[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=waiting hawk]It never leaves you can still find anything deleted on the net.[/quote]
Oh man, is that ever true. The ‘net never forgets…

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=fOv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=Ex-in-laws+want+to+foreclose&btnG=Search

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://piggington.com/*

Wayback hasn’t caught it yet.. but could be any second..

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]It never leaves you can still find anything deleted on the net.[/quote]
Oh man, is that ever true. The ‘net never forgets…

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=fOv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=Ex-in-laws+want+to+foreclose&btnG=Search

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://piggington.com/*

Wayback hasn’t caught it yet.. but could be any second..

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]It never leaves you can still find anything deleted on the net.[/quote]
Oh man, is that ever true. The ‘net never forgets…

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=fOv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=Ex-in-laws+want+to+foreclose&btnG=Search

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://piggington.com/*

Wayback hasn’t caught it yet.. but could be any second..

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]It never leaves you can still find anything deleted on the net.[/quote]
Oh man, is that ever true. The ‘net never forgets…

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=fOv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=Ex-in-laws+want+to+foreclose&btnG=Search

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://piggington.com/*

Wayback hasn’t caught it yet.. but could be any second..

[ucodegen]

[quote=waiting hawk]It never leaves you can still find anything deleted on the net.[/quote]
Oh man, is that ever true. The ‘net never forgets…

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=fOv&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=Ex-in-laws+want+to+foreclose&btnG=Search

http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://piggington.com/*

Wayback hasn’t caught it yet.. but could be any second..

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online?[/quote]
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 Eugene]
After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”
[/quote]

I can’t address this directly because I can’t download it to read through it(it wants me to enable everything..javascript, java, activeX…, and then it still won’t let me see it). My comments are from experience, and my parents divorce where each brought their own money. The whole purpose of the calculations being separate from what community property item the money was used to purchase, is to prevent undue penalty or disadvantage on the individual for what is a community decision and purchase.

The real important section is “c) Reimbursement cannot exceed net value of property.” – I used google’s cache to grab it. What is interesting, is that has not been my personal experience.

I did a bit more searching and was able to get the entire set of notes. It looks like “docstoc.com” co-opted someone else’s property and then tries to sell it.

Dono Daré- The Directory of Free Law School Outlines and Study Aids

See:
http://lawstudent.tv/law-outlines/CP_Outline.doc

It could be as the result on a 2005 decision. This is part of an addendum, dated 1/13/2005. If he was married before this date, it may not apply because that would be applying something ‘retroactively’.

[quote Eugene]This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.[/quote]
It is a close line between legal trickery and fraud. Taken advantage by a wily lawyer is not illegal in the U.S., unless he was prevented from having his own attorney present. This is why my earlier questions about him being represented by an attorney. The types of things that were signed and the conditions they were signed under made me think hey wasn’t. He might get some of these reversed, but he would now have to prove that his attorney (since he was represented/advised by one) was incompetent. I have heard that this is not a very pleasant task.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online?[/quote]
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 Eugene]
After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”
[/quote]

I can’t address this directly because I can’t download it to read through it(it wants me to enable everything..javascript, java, activeX…, and then it still won’t let me see it). My comments are from experience, and my parents divorce where each brought their own money. The whole purpose of the calculations being separate from what community property item the money was used to purchase, is to prevent undue penalty or disadvantage on the individual for what is a community decision and purchase.

The real important section is “c) Reimbursement cannot exceed net value of property.” – I used google’s cache to grab it. What is interesting, is that has not been my personal experience.

I did a bit more searching and was able to get the entire set of notes. It looks like “docstoc.com” co-opted someone else’s property and then tries to sell it.

Dono Daré- The Directory of Free Law School Outlines and Study Aids

See:
http://lawstudent.tv/law-outlines/CP_Outline.doc

It could be as the result on a 2005 decision. This is part of an addendum, dated 1/13/2005. If he was married before this date, it may not apply because that would be applying something ‘retroactively’.

[quote Eugene]This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.[/quote]
It is a close line between legal trickery and fraud. Taken advantage by a wily lawyer is not illegal in the U.S., unless he was prevented from having his own attorney present. This is why my earlier questions about him being represented by an attorney. The types of things that were signed and the conditions they were signed under made me think hey wasn’t. He might get some of these reversed, but he would now have to prove that his attorney (since he was represented/advised by one) was incompetent. I have heard that this is not a very pleasant task.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online?[/quote]
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 Eugene]
After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”
[/quote]

I can’t address this directly because I can’t download it to read through it(it wants me to enable everything..javascript, java, activeX…, and then it still won’t let me see it). My comments are from experience, and my parents divorce where each brought their own money. The whole purpose of the calculations being separate from what community property item the money was used to purchase, is to prevent undue penalty or disadvantage on the individual for what is a community decision and purchase.

The real important section is “c) Reimbursement cannot exceed net value of property.” – I used google’s cache to grab it. What is interesting, is that has not been my personal experience.

I did a bit more searching and was able to get the entire set of notes. It looks like “docstoc.com” co-opted someone else’s property and then tries to sell it.

Dono Daré- The Directory of Free Law School Outlines and Study Aids

See:
http://lawstudent.tv/law-outlines/CP_Outline.doc

It could be as the result on a 2005 decision. This is part of an addendum, dated 1/13/2005. If he was married before this date, it may not apply because that would be applying something ‘retroactively’.

[quote Eugene]This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.[/quote]
It is a close line between legal trickery and fraud. Taken advantage by a wily lawyer is not illegal in the U.S., unless he was prevented from having his own attorney present. This is why my earlier questions about him being represented by an attorney. The types of things that were signed and the conditions they were signed under made me think hey wasn’t. He might get some of these reversed, but he would now have to prove that his attorney (since he was represented/advised by one) was incompetent. I have heard that this is not a very pleasant task.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online?[/quote]
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 Eugene]
After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”
[/quote]

I can’t address this directly because I can’t download it to read through it(it wants me to enable everything..javascript, java, activeX…, and then it still won’t let me see it). My comments are from experience, and my parents divorce where each brought their own money. The whole purpose of the calculations being separate from what community property item the money was used to purchase, is to prevent undue penalty or disadvantage on the individual for what is a community decision and purchase.

The real important section is “c) Reimbursement cannot exceed net value of property.” – I used google’s cache to grab it. What is interesting, is that has not been my personal experience.

I did a bit more searching and was able to get the entire set of notes. It looks like “docstoc.com” co-opted someone else’s property and then tries to sell it.

Dono Daré- The Directory of Free Law School Outlines and Study Aids

See:
http://lawstudent.tv/law-outlines/CP_Outline.doc

It could be as the result on a 2005 decision. This is part of an addendum, dated 1/13/2005. If he was married before this date, it may not apply because that would be applying something ‘retroactively’.

[quote Eugene]This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.[/quote]
It is a close line between legal trickery and fraud. Taken advantage by a wily lawyer is not illegal in the U.S., unless he was prevented from having his own attorney present. This is why my earlier questions about him being represented by an attorney. The types of things that were signed and the conditions they were signed under made me think hey wasn’t. He might get some of these reversed, but he would now have to prove that his attorney (since he was represented/advised by one) was incompetent. I have heard that this is not a very pleasant task.

[ucodegen]

[quote zzz]If I were you, ask Rich to delete this thread, what if your ex or in laws are reading this thread, do you want them suing you for libel over what you wrote about your ex online?[/quote]
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 Eugene]
After some more googling, I found this

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/354934/Law-School–Outline–Community-Property-v2-Ted-Finamore%5B1%5D

“Net value is value the property would sell for after satisfaction of all encumbrances”
[/quote]

I can’t address this directly because I can’t download it to read through it(it wants me to enable everything..javascript, java, activeX…, and then it still won’t let me see it). My comments are from experience, and my parents divorce where each brought their own money. The whole purpose of the calculations being separate from what community property item the money was used to purchase, is to prevent undue penalty or disadvantage on the individual for what is a community decision and purchase.

The real important section is “c) Reimbursement cannot exceed net value of property.” – I used google’s cache to grab it. What is interesting, is that has not been my personal experience.

I did a bit more searching and was able to get the entire set of notes. It looks like “docstoc.com” co-opted someone else’s property and then tries to sell it.

Dono Daré- The Directory of Free Law School Outlines and Study Aids

See:
http://lawstudent.tv/law-outlines/CP_Outline.doc

It could be as the result on a 2005 decision. This is part of an addendum, dated 1/13/2005. If he was married before this date, it may not apply because that would be applying something ‘retroactively’.

[quote Eugene]This transaction seems to be treading the fine line between legal trickery and fraud to me.

And then the whole thing was sealed by a waiver in MSA.

He was taken advantage of by a wily lawyer and I’m not sure how much of this can be reversed.[/quote]
It is a close line between legal trickery and fraud. Taken advantage by a wily lawyer is not illegal in the U.S., unless he was prevented from having his own attorney present. This is why my earlier questions about him being represented by an attorney. The types of things that were signed and the conditions they were signed under made me think hey wasn’t. He might get some of these reversed, but he would now have to prove that his attorney (since he was represented/advised by one) was incompetent. I have heard that this is not a very pleasant task.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…

Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.

The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.

[ucodegen]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=frenchlambda]I think I am screwed.
I read the separation agreement again and found this:

22. REIMBURSEMENT AND OTHER MONETARY WAIVERS.
A. Except as may be specifically provided to the contrary in this Agreement,
as part of the division of the community property each party waives all rights of reimbursement
for the following:
(4) All rights of reimbursement pursuant to Family Code section 2640,
or otherwise, for separate property contributed to the acquisition, maintenance or
improvement of community property or the other party’s separate property;
[/quote]

This may have the effect of negating your 2640 stipulation if the MSA was signed AFTER the stipulation. I would still want an atty to review it if I were you. I don’t think your ex is off the hook for the notes she signed with you, now both secured by (presumably) filed trust deeds.[/quote]
This is the type of wording I was worried about. It is a blanket statement. The problem is that the MSA transferred the assets in the term of property to him and section 18.B ( http://piggington.com/exinlaws_3rd_party_creditors_want_to_foreclosed_on_my_condo#comment-185278 ) had him remove her from liability. What is starting to irritate me is that his divorce attorney knew he signed over the trust deed to get the 85K reimbursement, and that same attorney allowed clause 22.A.4 to occur w/o including that “stipulation and order” to the list of items “specifically provided to the contrary”. This is why I mentioned never do anything outside of the MSA. The MSA can negate it. Attorneys often use boilerplate MSA and some don’t pay attention. ‘frenchlambda’ needs to see if the “stipulation and order” is explicitly included under items “specifically provided to the contrary” or that the 85K is called out as being reimbursed somewhere. –really shaking my head now.. I’m getting dizzy. :-Q…

Effectively it looks like he gave up the trust deed to get something that was immediately removed through the MSA. He really needs to go through the MSA with a fine tooth comb. Leverage is needed, badly. Section 18.B also made sure the parents were reimbursed, so there was no real need for the trust deed unless they intended to screw him over.

The only other thing right now, is the loan agreement and how it is worded and a real good attorney to see if the ‘stipulation order’ can still be enforced.
— and read documents thoroughly before signing.

[Author]

Posts