Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by pg1067

  1. Anyone can sue anyone for anything, but your landlord's decision not to renew your lease is not legally actionable (and, honestly, why would you want to live in a place owned by a landlord who took six months to repair a septic issue, whom you had to sue, and who doesn't want you as a tenant?).
  2. That your divorce was of the no-fault variety is irrelevant to this issue. You told us that the divorce "was settled," so this should have been covered in the settlement agreement. Was it? If so, what does it say? If not, why not? Were you represented by counsel in connection with the settlement? Was your wife represented? Who drafted the settlement agreement?
  3. Please excuse the Friday afternoon typo. "Debt" should have been "death."
  4. As a general matter, no employer is required by law to provide health insurance coverage You're entitled to be paid a wage or salary that is at least $12 per hour (unless you're in one of the few cities that has a higher minimum wage). You are not entitled to paid sick leave, holiday pay or paid vacation. What does "discriminate in that matter" mean? No law requires that every employee be treated identically. However, if your co-worker is being treated differently because of something like race/ethnicity, gender, religion, etc., then it might be illegal. Do you have reason to believe something like that is happening? When you asked your boss about the possibility of getting these various benefits, what response did you get?
  5. Should not be tagged onto a five and a half year old thread that appears to have nothing to do with your question.
  6. Howzabout providing a citation or link to the ordinance so we can look at it?
  7. At this point, I'm not quite sure what your ultimate goal in posting is, but it all seems to boil down to the joint account. As you've described the situation, it's a pretty cut-and-dried thing. It was a joint account, so your father became sole owner following his wife's debt, and whatever money was in that account at the time of your father's death now belongs to his estate. Nothing (or virtually nothing) relating to Mr. McDonald's or the guardian is relevant to this. Let us know if there's more that you'd like to discuss.
  8. Please don't use oddball fonts/styles. I'm not sure what "it" refers to in this sentence or what you might have read. However, as a general proposition, this is not correct. Beyond that, the only question in your post was an obvious rhetorical question, so I'm not really sure what the purpose of your post is.
  9. I'm not sure I entirely understand these questions. Your use of parentheses in the first question suggests you're asking two separate questions: (1) can you dispute; and (2) if so, how? Obviously, anyone can dispute anything (as evidenced by the fact that some people honestly don't believe that the Earth is (roughly) spherical). How do you dispute it? By any means of communication available to you. I really don't understand the "standard procedures" question. It's conceivably possible that the rental car company will charge the credit card you used to rent the car, so you should keep an eye on your statement. You might be unable to rent a car from the same company in the future, and it's not beyond the realm of possibility that your name will be circulated among other rental car companies. It's probably unlikely that you'll get sued. From a lawyer who charges rates that you consider to be "affordable." Unlikely.
  10. I should also have asked: In whose name(s) does title currently stand? If title is still in your father's name, then you'll have to wait for probate to be done and the property transferred. However, you and your brother could agree for the estate to transfer title to him alone and for you to receive the agreed upon amount of cash. Also, without a written agreement, you have nothing that's enforceable. If you're concerned about the status of the probate, go down to the courthouse where the estate is being probated and look at the public case file. If you still have concerns after doing that, then contact a local probate attorney. Keep in mind that probate for most estates can get done in about 6-24 months. Assuming the probate for your father's estate was commenced within a month or two after he died, you're starting to get up there, which is a concern in and of itself.
  11. Did you agree to be bought out? Did you and your brother agree on the material terms of the buy-out transaction? Did you memorialize your agreement in a signed, written agreement? In what state is the condo located? That depends. For starters, the terms "estate attorney" and "probate attorney" are effectively synonymous. However, you told us that your father "left his condominium to [your] brother and" you. I assume your father has died, but it's not clear whether title to the condo has yet passed to the two of you. Has that happened? If not, what is the status of probating your father's estate? If probate is still pending, who is the executor/administrator?
  12. Define "fraudulent." It isn't "fraudulent" simply because you disagree with the statement that the "building is up to code and safe." Has any court or relevant public agency determined that the building is not "up to code" and/or "safe"? If so, please elaborate. If not, what is the basis for your claim that it is not either of these things? You referred to a lease, so I assume you're a tenant who lives in the building. Correct? Why do you ask about the lease's validity? Are you trying to get out of the lease? If so, please provide some details about the lease (e.g., when did the lease become effective and how long is the term of the lease).
  13. No he didn't. Your father nominated him to be executor. In order to become executor, the guy would have had to be appointed by the probate court, and it's not clear whether that actually happened. A guardian only would have been needed if your father was alive. While he was alive, there was no executor because there was no estate yet. I can't tell if the prior sentence meant that the court appointed Mr. McDonald's as executor and then removed him or whether he was never actually executor and that something happened before your father died with respect to the nomination of Mr. McDonald's as executor. So if, as appears to be the case, his wife (who apparently was not your mother) died first, then your father became the sole owner of he account pursuant to the terms of the account agreement, not her will (assuming a standard joint account agreement, the surviving joint owner becomes the sole owner of the account upon the death of one of them. If it was a joint account, then there was nothing to transfer. Win what? Since you have an attorney, I'm curious why you want input from anonymous strangers on the internet, many of whom are not attorneys, and who may or may not be in the state where the probate is taking place, and who have not read any of the relevant papers. By the way, based on a quick Google search, "TEDRA" is an acronym for the Trust and Estate Dispute Resolution Act. It is a body of law in the State of Washington. Is that where the probate is taking place? If so, while "do . . . a TEDRA" might very well be a shorthand way of referring to something, but it is likely that only a Washington probate attorney is going to know what that means. A POA is a document; it's not a person. I assume you're referring to Mr. McDonald's, but I'm not sure what "transfer" you're talking about. As noted above, it is almost certain that the joint account that your father had with his wife became a solely-owned account upon her death and there was nothing to transfer. Unless a non-standard account agreement was used, yes. They can claim anything they like, but I doubt that's what you intended to ask. What does "the former POA did follower her will" mean? She did, so it should be obvious that she could. However, because the joint account agreement trumps the will and she died first, it doesn't matter what her will said (although, according to you, her will said that, if she died first, he got the money, which is exactly what the account agreement likely provided). For what? Any action taken by the agent pursuant to a POA after the death of the principal would be void because the authority conferred by a POA terminates upon the death of the principal. P.S. I just looked at the thread you started last December, and it appears that all (or nearly all) of this was covered already, so I'm not sure why we're revisit it or why you started a new thread.
  14. Then maybe you have an enforceable contract. As indicated, no way to know for sure without reading it.
  15. Most auto policies provide coverage for an "insured," which is typically defined to mean a named insured or a person driving the car with permission of a named insured.
  16. For starters, you didn't identify the relevant state, and that may make a difference in terms of ownership of the vehicle (regardless of what the title says). Beyond that, whether something is or isn't advantageous is not a legal issue. However, to the best of my knowledge, every auto insurer in every state requires that a person buying a policy identify every licensed driver in his/her household, so whether a policyholder's spouse is a "named insured" on the policy, he/she will be an "insured" (unless the policyholder expressly excludes the spouse from coverage).
  17. I obviously haven't read the documentation in question, but it's unlikely that it does. A contract is a mutual agreement supported by consideration. Does the documentation contain any sort of agreement by you and did you give or promise to give your employer anything of value in exchange for the severance payment?
  18. Your question is a bit difficult to understand. For starters, what does it mean for a person to be "on" an insurance policy? Are you saying that the non-owner is a named insured? Assuming that's correct, the inclusion of an additional named insured on an auto policy does not create any liabilities for the owner of the car beyond what he/she otherwise has. Nor does not create any legal "responsibilities" for the non-owner." Is there some reason you think it might?
  19. Unless you have a contract with your employer that requires payment of "severance," the employer can legally do as it pleases in that regard, including paying absolutely nothing.
  20. Small claims court is informal and inexpensive. You show up with whatever documents and witnesses you have, tell your story, and the judge makes a ruling.
  21. Before addressing your question, please tell us your mother's state of residence at the time of her death (and, if different, the state in which "her property and trailer" are located). Also, "trailer" has a fairly wide number of meanings, so please clarify what it means in your case and what other "property" you're concerned with.
  22. Forced? How did he "force" you? Did he hold a gun to your head? Threaten to kill a member of your family? None of those things or anything even remotely like it? I have no idea what this might mean. Whether your conviction can be expunged obviously depends on what exactly you were convicted of and the laws of the state where the conviction took place. Bafflingly, you provided no information about either of those things. Beyond that, your decision to plead guilty was a voluntary choice that you made. No one "forced" you to plead guilty. What your defense attorney likely did was tell you about the risks of going to trial and advise you based on those risks. Needless to say, we're in no position 20 years after the fact to assess how good the attorney's advice was. However, if you didn't think you got good advice, your recourse was to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Regardless of the state where this occurred, the time to do that has long since passed.
  23. Can you be more clear about what the situation is that you want addressed and what your question is? Please also be clear about who lives where. The first half (at least) of your post is a bunch of most irrelevant detail, and the first question you asked is obviously rhetorical. Also, I think the word you're trying to use is "jurisdiction."
  24. Again, the only thing I posted at the other site was a link to the thread at this site where I did "address the issues [you] addressed." How was posting a link to this existing discussing "undermining" of your efforts? It wasn't, and it certainly wasn't "hostile."
  • Create New...