation. Might not have even needed a warrant. The US Supreme Court has upheld probation searches on numerous occasions: http://www.policemag...int-of-law.aspx
  14. This is what you wrote earlier: That's enough for the authorities to keep paying attention to the occupants of that house. You also wrote that it's a small town. It's possible that the sheriff's office knows a lot more about the people in the house (and the girlfriend) than you do and have good reason to treat them with suspicion. Especially since they are squatters living in an abandoned house. (Yeah, you too.) I don't condone kicking in the door but that's between the owner's estate, family, and bank. I can understand wanting to live rent free, but if you don't like what's going on and what's going on isn't going to stop till they find the guy, your choice is to move.
  15. I suggest you read the village code of ordinances and find out for yourself if that requirement is in there. You should have the link to the code handy anyway: http://www.palatine.il.us/government/ordinances.aspx Nothing jumps out at me in the titles so you are going to have to read each chapter. Also study the IL landlord tenant statute for your rights and obligations. Scroll down about 2/3 of the way: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs2.asp?ChapterID=62
  16. Of course they CAN refuse to repair a toilet. They already HAVE refused to repair it. Delay is the deadliest form of denial. Read the SC landlord tenant statute to see if there is anything in there that allows self help for repairs. If there is, make sure you follow the procedures to the letter. http://law.justia.com/codes/south-carolina/2010/title27/chapter40/ They basically have no say in how you store your stuff as long as it's not a fire hazard. If you are on a current lease, they can't evict you for having your stuff in boxes. However, if you are on month-to-month, they can terminate your tenancy for any reason or no reason at all, with proper notice, as long as it doesn't violate any discrimination laws.
  17. Why would he even need to do that? Did you agree to pay the deposit in installments and then fail to pay? If the answer is yes to that question, then the LL is within his rights to apply the payment to the deposit and evict you for non payment of rent. Provide more details if you want a better comment.
  18. It's right. The US Supreme Court has upheld probation searches on numerous occasions: http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2006/09/point-of-law.aspx Further, people lie to the police all the time. The police have no obligation to believe the occupants who say the guy doesn't live there. So, yes, there is a chance that your cottage can be searched. You'll have to weigh the advantage of living rent free against the disadvantage of your home being subject to search.
  19. See the following website to get an idea of the penalties involved: http://www.pennsylvania-criminal-defense.com/drugpossession.htm
  20. A "charge off" doesn't mean that you don't owe it. A charge off is just an accounting thing that allows a creditor to take a tax deduction for a bad debt. The money is still owed and when it's paid the creditor reverses the charge off and pays the taxes. So, yes, you need to pay it if you want your utilities turned on. Besides, paying it can only improve your credit score a little bit.
  21. I doubt if there is one. Or if there is, it really doesn't matter. A seller has no legal obligation to take anything back in the first place. You do know that, don't you? That they do it at all is company policy and they can set whatever conditions that they want to set.
  22. You don't have to contact your creditors. They already know that you are late or in default and they'll become aggressive when it suits them. Generally, you'll get a couple of letters and a few phone calls the first month. After that they pull out the stops. The best way to deal with creditors is pay them on time, every time. Otherwise there is no dealing with them. It's not harassing, it's dunning. That's what creditors do when they don't get paid. As for increasing the APR, that's automatic as soon as you are in default. Read your card member agreement. It'll tell you exactly when and how much. If you want to hold off creditors, either pay them or file bankruptcy. There's no in between.
  23. This may be splitting hairs but it's the child that would be entitled to compensation for the injury (if the store was liable) not the parent. The parent would be acting on behalf of the child in making the claim.
  24. In general, I don't see the property owner being liable here. And he certainly is not obligated to give you his insurance information. Adults were drinking. Adults put the couch on the fire with your son on it after your son asked them to do it. Both your son and the other 4 are negligent. Whether your son's contributory negligence eliminates his claim completely or partly depends on whether your un-named state follows contributory negligence law or comparative negligence law. Your post is further proof that booze makes people stupid.
  25. Here's the problem. If you WERE within 100' of the intersection, then you are at fault because you were where you weren't supposed to be and not expected to be. Whether you were 100% at fault is up to a judge or jury to determine but you will have to sue the tractor driver to get to that point. His insurance company is not your insurance company and owes you nothing until a court of law says so and how much. What other tractor drivers do is irrelevant.
×
×
  • Create New...