Tax_Counsel

Members
  • Content count

    19,193
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Tax_Counsel last won the day on May 19

Tax_Counsel had the most liked content!

6 Followers

About Tax_Counsel

  • Rank
    Platinum Contributor
  1. It's not required. But if you don't know what you are doing it can be helpful. Of course, you have to weigh the cost of that against the fine and possible insurance increase you face with this ticket. In the state of Washington the cop does not show up at court for traffic cases. The case is instead heard based on what the officer wrote in the citation that gets filed with the court. You may conduct discovery and get that citation and other information to help you figure out what, if any, viable defenses you might have. There are very specific rules that Washington has for the timing of discovery, when the hearing must be scheduled, etc. So you want to really do this right you need to get up to speed on the rules or get a lawyer. How much you need to do before court really depends on what defense(s) you think you might have. What did you have in mind for defenses?
  2. Even if there was indeed malpractice here (and you won't know that for sure until an expert reviews the medical records) all you get in a medical malpractice lawsuit is compensation for the actual harm suffered as a result. Here, it sounds like the only problem you suffered from this was a single trip to the ER. The ER stabilized you, the problem was corrected and that was it. If that is indeed what happened, all you could win in the lawsuit is reimbursement for whatever you paid for that ER visit. It could well be that the expenses of suing for malpractice would exceed what you would win. Consult a medical malpractice attorney to review everything and advise you whether you have something worth going after.
  3. Sure, the government can do that. What the court would do with it depends on the details of the case, which of course I do not know.
  4. No. Indeed, adultery is not a crime at all in Arkansas.
  5. Your mother retains a life estate in the property. That gives her the right of use and possession of the property until her death. If you sell the property, most buyers will want to have all the rights to the property, which means your mother must sell her life estate and you would sell your remainder interests. Her life estate will have some value to it. Just how much value depends on a lot of factors. If the contract with the nursing home requires that when the home is sold it gets her share of the proceeds then you'd need to work out how much her life estate is worth so that portion could be paid to the nursing home. You might want to see an elder law attorney to have the contract reviewed and find out what is needed to meet whatever the nursing home requires. There will be tax issues to consider on the sale, too. If the home has a low tax basis there could be considerable capital gains on which you pay tax if you sell it now. If you want until she dies, that pre-death gain gets wiped out, such that if you sold it immediately after she died you'd have little or now income tax capital gain.
  6. I wish you the best in doing that. Your life will be better once you can get over the past and move on to focus instead of the future. You cannot change the past, so try instead to focus on the things you can do now that can bring you happiness.
  7. In at least some community property states at least (and your state of California is one, if I recall correctly) using community funds to pay the tax on capital gains earned on what was separate property converts part of that separate property to community property. Hawaii is, of course, not a community property state and the extent to which a state using equitable division might apply a similar principle varies. I do not know how Hawaii would regard it off the top of my head.
  8. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not have anything to do with mortgage loans and would not have helped you in any way to avoid the foreclosure. Nor does the law prohibit a VA lender from foreclosing when payments are not being made for whatever reason. The VA offers some help to veterans facing foreclosure, but you needed to contact the VA yourself to see what it could do for you. If you have not already, contact the VA to see if there are any services it can provide you to help with your current situation. Some VA lenders will provide help to avoid foreclosure, too, like restructuring the loan, forebearance, etc., but you needed to address that with the lender. If all you did was call once and tell the lender you were in a treatment facility that wouldn't help much in alerting the lender that you may need help with payments while your were in the treatment facility. Ultimately, it is up to you to ensure your payments get made and to seek out VA or lender assistance when you couldn't make the payments. Those organizations are not going to step in to help unless you've contacted them to get that help.
  9. RetiredinVA is correct, though what he provided is not the actual language from the statute, but rather a summary of it. What the statute actually says is this: So, under that statute NJ may hold him initially up to 30 days on the warrant from the other state waiting to get the official governor's warrant from PA. However, another statute allows an extension of up to 60 additional days: The judge is authorized, but not required, to release him on a bond pending the decision of PA whether to come and get him. Bottom line is that he could be in NJ jail up to 90 days.
  10. I agree with doucar's response and will add two more comments. Federal court will apply the state law of the state in which you litigate the case, just as the state court of that state would. The difference is that the federal court applies the federal rules of civil procedure, while the state court will apply the state rules of procedure. The federal rules tend to be more complex than state court rules and more expensive to litigate. For most auto accident cases, there won't be any significant advantage to you in federal court. With damages exceeding $100,000, you really want a PI attorney representing you. An insurance company (and I assume the other driver had insurance since the laws of every state require it) will take it much more seriously if you have a lawyer than if you try handling it yourself. Thus, your chances of getting a worthwhile settlement will be a lot better with a lawyer than without one.
  11. They have to be YOUR employees to come after you for workman's comp.
  12. If the signs did not belong to IDOT then IDOT had no authority to tell you that you could keep them. Only the true owner of the signs (whoever that might have been) could have authorized that. So, in that regard there is an issue of whether you were in fact the owner or in rightful possession of those signs. On the other hand, the cops who stopped you were only partly correct on the law. Illinois law states the following: As you can see, it is illegal possess a highway sign or marker if the sign or marker has been permanently etched, stamped or otherwise marked with the indentifying information of the agency who owns it. The officers may not have known (or had forgotten) the detail that the signs had to bear the permanent mark of a state or local government agency for you to be in violation of the law. Cops are not lawyers and are not expert in the details of all the criminal and motor vehicle laws, so this kind of thing unfortunately happens from time to time where the cop gets it wrong. Because it is a crime in some cases to possess such signs and it is very unusual to see someone hauling around those sorts of signs that they are actually legally entitled to possess, the cops likely had the reasonable suspicion needed to at least stop you and investigate whether you were lawfully in possession of those signs. Had the signs been marked, the officers would have been able to seize them since the signs would both be property of the agency that had marked them and would be evidence against you had they decided to charge you. Where they went wrong was in seizing the signs without knowing you weren't entitled to have them. You can try to make a request in writing to the police department that seized the signs and request their return, pointing out the law I quoted above and noting that the signs you had did not have any markers indicating any government agency owned them. No guarantee that will work, however.
  13. You did not indicate in which state you work, and that matters as much of employment law is state law. That said, it is pretty much the case in every jurisdiction that an employer may make policies like this at any time and the policy need not be included in an employee handbook to be effective. Indeed, employee handbooks are typically not treated as contracts (and usually they state that explicitly if they are well drafted) and the employer is free to change those policies at any time or even simply disregard them if they wish. Of course, some of those actions may be bad management, but the law doesn't prohibit the company from engaging in bad management practices. So, as the previous reply said, either turn in your phone to meet the company policy (or keep it outside of work to begin with) or risk possible sanctions from your employer, including termination. Cells phones suck up a lot people's time every day, including work time, which is why more employers are adopting policies like the one your employer is now starting. A lot of people seem to be addicted to checking their phones frequently to see if there are any new messages, alerts, or whatever. But really, being away from your phone for a few hours at a time won't be that a deal. You might be surprised how much you can get done when you don't have your phone with you all the time.
  14. Let me ask you a key question: whose names are on the lease with the landlord? Are you and your roommate both on the lease? Or is it just you? As you said you are holding a $500 deposit from your roommate when he moved in, my guess is that only you are on the lease with the landlord and that you then got this roommate to move in with you on the condition that he pay the $500 deposit and pay to you half the rent that you are obligated to pay the landlord. If that's right, then you are effectively sub-leasing a portion of the apartment and your roommate is your tenant. That means you have to handle this like a landlord does. Your choices are to evict and/or sue the tenant for the unpaid rent owed. Until you do the eviction or he moves out, you cannot have someone else come in and live in his part of the apartment. Eviction requires that you take very specific steps, and it won't happen immediately. Same with suing him for the unpaid rent. There are certain things you must do to get the judgment against him, and that's going to take some time. In the meantime, you still have to ensure your landlord gets paid on time or you might also face eviction and/or a claim for unpaid rent. If your roommate is also on the lease with the landlord, however, then how this goes will depend in large part on exactly what the lease says.
  15. In Oregon, the victim of the crime (or if the victim is deceased, the victim's next of kin) has a right to speak at the sentencing hearing. The victim also has the right to submit a victim impact statement to the court. The defendant also has a right to speak at his/her sentencing hearing. Other than the victim and defendant, the prosecutor and/or defense attorney might call other witnesses to testify as well. It is up to the judge to decide which witnesses to allow and which ones to prohibit if the defense and prosecutor cannot agree on the matter. if you you wish to know something more than just these very basic things, ask specifically about whatever it is that is on your mind. Is there a particular concern you have about some upcoming sentencing?