On Nov 2, 2:56 pm, David Chesler <ches...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > > If a landlord borrows against a property, or otherwise suggests
> > > he can deliver it free of tenants, is this any different than his
> > > representing that he owns a certain bridge and is offering it
> > > for sale?
>
> > Not if he in fact does have the right, in law, to clear out the
> > tenants upon sale.
>
> Let me phrase it differently. If a landlord offers a tenant a
> one-year lease that does not have a terminate on transfer
> clause, and in fact contains a successors clause, and yet
> has an earlier mortgage, or subsequently obtains a mortgage,
> how is his dealings with the tenant different from selling a
> bridge he doesn't own? (After all, a careful check of
> the land records would have shown that he doesn't
> own the bridge.)
It's different because he _is_ the owner, and the tenant is just a tenant and the lender is just a lender. Being the legal owner carries with it the legal right to exclusive possession and use of the property, either for his own occupancy or by charging rent to other users and occupants; but being the banker (even one who actually may have a bigger share of the equitable ownership in the property than the landlord does) does _not_ carry that right to charge rent. All the bank is entitled to do, is to get their mortgage check every month from the owner, whether or not he has rented it to tenants -- and to foreclose if that obligation is not met, at which point the bank (or the person they sell it to on the courthouse steps) will become the new legal owner. If it is a property intended to be leased out, the bank probably even prefers that the tenants remain there and continue to pay rent, rather than have it unoccupied and not bringing in any revenue.
Your "Brooklyn Bridge" example fails as an analogy because the scammer attempting to sell an ownership property interest in the bridge actually does _not_ legally have the right to charge anyone tolls, or rent, for using the bridge (which, IIRC, was the way this scam was typically pitched to greenhorns as a moneymaking proposition) because he doesn't actually own it. The landlord does. It's as simple as that.
Maybe I'm just being dense, or overlooking something obvious. Or I'm not reading enough sinister intent into landlord's devious act of obtaining a mortgage on the tenanted property, to see what you're getting at (since I know that you love to play Devil's Advocate, David). But there's nothing sinister about it - isn't that pretty much what usually happens? I mean, very few landlords own their property outright; they have to take out a mortgage to purchase it, or they refinance somewhere along the way, and neither of those events -- whose full carrying out to the bitter end typically takes decades -- should, in the ordinary course of dealings, matter one whit to the short term residential tenant, who should only care that he has the use and possession of the leased space for the duration of the lease, not whether the guy in the fedora who usually collects the rent, or the bank he borrowed the money from to buy the building, have the priority to collect that rent from him in the event of foreclosure.
When a leasehold is being run as a moneymaking business, everything is hunky-dory for everyone -- owner, lender, tenant, and future purchaser. The owner buys the property at a price which, as a business investment, will yield him a certain predictable percentage rate of return on his capital investment by charging rent(s) that add up to an amount a little bit higher than the amount he has to pay each month to service his debt, and his variable and fixed monthly operating expenses (hiring a super, gardener, etc. for routine maintenance as well as repairs, insurance, etc.). The lender decides how much money it is willing to lend on this collateral based in large part on the total expected revenues the landlord can reasonably anticipate, in the current local market, to generate from leasing the property. (This is unlike the way lenders, and buyers, evaluate owner-occupied residential real estate whose market value often varies for other reasons than its investment income potential.) And the tenant gets a leasehold made available to him (when, presumably, he would find it difficult or impossible to actually buy a place under his circumstances, or simply doesn't want to make that kind of long term commitment) that provides his expected level of accomodations (class A, B, etc. on down) at a rental price that is, hopefully, competitive with whatever else the current local market has to offer. Everybody wins.
If the owner decides to sell, the prospective buyer will evaluate the property on the same basis as the seller and lender did, taking into account of course that market conditions may have changed during the period of time the seller owned it, and as a result, the rates for new leases may make a sudden jump after the change of ownership (putting aside such arcane things as rent control); but it is in everyone's interest, the seller, the lender, and the new owner, that the existing tenants in the building stay there and keep paying their rent on their existing leases, at least until their leases naturally expire, because otherwise the new owner has no present income stream with which to pay the lender and avoid foreclosure of his interest in the property.
Now, if the situation is such that the landlord is _not_ charging enough rent to actually make money on the deal, which can happen for various reasons including change in market conditions, rent control, deterioration of the property due to inadequate maintenance, maybe then you will see some tenanted properties being sold or "given up" in foreclosure scams to drive out the old tenants and jack the rent up several notches. Or maybe the new owners decide to convert the building to a cooperative or condominium, in accord with local laws on the subject. But if some tenants wind up getting screwed, the basic reason is the same one I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread, the mercantile version of the Golden Rule -- them what has the gold, makes the rules. Except in the rare instances where progressive social legislation has given the little guys a local advantage in a specific narrow situation, that's the way it's always been and probably always will be in the commercial world.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Prescriptive easement?
On Oct 31, 7:35 am, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
> In article <beibi31f3pge01vh01aroq9v2lvnd6k...@4ax.com>, mjacobs...@gmail.com
> (Mike Jacobs) writes:
>
> | In other words, as to the person who failed to act
> | promptly to record the interest he had acquired, you snooze, you lose.
>
> Does this apply to prescriptive easements?
If by "prescriptive easement" you mean an "easement of necessity" which arises by operation of law, e.g. so that a landlocked parcel can have access to a public road through the portion of a subdivided lot retained by the seller, I don't believe those need to be recorded, since they are not based on any deed or agreement between the parties, but on operation of law. But as noted many times in this thread, rules do vary from state to state. And I could be wrong, so don't try to take this as gospel or bet the farm on it.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> In article <beibi31f3pge01vh01aroq9v2lvnd6k...@4ax.com>, mjacobs...@gmail.com
> (Mike Jacobs) writes:
>
> | In other words, as to the person who failed to act
> | promptly to record the interest he had acquired, you snooze, you lose.
>
> Does this apply to prescriptive easements?
If by "prescriptive easement" you mean an "easement of necessity" which arises by operation of law, e.g. so that a landlocked parcel can have access to a public road through the portion of a subdivided lot retained by the seller, I don't believe those need to be recorded, since they are not based on any deed or agreement between the parties, but on operation of law. But as noted many times in this thread, rules do vary from state to state. And I could be wrong, so don't try to take this as gospel or bet the farm on it.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Recording title, defined
On Oct 28, 9:33 am, David Chesler <ches...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Oct 27, 8:08 am, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> > When a lease is recorded before a mortgage is made, the lease takes
> > priority. That is why so many leases provide that they shall not be
> > recorded.
>
> Could you explain "recorded" please?
To "record" a document conveying an interest in land, one takes the document down to the county courthouse, to the land records office maintained by the clerk of the court, and says "I'd like to record this [deed, lease, mortgage, whatever] please." One then pays the appropriate fee as requested, the clerk accepts the document, and the clerk files it among the land records of that county, with appropriate indexing (using whatever their usual system is) so that it can be found again if searched for either by land location, or by name of a party to the transaction. The clerk may or may not keep the actual paper document, but may convert it into microfilm or a digital image preserved electronically, which (since it is the official record, if certified as such by having the clerk's stamp placed upon it when a copy of that image is made) is considered just as good as the old-fashioned parchment deed with pen-and-ink signatures, red ribbon and sealing wax. Then, from that moment on, all and sundry persons are legally considered officially and constructively "on notice" of the existence of that interest in the property, which of course they would also be on actual notice thereof if they, or a properly trained person in their employ, were to conduct a "title search" on the subject property as part of the due diligence normally required to determine the soundness of a title being offered by a seller, and the existence of any impediments or defects to that title, before paying good cash money to close on a contract and acquire a subsequent interest in the same property from the seller.
One who fails to so "record" an interest he claims in the particular piece of land, does so at his own peril if the owner of a previous interest decides to reconvey that interest to a new owner. The prospective new owner, after performing a diligent title search that did not turn up any evidence of the unrecorded interest, would then be entitled to ignore the unrecorded interest as though it did not exist, and to purchase the prior interest being offered by the person whose interest is senior to (older than) the unrecorded interest, free and clear of any impediment or defect attributable to the unrecorded interest. In other words, as to the person who failed to act promptly to record the interest he had acquired, you snooze, you lose.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> On Oct 27, 8:08 am, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> > When a lease is recorded before a mortgage is made, the lease takes
> > priority. That is why so many leases provide that they shall not be
> > recorded.
>
> Could you explain "recorded" please?
To "record" a document conveying an interest in land, one takes the document down to the county courthouse, to the land records office maintained by the clerk of the court, and says "I'd like to record this [deed, lease, mortgage, whatever] please." One then pays the appropriate fee as requested, the clerk accepts the document, and the clerk files it among the land records of that county, with appropriate indexing (using whatever their usual system is) so that it can be found again if searched for either by land location, or by name of a party to the transaction. The clerk may or may not keep the actual paper document, but may convert it into microfilm or a digital image preserved electronically, which (since it is the official record, if certified as such by having the clerk's stamp placed upon it when a copy of that image is made) is considered just as good as the old-fashioned parchment deed with pen-and-ink signatures, red ribbon and sealing wax. Then, from that moment on, all and sundry persons are legally considered officially and constructively "on notice" of the existence of that interest in the property, which of course they would also be on actual notice thereof if they, or a properly trained person in their employ, were to conduct a "title search" on the subject property as part of the due diligence normally required to determine the soundness of a title being offered by a seller, and the existence of any impediments or defects to that title, before paying good cash money to close on a contract and acquire a subsequent interest in the same property from the seller.
One who fails to so "record" an interest he claims in the particular piece of land, does so at his own peril if the owner of a previous interest decides to reconvey that interest to a new owner. The prospective new owner, after performing a diligent title search that did not turn up any evidence of the unrecorded interest, would then be entitled to ignore the unrecorded interest as though it did not exist, and to purchase the prior interest being offered by the person whose interest is senior to (older than) the unrecorded interest, free and clear of any impediment or defect attributable to the unrecorded interest. In other words, as to the person who failed to act promptly to record the interest he had acquired, you snooze, you lose.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Mortgage fraud question, part 2
On Oct 26, 7:03 am, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> How many have ever been prosecuted? I've never heard of a single one
> much less encountered it. Have you? Has any who say this is a criminal
> activity actually seen the general outcome of a criminal act - prosecution?
I just got over 421,000 hits by Googling "atlanta mortgage fraud ring" (without the quotemarks, just the keywords), mostly regarding the Atlanta, GA scam I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread. I also got over 658,000 hits using "mortgage fraud employment lie" which will lead to lots of other cases. I won't quote one here; read them at your leisure. The principal perps in the Atlanta case were indeed criminally prosecuted, their ring caused over $20m in bad loans to be made.
If your question was really, "will the little guy who just lies about having a job and then defaults on his mortgage (and the friend who participates in the fraud by lying about being his employer) also be prosecuted?", there is no legally principled reason why they would not be; fraud is fraud. However, the prosecutors are more likely to spend most of their time going after the big fish who cause a lot more harm, like the Atlanta fraud ring, rather than some smalltime loser who lies to get a loan. But that doesn't make the little guy's conduct any less criminally liable.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> How many have ever been prosecuted? I've never heard of a single one
> much less encountered it. Have you? Has any who say this is a criminal
> activity actually seen the general outcome of a criminal act - prosecution?
I just got over 421,000 hits by Googling "atlanta mortgage fraud ring" (without the quotemarks, just the keywords), mostly regarding the Atlanta, GA scam I mentioned in my earlier post on this thread. I also got over 658,000 hits using "mortgage fraud employment lie" which will lead to lots of other cases. I won't quote one here; read them at your leisure. The principal perps in the Atlanta case were indeed criminally prosecuted, their ring caused over $20m in bad loans to be made.
If your question was really, "will the little guy who just lies about having a job and then defaults on his mortgage (and the friend who participates in the fraud by lying about being his employer) also be prosecuted?", there is no legally principled reason why they would not be; fraud is fraud. However, the prosecutors are more likely to spend most of their time going after the big fish who cause a lot more harm, like the Atlanta fraud ring, rather than some smalltime loser who lies to get a loan. But that doesn't make the little guy's conduct any less criminally liable.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Insurance online bill payment
On Oct 25, 7:14 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> My car insurance company won't take payments for more than six months
> and won't take payments in advance.
In advance of what? Every insurance company AFAIK wants its premiums paid in advance of the policy becoming effective, or else they will cancel your policy for nonpayment.
Of course, that only applies to the current policy they are offering you. You can't bind them to continue coverage beyond the period of time they have agreed to, by sending them more money. Each 6-month period you're talking about is in actuality a separate contract. Either you, or they, could decide at the end of each policy period, not to renew the relationship. This is not the same thing as, e.g. your electric bill, which goes on indefinitely as long as your payments stay current.
> If I were to send a check for more
> than what is billed, they say they will send the difference back. And
> they bill six months at a time, instead of once a year like they used
> to.
Right. They used to offer 1-year-long auto policies, and no longer do. That's their choice, for whatever their reasons were.
Other forms of insurance, such as homeowners'. do still offer 1-year terms.
> I presume the reason is that they don't want to contract at the
> current rate for longer than 6 months, since the rate might go up.
Or they may decide not to renew, if you had too many crashes or tickets. Or you may decide to take your insurance business elsewhere, for various reasons.
> They say my rate might change six months later, but it seems to me
> they could write the contract so that it says that "Payments made in
> excess of the billed amount will be applied pro-rata to subsequent
> billing periods based on the rate assessed and the amount billed at
> the start of every billing period."
They don't want to do that. And you can't make them do it. What does it really matter to you anyway?
> How hard would that be? Is there some legal reason in some state this
> wouldn't be valid and do what is intended.
Of course not; if the company wanted to accept your payments that way they could. But they don't want to, and you can't force them to.
> The company writes car
> insurance in every or almost every US state. (although I'm sure they
> actually have different contracts for states that have different
> laws.)
Yes, typically the policy language does include specific riders to comply with the laws of particular states, although for most multi-state insurers, the basic policy language they use is pretty much the same everywhere.
> (I've pretty much gotten around this by using my bank bill pay to
> schedule a payment months from now, but I didn't want to do this
> because I've let my checking balance get very low in the past, and I
> won't be thinking about this 2 months from now.)
Huh? What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?
> Related question. Bank of America bill payer has a pre-established
> lists of billers including one called GEICO Direct, but I wanted to
> check on whether money paid to this would actually get to my account,
> and I asked at the GEICO phone number, and she had to go ask someone,
> and she said Geico Direct wasn't affiliated with Geico who insures my
> car. What do you think is going on here? Are they really different?
Now you've really got me confused. Why don't you check GEICO's website, which IIRC has an option to sign up there for automatic direct monthly withdrawals from the bank of your choice to pay your premiums, and it may be able to answer your other questions.
As to your bank, if you want to use _their_ bill-payment system to pay your insurance bills, you should go to the bank's website and set that payee up yourself, with information you provide them, rather than using one of the names off the bank's pre-selected list of payees that sounds similar.
> So I enrolled in the online bill payer by using the mailing address
> she gave me, rather than the name Geico Direct from the list on the
> Bank's site
OK, now you're making sense.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> My car insurance company won't take payments for more than six months
> and won't take payments in advance.
In advance of what? Every insurance company AFAIK wants its premiums paid in advance of the policy becoming effective, or else they will cancel your policy for nonpayment.
Of course, that only applies to the current policy they are offering you. You can't bind them to continue coverage beyond the period of time they have agreed to, by sending them more money. Each 6-month period you're talking about is in actuality a separate contract. Either you, or they, could decide at the end of each policy period, not to renew the relationship. This is not the same thing as, e.g. your electric bill, which goes on indefinitely as long as your payments stay current.
> If I were to send a check for more
> than what is billed, they say they will send the difference back. And
> they bill six months at a time, instead of once a year like they used
> to.
Right. They used to offer 1-year-long auto policies, and no longer do. That's their choice, for whatever their reasons were.
Other forms of insurance, such as homeowners'. do still offer 1-year terms.
> I presume the reason is that they don't want to contract at the
> current rate for longer than 6 months, since the rate might go up.
Or they may decide not to renew, if you had too many crashes or tickets. Or you may decide to take your insurance business elsewhere, for various reasons.
> They say my rate might change six months later, but it seems to me
> they could write the contract so that it says that "Payments made in
> excess of the billed amount will be applied pro-rata to subsequent
> billing periods based on the rate assessed and the amount billed at
> the start of every billing period."
They don't want to do that. And you can't make them do it. What does it really matter to you anyway?
> How hard would that be? Is there some legal reason in some state this
> wouldn't be valid and do what is intended.
Of course not; if the company wanted to accept your payments that way they could. But they don't want to, and you can't force them to.
> The company writes car
> insurance in every or almost every US state. (although I'm sure they
> actually have different contracts for states that have different
> laws.)
Yes, typically the policy language does include specific riders to comply with the laws of particular states, although for most multi-state insurers, the basic policy language they use is pretty much the same everywhere.
> (I've pretty much gotten around this by using my bank bill pay to
> schedule a payment months from now, but I didn't want to do this
> because I've let my checking balance get very low in the past, and I
> won't be thinking about this 2 months from now.)
Huh? What does that have to do with the topic under discussion?
> Related question. Bank of America bill payer has a pre-established
> lists of billers including one called GEICO Direct, but I wanted to
> check on whether money paid to this would actually get to my account,
> and I asked at the GEICO phone number, and she had to go ask someone,
> and she said Geico Direct wasn't affiliated with Geico who insures my
> car. What do you think is going on here? Are they really different?
Now you've really got me confused. Why don't you check GEICO's website, which IIRC has an option to sign up there for automatic direct monthly withdrawals from the bank of your choice to pay your premiums, and it may be able to answer your other questions.
As to your bank, if you want to use _their_ bill-payment system to pay your insurance bills, you should go to the bank's website and set that payee up yourself, with information you provide them, rather than using one of the names off the bank's pre-selected list of payees that sounds similar.
> So I enrolled in the online bill payer by using the mailing address
> she gave me, rather than the name Geico Direct from the list on the
> Bank's site
OK, now you're making sense.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Perpetual scholarship bequest
On Oct 25, 7:14 am, scruffy323 <steve.mo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How to leave scholarship to generations of my family what legal
> structure to use?
This is a complex area of property and estate law. If you've got enough money to endow a scholarship, you need to hire a lawyer to do this for you. Don't be foolish and try to do it yourself.
> I would like to leave a money and scholarships to all of my decendants
> for ever till the money runs out or forever. Is this possible
That depends on exactly what you are trying to accomplish, and whether you are willing to modify your goals as may be necessary to comply with the law. If the only beneficiaries will be your own descendants, this is not exactly a charitable project, just a limit on when and how your heirs get their money. You probably will have to comply with the Rule Against Perpetuities, which your lawyer will explain to you as it applies in your particular case.
> what legal structure would I use.
That depends on a lot of facts you haven't told us in your post, in addition to your intended purpose. Your lawyer can help you choose the correct form based on all the facts, which you can provide in response to his questions.
> I would think trust but my understanding is that trusts will have to
> end after 81 years
So you are already aware of the Rule Against Perpetuities, eh? Have you previously talked to a lawyer about this, or did you pick this up from general knowledge? Actually, that's not a correct statement of the Rule. There are plenty of discussions on the Web about the actual Rule and I suggest you browse them with your favorite search engine. Basically, any purported transfer of a contingent future interest in property is void unless it "vests" within a life in being plus 21 years. That, often, will work out to be a lot more than 81 years, and sometimes less. But it can't be contingent forever; the interest has to "vest" within the required time or else the attempted transfer of that interest is void.
That doesn't mean, necessarily, that your scholarship plan can't go on forever, if it is set up properly. Which is why you ought to have a lawyer do this for you. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> How to leave scholarship to generations of my family what legal
> structure to use?
This is a complex area of property and estate law. If you've got enough money to endow a scholarship, you need to hire a lawyer to do this for you. Don't be foolish and try to do it yourself.
> I would like to leave a money and scholarships to all of my decendants
> for ever till the money runs out or forever. Is this possible
That depends on exactly what you are trying to accomplish, and whether you are willing to modify your goals as may be necessary to comply with the law. If the only beneficiaries will be your own descendants, this is not exactly a charitable project, just a limit on when and how your heirs get their money. You probably will have to comply with the Rule Against Perpetuities, which your lawyer will explain to you as it applies in your particular case.
> what legal structure would I use.
That depends on a lot of facts you haven't told us in your post, in addition to your intended purpose. Your lawyer can help you choose the correct form based on all the facts, which you can provide in response to his questions.
> I would think trust but my understanding is that trusts will have to
> end after 81 years
So you are already aware of the Rule Against Perpetuities, eh? Have you previously talked to a lawyer about this, or did you pick this up from general knowledge? Actually, that's not a correct statement of the Rule. There are plenty of discussions on the Web about the actual Rule and I suggest you browse them with your favorite search engine. Basically, any purported transfer of a contingent future interest in property is void unless it "vests" within a life in being plus 21 years. That, often, will work out to be a lot more than 81 years, and sometimes less. But it can't be contingent forever; the interest has to "vest" within the required time or else the attempted transfer of that interest is void.
That doesn't mean, necessarily, that your scholarship plan can't go on forever, if it is set up properly. Which is why you ought to have a lawyer do this for you. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Tradition, precedent, and stare decisis
On Oct 24, 7:21 am, Dick Adams <rdad...@panix.com> wrote:
> In responding, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>
> > The rules of stare decisis are complicated, but the bottom
> > line is that the highest court in the land is bound by
> > precedent only to the extent it determines it needs to be.
>
> What a clear, concise, and simple explanation! All these years,
> my position has been "Precedence means nothing to me."
Dick Adams: The Man With No Past (just kidding).
[background music: "Tradition" from Fiddler On The Roof]
Note that Stu said this liberty applies only to the _highest_ court of the given jurisdiction; lower courts are still bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts.
<snip discussion of board infighting over "how we used to do it">
> What I should have said is "While you may have a precedent,
> the Board has considered it and has determined that it is
> not consistent with the policies set forth after it occurred."
Organizations (such as corporations, nonprofit groups, and governments) which count on their citizens or members behaving in certain predictable ways, generally do see some value in having various settled and traditional ways of doing things, or else chaos ensues. But that doesn't mean change can't occur, just that it should be done rationally, based on sound, well-thought-out basic principles, and applied fairly so as not to unduly hurt those who were (up until the decision was made) relying on the old way of doing things.
And, of course, making change just to be silly, or as the law usually puts it, "arbitrary and capricious" decision-making, doesn't do much for the public image of the organization making the changes. This is an important consideration, especially for the courts, which rely very much for their efficacy on a public perception that they are, in a word, acting "judiciously" -- that is, rationally, fairly, and equitably.
When the courts lose that kind of respect, society collapses. It can happen, has happened in other countries (Colombia comes to mind as being at-risk, with the druglords routinely assassinating judges and attorneys, but for other reasons so does ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union), and in some ways may be happening or is at risk of happening in USA now (what with suspension of civil liberties justified by 9/11, indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanimo without charges or counsel, extraordinary renditions and torture, Bush v. Gore, and the whole rest of the mess now going on).
On a lighter note, Dick, if this happens again you may want to tell your protesting board members the old story about the stranger in town who went to the local synagogue to pray and was surprised to find that, as each of the worshipers walked up the aisle toward the Bimah (lectern) to participate in the Torah reading, they each would bow first to the left, then to the right, as they passed the midpoint of the aisle. The visitor had never done this before in his own hometown, and had no idea why they were doing it, but when it was his turn to be called up to be given the honor to read from the Torah, he, too, bowed to the left, then to the right, as he passed the midpoint of the aisle. After the services were over, and while noshing on the spread that the refreshments committee had laid out, he asked one of the local fellows about their tradition of bowing to the left, then to the right, as they passed down the aisle. "I have no idea" said the young man, "but we've always done it that way. It's a local tradition. Maybe we should ask one of the wise elders about it, and he may be able to tell us what it means." So the visitor, and his new friend, went over to greet an elderly, wizened member of the congregation and asked him, "Rebbe, why do we bow to the left, then to the right, as we pass the midpoint of the aisle on the way up to the Bimah?" And the kindly gent told them, "Well, back when I was just a Bar Mitzvah, there used to be a big chandelier that hung down there, and everyone would try to avoid bumping their head when they walked past it. A few years later, we got recessed electric lights installed on the ceiling, and took down the chandelier, but by then, the bowing had become a tradition, so we just kept doing it."
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> In responding, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>
> > The rules of stare decisis are complicated, but the bottom
> > line is that the highest court in the land is bound by
> > precedent only to the extent it determines it needs to be.
>
> What a clear, concise, and simple explanation! All these years,
> my position has been "Precedence means nothing to me."
Dick Adams: The Man With No Past (just kidding).
[background music: "Tradition" from Fiddler On The Roof]
Note that Stu said this liberty applies only to the _highest_ court of the given jurisdiction; lower courts are still bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts.
<snip discussion of board infighting over "how we used to do it">
> What I should have said is "While you may have a precedent,
> the Board has considered it and has determined that it is
> not consistent with the policies set forth after it occurred."
Organizations (such as corporations, nonprofit groups, and governments) which count on their citizens or members behaving in certain predictable ways, generally do see some value in having various settled and traditional ways of doing things, or else chaos ensues. But that doesn't mean change can't occur, just that it should be done rationally, based on sound, well-thought-out basic principles, and applied fairly so as not to unduly hurt those who were (up until the decision was made) relying on the old way of doing things.
And, of course, making change just to be silly, or as the law usually puts it, "arbitrary and capricious" decision-making, doesn't do much for the public image of the organization making the changes. This is an important consideration, especially for the courts, which rely very much for their efficacy on a public perception that they are, in a word, acting "judiciously" -- that is, rationally, fairly, and equitably.
When the courts lose that kind of respect, society collapses. It can happen, has happened in other countries (Colombia comes to mind as being at-risk, with the druglords routinely assassinating judges and attorneys, but for other reasons so does ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union), and in some ways may be happening or is at risk of happening in USA now (what with suspension of civil liberties justified by 9/11, indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanimo without charges or counsel, extraordinary renditions and torture, Bush v. Gore, and the whole rest of the mess now going on).
On a lighter note, Dick, if this happens again you may want to tell your protesting board members the old story about the stranger in town who went to the local synagogue to pray and was surprised to find that, as each of the worshipers walked up the aisle toward the Bimah (lectern) to participate in the Torah reading, they each would bow first to the left, then to the right, as they passed the midpoint of the aisle. The visitor had never done this before in his own hometown, and had no idea why they were doing it, but when it was his turn to be called up to be given the honor to read from the Torah, he, too, bowed to the left, then to the right, as he passed the midpoint of the aisle. After the services were over, and while noshing on the spread that the refreshments committee had laid out, he asked one of the local fellows about their tradition of bowing to the left, then to the right, as they passed down the aisle. "I have no idea" said the young man, "but we've always done it that way. It's a local tradition. Maybe we should ask one of the wise elders about it, and he may be able to tell us what it means." So the visitor, and his new friend, went over to greet an elderly, wizened member of the congregation and asked him, "Rebbe, why do we bow to the left, then to the right, as we pass the midpoint of the aisle on the way up to the Bimah?" And the kindly gent told them, "Well, back when I was just a Bar Mitzvah, there used to be a big chandelier that hung down there, and everyone would try to avoid bumping their head when they walked past it. A few years later, we got recessed electric lights installed on the ceiling, and took down the chandelier, but by then, the bowing had become a tradition, so we just kept doing it."
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Guardianship for elderly mom?
On Oct 24, 7:21 am, digitalr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [court officials] informed me that it is extremely
> rare--extremely extremely rare--for an adult child
> to petition the Court [in a guardianship case for
> the elderly parent]. At first, according to the
> administrative assistant for the Court, it "just
> isn't allowed."
I don't remember all the details of your earlier posts so this may be a bit inaccurate in some details. But I'll try to give you some perspective on what may be going on here. IIRC you had previously acted as a live-in caretaker for your elderly mother, without any formal adjudication of her competency ever having taken place, and then at some point the State, perhaps at the instigation of your younger sister, stepped in and petitioned the court to make your mother a ward of the state (i.e. to award guardianship over your mother to this state agency).
I think what the court officials were trying to tell you is that you don't have any "standing" in this matter that would give you legal grounds to have any say in the outcome. "Standing" is a complex legal concept but, basically, it means you have no dog in this fight so you are not allowed to intermeddle.
The only real issues in a guardianship case are (1) whether the adult over whom guardianship is sought is competent to handle her own affairs or not, and (2) whether the person (in your mom's case, apparently, the state agency) who applied to be granted the guardianship is a fit guardian.
Your mother, not you, is the person whose competency is being questioned, and she is the one who has the right to counsel, the right to challenge the state's allegations, and the right to try to retain her independence as a competent adult, IF she chooses to do so. But the court will not waste its time deciding whether some other person, such as yourself, claims you might be an even _better_ guardian, nor will it entertain petitions from persons such as yourself who, by reason of being the child of the proposed ward of the state, or by reason of having previously served as her unofficial caretaker, claim you have a legally recognized interest in the matter.
Unless _you_ are the one who petitioned for guardianship in the first place, you don't have any such legally recognized interest. If the court allowed such petitions to intervene, there would be no end to the possibilities of additional claimants who could petition the court to be included in the decision. Hence, the rule limiting "standing" to intervene in a suit, to those directly involved.
> I asked both women why I would not be able to petition the court on
> this matter, if defendants in criminal trials as grave as murder are
> allowed to represent themselves.
You are confusing the concepts of (1) self-representation, which of course everyone has the right to do where you are ALREADY a party to the case and where you DO have a legally recognized interest in its outcome, and (2) standing, the lack of which means you DON'T have such a legally recognized interest to participate in the proceedings at all. The guardianship hearing does not involve you, it involves your mother.
If you were the party originally petitioning the court to award you guardianship over your (allegedly incompetent) mother, you would be legally permitted to represent yourself in that petition, although IMO it would be foolish. If that were the case, your mother would be an ADVERSE party to you -- your opponent -- and she would have the right to separate counsel to protect her rights against YOUR claims. But once the state has petitioned to do so, you have no right to intervene in THEIR suit, to become a party to that suit yourself. Since you claim to be on the same side as your mom, though, you can, with her permission of course, hire counsel to represent HER in the matter, and to argue the points you say you want to argue, on HER behalf, not yours.
> If anyone could tell me where in the state code self-representation in
> custody cases is *DISALLOWED,* I would be very grateful.
Wrong assumptions, again, I'm afraid. This is not a custody case, it is a guardianship case, in which there are only TWO parties, the state and your mom; you are not a party. This is UNLIKE custody cases, where there are usually THREE parties, i.e. the mother, the father, and the minor child, and the 2 parents argue over which one of them gets to keep custody of the child.
This is not a contest between you and the state over who gets to keep your mom. This is simply a suit, between your mom and the state, to determine whether your mom gets to "keep" herself as an independent-decision-making adult, or whether the state will be legally granted the right to make some of those decisions for her (i.e., guardianship). In making that decision, the court is supposed to keep your mom's best interests foremost.
What are your options? I gather you claim that your mother has some interest in the matter that is not being adequately represented currently. You are not an attorney, so you CANNOT step in and argue for HER rights in this matter; that would be representing your mom, not representing yourself. But, if you care enough about the matter and IF your mom agrees to let you, you can hire an attorney to represent her, and then he can enter his appearance in the case, AS COUNSEL FOR your mom and not as a separate party, so that he can argue on her behalf. Sorry, but that's the only way you can do it.
If your mother lacks resources to hire counsel, there may be local agencies that will provide her with counsel for free or at a reduced fee. But of course your mom has to agree to be represented, and has to agree to your help in finding her some representation, if you are to have any role in bringing someone in to represent her. If she has already decided she does not want you to do this, there is not much you can do besides look on.
Good luck getting this all sorted out. Just try to remember, it's not about you, it's about your mom.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> [court officials] informed me that it is extremely
> rare--extremely extremely rare--for an adult child
> to petition the Court [in a guardianship case for
> the elderly parent]. At first, according to the
> administrative assistant for the Court, it "just
> isn't allowed."
I don't remember all the details of your earlier posts so this may be a bit inaccurate in some details. But I'll try to give you some perspective on what may be going on here. IIRC you had previously acted as a live-in caretaker for your elderly mother, without any formal adjudication of her competency ever having taken place, and then at some point the State, perhaps at the instigation of your younger sister, stepped in and petitioned the court to make your mother a ward of the state (i.e. to award guardianship over your mother to this state agency).
I think what the court officials were trying to tell you is that you don't have any "standing" in this matter that would give you legal grounds to have any say in the outcome. "Standing" is a complex legal concept but, basically, it means you have no dog in this fight so you are not allowed to intermeddle.
The only real issues in a guardianship case are (1) whether the adult over whom guardianship is sought is competent to handle her own affairs or not, and (2) whether the person (in your mom's case, apparently, the state agency) who applied to be granted the guardianship is a fit guardian.
Your mother, not you, is the person whose competency is being questioned, and she is the one who has the right to counsel, the right to challenge the state's allegations, and the right to try to retain her independence as a competent adult, IF she chooses to do so. But the court will not waste its time deciding whether some other person, such as yourself, claims you might be an even _better_ guardian, nor will it entertain petitions from persons such as yourself who, by reason of being the child of the proposed ward of the state, or by reason of having previously served as her unofficial caretaker, claim you have a legally recognized interest in the matter.
Unless _you_ are the one who petitioned for guardianship in the first place, you don't have any such legally recognized interest. If the court allowed such petitions to intervene, there would be no end to the possibilities of additional claimants who could petition the court to be included in the decision. Hence, the rule limiting "standing" to intervene in a suit, to those directly involved.
> I asked both women why I would not be able to petition the court on
> this matter, if defendants in criminal trials as grave as murder are
> allowed to represent themselves.
You are confusing the concepts of (1) self-representation, which of course everyone has the right to do where you are ALREADY a party to the case and where you DO have a legally recognized interest in its outcome, and (2) standing, the lack of which means you DON'T have such a legally recognized interest to participate in the proceedings at all. The guardianship hearing does not involve you, it involves your mother.
If you were the party originally petitioning the court to award you guardianship over your (allegedly incompetent) mother, you would be legally permitted to represent yourself in that petition, although IMO it would be foolish. If that were the case, your mother would be an ADVERSE party to you -- your opponent -- and she would have the right to separate counsel to protect her rights against YOUR claims. But once the state has petitioned to do so, you have no right to intervene in THEIR suit, to become a party to that suit yourself. Since you claim to be on the same side as your mom, though, you can, with her permission of course, hire counsel to represent HER in the matter, and to argue the points you say you want to argue, on HER behalf, not yours.
> If anyone could tell me where in the state code self-representation in
> custody cases is *DISALLOWED,* I would be very grateful.
Wrong assumptions, again, I'm afraid. This is not a custody case, it is a guardianship case, in which there are only TWO parties, the state and your mom; you are not a party. This is UNLIKE custody cases, where there are usually THREE parties, i.e. the mother, the father, and the minor child, and the 2 parents argue over which one of them gets to keep custody of the child.
This is not a contest between you and the state over who gets to keep your mom. This is simply a suit, between your mom and the state, to determine whether your mom gets to "keep" herself as an independent-decision-making adult, or whether the state will be legally granted the right to make some of those decisions for her (i.e., guardianship). In making that decision, the court is supposed to keep your mom's best interests foremost.
What are your options? I gather you claim that your mother has some interest in the matter that is not being adequately represented currently. You are not an attorney, so you CANNOT step in and argue for HER rights in this matter; that would be representing your mom, not representing yourself. But, if you care enough about the matter and IF your mom agrees to let you, you can hire an attorney to represent her, and then he can enter his appearance in the case, AS COUNSEL FOR your mom and not as a separate party, so that he can argue on her behalf. Sorry, but that's the only way you can do it.
If your mother lacks resources to hire counsel, there may be local agencies that will provide her with counsel for free or at a reduced fee. But of course your mom has to agree to be represented, and has to agree to your help in finding her some representation, if you are to have any role in bringing someone in to represent her. If she has already decided she does not want you to do this, there is not much you can do besides look on.
Good luck getting this all sorted out. Just try to remember, it's not about you, it's about your mom.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Monday, August 20, 2012
The "perp walk" as invasion of privacy?
On Oct 24, 7:21 am, "Alan" <alanb_lano2s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "A Michigan Attorney" <miattor...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6kjrh3lrvtdcrcfvpnuvdslics74264l8b@4ax.com...
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:53 am, Kathy Bennett Schoendorf
> > <kschoend...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> How is it legal to publish on TV the names and faces of people who have
> >> not
> >> been convicted of a crime in the "To Catch a Predator" TV shock show?
I don't know, but I'm sure the high priced lawyers employed by that network have given it a lot of thought, and have vetted everything that goes onto the show as "worth taking the risk" even if not "clearly 100% legal". TV networks are all about making money, after all. And if being "edgy" or even a little "over the edge" draws viewers and makes money, at the risk of a potential lawsuit, that's great, from their POV.
> > The First Amendment applies in this situation, so you have the issue
> > backwards. What you should ask is "why (or how) could it be illegal
> > to publish the names and faces of people who have been featured in 'To
> > Catch a Predator'?"
The 1st Am forbids prior governmental restraint of media content (i.e. censorship) but does not forbid government from enacting other laws (libel, indecency, invasion of privacy, etc.) that would allow a fine to be imposed, or a victim to sue, after the fact, if what was said or shown was not a "protected" expression within well settled 1st Am. jurisprudence.
You, Mr. Media Mogul, are free to publish whatever you want without screening your material past the government first. Is this a great country, or what? But if you step over a forbidden line and violate a law (such as the one under which the FCC fined the network for Janet J's halftime "wardrobe malfunction") or hurt somebody by doing so (such as in-your-face shock shows that actually have gotten people killed after victims were confronted live on camera with their "secret lover"), you can be made to pay the consequences afterwards.
> It seems to me that it is illegal for whatever was the same reason it was
> illegal for Candid Camera to air the people they photographed without their
> permission.
Candid Camera was purely an entertainment show placing nonprofessional actors in fake, absurd situations and recording their unscripted responses. The "actors" learned only after the fact that they were going to be "on Candid Camera" and of course, that would happen only if they gave permission by signing the network's model release (I'm not sure they got paid for it, but am guessing they did, although for some people, just "being on TV" would be payment enough). In that respect, Mr. Funt's pioneering show was a lot like one genre of so called "reality" shows today such as Survivor and its progeny, which in point of fact have nothing to do with "reality" but are likewise simply cheap, easy-to-produce entertainment shows using nonprofessional actors giving unscripted responses to absurd, fake situations.
Current industry terminology, however, also lumps in as "reality" shows those "video voyeur" gotta-look-at-the-bloody-wreck recorded events that are, in fact, REAL events, involving nonprofessional actors in unscripted situations -- unscripted because they are really happening, with real consequences.
The various cop chase shows, newsmagazine shows, etc. would IMO claim they don't need, or get, model releases from the subjects of their focus, on the alleged ground that the events being shown are both "true" (or at least, "not recklessly untrue") and "newsworthy", which the network will claim fits them into an exception to the libel and invasion-of-privacy laws.
Even though the TV suits may have made a deal with the cops to "ride along" on an official "sting" operation, or maybe the TV guys cooked up the whole thing with no cop involvement (I never watched one of those catch-a-predator shows, so don't know which it is) they are likely to argue, if sued by one of the alleged perps they highlight, that what they do is no different than having the camera van waiting at the courthouse steps to catch a "perp walk" for broadcast. Although OP mentions "not [yet] convicted of a crime" as part of her question, as though that may make some difference, being convicted is not the critical break point for newsworthiness. The foax shown doing the "perp walk" in front of the courthouse haven't been convicted yet either, merely accused, of whatever infamous act makes their faces sell papers, or boost ratings. What makes this subject matter (from the POV of the network) safe enough to broadcast (even if not assuredly 100% "legal") is that it is newsworthy and not recklessly false,
Now, if one of these guys who got caught in the camera lights decided to sue, the most likely claims he would make would be for defamation (which has been frequently discussed here on this forum so I won't try to re-define it) or a so-called "false light invasion of privacy" claim, which covers certain acts that fall short of constituting defamation (maybe because the content is literally true) but which take things that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation to keep private, and made them public, in a way that cast a false light on plaintiff's motives, character, etc.
I don't know if OP was looking for a definitive answer, or just wanted to stimulate a lively discussion, but in either event, the answer, as usual, is "it depends".
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> "A Michigan Attorney" <miattor...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6kjrh3lrvtdcrcfvpnuvdslics74264l8b@4ax.com...
>
> > On Oct 22, 7:53 am, Kathy Bennett Schoendorf
> > <kschoend...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> How is it legal to publish on TV the names and faces of people who have
> >> not
> >> been convicted of a crime in the "To Catch a Predator" TV shock show?
I don't know, but I'm sure the high priced lawyers employed by that network have given it a lot of thought, and have vetted everything that goes onto the show as "worth taking the risk" even if not "clearly 100% legal". TV networks are all about making money, after all. And if being "edgy" or even a little "over the edge" draws viewers and makes money, at the risk of a potential lawsuit, that's great, from their POV.
> > The First Amendment applies in this situation, so you have the issue
> > backwards. What you should ask is "why (or how) could it be illegal
> > to publish the names and faces of people who have been featured in 'To
> > Catch a Predator'?"
The 1st Am forbids prior governmental restraint of media content (i.e. censorship) but does not forbid government from enacting other laws (libel, indecency, invasion of privacy, etc.) that would allow a fine to be imposed, or a victim to sue, after the fact, if what was said or shown was not a "protected" expression within well settled 1st Am. jurisprudence.
You, Mr. Media Mogul, are free to publish whatever you want without screening your material past the government first. Is this a great country, or what? But if you step over a forbidden line and violate a law (such as the one under which the FCC fined the network for Janet J's halftime "wardrobe malfunction") or hurt somebody by doing so (such as in-your-face shock shows that actually have gotten people killed after victims were confronted live on camera with their "secret lover"), you can be made to pay the consequences afterwards.
> It seems to me that it is illegal for whatever was the same reason it was
> illegal for Candid Camera to air the people they photographed without their
> permission.
Candid Camera was purely an entertainment show placing nonprofessional actors in fake, absurd situations and recording their unscripted responses. The "actors" learned only after the fact that they were going to be "on Candid Camera" and of course, that would happen only if they gave permission by signing the network's model release (I'm not sure they got paid for it, but am guessing they did, although for some people, just "being on TV" would be payment enough). In that respect, Mr. Funt's pioneering show was a lot like one genre of so called "reality" shows today such as Survivor and its progeny, which in point of fact have nothing to do with "reality" but are likewise simply cheap, easy-to-produce entertainment shows using nonprofessional actors giving unscripted responses to absurd, fake situations.
Current industry terminology, however, also lumps in as "reality" shows those "video voyeur" gotta-look-at-the-bloody-wreck recorded events that are, in fact, REAL events, involving nonprofessional actors in unscripted situations -- unscripted because they are really happening, with real consequences.
The various cop chase shows, newsmagazine shows, etc. would IMO claim they don't need, or get, model releases from the subjects of their focus, on the alleged ground that the events being shown are both "true" (or at least, "not recklessly untrue") and "newsworthy", which the network will claim fits them into an exception to the libel and invasion-of-privacy laws.
Even though the TV suits may have made a deal with the cops to "ride along" on an official "sting" operation, or maybe the TV guys cooked up the whole thing with no cop involvement (I never watched one of those catch-a-predator shows, so don't know which it is) they are likely to argue, if sued by one of the alleged perps they highlight, that what they do is no different than having the camera van waiting at the courthouse steps to catch a "perp walk" for broadcast. Although OP mentions "not [yet] convicted of a crime" as part of her question, as though that may make some difference, being convicted is not the critical break point for newsworthiness. The foax shown doing the "perp walk" in front of the courthouse haven't been convicted yet either, merely accused, of whatever infamous act makes their faces sell papers, or boost ratings. What makes this subject matter (from the POV of the network) safe enough to broadcast (even if not assuredly 100% "legal") is that it is newsworthy and not recklessly false,
Now, if one of these guys who got caught in the camera lights decided to sue, the most likely claims he would make would be for defamation (which has been frequently discussed here on this forum so I won't try to re-define it) or a so-called "false light invasion of privacy" claim, which covers certain acts that fall short of constituting defamation (maybe because the content is literally true) but which take things that the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation to keep private, and made them public, in a way that cast a false light on plaintiff's motives, character, etc.
I don't know if OP was looking for a definitive answer, or just wanted to stimulate a lively discussion, but in either event, the answer, as usual, is "it depends".
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Condo window-blinds requirement
On Oct 22, 7:52 am, salvali...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have been living in my 470 sq foot condo for about 7 years and am a
> single male. I recently received a notice in the mail stating that "I
> have the wrong color or do not have drapes on my windows" and that
> "all windows have to have a shade, blind, or drape in good condition
> and of neutral color." and that if I don't comply within a month, I
> may be fined.
As you state below, you do in fact have blinds already, so isn't the simple solution to this "problem" simply to inform the condo board that you do have acceptable blinds installed?
> I had a bunch of boxes on the window sill, and it probably looked
> messy from outside, so I went and tried to clean that up.
Good for you. That's probably what drew people's attention to your window in the first place. If you don't make an unattractive mess, no one will notice.
> I actually
> do have blinds, but I have always had them up, so after getting the
> letter I put them down.
Jiminy Xmas, they're not telling you that you have to keep them down at all times, just that you need to have them installed.
> I have limited space in my unit, so it's hard
> for me to keep the place neat with all the stuff I have.
I don't see the relevance to the blinds issue. Maybe you should have less stuff, or rent a storage unit, or find a bigger place.
> I am on the second floor.
Which I guess means your cardboard boxes in the window are a lot more obvious to passers-by than they would be if you were on the 42nd floor. Otherwise I don't see why you mentioned this.
> I have allot of anxiety about the economy and spend alot
> of time camping as well, so I try to live cheaply which is why I have
> a small condo.
OOooohhhh, kayyyy, but we're wandering a bit far from relevance here.
> Alot of the people in the buildings that comprise the
> condo I live in are Brazilian renters and I think the board is
> probably alot of landlords trying to maximize their rental potential.
Speculate all you want, but whether the board is mostly absentee landlords or resident owners, no one wants their condo to look like a dump, which it does if you keep your cardboard boxes in the window. And the fact that most of the renters are Brazilians is so totally irrelevant I wonder why you mention it.
> What really concerns me is that I only have one large window in my
> entire unit, with no porch. I basically live in a cave and with global
> warming my unit has been even warmer than it usually is.
Ooooohhh Kaaay...... although global warming is only raising the average global temperature a couple of degrees over the course of years, which is hardly noticeable in terms of personal comfort regardless of its long term effects. Your town probably just had an unusually warm summer.
> This makes it
> hard for me to sleep and get fresh air. I have two large fans in the
> window to blow air into my unit. I don't like air conditioned air
> which I think is unhealthy and likely makes me sick, so I try to use
> the fans as much as possible.
Oooohhhh Kaaaay, again. But no one is saying you can't keep the window open and blow fresh air into your unit.
<rest of anxieties and speculations snipped>
> Please tell me what you think about this and whether I should be
> concerned and what options I might have.
What I think is (a) don't make mountains out of molehills and (b) don't assume they're out to get you and (c) keep the boxes out of your window, and keep your unit's window looking neat from the outside, and you won't have anything to worry about.
All you probably have to do right now is notify the condo board that you do in fact have neutral-color blinds installed. They may want to come and inspect, and you should let them. Anything beyond that would depend on whether you are just being paranoid, or whether they really _are_ out to get you. But I wouldn't assume the latter based simply on what you've reported so far.
Also, try to take a deep breath and relax. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I have been living in my 470 sq foot condo for about 7 years and am a
> single male. I recently received a notice in the mail stating that "I
> have the wrong color or do not have drapes on my windows" and that
> "all windows have to have a shade, blind, or drape in good condition
> and of neutral color." and that if I don't comply within a month, I
> may be fined.
As you state below, you do in fact have blinds already, so isn't the simple solution to this "problem" simply to inform the condo board that you do have acceptable blinds installed?
> I had a bunch of boxes on the window sill, and it probably looked
> messy from outside, so I went and tried to clean that up.
Good for you. That's probably what drew people's attention to your window in the first place. If you don't make an unattractive mess, no one will notice.
> I actually
> do have blinds, but I have always had them up, so after getting the
> letter I put them down.
Jiminy Xmas, they're not telling you that you have to keep them down at all times, just that you need to have them installed.
> I have limited space in my unit, so it's hard
> for me to keep the place neat with all the stuff I have.
I don't see the relevance to the blinds issue. Maybe you should have less stuff, or rent a storage unit, or find a bigger place.
> I am on the second floor.
Which I guess means your cardboard boxes in the window are a lot more obvious to passers-by than they would be if you were on the 42nd floor. Otherwise I don't see why you mentioned this.
> I have allot of anxiety about the economy and spend alot
> of time camping as well, so I try to live cheaply which is why I have
> a small condo.
OOooohhhh, kayyyy, but we're wandering a bit far from relevance here.
> Alot of the people in the buildings that comprise the
> condo I live in are Brazilian renters and I think the board is
> probably alot of landlords trying to maximize their rental potential.
Speculate all you want, but whether the board is mostly absentee landlords or resident owners, no one wants their condo to look like a dump, which it does if you keep your cardboard boxes in the window. And the fact that most of the renters are Brazilians is so totally irrelevant I wonder why you mention it.
> What really concerns me is that I only have one large window in my
> entire unit, with no porch. I basically live in a cave and with global
> warming my unit has been even warmer than it usually is.
Ooooohhh Kaaay...... although global warming is only raising the average global temperature a couple of degrees over the course of years, which is hardly noticeable in terms of personal comfort regardless of its long term effects. Your town probably just had an unusually warm summer.
> This makes it
> hard for me to sleep and get fresh air. I have two large fans in the
> window to blow air into my unit. I don't like air conditioned air
> which I think is unhealthy and likely makes me sick, so I try to use
> the fans as much as possible.
Oooohhhh Kaaaay, again. But no one is saying you can't keep the window open and blow fresh air into your unit.
<rest of anxieties and speculations snipped>
> Please tell me what you think about this and whether I should be
> concerned and what options I might have.
What I think is (a) don't make mountains out of molehills and (b) don't assume they're out to get you and (c) keep the boxes out of your window, and keep your unit's window looking neat from the outside, and you won't have anything to worry about.
All you probably have to do right now is notify the condo board that you do in fact have neutral-color blinds installed. They may want to come and inspect, and you should let them. Anything beyond that would depend on whether you are just being paranoid, or whether they really _are_ out to get you. But I wouldn't assume the latter based simply on what you've reported so far.
Also, try to take a deep breath and relax. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)