On Nov 2, 2:57 pm, Johnny <J0hn_2...@rock.com> wrote:
> I recently received some pleadings in regard to a credit card account.
> Nowhere is the account number mentioned, Since this could be one of
> several accounts with the same credit card company how am I able to
> respond with any certainty which account is involved? Or should I
> respond indicating that their pleadings (request for production,
> interrogatories, request for admissions) cannot be responded to since
> the account number has not appeared in any of their pleadings or
> summons? In my answer to summons, I stated "Plaintiff's complaint
> fails to state claim upon which relief may be granted."
First of all, if you are representing yourself in court you have a fool for a client. Get a lawyer or it will be like shooting fish in a barrel when you go up against the credit company's lawyer.
Secondly, if you have already filed an "answer", your grouse that you can't understand the complaint is probably now legally irrelevant. Most states' rules of civil procedure have a provision for a defendant to file, INSTEAD of an answer, a preliminary "motion for a more definite statement" if the defendant feels the complaint does not give him adequate notice of the nature of the plaintiff's claim. Your chosen option, filing an answer that happens to include the "fails to state a claim" defense, is not equivalent, since it does not require the plaintiff to re-file a more definite complaint. By answering, you are presumed to know enough about the complaint to respond to its allegations by admitting or denying them. In addition, if you _really_ don't have any clue which account they mean, you can find out in discovery, through the questions you will ask the other side, exactly which account it is they are complaining about. I suspect you really know already which one it is and are just trying to "game" the system on them (what, are you that seriously in arrears on more than one account with the same lender?)
Thirdly, do their discovery requests to you contain a "definitions" section, as most do, where they say, frex, "the term 'the account' as used herein means XYZ Credit Corp. account no. 1234-5678-9012-3456" If so, they have specified the account well enough for you to answer
Get that lawyer, soon. He may be able to save you enough money on this claim to more than pay for his fee (which he will probably want to be paid up front as a flat fee, or an hourly rate drawing from a retainer). Or else you will have quite a wild ride, and it will not be fun. 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
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Beer and wine, "nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating"?
On Nov 2, 2:56 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Now the other statute that I quoted part of says "All beers, ales,
> porter, and other similar malt or fermented beverages containing not in
> excess of five percent of alcohol by weight and all wines containing not
> in excess of twenty-one percent of alcohol by volume are declared to be
> nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating beverages" but they are STILL
> restricted to those over 21 (except for such uses as religious, served
> at home by a parent, etc.)
That's really what the law says in SC? It's news to me that 5% beer or 21% wine is "nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating." It's quite possible to get seriously drunk with either of them: alcohol is alcohol, and one 12-oz. can of 5% beer contains equivalent alcohol to a 3 oz. glass of 20% wine or a 1 oz. shot of 60% (120 proof) distilled spirits. Each drink contains 0.6 ounces of pure ethanol; it's simple math. Sounds like the law hasn't kept up with science down there.
Perhaps the reason for the statutory scheme is that there are separate state-controlled stores for "hard" liquor, but any ol' grocery, gas station or bait shop can sell a case of beer? If that's the rationale, ISTM they could have come up with a better name for the low-test stuff (beer and wine) than the misleadingly innocent-sounding term "nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating." Even if the law still says those under 21 can't buy it, that's not a message you want to be communicating to impressionable teens; it's like telling them that oral sex is OK because it isn't "really" sex.
--
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
> Now the other statute that I quoted part of says "All beers, ales,
> porter, and other similar malt or fermented beverages containing not in
> excess of five percent of alcohol by weight and all wines containing not
> in excess of twenty-one percent of alcohol by volume are declared to be
> nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating beverages" but they are STILL
> restricted to those over 21 (except for such uses as religious, served
> at home by a parent, etc.)
That's really what the law says in SC? It's news to me that 5% beer or 21% wine is "nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating." It's quite possible to get seriously drunk with either of them: alcohol is alcohol, and one 12-oz. can of 5% beer contains equivalent alcohol to a 3 oz. glass of 20% wine or a 1 oz. shot of 60% (120 proof) distilled spirits. Each drink contains 0.6 ounces of pure ethanol; it's simple math. Sounds like the law hasn't kept up with science down there.
Perhaps the reason for the statutory scheme is that there are separate state-controlled stores for "hard" liquor, but any ol' grocery, gas station or bait shop can sell a case of beer? If that's the rationale, ISTM they could have come up with a better name for the low-test stuff (beer and wine) than the misleadingly innocent-sounding term "nonalcoholic and nonintoxicating." Even if the law still says those under 21 can't buy it, that's not a message you want to be communicating to impressionable teens; it's like telling them that oral sex is OK because it isn't "really" sex.
--
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
Evicting a tenant
On Nov 2, 2:56 pm, "Paul J. Dudley" <pauljdud...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> We have a situation whereby a female tenant calls from florida
> to say she is giving up her tenancy. Her son is still here in
> the trailer ( Sampson County - North Carolina ). We don't want
> him though. I thought I could have him removed for trespassing
> but I was informed by a magistrate that since the rent was caught
> up we would have to evict him. But so far he has done nothing
> to cause eviction that I know of.
Why do you think he has to have "done something" to be evicted? ISTM you are mixing this up with the trespassing claim you originally brought (what did you do, call the police?) where, as you surmised, you can have a person removed immediately from your property if he has no right to be there. As your magistrate has already told you, you can't do that under your actual facts, because his current possession is rightful -- the rent is paid up, and you originally gave him permission (direct or implied) to move in along with his Mom, and YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN HIM THE LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE (30-days or whatever your locality calls for) that you intend not to renew his tenancy at the end of the currently paid-for rental period. If he continues to "hold over" after that time, then you may have a different situation.
Eviction is the name given to the legal procedure that has to be followed to remove a RIGHTFUL tenant as well as one who is in arrears on his rent or is wrongfully holding over after receiving due notice. Do not assume that what the magistrate told you means that this man can stay on your property forever as long as he continues to pay his rent and doesn't do anything wrong to give you "cause" to evict him -- that's not the law. You, the landlord, can decide for any, non-invidiously-discriminatory reason, that you don't want to rent to _anybody_ anymore, or that you simply don't want to rent to _him_ anymore, and you can terminate your relationship with him when the current leasehold expires. If there is no written lease, it is probably considered a month-to-month tenancy, renewable at the end of each month if you have not given him timely notice to vacate. Tenants have rights, too; you can't kick someone out onto the street on a moment's notice. You have to give him the required advance notice of your intent not to renew his tenancy, so that he can make alternate arrangements in an orderly fashion if he chooses -- and if he just ignores you and doesn't move, it will be at his peril, because THEN, after jumping thru all the locally required legal hoops, you can put his junk out on the curb and change the locks. But please don't do this without competent, local legal advice, because if you screw it up and violate his rights, he could sue YOU.
Even if you were just renting to this lady and her son as a one-off thing, and don't intend to continue in the landlord business, isn't it worth it to you to pay for a couple hours of a lawyer's time to explain to you what you can and can't do under local law, and maybe to prepare and file the necessary forms for you? He might even be able to tack his fees on to the amount you will charge the holdover tenant, assuming the son has any money to pay you with. But if you are indeed in the landlord business and intend to remain there, it would be very wise to begin a long-term relationship with a local lawyer who can advise and represent you regarding the conduct of that business as the need arises, if you haven't done so already. 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
> We have a situation whereby a female tenant calls from florida
> to say she is giving up her tenancy. Her son is still here in
> the trailer ( Sampson County - North Carolina ). We don't want
> him though. I thought I could have him removed for trespassing
> but I was informed by a magistrate that since the rent was caught
> up we would have to evict him. But so far he has done nothing
> to cause eviction that I know of.
Why do you think he has to have "done something" to be evicted? ISTM you are mixing this up with the trespassing claim you originally brought (what did you do, call the police?) where, as you surmised, you can have a person removed immediately from your property if he has no right to be there. As your magistrate has already told you, you can't do that under your actual facts, because his current possession is rightful -- the rent is paid up, and you originally gave him permission (direct or implied) to move in along with his Mom, and YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN HIM THE LEGALLY REQUIRED NOTICE (30-days or whatever your locality calls for) that you intend not to renew his tenancy at the end of the currently paid-for rental period. If he continues to "hold over" after that time, then you may have a different situation.
Eviction is the name given to the legal procedure that has to be followed to remove a RIGHTFUL tenant as well as one who is in arrears on his rent or is wrongfully holding over after receiving due notice. Do not assume that what the magistrate told you means that this man can stay on your property forever as long as he continues to pay his rent and doesn't do anything wrong to give you "cause" to evict him -- that's not the law. You, the landlord, can decide for any, non-invidiously-discriminatory reason, that you don't want to rent to _anybody_ anymore, or that you simply don't want to rent to _him_ anymore, and you can terminate your relationship with him when the current leasehold expires. If there is no written lease, it is probably considered a month-to-month tenancy, renewable at the end of each month if you have not given him timely notice to vacate. Tenants have rights, too; you can't kick someone out onto the street on a moment's notice. You have to give him the required advance notice of your intent not to renew his tenancy, so that he can make alternate arrangements in an orderly fashion if he chooses -- and if he just ignores you and doesn't move, it will be at his peril, because THEN, after jumping thru all the locally required legal hoops, you can put his junk out on the curb and change the locks. But please don't do this without competent, local legal advice, because if you screw it up and violate his rights, he could sue YOU.
Even if you were just renting to this lady and her son as a one-off thing, and don't intend to continue in the landlord business, isn't it worth it to you to pay for a couple hours of a lawyer's time to explain to you what you can and can't do under local law, and maybe to prepare and file the necessary forms for you? He might even be able to tack his fees on to the amount you will charge the holdover tenant, assuming the son has any money to pay you with. But if you are indeed in the landlord business and intend to remain there, it would be very wise to begin a long-term relationship with a local lawyer who can advise and represent you regarding the conduct of that business as the need arises, if you haven't done so already. 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
Landlord golden rule
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
> > > 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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)