Ex-in-laws (3rd party creditors) want to foreclose on my condo

[zzz]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here)[/quote]

ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[njtosd]

[quote=ucodegen]
Libel only applies if it is not true. Also, opinions on blogs are generally protected under first amendment. Exceptions are if the poster of the information is presenting themselves as an expert. (there are a few other items that would be exceptions, but they don’t apply here).
[/quote]

Truth is a defense to a claim for libel, but in order to prevail, the person who is accused of libel must prove the truth of the statement, which can be hard to do. The statement about First Amendment protections with respect to blogs is not true. The same standards apply to blogs that attach to other publications – which basically means that unless the person you’re talking about is a “public figure” under the legal definition of a “public figure,” you should be careful what you say. See more here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13555_3-9821584-34.html

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

Of the statements so far:

That frenchlambda had signed an agreement w/ ex & ex-inlaws handing over the Trust Deed in return for a promisory agreement(effectively reimbursement of his portion of premarital assets) – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That the ex-inlaws are threatening foreclosure – may or may not be fact, if it is.. there is a trace through docs which will make frenchlambda immune to libel. He is the one who made the statement.

That the MSA negated the “stipulation and order” document – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That what was done was on the edge of legal and that the ex-wife’s attorney was wily? – I don’t think the ex-wife’s attorney would object to being considered wily. If you needed an attorney, you would probably want one with that skill set on your side. As for the ex-husbands attorney being out maneuvered by the ex-wife’s attorney, it is basically a statement of fact shown by the progression of the “stipulation and order” followed by the MSA, AND we are not using names here – so it is not identifiable to a specific individual

Personally, I don’t see anything that would lead to libel here. Libel against whom too?

Remember:

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Highlighted may intentionally. If you have signed documents, it is fairly clear cut. The best rule is to keep it real.

There are actual blog sites that deal with IP, patent and legal issues. see Groklaw. These sites are up and running, and address legal issues that some individual would like to sweep under the rug, and yet they survive.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

Of the statements so far:

That frenchlambda had signed an agreement w/ ex & ex-inlaws handing over the Trust Deed in return for a promisory agreement(effectively reimbursement of his portion of premarital assets) – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That the ex-inlaws are threatening foreclosure – may or may not be fact, if it is.. there is a trace through docs which will make frenchlambda immune to libel. He is the one who made the statement.

That the MSA negated the “stipulation and order” document – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That what was done was on the edge of legal and that the ex-wife’s attorney was wily? – I don’t think the ex-wife’s attorney would object to being considered wily. If you needed an attorney, you would probably want one with that skill set on your side. As for the ex-husbands attorney being out maneuvered by the ex-wife’s attorney, it is basically a statement of fact shown by the progression of the “stipulation and order” followed by the MSA, AND we are not using names here – so it is not identifiable to a specific individual

Personally, I don’t see anything that would lead to libel here. Libel against whom too?

Remember:

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Highlighted may intentionally. If you have signed documents, it is fairly clear cut. The best rule is to keep it real.

There are actual blog sites that deal with IP, patent and legal issues. see Groklaw. These sites are up and running, and address legal issues that some individual would like to sweep under the rug, and yet they survive.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

Of the statements so far:

That frenchlambda had signed an agreement w/ ex & ex-inlaws handing over the Trust Deed in return for a promisory agreement(effectively reimbursement of his portion of premarital assets) – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That the ex-inlaws are threatening foreclosure – may or may not be fact, if it is.. there is a trace through docs which will make frenchlambda immune to libel. He is the one who made the statement.

That the MSA negated the “stipulation and order” document – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That what was done was on the edge of legal and that the ex-wife’s attorney was wily? – I don’t think the ex-wife’s attorney would object to being considered wily. If you needed an attorney, you would probably want one with that skill set on your side. As for the ex-husbands attorney being out maneuvered by the ex-wife’s attorney, it is basically a statement of fact shown by the progression of the “stipulation and order” followed by the MSA, AND we are not using names here – so it is not identifiable to a specific individual

Personally, I don’t see anything that would lead to libel here. Libel against whom too?

Remember:

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Highlighted may intentionally. If you have signed documents, it is fairly clear cut. The best rule is to keep it real.

There are actual blog sites that deal with IP, patent and legal issues. see Groklaw. These sites are up and running, and address legal issues that some individual would like to sweep under the rug, and yet they survive.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]
ucodegen, i’m familiar with what libel is, but people do and can sue you regardless if their claim has any legs to stand on, and people have sued over “opinions” on review sites, blogs, etc. the point is, he should consult an attorney since he’s in complicated predicament, so why air these personal matters online on any off chance they could come back to haunt?
[/quote]
So we have to run from discussing real substantive content to discussing the clothes that Britany Spears wore last Thursday?

I would suggest anyone considering a libel lawsuit w/o supportive basis to consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation

Breaking it down to the simple:

The actual names or info that would easily lead to the identity of all of the parties involved have not been revealed, therefore the statements in the blog so far have been harmful to exactly who?

Of the statements so far:

That frenchlambda had signed an agreement w/ ex & ex-inlaws handing over the Trust Deed in return for a promisory agreement(effectively reimbursement of his portion of premarital assets) – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That the ex-inlaws are threatening foreclosure – may or may not be fact, if it is.. there is a trace through docs which will make frenchlambda immune to libel. He is the one who made the statement.

That the MSA negated the “stipulation and order” document – fact, there is a signed document to the effect

That what was done was on the edge of legal and that the ex-wife’s attorney was wily? – I don’t think the ex-wife’s attorney would object to being considered wily. If you needed an attorney, you would probably want one with that skill set on your side. As for the ex-husbands attorney being out maneuvered by the ex-wife’s attorney, it is basically a statement of fact shown by the progression of the “stipulation and order” followed by the MSA, AND we are not using names here – so it is not identifiable to a specific individual

Personally, I don’t see anything that would lead to libel here. Libel against whom too?

Remember:

Yes. Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. But keep in mind that the truth may be difficult and expensive to prove.

Highlighted may intentionally. If you have signed documents, it is fairly clear cut. The best rule is to keep it real.

There are actual blog sites that deal with IP, patent and legal issues. see Groklaw. These sites are up and running, and address legal issues that some individual would like to sweep under the rug, and yet they survive.

[joec]

I didn’t read most of this thread so if this was mentioned, I apologize. Sorry to hear about your situation, but agree with tg that selling and moving on is probably the best long term outcome for the reasons described.

I wanted to also mention that instead of doing a 401(k) withdraw, see if you can take a 401k loan instead. I’ve done it before myself.

The loan is easy and most places let you fill out the form online. You pay interest to yourself, there are some minor fees, but it will buy you some time (up to 5 years I think). In most cases, you can tap up to 50k or up to half your 401(k) balance.

Major major risk is if you leave your job, you may have to pay the loan back immediately or you face penalties and taxes.

However, that’s nothing new if if you were planning to withdraw it anyways for your situation.

I agree with the other posters, you should probably just cut out your ex-in laws and learn that with money received, there are usually strings attached so closing out that note will close that problem and not have to deal with them anymore.

Lastly, on the “pay taxes with after tax money” when using a 401k loan, that is not true. I used to think the same thing, but here’s a more detailed description of it here:

Better Example Against Double-Taxation Of 401(k) Loans

Best of luck!

[joec]

I didn’t read most of this thread so if this was mentioned, I apologize. Sorry to hear about your situation, but agree with tg that selling and moving on is probably the best long term outcome for the reasons described.

I wanted to also mention that instead of doing a 401(k) withdraw, see if you can take a 401k loan instead. I’ve done it before myself.

The loan is easy and most places let you fill out the form online. You pay interest to yourself, there are some minor fees, but it will buy you some time (up to 5 years I think). In most cases, you can tap up to 50k or up to half your 401(k) balance.

Major major risk is if you leave your job, you may have to pay the loan back immediately or you face penalties and taxes.

However, that’s nothing new if if you were planning to withdraw it anyways for your situation.

I agree with the other posters, you should probably just cut out your ex-in laws and learn that with money received, there are usually strings attached so closing out that note will close that problem and not have to deal with them anymore.

Lastly, on the “pay taxes with after tax money” when using a 401k loan, that is not true. I used to think the same thing, but here’s a more detailed description of it here:

Better Example Against Double-Taxation Of 401(k) Loans

Best of luck!

[joec]

I didn’t read most of this thread so if this was mentioned, I apologize. Sorry to hear about your situation, but agree with tg that selling and moving on is probably the best long term outcome for the reasons described.

I wanted to also mention that instead of doing a 401(k) withdraw, see if you can take a 401k loan instead. I’ve done it before myself.

The loan is easy and most places let you fill out the form online. You pay interest to yourself, there are some minor fees, but it will buy you some time (up to 5 years I think). In most cases, you can tap up to 50k or up to half your 401(k) balance.

Major major risk is if you leave your job, you may have to pay the loan back immediately or you face penalties and taxes.

However, that’s nothing new if if you were planning to withdraw it anyways for your situation.

I agree with the other posters, you should probably just cut out your ex-in laws and learn that with money received, there are usually strings attached so closing out that note will close that problem and not have to deal with them anymore.

Lastly, on the “pay taxes with after tax money” when using a 401k loan, that is not true. I used to think the same thing, but here’s a more detailed description of it here:

Better Example Against Double-Taxation Of 401(k) Loans

Best of luck!

[joec]

I didn’t read most of this thread so if this was mentioned, I apologize. Sorry to hear about your situation, but agree with tg that selling and moving on is probably the best long term outcome for the reasons described.

I wanted to also mention that instead of doing a 401(k) withdraw, see if you can take a 401k loan instead. I’ve done it before myself.

The loan is easy and most places let you fill out the form online. You pay interest to yourself, there are some minor fees, but it will buy you some time (up to 5 years I think). In most cases, you can tap up to 50k or up to half your 401(k) balance.

Major major risk is if you leave your job, you may have to pay the loan back immediately or you face penalties and taxes.

However, that’s nothing new if if you were planning to withdraw it anyways for your situation.

I agree with the other posters, you should probably just cut out your ex-in laws and learn that with money received, there are usually strings attached so closing out that note will close that problem and not have to deal with them anymore.

Lastly, on the “pay taxes with after tax money” when using a 401k loan, that is not true. I used to think the same thing, but here’s a more detailed description of it here:

Better Example Against Double-Taxation Of 401(k) Loans

Best of luck!

[Author]

Posts