THIS is why

The other day my boss asked me why I have a personal blog.  Truth be told, there are many reasons (i.e. like to write, avenue to vent, because the boss doesn't like it) but a big reason I blog is because there are times when some people just make me laugh and because I can't (or shouldn't) really laugh at them (or in front of them), I hold it in and blog about the situation later.

Take, for example, the angry lady (AL) that was in here the other day.  Seems she had been renting a place from Landlord (LL).  At that time, LL was also renting to another person (AP).  

Got all that?

At some point, AL determined that the sun was shining too brightly into her window in the morning.  So, she asked to use LL's ladder.  Up went AL to install some shades outside the windows.  LL left AL to her own devices and drove off to work.  At some point, AL ran into some trouble and called for AP to come help her.  AP never came.  AL subsequently fell off the ladder and broke her hip.

Here's where the story gets, uh....interesting.  Seems AL blames LL for her falling off the ladder and not staying to be sure AL did not get injured.  LL also blames AP for not coming when AL called for help.  

I'm guessing life at the rental unit got difficult (what with AL yelling at LL and AP) and, subsequently, LL got a restraining order against AL.  After obtaining the restraining order, LL put all AL's possessions on the front lawn and told her to leave (basically, bypassing the laws on unlawful detainer).  Finding her possessions on the front lawn, AL called the police who told AL that it was a civil matter and that they wouldn't do anything about it.  

Sooooooo, now, AL wants to:

1. Sue LL (for kicking her out AND for "making her fall off the ladder.").  
2. She wants to sue AP for not coming when she called out for help.  
3. She also wants to sue the police for not coming and arresting LL when she called.  
4. Finally, she wants to sue the judge who issued the restraining order.

A tall order to be sure and AL is mad as heck and isn't going to take it anymore.  In my mind, I'm trying to make sense of everything and when she says the word "Negligence," I said, come, follow me, and I led her over to:

• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 33, Chp. 380 (Negligence)
• California Civil Practice: Torts (West; Vol. 1, Chp. 1 (Negligence); Chp. 15 (Conversion)
• Personal Injury (Lexis;  Vol. 19, Chp. 87 (Landlord Tenant); Vol. 21, Chp. 101 (Negligence)
• Police Civil Liability (Lexis)
• AmJur Cause of Action (West)
• California Causes of Action (James Publishing)

and off AL went to exact her revenge against the world.

Yep, lots of ways to vent and get things off the chest.  Good think AL knew that her best chance at vindication was to go to her local county law library (instead of trying to just "google" it).  

Yeah, smart cookie, that one.

Double dipping

Today's tale is a story of greed.

Once upon a time X lived a happy life - until he got a girlfriend.  Girlfriend was needy.  Very needy.  So needy, in fact, that X found that he was unable to pay basic bills.  But love does strange things to people, so X sought to get a loan from a friend Y.  Friend Y was a lawyer and knew better than to loan money to X without a contract. X signed on the dotted line and continued to satiate girlfriends needs.

Months passed and when the contract between X and Y came due, X (to no one's surprise) had not the money to pay Y.  X, it seems, had another friend (Z) who (after much discussion and promises) agreed to pay Y the money X owed.  So, to recap, X and Y had a contract.  X didn't have the money to pay Y so X got Z to stand in his stead as debtor.  This is called a surety contract and Y agreed to accept Z as the surety.  In fact, Z insisted Y create a new contract indicating the above facts.

This is where things got dicey.  See, after Z paid off X's debt to Y, Y decided to go after X for the original debt (attorney, and all).  X cried foul and to the law library he went (after Y filed a lawsuit against him for monies owed on the original contract.  Yeah, really sucks to be X.

While all the names have been changed to protect the innocent, the fact remained that Y was being a royal jerk.  I suggested X take a look at:

• California Affirmative Defenses (TR; Vol. 2, Chp. 67 (Exoneration of a Surety)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 13, Chp. 140)
• California Law of Contracts (CEB)
• Williston on Contracts (TR)
• Witkin Summary of California Law (TR; Vol. 1)
• Working with Contracts: what law school didn't teach you (PLI)

I also suggested that he file a complaint with the State Bar against Y (because, lawyer?!). While I suspect the Bar won't do anything, at least they'll be a paper trail against the guy that X can show to the judge (you know, when X makes Y look like a total tool in court for double dipping).

The Tale of Two Brothers

The thing with the holiday season is that it starts tugging at the heartstrings.  People start longing to be with family, people start looking to go home, and kids look to be with mom and dad.  Well, some kids, anyway.  

Some kids you kind of don't want to see again as all they want is more of everything (ungrateful little buggers).  Anyway, today's blog is a story about two diametrically opposed brothers who were in my law library a while back.

Brother #1 was a nice enough guy.  Affable, dressed like Bing Crosby and spoke well of his mother.  Brother #2 was a jerk. He dressed like he lived on the Jersey Shore and spoke with a Harvard accent (even though he was from California).  Two brothers, two perspectives.  I know all about Brothers #1 and #2 because they came in on consecutive weeks seeking information about how to "best" deal with Mom's money.  

See, Mom was about 88 years young and, apparently, was exhibiting early symptoms of Dementia. Brother #1 had been working for the last few years to gain conservatorship of his Mom (who had an estate worth millions).  

Brother #1 had his own job, wife and kids and wanted to take care of Mom and let her live her golden years in peace and comfort.  It was her money, after all.  Actually, Brother #1 shocked me what with most people who are out to stiff their folks and take over their parent's estate instead of having to work (like their folks did).

Enter Brother #2.  Brother #2 didn't have a job and came seeking to take control of Mom's fortune. Apparently, Brother #2 had an idea for a number of business ventures and needed Mom to pay for it all.  Problem was Brother #1 kept getting in the way of his plans (to control Mom).

So, when Brother #1 came in asking for information about conservatorships, I was surprised that he knew what he wanted and suggested he take a look at:

• California Conservatorship Practice (CEB)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 24)
• American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (TR; Vol 14, Incompetent Persons)

A week later, Brother #2 came in looking for information on guardianships.  Clearly Brother #2 had not been keeping up on things nor bothered to do any research on the difference between guardianships and conservatorships.  

For the record, a Guardian cares for children and a Conservator cares for incapacitated adults.  But because I can't give legal advice and I was not wanting to upset Brother #2's false sense of self-importance, I Ied him over to:

• California Guardianship Practice (CEB)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 24)
• American  Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (TR; Vol 19, Parent and Child)

and off and running Brother #2 went on his wild goose chase.

Maybe it was because I don't like seeing old people get taken advantage of or maybe it was because Brother #2 repeatedly called me a "stupid Librarian" that I failed to note the difference between guardianships and conservatorships.  

C'est la vie.  Maybe if Brother #2 done a little homework and/or not gone and bagged on his local county law librarian, he might have had better luck finding what he really wanted.

I'm just sayin.

Let It Go

The other day I was talking with an friend of mine who told me that they'd just finished s session with their psychiatrist.  Person tells me about how, when they first started going to the shrink, they were unable to reveal anything and were able to release all their pent-up anxiety and let it all out.  I'm guessing the telling me was part of their treatment.

Anyway, as this person was telling me their story about their release, I tuned out and started thinking about a person who had come into our law library a while back.  Seems they had been sued for a LARGE sum of money.  Over the course of several years of litigation, they were finally able to begin negotiations on settling the case.  What they needed to know was if we had anything that dealt with settlements or releases or settlement releases.

As it turns out, California Civil Code 1541 deals with all things releases.  According to Section 1541:

An obligation is extinguished by a release therefrom given to the debtor by the creditor, upon a new consideration, or in writing, with or without new consideration.

Knowing my collection as I do, I was able to use the Table of Statutes referencing Civil Code 1541 and locate a number of resources that were helpful, namely:

• American Jurisprudence Pleading and Practice Forms Annotated (TR, Vol. 21B, Release)
• AmJur Legal Forms 2d (TR)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis, Chp. 520)
• California LegalForms: Transaction Guide (Lexis; Vol. 27, Chp. 77)

Yep, you never know when you're going to need things of a legal nature.  Good thing you have a local county law Librarian who is always thinking about you and knows what they have when you come looking for help.  Just, please, leave your baggage at the door. 

Word of the Month for October 2018: Evesdropping

Once upon a time, I was in the market to buy a house.  The wife and I searched everywhere.  Some houses were big, some small, some white, and one was this funky-psychedelic-freak-your-eyes-out-color.  Heck, there was this one that was so beat-up we called it the Lebanon house (because it was the worse fixer-upper we'd ever seen).

One thing that I was looking for was what kind of neighborhood might we live in.  Some of the houses were in quiet neighborhoods.  Some were on (or near) a main drag with lots of car traffic.  The thing I would do is ask around and find out if people were good neighbors; were they loud, have bratty kids, have any kids (for our kids to play with), and whether they were nosey neighbors.  

You know the kind - people who have to stick their nose in everything; have to know what all is going on around them.  Their house may fall apart but they've got to know what everyone else is doing.  It took us a long time but we finally found a house we could both agree on (and there were/are no nosey neighbors).

Of course, this brings me to our word of the month:  EVESDROPPING.  According to Black's Law Dictionary, EVESDROPPING is:

The act of secretly listening to the private conversation of others without their consent; a clandestine attempt to overhear or intercept others private communication.

The reason I even bring this up is because the other day I witnessed something akin to the nosey neighbor syndrome.  We often have attorneys who consult with clients at our library.  Well, on this one day there was this attorney who was consulting with their client just before a deposition.  About 20 feet away, opposing counsel was nonchalantly standing reading something.  

As attorney and client were engaged, I noticed opposing counsel inching closer and closer to the conversation until he stopped and started furiously writing something.  I guessed (correctly) that opposing was taking copious notes on the conversation in hopes of getting a leg up on the competition and to know how best to proceed in the deposition.  

Attorney and client were clueless at first and then attorney glanced up, saw what was going on, flipped out, demanded opposing's notes, cancelled the deposition, threatened sanctions, threatened motions, threatened to tattle to the Bar, and stormed out of the library with client in close pursuit.

Yep, never a dull day at the law library.  I don't know if attorney can get anything from opposing but I'm betting the judge will be none too happy with an attorney who can't play fair and keep their nose away from where it doesn't belong.  

Oh, well. I guess the moral to this story is, if you think you shouldn't do it, don't.  If you're gut is saying no, listen to your gut and don't.  If you might get sanctioned if you do it, then don't do it.  

Bottom line, keep your nose clean and away from problems and you'll do just fine.