Suing for Alienation of Affection

Handel on the Law. Marginal Legal Advice.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listenings KFI AM six forty The bill handles show
on demand on the iHeartRadio f This is handle on
the law marginal legal advice where I tell you you
have absolutely no case. Oh man, is this a fun one?
This is out of North Carolina. Now, North Carolina is

(00:23):
one of the few states in the United States that
allow jilted spouses to sue someone for interfering in the marriage.
California does not. Most states do not. You can interfere
all you want in someone's marriage. Consenting adults can do
anything they want married not married.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Sex, no sex doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
However, California or North Carolina allows jilted spouses to sue,
and that's what happened.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
This is out of Durham. This North Carolina woman.

Speaker 1 (01:04):
Has sued and will receive one point seventy five million
dollars because the jury found the woman liable for destroying
the couple's marriage. Okay, so lawsuit filed accusing Brene Kennard.
And she's an influencer on TikTok with three million followers

(01:28):
two hundred and seventy four followers on Instagram. The meantime,
what she is accused of is seducing and having an
affair with her manager, and the jury found her liable
for criminal conversation. Is what they call it an alienation
of affection. Basically, I had a good relationship, a good marriage.

(01:50):
You came in, you stole my spouse, and here I
am having been jilted. The emotional damage, the financial hit,
and so the jury found her liable what they call
criminal conversation.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Alienation of affection.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
That someone can be blamed for an affair that ends
marriage and you know the damages, mental anguish, damage to
her health, depriving her children of a two parent household,
and it goes on and on and on. Now California
doesn't allow this, but one of the fun fun causes
of action in California is a loss of consortium, which

(02:33):
means that if you've done something to me and your
negligent and I no longer can have sex or have
a good relationship with my wife, you can be sued
by my wife. It's not my lawsuit against you, it's
loss of consortium. She in this case, she has lost

(02:56):
her ability to have a relationship with me, be it
sexual or otherwise, as a result of your wrongdoing. Usually
this happens in car cases, car accidents and loss of consortium.
It doesn't fly very often because keep in mind, you've
got a jury that's trying to figure out what the
damages are with loss of consortium, and you've got someone

(03:19):
on that jury, inevitably some old guy who goes, hey.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
I haven't gotten laid in five years. I'm gonna give
her money.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
For that great case out of North Carolina. Right, love
it alienation of affection. Let's take some phone calls. All right, Bob, Hello, Bob, welcome.

Speaker 3 (03:42):
Hi Bob.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
No, I'm Bill. You're Bob.

Speaker 3 (03:45):
Yes, yeah, two questions for you. I'll try to doing
one quick. I we're going to food processing plant. And
you know, if you make things that are organic, you
get to bump the price up quite a bit. It's
a scam.

Speaker 1 (04:02):
Yeah, everything that says organic as a scam. I just
to let you know, no one knows what organic means.

Speaker 2 (04:07):
Bob.

Speaker 3 (04:09):
No, there's it's it's it's tangled web of regulations.

Speaker 2 (04:13):
No I believe it. No, Bob, No, I believe it.
I'm not arguing that.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
But what I'm saying is organic it's a huge amount.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
It's not so much a scam.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
It's just the people can charge more money than they
do and it's yes, I.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
Agree it's a scam because they say it's certified. Oh
it's a scam any Anyway, what I'm saying is that
we're self regulated, and I want to know, is it
illegal for me to tape videotape? No and go to
a lawyer.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
No, you can, well it's private property. I mean they're
going to throw you out obviously me. Yeah, of course
you will. And then you do a whistleblower. But no
lawyer is going to take it that I know. I mean,
what do you You're gonna assume him it's a class
Maybe it's a class action suit. Could be because you've

(05:06):
got enough enough plaintiffs out there who have bought it.

Speaker 2 (05:09):
Is it a big company, Yes it is. Okay, then
you know what I would do.

Speaker 1 (05:16):
I would take it to a class action law firm
and you can look it up and ask them what
to do.

Speaker 2 (05:22):
Because if you really want to do any website, I
don't think I have any class action lawyers. You can look.

Speaker 1 (05:28):
You can go to handle on the law dot com
and say are there any class action lawyers on there?
Because the fellow that runs at mark Is is a
phenomenal lawyer. He does personal injury and he's the one
that runs the entire website and you can just ask
do you have any class action lawsuits?

Speaker 2 (05:46):
Lawyers?

Speaker 3 (05:46):
The second quick, second quick question is is so last
week I went bar association and they give me a
three thirty minute lawyer talk. Okay, he gave hand advice.
You just did. And except that, is that privileged? You've
not in pay for it?

Speaker 1 (06:08):
No?

Speaker 2 (06:08):
Oh yeah, of course it's privileged.

Speaker 1 (06:10):
It's still a lawyer. Whether you pay for a lawyer
or not. Any conversation with your lawyer is privileged. So
the payment part has nothing to do with the privilege
attorney client privilege.

Speaker 3 (06:23):
Okay, yeah, I was I was told that you had
to have a retainer for it.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
DEVI no, no, no, no.

Speaker 1 (06:27):
Even advice, even advice, just straight out advice is privileged.

Speaker 2 (06:32):
So I wouldn't worry about it.

Speaker 1 (06:33):
If you want to really nail your that company and
not a matter of fact, you could just quit and
not worry about retaliation or whatever and then go to
the lawyers and go what do I do? And if
there is evidence and you have it, say you're going
to do Okay, you'll be a lead plaintiff. I mean,

(06:53):
right now, all you can do is try to shut
him down, because what are your damages?

Speaker 3 (06:58):
Bob?

Speaker 2 (06:58):
You're not damaged by working there. Do you see what
I'm saying?

Speaker 3 (07:06):
Well, not damage, but you know, forcing me to lie.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
No, they're not. You can quit damage. No they're not.
They're not forcing you to lie. They're not holding a
gun to your head.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
They're simply saying, here's what you want you to say,
and uh, and you say it's a lie, and they go, okay,
it's a lie. Or if you think it's a lie,
then quit. They're not forcing you to do anything. Yeah,
I mean, there's no.

Speaker 2 (07:32):
Gun to the head. This is handle on the law.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
This is handle on the law marginal legal advice where
I tell you you have absolutely no case.

Speaker 2 (07:46):
Dennis, Hello, Dennis, Yeah, sure up. Welcome to handle on
the law.

Speaker 4 (07:53):
Okay. So I had a property grant need it to
me by a guy that was about to lose it
to uh going up for auction due to unpaid property taxes.
So he was granted it to me before it was
it was it was also grant needed to him. So
when I gave it to you.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
Wait a minute, hold on a minute, hold wha, wha, wha,
wha wha. Wait a minute, I'm a little confused here.

Speaker 1 (08:14):
Okay, he is the owner and he's about to lose it,
so he grant needs it to you correct?

Speaker 3 (08:21):
Correct?

Speaker 2 (08:22):
Okay, so where is he? So who grant needed it
to him?

Speaker 4 (08:27):
Another guy that owned the property, Okay, go about to
lose it.

Speaker 1 (08:30):
Okay, Well, so it goes from one guy who's about
to lose it to another guy who's about to lose it,
and you end up with it.

Speaker 4 (08:36):
Yes, and I've paid the property taxes and I'm preparing
to list it and letter comes back. He goes, hey,
it's a cloudy title. You know, there's there's notary fraud.
We need to clear this up so I can have
something with an underwriter. I don't remember exactly, but it
has to be cleared up.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (08:55):
So they hire they hire somebody to find these two
guys and go, hey, give us your social so we
can verify that you have no lians or anything against you,
because apparently if you have a lean they can come
after and take the property for me. Or satisfied that
they can't, mean, yeah they can. So the first guy
was fine, we got a social he had nothing on him.

(09:15):
The second guy wouldn't cooperate at all, and so how
did I say this?

Speaker 3 (09:20):
The very first.

Speaker 4 (09:21):
Guy involved in this process is the one that wouldn't cooperate.
So they go, Hey, we don't even need his full
social we already have his full name. We just need
the last four. Guy won't give me the last four
of his social site, said screw it, Okay, I just
gave him four.

Speaker 1 (09:38):
Gave him Dennis, did you, by the way, did you
end up paying for this property?

Speaker 4 (09:44):
Well? I haven't. No, I'd paid nothing for it other
than paying for the property taxes.

Speaker 2 (09:47):
Okay, So why did he So? Why did he give
it to you?

Speaker 4 (09:51):
He just wanted to get out of it?

Speaker 2 (09:54):
What is it? What is is? What is is your
relationship with you?

Speaker 4 (09:58):
Uh? He is a friend of a business partner of mine.
That's sort of it's it's kind of a long story,
but he felt somewhat intimidated to get out of that party.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Jenness.

Speaker 1 (10:08):
I mean, by the way, to let you know, that's
not legal to dat a property.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
Uh, just to avert taxes.

Speaker 1 (10:14):
Uh that that can be unraveled in two seconds.

Speaker 2 (10:18):
Was there title insurance on this?

Speaker 4 (10:21):
Well, that's the whole purpose clearing up the cloudy title.
So I've already paid all the property taxes to.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Was there was there was their title insurance when you
walked in and took title?

Speaker 2 (10:33):
Was there title insurance? Was there a policy in place?

Speaker 4 (10:37):
No?

Speaker 2 (10:37):
Okay, now you so you've clearly been defrauded.

Speaker 1 (10:42):
Okay, somebody lied about something throughout that process. Uh. And
you have something that can be unraveled in two seconds.

Speaker 4 (10:52):
Because even though even though now the realtor says, okay,
we're listing it, we've we've cleared everything up with this
underwriter and this title insurance.

Speaker 1 (11:02):
If he's if he's cleared everything up and there's no
one going to grab it, you're home free.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
What's the problem.

Speaker 4 (11:09):
It's based on an inaccurate social So because the original
guy that did the first grant, he wouldn't give me
his social right.

Speaker 2 (11:16):
So that's okay.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
So you sue him, uh and part of the industry,
and then you you bring him in, ask for a deposition, Uh,
ask the world documents.

Speaker 4 (11:27):
What I'm saying is I made up four numbers and
I gave it to this title insurance company, and they go, okay,
this guy, these are the numbers.

Speaker 2 (11:35):
Okay, us on him credit. You made up those numbers, right, Dennis. Yeah, Yeah,
that's fraud.

Speaker 4 (11:43):
Okay, that's fraud on my part.

Speaker 2 (11:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (11:48):
So even though the title insurance company did their search.

Speaker 2 (11:51):
Let me tell you.

Speaker 1 (11:52):
If you don't get let me give you here is
if it goes through and the title transfers to you,
then I guess you just shut up and you got
away with it.

Speaker 4 (12:05):
Okay.

Speaker 5 (12:06):
And then so what if now I'm going to sell
this property. So if I sell it, somebody buys it,
and then four months down the road, some creditor comes
back because of that original grand deed?

Speaker 3 (12:17):
Does this all get brought.

Speaker 4 (12:18):
Back to me? H?

Speaker 2 (12:20):
Creditorsues you?

Speaker 4 (12:21):
Or because because the title insurance company assumed that everything's fine,
the social has no priority.

Speaker 1 (12:29):
It doesn't See I don't understand what the what the
title company has to do with social security numbers. They
just look, see who has title? If it's you, it's you.

Speaker 5 (12:37):
Well, no, it's something that's something that had to do
with clearing up the closs.

Speaker 1 (12:42):
I understand, but clear I don't understand where social security
numbers have to do with clearing up, uh, the transfer
unless it's not that person who transferred and it so yeah,
you got, you know, you got to mess on your hands.
I mean, I don't even know where to go with that.

Speaker 2 (12:55):
Yeah, I lied, and then the other guy lied, and we.

Speaker 1 (12:58):
Did this to avert taxes and basically we're cheating the
tax authorities by moving it twice. Yeah, that doesn't sound
particularly good.

Speaker 2 (13:10):
Natalie, Hello, Natalie, welcome.

Speaker 6 (13:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (13:14):
I have a question regarding solar channel. Three years back,
with one company we signed up. The salesperson promised us
some money and then they installed the panel on three
years back, one Monday, and then he said Friday he

(13:36):
will bring the money. And then Friday I called him.
He didn't response. After a week, different solar company called us.
Then they said this company sold.

Speaker 2 (13:48):
Okay, that doesn't matter. That doesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (13:50):
It doesn't matter because if company sells or buys, you
bought all the liabilities too. Do you have the promise
to return four thousand dollars to you in writing?

Speaker 7 (14:00):
That's what he texted me, like money something. We texted everything,
all the proof to the.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
Person with Okay, Natalie, let me ask you again, is
the promise to send you four thousand dollars in writing? No?

Speaker 7 (14:19):
Only text? They said, that's fine.

Speaker 2 (14:21):
Well, text is different. Hold on, hold on.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
So the text from the company says, we will pay
you four thousand dollars. Correct, Yeah, the salesperson did, yeah,
and texted you that you're going to get four thousand
dollars back. Yeah, okay, take them a small claims course,
four thousand dollars.

Speaker 7 (14:39):
So then the new company, we send.

Speaker 8 (14:43):
All the proof.

Speaker 1 (14:44):
Yeah, yeah matter, you sue the new You sue the
new company, doesn't matter, Just sue them for four thousand dollars.

Speaker 2 (14:49):
And you bring and you bring the text, and you
bring the.

Speaker 1 (14:52):
Text from uh, the old company, uh, from the salesperson.
And the text was way later. Was it just before
the company was sold? Yeah, okay, that's that's a little
problematic because there's nothing in writing that says beforehand.

Speaker 2 (15:10):
It's just just before the company is sold.

Speaker 1 (15:12):
The salesperson gets you get four thousand dollars here. I mean,
he could have sent you anything. You could have said
fifty thousand dollars. There's nothing in the original contract. I mean,
you can sue for four thousand. But you know, the
new company's going to say, hey, this guy wasn't authorized
to do that.

Speaker 2 (15:29):
He just did it. And it's after the fact, and
it wasn't part of the deal.

Speaker 1 (15:34):
And here's the contract that shows, all of a sudden
you come up with, Well, he promised me four thousand
dollars three years later.

Speaker 2 (15:41):
That's going to be tough. That's going to be tough.

Speaker 7 (15:43):
But I have a diffare I have a question? And
they we sent all the information and then they said
we will contact you for one of our years. Nobody
called officer and somebody called. We didn't get the connection yet.
I told them, no, I already have the play we
also okay.

Speaker 2 (16:01):
I don't understand. So they promised to call you and
they didn't call you.

Speaker 8 (16:04):
Yeah, one of the d Okay, what is that?

Speaker 2 (16:07):
What does that? What does that have to do with
owing you four thousand dollars?

Speaker 7 (16:12):
No, they said. I told them we have some problem
with the primary resident. They are not taking care of that.
So we told them all these issues has to be
done before the author is to give the connections. And
after three years now my tenants they don't want because
they are getting good.

Speaker 1 (16:30):
Okay, Well, I mean it doesn't it doesn't matter if
they want or not. Who turns down a solar system outside?
I mean, the tenants can't say no, I'm not turning down,
you know, a solar system, because that doesn't make an issue.

Speaker 7 (16:43):
They don't want to pay I have to pay for
my old of course.

Speaker 2 (16:46):
You have to pay for it. These are tenants.

Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, yeah, why should they pay for you installing a
solar system?

Speaker 7 (16:55):
Well they wanted We asked them. They said, oh, it's nice, Yeah,
we want to. But the three years is there an art?

Speaker 1 (17:00):
Wait a second, yes, it's nice. Did they agree to
pay for it? Do you have that in writing? No,
you got nothing, You've got nothing.

Speaker 2 (17:09):
Wow. This is Handle on the Law.

Speaker 3 (17:14):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.

Speaker 1 (17:20):
Welcome back, Handle on the Law, Marginal Legal Advice.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
Emily. Hello, Emily, welcome.

Speaker 4 (17:28):
I know how are you?

Speaker 2 (17:30):
Yes, ma'am? What can I do for you?

Speaker 8 (17:32):
I'm seeing my doctor from malpractice, okay, and I'm writing.
I don't have a lawyer, and I'm writing the complaint myself,
and I've done a lot of research about what happened,
and I know I have a case. The lawyers have
said I have a case, but it's not economically feasible
to take the case. So I'm writing the complaint and

(17:53):
I need to know. I've read a couple of things.
One about punitive damages, and you can.

Speaker 2 (17:59):
Kiss that one good bye.

Speaker 1 (18:01):
Oh why there's because you have to show malicious intent
that the doctor wanted to screw you or hurt you,
or is or had so little experience uh in doing
the surgery that he had no business ever doing the procedure.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
Okay, well it wasn't the surgery.

Speaker 8 (18:23):
It was he described an overdose of a drug for me.

Speaker 2 (18:26):
Okay, So he made a mistake. So he made a mistake.

Speaker 8 (18:30):
Wait, wait, there's so much more that was also contraindicated
for me because of my heart.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
I get it, I understand. So he made it. So
far he's made mistakes.

Speaker 8 (18:39):
Okay, let me just okay, when when when the when
the saw of sex appeared and and we called I
called the doctor. I didn't know that it was the
drug that was causing them. He went after the phone call,
he went to my medical records and he wrote that
he stopped the drug.

Speaker 2 (18:54):
Okay, so he lied.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
Okay, that's punitive damages.

Speaker 8 (19:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
By the way, all right, all right, if you can
prove that that may go in that may go into
punitive damages, Okay, that that alone may have crossed the line.

Speaker 2 (19:09):
How badly. Were you damaged?

Speaker 8 (19:13):
I'm still damaged.

Speaker 2 (19:14):
Okay, you have permanent damage.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
You have permanent damage, and no lawyer will take a
case when you have a doctor who lied. By the way,
just because he lied doesn't mean that it was where
the bad faith is? Is him lying about it? How
is his lying about it change your damages?

Speaker 8 (19:33):
What do you mean?

Speaker 2 (19:34):
Okay, here's what he did.

Speaker 1 (19:36):
He goes and he prescribes the wrong, wrong prescription and
goes into the medical records, looks at it and said
I changed you know, or I didn't do it wrong.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
Okay, fair enough.

Speaker 1 (19:51):
How does that connect with your damages from his initial
giving you too much? He's just lying to get out
of it, is what he's don doing. How does that
change what happened to you?

Speaker 8 (20:03):
Well, in law, the drug was a dangerous drug for me,
and so in lying, I ended up having to spend
weeks of of circe.

Speaker 2 (20:11):
Okay, wait a minute, in wait a second in line.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
So he knew that you were going to it's contraindicated.

Speaker 2 (20:19):
He let it happen, and he lied about it.

Speaker 1 (20:22):
Okay, all right, okay, all right, that that may be
over the line. Okay, So now, uh, when we talk
about permanent damage?

Speaker 2 (20:30):
What kind of permanent damage?

Speaker 8 (20:33):
It's so it's PTSD kind of damage I have.

Speaker 2 (20:36):
Oh yeah, that's hard, that's hard. That's really hard. Yeah,
that's hard to prove. No, no, no, no, but.

Speaker 8 (20:41):
I do have I do have a psychiatrist who I've
talked to now for a year. Well, I've talked about
this with and she has I don't know.

Speaker 1 (20:48):
Well, if you have a psychiatrist, you can talk about
how damaged you are with PTSD and you have that
much proof.

Speaker 2 (20:54):
Of a doctor.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
You know?

Speaker 2 (20:56):
How did know? How does no lawyer pick that up?

Speaker 1 (20:59):
Because you if you're talking forever damage, you have a psychiatrist.
It's willing to testify to that.

Speaker 3 (21:05):
That.

Speaker 1 (21:06):
Now, how far is your PTSD? You don't function, You
can't live your life the way it is. You sound
to me like a normal person. I mean you're not stuttering.

Speaker 8 (21:17):
So yeah, well, you know, I don't sleep. I can't
sleep because I have these horrible dreams because I'm unconscious
for a while, I was unconscious after I took the drug.

Speaker 4 (21:28):
Yeah no, I'm not.

Speaker 2 (21:28):
Arguing that all right. So how many lawyers have you
talked to? A lot?

Speaker 1 (21:34):
You know what I can't tell you? You know I
don't do personal injury. It seems to me that you
would find once. So there has to be something there
where you saying you saying I don't sleep, I have nightmares.
I mean, the psychiatrists can't be psychiatrists can't say you
are having nightmares. All the psychiatrists can say is you're

(21:54):
telling me you're having nightmares, right, yeah, and that may
be the problem out.

Speaker 2 (22:00):
So I don't know what to tell you.

Speaker 1 (22:01):
And by the way, you're you're going to have to
prove you're going to do your own malpractice case.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
Wow, it's done.

Speaker 8 (22:08):
Well, it's actually done. I'm just writing the complaint now.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
No, I understand. Uh, you've been. It's been.

Speaker 1 (22:13):
You've gotten someone to certify it medically, right, not you?

Speaker 2 (22:18):
No, you have to.

Speaker 1 (22:19):
You can't file a lawsuit until you have a certification
by a doctor. They'll toss it right out. They'll toss
it right out. And you're gonna hire and you're gonna
have to bring in experts. So your psychiatrist is going
to have to sit there and testify, okay, and they're
going to bring in their side because they don't roll over.

Speaker 2 (22:36):
And if I don't let me.

Speaker 8 (22:39):
Ask you a question, if she was a doctor's lawyer,
would you want him to go to a deposition and
answer the question did you write? Did you write?

Speaker 1 (22:46):
He has no question, he has no choice, so that
he may just lie. He just may lie on a deposition. Okay,
Now what real people, there's no repercussions for that. People think, oh,
perjuryal No one.

Speaker 2 (22:58):
Pays attention to that. People lie all the time.

Speaker 1 (23:01):
And so in one of the most difficult trial cases
you can do are medical malpractice cases. I know most
lawyers wouldn't touch a medical malpractice case because they're so complicated.
So you're going to argue your own med mail case? Wow, am, okay,
good luck. Let me know how it goes. I can't wait.

Speaker 8 (23:24):
I will, I will. You know what you should not give?
You should not get away with this, he could.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
I understand. No, No, I get it.

Speaker 1 (23:29):
I don't, Emily, I don't disagree with you.

Speaker 2 (23:33):
All I'm saying is, uh, you know, for.

Speaker 1 (23:36):
Example, if you go to trial on this, uh, there'll
be a court reporter there that you have to pay for. Okay, okay,
and that's thousands of dollars a day. I mean, you
are in for a lot of money and you're you're
going to be up against someone who has defended medical
malpractice cases for years and years. I got to oh,

(24:00):
you're in for it. I mean you're in for a ride.
I mean, good for you for doing that. Huh, Hello, Brenda.

Speaker 3 (24:07):
Welcome, Thank you Bill.

Speaker 9 (24:10):
My husband recently passed and he had like three credit
cards that have outstanding steps still remaining. One of them, well,
actually two of them. I talked with them and they
said that I don't need to pay anything now that
they won't accrue late thees or interest charges and it's

(24:34):
been turned over to their probate department. I don't know
what that means.

Speaker 1 (24:38):
Well, that means, well, it's probate department. You just have
a credit card people, right, yes, okay. Probate department is
the people that deal with exactly what happens dead people
that have credit card balances who and they can go
against the estate because the credit card balance is still owed.

(25:02):
I say, your husband had ten thousand dollars in credit
card that they're still entitled the ten thousand dollars. And
what the probate department does is find out is there
in a state is it because it's a creditor, they're
a legitimate creditor and they get to find out is
there money in the estate to pay for it.

Speaker 2 (25:20):
If there isn't much, they just don't even care. They
write it off. What is the amount of money that's
owed on these credit cards, Brenda?

Speaker 9 (25:28):
One credit card is twelve thousand, the other two are
on the list of five.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
Well, I mean twelve thousand.

Speaker 4 (25:34):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (25:35):
Yeah, they may look at it.

Speaker 1 (25:37):
And we'll contact there's going to be a probate open,
I'm assuming correct, Brenda.

Speaker 9 (25:46):
I don't know what that means.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
Okay, the assets that your husband have, is there a
lawyer handling what the assets are the bank accounts, etc.
Or is everything in both your names? Where nothing?

Speaker 9 (26:00):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (26:00):
Well nothing for example, checking accounts, etc. It's all in
both your names and you're the only one left.

Speaker 9 (26:07):
No, I have my checking account in my name. I
did add my husband to it, but all of his
accounts were in his name, and we have our home
is in a trust and that's all he had.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
Okay, So how much money in accounts did he have
in his name?

Speaker 9 (26:26):
About four thousand?

Speaker 2 (26:29):
Yeah, I think they're going to write it off.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
You just contact the probate and just say hey, listen,
his assets are only four thousand.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
This was his debt.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
I mean, they can argue that they're not going to
I think you're going to be okay on this one.

Speaker 2 (26:45):
I wouldn't worry about it.

Speaker 1 (26:46):
Maybe look up with the word probate means in the dictionary.

Speaker 2 (26:49):
Maybe that's the help. This is handle on the law.

Speaker 1 (26:53):
Welcome back, marginal legal advice where I tell you have
o case married.

Speaker 2 (27:02):
Hello married, Welcome, Hi. I feel how you doing?

Speaker 3 (27:05):
I have a case of solistational prostitution.

Speaker 1 (27:09):
Wait wait, you have a case of uh wait wait wait,
solicitation of prostitution.

Speaker 2 (27:15):
Yes, sir, okay, so you were a I should have
called you John instead of married. Is that correct?

Speaker 6 (27:24):
So the recordings, uh, they have tempered with the recordings.
There's many things. There's a lot of things missing, and
there's things that I didn't say. So how do I
go about befriending myself.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
That's a trouble.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
That's a problem because the only recording is theirs And
you can argue I didn't say that, Well, yeah you did,
here's the recording, or you edited the recording. I said
things that are not on the recording. I got to
tell you, how the hell do you prove a negative. Now,
if you think it's been edited, you can have a

(27:58):
part of your defense is bring in an audio specialist
and say this has been edited, and the specialist goes
in and goes.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
Edit here, edit there, edit there.

Speaker 1 (28:07):
I don't think the cops are going to the DA
is going to bring in an expert, an audio expert,
to defend I mean, you know, solicitation.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
I'm sorry, I can bring my own experts.

Speaker 1 (28:21):
Now, they have to be expert experts, Okay, Marrit, We're
not talking about just someone's opinion. Someone who is has
probably testified before. That's for starters and has experience. And
these guys are not cheap. I mean be prepared for
five six thousand dollars for the day.

Speaker 6 (28:42):
I mean the police, he's got the verified I'm sorry,
once they say they're testified, has been edited, can I
see the police.

Speaker 2 (28:51):
No, you'll never be able to sue the police. I know, no, No.

Speaker 1 (28:56):
The best you're going to do is get off. And
by the way, let me ask you, let me hold on,
let me ask you a question. And I'm uh, and
I don't want you to.

Speaker 2 (29:08):
Admit it, so just nod your head or be silent. Okay.

Speaker 1 (29:12):
And this is radio so I'm gonna have to guess
whether you're not. Uh, do they actually have you doing that?
And don't say yes or no, just say maybe maybe
they misunderstood, because I don't want you to admit this,
because that's not gonna help.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
You know what.

Speaker 1 (29:31):
Don't don't even answer that. Don't even answer that. What
did the woman police officer look like?

Speaker 3 (29:37):
No, she was dressed appropriately.

Speaker 6 (29:40):
She doesn't look like a prostitute. And my conversation was
completely different than Okay, all right.

Speaker 1 (29:46):
Well that's okay, Well that's your testimony. But they have
you on tape sounding like you were having a conversation
relating to prostitution.

Speaker 3 (29:57):
Yes, okay, and some of us it's not my boy,
it's not me.

Speaker 2 (30:01):
Oh if it's not you, then okay. If you, then
i'd bring in an expert. Are you married? Oh so
you don't have a spouse to yell at you?

Speaker 1 (30:12):
Okay, I mean, I don't know. It's a good question,
it really is. I mean, it's an interesting case, to
say the least.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
Depends on how badly.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
Yeah, you have to bring an expert in. You're gonna
have to hire an expert, and you certainly need a lawyer. Clearly,
I mean, it's going to cost you in the thousands
of dollars. But it depends on you know how badly
you want to not get convicted of solicitation or prostitution.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
I mean it's a misdemeanor.

Speaker 1 (30:39):
Uh, it's uh, I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (30:44):
They offer, you need to dismiss the case.

Speaker 6 (30:46):
If I pay money and go to a class or something, I.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
Would If they offer to dismiss the case, I would
do that.

Speaker 2 (30:53):
Take the damn course.

Speaker 1 (30:56):
Whatever the fine is is going to be far less
than hiring a lawyer. If they dismiss it. That's where
I That's where I would go. But they're I mean
dismissing the case.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
How much money? How much money? How much money they
want you to pay? John, I'm married, about fifteen dollars.
Pay it, get the get it dismissed.

Speaker 1 (31:18):
It's going to cost you at least ten thousand dollars
to defend and then you don't know if you're going
if it and even a.

Speaker 2 (31:25):
Chance to get convicted. I wouldn't do that.

Speaker 1 (31:28):
So you're paying uh, thousands of dollars, maybe in the
tens of thousands to take a chance, whereas if you
pay the fifteen hundred dollars you take the course.

Speaker 2 (31:40):
You know, I don't you know how not to hustle
a whore. I don't know what the hell they call
a horse the course? Oh that almost rhymes you know that?

Speaker 1 (31:51):
And I guess you know if a strange person comes
up to me and starts saying, hey, sailor, and you
just simply say no, thanks, wow, case to say the
least two, because sometimes the defense is yeah, they blew it, but.

Speaker 2 (32:05):
It didn't change anything. That happens all the time.

Speaker 1 (32:10):
You know. For example, there are cancers that are incredibly
slow moving and the first diagnosis they missed completely, and
then six months later, the second diagnosis shows that, yeah,
you have the cancer. Okay, so the first people malpractice.
They missed it and they shouldn't have missed it. What
are the damages? Not much, You're in the same position

(32:31):
you are. Six months means nothing with this cancer. So
that's the analogy I'm giving you is you have to
follow all of connect all of the dots and establish
that the malpractice in which they missed that first diagnosis
is connected to what is happening now, and if they
had done it correctly, you would not have this problem,

(32:55):
or you would not have as big a problem. So
you get to go to a medical malpractice attorney.

Speaker 4 (33:01):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (33:01):
And by the way, the E Coli disease that you had,
how long did you have it for? Seven?

Speaker 8 (33:08):
Eight months?

Speaker 2 (33:09):
Seven or eight months?

Speaker 3 (33:10):
You know?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
And then they cured it right with antibiotics?

Speaker 8 (33:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (33:15):
Okay, yeah, no, I understand.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
All right, So they missed that, all right, So you
had a disease that took seven eight months for them
to diagnose and cure. Okay, And then so you say
you malpractice, that's correct, and then they come back code
but you're fine now, and you go, yeah, but I
was I didn't know, and I was pain that I
shouldn't have been. H This is a tough one. But

(33:40):
I'm going to suggest you to talk to a mid
mal attorney because I certainly don't know enough about it.

Speaker 2 (33:46):
And the prognosis could be that it's permanent.

Speaker 1 (33:50):
If there is a permanent issue that was caused by
the non diagnosis initially there, then you've got something. But
I'm not going to know, and the email practic attorney
is not going to know because what med mal attorneys
do is they send all of the notes over to
the doctor, over to their doctor to see if there's
a case there, so there is a lot to it,

(34:12):
all right. Let me put you in a scenario where
you're speaking to someone up close, or you're in a
group of people, or you wake up in the morning
and you breathe on the mirror in the mirror almost
cracks because of your bad breath. Yeah, we all suffer
from bad breath, every one of us. Morning breath, coffee breath, onions, garlic,

(34:33):
I mean all of it.

Speaker 2 (34:34):
So what do you do.

Speaker 1 (34:35):
Well, you can slug down a mint and suck on
this spearmint or peppermint and it takes care of the
bad breath in your mouth for a couple of hours.
Or let me give you a better suggestion, Zelman's minty Mouth.
Now Here is a little capsule on this parsley seed
oil covered with a very strong minty flavor. You suck

(34:56):
on the mint part and then you bite into the
capsule or you swallow it and it gets to work
in your stomach. Because people don't realize that bad breath
comes out of your stomach. That's where the food goes too.
So Zelmans is a double hit. You can only get
Zelmans by the way online Zelmans dot com, z E
l M I n S. Zelmans dot com. That's Zelmans

(35:19):
dot com. This is Handle on the Law.

Speaker 2 (35:24):
You're listening to bill Handle on demand from kf I
a M six forty