Jump to content

MiddlePart

Members
  • Content Count

    321
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by MiddlePart

  1. While I agree generally with pg1067, Arizona apparently recognizes some limited exceptions to these rules that may be relevant to some of your minor customers. Arizona Statutes: 44-131. Capacity of minor veterans and married minors A. A veteran who is entitled to benefits under the servicemen's readjustment act of 1944 (P.L. 78-346; 58 Stat. 284), or the spouse of that veteran, is not under legal disability by reason of minority to make any contract and any contract made by that veteran or spouse is not invalid or voidable by reason of the minority of the veteran or spouse. B. A person who is married to an adult is not under legal disability because of that person's minority to make a contract and a contract made by that person is not invalid or voidable because of that person's minority.
  2. It's not clear what sort of 'help' you are looking for from this discussion board. If you have been sued by your contractor, you will need to defend the suit, and hiring a lawyer to represent you in that effort is almost always the correct way to proceed. There is a 'Find a Lawyer' link on this page that is one way (but definitely not the only way) to find someone to represent you. The fines from the NYC Dept of Buildings could possibly be a basis for a counterclaim by you against the contractor in that lawsuit, although one important factor would be to determine who was responsible for obtaining the permit -- you or the contractor. A review of the terms of the written agreement between you and the contractor would be a good starting place for figuring out the answer to that question.
  3. I understand your first question to be whether you have a basis for a claim against your employer for age discrimination based on your termination. Based on the information you provided in your post, it is possible you may have a claim, although as 'rockmehardplace' points out, the employer will assert in defense that the termination was based on allegations of misconduct and difficulties in getting along with co-workers, either of which, if proven to be the primary reason for the termination, would be part of a good defense by the employer to an age discrimination claim. You would have to show that the real primary reason for the employer's actions was the employer's consideration of your age. I concur with 'rockmehardplace's recommendation that you meet with an employment lawyer who can review all the relevant facts and advise you on whether you have a good claim. There are tight time limits on when you must file, so do not procrastinate. Regarding the personal contact - based on the information you provided in your post, it seems unlikely that the individual who claimed that you touched her inappropriately would sue you. However, there may be other facts or additional information not included in your post that would compel a different conclusion. Regardless, there wouldn't seem to be a reason to retain an attorney on that matter until and unless you are in fact sued.
  4. It is not necessary to file a new deed. Based on the wording of the deed, I believe you and your sister would be considered tenants in common, meaning you both own a share in the property. Absent contrary language in the deed, it probably would be an equal share. Forcing the sale - you can, but you would have to file a lawsuit and get a court to order the sale. The claim is referred to as a Partition of Property. Property taxes and upkeep -- as a practical matter, if you're living in the property you'll want to make sure that the taxes are paid and the property is appropriately maintained. Meaning you'll need to pay them. Your sister is a part owner of the property and so she also has an interest in seeing those things paid, insofar as maintaining the property preserves the value of her asset and insofar as the taxing authority could foreclose on and sell the property (including your sister's interest) if the taxes aren't paid. Meaning that you could ask her to reimburse you for at least a portion, but I don't think you can require her to contribute. On the death of either of you, your respective heirs would inherit your respective interests in the property. So, for example, if your sister had one child, and your sister left her interest in the property in her will to that one child, then upon your sister's death you would be a tenant in common with your sister's child. You may want to consult with a Florida real estate attorney on these points; especially if there is relevant language in the deed that you did not quote above, or if there are other relevant circumstances that you didn't include in your post.
  5. I'm guessing the law you were looking at was this--- Utah Code 57-22-4. Owner's duties. (1) To protect the physical health and safety of the ordinary renter, an owner: … (b) shall: … (ii) maintain electrical systems, plumbing, heating, and hot and cold water; But you would also need to take account of this-- Utah Code 57-22-3. Duties of owners and renters -- Generally. … (3) This chapter does not apply to breakage, malfunctions, or other conditions which do not materially affect the physical health or safety of the ordinary renter. (4) Any duty in this act may be allocated to a different party by explicit written agreement signed by the parties. ============================== As a result, I agree with pg1067's conclusion. The answer to your question turns on what the lease says on the subject, and on what caused the clog and how bad the clog was.
  6. In general, workplace bullying and other unfair treatment by an employer are not legally actionable. Being a jerk is not against the law. However, workplace bullying and other severe and pervasive offensive and unwelcome conduct by an employer are actionable under a 'hostile work environment' theory if that conduct was based on the victim's race, gender, age, or other legally-protected category. Your post does not indicate that you have a reason to believe that you were improperly treated on one of those bases. You should speak with a lawyer in your area to get a full review of the relevant facts and applicable law to determine whether you do in fact have a viable claim.
  7. If you are looking for a lawyer to represent you in a case against your former employer, there is a 'Find A Lawyer' link at the top of the webpage, which is one way (but not the only way) to find someone to represent you. If, however, you had a different purpose in posting your story here, please identify what that purpose is.
  8. Probably not. Based on the information in your post: from the perspective of the police -- there was an armed robbery, a witness to the armed robbery told the police that a car matching the description of your car was the getaway vehicle, and, when the police stopped you, they found some objective evidence (the receipt) that you had been in the vicinity of where the armed robbery had occurred at around the same time that the armed robbery had occurred. If those are the facts of what happened, and assuming you haven't left out anything important, then the police probably needed to treat you as a suspect, and as if you were an armed and dangerous person, until they had a chance to sort things out and satisfy themselves that you were not actually involved in the armed robbery. You knew you were innocent and uninvolved in the criminal activity, but they wouldn't know that until they had checked out your story. I don't doubt that it was a difficult and traumatizing experience for you, especially given your history. But based on the facts and circumstances that you described in your post, it doesn't seem improper. Of course, if there is additional relevant information that you didn't include in your post, one might reach a different conclusion.
  9. Just a minor point: the Miranda warnings are intended to protect a suspect's Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination, and a suspect's Sixth Amendment rights to counsel. A suspect's Fourth Amendment rights relate to search, seizure, and arrest, and when a warrant is required. There are generally no warnings comparable to Miranda warnings associated with protecting a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.
  10. Consulting with a lawyer would still be a good idea for you. In your original post, you said you were concerned that the management might lock you out. You also said they have threatened to evict you on short notice. Even if you are entitled to the protections of the landlord-tenant statute, if the landlord nevertheless evicts you or otherwise violates the statute, while the landlord would be liable to you for those violations, that is not much comfort if you are out on the street in the meantime.
  11. You should probably consult with a lawyer in your area who represents tenants in landlord-tenant disputes. Whether you can be evicted on short notice based on late payment of rent will turn on whether under the law your living arrangement is considered as a hotel/motel stay or whether it is considered as a residential tenancy. In general, hotel/motel guests can be evicted summarily. However, residential tenants must be evicted according to the procedures in the landlord-tenant statute which, in most instances, require advance written notice. How much in advance depends on the reasons the landlord is trying to end the tenancy, but if the basis is non-payment or late payment of rent, the notice period typically would be significantly longer than 24 hours. The fact that you've lived there for more than 5 years suggests that the arrangement will be treated as a residential tenancy, even if that's not what was intended when you moved in. But there may be documents that you've signed or other information that you didn't include in your post that would indicate a different conclusion. A lawyer in your area can review the specific facts and any relevant documents, and give you particular advice on your situation.
  12. The answer to these two questions also depends on the terms of the lease and the extension.
  13. On the facts you have presented, you probably don't have a claim against your employer for this termination of employment. In New York, unless you have an employment contract or are subject to a collective bargaining agreement, employment is "at will," meaning that an employee can be terminated at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all. There are exceptions to this. For example, it is unlawful to fire an employee when the decision is based on race, gender, age, or one of the other characteristics protected under state and federal law. Some other examples of when it is unlawful to fire an employee include termination on the basis that the employee filed a workers comp claim, or that the employee was a whistleblower, or that the employee exercised rights under workplace safety laws. If the basis for your firing is the employer's belief that another employee that you were responsible to supervise engaged in misconduct, I can understand that it feels unfair but, absent additional information, the employer probably would not be liable to you under a wrongful termination theory. You should consider consulting with a New York lawyer who does employment law, who can review all of the relevant facts and help you determine whether you have a good claim against the Museum as a result of your termination.
  14. In most cases, employees who are injured on the job are compensated through the workers' comp system, and, absent special circumstances, that is an employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for on-the-job injuries. In New York, one must file a workers' comp claim within 2 years of when the accident occurred. The way you've worded your post ("...now 2 years later...") suggests you might have missed the deadline to do that. I suppose it is possible you might have a claim against the customer who actually caused the injury, but that would depend on some additional information regarding exactly what happened. It also raises the question whether you have enough information about that person to be able to locate him/her now should you decide to file suit against him/her. Suggest you speak to a lawyer in New York who does personal injury claims, who can advise you more specifically on your best options.
  15. You say that your trial is currently scheduled for 2 weeks from now. You should file your request for continuance immediately. But be prepared to go ahead with the trial if the court denies the request. Because presumably you have known about the trial date for a while, the fact that at the last minute you have decided that you want to retain an attorney might not be enough of a basis for the court to delay the trial date.
  16. Why not just register for PACER yourself? One doesn't have to be an attorney to have a PACER account. Registration is free, and the charges for usage are pretty minimal (currently: 10 cents per page, but you don't owe anything if you incur less than $15 of usage charges in a calendar quarter)
  17. Maybe. Under the federal WARN Act, an employer with 100 or more full time employees (subject to some exceptions) must notify local authorities, the state unemployment agency, and the affected employees if the employer plans to close a facility or discontinue an operating unit with 50 or more full time employees (subject to some exceptions). Also, if the employees are unionized, then there may be some relevant obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. You can get more information about the WARN Act and how to comply with it from the Virginia Employment Commission. Their website has some useful information on this topic.
  18. Probably you have no legal recourse against your neighbor. For the most part, the courts seem to have not been terribly receptive to legal claims for private nuisance based on secondhand smoke, although there are some exceptions (albeit not in South Carolina so far as I know). if you live in a community that is subject to a homeowners association or CC&Rs, you might check there to see whether there are any applicable prohibitions that you could try to have enforced.
  19. To retiredinVA: You are correct. I mis-stated the applicable rule. My apologies to the OP.
  20. I agree with what doucar wrote. On your other questions: --if the deed from Mom to Brother was valid and filed (and assuming Brother was the sole transferee), then Brother owned the house as of when the deed was recorded. Brother's estate then owns the house as of his passing pending a determination of who inherits the house. --you said that Brother had a will that left everything to Girlfriend. If that's true and if the will is valid, then Girlfriend will own the house once the probate process is complete. If the will is not valid, then ownership would pass under the intestacy rules for Wisconsin. While I'm not familiar with the particulars of Wisconsin intestacy law, it is common in other states that if a person dies without a will, and if that person does not have a spouse or children who survive him, and if that person has parents who do survive him, then the parents will inherit. --if the parties can't agree among themselves who owned the possessions, then the probate court will have to make a ruling. The court will consider the list of items document, Mom's testimony, Girlfriend's testimony, and any other relevant and material evidence in making its decision. You probably should consult with a Wisconsin lawyer who handles wills and estates to give you more definitive guidance.
  21. When you say "Quick Deed" I'm assuming that what you meant to say was "quitclaim deed." I understand from your post that Mom intended to transfer her house and some of her stuff (the list of items) to Brother using a quitclaim deed. Girlfriend claims the deed was not valid. Brother has now passed away and his will leaves everything he owned to Girlfriend. There are some formalities that are required for deeds, and the deed would also have to have been filed in the appropriate government office with the necessary fees paid for it to be effective. If the deed was valid and effective, then Brother owned the house and the listed items as of the time of his death. In that case, he would be able to pass his ownership of the house and those items to Girlfriend under his will, assuming the will was valid. If the deed was not valid and effective, then Mom still owns the house and the listed items. A local real estate attorney could review the document and advise you whether it was valid and effective. Mom would have the right to enter the house if she still owns it (i.e., if the deed was not valid and effective). Mom could also authorize you to enter the house if Mom still owns it. If Mom doesn't own the house (i.e., if the deed was valid and effective) then in general neither you nor Mom would have an enforceable right to enter the house. As to Mom's possessions in the house that were not included on the list of items in the deed -- it becomes a question of whether she intended to give that stuff to Brother when he took ownership (assuming he did in fact take ownership) and possession of the house, or whether the understanding was that Brother was just storing the stuff in the house temporarily for Mom's benefit. In conjunction with settling the estate, the executor will have to sort that out. Presumably Mom's testimony on that subject will carry significant weight, as would anything written by Mom or Brother on the subject (for example, an exchange of emails that explain what each of them had in mind).
  22. Section 22-5-4.3 of the New Mexico statutes prohibits corporal punishment in schools. Section 30-6-1 is the New Mexico statute that makes child abuse a criminal offense. There don't appear to be any New Mexico statutes specifically addressing the topic of corporal punishment outside of the school setting. However, there are New Mexico court cases that do establish legal standards for that conduct. I do not know whether there are any New Mexico cases that would directly answer your specific questions.
  23. In part because you didn't identify the state in which you are located, this response is necessarily general. The answers might be different when taking into account the laws of the relevant state. Defamation generally takes two forms: slander (i.e., statements that were spoken and heard) and libel (i.e., statements that were written and read). The basic elements of both types of defamation include: --the defendant made a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff to a third party --the plaintiff was damaged by the statement (although damage can be presumed, and thus no need to particularly prove it, for certain kinds of defamatory statements). One definition of a defamatory statement is a statement that tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating with him. Truth is a defense to a defamation claim, and there are other circumstances in which statements, even if arguably defamatory, are nevertheless not actionable. One example is the litigation privilege. To bring a claim under either theory, there would indeed need to be proof of the statement -- proof of what was said or published. The person who made the statement doesn't necessarily have to admit to making the statement, but if the listener testifies that he heard it or the reader testifies that he saw it, that could be sufficient. Defamation is ordinarily a civil claim, although there are some states that have laws making defamation a criminal offense.
  24. If the harm was only contact dermatitis, then probably more in the 'waste of time' category. Yes, you were damaged by the product, but the harm is relatively minor -- contact dermatitis being easily treated by OTC medication and goes away on its own in a couple of weeks so long as you avoid further contact with the allergen -- meaning the damages you could, in principle, claim, probably wouldn't be worth the time and out-of-pocket cost of a lawsuit. But a complaint letter or complaint phone call to the company might encourage them to do something for you as a goodwill gesture.
  25. Based on the information you supplied, I don't think the employer did something legally wrong. But it may be worthwhile to consult with an employment lawyer in your area who can actually give you legal advice specific to your situation. My general take: I think you are saying that you weren't actually able to work the Thursday or Friday or Tuesday on account of your medical situation. You also said that you didn't actually have any available PTO at that time -- that your PTO balance was already negative. So then by awarding you PTO for Thursday and Friday, the company paid you for those days even though you didn't work and couldn't have worked, and didn't actually have any PTO to use to cover those days. If they didn't do that, then you wouldn't have been paid for Thursday or Friday. Presumably they could also have paid you for not working (and not being able to work) on Monday and Tuesday by giving you even more PTO that you didn't have, but the company apparently decided not to. I'm not aware of anything that would have required them to pay you for those days on these circumstances. Even if FMLA applied, that doesn't require that the leave be paid leave. But maybe there is some applicable company policy (or applicable company unwritten practice) that covers your situation that would compel a different result. There may also be some employment rules specific to Texas that require a different conclusion; I am not familiar with the specifics of Texas employment law on this topic. You also might have left out some relevant information in your recap of the events that would compel a different conclusion. For these reasons, I'd encourage you to speak to an employment lawyer in your area.
×
×
  • Create New...