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
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
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
Effect of an Alford (no contest) plea
On Oct 22, 7:51 am, Roughrider50 <corky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> what's the benefit of an
> Alford plea on top of a deferred adjudication? In my non-legalize way
> of thinking a deferred adjudication should negate any benefit of an
> Alford plea.
Apples and oranges. The main benefit of an Alford plea (in which the defendant does not admit guilt, but admits that the state has enough evidence to convict) is that it does not serve as admissible evidence (an admission of a party opponent) in a subsequent civil suit for damages by the victim.
An Alford plea has no effect on and no relation to the ultimate criminal punishment/sentence, which (depending on the judge, and the deal worked out with the prosecutor) is the same as if entered upon a guilty plea. If you had pleaded guilty and gotten the same deferred adjudication of your criminal conviction (so that it would be ultimately dismissed and not show up on your record), you still would have had the risk that the other party in the accident (if it was an accident) could sue you, and use your guilty plea in evidence.
In most states a plea is admissible in the subsequent civil case (as something you yourself admitted), but the fact of a conviction is not (since the civil litigant has the burden of proving his own case from his own evidence, not just relying on the criminal result).
--
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
> what's the benefit of an
> Alford plea on top of a deferred adjudication? In my non-legalize way
> of thinking a deferred adjudication should negate any benefit of an
> Alford plea.
Apples and oranges. The main benefit of an Alford plea (in which the defendant does not admit guilt, but admits that the state has enough evidence to convict) is that it does not serve as admissible evidence (an admission of a party opponent) in a subsequent civil suit for damages by the victim.
An Alford plea has no effect on and no relation to the ultimate criminal punishment/sentence, which (depending on the judge, and the deal worked out with the prosecutor) is the same as if entered upon a guilty plea. If you had pleaded guilty and gotten the same deferred adjudication of your criminal conviction (so that it would be ultimately dismissed and not show up on your record), you still would have had the risk that the other party in the accident (if it was an accident) could sue you, and use your guilty plea in evidence.
In most states a plea is admissible in the subsequent civil case (as something you yourself admitted), but the fact of a conviction is not (since the civil litigant has the burden of proving his own case from his own evidence, not just relying on the criminal result).
--
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
Turning in your car tags
On Oct 21, 8:02 am, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:31:03 -0400, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This won't help the OP at all, and is pretty much irrelevant to his
> post, but....
So, we'll start a new thread.
> >I don't know about MN, but here in MD you can't cancel your mandatory
> >insurance on a car you own until you physically TURN IN the old tags
> >to the MVA.
>
> It may be that you can, if you transfer the insurance to another car.
Sure, you can keep the same policy, but you can't take that car off the policy until you turn in the tags. The insurer will notify MVA right away that "car X" no longer is insured by them, and if "car X" still has tags on it, the feces hit the rotational ventilator. Fines start right away and are compounded daily.
> At least, someone I know said he did that, when he was depressed and
> not thinking well.
Yes, he was not thinking well, or you misunderstood what he said.
> After he realized he was supposed to have turned in the tags, he
> realized he was so late that the fine for not doing so promptly would
> be large. So he did nothing.
Not a bright idea in any case, and especially where the fines are increasing daily. The sooner you cut it off, the easier it will be to get out of the mess.
> Now he's waiting for the other shoe to fall, a big fine in the mail,
> although I think it has been five years, during which time he's heard
> nothing from the DMV even though during that time he got new plates
> for his new used car, and then renewed those plates.
Something else must be going on here, as you tangentially infer below:
> Does it matter that he scrapped his old car?
Heck yes, it matters. Why didn't you say so in the first place? What MVA cares about is not letting the car get on the road, with or without tags, if it is without insurance. A car that it turned into a ball of scrap is not going to wind up on the road and, potentially, injure others without means of being financially responsible; therefore, no problemo, if he (or someone else, such as the tow truck operator who carts his beater to the junkyard) just files a simple form attesting to that fact.
Obviously, I oversimplified by saying you HAVE TO turn in your tags to get off the hook and be allowed to cancel mandatory insurance in MD without being in violation of the law and paying a large and compounding fine for doing so. That was AFAIK a correct statement of MD law as applied to OP's situation, where his tags were still on the car he sold to his buyer. But that doesn't cover all possible situations, nor did I intend to exhaustively discuss the issue in replying to OP's concerns. In the law, application of general principles to particular situations is almost always very fact-specific and one size rarely fits all, which is why the answer you see most often in MLM, regardless of the nature of the original query, is, "It depends."
In MD, if the tags are destroyed, or lost, or if the owner (truthfully) certifies that the car has been junked, he can keep the tags (assuming he is able to extract them from the ball of sheet metal his car turned into when it was wrecked) and still be legally allowed to cancel his insurance, if he files the required certification form with MVA. I had to file such a form once when my daughter totalled her grandmother's old car and the tags became embedded in what was left of the bumpers so we couldn't easily get them out to turn them in.
> I think it is the third
> car he has scrapped in Md. and he always wonders if the company that
> tows it away actually notifies the state that it is destroyed.
I'm guessing they almost certainly did, or else your friend would have heard from MVA within a very short time.
> Once
> or twice of the three cars he scrapped he got nothing in writing from
> towtruck guy.
Your friend, to be safe, should still have filed the required form himself with MVA, since he was the car's owner, to certify that the car was permanently off the road, before cancelling his insurance coverage for that car.
<snip>
> >even though some VERY TRUSTING souls
> >allow a local purchaser to drive away in the car with their tags still
> >on it, that is on the explicit understanding that the old tags will be
> >mailed back to the seller ASAP so the seller can turn them in to MVA
>
> Does Maryland give one enough time for that to work? I thought one
> had only a week or two (or a month??) before the fines started.
No grace period: the fines start immediately if the car is still tagged (which means it is legally allowed to be on the road, even if it is temporarily not running) and has become uninsured.
But you misunderstand me. In the quoted example of a trusting seller, the seller still can't cancel his insurance until he gets his old tags back from the buyer, in the mail or whatever, and takes them back to the MVA to turn them in. If that takes a week or more, seller has to keep insurance in force on that car he no longer owns, until he can turn in the tags (OR file the required certification that the car is permanently off the road with one of the boxes checked showing an acceptable excuse for why he can't turn in the tags).
THAT'S why I was so flabbergasted that OP allowed his purcaser to drive away with seller's tags still on the car, and never questioned the situation for over a year. MN law must be different, or else OP didn't mind continuing to pay insurance on a car he no longer owned for that long.
--
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 Sat, 20 Oct 2007 07:31:03 -0400, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> This won't help the OP at all, and is pretty much irrelevant to his
> post, but....
So, we'll start a new thread.
> >I don't know about MN, but here in MD you can't cancel your mandatory
> >insurance on a car you own until you physically TURN IN the old tags
> >to the MVA.
>
> It may be that you can, if you transfer the insurance to another car.
Sure, you can keep the same policy, but you can't take that car off the policy until you turn in the tags. The insurer will notify MVA right away that "car X" no longer is insured by them, and if "car X" still has tags on it, the feces hit the rotational ventilator. Fines start right away and are compounded daily.
> At least, someone I know said he did that, when he was depressed and
> not thinking well.
Yes, he was not thinking well, or you misunderstood what he said.
> After he realized he was supposed to have turned in the tags, he
> realized he was so late that the fine for not doing so promptly would
> be large. So he did nothing.
Not a bright idea in any case, and especially where the fines are increasing daily. The sooner you cut it off, the easier it will be to get out of the mess.
> Now he's waiting for the other shoe to fall, a big fine in the mail,
> although I think it has been five years, during which time he's heard
> nothing from the DMV even though during that time he got new plates
> for his new used car, and then renewed those plates.
Something else must be going on here, as you tangentially infer below:
> Does it matter that he scrapped his old car?
Heck yes, it matters. Why didn't you say so in the first place? What MVA cares about is not letting the car get on the road, with or without tags, if it is without insurance. A car that it turned into a ball of scrap is not going to wind up on the road and, potentially, injure others without means of being financially responsible; therefore, no problemo, if he (or someone else, such as the tow truck operator who carts his beater to the junkyard) just files a simple form attesting to that fact.
Obviously, I oversimplified by saying you HAVE TO turn in your tags to get off the hook and be allowed to cancel mandatory insurance in MD without being in violation of the law and paying a large and compounding fine for doing so. That was AFAIK a correct statement of MD law as applied to OP's situation, where his tags were still on the car he sold to his buyer. But that doesn't cover all possible situations, nor did I intend to exhaustively discuss the issue in replying to OP's concerns. In the law, application of general principles to particular situations is almost always very fact-specific and one size rarely fits all, which is why the answer you see most often in MLM, regardless of the nature of the original query, is, "It depends."
In MD, if the tags are destroyed, or lost, or if the owner (truthfully) certifies that the car has been junked, he can keep the tags (assuming he is able to extract them from the ball of sheet metal his car turned into when it was wrecked) and still be legally allowed to cancel his insurance, if he files the required certification form with MVA. I had to file such a form once when my daughter totalled her grandmother's old car and the tags became embedded in what was left of the bumpers so we couldn't easily get them out to turn them in.
> I think it is the third
> car he has scrapped in Md. and he always wonders if the company that
> tows it away actually notifies the state that it is destroyed.
I'm guessing they almost certainly did, or else your friend would have heard from MVA within a very short time.
> Once
> or twice of the three cars he scrapped he got nothing in writing from
> towtruck guy.
Your friend, to be safe, should still have filed the required form himself with MVA, since he was the car's owner, to certify that the car was permanently off the road, before cancelling his insurance coverage for that car.
<snip>
> >even though some VERY TRUSTING souls
> >allow a local purchaser to drive away in the car with their tags still
> >on it, that is on the explicit understanding that the old tags will be
> >mailed back to the seller ASAP so the seller can turn them in to MVA
>
> Does Maryland give one enough time for that to work? I thought one
> had only a week or two (or a month??) before the fines started.
No grace period: the fines start immediately if the car is still tagged (which means it is legally allowed to be on the road, even if it is temporarily not running) and has become uninsured.
But you misunderstand me. In the quoted example of a trusting seller, the seller still can't cancel his insurance until he gets his old tags back from the buyer, in the mail or whatever, and takes them back to the MVA to turn them in. If that takes a week or more, seller has to keep insurance in force on that car he no longer owns, until he can turn in the tags (OR file the required certification that the car is permanently off the road with one of the boxes checked showing an acceptable excuse for why he can't turn in the tags).
THAT'S why I was so flabbergasted that OP allowed his purcaser to drive away with seller's tags still on the car, and never questioned the situation for over a year. MN law must be different, or else OP didn't mind continuing to pay insurance on a car he no longer owned for that long.
--
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
On Oct 21, 8:02 am, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In applying for a loan, Joe lists Mike as his employer.
If that's not true, it's a lie. And it's a lie that's being told with intent to misrepresent a material fact in reliance on which Joe wants his prospective lender to change its position to its detriment, by giving Joe a loan.
That's called "fraud."
> When Mike is
> called, he echoes the information that Joe had asked him to
> "confirm" (e.g., salary, length of employment, job duties).
So Mike is also a co-conspirator in the attempt to defraud the lender.
> As a
> result Joe gets the loan, and is soon in default. So, any crime?
Yes, loan or mortgage fraud. He's trying to get a loan he doesn't qualify for, and which therefore hides from the lender risks Joe and Mike know about but which the lender doesn't, to get the lender to act against its own best interests.
Frex, a big hunk of the fracas over "subprime" mortgages is due to organized schemes to defraud lenders by borrowers who claimed nonexistent assets/jobs/resources, or who offered grossly inflated appraisals of the property put up as collateral, often with the full collusion of crooked brokers. Atlanta, frex, had a very active fraud ring that got lots of money for its members by getting multiple loans on the same few decrepit houses in a drug-ridden neighborhood, even going so far as to move around furniture from house to house and spiffing them up to create a "Potemkin village" look, to fool lenders' representatives when they came out to check.
> any
> potential civil liability?
Yep. You bet. Uh-huh. Big time.
Anything else you want to know?
--
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 applying for a loan, Joe lists Mike as his employer.
If that's not true, it's a lie. And it's a lie that's being told with intent to misrepresent a material fact in reliance on which Joe wants his prospective lender to change its position to its detriment, by giving Joe a loan.
That's called "fraud."
> When Mike is
> called, he echoes the information that Joe had asked him to
> "confirm" (e.g., salary, length of employment, job duties).
So Mike is also a co-conspirator in the attempt to defraud the lender.
> As a
> result Joe gets the loan, and is soon in default. So, any crime?
Yes, loan or mortgage fraud. He's trying to get a loan he doesn't qualify for, and which therefore hides from the lender risks Joe and Mike know about but which the lender doesn't, to get the lender to act against its own best interests.
Frex, a big hunk of the fracas over "subprime" mortgages is due to organized schemes to defraud lenders by borrowers who claimed nonexistent assets/jobs/resources, or who offered grossly inflated appraisals of the property put up as collateral, often with the full collusion of crooked brokers. Atlanta, frex, had a very active fraud ring that got lots of money for its members by getting multiple loans on the same few decrepit houses in a drug-ridden neighborhood, even going so far as to move around furniture from house to house and spiffing them up to create a "Potemkin village" look, to fool lenders' representatives when they came out to check.
> any
> potential civil liability?
Yep. You bet. Uh-huh. Big time.
Anything else you want to know?
--
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
Car purchase snafu
On Oct 19, 9:03 am, hda...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a question I am being blackmailed by an attorney who bought a
> car from me and I was wondering what my options are.
Your own lawyer can tell you better than we could.
> I sold a Mercedes C32 AMG on 06/01/06 and the car had
> been in a accident which i disclosed
Was your disclosure in writing? Was the sale "as-is"? Are you a private party, or a merchant? Did you disclaim any implied warranties? Too many facts are left out of your scenario to give any meaningful input to help you get out of this mess, which is why you need to ask your own lawyer, who is presumably more familiar with all these facts.
> I also disclosed that the car's paint was in poor
> condition.
That's the sort of thing one could see for oneself, so I'm suspecting you meant you did a written disclosure here too. Maybe not.
This wasn't an Ebay purchase or something like that, was it? I presume you would have mentioned such an important fact, if it was.
> After the Atttorney got the the car he never contacted me.
Why should he? Why would you expect him to?
> Then in 08/08/07 I get a letter in the mail saying that i am
> being sued for the car and that I had to be in Ohio Court (I am from
> MN) on 10/23/07 for a preliminary hearing.
Was it just a "letter", or a formal summons from the court?
Did the summons (if that's what it is) say anything on it about the time for you to file a written answer? In most states it would be defective if it didn't. Did you actually read it, even the fine print?
> I waited until a month
> before I had to show up for court and I then contacted my lawyer.
We can only drop our jaws agape in wonder at why you would do so if you in fact already had a personal lawyer on retainer. I might expect that kind of head-in-the-sand behavior from someone who has never dealt with the legal system, but, c'mon, you're a sophisticated prior user of legal services. Don't cut your lawyer off at the knees by waiting too long to tell him what's going on.
> My
> lawyer said that in the statre of OH I had to give an answer to this
> within 28 days.
Did it say that on the paper itself? Did your lawyer show you what it said, where you apparently had not read it?
> My lawyer contaced the lawyer in OH and they told him
> that he had a default judgement against me.
Not surprising, if you ignored the summons and failed to file a timely answer.
> The lawyer who bought the
> car drove it until the tabs expired (one year)
My gaping jaw just dropped another notch at the concept that you would allow a purchaser from OUT OF STATE, and not just from across the river but A THOUSAND MILES AWAY, to drive away in your car WITH YOUR TAGS STILL ON IT and then to think nothing of it for a YEAR.
I don't know about MN, but here in MD you can't cancel your mandatory insurance on a car you own until you physically TURN IN the old tags to the MVA. If you happen to have a year or more of time left until the tags expire, they give you a partial refund. The new owner has to get his own new tags ASAP and even though some VERY TRUSTING souls allow a local purchaser to drive away in the car with their tags still on it, that is on the explicit understanding that the old tags will be mailed back to the seller ASAP so the seller can turn them in to MVA so he can (a) cancel his insurance and (b) get a fee refund. The better practice is for both buyer and seller to go down to the MVA together, make the transfer there, get the new title and tags issued to the buyer at the same time the seller turns in his old tags, and then the seller has nothing further he has to do with the buyer, who goes on his merry way. If the buyer is out of state, you can do the transfer of title on paper or by mail and make the buyer put on his own tags before you let him drive it away.
I'm assuming that if you had done this right, looking out for your own risks, you could have insisted that your OH purchaser could have had the car shipped to him in OH after making the purchase, or could have towed it on a trailer or towbar behind the vehicle he came to you in. It is not reasonable for the buyer to expect he can just hop on an airliner, take a cab from the airport to your door, pay you for the car, and drive away in that car, with your tags and title still on it. But apparently that's what you let him do.
> and then he sued me for $250,000 for a $17000 car.
Well, that's just ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the suit. Have you heard about the case in DC where a newly appointed judge (who has since lost his position due to the brouhaha) sued a local dry cleaner for 67 million simoleons for allegedly losing a pair of his pants? The dry cleaners did not simply ignore that outrageous suit and hope it went away. They had to hire their own lawyer and defend their actions and pay good money to their lawyer to make the case go away.
> He never even transferred the title on the car.
Why should he, if you gave him a free ride by leaving your tags on?
> He just drove it in my name now he wants all of his money back
> for the car and maintenance etc. He said the car was misrepresented
> but he never said anything about it until 13 months after he bought
> the car.
His delay in complaining may well be an important fact that would help the judge or jury infer that his complaints are overblown. However, that's still not a basis for you to ignore his suit.
> Now this guy has this judgement against me in OH and I just
> wanted to know if he can move it to my state
Jumping the gun, aren't we? I thought you have a lawyer working on this. Wouldn 't his first step be, trying to get the default judgment vacated so that you can actually try the case on the merits? If not, maybe you need a different lawyer.
> or how does that work? I live in MN.
Assuming you do _not_ succeed in vacating the judgment, yes, judgments of a competent court of any state are enforceable in the courts of any state where the judgment creditor may happen to find assets of yours he can seize to help satisfy the judgment. That's due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution and numerous statutes including several widely adopted uniform laws and model laws on inter-state enforcement of civil money judgments.
Let's recap:
mistake #1 was not putting your disclosures in writing, if you didn't;
mistake #2 was letting purchaser drive off with your tags still on the car;
mistake #3 was not having red flags go up when you didn't get your old tags back from the purchaser in a reasonable time;
mistake #4 was not consulting your lawyer as soon as #3 happened, so he could help you wrap things up _before_ it all exploded in your face;
mistake #5 was ignoring the summons when it arrived, and #5a was not telling your lawyer about it right away even if you didn't want to look at it yourself; and
mistake #6 is, apparently not learning much from #1-5a because you're asking a bunch of total strangers on MLM for advice and comment instead of relying on the diligent efforts of your own lawyer to get this default overturned and let you defend yourself against this overblown claim. You _ARE_ letting him do that, aren't you? If not, that would be mistake #7.
In spite of all, I do wish you good luck, and my only advice is, try to think ahead a little bit next time about "what could possibly go wrong?" The answer is, everything, and Murphy is once again proven right.
--
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 a question I am being blackmailed by an attorney who bought a
> car from me and I was wondering what my options are.
Your own lawyer can tell you better than we could.
> I sold a Mercedes C32 AMG on 06/01/06 and the car had
> been in a accident which i disclosed
Was your disclosure in writing? Was the sale "as-is"? Are you a private party, or a merchant? Did you disclaim any implied warranties? Too many facts are left out of your scenario to give any meaningful input to help you get out of this mess, which is why you need to ask your own lawyer, who is presumably more familiar with all these facts.
> I also disclosed that the car's paint was in poor
> condition.
That's the sort of thing one could see for oneself, so I'm suspecting you meant you did a written disclosure here too. Maybe not.
This wasn't an Ebay purchase or something like that, was it? I presume you would have mentioned such an important fact, if it was.
> After the Atttorney got the the car he never contacted me.
Why should he? Why would you expect him to?
> Then in 08/08/07 I get a letter in the mail saying that i am
> being sued for the car and that I had to be in Ohio Court (I am from
> MN) on 10/23/07 for a preliminary hearing.
Was it just a "letter", or a formal summons from the court?
Did the summons (if that's what it is) say anything on it about the time for you to file a written answer? In most states it would be defective if it didn't. Did you actually read it, even the fine print?
> I waited until a month
> before I had to show up for court and I then contacted my lawyer.
We can only drop our jaws agape in wonder at why you would do so if you in fact already had a personal lawyer on retainer. I might expect that kind of head-in-the-sand behavior from someone who has never dealt with the legal system, but, c'mon, you're a sophisticated prior user of legal services. Don't cut your lawyer off at the knees by waiting too long to tell him what's going on.
> My
> lawyer said that in the statre of OH I had to give an answer to this
> within 28 days.
Did it say that on the paper itself? Did your lawyer show you what it said, where you apparently had not read it?
> My lawyer contaced the lawyer in OH and they told him
> that he had a default judgement against me.
Not surprising, if you ignored the summons and failed to file a timely answer.
> The lawyer who bought the
> car drove it until the tabs expired (one year)
My gaping jaw just dropped another notch at the concept that you would allow a purchaser from OUT OF STATE, and not just from across the river but A THOUSAND MILES AWAY, to drive away in your car WITH YOUR TAGS STILL ON IT and then to think nothing of it for a YEAR.
I don't know about MN, but here in MD you can't cancel your mandatory insurance on a car you own until you physically TURN IN the old tags to the MVA. If you happen to have a year or more of time left until the tags expire, they give you a partial refund. The new owner has to get his own new tags ASAP and even though some VERY TRUSTING souls allow a local purchaser to drive away in the car with their tags still on it, that is on the explicit understanding that the old tags will be mailed back to the seller ASAP so the seller can turn them in to MVA so he can (a) cancel his insurance and (b) get a fee refund. The better practice is for both buyer and seller to go down to the MVA together, make the transfer there, get the new title and tags issued to the buyer at the same time the seller turns in his old tags, and then the seller has nothing further he has to do with the buyer, who goes on his merry way. If the buyer is out of state, you can do the transfer of title on paper or by mail and make the buyer put on his own tags before you let him drive it away.
I'm assuming that if you had done this right, looking out for your own risks, you could have insisted that your OH purchaser could have had the car shipped to him in OH after making the purchase, or could have towed it on a trailer or towbar behind the vehicle he came to you in. It is not reasonable for the buyer to expect he can just hop on an airliner, take a cab from the airport to your door, pay you for the car, and drive away in that car, with your tags and title still on it. But apparently that's what you let him do.
> and then he sued me for $250,000 for a $17000 car.
Well, that's just ridiculous, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the suit. Have you heard about the case in DC where a newly appointed judge (who has since lost his position due to the brouhaha) sued a local dry cleaner for 67 million simoleons for allegedly losing a pair of his pants? The dry cleaners did not simply ignore that outrageous suit and hope it went away. They had to hire their own lawyer and defend their actions and pay good money to their lawyer to make the case go away.
> He never even transferred the title on the car.
Why should he, if you gave him a free ride by leaving your tags on?
> He just drove it in my name now he wants all of his money back
> for the car and maintenance etc. He said the car was misrepresented
> but he never said anything about it until 13 months after he bought
> the car.
His delay in complaining may well be an important fact that would help the judge or jury infer that his complaints are overblown. However, that's still not a basis for you to ignore his suit.
> Now this guy has this judgement against me in OH and I just
> wanted to know if he can move it to my state
Jumping the gun, aren't we? I thought you have a lawyer working on this. Wouldn 't his first step be, trying to get the default judgment vacated so that you can actually try the case on the merits? If not, maybe you need a different lawyer.
> or how does that work? I live in MN.
Assuming you do _not_ succeed in vacating the judgment, yes, judgments of a competent court of any state are enforceable in the courts of any state where the judgment creditor may happen to find assets of yours he can seize to help satisfy the judgment. That's due to the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution and numerous statutes including several widely adopted uniform laws and model laws on inter-state enforcement of civil money judgments.
Let's recap:
mistake #1 was not putting your disclosures in writing, if you didn't;
mistake #2 was letting purchaser drive off with your tags still on the car;
mistake #3 was not having red flags go up when you didn't get your old tags back from the purchaser in a reasonable time;
mistake #4 was not consulting your lawyer as soon as #3 happened, so he could help you wrap things up _before_ it all exploded in your face;
mistake #5 was ignoring the summons when it arrived, and #5a was not telling your lawyer about it right away even if you didn't want to look at it yourself; and
mistake #6 is, apparently not learning much from #1-5a because you're asking a bunch of total strangers on MLM for advice and comment instead of relying on the diligent efforts of your own lawyer to get this default overturned and let you defend yourself against this overblown claim. You _ARE_ letting him do that, aren't you? If not, that would be mistake #7.
In spite of all, I do wish you good luck, and my only advice is, try to think ahead a little bit next time about "what could possibly go wrong?" The answer is, everything, and Murphy is once again proven right.
--
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
Subrogation and comparative fault
On Oct 19, 9:02 am, mny....@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi. I recently got into accident with both parties' insurance
> companies decided it is partial fault (50-50)
You don't _have_ to accept their determination of relative fault; that's what lawsuits are for, when there is a disagreement on a material fact, and a lawyer maybe could have helped you negotiate a different split. Maybe it should have been 70-30, or 100-0, or whatever your lawyer could convince the adjuster a judge or jury might have found if the case had to go all the way to trial. But apparently, you didn't question it, and you accepted your collision insurer's payment on the basis of that 50-50 split. So I think you're stuck with that now (having caused the other party to change position (make a payment to you) in reliance on your inaction, you're "estopped" to argue otherwise, is the legal term). But I don't know the law of your state (which you don't happen to mention where it is), so I could be wrong.
> I received estimate from wawanesa, my insurance, about $1000 to fix
> the damage. Since my deductible is $500 then I received $500.
Fair so far, right?
> Wawanesa promised to help to deal with the other party's insurance,
> AAA insurance, to collect the money.
They're supposed to do that, when you accept a benefits payment from them under your own collision coverage. What they maybe didn't tell you is, they are also trying to get their _own_ money back from the other guy's insurer. This is called a "subrogation" claim, where one insurer (or whoever) who has paid a claim that, by rights, should have been paid in whole or in part by someone else (the other at-fault driver) "steps into your shoes" so to speak, and is "subrogated" (replaces you) as the one who has the right to be reimbursed, if and when they do recover anything from the responsible party or his insurer.
In some states, the subrogated insurer has to be paid back _in_full_ before the policyholder gets _anything_ back on his deductible. After all, you paid a lower premium to accept the risk that you might have to put up your deductible in event of a claim. If you wanted to make sure your own money was not at risk like the insurer's money was, you could have opted for a lower deductible, or no deductible. Of course, those options would have cost you a higher premium. So, just like the insurer did when they calculated your premium, you played the odds, and in this case, you had to put up. A deductible wouldn't mean much if you had the right to be paid back first while the insurer, who accepted the main risk on your behalf, got left holding the bag.
In other states, the insurer is required to pro-rate any recovery, percentage-wise, between what they paid on your behalf, and what you paid for yourself (your deductible). It sounds like you're in one of those states. If this had been a $50,000 claim and you had a $500 deductible, the insurer would have gotten back 99 cents out of every dollar of whatever they were able to recover from the other guy, for every 1 cent they paid you back. Since your actual claim was smaller, so that it just happened your deductible was equal to the amount the insurer paid for you, you and your insurer each were entitled to get half of what they were able to recover from the other guy.
> Ok, I let them do that.
By accepting their payment under your collision coverage, you didn't have any choice. Read the terms of your policy. You authorized them to do that for you when you bought the coverage, and you gave up the right to do so on your own (unless you intended to fight the other guy completely without the help of your own insurer, i.e. without accepting any benefits under your own coverages). TANSTAAFL.
> Few weeks later, wawanesa sent me $250 for
> "50% deductive discount".
Now do you understand why they did that?
> I called AAA about the claim, adjuster said they sent wawanesa $500
> for the damages.
Half of which reimbursed their collision claims payment to you, and half of which reimbursed your deductible.
> Now, why would wawanesa not send me the $500 they got from AAA?
Because they were entitled to half of it.
> Instead they gave me 50% discount of deductible for $250? Is this
> legal for wawanesa to grab my money from AAA and not forwarding it to
> me??
It's not your money. Half of it's their money. Who paid for the collision repairs? You paid half and they paid half. You each get reimbursed proportionately.
> Please explain if anybody knows why, since I would have dealt with AAA
> directly and got the payout of $500 straight.
If you had done that, your insurer may have been able to take other adverse action against you, including possibly suing you or filing a criminal insurance fraud claim; read your policy (and the law of your state) to see what all their available remedies are. Insurers don't like people who steal their (stockholders') money by filing false or fraudulent claims (which is what you would be doing, if you contacted the other guy's insurer and demanded full payment without mentioning that your own insurer had a subrogated interest in your recovery).
You got a square deal. You had to pay half of your deductible because the crash was half your fault. Hope this puts your anxieties to rest.
--
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
> Hi. I recently got into accident with both parties' insurance
> companies decided it is partial fault (50-50)
You don't _have_ to accept their determination of relative fault; that's what lawsuits are for, when there is a disagreement on a material fact, and a lawyer maybe could have helped you negotiate a different split. Maybe it should have been 70-30, or 100-0, or whatever your lawyer could convince the adjuster a judge or jury might have found if the case had to go all the way to trial. But apparently, you didn't question it, and you accepted your collision insurer's payment on the basis of that 50-50 split. So I think you're stuck with that now (having caused the other party to change position (make a payment to you) in reliance on your inaction, you're "estopped" to argue otherwise, is the legal term). But I don't know the law of your state (which you don't happen to mention where it is), so I could be wrong.
> I received estimate from wawanesa, my insurance, about $1000 to fix
> the damage. Since my deductible is $500 then I received $500.
Fair so far, right?
> Wawanesa promised to help to deal with the other party's insurance,
> AAA insurance, to collect the money.
They're supposed to do that, when you accept a benefits payment from them under your own collision coverage. What they maybe didn't tell you is, they are also trying to get their _own_ money back from the other guy's insurer. This is called a "subrogation" claim, where one insurer (or whoever) who has paid a claim that, by rights, should have been paid in whole or in part by someone else (the other at-fault driver) "steps into your shoes" so to speak, and is "subrogated" (replaces you) as the one who has the right to be reimbursed, if and when they do recover anything from the responsible party or his insurer.
In some states, the subrogated insurer has to be paid back _in_full_ before the policyholder gets _anything_ back on his deductible. After all, you paid a lower premium to accept the risk that you might have to put up your deductible in event of a claim. If you wanted to make sure your own money was not at risk like the insurer's money was, you could have opted for a lower deductible, or no deductible. Of course, those options would have cost you a higher premium. So, just like the insurer did when they calculated your premium, you played the odds, and in this case, you had to put up. A deductible wouldn't mean much if you had the right to be paid back first while the insurer, who accepted the main risk on your behalf, got left holding the bag.
In other states, the insurer is required to pro-rate any recovery, percentage-wise, between what they paid on your behalf, and what you paid for yourself (your deductible). It sounds like you're in one of those states. If this had been a $50,000 claim and you had a $500 deductible, the insurer would have gotten back 99 cents out of every dollar of whatever they were able to recover from the other guy, for every 1 cent they paid you back. Since your actual claim was smaller, so that it just happened your deductible was equal to the amount the insurer paid for you, you and your insurer each were entitled to get half of what they were able to recover from the other guy.
> Ok, I let them do that.
By accepting their payment under your collision coverage, you didn't have any choice. Read the terms of your policy. You authorized them to do that for you when you bought the coverage, and you gave up the right to do so on your own (unless you intended to fight the other guy completely without the help of your own insurer, i.e. without accepting any benefits under your own coverages). TANSTAAFL.
> Few weeks later, wawanesa sent me $250 for
> "50% deductive discount".
Now do you understand why they did that?
> I called AAA about the claim, adjuster said they sent wawanesa $500
> for the damages.
Half of which reimbursed their collision claims payment to you, and half of which reimbursed your deductible.
> Now, why would wawanesa not send me the $500 they got from AAA?
Because they were entitled to half of it.
> Instead they gave me 50% discount of deductible for $250? Is this
> legal for wawanesa to grab my money from AAA and not forwarding it to
> me??
It's not your money. Half of it's their money. Who paid for the collision repairs? You paid half and they paid half. You each get reimbursed proportionately.
> Please explain if anybody knows why, since I would have dealt with AAA
> directly and got the payout of $500 straight.
If you had done that, your insurer may have been able to take other adverse action against you, including possibly suing you or filing a criminal insurance fraud claim; read your policy (and the law of your state) to see what all their available remedies are. Insurers don't like people who steal their (stockholders') money by filing false or fraudulent claims (which is what you would be doing, if you contacted the other guy's insurer and demanded full payment without mentioning that your own insurer had a subrogated interest in your recovery).
You got a square deal. You had to pay half of your deductible because the crash was half your fault. Hope this puts your anxieties to rest.
--
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
Car crash case evaluation
On Oct 15, 10:28 am, "babypink2...@googlemail.com" <babypink2...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi
Back at ya.
> I was on holiday earlier this year and was involved in a car accident,
<facts snipped>
Sorry to hear about your injury.
> I have
> employed a lawyer in the USA after the guy that struck us admitted
> liability and we contacted our insureres staight away.
OK, I had to read nearly to the bottom of your post to find out you've already done the one (OK, two) things I was going to suggest you do ASAP if not sooner. For benefit of others reading this thread, if you've been injured in a wreck (even if you don't know yet how badly) and it wasn't your fault (you don't have to figure out yet whose fault it _was_ or wait until the other guy accepts and admits liability) you should hire a lawyer promptly after the crash -- within a few days at most, ideally. The lawyer can help collect evidence that might otherwise fade or be destroyed (pix of the vehicles, frex, and witness statements) and you will be in a power postition for negotiating with the various insurers, as opposed to the poor fool who tries to do it all himself and never gets taken seriously by the insurance adjusters who hope they can get him to accept a ridiculously lowball settlement because he doesn't know any better. But you're not in that boat, you've already got a lawyer to make those estimates for you based on his/her experience and knowledge. However, that hasn't stopped you from trying to second-guess your lawyer here on MLM by asking those of us who are far less familiar with the pertinent details than he is to evaluate your case.
> I was wondering what is the ball park region I would be looking at as
> a financial settlement as I am struggling to find information on this
> sort of injury and payment?
I have no realistic idea, without knowing as much as your lawyer does about the case and all its ins and outs. It depends on how much your medical bills were, how long you were in hospital, what other treatment you required and how long that took, how articulate you and your other witnesses (including your treating doctors) and your attorney will be at describing your pain and suffering symptoms, what exactly the guy in the 4x4 did that made him run into you (I know, it's not supposed to affect the evaluation of damages, but it does -- they're more likely to slam a speeding drunk than someone who was momentarily distracted by kids in the back seat, frex), what your job was, how much it paid, what your future prospects were, why you couldn't get back into the same job or onein the same field paying just as well after you recovered, and so forth. Just as a frex, the investment bankers who died in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers got a lot more from the federal compensation fund than the janitors in the same building, because the earning capacity that their families lost was so much higher.
As to why you're "struggling" to find this info, I'm honestly puzzled. Have you tried going to the best resource you have for an answer to how much your case might be worth -- your own lawyer? The bottom line is that when you ask these questions of your own lawyer, you should listen to what your lawyer tells you, and take his advice. Anything we could tell you here would be a shot in the dark. 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
> Hi
Back at ya.
> I was on holiday earlier this year and was involved in a car accident,
<facts snipped>
Sorry to hear about your injury.
> I have
> employed a lawyer in the USA after the guy that struck us admitted
> liability and we contacted our insureres staight away.
OK, I had to read nearly to the bottom of your post to find out you've already done the one (OK, two) things I was going to suggest you do ASAP if not sooner. For benefit of others reading this thread, if you've been injured in a wreck (even if you don't know yet how badly) and it wasn't your fault (you don't have to figure out yet whose fault it _was_ or wait until the other guy accepts and admits liability) you should hire a lawyer promptly after the crash -- within a few days at most, ideally. The lawyer can help collect evidence that might otherwise fade or be destroyed (pix of the vehicles, frex, and witness statements) and you will be in a power postition for negotiating with the various insurers, as opposed to the poor fool who tries to do it all himself and never gets taken seriously by the insurance adjusters who hope they can get him to accept a ridiculously lowball settlement because he doesn't know any better. But you're not in that boat, you've already got a lawyer to make those estimates for you based on his/her experience and knowledge. However, that hasn't stopped you from trying to second-guess your lawyer here on MLM by asking those of us who are far less familiar with the pertinent details than he is to evaluate your case.
> I was wondering what is the ball park region I would be looking at as
> a financial settlement as I am struggling to find information on this
> sort of injury and payment?
I have no realistic idea, without knowing as much as your lawyer does about the case and all its ins and outs. It depends on how much your medical bills were, how long you were in hospital, what other treatment you required and how long that took, how articulate you and your other witnesses (including your treating doctors) and your attorney will be at describing your pain and suffering symptoms, what exactly the guy in the 4x4 did that made him run into you (I know, it's not supposed to affect the evaluation of damages, but it does -- they're more likely to slam a speeding drunk than someone who was momentarily distracted by kids in the back seat, frex), what your job was, how much it paid, what your future prospects were, why you couldn't get back into the same job or onein the same field paying just as well after you recovered, and so forth. Just as a frex, the investment bankers who died in the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers got a lot more from the federal compensation fund than the janitors in the same building, because the earning capacity that their families lost was so much higher.
As to why you're "struggling" to find this info, I'm honestly puzzled. Have you tried going to the best resource you have for an answer to how much your case might be worth -- your own lawyer? The bottom line is that when you ask these questions of your own lawyer, you should listen to what your lawyer tells you, and take his advice. Anything we could tell you here would be a shot in the dark. 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
Garnishment, defined
On Oct 9, 8:38 am, Paul Cassel <pcasselremo...@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> Predatory? You don't owe the money? You mean, you are just sitting there
> debt free and being attacked by mystery folks who claim to be creditors?
I don't think that's what the OP means. Many creditors who are, in fact, owed money but still engage in what are considered predatory practices, i.e. unfair methods that may or may not specifically violate the federal Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act (UDCPA) or various state statutes. Even if not violative of UDCPA such acts may also give rise to tort liability if they are outrageous enough and cause the victim severe mental distress. IMO a creditor who knowingly attaches or garnishes a bank account that they know contains only SSA funds which they know are unattachable, is engaging in a predatory practice.
Sure, there are those who say, "that's not predatory, debtor has only himself to blame if he got into debt over his head", but that doesn't mean it's open season on debtors' lives and sanity as soon as they have a hard time paying their bills. We don't send foax to debtor's prison anymore, and the law provides various protections for debtors from creditors' importunings precisely because some creditors don't seem to know where to draw the line about what are proper and improper means of collecting their money. Even in the old days, it was not proper to try to collect a pound of flesh as collateral for a debt.
> Garnishment means intercepting the payment from the SSA to you. Taking
> money from a bank account is not a garnishment, but a slightly different
> procedure.
Actually, some states (MD for instance) do use the term "garnishment" to cover seizure of bank accounts, others call it "attachment" or "levy" or something else. In MD, "attachment" means you seize property which is in the possession of the debtor, whether or not it belongs to him or to somebody else; and "garnishment" means you seize property in the possession of somebody else that allegedly belongs to the debtor. In either case the person who is holding the property (the bank, the depositor, the owner, bailee or bailor of other property) can petition the court to remove the attachment and/or garnishment if there are proper grounds, e.g. the property attached actually belongs to someone other than the debtor, or the property garnished is exempt for some reason.
--
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
> Predatory? You don't owe the money? You mean, you are just sitting there
> debt free and being attacked by mystery folks who claim to be creditors?
I don't think that's what the OP means. Many creditors who are, in fact, owed money but still engage in what are considered predatory practices, i.e. unfair methods that may or may not specifically violate the federal Unfair Debt Collection Practices Act (UDCPA) or various state statutes. Even if not violative of UDCPA such acts may also give rise to tort liability if they are outrageous enough and cause the victim severe mental distress. IMO a creditor who knowingly attaches or garnishes a bank account that they know contains only SSA funds which they know are unattachable, is engaging in a predatory practice.
Sure, there are those who say, "that's not predatory, debtor has only himself to blame if he got into debt over his head", but that doesn't mean it's open season on debtors' lives and sanity as soon as they have a hard time paying their bills. We don't send foax to debtor's prison anymore, and the law provides various protections for debtors from creditors' importunings precisely because some creditors don't seem to know where to draw the line about what are proper and improper means of collecting their money. Even in the old days, it was not proper to try to collect a pound of flesh as collateral for a debt.
> Garnishment means intercepting the payment from the SSA to you. Taking
> money from a bank account is not a garnishment, but a slightly different
> procedure.
Actually, some states (MD for instance) do use the term "garnishment" to cover seizure of bank accounts, others call it "attachment" or "levy" or something else. In MD, "attachment" means you seize property which is in the possession of the debtor, whether or not it belongs to him or to somebody else; and "garnishment" means you seize property in the possession of somebody else that allegedly belongs to the debtor. In either case the person who is holding the property (the bank, the depositor, the owner, bailee or bailor of other property) can petition the court to remove the attachment and/or garnishment if there are proper grounds, e.g. the property attached actually belongs to someone other than the debtor, or the property garnished is exempt for some reason.
--
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)