Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Phone number here eight hundred five two zero one five
three four. Eight hundred five two zero one five three
four For the kind of advice I give you in
the legal world, always at the top of the hour
we start the show, and the eight o'clock hour always
the best time to call.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Eight hundred five two zero one five three four.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Also have no idea, but some days we go for
two hours with the lines all being jammed busy, you
can't call in. So top of the hour generally is
the best time to call. Certainly is now eight hundred
five two zero one five three four.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
This is handle on.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
The law, marginal legal advice where I tell you have
absolutely no case. The Biden administration, which is soon to
be well it is on the way out, has finally
done something that I don't know why it hasn't before.
It's a pro consumer while policy. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(01:00):
has finalized the rule that basically curbs those overdraft fees,
the kind that if you go into overdraft by three dollars,
they cover it.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
We're good guys, the banks say they covered.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
By the way, We're gonna charge you thirty five dollars
every time you do that, and any some really nasty habits,
and people end up with hundreds of dollars in fees
on overdraft.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
It's suspicable. And the government has let that happen.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
And finally, what is it, just a few weeks out
of the end of the administration. Okay, we're stopping and
consumer is gonna save maybe five billion dollars a year.
The rule, which was just unveiled, would cap overdraft fees
at five bucks. That's it, five dollars instead of the
thirty five dollars in a typical household. Well, household in
(01:52):
general that do pay overdraft fees will save about two
hundred and twenty five dollars per year. Now we're talking
about what twenty five five hundred Well, no, I can't
do the math here, but it's still insane. Now, of course,
the Banking Trade Group saying, oh, no, no, no, we
don't want to play.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
We don't want this new law because it could backfire.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
You see, it's for charging thirty five dollars is a
good thing. Charging five dollars is a bad thing. And
they said, look, we've already done. We have next day
grace periods where instead of overdraft fees going into affect
twelve oh one am.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
The minute the month is over.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Look, we give you an extra day, and we have
the elimination of non sufficient fun fees. If you go
an SF we're not going to charge you the ridiculous
amount we used to charge you.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Therefore, we've been helping you.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
So the bottom line is just these two innovations are
pro consumer. So let's make sure we keep the thirty
five dollar fee. Let's like Big Pharma. I just loved
Big Pharma when the government came down and started saying, okay,
nomad pays more than thirty five dollars if you're on Medicare,
no one pays more than thirty five dollars for insulin
(03:09):
instead of one hundreds of dollars. And the major pharmaceutical
associations came back and said, wait a minute, more money
that consumer spends is better for the consumer. It's not
for us that we charge so much money. It's for
you we charged so much money. They actually said that,
By the way, I'm not exaggerating on that one.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Same thing here with the banks, thirty.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Five dollars per overdraft fee is better for you than
five dollars.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
They haven't quite figured out.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
They didn't really put the dots together. They didn't connect
the dots on that one because they did say, well,
look what we have done in renovation, innovation, Okay, overdraft
fees we're not gonna deal with.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
And you have a one day grace period. Well thank you.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
How does that have to do with thirty five dollars? Well,
let's talk about how good we are. I mean, that's crazy.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
All right, So much for that. Let's go ahead and
start with some phone calls. All right, John, Hello, John,
welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Hello there, this is a question about filial responsibility. Quick background,
My wife's father bailed on them when they were five.
The mother ended up being extremely abusive. We bailed her
out a few times, out of jail, but of debt
and things. We still get collective calls for her. My
wife has not been in touch with her for ten years,
(04:35):
but she had no money up to now. Her dad
passed away. She came into a small inheritance and some property,
and up pops this thing we saw about filial responsibility,
it's on the books in thirty states, including California. We
want to know if we can protect ourselves.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Yeah, no, it's not a question protecting from I have
no responsibility to pay for especially elder people's bills.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
You're on your own. I don't quite get that. I
have to look that up, and you might look back
that you have the fact.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
That you have no relationship, and all that is is
just incidental to it.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
They don't care, you know, they don't.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Care a lot. Obviously it's my wife's mother. It's supposedly
a child. Point into the law in the books a child.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
I have to look that up. Do you have on that?
Do you have a that's that's news to me.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Do you have a segment on that, or do you
have a what do you call it, a legislative number
on that?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
That would be helpful.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
I don't have the legislative number. I wish I had, John.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
You know what, I'm going to look that up, because
it doesn't make any sense to me where a child,
an adult child has to take care of adult parents.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I have a heart believe back in eighteen seventy two.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
All right, thank you very much. Now we're going to
get a history lesson. I love this. I love this.
I love this.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
By the way, before we go and take a break,
a quick word about the Pain Game podcast. Uh if
you're a chronic pain or the trauma that goes with
chronic pain. Let me tell you about excuse me, the
Pain Game Podcast. It's about dealing with pain. The podcast
is funny. The guests that lived with, dealt with have
treated those living in pain, so it's also very serious.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
The host Lindsey has been.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Dealing with pain chronic Pain twenty four to seven for
years and every episode ends with a message of hope.
I mean this is if you're in pain, chronic pain,
you want to listen to this. It's the Pain Game Podcast.
The Pain Game Podcast. Phone number here eight hundred five
two zero one five three four. Eight hundred five two
zero one five three four For the kind of advice
(06:39):
I give you in the legal world, always at the
top of the hour we start the show, and the
eight o'clock hour always the best time to call. Eight
hundred five two zero one five three four. Also, I
have no idea, but some days we go for two
hours with the lines all being jammed busy, you can't
call in, so top of the hour where generally is
(07:01):
the best time to call, certainly is now eight hundred
and five two zero one five three four. This is
handle on the law marginal legal advice where I tell
you have absolutely no case. The Biden administration, which is
soon to be well it is on the way out,
has finally done something that I don't know why it
(07:23):
hasn't before. It's a pro consumer while policy. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau has finalized the rule that basically curbs those
overdraft fees, the kind that if you go into overdraft
by three dollars, they cover it.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
We're good guys. The banks say they covered it.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
By the way, we're gonna charge you thirty five dollars
every time you do that, and a some really nasty
habits and people end up with hundreds of dollars in
fees on overdraft. It's suspicable, and the government has let
that happen. And finally, what is it, just a few
weeks out of the end of the administration. Okay, we're
(08:05):
stopping and consumer is going to save maybe five billion.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
The rule which was just unveiled with cap over draft
fees at five bucks. That's it, five dollars instead of
the thirty five dollars in a typical household, well household
in general that do pay overdraft fees we'll save about
two hundred and twenty five dollars per year. Now we're
talking about what twenty five hundred Well, no, I can't
(08:35):
do the math here, but it's still insane. Now, of course,
the Banking Trade Group saying, oh, no, no, no, we
don't want to pay it. We don't want this new
law because it could backfire. You see, it's for charging
thirty five dollars is a good thing. Charging five dollars
is a bad thing. And they said, look, we've already done.
We have next day grace periods where instead of overdraft
(08:59):
fees going into affect twelve oh one am the minute
the month is.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Over, look, we give you an extra day.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
And we have the elimination of non sufficient fund fees.
If you go in SF, we're not going to charge
you the ridiculous amount we used to charge you.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Therefore, we've been helping you.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
So the bottom line is just these two innovations are
pro consumer, So let's make sure we keep the thirty
five dollars fee.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Let's like big pharma.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
I just loved a big pharma when the government came
down and started saying, okay, nomad pays more than thirty
five dollars. If you're on Medicare, no one pays more
than thirty five dollars for insulin instead of one hundreds
of dollars. And the major pharmaceutical associations came back and said,
wait a minute, more money that consumer spends is better
(09:51):
for the consumer. It's not for us that we charge
so much money. It's for you we charge so much money.
They actually said that, By the way, I'm not exaggerating.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
On that one. Same thing here with the banks, thirty.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Five dollars per overdraft fee is better for you than
five dollars. They haven't quite figured out. They didn't really
put the dots together. They didn't connect the dots on
that one, because they did say, well, look what we
have done in renovation, innovation. Okay, overdraft fees we're not
gonna deal with, and you have one day grace period.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Well thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
How does that have to do with thirty five dollars. Well,
let's talk about how good we are.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
I mean, that's crazy. All right, So much for that.
Let's go ahead and start with some phone calls. All right, John, Hello, John,
welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Hello, there, this is a question about filial responsibility quick background.
My wife saw the bailed on them when they were five.
The mother ended up being extremely abusive. We bailed her
out a few times, out of jail, but of debt things.
We still get collectives calls for her. My wife has
not been in touch with her for ten years, but
(11:07):
she had no money up to now. Her dad passed away.
She came into a small inheritance and some property and
up pops This thing we saw about filial responsibility. It's
on the books in thirty states, including California. We want
to know if we can protect ourselves.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, no, it's not a question protecting from Do you
have no responsibility to pay for especially elder people's bills.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You're on your own. I don't quite get that. I
have to look that up, and.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
You might even look at that.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
You have the fact that you have no relationship, and
all that is is just incidental to it.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
They don't care, you know, they don't.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Care life my wife. Obviously, it's my wife's mother. It's
supposedly a child, according to the law in the books,
a child.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
I have to look that up. Do you feel that
do you have a That's that's news to me.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Do you have a segment on that, or do you
have a what do you call it, a legislative number
on that?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
That would be helpful.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
I don't have the legislative number which I had, you know.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
What, I'm gonna look that up because it doesn't make
any sense to me. Where a child an adult child,
it has to take care of adult parents.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
I have a heart back in eighteen seventy two.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
All right, thank you very much. Now we're gonna get
a history lesson. I love this. I love this. I
love this.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
By the way, before we go and take a break,
a quick word about the Pain Game Podcast. Uh, if
you're a chronic pain or the trauma that goes with
chronic pain, let me tell you about, excuse me, the
Pain Game Podcast. It's about dealing with pain. The podcast
is funny. The guests have lived with, dealt with, have
treated those living in pain, so it's also very serious.
(12:46):
The host, Lindsay has been dealing with pain chronic pain
twenty four to seven for years and every episode ends
with a message of hope. I mean this is if
you're in pain, chronic pain, you want to listen to this.
It's the Pain Game Podcast. The Pain Game Podcast, Linda,
you are high LANDA.
Speaker 5 (13:05):
You're up morning, Yes, morning, Thanks for taking my time.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Sure, I love taking your time.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Go ahead, Oh god, I'm giving your time. I meant
to say, I'll tell you what we have here. My
husband has had an aunt that passed away with the trust,
had a daughter, and two months after she passed away,
her daughter died and left did not go on with
(13:32):
the trust. Now, my husband, my husband, was the is
the executor.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
If the daughter a trustee, your husband is the trustee.
Speaker 4 (13:41):
Trust.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Now everybody gets confused. Is it a trust or is
it a will? It's a trust. It's a trust, and
all the assets are in the trust. Correct, okay? And
the first trustee.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Dies right, and the second trustee dies right?
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Okay, both of them, the mother, I got it.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
They both they both died on you. They got some
up and crooked on you. Now is two things. Is
there a successor trustee named after the daughter?
Speaker 5 (14:10):
No?
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Now the other question is who is who is the
beneficiary under the trust?
Speaker 5 (14:17):
I guess it was the daughter because she never.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
She got she was supposed to be the beneficiary. She's
the trustee and she was the only beneficiary. They got
all the money, correct, Okay? Well, first of all, you
don't have to worry about it because the daughter has
it all and she's the one. Her heirs are going
to be the one that are going to collect her children.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
No, she had no children, she was never married. The
only relatives she had, Okay, would be my husband and
his sister's children.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Okay, hang on, how close? Wait a second. How close
is your husband to her aunt uncle?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Oh? He was, It was originally his aunt. It is
just the daughter was his first cousin.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Okay, and he is the aunt and he is the uncle.
Speaker 5 (15:07):
No, he's the cousin and the daughters.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
I get so confused here. Okay, then you have so
he No, no, it's not. That's not your fault.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
That's me.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I have no problem blaming people for confusion, but this
one's on me, all right.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
So he the husband is cousin. Uh.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
The only people that are left are uh, cousins. So
it's cousin against So it's cousin against cousin.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
Right, Well, it is nobody's against it. It went to probate.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
No, and what are the probo Okay, what are you saying? Probate?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
And by the way, trusts don't go to probate that's
what part is confusing.
Speaker 5 (15:42):
Well, I don't know either because I don't know, but.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Thanks for calling. It went to probate. No, we stopped
right there. Trust do not go to probate.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Okay, Now it's a little complicated because, uh, the heirs
get it and it's cousin against conson. All the cousins
split it up, and you have to hire trust in
a state lawyer. That's how it works.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Zorak or Zorak? Do I have that right?
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Yes? You do?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Where you're from? Zak?
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Good morning, Bill, Good morning where you're from?
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Huh?
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Armenian, Armenia.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Okay, yeah, so you don't do turkey for Thanksgiving? Do you?
Speaker 4 (16:20):
No? I didn't think so.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
By the way, that's Armenian out there right, completely understand
that joke.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
All right, what can I call?
Speaker 4 (16:29):
Okay, the reason I called about a year and a
half ago, I walked to this dental office with a
broken bridge, and the doctor asks the situation. I was
coated for ten thousand dollars, including four thousand dollars for
the bone craft and six thousand dollars for two implants,
and I agree, I signed the contract to start doing
(16:50):
the process. Okay, recently I went online, I checked to YouTube.
It looked like that the bone graph was never done
before because this is a linked process.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Okay, what you're saying is.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
A bonegraph was never done. Right, they charge you for
a bone graph that they didn't do.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Is that correct?
Speaker 4 (17:14):
They didn't Yeah?
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
And by the way, it's not that no one cares
about you saying that, Zoric because first question I'm going
to ask.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
You is where did you go to dental school? Oh? Bill,
I haven't.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
So you are fighting a dental office and you have
no expertise and no credibility.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Now go to another dentist, Zorik. Okay, because the other.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Dentist is going to know if a bone graft has
been done or not. That's going to take about ten
seconds for another dentist to figure it out.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
And if it turns out that there was no.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Bone graft done and he charged you for it, now
it blows up. Now it gets really interesting because not
only do you have a small claim suit where you
just bring in whoever said it's not I'd go after
the dental license of the dentists who charged you and
didn't do.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
It, because that's just fraud right on his face. Okay,
you're good.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
Two months ago I went to the office and I
complained about not getting that what you call it, the
bone graph done. They changed the story. They said, no,
we did three implants.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
So what did they say, What did they say? What
was the paper? What did the PaperWorks say they were
going to do?
Speaker 1 (18:29):
They did not.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
They did not give me any paper, nothing.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
They just said it. Okay, well that's that.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Now you're saying, uh, which I have a hard time believing.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
There are no notes or anything. Here you go. We
just did three implants. No, we never said one.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
We didn't. We never said bone graph. No we didn't
say any of it. Now you come back and say,
you charge me for a bone graph.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
No, no, we didn't. We never said that.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
So I walked to another dental office. I had a
full mount seated scan, which reveals that there are only
two implants, not three.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
But you said they did three implants, so you took
out an implant.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
They're telling me they did three implants.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Okay, but but they're only telling you this, so you
have nothing in writing, right, you have no way to
prove Okay, that's the problem. That's the problem is your
your word versus their word, and you're gonna say, yeah,
you told me, and they're gonna go, no, we didn't.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
You see the problem with that.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Yes, And it's hard to believe that there was no
paperwork handed to you saying this is I just had
dental work done, Okay, I just literally I had a
cavity years and years ago.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
It was a deep cavity, and my tooth broke right
at the gum line, and I had this bill. I
had a hole in my mouth.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Where the tooth was, to the point where on my
morning show, I said, I'm going to the dentis today
because if you think I want to keep on looking,
I feel like I have to go to a NASCAR
race and eat squirrel soup for lunch.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
And I mean, it looked that bad.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
So I went to the dentist and I have to
put a crown on it. And there the dentist did
a few things and I have to go back, but
there it wasn't writing. There, it was crown. We're putting
on a crown, and this is what we're going to charge.
And I say, you're going to charge that much money
for a crown?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
And the dentist said, you want to do it? Yourself.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Go right ahead, this is what I charge. Now she
happens to be a superb dentist. I said, okay. But
the point is it's all in writing, Zurich, and that
is important. So there's something in writing out there. Unless
you just walked in the door and they said, here's
what we're going to do. And when did you pay
after the fact? Did you pay upfront?
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Well, I think they shook payments before finishing the whole job.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
All right, you've got yeah, I don't know what you
want to tell you.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
I mean I would sue them. I'd get some expertise
in there. But you're going to get a dentist. It's
going to say I don't know. Yeah, here's the work
they did, and it looks good to me, or it
looks bad to me, then you have a malpractice suit.
But let's say it looks good to me, and that's
all you have. The dennist says, yeah, it's fine. And
you say, but you told me you were only you know,
do two?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
They say, no, we didn't. Now it's on them that
there's no paperwork.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
By the way, it helps use auric that there is
no paperwork, because it's their duty to provide the paperwork.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Jane, Hi, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 4 (21:29):
I can?
Speaker 6 (21:30):
My husband. My husband gave oh, we wanted to get
ADU and he gave the guy one hundred and twenty thousand.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
Hm.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
You want to build a secondary for people that don't
know ADUs or secondary units that you can put on
your home and they're even if the zoning doesn't allow it.
California law because it wants more density once more housing
says you can put it on your property. So you
were putting an ADU. You gave a one hundred and
twenty five thousand dollars upfront.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
To do it? Yes, oh, yes, so this is you
know where this one's gonna go. Okay and let me okay, hold.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
On, I am wait, hold on. I am now going
to be a mentalist.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Jane.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
You gave him one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars
and he didn't do it.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Right, it's been a half years, two and.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
A half years that he didn't do it. This is boy.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
You're very very topical and certainly right on time with
this phone call. Now, is there a written agreement as
to what you're going to do? Is there a contract.
Is he a licensed contractor?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Real? Clear?
Speaker 6 (22:43):
My husband is the one that did everything because it
was his father's inheritance.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
So I get involved.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I don't care. I don't care.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Was there a that I should talk to him? Was
there a written contract? Was there a bid? Was there
Here's what I'm gonna do?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Yes or no?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Okay?
Speaker 5 (23:03):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (23:03):
And he just didn't show up and he paid the
whole amount of front. Why would your husband do that?
Why would you pay for a construction job up front?
Speaker 6 (23:13):
I told my husband you would ask, you would ask.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
Yeah. And by the way, the law and by the way,
him even taking the money is against the law.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
You know that you can't ask for more than ten percent? Okay,
can't ask for it? So yeah, So now you have
to sue him.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
And if he's a licensed contractor that has a bond,
you know you're going to sue him. Now does he
have assets? I don't know. Is he a legitimate contractor?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
I don't know. Have you checked on his have you
checked on his license?
Speaker 6 (23:46):
He said he has licenses.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Okay, did you check? Did you check?
Speaker 4 (23:50):
No?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Okay, Well, what's your question.
Speaker 6 (23:55):
But so my husband contacted a lawyer, and basically lawyer
said a thousands and thousands, and there's nothing that could
be done.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
That's correct.
Speaker 6 (24:03):
I'm at a point I lost we've lost the money
because my husband was an idiot. But I don't want
this guy going around this to everybody. I want you
to get in trouble.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Okay, Well, if he's licensed, it's the contractor's license board. Uh,
and you complain to them and you file a claim.
If he's not licensed and he took your money, uh,
that's a criminal violation.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
And that's plenty of money.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
So you want to talk to the criminal authorities, the
DA's office, or you call the or you call the
contractor's license board and say, I understand that you don't
have jurisdiction over him because he's not licensed.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Who do I go to in the DA's office. That's
what you're gonna do. Do you know where he is? Do
you know where he is?
Speaker 6 (24:45):
Yes? Yeah, we've been to his place.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Okay, so you know what? So you know where he is? Okay? Uh?
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Is there a sporting goods store anywhere near there where
you can pick up a baseball bat?
Speaker 5 (25:00):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Yeah? What else do you do on that?
Speaker 4 (25:03):
One?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
One hundred and twenty five thousand, dollars up front.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Good God, I want to tell you about It's Christmas time,
holiday time, which means people's stockings are out there, and
you need stocking stuffers. And you have a couple of
choices cocaine and a little vial way too expensive, Japanese
blow up dolls, way too big. So let me suggest
a little package or several packages of Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
These things there's about.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Fifty minuts inside these things, and there are capsules that
you actually you suck on because that's the minty flavor
on the outside. And then when you're done with that,
either bite into them or you swallow, and they go
down into your gut where bad breath can does start
stay there, and it takes care of it on both sides,
because bad breath is both sides, mouth and stomach. And
(25:53):
Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints, well, there's nothing like it anywhere.
I mean, I just I've known these people for thirty years,
so until December thirty one. Here's the offer if you
buy a three pack or more automatic discount. That's an
automatic discount if you buy a three pack or more,
So go to Zelmans dot com slash kfi zelmans dot
(26:18):
com slash kfi.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
That's my home studio.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
That's ZELMAN'SZ E L M I N S. Zelman's dot
com slash kfi. This is handle on the law
Phone number here eight hundred five two zero one five
three four. Eight hundred five two zero one five three
four For the kind of advice I give you in
the legal world, always at the top of the hour
we start the show, and the eight o'clock hour always
the best time to call.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
Eight hundred five two zero one five three four.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
Also have no idea, but some days we go for
two hours with the lines all being jammed busy, you
can't call in. So top of the hour generally is
the best time to call. Certainly is now eight hundred
five two zero one five three four.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
This is handle on.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
The law, marginal legal advice where I tell you have
absolutely no case. The Biden administration, which is soon to
be well it is on the way out, has finally
done something that I don't know why it hasn't before.
It's a pro consumer while policy. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(01:00):
has finalized the rule that basically curbs those overdraft fees,
the kind that if you go into overdraft by three dollars,
they cover it.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
We're good guys, the banks say they covered.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
By the way, We're gonna charge you thirty five dollars
every time you do that, and any some really nasty habits,
and people end up with hundreds of dollars in fees
on overdraft.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
It's suspicable. And the government has let that happen.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
And finally, what is it, just a few weeks out
of the end of the administration. Okay, we're stopping and
consumer is gonna save maybe five billion dollars a year.
The rule, which was just unveiled, would cap overdraft fees
at five bucks. That's it, five dollars instead of the
thirty five dollars in a typical household. Well, household in
(01:52):
general that do pay overdraft fees will save about two
hundred and twenty five dollars per year. Now we're talking
about what twenty five five hundred Well, no, I can't
do the math here, but it's still insane. Now, of course,
the Banking Trade Group saying, oh, no, no, no, we
don't want to play.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
We don't want this new law because it could backfire.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
You see, it's for charging thirty five dollars is a
good thing. Charging five dollars is a bad thing. And
they said, look, we've already done. We have next day
grace periods where instead of overdraft fees going into affect
twelve oh one am.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
The minute the month is over.
Speaker 1 (02:34):
Look, we give you an extra day, and we have
the elimination of non sufficient fun fees. If you go
an SF we're not going to charge you the ridiculous
amount we used to charge you.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Therefore, we've been helping you.
Speaker 1 (02:47):
So the bottom line is just these two innovations are
pro consumer. So let's make sure we keep the thirty
five dollar fee. Let's like Big Pharma. I just loved
Big Pharma when the government came down and started saying, okay,
nomad pays more than thirty five dollars if you're on Medicare,
no one pays more than thirty five dollars for insulin
(03:09):
instead of one hundreds of dollars. And the major pharmaceutical
associations came back and said, wait a minute, more money
that consumer spends is better for the consumer. It's not
for us that we charge so much money. It's for
you we charged so much money. They actually said that,
By the way, I'm not exaggerating on that one.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Same thing here with the banks, thirty.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Five dollars per overdraft fee is better for you than
five dollars.
Speaker 2 (03:41):
They haven't quite figured out.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
They didn't really put the dots together. They didn't connect
the dots on that one because they did say, well,
look what we have done in renovation, innovation, Okay, overdraft
fees we're not gonna deal with.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
And you have a one day grace period. Well thank you.
Speaker 1 (03:57):
How does that have to do with thirty five dollars? Well,
let's talk about how good we are. I mean, that's crazy.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
All right, So much for that. Let's go ahead and
start with some phone calls. All right, John, Hello, John,
welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Hello there, this is a question about filial responsibility. Quick background,
My wife's father bailed on them when they were five.
The mother ended up being extremely abusive. We bailed her
out a few times, out of jail, but of debt
and things. We still get collective calls for her. My
wife has not been in touch with her for ten years,
(04:35):
but she had no money up to now. Her dad
passed away. She came into a small inheritance and some property,
and up pops this thing we saw about filial responsibility,
it's on the books in thirty states, including California. We
want to know if we can protect ourselves.
Speaker 1 (04:54):
Yeah, no, it's not a question protecting from I have
no responsibility to pay for especially elder people's bills.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
You're on your own. I don't quite get that. I
have to look that up, and you might look back
that you have the fact.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
That you have no relationship, and all that is is
just incidental to it.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
They don't care, you know, they don't.
Speaker 3 (05:12):
Care a lot. Obviously it's my wife's mother. It's supposedly
a child. Point into the law in the books a child.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
I have to look that up. Do you have on that?
Do you have a that's that's news to me.
Speaker 1 (05:23):
Do you have a segment on that, or do you
have a what do you call it, a legislative number
on that?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
That would be helpful.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
I don't have the legislative number. I wish I had, John.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
You know what, I'm going to look that up, because
it doesn't make any sense to me where a child,
an adult child has to take care of adult parents.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
I have a heart believe back in eighteen seventy two.
Speaker 2 (05:48):
All right, thank you very much. Now we're going to
get a history lesson. I love this. I love this.
I love this.
Speaker 1 (05:54):
By the way, before we go and take a break,
a quick word about the Pain Game podcast. Uh if
you're a chronic pain or the trauma that goes with
chronic pain. Let me tell you about excuse me, the
Pain Game Podcast. It's about dealing with pain. The podcast
is funny. The guests that lived with, dealt with have
treated those living in pain, so it's also very serious.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
The host Lindsey has been.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
Dealing with pain chronic Pain twenty four to seven for
years and every episode ends with a message of hope.
I mean this is if you're in pain, chronic pain,
you want to listen to this. It's the Pain Game Podcast.
The Pain Game Podcast. Phone number here eight hundred five
two zero one five three four. Eight hundred five two
zero one five three four For the kind of advice
(06:39):
I give you in the legal world, always at the
top of the hour we start the show, and the
eight o'clock hour always the best time to call. Eight
hundred five two zero one five three four. Also, I
have no idea, but some days we go for two
hours with the lines all being jammed busy, you can't
call in, so top of the hour where generally is
(07:01):
the best time to call, certainly is now eight hundred
and five two zero one five three four. This is
handle on the law marginal legal advice where I tell
you have absolutely no case. The Biden administration, which is
soon to be well it is on the way out,
has finally done something that I don't know why it
(07:23):
hasn't before. It's a pro consumer while policy. Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau has finalized the rule that basically curbs those
overdraft fees, the kind that if you go into overdraft
by three dollars, they cover it.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
We're good guys. The banks say they covered it.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
By the way, we're gonna charge you thirty five dollars
every time you do that, and a some really nasty
habits and people end up with hundreds of dollars in
fees on overdraft. It's suspicable, and the government has let
that happen. And finally, what is it, just a few
weeks out of the end of the administration. Okay, we're
(08:05):
stopping and consumer is going to save maybe five billion.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Dollars a year.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
The rule which was just unveiled with cap over draft
fees at five bucks. That's it, five dollars instead of
the thirty five dollars in a typical household, well household
in general that do pay overdraft fees we'll save about
two hundred and twenty five dollars per year. Now we're
talking about what twenty five hundred Well, no, I can't
(08:35):
do the math here, but it's still insane. Now, of course,
the Banking Trade Group saying, oh, no, no, no, we
don't want to pay it. We don't want this new
law because it could backfire. You see, it's for charging
thirty five dollars is a good thing. Charging five dollars
is a bad thing. And they said, look, we've already done.
We have next day grace periods where instead of overdraft
(08:59):
fees going into affect twelve oh one am the minute
the month is.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Over, look, we give you an extra day.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
And we have the elimination of non sufficient fund fees.
If you go in SF, we're not going to charge
you the ridiculous amount we used to charge you.
Speaker 2 (09:16):
Therefore, we've been helping you.
Speaker 1 (09:18):
So the bottom line is just these two innovations are
pro consumer, So let's make sure we keep the thirty
five dollars fee.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Let's like big pharma.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
I just loved a big pharma when the government came
down and started saying, okay, nomad pays more than thirty
five dollars. If you're on Medicare, no one pays more
than thirty five dollars for insulin instead of one hundreds
of dollars. And the major pharmaceutical associations came back and said,
wait a minute, more money that consumer spends is better
(09:51):
for the consumer. It's not for us that we charge
so much money. It's for you we charge so much money.
They actually said that, By the way, I'm not exaggerating.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
On that one. Same thing here with the banks, thirty.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
Five dollars per overdraft fee is better for you than
five dollars. They haven't quite figured out. They didn't really
put the dots together. They didn't connect the dots on
that one, because they did say, well, look what we
have done in renovation, innovation. Okay, overdraft fees we're not
gonna deal with, and you have one day grace period.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Well thank you.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
How does that have to do with thirty five dollars. Well,
let's talk about how good we are.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
I mean, that's crazy. All right, So much for that.
Let's go ahead and start with some phone calls. All right, John, Hello, John,
welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Hello, there, this is a question about filial responsibility quick background.
My wife saw the bailed on them when they were five.
The mother ended up being extremely abusive. We bailed her
out a few times, out of jail, but of debt things.
We still get collectives calls for her. My wife has
not been in touch with her for ten years, but
(11:07):
she had no money up to now. Her dad passed away.
She came into a small inheritance and some property and
up pops This thing we saw about filial responsibility. It's
on the books in thirty states, including California. We want
to know if we can protect ourselves.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
Yeah, no, it's not a question protecting from Do you
have no responsibility to pay for especially elder people's bills.
Speaker 2 (11:31):
You're on your own. I don't quite get that. I
have to look that up, and.
Speaker 4 (11:36):
You might even look at that.
Speaker 1 (11:37):
You have the fact that you have no relationship, and
all that is is just incidental to it.
Speaker 2 (11:41):
They don't care, you know, they don't.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Care life my wife. Obviously, it's my wife's mother. It's
supposedly a child, according to the law in the books,
a child.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
I have to look that up. Do you feel that
do you have a That's that's news to me.
Speaker 1 (11:54):
Do you have a segment on that, or do you
have a what do you call it, a legislative number
on that?
Speaker 2 (12:01):
That would be helpful.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
I don't have the legislative number which I had, you know.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
What, I'm gonna look that up because it doesn't make
any sense to me. Where a child an adult child,
it has to take care of adult parents.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
I have a heart back in eighteen seventy two.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
All right, thank you very much. Now we're gonna get
a history lesson. I love this. I love this. I
love this.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
By the way, before we go and take a break,
a quick word about the Pain Game Podcast. Uh, if
you're a chronic pain or the trauma that goes with
chronic pain, let me tell you about, excuse me, the
Pain Game Podcast. It's about dealing with pain. The podcast
is funny. The guests have lived with, dealt with, have
treated those living in pain, so it's also very serious.
(12:46):
The host, Lindsay has been dealing with pain chronic pain
twenty four to seven for years and every episode ends
with a message of hope. I mean this is if
you're in pain, chronic pain, you want to listen to this.
It's the Pain Game Podcast. The Pain Game Podcast, Linda,
you are high LANDA.
Speaker 5 (13:05):
You're up morning, Yes, morning, Thanks for taking my time.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Sure, I love taking your time.
Speaker 5 (13:11):
Go ahead, Oh god, I'm giving your time. I meant
to say, I'll tell you what we have here. My
husband has had an aunt that passed away with the trust,
had a daughter, and two months after she passed away,
her daughter died and left did not go on with
(13:32):
the trust. Now, my husband, my husband, was the is
the executor.
Speaker 1 (13:37):
If the daughter a trustee, your husband is the trustee.
Speaker 4 (13:41):
Trust.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Now everybody gets confused. Is it a trust or is
it a will? It's a trust. It's a trust, and
all the assets are in the trust. Correct, okay? And
the first trustee.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Dies right, and the second trustee dies right?
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Okay, both of them, the mother, I got it.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
They both they both died on you. They got some
up and crooked on you. Now is two things. Is
there a successor trustee named after the daughter?
Speaker 5 (14:10):
No?
Speaker 2 (14:10):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
Now the other question is who is who is the
beneficiary under the trust?
Speaker 5 (14:17):
I guess it was the daughter because she never.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
She got she was supposed to be the beneficiary. She's
the trustee and she was the only beneficiary. They got
all the money, correct, Okay? Well, first of all, you
don't have to worry about it because the daughter has
it all and she's the one. Her heirs are going
to be the one that are going to collect her children.
Speaker 5 (14:39):
No, she had no children, she was never married. The
only relatives she had, Okay, would be my husband and
his sister's children.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
Okay, hang on, how close? Wait a second. How close
is your husband to her aunt uncle?
Speaker 5 (14:56):
Oh? He was, It was originally his aunt. It is
just the daughter was his first cousin.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Okay, and he is the aunt and he is the uncle.
Speaker 5 (15:07):
No, he's the cousin and the daughters.
Speaker 1 (15:10):
I get so confused here. Okay, then you have so
he No, no, it's not. That's not your fault.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
That's me.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
I have no problem blaming people for confusion, but this
one's on me, all right.
Speaker 2 (15:20):
So he the husband is cousin. Uh.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
The only people that are left are uh, cousins. So
it's cousin against So it's cousin against cousin.
Speaker 5 (15:33):
Right, Well, it is nobody's against it. It went to probate.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
No, and what are the probo Okay, what are you saying? Probate?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
And by the way, trusts don't go to probate that's
what part is confusing.
Speaker 5 (15:42):
Well, I don't know either because I don't know, but.
Speaker 2 (15:46):
Thanks for calling. It went to probate. No, we stopped
right there. Trust do not go to probate.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Okay, Now it's a little complicated because, uh, the heirs
get it and it's cousin against conson. All the cousins
split it up, and you have to hire trust in
a state lawyer. That's how it works.
Speaker 2 (16:05):
Zorak or Zorak? Do I have that right?
Speaker 4 (16:08):
Yes? You do?
Speaker 2 (16:09):
Where you're from? Zak?
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Good morning, Bill, Good morning where you're from?
Speaker 2 (16:13):
Huh?
Speaker 4 (16:13):
Armenian, Armenia.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Okay, yeah, so you don't do turkey for Thanksgiving? Do you?
Speaker 4 (16:20):
No? I didn't think so.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
By the way, that's Armenian out there right, completely understand
that joke.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
All right, what can I call?
Speaker 4 (16:29):
Okay, the reason I called about a year and a
half ago, I walked to this dental office with a
broken bridge, and the doctor asks the situation. I was
coated for ten thousand dollars, including four thousand dollars for
the bone craft and six thousand dollars for two implants,
and I agree, I signed the contract to start doing
(16:50):
the process. Okay, recently I went online, I checked to YouTube.
It looked like that the bone graph was never done
before because this is a linked process.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
Okay, what you're saying is.
Speaker 1 (17:09):
A bonegraph was never done. Right, they charge you for
a bone graph that they didn't do.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Is that correct?
Speaker 4 (17:14):
They didn't Yeah?
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
And by the way, it's not that no one cares
about you saying that, Zoric because first question I'm going
to ask.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
You is where did you go to dental school? Oh? Bill,
I haven't.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
So you are fighting a dental office and you have
no expertise and no credibility.
Speaker 2 (17:32):
Now go to another dentist, Zorik. Okay, because the other.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Dentist is going to know if a bone graft has
been done or not. That's going to take about ten
seconds for another dentist to figure it out.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
And if it turns out that there was no.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
Bone graft done and he charged you for it, now
it blows up. Now it gets really interesting because not
only do you have a small claim suit where you
just bring in whoever said it's not I'd go after
the dental license of the dentists who charged you and
didn't do.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
It, because that's just fraud right on his face. Okay,
you're good.
Speaker 5 (18:12):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (18:12):
Two months ago I went to the office and I
complained about not getting that what you call it, the
bone graph done. They changed the story. They said, no,
we did three implants.
Speaker 2 (18:24):
So what did they say, What did they say? What
was the paper? What did the PaperWorks say they were
going to do?
Speaker 1 (18:29):
They did not.
Speaker 4 (18:30):
They did not give me any paper, nothing.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
They just said it. Okay, well that's that.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
Now you're saying, uh, which I have a hard time believing.
Speaker 2 (18:37):
There are no notes or anything. Here you go. We
just did three implants. No, we never said one.
Speaker 1 (18:42):
We didn't. We never said bone graph. No we didn't
say any of it. Now you come back and say,
you charge me for a bone graph.
Speaker 2 (18:48):
No, no, we didn't. We never said that.
Speaker 4 (18:52):
So I walked to another dental office. I had a
full mount seated scan, which reveals that there are only
two implants, not three.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
But you said they did three implants, so you took
out an implant.
Speaker 4 (19:06):
They're telling me they did three implants.
Speaker 1 (19:08):
Okay, but but they're only telling you this, so you
have nothing in writing, right, you have no way to
prove Okay, that's the problem. That's the problem is your
your word versus their word, and you're gonna say, yeah,
you told me, and they're gonna go, no, we didn't.
Speaker 2 (19:25):
You see the problem with that.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Yes, And it's hard to believe that there was no
paperwork handed to you saying this is I just had
dental work done, Okay, I just literally I had a
cavity years and years ago.
Speaker 2 (19:39):
It was a deep cavity, and my tooth broke right
at the gum line, and I had this bill. I
had a hole in my mouth.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Where the tooth was, to the point where on my
morning show, I said, I'm going to the dentis today
because if you think I want to keep on looking,
I feel like I have to go to a NASCAR
race and eat squirrel soup for lunch.
Speaker 2 (20:00):
And I mean, it looked that bad.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
So I went to the dentist and I have to
put a crown on it. And there the dentist did
a few things and I have to go back, but
there it wasn't writing. There, it was crown. We're putting
on a crown, and this is what we're going to charge.
And I say, you're going to charge that much money
for a crown?
Speaker 2 (20:22):
And the dentist said, you want to do it? Yourself.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Go right ahead, this is what I charge. Now she
happens to be a superb dentist. I said, okay. But
the point is it's all in writing, Zurich, and that
is important. So there's something in writing out there. Unless
you just walked in the door and they said, here's
what we're going to do. And when did you pay
after the fact? Did you pay upfront?
Speaker 4 (20:45):
Well, I think they shook payments before finishing the whole job.
Speaker 2 (20:49):
All right, you've got yeah, I don't know what you
want to tell you.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
I mean I would sue them. I'd get some expertise
in there. But you're going to get a dentist. It's
going to say I don't know. Yeah, here's the work
they did, and it looks good to me, or it
looks bad to me, then you have a malpractice suit.
But let's say it looks good to me, and that's
all you have. The dennist says, yeah, it's fine. And
you say, but you told me you were only you know,
do two?
Speaker 2 (21:12):
They say, no, we didn't. Now it's on them that
there's no paperwork.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
By the way, it helps use auric that there is
no paperwork, because it's their duty to provide the paperwork.
Speaker 2 (21:24):
Jane, Hi, yes, ma'am.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
Can you hear me?
Speaker 4 (21:29):
I can?
Speaker 6 (21:30):
My husband. My husband gave oh, we wanted to get
ADU and he gave the guy one hundred and twenty thousand.
Speaker 3 (21:40):
Hm.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (21:41):
You want to build a secondary for people that don't
know ADUs or secondary units that you can put on
your home and they're even if the zoning doesn't allow it.
California law because it wants more density once more housing
says you can put it on your property. So you
were putting an ADU. You gave a one hundred and
twenty five thousand dollars upfront.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
To do it? Yes, oh, yes, so this is you
know where this one's gonna go. Okay and let me okay, hold.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
On, I am wait, hold on. I am now going
to be a mentalist.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
Jane.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
You gave him one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars
and he didn't do it.
Speaker 4 (22:18):
Right, it's been a half years, two and.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
A half years that he didn't do it. This is boy.
Speaker 1 (22:27):
You're very very topical and certainly right on time with
this phone call. Now, is there a written agreement as
to what you're going to do? Is there a contract.
Is he a licensed contractor?
Speaker 3 (22:41):
Real? Clear?
Speaker 6 (22:43):
My husband is the one that did everything because it
was his father's inheritance.
Speaker 5 (22:47):
So I get involved.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
I don't care. I don't care.
Speaker 1 (22:50):
Was there a that I should talk to him? Was
there a written contract? Was there a bid? Was there
Here's what I'm gonna do?
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Yes or no?
Speaker 4 (23:02):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (23:02):
Okay?
Speaker 5 (23:03):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (23:03):
And he just didn't show up and he paid the
whole amount of front. Why would your husband do that?
Why would you pay for a construction job up front?
Speaker 6 (23:13):
I told my husband you would ask, you would ask.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
Yeah. And by the way, the law and by the way,
him even taking the money is against the law.
Speaker 2 (23:19):
You know that you can't ask for more than ten percent? Okay,
can't ask for it? So yeah, So now you have
to sue him.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
And if he's a licensed contractor that has a bond,
you know you're going to sue him. Now does he
have assets? I don't know. Is he a legitimate contractor?
Speaker 2 (23:38):
I don't know. Have you checked on his have you
checked on his license?
Speaker 6 (23:46):
He said he has licenses.
Speaker 2 (23:48):
Okay, did you check? Did you check?
Speaker 4 (23:50):
No?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Okay, Well, what's your question.
Speaker 6 (23:55):
But so my husband contacted a lawyer, and basically lawyer
said a thousands and thousands, and there's nothing that could
be done.
Speaker 2 (24:02):
That's correct.
Speaker 6 (24:03):
I'm at a point I lost we've lost the money
because my husband was an idiot. But I don't want
this guy going around this to everybody. I want you
to get in trouble.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Okay, Well, if he's licensed, it's the contractor's license board. Uh,
and you complain to them and you file a claim.
If he's not licensed and he took your money, uh,
that's a criminal violation.
Speaker 2 (24:25):
And that's plenty of money.
Speaker 1 (24:26):
So you want to talk to the criminal authorities, the
DA's office, or you call the or you call the
contractor's license board and say, I understand that you don't
have jurisdiction over him because he's not licensed.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
Who do I go to in the DA's office. That's
what you're gonna do. Do you know where he is? Do
you know where he is?
Speaker 6 (24:45):
Yes? Yeah, we've been to his place.
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Okay, so you know what? So you know where he is? Okay? Uh?
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Is there a sporting goods store anywhere near there where
you can pick up a baseball bat?
Speaker 5 (25:00):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (25:01):
Yeah? What else do you do on that?
Speaker 4 (25:03):
One?
Speaker 2 (25:03):
One hundred and twenty five thousand, dollars up front.
Speaker 1 (25:05):
Good God, I want to tell you about It's Christmas time,
holiday time, which means people's stockings are out there, and
you need stocking stuffers. And you have a couple of
choices cocaine and a little vial way too expensive, Japanese
blow up dolls, way too big. So let me suggest
a little package or several packages of Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints.
Speaker 2 (25:29):
These things there's about.
Speaker 1 (25:30):
Fifty minuts inside these things, and there are capsules that
you actually you suck on because that's the minty flavor
on the outside. And then when you're done with that,
either bite into them or you swallow, and they go
down into your gut where bad breath can does start
stay there, and it takes care of it on both sides,
because bad breath is both sides, mouth and stomach. And
(25:53):
Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints, well, there's nothing like it anywhere.
I mean, I just I've known these people for thirty years,
so until December thirty one. Here's the offer if you
buy a three pack or more automatic discount. That's an
automatic discount if you buy a three pack or more,
So go to Zelmans dot com slash kfi zelmans dot
(26:18):
com slash kfi.
Speaker 2 (26:20):
That's my home studio.
Speaker 1 (26:21):
That's ZELMAN'SZ E L M I N S. Zelman's dot
com slash kfi. This is handle on the law
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.