Jump to content

pg1067

Members
  • Content Count

    56,808
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    180

Everything posted by pg1067

  1. First of all, small claims courts are civil courts. Second, without knowing the court where the case is pending, I cannot tell you anything about the significance of the case number prefix. Maybe. As I wrote when I first responded, this is likely to come down to whose testimony the judge finds more credible.
  2. The court that entered the original divorce decree retains jurisdiction for purposes of any modifications unless both parents no longer live in California. If that happens, then the court where the payee parent and child live can assume jurisdiction for future enforcement and modifications. After you move, you should consult with a family law attorney in the Louisiana parish where your ex and child live to discuss this. California is a single jurisdiction and, as I mentioned previously, the court that entered the original decree retains jurisdiction for purposes of any future modifications as long as you remain in California. Whether you could successfully have any future petition for modification heard by a different judge isn't something I or anyone here can assess intelligently. P.S. I've used the word "jurisdiction" in two different ways in this response. One refers to a geographic area (and, in that sense, is distinguished from venue, which refers to the county or particular court within a county where the matter is heard), and the other refers to the power or authority of a court to consider certain matters.
  3. That's not even remotely accurate (at least not as a general statement). Also, I'm not sure what "the working parent" means. Also not accurate. This report and this report indicate that Louisiana is pretty close to the middle in terms of cost of living. The California child support order remains in effect until the court that entered that order or another court of competent jurisdiction changes it. Either your ex-wife's remarriage or her move to Louisiana probably was enough to seek a modification (and, certainly, both of those things together warrant a review and possible modification). If you also move out of California, then jurisdiction could be transferred to Louisiana, which would also allow for a modification. Keep in mind, however, that, if your move results in a decrease in income, the court may or may not take that into account.
  4. That's exactly right, but in the original post, it says, "I am on the Deed." That's inconsistent with buying on a land contract, so yeah, a better explanation is needed. My prior response was based on a "normal" situation in which the two of you bought the home by making a down payment and taking out a mortgage for the balance of the purchase price. I assumed that title was in both names (i.e., that both of your are "on the deed") and that both are obligated on the mortgage. However, given the comment about the home being "bought on a land contract," I'm not sure what to make of this. P.S. If you choose to clarify the situation, please also identify the state where the property is located.
  5. Since the OP told us that his/her relationship with the lawyer is as a result of "a legal service plan through [the OP's] place of employment," my guess is that the OP isn't paying a nickel and that the attorney is getting a reduced, flat fee for this work. Assuming that's right, the attorney's bad attitude may be as a result of wanting to do as little work as possible so as to maximize the ratio of money earned to time spent. Not a valid excuse for doing a crappy job or having a bad attitude (if that's how the attorney is going to behave, he shouldn't be doing this sort of work), but it's likely the reason for it.
  6. I don't see a question in your post. Do you have one, or did you just post to complain (pointlessly) about the prosecutor being rude?
  7. I assume you're talking about the down payment. This doesn't make a lot of sense. You're an owner of the property. You don't "get[] [your] money back" from that. This is a foreseeable consequence of buying a home with a person to whom you're not married. Unfortunately, most folks don't have the foresight to enter into a contract that dictates what happens if/when they break up. Assuming you fall into that unfortunate majority, you have three basic options: (1) move back in and exercise all of your rights as a joint owner of the property; (2) see if your ex-boyfriend will buy you out* (or you buy him out); or (3) file suit for partition (essentially a forced sale).** * -- You didn't mention anything about a mortgage on the property, but I assume one exists and that both of you are obligated on the mortgage. Correct? If so, then, if he buys you out, you need to make sure that part of that transaction involves him refinancing the mortgage in his name only. Otherwise, you'll be left obligated on the mortgage without having any ownership interest in the property. Depending on the state where the property is located, you may or may not be liable for a deficiency judgment in the event of a foreclosure, but even if you're not, your credit could suffer. ** -- Forced sales resulting from partition suits often generate sale prices that are under fair market value. The first things to be paid from any sale would be the costs of sale (including costs relating to the partition suit) and the mortgage balance. Anything remaining would be divided evenly between you and your ex-boyfriend. Without any sort of agreement between you and him at the time of purchase, there'd be no basis for you to get more than 50% of the balance, so there'd be no guarantee that you'd receive an amount equal to or greater than the down payment. In other words, a forced sale resulting from a partition suit would probably be the worst possible result to be avoided at all reasonable cost.
  8. Yes. The attorney's convenience is never a relevant factor.
  9. Huh? That's not at all true (although the reference to "trademarked items" is vague since the word "trademark" is not properly used as a verb). I don't follow. Why would someone pay you to paint a picture only for you to retain the picture? If you can be more clear about what exactly you're talking about, I can try to answer your question.
  10. Your question doesn't raise any legal issue. If you're concerned about the situation, you need to discuss it with your lawyer. If you have a legal question for us, please feel free to ask it.
  11. Sue you for what? Here's what you've told us: A man with whom you "have a history" (not sure what the implication of that is supposed to be) "contacted [you] to catch up on life." You told us some things that he told you (but nothing that you said to him) and that one or both of you made "a few inappropriate comments" of some unstated nature (again, not sure if we're supposed to be inferring something from this?). Finally, you said that you "sent messages for a few days." In other words, you haven't told us what happened with any degree of clarity. So, again, what exactly did you do that you think might give her reason to sue you? Your post doesn't even say that she threatened to sue you. If you're asking whether she has grounds to sue you for alienation of affection, here's an article that discusses the elements of such a claim under North Carolina law. Putting aside the merits of such a claim, your post indicates that you are in Wisconsin and the man in question is in North Carolina. While North Carolina is one of the very few states that still recognize this archaic tort, Wisconsin does not recognize it. Thus, if this woman were to sue you for AOA, she would have to do it in North Carolina. Given the circumstances mentioned, it is highly doubtful that you would be subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. Even if she sued you and got a judgment, do you have assets or a source of income in North Carolina? If not, then she'd have to seek to domesticate her North Carolina judgment in Wisconsin, and I have doubts that Wisconsin would allow that for a judgment based on a tort that Wisconsin does not recognize. In other words, being anxious about this is a pretty extreme and apparently unreasonable reaction.
  12. You should call the bank in an effort to find out what the heck happened. You should also pull your credit report to see if there's anyone relating to this.
  13. Nothing in your post suggests your employer has a legal obligation to allow you to use your keyboard and mouse.
  14. This is a nine year old thread involving a different set of facts in a different state. Start your own thread, please.
  15. Whoever charged you for work that didn't get done is liable to you for the cost of that work. "Chevrolet" is trademark, not an entity. That mark is owned by the General Motors Company, and I think it's highly unlikely that you had that entity do the work. The dealership where you took it is likely the party that owes you payment for work not done, and that whom you sue if necessary.
  16. No downside in contacting an attorney. The attorney can given you an evaluation of a possible lawsuit.
  17. If you know that your husband is the father, then why do you only "highly doubt" that this other man is the father? It would be helpful if you gave us some background info: 1. When was the child born? 2. When did you and your husband marry? 3. What was the date (approximate) on which you and the ex last had intercourse? You don't have to agree to anything in the absence of a court order. At the moment, your options are to agree to or refuse a DNA test. If you agree and are proven correct that your husband is your child's biological father, then that should put an end to all of this with the ex. On the other hand, if you refuse, then your ex may institute a legal action. Depending on the information I requested above, your options may be greater or different. Yes, but a lot depends on how old the child is.
  18. I did not "pick[] apart every word." Nor was anything I wrote written with the intent of making you feel stupid. If you feel stupid, that's your problem, not mine. We have only one way of communicating on here: by the written word. I've tried to figure out what exactly is happening in an effort to give you some legal insight. However, you seem incapable or unwilling to explain the situation any better, so I'm done wasting my time with you.
  19. Ok. You wrote that "[a] [police] department has a system, device, or something for geofencing." As I understand it, "geofencing" is simply the use of an electronic perimeter, with the ability to tell if someone or something crosses the perimeter. However, you wrote that "[t]hey can track any device that has apps and see where that device has been up to the previous two years." That's way beyond geofencing. Also, what apps? Who's being tracked, and why? You also wrote that "[n]o warrant or anything is needed." Says who? And what does "warrant or anything" mean? Anything? You then asked, "How is this not a violation of constitutional rights?" If a court has concluded that "no warrant . . . is needed," then that's a ruling that it's not unconstitutional.
  20. If your question is whether the verbal agreement can be successfully alleged as a defense against the landlord's claim for back rent, the answer is that it depends on whose testimony the judge finds more credible (I'm assuming this $2,625 lawsuit was filed in small claims court).
  21. He can stay if the landlord agrees or doesn't notice. If the rent continues to be paid in a timely manner, the landlord might not even notice that you have moved out. I think what you intended to ask is whether your son has any legal right to remain under the terms of the existing lease (including the current "below market" rent. If that's the case, the link provided in the prior answer seems to provide a wealth of useful information.
  22. As I wrote previously, it depends on the relevant facts and circumstances. If you don't know any relevant facts and circumstances, then there's not much anyone here can tell you. Also, you're the one who asked whether "this [could] be a situation where the third-party doctrine allows it?" Are you saying that you asked that question without having any idea what "the third-party doctrine" is? I'll tell you that, in nearly 20 years as a lawyer and 30 years in the legal profession, I've never heard of something called "the third-party doctrine" (hence why I asked what you meant when you asked about it). As I and others have hinted at, it's possible that your cousin is providing you with bad information and/or making stuff up.
  23. These are non-legal questions about which you can conduct google searches. Depends on the relevant facts and circumstances, none of which you provided. Then it must be true. Please explain exactly what you think "the third-party doctrine" is.
  24. Not surprising since "ThakreP" is a spammer from India and this thread is over 15 months old....
×
×
  • Create New...