Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by RetiredinVA

  1. How do you know he owns the boat? Boats, like motor vehicles, belong to the person who is named on the title. If this person owns the boat he should have been able to acquire a duplicate title from the title authority in the relevant state. At the time he signed over the title to you you should have paid him and not before. It is possible, maybe even likely, that you have had an expensive learning experience.
  2. Just a few more questions. If your boyfriend has a job why isn't he paying rent to your uncle? You said you can't get "cash aid" because "father is still in the picture" What does that mean? Is "father" your daughter's father as you later suggest? Is he paying child support? If not, why not? You say later your daughter would live with her father if you were evicted. That suggests the child's father is still close to your daughter. It also suggests he is in a better position to care for your daughter than you are. Care to comment. You also say if your uncle "kicks you out" you will live on the streets. But you then say you and your son would go live with your mom. Your daughter would go with her father. It sounds as if you have options other than imposing on your uncle. Maybe your uncle has figured this out. If I am reading your post correctly, you now have an eight year old and an eleven year child. They are both school age. Why don't you seek employment to enable the family to have more secure housing.
  3. If he let you go because you won't make good for your boyfriend's debt then you have no claim for wrongful termination. Wrongful termination only applies to certain protected classes, such as disability, sex, gender, age, race, religion, etc. It may also apply in certain whistleblower circumstances. But it clearly does not apply to debts of boyfriends. Apply for unemployment.
  4. I did not suggest that color of title and claim of right are the same thing. I stated that essentially they are the same in that one must claim present right to possession under one or the other as opposed to claiming potential right to possession after a period of years. I believe I continued to refer to "legal" or "equitable" claim to possession to distinguish between legal (title) versus equitable (right). I know there is a difference.
  5. If you think that you can sue for alienation of affection by simply calling it "intentional infliction of emotional distress" you will be bitterly disappointed. It will take any judge about ten seconds to dismiss your case, regardless where you file.
  6. Essentially claim of right or color of title are the same. The person claiming ownership of land by adverse possession must claim that they own legal or equitable ownership of the property when they take possession of the land. If they do not assert legal or equitable right to the land at a specific time, the statute of limitations does not begin to run.
  7. Allow me to cut to the chase on the essence of adverse possession. Adverse possession is essentially based on a statute of limitations related to real property. In order to acquire ownership of the property by adverse possession you have to claim you actually own the property on the day you move in. The owner then has a designated time during which he or she can contest your ownership. The cases you read about adverse possession will all start with a claim of title to the property arising out of, for example; building on land you believe was include in the deed to your property; fencing in property you assert was included in a deal to buy more limited land; boundary disputes. In other words you have to have a claim to the land under color of title. In your scenario, your friend can only say that in five years he believes he will own the land simply because he has not been run off for five years. He has no present colorable claim to own the land.
  8. Keep in mind that your friend must make improvements to the land and live there continuously without interruption for five years. He must also pay the taxes for five years. If the actual owner finds out four years and 364 days from your friend's occupation of the property and takes action to remove him, your friend willl lose everything he has invested in the property.
  9. You can take your information to the police. It is up to the police to investigate and turn the evidence over to the prosecutor. The prosecutor is the only one who can decide whether to file criminal charges.
  10. Weston, you don't seem to get it. The company is being liquidated. When a company is liquidated, priority of payment is (1) employees, (2) secured creditors, (3) unsecured creditors, (4) shareholders. By paying the shareholders "dividends" or whatever you want to call it, the company bypassed the priorities and the bankruptcy court is merely "correcting" their error. Also, it is fundamental to corporate law that shareholders are never guaranteed return of their investment. It has nothing to do with contemporaneous value received. By giving invested funds back to shareholders the company is screwing the creditors. PERIOD!
  11. From my personal perspective, if a prospective client told me in advance he wanted an inexpensive lawyer I would not even consult with him. I read it as "an attorney who doesn't mind not getting paid."
  12. Presumably you are in the process of looking for another place to live. I would assume that when the mortgage company realizes it is not receiving payments, the obligor is deceased, and there is no estate they can look to for payment, they will initiate foreclosure ASAP. You did not describe the extent of your lease but it will probably be terminated at the earliest possible time. What happens to the rent payments is, frankly, none of your business. Somewhere there is a relative of the deceased entitled to the rent but it will be up to them to recover it.
  13. The license numbers, make and model of vehicles parked in the open is not private information. How do you know he follows up by running the tags?
  14. First you have to tell us what state you are in!
  15. Let us return for a moment to your original question. You said you were employed by a union company and planned to create a non-union company. Sorry to say, that is not how it works. You start a company and the EMPLOYEES of the company decide if they will be represented by a union. If management (you) try to keep the union from organizing you will find the National Labor Relations Board all over you like a cheap suit. Since you are already a union member, you are probably known to the union stewards and other officials of the union. It also appears your line of work appeals to union minded people. So, if you try to start a non-union shop they will probably be there before the ink is dry on your logo. They can't stop you from opening the business but it may be a union business before very long.
  16. The defendant was charged with speeding. His defense was that everyone on the highway was speeding and the cop unfairly singled him out. The judge asked him if he had ever fished. Defendant said he had. Judge asked him if he had ever caught a fish when he went fishing. Defendant admitted he had. Judge then asked him if he had ever gone fishing and caught ALL the fish. He was found guilty.
  17. It would appear your current employer would be the first to take action against you. Whether the union could take action against you would depend on your contract, if any, with the union. You seem to assume the union has the power to stop you from starting a business, whether union or none union. I doubt the union has that power simply because you are a union member. But you clearly would be in conflict with your current employer.
  18. If your statement is correct, the search warrant was issued/executed on March 5, the arrest warrant was issued March 16, and he was arrested May 20. What is the problem with that?
  19. I've been reading this thread since the start and I must say I have found its evolution mind boggling. In the beginning it was alleged that a burst (or at least leaky) pipe in the floor under the OP's apartment had caused water damage below. The suggestion was made that the operation of the OP's washing machine may have caused the pipe to leak. (BTW, this is possible if the machine caused water hammer due to abruptly closing valves.) After many posts back and forth the OP discloses that, actually, the water was leaking from his or her washing machine. So the OP operated a leaky portable washing machine, forbidden by the lease, that leaked and damaged the apartment below. Twenty two posts discussing liability on the part of the OP. Ridiculous!
  20. This question should be directed to your bankruptcy attorney. However, it appears you essentially reaffirmed your debts to the mortgage company and the auto leasing company. In other words, in order to keep the house and car you agreed those debts and security interests would not be included in the bankrptcy. So when you defaulted on the auto loan the deficiency would not be discharged and would be reportable on your credit report. I suspect when the trustee said you were not obligated to pay the mileage overage he was saying you were not obligated to pay the overage through the chapter 13 plan.
  21. I must disagree with Findlaw_RLC. He or she said ". . . you would have a solid defense if your attorney knows where he or she is to collect those fees and fails to do so." I do not believe you would have a defense if your attorney were to file suit against you for the outstanding fee. You owe the attorney the amount of the fee plus costs and expenses. Your ex owes you the amount you were awarded by the court. I seriously doubt your retainer agreement states that you owe your attorney her fee only if your spouse pays you. I am assuming your retainer agreement with your attorney included fees for getting a divorce decree. I doubt the agrement also includes pursuing a collection action to recover the fees from your ex. It is possible your ex does not have $7,000. It is possible you will never recover the $7,000. However, your attorney did not contract with your ex for services and did not rely on the credit of your ex when she agreed to represent you. I agree that it would be proper for your attorney to continue her services to you by filing a motion to hold your ex in contempt if he does not pay you the $7,000 in a reasonable time. However, that would mean you might owe the attorney additional fees for filing the motion. Of course, any additional action to collect the fee award might also increase the amount owed you from your ex.
  22. You don't really expect us to tell you to not reveal your actual income, do you?
  23. What does this have to do with Sarbanes-Oxley? SOX deals with corporate accounting and disclosure, as in Enron. The only financial transactions you mention were failure to make timely credit card payments.
  • Create New...