|
|
>I have a policy with me listed as the insured. The covered amount is
>the original purchase price with a notion of the mortgage amount.
>
>Will the policy still be valid after I pay off my mortgage but still
>own the same house?
There are two typ
|
|
|
My interest <myinterest@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a policy with me listed as the insured. The covered amount
> is the original purchase price with a notion of the mortgage
> amount.
>
> Will the policy still be valid after I pay off my mortgage
|
|
|
On Apr 11, 7:18 am, My interest <myinter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a policy with me listed as the insured. The covered amount is
> the original purchase price with a notion of the mortgage amount.
>
> Will the policy still be valid after I pay
|
|
|
On Apr 10, 7:09=A0am, "Daniel R. Reitman" <dreit...@spiritone.com>
wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:40:11 -0400, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >Been decades but a pardon granted by a state governor (in this case also
> >Louisiana) carries no weig
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:17:55 -0400 in misc.legal.moderated, Stuart
Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote,
>Maybe. California only allows cases to be litigated in small claims if
>the defendant is served within California. If you are no longer in
|
|
|
On Apr 11, 4:18 am, Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure. Anybody can sue you anywhere for anything.
I realize this is a generalization, but someone might take it
literally and as with most generalizations, it is not true.
To sue so
|
|
|
Mike Jacobs <mjacobslaw@gmail.com> wrote:
> You say you didn't have a broker, didn't hire a lawyer, didn't buy
> any kind of insurance, didn't pay for an inspection? Oops.
> That's part of what all those things are for, to provide a layer
> of pr
|
|
|
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> But what most likely *will* happen if you don't show, and don't
> present a good reason in advance, is that the judge will enter a
> default judgment against you for the amount the plaintiff is
> as
|
|
|
A Michigan Attorney <miattorney@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Rawson <The...@DRawson.Com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, we live Oregon and sold our house in California after we
>> moved here.
>>
>> The buyer claims we are guilty of a Material Defect and has told
>>
|
|
|
I=92d like to bring a Small Claims action against a credit card company,
to recover costs in connection with a payment processing error.
Specifically, FIA Card Services issued debits against my checking
account for another one of their customers and
|
|
|
I've been renting a room for 18 months, and I'd like to know whether
the homeowners can retain a portion of my security deposit to 1)
replace the carpet or 2) repaint.
1) I thought it was the law that once a tenant vacates, you must
replace the car
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:17:46 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>In article <cm0sv3dn5jolhhk4vifr5gckh6bqmou2t8@4ax.com>,
>Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>Take a paralell example. Your hapless spouse for some reason thinks
>
|
|
|
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in
news:s3iuv3hde40f76qh9duclua3p7aph3sbls@4ax.com:
> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:09:17 -0400 from William Brenner
> <wbrenner@nospamplease.net>:
>> Yes, Stu, there is such a law. Intent does not appear to be
|
|
|
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in news:n3iuv39pis01bqhv4kroj79mq29s9t4dtk@
4ax.com:
> In article <pt1kv350g4f2lv3uf7gan24mm6ggn6r3bn@4ax.com>,
> Deadrat <a@b.com> wrote:
>>sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in
>>news:5iihv3t48bnq2md1sghj3ltgbd2b950rvs@4ax
|
|
|
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote in news:k3iuv3ta7nrmlhkg6ql10vqr2vpkg723mq@
4ax.com:
> In article <jm0sv3tn0ptv25fq3ernlpm67f97e6tpvu@4ax.com>,
> William Brenner <wbrenner@nospamplease.net> wrote:
>
>>According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- whic
|
|
|
Seth wrote:
> In article <cm0sv3dn5jolhhk4vifr5gckh6bqmou2t8@4ax.com>,
> Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>> Take a paralell example. Your hapless spouse for some reason thinks
>> there's a magic genie in the toaster. So intendi
|
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:09:17 -0400 from William Brenner
> <wbrenner@nospamplease.net>:
>> Yes, Stu, there is such a law. Intent does not appear to be a factor.
>>
>> According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
|
|
|
sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> Let's try another case.
>
> Man wants his wife killed, so he meets someone in a bar at 5 PM
> and attempts to contract her murder. What he doesn't know is that
> at 4:50 PM she was in an automobile accident and die
|
|
|
Seth wrote:
> In article <jm0sv3tn0ptv25fq3ernlpm67f97e6tpvu@4ax.com>,
> William Brenner <wbrenner@nospamplease.net> wrote:
>
>> According to this law -- 18 USC Sec. 871 -- which reads, in part:
>>
>> "...Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits f
|
|
|
Subject line pretty much describes the query. I am considering a
simple cremation pre-need contract in Missouri.
Thanks,
I
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:17:27 -0400, nospam@isp.com wrote:
>On 10 Apr 2008, mm <mm2005@bigfoot.com> said/asked:
>> neighbor has maintained this little piece of land
>> with no complaint for all these years . . .
>
> . . . i.e., you seem to be sayi
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:17:23 -0400, Stuart Bronstein
<spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> If someone might have the basis for a successful claim for adverse
>> possession, for the required number of years, but h
|
|
|
Mike Jacobs wrote:
> On Apr 1, 11:45 am, Eric66 <eric.6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is it legal to spray my neighbors annoying dog with a dog repellant
>> spray?
[...]
> I would suggest you cease and desist from interfering with your
> neighbor and his
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:17:01 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>In article <rl0sv3pp79vmc9gqc3ihdbtqctpu754v55@4ax.com>,
>A Michigan Attorney <miattorney@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I don't think Mr. Reitman is trying to define "practice of law". He's
|
|
|
In article <v2iuv3pn37v8888jve5up2205dg5at1a0q@4ax.com>,
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>mm wrote:
>> Malcomn X in his teens or 20's used to sell "stolen watches". They
>> were actually cheap watches that he bought at the cheap watch
>> whol
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:16:58 -0400, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com>
wrote:
>mm wrote:
>> Malcomn X in his teens or 20's used to sell "stolen watches". They
>> were actually cheap watches that he bought at the cheap watch
>> wholesale outlet, and he
|
|
|
mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Malcomn X in his teens or 20's used to sell "stolen watches". They
> were actually cheap watches that he bought at the cheap watch
> wholesale outlet, and he had a peddlar's license, but he would
> skulk and ta
|
|
|
I and two siblings are coexecutors on my mothers will. property was
willed to be split three ways.
house and furninshings etc.
I was given first refusal on purchaing property.
I live some miles away and one siblings has been staying in the
house.
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:16:55 -0400, <josh@phred.org> wrote:
>In article <il0sv39eoon2pofi2tm290h4k2i5h50tq3@4ax.com>,
>bonomi@host122.r-bonomi.com says...
>
>> A release from the photographer, ALONE, is not sufficient, when the photograph
>> is a
|
|
|
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 07:16:46 -0400, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>Some of the notice is under penalty of perjury. The rest is under
>belief (which apparently doesn't even require good faith; companies
>have sent takedown notices based on the title
|
|
|
henri <henri@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>
>>I'd be interesting in seeing the "repeated" cases Robert is
>>talking about. I've never seen them. On the contrary the rule
>>I've always seen is that a photo o
|
|
|
josh@phred.org wrote:
> In article <ml0sv3tgvhi9o870n94or130t5siobff1u@4ax.com>, prabbit1
> @shamrocksgf.com says...
>
>
>> So that makes such a false 'take-down' statement illegal as well as
>> being a misstatement of the law but it's still not
|
|
|
On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:37:17 -0400, curiousgeorge408@hotmail.com
wrote:
>When I signed a contract for some consulting work, I agreed to
>the customer's requirement that I use a particular electronic
>service for submitting invoices. I learned later
|
|
|
On Apr 11, 7:16 am, se...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In article <0l0sv35skcuuqprcnb1j551a7k3dvps...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Now, sure, the defense could argue that the real perp had pulled into
> >a garage somewhere
|
|
