Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on Demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Handle on the Law marginal legal advice where
I tell you you have absolutely no case. If you're
injured need a lawyer, go to handle on the law
dot com. And if you're a lawyer and want to
help our listeners, please go to handle on the law
dot com. Click on the join today tab at the
top of the page.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
The following is up. He recorded program Something's going on
in California that I want to share with you.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
And there is a black family here in southern California
that had a beachfront property and it was taken away.
I think it was the city of Huntington Beach, southern California,
Orange County, and the city took away this family's property.
They had this resort primarily for black clientele matter beac
(00:53):
It was exclusively black clientele. And this was at the
turn of the last century. And I guess black people
can't be successful, so the government comes in grabs their
land by eminent domain. Eminent domain is a concept in
which a government can literally take away land from someone
for the public good, putting in a road, for example,
(01:16):
building a park. Usually its roads, and the person whose
land is being eminently domained upon.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Has to be paid reasonable price.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
The first thing that happens is the governmental entity goes
and we want to buy your land because we're going
to put a road here, and you say no, not interested.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Well, there is a system by.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Which that land is going to go to the government,
and that's eminent domain. So that happened to this black
family in Huntington Beach, and this family, the descendants, got
the land back.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Two three years.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Ago and it was a little It's easy to do
this because it was state land. It was unoccupied, nothing
had been built on it. It had been wrongfully taken
for eminent domain, and they never did anything with it.
And so now a lawsuit ensued and the state of
California gives back this land of the black families part
(02:13):
of reparations.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So now.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
There is a move and there was the legislature passed
a bill California Thank You that it would have helped
black families reclaim or be compensated for property that was
unjustly taken by the government. And it would have created
a process for families where that happened to file a
claim with the state if they believe that they're properly
their property was improperly seized through eminent domain, and or
(02:43):
get money for it. Now, the proposal by itself would
not have been able to take full effect because the
legislators blocked another bill that created a reparations agency that
would have reviewed all the creme claims.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
So the two got mixed up.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
But this is a key part of a package of reparations,
and that is so controversial reparations. There is no question
that black families were discriminated against, and black families were
redlined in terms of getting loans, and of course the
discrimination goes beyond that before the Civil Rights era, where
(03:21):
African Americans were denied basically the ability to live in
this country happily. Slavery is the original sin of this country,
and Blacks are different than other minorities. Hispanics weren't brought
here as slaves, the Italians weren't brought here as slaves,
(03:41):
Germans weren't. African Americans were, so it's a very different dynamic.
But the point is this was going to be a
reparations commission that was going to set up, and it
was established. The legislature passed and the governor vetoed it.
He said, Nope, not going to happen, which kind of
(04:02):
shocking because reparations is still so controversial.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
How far back do you go.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
There's a mandate for reparations that say anybody who has
ancestors that were slaves should be compensated.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
This is two.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Hundred years later. So the governor vetoed the bill. Okay,
that's not going to That argument is not going to stop.
All right, let's go ahead and take some phone calls.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Nina, Hi, Nina, welcome, love you.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Okay, I have an employment issue. So I was offered
experience action Boat company was being sold. I was offered
about of months of my salary when the transaction was
to go Guru, no other contingencies. Now they're trying to
reduce that by half, and I want to know how
(04:55):
do I get past the arbitration clause that you know,
all these companies made us.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
I'm all right, all right, let's talk about real quickly.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
I'm assuming that the bonus was in writing that you're
going to get it correct.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
Well, that issue, so it was in writing in terms
of like emails and blast messages back and forth, but
not a greenmail.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
No, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Emails are just
as valid. Uh.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
So you have you have statements that say you are
going to get this bonus and it's going to be
three months worth of salary.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Right, that's all in writing.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
Uh, not as straightforward as that, but yes, that's what
it amounts.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Okay, what does that mean? Not straightforward? Is that?
Speaker 5 (05:41):
So I was I'm gonna bonus via zoom call. The
president of the company set of meeting with me, had
the zoom call, told me I was getting the bonus,
told me that I would get formal letter like a
week later.
Speaker 6 (05:53):
Then they will into negotiation to.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Be bought and so all you know, no legal contract
to be signed, So I.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Can okay, did you ever get that formal Did you
ever get that formal letter?
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Only when it said we want to reduce it by half,
but they refused to. But the president of the flat,
the president of the company saying, yef, I'm trying to
get sign the m and ahs will know about it.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Okay, but you didn't get it.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
And he is going to say you misunderstood, and you're
saying I didn't misunderstand.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
I get three months. Uh, and you never got anything
writing it's it's gonna be a problem.
Speaker 5 (06:27):
The thing is another person was offered the deal as well,
and they have reduced hers as well, so other people
were You got two people.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And he's still going to say there was a misunderstanding,
we were thinking about it, the transaction didn't go through.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
The expenses were way too high, I mean, whatever reason.
But you know, do you go how much money are
we talking about here?
Speaker 5 (06:52):
About fifty thousand?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
All right, Well, here's the I think the only the
only way you can go here is the file lawsuit
against the company. Uh, and use what you have as
a promise, even though it doesn't look like there's a promise.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
He just says, we're cutting it in half. Uh. And
you can obviously the math is such that you can
easily extrapolate from there.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
And he is going to say, you know what, I
was thinking about it, but there's no agreement.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
We didn't come to an agreement.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
This is what I thought I was going to do,
and I told her, And you know, it's a tough one.
But at least there's two of you there, and you
can both hire an attorney, so that costs you half
as much.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
But how do I do allow me arbitration.
Speaker 6 (07:38):
You can't.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
No, you can't. No, you can't.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
But it's fairly simple with the arbitrator. You you probably
want arbitration because to go.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
To court for the organization. I'm sorry, don't those usually
don't know, guys usually.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Necessarily not necessarily. I mean, you're not asking for damages
beyond what is o to you. You know, it's pretty
clear cut. Either the money is owed to you or
it's not.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
This is where the arbitrator looks at the law because
what are you gonna do. Yes, you can ask for
a jury trial, and what lawyer you know the jury
trial is going to cost you way more than the
amount of money that you're looking at.
Speaker 5 (08:21):
Yeah, yeah, I just always.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, arbitration in this case.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
I don't think I would choose arbitration in this case
based on what you said.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
This is handle on the law, dulcome back to handle
on the law. Michael, Hello, Michael, welcome.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
The question is I was working for this company, this
big enterprise. They own tons of sites like so we'll
let's call them my convenience stores. I'm doing a couple
of years of everything. Everything's been great, you know, the
pay in their bills and then all of a sudden,
they just put paying their invoices. I'm trying to figure
out the best course of action.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
I think, what they stop paying you? Right? Correct? Okay?
How much money do do they owe you? How much
money do they owe you?
Speaker 7 (09:06):
About fifty thousand?
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And what is your relationship with them? You're a ten
to ninety. I assume you're a contractor. You provide services.
What do you do for them?
Speaker 8 (09:15):
Correct?
Speaker 7 (09:16):
Contractor? I do service work for them on their okay?
Speaker 3 (09:19):
And they owe you fifty thousand dollars? All right, So
what's your question?
Speaker 6 (09:23):
What course of action is that?
Speaker 8 (09:25):
To sue them?
Speaker 3 (09:26):
For me to take you have to sue them. That's it.
You have to sue them for fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 7 (09:30):
I didn't know if I should put a lien on or.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
There's nothing to lean. There's nothing to lean. I don't
think you can put a lien on everything. You just
a straight out lawsuit. They have to defend the suit,
you assume them.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
They defend. Hopefully you win.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
They have to say you didn't do the work, or
you did it in a substandard way. And your position
is really you never complained about it. You just stop
paying me, Well, you know whatever defense they're going to
put out, but no, you're not going to throw liens
on properties they own, not be because you're simply suing them. Otherwise,
you know what, everybody, everybody who would ever get into
(10:05):
alification froze a lean up.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
It wouldn't stop, it wouldn't stop. So let's say we
have a negotiation. Let's say I'm the company and you're
one of fifteen vendors that I'm having an altercation with. Okay,
and I'm saying I'm not happy with you, and You're
going to turn around and sue me. Okay, fair enough?
Does I mean fifteen people.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Put lians on my property and I've got to work
at fifteen different leans. No, no, nope, just sue them,
you straight out see them. It's your normal.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
I haven't been paid. I want some money, lawsuit mark?
Speaker 8 (10:35):
Hello, yes, hi Bill. The financial power of attorney for
my elderly mother, among the other things that have done
recently on her behalf, took out a CD certificate of
deposit from Marcus Goldman Sachs, who are located in Utah.
There has been some question about from them about my
(11:00):
status as power of attorney. I've sent in all the
documents that they requested. Several times there are minor details
that you know, I use a different date than what
they recommended. So I redid that, done everything now exactly
as they requested. This has been going on since April.
Every time I call them, I'm just trying to get
confirmation from them that they recognized that I am the
(11:22):
financial power of attorney. I've dealt with probably eight or
ten other banks and insurance companies with exactly the same
paperwork and they have no problem with it that I.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Keep going around with, right, and your question, what.
Speaker 8 (11:36):
If any consumer protection agents?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And let's start with the fact I had exactly the
same problem with my mother exactly. And here's she had
a CD and it was with Bank of America, and
I wanted to take the CD out and put it
in the account that we were paying her expenses with.
And so the CD matures and I go in there
(11:59):
with a power of attorney and say I want the
I want the money, and they said, no, we don't
recognize that power of attorney.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
And I said, okay, what do you need? And they
gave me their forms.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
And I went ahead and filled out their forms, like
you provided what they asked for they wouldn't give me
the money.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
This went on. This went on for months. Where I
went in, they.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Would put me through hoops, and finally finally they I
got the last power of attorney that I got somebody
to say yes to.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
It was an assistant manager.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
And some corporate a hole said, your mother's signature does
not match what we have on record, therefore.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
We don't recognize it. And I said, she has Parkinson's disease.
Your signature goes back eight years. She has Parkinson's.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And I finally threatened to take them to court and
file with the FDIC. This was a Bank of America,
and I finally got the money, but it was a hassle.
So I think you have to go up as high
on the food chain as you can.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Mark.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Then what you do is, now you get hold of
the regulatory agency. And I don't know who holds a
brokerage firm, but your brokerage firm obviously is a very
high end, very well established, a lot of deep pockets,
you know, regulated up the ying yang and you simply
first you find out what's the regulatory agency, and then
you I would put in a formal complaint saying they
(13:30):
are clearly doing this to hang on to the money.
They will not release the money per their own documents,
and the accusation is made on that. I was just
at that point when they release the money. So you
don't want to sue them. You don't want to sue them,
but because that's just too much. It's crazy to see
(13:51):
a brokerage firm. They have unlimited resources, and what are
you going to You're to pay thousands of dollars to
an attorney. But you have to be fairly aggressive. Have
fill out the paperwork. If you filled it out twice,
that's even better, and just complain, file a formal complaint
and send them a copy.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
And then file that complaint with whatever regular.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yeah I don't know what the regular trading is, but
you look that one up. Yeah, I don't know what
else to do.
Speaker 8 (14:14):
And that would be that would be doubly in the
state of Utah, because that's right, Yah, it.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Would be in the state of Utah.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
You could, but I mean, I think they're federally regulated,
so it may be both State of Utah and the FEDS.
And you just get every form you can think of
and just start just start complaining and just filing actions
that you can file. You know, you fill out the forms. Yeah,
they what's your complaint? They won't give me the money. Uh,
(14:41):
here's why abc D. Everything that you've done, I've complied.
I have given them a power of attorney. They have
said it, no, they want this power of attorney. I
have complied. I've given them that. They still refuse. Go
through it with as much specificity as you can. I mean,
you'll get it, Mark, You'll get it. It's just a
pain in the app and it's, in my opinion, it
(15:02):
has nothing to do with you. It has to do
with either some policy that they have to hold on
to money as long as they can, or you've just
got someone in the division or there in the branch
or whatever that it's just being a jerk, don't know.
Some reports are calling this the mother of all data breaches,
(15:23):
and what are we talking about? Two point seven billion
records were stolen by cyber hackers from an entity known
as National Public Data. Now what is National Public Data.
It's a company that provides background checks to employers and
other entities, and it is massive, and so many records
were stolen online and all of us were so vulnerable
as to how our online identity is out there. We
(15:46):
have zero control over how well our identity is protected
by third party companies like National Public Data. So understanding
how cybercrime and identity theft work, you should also understand
how to protect yourself and this is where LifeLock comes in.
LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second for risks
(16:06):
to your online identity.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
They detect, They alert you to.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Any potential identity threat that you probably won't be able
to spot on your own, and when they spot the issue,
they are immediately in touch with you. And if you
become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated US based
restoration specialist will fix it. That's guaranteed or your money back.
Terms do apply, and it's easy to protect yourself with LifeLock.
(16:30):
Join save up to forty percent off your first year
with handle hnd E L handle as your promo code
call eight hundred LifeLock promo code handle or online LifeLock
dot Com promo code.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Handle. This is handle on the law.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
You're listening to bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
This is handle on the law.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Marginal legal advice where I tell you you have absolutely
no case.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
John, Hello, John, welcome.
Speaker 9 (17:06):
So I live in California and Idaho, and I'm wondering
voting wise if I can vote just local elections in
both states and federal in I mean, yeah, and federal
and just the one state.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well, it all depends on the rules of each state,
because each state determines its own rules for voting.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
It's a state by state issue.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And I don't know of any state that allows you
to vote in two jurisdictions. I think you raise a
good point. You raise a good point saying, hey, wait
a minute, this only has to do with a local issue,
which has nothing to do with the town in Idaho.
I get that it's logical, but I don't know and
you clearly have it right as far as voting for president,
(17:59):
that one you've got. You can't do it in two places, understood.
So the trick is you just and I don't know
the answer to that one. It depends on the state
of California will tell you that because it is a
it's the rules of the state, and you just compare
the two and if either state says no, then you're
(18:20):
voting in one state. And I think you can choose
which one you vote in if you're resident of both, which.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
You can be. Got.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I guess some good questions today that the bottom line
is that really don't know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Jane. Hi, Jane, welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
I'm going to try to make a reader's digest version
out of a five hundred page novel. Twenty years ago,
my daughter said my husband slapped her. Sheriff's office came out, investigated,
unfounded it because when they questioned her, she admitted I
just wanted to see what would happen. She had some
(18:56):
mental problems. The report was count this was Jane.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
This was twenty five years ago.
Speaker 6 (19:04):
Yes, sir, what do you do?
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Anything happens? Twenty five years.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Later, her kids got taken away from her because she
has meddle issues. When was that?
Speaker 3 (19:14):
When was that? When were kids taken away from her?
Speaker 6 (19:17):
Four four years ago?
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Okay, now let me ask this question.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
So the twenty five years ago problem, that's gone, so
we don't have to worry about that four years ago.
Speaker 6 (19:25):
Kids take me. Oh no, my husband's on kaki. It's
not gone. They put my husband on something called khaki,
which we have never heard of.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Yeah, I haven't heard of that either, I have never
heard of that.
Speaker 6 (19:36):
Some kind of a reporting system that cps US.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
Let me ask California.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
You've got to connect twenty five years ago till to today,
because they seem to me two different issues that you're
asking me about.
Speaker 6 (19:51):
They would they placed the kids with us four years ago,
they left them six months and then took them away
because twenty five years before that he had Okay, got it.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
That was the issue.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
So they're looking at twenty five years what happened twenty
five years ago? That's the basis of them taking away
the kids now or four years ago?
Speaker 6 (20:09):
That's right, well, four years ago.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
And why did you wait? By the way, why are
we waiting four years for this?
Speaker 6 (20:16):
We have not. I hired an attorney the next day.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
You hired an attorney four years ago? All right? And
what happened?
Speaker 6 (20:25):
Yes, the first one didn't even work for the company
we hired anything. Okay, we spent the second attorney never
did a thing for us, maybe five hundred dollars in
the hall on that one. The owner of the very
large shop took it over, said that, okay, I'm going
to get the kids back for you. Well, in the meantime,
(20:46):
four years later, the other guardian died, was in a
car crash and killed. We went to Superior Court now
on what was simply a probate case, and Superior Court
looked at it and said.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Why hold on, Jane, why is it a probate case.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Explain connect those sounds for me.
Speaker 6 (21:07):
The second guardian, the other it was the paternal grandfather,
was given permanent guardianship of the kids.
Speaker 8 (21:15):
So when a.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Probate case, that's not a probate case.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Okay, it was handled in Superior Court in the probate department.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
But that's still not a probate case. I mean, I
just okay, probate his property.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
I don't get it. But okay, So all these lawyers said.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
They screwed you up, and the court kept the children
away from the parents, right.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
Yes, but they gave them to us, Superior Did you obviously.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
That, Jane, you applied to take the kids, right, yes?
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Okay, so they gave to you, all right, So now
what what's what's your question?
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Now we're eighteen thousand dollars in the hole to the
other attorney that basically did nothing but to help us
spell out paperwork for right, So what's your question then?
He said he would help us to sue the county
of that should have taken the kids from the first.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
What's your question?
Speaker 6 (22:11):
He hasn't come through, he doesn't remember who we are,
all right. I want to know if you could recommend
I don't know what kind of attorney to hire, and
because it would be, it.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
Would be it would probably be just basically any city attorney,
an administrative law attorney. But you're not gonna you're not
going to sue the county. You're not going to sue
the county.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Uh that you're going to sue the lawyer from malpractice
for taking your money and doing nothing.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
That's what you're going to sue for.
Speaker 6 (22:42):
Even though the county removed the kids.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Face, the county removed the kids, and unless it was
totally capricious, unless the county had zero evidence that anything happened,
and they just somebody woke up one day and said,
you know what, we're going to take away Jane's grandkids.
Not pretty, not stickular for any reason, just because we
(23:04):
want to, or we're looking at we're looking at some evidence,
and the county has a lot of leeway.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
But it's interesting that they don't give they don't give.
They don't give the kids back to the mom. How
the mental issues that your your daughter has?
Speaker 3 (23:23):
How how profound are they?
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Oh that, well, she is one of those drug addict
mental person Jane.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
That's enough.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I mean, if the county, if she is true drug addled,
so so the county, you're not going to be able
to sue.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
So all you're gonna be able to sue.
Speaker 6 (23:44):
They took the kids from us, not from.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Her on what basis?
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Took the kids away wait a second, away from you
and gave it back to mom.
Speaker 6 (23:53):
No, they gave them to another relative.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Okay?
Speaker 6 (23:58):
Why?
Speaker 3 (23:59):
Why? And what it was? Okay? There was there was
a hearing. I mean you asked for a hearing.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Did what was that? What happened at the hearing? Why
did they say you were unfit to raise that kid?
Speaker 6 (24:09):
Because that twenty five years before, my husband had been
placed on TACKI, which we have never heard of.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Okay, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
I've never heard of it either, So you know, after
all of that, I've never heard of it.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Now what do we do? Sarah, Hi, Sarah, welcome.
Speaker 10 (24:24):
So my dad passed away before his retirement was vested,
and that was a long time ago. Thirty years ago.
Then my mom just passed away, and going through her stuff,
I found some paperwork that she tried to collect on
his retirement and they sent her a refusal letter saying
that because he died before he turned whatever that age
(24:45):
was sixty two or whatever, that they weren't responsible for
giving out any of his retirements. So I've been told
that that that might be true for the part that
they invested in his retirement, the matching part, but that
whatever he put in he should have given to.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
My mom, okay, and he didn't.
Speaker 10 (25:06):
So they So are they legally required?
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Not after thirty years, Sarah?
Speaker 3 (25:14):
Not after thirty years.
Speaker 10 (25:18):
Even if she tried to get it from them and
they refused.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Then why wouldn't she had Then she has to take
it to court, Then she has to file to get
that money. Then it becomes a dispute, and she she
didn't and she didn't do that, so she's out of luck.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
This is Handle on the Law.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Welcome back to Handle on the Law, Marginal Legal Advice.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
SCAP, Hello SCIP, Welcome to Handle on the Law.
Speaker 11 (25:49):
Good morning, Good morning Bill. How are you sir?
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yes sir? What can I do for you?
Speaker 11 (25:54):
Alrighty? I gave a friend of mine his son, He's
to my car because he promised that he would make
payments on it. He never did. Six months later, I
filed a stolen car report. They contacted him with his
(26:15):
cell phone. They finally got a hold of him. He said, oh,
this is a civil matter. The cops let him go.
I didn't get the car back. I found out subsequently
that he's done this a time or two before.
Speaker 8 (26:28):
He's got civil judgments.
Speaker 11 (26:29):
He doesn't care. My question to you is, can I
refile this as a stolen car?
Speaker 3 (26:35):
You know it wasn't skip, it wasn't stolen. You gave
him custody of that car. You said, here, Well I did.
Speaker 11 (26:45):
I did. But there's apparently a California statute that says
if somebody does that under fraudulent pretenses, then that's fraud.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
Would you have to prove would you have to prove
the fraud?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
You have to prove that he intended to do that
as opposed to Yeah, I wanted to, I just couldn't
afford it. Now, if you can bring up the fact
that he's done it several times, that gives you more credence.
But the cops won't touch it. DA won't touch it.
Speaker 8 (27:14):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 11 (27:15):
So who do I bring this up to? Because he
obviously has multitude of DeFi what do you.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Mean, who do I bring this up to? I mean,
I just tell you the cops. The DA won't touch it.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
It's a civil matter, I know.
Speaker 8 (27:26):
So what do I do?
Speaker 2 (27:29):
It's a breach of contract. You had a verbal agreement.
You sue him for the value.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
Of the car, because you're going to argue that.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
He converted the car converted in the legal sense that
you take something and you have custody and you don't
give it back. In other words, my ownership. I gave
you something for a period of time, you will not
give it back, or you damage that you've converted my property.
A civil case, a conversion you get the value of
(27:58):
the property, or that's the value the property under conversion,
or just straight breach of contract. He owes you the money,
but I wouldn't go for that. But it doesn't matter, skip,
it doesn't matter. The bottom line is you got a
guy who what are you gonna do. You have a
judgment against him, He already has a bunch of judgments.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
He doesn't care and the car is not stolen, So
the cops won't get involved. You're screwed.
Speaker 8 (28:21):
Well, okay, Bill.
Speaker 11 (28:23):
So let's say you go to a car dealership and
you say I want to test drive this car and
you don't bring it back.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Is that stolen? Oh yeah, that's stolen.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
That's stolen because you're not given the car to drive.
You're given the car under the premise here you go
only for this period of time.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
It's very different. Okay. And by the way, if you
ever have a car dealership where they just threw you
the keys and say, hey, drive it around.
Speaker 11 (28:52):
Yeah they have Wow, you know because I had my
wife with me at the time.
Speaker 6 (28:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Well, I've never experienced that, but it's very different. Testing
a car is very different than giving a car to
someone and saying you make the payments.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yeah, you're screwed. I mean, you're done, but you won't
be doing that again. Alex, Hello, Alex, welcome.
Speaker 12 (29:13):
Hey, good morning, mister handle. Yes, sir, I'm not like
a condo owner. There was fired like happened last last month.
I think probably due to the tendants negligence of using
a candle or something. So I'm wondering can I file
claim against the tendance renter policy or do I have
(29:33):
to file lawsuit first?
Speaker 3 (29:35):
Uh? Well, wait a second, why would you you have
insurance for that? Why why wouldn't you.
Speaker 9 (29:41):
Just have like.
Speaker 12 (29:44):
I have an HOA insurance, but somehow I didn't buy
the owner's insurance.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Okay, So now you want to Uh, well, I think
you can sue uh the tenant for negligent and causing
the damage. Yeah, I would think. So how much damage
to the place?
Speaker 12 (30:05):
Around fifty fifty thousand dollars?
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Do you think the tenant has any way of paying
you fifty thousand dollars?
Speaker 12 (30:13):
I don't believe so, sir.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Okay, So now what do you get to do?
Speaker 2 (30:17):
And I'm assuming the tenant is out, so you're not
getting any rent?
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Correct?
Speaker 11 (30:22):
Correct?
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (30:24):
So fifty thousand dollars with a damage, and then how
much is it going to cost you.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
To repair it? Or is that total?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
That is going to cost you fifty thousand dollars to
repair all that to bring it back to snuff.
Speaker 11 (30:34):
That's the repair?
Speaker 3 (30:35):
Okay, got it? Okay, Here is the bad and the
good news.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
The fact that there's no insurance here depends on how
the HOA.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
Is written up common areas. I don't know common walls.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
I have no idea, but you not having your own
personal insurance that covers.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
You is kind of crazy. So you can sue him
for negligence.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
And he's going to owe you the money, but the
rents and what are you gonna do with the good
news is all the money you've lost in that the
fifty thousand dollars of repair is tax deductible. Now I'm
assuming you're not making a chunk of money on the
unit every month?
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Correct, No, okay, yeah, that's correct. Yeah, you got a.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Real issue in your hands. All you can do, I
think is sue is sue the tenant. Hopefully you have
to look at the HOA insurance because I don't know
I had units, and I don't remember if I bought
or didn't.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
I would think I did buy insurance to cover everything.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
All right, let me tell you about your bad breath,
and man, you have plenty of it, we all do.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
So let me suggest a way out of it. With
Zelman's minty Mouthman's tiny little capsules that you swallow. First
of all, there's mint coded coded with mint. You suck
on the mint, then they're gone. The mint is gone.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Then you swallow or by to them in the parsley
seed oil and the capsules goes to work inside the gut.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
And other men's don't do that. And that works on
bad breath and if you have dry mouth, that helps.
And also they just make it feel good.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
You know, there's nothing like when you brush your teeth,
for example, you have that fresh feeling we do with hours.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
With Zelman's Vinte Mouthmans. These things really work.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
So let me suggest you get a hold of Zelman's
Zelmans dot com z E L M I n s
dot com fifteen percent off when you use the code
handle at checkout and take advantage of the fifteen percent
Zelmans dot com.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
This is Handle on the Law. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to Bill Handle on Demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
This is Handle on the Law marginal legal advice where
I tell you you have absolutely no case. If you're
injured need a lawyer, go to handle on the law
dot com. And if you're a lawyer and want to
help our listeners, please go to handle on the law
dot com. Click on the join today tab at the
top of the page.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
The following is up. He recorded program Something's going on
in California that I want to share with you.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
And there is a black family here in southern California
that had a beachfront property and it was taken away.
I think it was the city of Huntington Beach, southern California,
Orange County, and the city took away this family's property.
They had this resort primarily for black clientele matter beac
(00:53):
It was exclusively black clientele. And this was at the
turn of the last century. And I guess black people
can't be successful, so the government comes in grabs their
land by eminent domain. Eminent domain is a concept in
which a government can literally take away land from someone
for the public good, putting in a road, for example,
(01:16):
building a park. Usually its roads, and the person whose
land is being eminently domained upon.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Has to be paid reasonable price.
Speaker 2 (01:25):
The first thing that happens is the governmental entity goes
and we want to buy your land because we're going
to put a road here, and you say no, not interested.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
Well, there is a system by.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Which that land is going to go to the government,
and that's eminent domain. So that happened to this black
family in Huntington Beach, and this family, the descendants, got
the land back.
Speaker 3 (01:50):
Two three years.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Ago and it was a little It's easy to do
this because it was state land. It was unoccupied, nothing
had been built on it. It had been wrongfully taken
for eminent domain, and they never did anything with it.
And so now a lawsuit ensued and the state of
California gives back this land of the black families part
(02:13):
of reparations.
Speaker 3 (02:14):
So now.
Speaker 2 (02:17):
There is a move and there was the legislature passed
a bill California Thank You that it would have helped
black families reclaim or be compensated for property that was
unjustly taken by the government. And it would have created
a process for families where that happened to file a
claim with the state if they believe that they're properly
their property was improperly seized through eminent domain, and or
(02:43):
get money for it. Now, the proposal by itself would
not have been able to take full effect because the
legislators blocked another bill that created a reparations agency that
would have reviewed all the creme claims.
Speaker 3 (02:58):
So the two got mixed up.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
But this is a key part of a package of reparations,
and that is so controversial reparations. There is no question
that black families were discriminated against, and black families were
redlined in terms of getting loans, and of course the
discrimination goes beyond that before the Civil Rights era, where
(03:21):
African Americans were denied basically the ability to live in
this country happily. Slavery is the original sin of this country,
and Blacks are different than other minorities. Hispanics weren't brought
here as slaves, the Italians weren't brought here as slaves,
(03:41):
Germans weren't. African Americans were, so it's a very different dynamic.
But the point is this was going to be a
reparations commission that was going to set up, and it
was established. The legislature passed and the governor vetoed it.
He said, Nope, not going to happen, which kind of
(04:02):
shocking because reparations is still so controversial.
Speaker 3 (04:07):
How far back do you go.
Speaker 2 (04:09):
There's a mandate for reparations that say anybody who has
ancestors that were slaves should be compensated.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
This is two.
Speaker 2 (04:19):
Hundred years later. So the governor vetoed the bill. Okay,
that's not going to That argument is not going to stop.
All right, let's go ahead and take some phone calls.
Speaker 3 (04:29):
Nina, Hi, Nina, welcome, love you.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Okay, I have an employment issue. So I was offered
experience action Boat company was being sold. I was offered
about of months of my salary when the transaction was
to go Guru, no other contingencies. Now they're trying to
reduce that by half, and I want to know how
(04:55):
do I get past the arbitration clause that you know,
all these companies made us.
Speaker 3 (05:00):
I'm all right, all right, let's talk about real quickly.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
I'm assuming that the bonus was in writing that you're
going to get it correct.
Speaker 5 (05:10):
Well, that issue, so it was in writing in terms
of like emails and blast messages back and forth, but
not a greenmail.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
No, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Emails are just
as valid. Uh.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
So you have you have statements that say you are
going to get this bonus and it's going to be
three months worth of salary.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Right, that's all in writing.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
Uh, not as straightforward as that, but yes, that's what
it amounts.
Speaker 3 (05:37):
Okay, what does that mean? Not straightforward? Is that?
Speaker 5 (05:41):
So I was I'm gonna bonus via zoom call. The
president of the company set of meeting with me, had
the zoom call, told me I was getting the bonus,
told me that I would get formal letter like a
week later.
Speaker 6 (05:53):
Then they will into negotiation to.
Speaker 5 (05:55):
Be bought and so all you know, no legal contract
to be signed, So I.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Can okay, did you ever get that formal Did you
ever get that formal letter?
Speaker 5 (06:06):
Only when it said we want to reduce it by half,
but they refused to. But the president of the flat,
the president of the company saying, yef, I'm trying to
get sign the m and ahs will know about it.
Speaker 3 (06:17):
Okay, but you didn't get it.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
And he is going to say you misunderstood, and you're
saying I didn't misunderstand.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
I get three months. Uh, and you never got anything
writing it's it's gonna be a problem.
Speaker 5 (06:27):
The thing is another person was offered the deal as well,
and they have reduced hers as well, so other people
were You got two people.
Speaker 2 (06:37):
And he's still going to say there was a misunderstanding,
we were thinking about it, the transaction didn't go through.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
The expenses were way too high, I mean, whatever reason.
But you know, do you go how much money are
we talking about here?
Speaker 5 (06:52):
About fifty thousand?
Speaker 2 (06:53):
All right, Well, here's the I think the only the
only way you can go here is the file lawsuit
against the company. Uh, and use what you have as
a promise, even though it doesn't look like there's a promise.
Speaker 3 (07:09):
He just says, we're cutting it in half. Uh. And
you can obviously the math is such that you can
easily extrapolate from there.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
And he is going to say, you know what, I
was thinking about it, but there's no agreement.
Speaker 3 (07:24):
We didn't come to an agreement.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
This is what I thought I was going to do,
and I told her, And you know, it's a tough one.
But at least there's two of you there, and you
can both hire an attorney, so that costs you half
as much.
Speaker 5 (07:36):
But how do I do allow me arbitration.
Speaker 6 (07:38):
You can't.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
No, you can't. No, you can't.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
But it's fairly simple with the arbitrator. You you probably
want arbitration because to go.
Speaker 5 (07:47):
To court for the organization. I'm sorry, don't those usually
don't know, guys usually.
Speaker 3 (07:54):
Necessarily not necessarily. I mean, you're not asking for damages
beyond what is o to you. You know, it's pretty
clear cut. Either the money is owed to you or
it's not.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
This is where the arbitrator looks at the law because
what are you gonna do. Yes, you can ask for
a jury trial, and what lawyer you know the jury
trial is going to cost you way more than the
amount of money that you're looking at.
Speaker 5 (08:21):
Yeah, yeah, I just always.
Speaker 3 (08:23):
Yeah, arbitration in this case.
Speaker 2 (08:25):
I don't think I would choose arbitration in this case
based on what you said.
Speaker 3 (08:30):
This is handle on the law, dulcome back to handle
on the law. Michael, Hello, Michael, welcome.
Speaker 7 (08:40):
The question is I was working for this company, this
big enterprise. They own tons of sites like so we'll
let's call them my convenience stores. I'm doing a couple
of years of everything. Everything's been great, you know, the
pay in their bills and then all of a sudden,
they just put paying their invoices. I'm trying to figure
out the best course of action.
Speaker 3 (08:59):
I think, what they stop paying you? Right? Correct? Okay?
How much money do do they owe you? How much
money do they owe you?
Speaker 7 (09:06):
About fifty thousand?
Speaker 3 (09:07):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (09:07):
And what is your relationship with them? You're a ten
to ninety. I assume you're a contractor. You provide services.
What do you do for them?
Speaker 8 (09:15):
Correct?
Speaker 7 (09:16):
Contractor? I do service work for them on their okay?
Speaker 3 (09:19):
And they owe you fifty thousand dollars? All right, So
what's your question?
Speaker 6 (09:23):
What course of action is that?
Speaker 8 (09:25):
To sue them?
Speaker 3 (09:26):
For me to take you have to sue them. That's it.
You have to sue them for fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 7 (09:30):
I didn't know if I should put a lien on or.
Speaker 2 (09:32):
There's nothing to lean. There's nothing to lean. I don't
think you can put a lien on everything. You just
a straight out lawsuit. They have to defend the suit,
you assume them.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
They defend. Hopefully you win.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
They have to say you didn't do the work, or
you did it in a substandard way. And your position
is really you never complained about it. You just stop
paying me, Well, you know whatever defense they're going to
put out, but no, you're not going to throw liens
on properties they own, not be because you're simply suing them. Otherwise,
you know what, everybody, everybody who would ever get into
(10:05):
alification froze a lean up.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
It wouldn't stop, it wouldn't stop. So let's say we
have a negotiation. Let's say I'm the company and you're
one of fifteen vendors that I'm having an altercation with. Okay,
and I'm saying I'm not happy with you, and You're
going to turn around and sue me. Okay, fair enough?
Does I mean fifteen people.
Speaker 2 (10:23):
Put lians on my property and I've got to work
at fifteen different leans. No, no, nope, just sue them,
you straight out see them. It's your normal.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
I haven't been paid. I want some money, lawsuit mark?
Speaker 8 (10:35):
Hello, yes, hi Bill. The financial power of attorney for
my elderly mother, among the other things that have done
recently on her behalf, took out a CD certificate of
deposit from Marcus Goldman Sachs, who are located in Utah.
There has been some question about from them about my
(11:00):
status as power of attorney. I've sent in all the
documents that they requested. Several times there are minor details
that you know, I use a different date than what
they recommended. So I redid that, done everything now exactly
as they requested. This has been going on since April.
Every time I call them, I'm just trying to get
confirmation from them that they recognized that I am the
(11:22):
financial power of attorney. I've dealt with probably eight or
ten other banks and insurance companies with exactly the same
paperwork and they have no problem with it that I.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Keep going around with, right, and your question, what.
Speaker 8 (11:36):
If any consumer protection agents?
Speaker 2 (11:39):
And let's start with the fact I had exactly the
same problem with my mother exactly. And here's she had
a CD and it was with Bank of America, and
I wanted to take the CD out and put it
in the account that we were paying her expenses with.
And so the CD matures and I go in there
(11:59):
with a power of attorney and say I want the
I want the money, and they said, no, we don't
recognize that power of attorney.
Speaker 3 (12:07):
And I said, okay, what do you need? And they
gave me their forms.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
And I went ahead and filled out their forms, like
you provided what they asked for they wouldn't give me
the money.
Speaker 3 (12:17):
This went on. This went on for months. Where I
went in, they.
Speaker 2 (12:23):
Would put me through hoops, and finally finally they I
got the last power of attorney that I got somebody
to say yes to.
Speaker 3 (12:33):
It was an assistant manager.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
And some corporate a hole said, your mother's signature does
not match what we have on record, therefore.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
We don't recognize it. And I said, she has Parkinson's disease.
Your signature goes back eight years. She has Parkinson's.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
And I finally threatened to take them to court and
file with the FDIC. This was a Bank of America,
and I finally got the money, but it was a hassle.
So I think you have to go up as high
on the food chain as you can.
Speaker 3 (13:08):
Mark.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Then what you do is, now you get hold of
the regulatory agency. And I don't know who holds a
brokerage firm, but your brokerage firm obviously is a very
high end, very well established, a lot of deep pockets,
you know, regulated up the ying yang and you simply
first you find out what's the regulatory agency, and then
you I would put in a formal complaint saying they
(13:30):
are clearly doing this to hang on to the money.
They will not release the money per their own documents,
and the accusation is made on that. I was just
at that point when they release the money. So you
don't want to sue them. You don't want to sue them,
but because that's just too much. It's crazy to see
(13:51):
a brokerage firm. They have unlimited resources, and what are
you going to You're to pay thousands of dollars to
an attorney. But you have to be fairly aggressive. Have
fill out the paperwork. If you filled it out twice,
that's even better, and just complain, file a formal complaint
and send them a copy.
Speaker 8 (14:07):
And then file that complaint with whatever regular.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Yeah I don't know what the regular trading is, but
you look that one up. Yeah, I don't know what
else to do.
Speaker 8 (14:14):
And that would be that would be doubly in the
state of Utah, because that's right, Yah, it.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Would be in the state of Utah.
Speaker 2 (14:20):
You could, but I mean, I think they're federally regulated,
so it may be both State of Utah and the FEDS.
And you just get every form you can think of
and just start just start complaining and just filing actions
that you can file. You know, you fill out the forms. Yeah,
they what's your complaint? They won't give me the money. Uh,
(14:41):
here's why abc D. Everything that you've done, I've complied.
I have given them a power of attorney. They have
said it, no, they want this power of attorney. I
have complied. I've given them that. They still refuse. Go
through it with as much specificity as you can. I mean,
you'll get it, Mark, You'll get it. It's just a
pain in the app and it's, in my opinion, it
(15:02):
has nothing to do with you. It has to do
with either some policy that they have to hold on
to money as long as they can, or you've just
got someone in the division or there in the branch
or whatever that it's just being a jerk, don't know.
Some reports are calling this the mother of all data breaches,
(15:23):
and what are we talking about? Two point seven billion
records were stolen by cyber hackers from an entity known
as National Public Data. Now what is National Public Data.
It's a company that provides background checks to employers and
other entities, and it is massive, and so many records
were stolen online and all of us were so vulnerable
as to how our online identity is out there. We
(15:46):
have zero control over how well our identity is protected
by third party companies like National Public Data. So understanding
how cybercrime and identity theft work, you should also understand
how to protect yourself and this is where LifeLock comes in.
LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second for risks
(16:06):
to your online identity.
Speaker 3 (16:09):
They detect, They alert you to.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Any potential identity threat that you probably won't be able
to spot on your own, and when they spot the issue,
they are immediately in touch with you. And if you
become a victim of identity theft, a dedicated US based
restoration specialist will fix it. That's guaranteed or your money back.
Terms do apply, and it's easy to protect yourself with LifeLock.
(16:30):
Join save up to forty percent off your first year
with handle hnd E L handle as your promo code
call eight hundred LifeLock promo code handle or online LifeLock
dot Com promo code.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
Handle. This is handle on the law.
Speaker 1 (16:48):
You're listening to bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 3 (16:55):
This is handle on the law.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Marginal legal advice where I tell you you have absolutely
no case.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
John, Hello, John, welcome.
Speaker 9 (17:06):
So I live in California and Idaho, and I'm wondering
voting wise if I can vote just local elections in
both states and federal in I mean, yeah, and federal
and just the one state.
Speaker 6 (17:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:25):
Well, it all depends on the rules of each state,
because each state determines its own rules for voting.
Speaker 3 (17:33):
It's a state by state issue.
Speaker 2 (17:35):
And I don't know of any state that allows you
to vote in two jurisdictions. I think you raise a
good point. You raise a good point saying, hey, wait
a minute, this only has to do with a local issue,
which has nothing to do with the town in Idaho.
I get that it's logical, but I don't know and
you clearly have it right as far as voting for president,
(17:59):
that one you've got. You can't do it in two places, understood.
So the trick is you just and I don't know
the answer to that one. It depends on the state
of California will tell you that because it is a
it's the rules of the state, and you just compare
the two and if either state says no, then you're
(18:20):
voting in one state. And I think you can choose
which one you vote in if you're resident of both, which.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
You can be. Got.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I guess some good questions today that the bottom line
is that really don't know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3 (18:33):
Jane. Hi, Jane, welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
I'm going to try to make a reader's digest version
out of a five hundred page novel. Twenty years ago,
my daughter said my husband slapped her. Sheriff's office came out, investigated,
unfounded it because when they questioned her, she admitted I
just wanted to see what would happen. She had some
(18:56):
mental problems. The report was count this was Jane.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
This was twenty five years ago.
Speaker 6 (19:04):
Yes, sir, what do you do?
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Anything happens? Twenty five years.
Speaker 6 (19:07):
Later, her kids got taken away from her because she
has meddle issues. When was that?
Speaker 3 (19:14):
When was that? When were kids taken away from her?
Speaker 6 (19:17):
Four four years ago?
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Okay, now let me ask this question.
Speaker 2 (19:21):
So the twenty five years ago problem, that's gone, so
we don't have to worry about that four years ago.
Speaker 6 (19:25):
Kids take me. Oh no, my husband's on kaki. It's
not gone. They put my husband on something called khaki,
which we have never heard of.
Speaker 3 (19:33):
Yeah, I haven't heard of that either, I have never
heard of that.
Speaker 6 (19:36):
Some kind of a reporting system that cps US.
Speaker 3 (19:40):
Let me ask California.
Speaker 2 (19:41):
You've got to connect twenty five years ago till to today,
because they seem to me two different issues that you're
asking me about.
Speaker 6 (19:51):
They would they placed the kids with us four years ago,
they left them six months and then took them away
because twenty five years before that he had Okay, got it.
Speaker 3 (20:00):
That was the issue.
Speaker 2 (20:01):
So they're looking at twenty five years what happened twenty
five years ago? That's the basis of them taking away
the kids now or four years ago?
Speaker 6 (20:09):
That's right, well, four years ago.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
And why did you wait? By the way, why are
we waiting four years for this?
Speaker 6 (20:16):
We have not. I hired an attorney the next day.
Speaker 3 (20:22):
You hired an attorney four years ago? All right? And
what happened?
Speaker 6 (20:25):
Yes, the first one didn't even work for the company
we hired anything. Okay, we spent the second attorney never
did a thing for us, maybe five hundred dollars in
the hall on that one. The owner of the very
large shop took it over, said that, okay, I'm going
to get the kids back for you. Well, in the meantime,
(20:46):
four years later, the other guardian died, was in a
car crash and killed. We went to Superior Court now
on what was simply a probate case, and Superior Court
looked at it and said.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
Why hold on, Jane, why is it a probate case.
Speaker 3 (21:05):
Explain connect those sounds for me.
Speaker 6 (21:07):
The second guardian, the other it was the paternal grandfather,
was given permanent guardianship of the kids.
Speaker 8 (21:15):
So when a.
Speaker 3 (21:17):
Probate case, that's not a probate case.
Speaker 6 (21:20):
Okay, it was handled in Superior Court in the probate department.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
But that's still not a probate case. I mean, I
just okay, probate his property.
Speaker 3 (21:30):
I don't get it. But okay, So all these lawyers said.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
They screwed you up, and the court kept the children
away from the parents, right.
Speaker 6 (21:42):
Yes, but they gave them to us, Superior Did you obviously.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
That, Jane, you applied to take the kids, right, yes?
Speaker 3 (21:50):
Okay, so they gave to you, all right, So now
what what's what's your question?
Speaker 6 (21:54):
Now we're eighteen thousand dollars in the hole to the
other attorney that basically did nothing but to help us
spell out paperwork for right, So what's your question then?
He said he would help us to sue the county
of that should have taken the kids from the first.
Speaker 3 (22:10):
What's your question?
Speaker 6 (22:11):
He hasn't come through, he doesn't remember who we are,
all right. I want to know if you could recommend
I don't know what kind of attorney to hire, and
because it would be, it.
Speaker 3 (22:23):
Would be it would probably be just basically any city attorney,
an administrative law attorney. But you're not gonna you're not
going to sue the county. You're not going to sue
the county.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
Uh that you're going to sue the lawyer from malpractice
for taking your money and doing nothing.
Speaker 3 (22:40):
That's what you're going to sue for.
Speaker 6 (22:42):
Even though the county removed the kids.
Speaker 3 (22:44):
Face, the county removed the kids, and unless it was
totally capricious, unless the county had zero evidence that anything happened,
and they just somebody woke up one day and said,
you know what, we're going to take away Jane's grandkids.
Not pretty, not stickular for any reason, just because we
(23:04):
want to, or we're looking at we're looking at some evidence,
and the county has a lot of leeway.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
But it's interesting that they don't give they don't give.
They don't give the kids back to the mom. How
the mental issues that your your daughter has?
Speaker 3 (23:23):
How how profound are they?
Speaker 6 (23:26):
Oh that, well, she is one of those drug addict
mental person Jane.
Speaker 3 (23:32):
That's enough.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
I mean, if the county, if she is true drug addled,
so so the county, you're not going to be able
to sue.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
So all you're gonna be able to sue.
Speaker 6 (23:44):
They took the kids from us, not from.
Speaker 3 (23:46):
Her on what basis?
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Took the kids away wait a second, away from you
and gave it back to mom.
Speaker 6 (23:53):
No, they gave them to another relative.
Speaker 3 (23:57):
Okay?
Speaker 6 (23:58):
Why?
Speaker 3 (23:59):
Why? And what it was? Okay? There was there was
a hearing. I mean you asked for a hearing.
Speaker 2 (24:04):
Did what was that? What happened at the hearing? Why
did they say you were unfit to raise that kid?
Speaker 6 (24:09):
Because that twenty five years before, my husband had been
placed on TACKI, which we have never heard of.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
Okay, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
I've never heard of it either, So you know, after
all of that, I've never heard of it.
Speaker 3 (24:20):
Now what do we do? Sarah, Hi, Sarah, welcome.
Speaker 10 (24:24):
So my dad passed away before his retirement was vested,
and that was a long time ago. Thirty years ago.
Then my mom just passed away, and going through her stuff,
I found some paperwork that she tried to collect on
his retirement and they sent her a refusal letter saying
that because he died before he turned whatever that age
(24:45):
was sixty two or whatever, that they weren't responsible for
giving out any of his retirements. So I've been told
that that that might be true for the part that
they invested in his retirement, the matching part, but that
whatever he put in he should have given to.
Speaker 3 (25:02):
My mom, okay, and he didn't.
Speaker 10 (25:06):
So they So are they legally required?
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Not after thirty years, Sarah?
Speaker 3 (25:14):
Not after thirty years.
Speaker 10 (25:18):
Even if she tried to get it from them and
they refused.
Speaker 2 (25:20):
Then why wouldn't she had Then she has to take
it to court, Then she has to file to get
that money. Then it becomes a dispute, and she she
didn't and she didn't do that, so she's out of luck.
Speaker 3 (25:35):
This is Handle on the Law.
Speaker 2 (25:38):
Welcome back to Handle on the Law, Marginal Legal Advice.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
SCAP, Hello SCIP, Welcome to Handle on the Law.
Speaker 11 (25:49):
Good morning, Good morning Bill. How are you sir?
Speaker 3 (25:52):
Yes sir? What can I do for you?
Speaker 11 (25:54):
Alrighty? I gave a friend of mine his son, He's
to my car because he promised that he would make
payments on it. He never did. Six months later, I
filed a stolen car report. They contacted him with his
(26:15):
cell phone. They finally got a hold of him. He said, oh,
this is a civil matter. The cops let him go.
I didn't get the car back. I found out subsequently
that he's done this a time or two before.
Speaker 8 (26:28):
He's got civil judgments.
Speaker 11 (26:29):
He doesn't care. My question to you is, can I
refile this as a stolen car?
Speaker 3 (26:35):
You know it wasn't skip, it wasn't stolen. You gave
him custody of that car. You said, here, Well I did.
Speaker 11 (26:45):
I did. But there's apparently a California statute that says
if somebody does that under fraudulent pretenses, then that's fraud.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (26:55):
Would you have to prove would you have to prove
the fraud?
Speaker 2 (26:58):
You have to prove that he intended to do that
as opposed to Yeah, I wanted to, I just couldn't
afford it. Now, if you can bring up the fact
that he's done it several times, that gives you more credence.
But the cops won't touch it. DA won't touch it.
Speaker 8 (27:14):
Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 11 (27:15):
So who do I bring this up to? Because he
obviously has multitude of DeFi what do you.
Speaker 2 (27:21):
Mean, who do I bring this up to? I mean,
I just tell you the cops. The DA won't touch it.
Speaker 3 (27:24):
It's a civil matter, I know.
Speaker 8 (27:26):
So what do I do?
Speaker 2 (27:29):
It's a breach of contract. You had a verbal agreement.
You sue him for the value.
Speaker 3 (27:35):
Of the car, because you're going to argue that.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
He converted the car converted in the legal sense that
you take something and you have custody and you don't
give it back. In other words, my ownership. I gave
you something for a period of time, you will not
give it back, or you damage that you've converted my property.
A civil case, a conversion you get the value of
(27:58):
the property, or that's the value the property under conversion,
or just straight breach of contract. He owes you the money,
but I wouldn't go for that. But it doesn't matter, skip,
it doesn't matter. The bottom line is you got a
guy who what are you gonna do. You have a
judgment against him, He already has a bunch of judgments.
Speaker 3 (28:14):
He doesn't care and the car is not stolen, So
the cops won't get involved. You're screwed.
Speaker 8 (28:21):
Well, okay, Bill.
Speaker 11 (28:23):
So let's say you go to a car dealership and
you say I want to test drive this car and
you don't bring it back.
Speaker 3 (28:29):
Is that stolen? Oh yeah, that's stolen.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
That's stolen because you're not given the car to drive.
You're given the car under the premise here you go
only for this period of time.
Speaker 3 (28:43):
It's very different. Okay. And by the way, if you
ever have a car dealership where they just threw you
the keys and say, hey, drive it around.
Speaker 11 (28:52):
Yeah they have Wow, you know because I had my
wife with me at the time.
Speaker 6 (28:56):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (28:56):
Well, I've never experienced that, but it's very different. Testing
a car is very different than giving a car to
someone and saying you make the payments.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yeah, you're screwed. I mean, you're done, but you won't
be doing that again. Alex, Hello, Alex, welcome.
Speaker 12 (29:13):
Hey, good morning, mister handle. Yes, sir, I'm not like
a condo owner. There was fired like happened last last month.
I think probably due to the tendants negligence of using
a candle or something. So I'm wondering can I file
claim against the tendance renter policy or do I have
(29:33):
to file lawsuit first?
Speaker 3 (29:35):
Uh? Well, wait a second, why would you you have
insurance for that? Why why wouldn't you.
Speaker 9 (29:41):
Just have like.
Speaker 12 (29:44):
I have an HOA insurance, but somehow I didn't buy
the owner's insurance.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Okay, So now you want to Uh, well, I think
you can sue uh the tenant for negligent and causing
the damage. Yeah, I would think. So how much damage
to the place?
Speaker 12 (30:05):
Around fifty fifty thousand dollars?
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Do you think the tenant has any way of paying
you fifty thousand dollars?
Speaker 12 (30:13):
I don't believe so, sir.
Speaker 3 (30:15):
Okay, So now what do you get to do?
Speaker 2 (30:17):
And I'm assuming the tenant is out, so you're not
getting any rent?
Speaker 3 (30:19):
Correct?
Speaker 11 (30:22):
Correct?
Speaker 3 (30:22):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (30:24):
So fifty thousand dollars with a damage, and then how
much is it going to cost you.
Speaker 3 (30:27):
To repair it? Or is that total?
Speaker 2 (30:29):
That is going to cost you fifty thousand dollars to
repair all that to bring it back to snuff.
Speaker 11 (30:34):
That's the repair?
Speaker 3 (30:35):
Okay, got it? Okay, Here is the bad and the
good news.
Speaker 2 (30:44):
The fact that there's no insurance here depends on how
the HOA.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
Is written up common areas. I don't know common walls.
Speaker 2 (30:53):
I have no idea, but you not having your own
personal insurance that covers.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
You is kind of crazy. So you can sue him
for negligence.
Speaker 2 (31:04):
And he's going to owe you the money, but the
rents and what are you gonna do with the good
news is all the money you've lost in that the
fifty thousand dollars of repair is tax deductible. Now I'm
assuming you're not making a chunk of money on the
unit every month?
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Correct, No, okay, yeah, that's correct. Yeah, you got a.
Speaker 2 (31:25):
Real issue in your hands. All you can do, I
think is sue is sue the tenant. Hopefully you have
to look at the HOA insurance because I don't know
I had units, and I don't remember if I bought
or didn't.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
I would think I did buy insurance to cover everything.
Speaker 2 (31:39):
All right, let me tell you about your bad breath,
and man, you have plenty of it, we all do.
Speaker 3 (31:45):
So let me suggest a way out of it. With
Zelman's minty Mouthman's tiny little capsules that you swallow. First
of all, there's mint coded coded with mint. You suck
on the mint, then they're gone. The mint is gone.
Speaker 2 (31:58):
Then you swallow or by to them in the parsley
seed oil and the capsules goes to work inside the gut.
Speaker 3 (32:03):
And other men's don't do that. And that works on
bad breath and if you have dry mouth, that helps.
And also they just make it feel good.
Speaker 2 (32:12):
You know, there's nothing like when you brush your teeth,
for example, you have that fresh feeling we do with hours.
Speaker 3 (32:16):
With Zelman's Vinte Mouthmans. These things really work.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
So let me suggest you get a hold of Zelman's
Zelmans dot com z E L M I n s
dot com fifteen percent off when you use the code
handle at checkout and take advantage of the fifteen percent
Zelmans dot com.
Speaker 3 (32:35):
This is Handle on the Law. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (32:40):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.