Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by RetiredinVA

  1. On 10/7/2019 at 2:58 PM, Heidi Beauchemin said:

    Landlord waived rent in verbal agreement on the condition the tenant would agree to show property to prospective buyers.Three months later tenant is being sued for $2,625. back rent in a 3 day pay or quit notice.


    On 10/13/2019 at 6:20 AM, Heidi Beauchemin said:

    There has been no new written rental agreement between current tenants and new property owners/landlord.

    Are you being sued for rent due after the new landlord bought the property?  It sounds as if you had an agreement with the old landlord for rent abatement while the property was for sale if you allowed prospective buyers access.  Then the property was sold.  So it sounds as if there is no need to show the property to prospective buyers.  Therefore, the rent abatement should have ended.


    Am I understanding the facts correctly?

  2. You need to explain a little more.  Buying a property on land contract implies the purchasers are paying the owner rent with a portion of the rent applied to the purchase price.  If the buyers make the entire series of payments the property is transferred.  Until that point, the property remains titled to the owner.   Is that what you are talking about?  If so, your daughter can just stop contributing to the rent/purchase.


    Getting your property out may require showing up to get the property in the company of a police officer or deputy sheriff. The officer or deputy may cooperate if you indicate there will probably be a disturbance of the peace when you show up. Otherwise they will decline and say it is a civil matter and instruct you to file a court action for recovery of the property (called an action in detinue or replevin).

  3. Once again, and hopefully for the last time, the trooper's report is irrelevant to anything.  It is not evidence in the traffic or any civil suit that may arise out of the accident.  Therefore, the trooper has no reason to change anything in his or her report.  

  4. Whether your works infringe on the trademarks depends on the content of your product, not be value of your time.  If your time is spent producing a painting of the Yankees logo, you are infringing the trademark.  But if you produce a portrait of a family with a small reproduction of the logo in the background, it might be considered fair use.  Any time you produce a copy of a trademark and worry about whether it infringes, it probably does.

  5. It is not clear you have actually been charged with an offense.  Have you?  Btw, if you need to have witnesses appear, you need to have subpoenas issued ordering them to appear.  Surprisingly, witnesses will usually decide in favor of a day at work versus a day sitting in a courtroom.  If you subpoena a witness and they don't appear you would usually get a continuance, otherwise, no.  On the other hand, the police officer will usually not be a witness against you in an accident case because almost all of his or her evidence will be hearsay - if you object.

  6. The procedure outline in response to the poster is incorrect in two aspects:

    First, it is not necessary, or even appropriate, to submit evidence with the complaint

    Second, and most important, the plaintiff must also submit a statement by a qualified expert in the field of health care that, in his or her opinion, the health care practitioner failed to provide the relevant standard of care in the case.  Hiring an expert witness to provide such a statement will usually cost thousands of dollars.  Please see Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-2602

  7. The lawyer or lawyers who were appointed to assist you have probably been assigned many other cases.  Consequently, they can usually only provide minimum attention to any particular case.  It is inevitable.  If they were to dedicate all their time to developing your case to the maximum extent possible, there may be ten other clients who would be neglected.  This will not, understandably comfort you, but it is a consequence of the amount of money a state or locality is willing to devote to helping people who cannot afford top level representation.

  8. If the insurance was based on representations made by the insured regarding her health, then it is certainly reasonable and legal for the insurer to demand evidence of the insured's actual health history.  Policies that do not require evidence or representations regarding the insured's health (often advertised on TV) contain a provision that the only benefit that will be paid on death in the first two years is a refund of the premiums.

  9. 6 minutes ago, Lucille Tamayo said:

    There could be a federàl law requiring no discrimination .

    There are federal laws against discrimination based om constitutionally protected status such as race, religion, national origin, sex, age, etc. The poster's problem is he doesn't have enough income to assure the landlord he will be able to pay the rent.  Discrimination on that basis is perfectly legal.

  10. It is possible to search appellate court, and some federal district court, records for reported decisions by attorney name.  But, it is entirely possible the attorney has never appeared in an appellate court or had any published decisions.  BTW, Michigan is not in the 2nd Circuit, it's in the Sixth.


  11. If there is no will or trust, your friend's estate will go to his mother.  So, the situation is not as dire as you may think.  Also, unless your friend has funded the alleged trust it may be irrelevant.  Funding means the trust is named as the owner of the home, car, bank accounts, investment accounts, etc.  Documentation of those assets should be available in your friend's residence.

  12. 22 minutes ago, qliu said:

    Sorry, I did not make it clear to you. I want to change the way to ask this question, in what kind of situations will I lose my deposit after opening escrow? I’m the buyer. Thank you very much!

    The answer is the same: it all depends on your contract, which we have not read.  There is no law that says, "A buyer loses his or her deposit if ---------".

  • Create New...