Home | Community | Message Board

Cannabis Seeds UK
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: Stonehenge]
    #13594884 - 12/07/10 09:11 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

> c1d, you have been assured by the best jailhouse lawyers in the business that you can't lose

You and ScavangerType should get together.  You two are peas in a pod.  If you have nothing better to do than troll, please refrain from posting.  Everybody has stated their opinions, but you are the only one that seems to be butthurt that the OP is considering all of the opinions rather than bowing down to your word as if it were coming from the mouth of the almighty.

I'm fairly certain that the OP has figured out:

1) That none of us are lawyers, though some of us have had at least a bit of law school.
2) That any legal action might create larger rifts within the family.
3) That the case may not be eligible depending upon local jurisdiction.
4) That the case may be easy to win.
5) That the case may be difficult to win.
6) Other opinions that have been posted.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleStonehenge
Alt Center
Male User Gallery
Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 14,850
Loc: S.E.
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: Seuss]
    #13595186 - 12/07/10 10:44 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Oh, so when i sum up some of the things that have been said, it's trolling. But when you do it its fine. I insulted no one. I have nothing further to say to you ever.


--------------------
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.” (attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville political philosopher Circa 1835)

Trade list http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/18047755


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: Stonehenge] * 1
    #13595341 - 12/07/10 11:17 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Stonehenge said:
Oh, so when i sum up some of the things that have been said, it's trolling. But when you do it its fine. I insulted no one. I have nothing further to say to you ever.




I bet Seuss will cry himself to sleep tonight knowing you have nothing further to say to him.

Ever.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: c1dh3d]
    #13595392 - 12/07/10 11:30 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

c1dh3d said:
Ahh, I've been following every response, but somehow missed the request for the location - Minnesota.





Cool beans.  I know it can be hard to figure out what information is relevant.  In this case, the varities of state laws make the issue important.  For example, Anon has no basis to make his comment on the Statute of Frauds without this info.

Anyways, in Minnesota, you should be cool.

Let's assume the worst and assume that the statute of frauds is applicable and would be both plead as a defense by the defendant and would bar the claim.  Even in this situation, it shouldn't bar the action due to the promise to pay.

You're Aunt previously, even after the loan was made, promised to pay, correct? Do you have this in writing at all?  Did anyone actually witness her saying this to your mother?  (if so, this can be used agains the aunt if she tries to deny it)

If this can be established, it wouldn't matter, provided you plead a promissery estoppel claim.  Basically, this bars people from taking a contrary position in a judicial proceeding than they did in a promise that the agrieved party actually relied upon. 

In this case, it would be a bar to any promissory estoppel claim- even if your aunt hired a lawyer or had the wherewithal to perfect this claim:
Promissory estoppel exists if "a party makes a promise knowing another party reasonably relies and acts upon that promise, and the promise must be enforced to avoid injustice." See: Norwest Bank Minn., 481 N.W.2d at 880

"In Minnesota, promissory estoppel may be claimed in an attempt to circumvent a valid statute of frauds defense."
See:, e.g., Berg v. Carlstrom, 347 N.W.2d 809, 812 (Minn. 1984); Del Hayes & Sons, Inc. v. Mitchell, 304 Minn. 275, 284-85, 230 N.W.2d 588, 594 (1975); Norwest Bank Minn. v. Midwestern Mach. Co., 481 N.W.2d 875, 880 (Minn. App. 1992), review denied (Minn. May 15, 1992).
Citations in original, taken from: Bandal v Baldwin, 2000 Minn. App. LEXIS 1169, pg 4, (Minn. App. 2000)
http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bdjhdg&searchTerm=ebSd.CEba.aadj.eejO&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

The normal creditor-lender laws of MN wouldn't seem to apply to this case cuz your mom wouldn't be a creditor per their terms.  As for the statute of frauds, it is relevant when the aunt was supposed to pay back the money.  Was a term discussed or specified?  If this term was greater than a year, the statute of frauds may be a defense the aunt could use if she raises it- MN seems to bar claims per SOF for repayment of money that aren't in writing if they aren't payable within a year by their terms.  (obviously, this would be an issue of fact that your Aunt would bear the burden of proof on, but if your mom admits facts establishing this, its going to apply).


Quote:

No action shall be maintained, in either of the following cases, upon any agreement, unless such agreement, or some note or memorandum thereof, expressing the consideration, is in writing, and subscribed by the party charged therewith:

(1) every agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof



  See:  513.01
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=513.01

Note, however, that the promissery estoppel claim wouldn't be affected by this, even if your aunt manages to raise the defense and prove it- makin the issue of the emails or any type of acknowledgment, even verbal, by your Aunt quite relevant.  It is also relevant and helpful if your mother can show some reliance on this promise, i.e. that she didn't sue, lent her more money, gave her something due to the promise, whatever.

As to whether the statute of frauds will even matter if it is applicable, it depends on whether the Aunt brings it up.  Since its an affirmative defense, it isn't an absolute bar to the action, and is only applicable if the Aunt pleads this defense.  To this end, it may or may not be advantageous to sue her in a regular court.  I'm unsure how small claims works in MN, but in a normal court, if you don't list your affirmative defenses in your answer (the document the defendant files after being sued that states whether they admit or deny the allegations, and formally notices their appearance in the action_), then you're generally barred from using them as a defense unless the court grants you leave to amend your answer et cet.  Of course there's always the danger that filing in regular court would make her more likely to hire a lawyer or something like that, but that's something for you guys to consider.


As to the statute of limitations, it seems this would be a normal contract matter and 6 years would be the limit, though exceptions may apply.  Your mother should be aware of this and make her decision soon, though their could always be some limitation to oral contracts I didn't find.  Either way, statute of limitations claims are often (usually?) affirmative defenses that must be raised by the defendant, so if this is the case in MN,. its not necessarily fatal, but could be another reason to not go to small claims court .


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: Seuss]
    #13595408 - 12/07/10 11:35 AM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:

Stonehenge said:
Oh, so when i sum up some of the things that have been said, it's trolling. But when you do it its fine. I insulted no one. I have nothing further to say to you ever.




I bet Seuss will cry himself to sleep tonight knowing you have nothing further to say to him.

Ever.




Indeed. 

I only wish I had received this blessing.





Quote:

Seuss said:
> c1d, you have been assured by the best jailhouse lawyers in the business that you can't lose

You and ScavangerType should get together.  You two are peas in a pod.  If you have nothing better to do than troll, please refrain from posting.





Hey now, I've seen ScavengerType come up with sources to back his claims on several occasions.  Lets not libel the chap here by comparing him to the great Stonehenge- what with his perfect record of never coming up with any citation to law in support of his 'questionable' claims in this forum.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Anonymous #2

Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: johnm214]
    #13596203 - 12/07/10 02:19 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Cool beans.  I know it can be hard to figure out what information is relevant.  In this case, the varities of state laws make the issue important.  For example, Anon has no basis to make his comment on the Statute of Frauds without this info.




First I apologize for my tone earlier, and I appreciate the work you put in Johnm to help this person.

However, I did have a basis, every state has a statute of frauds. Source.
But yes, state specific information is more helpful.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 19 days
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: johnm214]
    #13596518 - 12/07/10 03:16 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

> Hey now, I've seen ScavengerType come up with sources to back his claims on several occasions.

Less to do with sources and more to do with ad hominem.

> I only wish I had received this blessing.

Certainly saves me from having to take time and reply.

> First I apologize for my tone earlier, and I appreciate the work you put in Johnm to help this person.

(I'm speaking in general, not towards anything John posted.)

It is always nice to (try and) remain respectful, but you do a service by calling people out on sloppy advice, poor wording, etc.  Most of us do not take this to be disrespectful, especially in light of the potential consequences that can come from mistakes.  The big mistake that I see most often, and sometimes commit myself, is forgetting about jurisdiction and assuming that what applies locally applies globally.  Providing sources is also beneficial.  Please, don't be a stranger and don't worry too much about the noise.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery
Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Question about small-claims court [Re: Seuss]
    #13596630 - 12/07/10 03:38 PM (13 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Anonymous said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Cool beans.  I know it can be hard to figure out what information is relevant.  In this case, the varities of state laws make the issue important.  For example, Anon has no basis to make his comment on the Statute of Frauds without this info.




First I apologize for my tone earlier, and I appreciate the work you put in Johnm to help this person.




No problem.  Likewise, sorry if I came off as snappy. :smile2:

Mentioning the statute of frauds is indeed a good point:thumbup:



Quote:

However, I did have a basis, every state has a statute of frauds. Source.
But yes, state specific information is more helpful.




Sure.  What I meant though is that some states have a bit different applicability to there statues.  For example, I don't think the statute of frauds would apply in Ohio for this situation where it was a person to person loan rather than with one party being a buisness.  In MN, however; the statute of frauds seems a bit more robust- seems it does cover this case.


Anyways, I think I cited in my post the portion of the law in MN that has to do with this defense.  There are other provisions, but they seem to not apply to this situation where nobody is a "creditor" as defined in the buisness code (a buisness or something).

As far as I can tell, MN's SOF is entirely statutory, and in any case, I believe the promissory estoppel claim should cover all the bases if the Mom can make that stick.  I kinda doubt the Aunt will come up with a lawyer or a clue and plead this, but you never know- maybe the judge will raise it on their own accord.  For this reason I would wonder whether a more formal court might be better.  It would also give the mom discovery which could help out greatly w/ regard to documentary evidence (bank accounts of the aunt showing the deposit and payments, proving the amount, et cet- probably easier to demand these in discovery than to subpoena her or the bank if you're even allowed to do that in their small claims court)


Quote:

Seuss said:

It is always nice to (try and) remain respectful, but you do a service by calling people out on sloppy advice, poor wording, etc.




Agreed, anyways, he ended up being right in his hunch.  MN seems to have a pretty expansive SOF.

Quote:

Please, don't be a stranger and don't worry too much about the noise.





Agreed nice to have you around, ANON :thumbup:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Psilocybe Fanaticus question velosity 1,720 6 09/09/03 01:03 PM
by Cow Shit Collector
* shrooms and the law? law question dodder 4,161 14 09/10/22 01:19 PM
by Enlil
* Questions about trading drugs. Tantalus 1,866 12 10/14/03 09:48 AM
by StrongBad
* paranoid question... Anonymous 679 3 10/03/03 03:38 PM
by Seuss
* Clearing up PROXY Questions The_Mad_Hatter 6,143 5 08/04/05 10:43 PM
by Doinkybottoms
* Drug Law FAQ: A Guide to the Fourth Ammendment Lana 4,018 8 05/28/02 07:02 PM
by GabbaDj
* How to Purchase Securely 101
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Lana 44,763 64 05/22/13 01:31 AM
by 1ve5w4hu
* penalty for recieving spores in CA? TODAY 8,277 9 10/12/03 10:09 PM
by Cow Shit Collector

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, Alan Rockefeller
701 topic views. 0 members, 1 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 15 queries.