SO…is it AUTOMATIC WRIT after 30 days or do I have to go to court again or what??

Best answer:

Answer by Artemis Agrotera
If they do not vacate after the 30 days, you have to go back to court and obtain a Writ – which you will have to pay for. The Writ will be issued automatically – without delay and without your tenants needing to appear.

You would then need to take your signed Writ to the Sheriff’s Department and pay a fee to them to proceed with the physical eviction.

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by blue_bipo2: Is this being selfish or looking out for what’s best for me and my mental health?
I was diagnosed with bipolar type 2 ,years ago. I’ve had many ups and downs and, I am now trying my best to live with my illness. I take my medication regularly, but everybody knows that medication is only one part of the recovery. Therefore, I participated in outpatient information courses to help me learn my triggers, control my moods by using mindfulness and many other skills I apply to my life in order to be a better person. I do therapy twice a month and do allot of self analyzing in order to “reprogram” my brain the “good” way. I know that dealing with a bipolar person is not the easiest thing to do…heck , sometimes I can’t even stand myself!! And even though I constantly work hard on my mental health, I’m still faced with the usual ups and downs of this condition. I do not consider myself perfect (and never pretended to be either), in fact: I know my flaws and I am trying to corect them the best way I can.

So, I’ve been going out with the same guy (on and off) for the past 3 yrs. We’ve had our ups and downs and lately, it was only getting worst. He go into some legal problems last year and was charged with some criminal stuff that he is trying to fight in court. His attitude had gotten very negative and he’d became verbally aggressive. He puts me down and manipulates me by saying that no one will put up with my mood swings and that he really loves me to endure it… Every time I need his support, whether it’s physically/emotionnally or psychologically, he brushes me off and doesn’t care. I love him alot so, I tried talking to him about how I was unhappy in the relationship, but instead of trying to work at reparing our relationship, he turned every thing around by pointing out all of my flaws and saying how I’m awfull.

This week, he lost his job, because like i said he has a bad attitude. He has a problem with authority and not being the one in control. He was constantly yelling at his boss…telling him how stupid and incompetent he is and how he can’t deal with being surrounded by idiots and wishes he could “blow up” his work place. He had gotten prior suspensions for the same reasons but, he just wouldn’t change his attitude! Now, for the past days, he’s been complaining at how life is so unfare with him and how he always gets bad stuff for no reason…and I finaly lost it!!

I told him that he had a serious attitude problem and that he had brought this onto him. That he never took any advice from others and the reason his life is so bad is because he refusses to follow rules and thinks he’s “god” and that every body should do as it pleasses him. I told him i couldn’t handle his problems on top of mine, and that I had tried to be there for him but, he’d rather blame every body else on earth except himself. We got into a big argument and, i finaly told him I didn’t want to be in this relationship anymore. That I loved him alot but, I just wasn’t happy anymore. That it was already hard for me to stay possitive and on top of things and now, he was trying to grab me down with him and I couldn’t do/stand it anymore. Of course, he proceded to yelling at me (for hours) and telling me how I was awfull, selfish, etc. and I did some yelling also and went overboard!

Now, I feel really bad and guilty. I hate hurting others and especially the ones I love. I’ve never been the type of person to break things off in a relationship. I tried every other alternative to fix our relationship but, it was becomming apparent to me that it would never change (cause he didn’t want to change for anybody). I realy feel awfull…like I have kicked him while he was at his lowest and I’m affraid of how he might react (he treatened me by saying he wasn’t going to accept loosing me so easely cause I was the only thing giving him the will to continue in life…) I know the relationship was unhealthy for me, but I’m an not used to thinking about my needs and I can’t help but feel selfish and guilty of being a mean/bad girlfriend…I still care about him and love him, but I just can’t handle it anymore…

When is it considered ok to be selfish? Did I do what was the best thing to do, or was I being inconsiderate? Am I really selfish, or is this finaly the stand I should have taken months ago?

Please help me out, my guilt is killing me!!

PS: sorry for making this out to be NOT a short question !! :O

Best answer:

Answer by Carol
Q: When is it considered ok to be selfish?
When that selfishness neither harms yourself nor others and when it is healthy.

Q: Did I do what was the best thing to do, or was I being inconsiderate?
Personally I think that your timing was really bad, its bad enough loosing your job, but also loosing a relationship at the same time can be devastating. Hopefully he will get back onto his feet and find another girlfriend soon.

Q: Am I really selfish, or is this finaly the stand I should have taken months ago?
You should have done this months ago.

Give your answer to this question below!

Best answer:

Answer by [ViRuS]ProCreated
Most likely not since no drugs were involved in the crime comitted

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Alpha to a golden: this is very serious?
my father is in the hospital on life support, hes getting a little better but has a real bad heart from previous heart attacks. so it may turn for the worst but family and I are hoping for recovery. my father and his sister never got along, so she comes to hospital and just causes miserey to the family. if my fathers condition worsens and there is no options left bother and I have to make the hardest decision that we ever had to make in our lives ( take him off life sopport) he will not survive this. we are going to go with my fathers wishes to be cremated but my aunt says he should be burried. thats not what he wants if anything happenes! shes causing so much greif to us. she knows she has no say because my brother and I have the say on my fathers well being, since we are the next of kin. but shes threatening with taking us to court to get what she wants- shes not concidering his wishes. its all selfishness on her behalf. we want a restraining order to keep her away… can we do that?

Best answer:

Answer by rdhedhottie
You need to follow through with your fathers wishes. To bad he doesn’t have it in writing, hopefully he has a will for both your sakes, being the rest of the family seems like they are going to be trouble. You could get a tape recorder that maybe if your dad comes out enough you can ask him to say what he does want done so your aunt can let you alone. Good Luck.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Argued March 8, 1999.
Decided Nov. 23, 1999.
Reargument Denied Dec. 21, 1999.

Purchaser of engagement ring appealed arbitration decision that awarded ring to his former fiancee. After bench trial, the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division, No. AR 0318394, Mazur, J., entered judgment in favor of purchaser. Former fiancee appealed. The Superior Court, No. 0524PGH96, 702 A.2d 560, affirmed, and former fiancee appealed. On grant of allocatur, the Supreme Court, No. 0039 W.D. Appeal Docket 1998, Newman, J., held that purchaser was entitled to return of the ring under no-fault approach to engagement ring disputes, though he broke the engagement.

Affirmed.

Cappy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Castille and Saylor, JJ., joined.

Castille filed a dissenting opinion, in which Cappy and Saylor, JJ., joined.

West Headnotes

[1] Gifts 34
191k34 Most Cited Cases
The law treats the giving of an engagement ring as a conditional gift.

[2] Gifts 34
191k34 Most Cited Cases
The giving of an engagement gift has an implied condition that the marriage must occur in order to vest title in the donee; mere acceptance of the marriage proposal is not the implied condition for the gift.

[3] Gifts 34
191k34 Most Cited Cases
Donor of engagement ring was entitled to return of the ring from former fiancee, under no-fault approach to resolution of engagement ring disputes, though he broke the engagement.

[4] Gifts 34
191k34 Most Cited Cases
A strict no-fault approach is adopted to determine engagement ring disputes, rather than a fault-based theory or a modified no-fault position, which would look at the reasons for termination of the engagement.
**643*2 Frank E. Reilly, Pittsburgh, for Janis Surman.

Joanne Ross Wilder, Pittsburgh, for Rodger Lindh.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN and SAYLOR, JJ.

OPINION

NEWMAN, Justice.

In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether a donee of an engagement ring must return the ring or its equivalent value when the donor breaks the engagement.

*3 The facts of this case depict a tumultuous engagement between Rodger Lindh (Rodger), a divorced, middle-aged man, and Janis Surman (Janis), the object of Rodger’s inconstant affections. In August of 1993, Rodger proposed marriage to Janis. To that purpose, he presented her with a diamond engagement ring that he purchased for ,400. Rodger testified that the price was less than the ring’s market value because he was a “good customer” of the jeweler’s, having previously purchased a ,000 ring for his ex-wife and other expensive jewelry for his children. Janis, who had never been married, accepted his marriage proposal and the ring. Discord developed in the relationship between Rodger and Janis, and in October of 1993 Rodger broke the engagement and asked for the return of the ring. At that time, Janis obliged and gave Rodger the ring. Rodger and Janis attempted to reconcile. They succeeded, and Rodger again proposed **644 marriage, and offered the ring, to Janis. For a second time, Janis accepted. In March of 1994, however, Rodger called off the engagement. He asked for the return of the ring, which Janis refused, and this litigation ensued.

Rodger filed a two-count complaint against Janis, seeking recovery of the ring or a judgment for its equivalent value. The case proceeded to arbitration, where a panel of arbitrators awarded judgment for Janis. Rodger appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, where a brief non-jury trial resulted in a judgment in favor of Rodger in the amount of ,200. [FN1] Janis appealed to the Superior Court, which affirmed the trial court in a 2-1 panel decision. Judge Ford Elliott, writing for the majority, held that no-fault principles should control, and that the ring must be returned regardless of who broke the engagement, and irrespective of the reasons. In a Dissenting Opinion, Judge Schiller criticized the Majority Opinion for creating what he termed a “romantic bailment” because of its refusal to examine the actions of the donor in breaking the engagement, thereby creating a per se rule requiring the return of an engagement ring in all circumstances. *4 We granted allocatur to answer this novel question of Pennsylvania law.

FN1. The basis for the ,200 award of the trial court was Rodger’s testimony that this was the fair market value of the ring.

[1] We begin our analysis with the only principle on which all parties agree: that Pennsylvania law treats the giving of an engagement ring as a conditional gift. See Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, 390 Pa. 502, 136 A.2d 127 (1957). In Pavlicic, the plaintiff supplied his ostensible fiancée with numerous gifts, including money for the purchase of engagement and wedding rings, with the understanding that they were given on the condition that she marry him. When the defendant left him for another man, the plaintiff sued her for recovery of these gifts. Justice Musmanno explained the conditional gift principle:
A gift given by a man to a woman on condition that she embark on the sea of matrimony with him is no different from a gift based on the condition that the donee sail on any other sea. If, after receiving the provisional gift, the donee refuses to leave the harbor,–if the anchor of contractual performance sticks in the sands of irresolution and procrastination–the gift must be restored to the donor.
Id. at 507, 136 A.2d at 130.

Where the parties disagree, however, is: (1) what is the condition of the gift (i.e., acceptance of the engagement or the marriage itself), and (2) whether fault is relevant to determining return of the ring. Janis argues that the condition of the gift is acceptance of the marriage proposal, not the performance of the marriage ceremony. She also contends that Pennsylvania law, which treats engagement gifts as implied-in-law conditional gifts, has never recognized a right of recovery in a donor who severs the engagement. In her view, we should not recognize such a right where the donor breaks off the engagement, because, if the condition of the gift is performance of the marriage ceremony, that would reward a donor who prevents the occurrence of the condition, which the donee was ready, willing, and eagerly waiting to perform.

[2] Janis first argues that the condition of the gift is acceptance *5 of the proposal of marriage, such that acceptance of the proposal vests absolute title in the donee. This theory is contrary to Pennsylvania’s view of the engagement ring situation. In Ruehling v. Hornung, 98 Pa.Super. 535 (1930), the Superior Court provided what is still the most thorough Pennsylvania appellate court analysis of the problem:
It does not appear whether the engagement was broken by plaintiff or whether it was dissolved by mutual consent. It **645 follows that in order to permit a recovery by plaintiff, it would be necessary to hold that the gifts were subject to the implied condition that they would be returned by the donee to the donor whenever the engagement was dissolved. Under such a rule the marriage would be a necessary prerequisite to the passing of an absolute title to a Christmas gift made in such circumstances. We are unwilling to go that far, except as to the engagement ring.
Id. at 540 (emphasis added). This Court later affirmed that “[t]he promise to return an antenuptial gift made in contemplation of marriage if the marriage does not take place is a fictitious promise implied in law.” Semenza v. Alfano, 443 Pa. 201, 204, 279 A.2d 29, 31 (1971) (emphasis added). Our caselaw clearly recognizes the giving of an engagement gift as having an implied condition that the marriage must occur in order to vest title in the donee; mere acceptance of the marriage proposal is not the implied condition for the gift.

Janis’ argument that Pennsylvania law does not permit the donor to recover the ring where the donor terminates the engagement has some basis in the few Pennsylvania authorities that have addressed the matter. The following language from Ruehling implies that Janis’ position is correct:
We think that it [the engagement ring] is always given subject to the implied condition that if the marriage does not take place either because of the death, or a disability recognized by the law on the part of, either party, or by breach of the contract by the donee, or its dissolution by mutual consent, the gift shall be returned.
Ruehling, 98 Pa.Super. at 540. Noticeably absent from the recital by the court of the situations where the ring must be returned is when the donor breaks the engagement. Other *6 Pennsylvania authorities also suggest that the donor cannot recover the ring when the donor breaks the engagement. See 7 Summary of Pennsylvania Jurisprudence 2d § 15:29, p. 111 (“upon breach of the marriage engagement by the donee, the property may be recovered by the donor”); 17 Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia, “Gifts,” § 9, p. 118 (citing to a 1953 common pleas court decision, “[i]f, on the other hand, the donor wrongfully terminates the engagement, he is not entitled to return of the ring”).

[3] This Court, however, has not decided the question of whether the donor is entitled to return of the ring where the donor admittedly ended the engagement. In the context of our conditional gift approach to engagement rings, the issue we must resolve is whether we will follow the fault-based theory, argued by Janis, or the no-fault rule advocated by Rodger. Under a fault-based analysis, return of the ring depends on an assessment of who broke the engagement, which necessarily entails a determination of why that person broke the engagement. A no-fault approach, however, involves no investigation into the motives or reasons for the cessation of the engagement and requires the return of the engagement ring simply upon the nonoccurrence of the marriage.

The rule concerning the return of a ring founded on fault principles has superficial appeal because, in the most outrageous instances of unfair behavior, it appeals to our sense of equity. Where one fiancée has truly “wronged” the other, depending on whether that person was the donor of the ring or the donee, justice appears to dictate that the wronged individual should be allowed to keep, or have the ring returned. However, the process of determining who is “wrong” and who is “right,” when most modern relationships are complex circumstances, makes the fault-based approach less desirable. A thorough fault-based inquiry would not only end with the question of who terminated the engagement, but would also examine that person’s reasons. In some instances the person who terminated the engagement may have been entirely justified in his or her actions. **646 This kind of inquiry would invite the parties to stage the most bitter and unpleasant *7 accusations against those whom they nearly made their spouse, and a court would have no clear guidance with regard to how to ascertain who was “at fault.” The Supreme Court of Kansas recited the difficulties with the fault-based system:
What is fault or the unjustifiable calling off of an engagement? By way of illustration, should courts be asked to determine which of the following grounds for breaking an engagement is fault or justified? (1) The parties have nothing in common; (2) one party cannot stand prospective in-laws; (3) a minor child of one of the parties is hostile to and will not accept the other party; (4) an adult child of one of the parties will not accept the other party; (5) the parties’ pets do not get along; (6) a party was too hasty in proposing or accepting the proposal; (7) the engagement was a rebound situation which is now regretted; (8) one party has untidy habits that irritate the other; or (9) the parties have religious differences. The list could be endless.
Heiman v. Parrish, 262 Kan. 926, 942 P.2d 631, 637 (1997).

A ring-return rule based on fault principles will inevitably invite acrimony and encourage parties to portray their ex-fiancées in the worst possible light, hoping to drag out the most favorable arguments to justify, or to attack, the termination of an engagement. Furthermore, it is unlikely that trial courts would be presented with situations where fault was clear and easily ascertained and, as noted earlier, determining what constitutes fault would result in a rule that would defy universal application.

The approach that has been described as the modern trend is to apply a no-fault rule to engagement ring cases. See Vigil v. Haber, 888 P.2d at 455 (N.M.1994). Courts that have applied no-fault principles to engagement ring cases have borrowed from the policies of their respective legislatures that have moved away from the notion of fault in their divorce statutes. See, e.g., Vigil, supra (relying on the New Mexico legislature’s enactment of the first no-fault divorce statute); Aronow v. Silver, 223 N.J.Super. 344, 538 A.2d 851 (1987) (noting New Jersey’s approval of no-fault divorce). As described by the court in Vigil, this trend represents a move *8 ” towards a policy that removes fault-finding from the personal-relationship dynamics of marriage and divorce.” Vigil, 888 P.2d at 457. Indeed, by 1986, with the passage by the South Dakota legislature of no-fault divorce provisions, all fifty states had adopted some form of no-fault divorce. Doris Jonas Freed & Timothy B. Walker, Family Law in the Fifty States: An Overview, 19 Fam. L.Q. 331, 335 (1986). Pennsylvania, no exception to this trend, recognizes no-fault divorces. [FN2] See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3301 (c), (d). We agree with those jurisdictions that have looked towards the development of no-fault divorce law for a principle to decide engagement ring cases, and the inherent weaknesses in any fault-based system lead us to adopt a no-fault approach to resolution of engagement ring disputes.

FN2. The Superior Court explained the rationale behind the legislature’s enactment, in 1980, of provisions for no-fault divorce:
we emphasize that the purpose of the legislature’s enactment of no-fault provisions in divorce in addition to the traditional fault provisions was to provide for dissolution of marriage in a manner which would keep pace with contemporary social realities and not to advance “the vindication of private rights or the punishment of matrimonial wrongs.”
Jayne v. Jayne, 443 Pa.Super. 664, 674, 663 A.2d 169, 174 (1995) (citations omitted).

Having adopted this no-fault principle, we still must address the original argument that the donor should not get return of the ring when the donor terminates the engagement. Such a rule would be consonant with a no-fault approach, it is argued, because it need not look at the reasons for termination of the engagement; if there is proof that the donor ended the relationship, **647 then he has frustrated the occurrence of the condition and cannot benefit from that. In other words, we are asked to adopt a no-fault approach that would always deny the donor return of the ring where the donor breaks the engagement.

[4] We decline to adopt this modified no-fault position, [FN3] and hold that the donor is entitled to return of the ring even if *9 the donor broke the engagement. We believe that the benefits from the certainty of our rule outweigh its negatives, and that a strict no-fault approach is less flawed than a fault-based theory or modified no-fault position. [FN4]

FN3. The modified no-fault position is no more satisfactory than a strict no-fault system because it, too, would create an injustice whenever the donor who called off the wedding had compelling reasons to do so.

FN4. Although other “scenarios” related to the consequences of a cancelled wedding can undoubtedly be “envisioned,” they are not presented for decision in this case and therefore warrant no comment.

We affirm the Order of the Superior Court.

Justice CAPPY files a dissenting opinion in which Justices CASTILLE and SAYLOR join.

Justice CASTILLE files a dissenting opinion in which Justices CAPPY and SAYLOR join.

CAPPY, Justice, dissenting.

The majority advocates that a strict no-fault policy be applied to broken engagements. In endorsing this view, the majority argues that it is not only the modern trend but also the approach which will eliminate the inherent weaknesses of a fault based analysis. According to the majority, by adopting a strict no fault approach, we will remove from the courtroom the necessity of delving into the inter-personal dynamics of broken engagements in order to decide which party retains possession of the engagement ring. This view brings to mind the words of Thomas Campbell from The Jilted Nymph: “Better be courted and jilted than never be courted at all.” As I cannot endorse this approach, I respectfully dissent.

An engagement ring is a traditional token of the pledge to marry. It is a symbol of nuptial intent dating back to AD 860. The engagement ring was to be of a valued metal representing a financial sacrifice for the husband to be. Two other customs regarding the engagement ring were established in that same century: forfeiture of the ring by a man who reneged on a marriage pledge; surrender of the ring by the woman who broke off an engagement. See Charles Panati, Extraordinary Origins of Everyday Things (copyright 1987). This concept is consistent with conditional gift law, which has always been followed in Pennsylvania. Stanger v. Epler, 382 Pa. 411, 115 A.2d 197 (1955); Ruehling v. Hornung, 98 Pa.Super. 535 (1930); C.J.S. Gifts § 61. *10 When the marriage does not take place the agreement is void and the party who prevented the marriage agreement from being fulfilled must forfeit the engagement ring. Pavlicic v. Vogtsberger, 390 Pa. 502, 136 A.2d 127 (1957).

The majority urges adoption of its position to relieve trial courts from having the onerous task of sifting through the debris of the broken engagement in order to ascertain who is truly at fault and if there lies a valid justification excusing fault. Could not this theory justifying the majority’s decision be advanced in all other arenas that our trial courts must venture? Are broken engagements truly more disturbing than cases where we ask judges and juries to discern possible abuses in nursing homes, day care centers, dependency proceedings involving abused children, and criminal cases involving horrific, irrational injuries to innocent victims? The subject matter our able trial courts address on a daily basis is certainly of equal sordidness as any fact pattern they **648 may need to address in a simple case of who broke the engagement and why.

I can envision a scenario whereby the prospective bride and her family have expended thousands of dollars in preparation for the culminating event of matrimony and she is, through no fault of her own, left standing at the altar holding the caterer’s bill. To add insult to injury, the majority would also strip her of her engagement ring. Why the majority feels compelled to modernize this relatively simple and ancient legal concept is beyond the understanding of this poor man.

Accordingly, as I see no valid reason to forgo the established precedent in Pennsylvania for determining possession of the engagement ring under the simple concept of conditional gift law, I cannot endorse the modern trend advocated by the majority. Respectfully, I dissent.

Justices CASTILLE and SAYLOR join this dissenting opinion.

*11 CASTILLE, Justice, dissenting.

I dissent from the majority’s opinion because I do not believe that a no-fault policy should be applied to broken engagements and the issue of which party retains the engagement ring. The Restatement of Restitution, § 58 comment c, discusses the return of engagement rings and states that:
Gifts made in the hope that a marriage or contract of marriage will result are not recoverable, in the absence of fraud. Gifts made in anticipation of marriage are not ordinarily expressed to be conditional and, although there is an engagement to marry, if the marriage fails to occur without the fault of the donee, normally the gift cannot be recovered. If, however, the donee obtained the gift fraudulently or if the gift was made for a purpose which could be obtained only by the marriage, a donor who is not himself at fault is entitled to restitution if the marriage does not take place, even if the gift was money. If there is an

Best answer:

Answer by wyomugs
Well… I’m waiting!!! Politely!

Have a polite day!

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by Beverly R: What is drug court and if ordered to do this – what can I expect will happen?
I have to do this for the city of Taylor in Michigan.

Best answer:

Answer by LilShariwa
Miscategorized

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by Jess: I had a car accident recently, police didn’t showed up.I’m taking this person to small claims court.?
The person who hit my car, didn’t have a Drivers license and showed me an expired insurance policy. I called the cops twice and they didn’t want to come over, claiming that was not necessary since she was willing to exchange info. INFO? with no ID, a made up phone number, and a lot of nerve to be driving reckless. My insurance does not cover uninsured motorist so is being a pain in the butt. I want to take this person to small claims and only have her address from that 2005 insurance policy she showed me. The claim adjuster said that the car is register under that name the policy said. I need some help about the steps to take and paperwork I need in order to continue in the recovery of the damaged in my car is worth. Almost G’s Besides I wanna make sure people like her get their lesson. Why do they drive without insurance and reckless.They are just go out there destroying other people property.This has to stop! NO DL, NO VALID INSURANCE COVERAGE, SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING! One more detail…I sent a letter requesting payment, to the address I got from the expired insurance policy. Found out that is still sitting at the post office, USPS said they left a notice on the 13th and still haven’t pick up. What should I do? Im to the point that I wanna take this woman down, but the right way!!!!
One more thing spoke with a coupleof attorneys and they basically said that there was nothing for them on that case since the woman most likely be ilegal and because I was uninsured againts “UNINSURED DRIVERS”

Best answer:

Answer by Sean
Hire a lawyer if you want legal advice, Don’t go on YA!
In the world of the internet anyone can claim to have any degree they want.

Take this advice, never take advice from people who shouldn’t be giving it.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by It’s Just Me: Child Support- is this wrong?
My Ex-husband is court ordered to pay Child Support every week.

For the last 10 years I have had to get the money from him directly. I have to call him every week or two- and then track him down where ever he is to get my money. Sometimes I get it- sometimes I have to wait a week and start the whole process again.

I am so tired of this weekly “wild goose chase”. I stopped calling him to ask for my money about 4 weeks ago. He hasn’t called me to give me my money.

I have decided to turn him over to Child Support Enforcement, and let them handle the payments and recovering the 4 weeks of past due support.

Part of me is happy to not have to see him every week- and have to call him on the phone anymore (he doesn’t visit with our child- so we will never see him now), but I also feel like maybe I should call him and tell him to send me the money now and let him know that I am turning him into Child Support Recovery.

I know he is wrong because he knows he has to pay that money every week and I shouldn’t have to call him constantly to try to get my money.

I am also afraid that he is going to call and scream at me when the Child Support people contact him.

What should I do?
No way! I don’t like having to call or see him! that is why I stopped chasing him down for my support. I just don’t want him to call me and scream at me and call me names and stuff- he has done that in the past : (

Best answer:

Answer by Magic 8 Ball “8 BILF”
You are not a bill collector, and you shouldn’t have to chase him around so he can take care of his kids. I don’t blame you for calling Child Support Recovery, and I would have done it sooner. Good for you for stopping the drama.

Give your answer to this question below!

By DIRK JOHNSON
Published: January 20, 2009

WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

Kara Neumann months before she died at age 11. Her parents, who prayed but did not seek medical care when she was ill, are charged with reckless endangerment.
Enlarge This Image

Leilani and Dale Neumann in court last spring in Wausau, Wis. Their case could create guidelines in an unsettled area of law.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Best answer:

Answer by Erin M
God never makes a mistake.

Just because we don’t like his choice doesn’t make it wrong.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by Ryan V: what are the ethical dilemmas associated with this particular case?
In January 1983, twenty-five-year old Nancy Cruzan lost control of her car as she traveled down a Missouri road. The car overturned, and she was discovered, lying face down in a ditch, without detectable respiratory or cardiac function. Emergency medical technicians were able to restore her breathing and heartbeat, and she was transported to a hospital in an unconscious state. A neurosurgeon there diagnosed her as having sustained probable brain damage, compounded by significant oxygen deprivation. The estimated length of the period without oxygen was twelve to fourteen minutes. (Permanent brain damage generally results after six minutes without oxygen.) Cruzan remained in a coma for approximately three weeks, and then progressed to an unconscious state in which she was able to orally ingest some nutrition. In order to ease feeding and further her recovery, surgeons implanted a feeding and hydration tube with the consent of her then husband. In October 1983, she was admitted to a state hospital. Subsequent rehabilitative efforts proved unsuccessful. It became apparent that she had virtually no chance of regaining her mental faculties, and her parents-who had been appointed as her coguardians-asked the hospital to terminate the medically assisted nutrition and hydration procedures. The hospital refused to honor the request without court approval.

The Cruzans then filed a declaratory judgment action in a Missouri trial court, in which they sought judicial authorization of their request. A guardian ad litem was appointed for Nancy. The trial court, following a hearing, entered an order directing the hospital to follow the parent’s instructions, based upon its findings on (1) the permanent and irreversible damage that she had suffered as a result of prolonged oxygen deprivation; (2) its belief that a person in Cruzan’s condition had a fundamental right under the Missouri and Federal Constitutions to refuse or direct the withdrawal of “death prolonging procedures”; and (3) her expressed thoughts at age twenty-five, in somewhat serious conversation with her housemate, that if sick or injured, she would not wish to continue her life unless she could live at least halfway normally, suggested that she would not wish to continue on with her nutrition and hydration given her present condition.

Both the state and the guardian ad litem appealed. The Supreme Court of Missouri, reversing the lower court, expressed the view that (1) although Cruzan was in a “persistent vegetative state,” she was neither dead within the meaning of Missouri’s statutory definition of death nor terminally ill; (2) Cruzan’s right to refuse treatment-whether such right proceeded from a constitutional right of privacy or a common-law right to refuse treatment-did not outweigh Missouri’s strong policy favoring the preservation of life, as embodied in the Missouri living will statute; (3) her conversation with her housemate was unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent, and thus insufficient to support the parents’ claim to exercise substituted judgment on her behalf; and (4) no person could assume the choice of terminating medical treatment for an incompetent person in the absence of either the formalities required under the living will statute or “clear and convincing, inherently reliable evidence,” which was absent in Cruzan’s case.

The United States Supreme Court upheld that ruling. It found that due process was not violated by the Missouri requirement that an incompetent person’s wishes in regard to the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In the end, however, further witnesses satisfied Missouri courts that such clear and convincing evidence of her wishes did exist, and medically assisted nutrition and hydration were removed in December of 1990. Cruzan died two weeks later. Missouri now allows health care directives (though not living wills) to instruct that medically assisted nutrition and hydration be removed after a diagnosis of permanent or persistent vegetative state has been made.

What judgment would you make about this case?

Best answer:

Answer by Paula
The U.S. Supreme Court was correct.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

In a decision described as the first of its type in the nation, the state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a couple does not have to live together in order for one partner to sue the other for palimony after a breakup.

The high court ruled that judges should consider the “entirety” of a couple’s relationship, and that cohabitation is only one factor in deciding whether they had a “marital-type relationship.”

The ruling overturned an appeals court decision last year that said there is no basis for a palimony suit unless a couple lived together.

“It is the promise of support, expressed or implied, coupled with a marital-type relationship, that are the indispensable elements to support a valid claim of palimony,” Justice John Wallace wrote for the court.

The high court was ruling in the case of a former North Bergen woman who was attempting to sue a prominent, wealthy and married Manhattan ophthalmologist for palimony after he ended a 20-year relationship.

“This is the first ruling of its type in the country,” said William Goldberg, the Hackensack-based attorney for the defendant in the case, retired ophthalmologist Francis L’Esperance, 75. “I don’t remember any case in the United States ever permitting recovery where cohabitation did not exist. This is the first case that says there does not necessarily have to be a ‘bright-line’ requirement that cohabitation must exist, but it certainly is the most significant factor.”

Alan Zegas, a Chatham-based family law attorney, said the decision is precedent-setting.

“The court appears to be evaluating the case in terms of requiring lower courts to examine whether promises were made that would cause one of the partners to believe a relationship existed, that it was similar to a marriage,” he said. “I think the door is now wide open on these types of claims.”

The justices left it up to Superior Court judges to determine when there is grounds for a palimony suit. Palimony is a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of an unmarried couple following a breakup. Alimony payments involve married couples.

“The Family Court is well equipped to consider highly personal facts and to determine whether a plaintiff’s claim for support based on a marital-type relationship has merit,” Wallace wrote.

The New Jersey courts have ruled since 1979 that cohabitation was necessary to bring a palimony suit. Prior to that year, the courts would not enforce support claims involving unmarried couples or married couples not living with their spouses.

The ruling did not help the woman who made the palimony claim, Helen Devaney, 47, now of Brooklyn. The justices turned away Devaney’s contention that an unsuccessful effort to conceive a child with L’Esperance in 2003 “demonstrates that their relationship was sufficiently akin to a marriage.”

They found she did not present enough evidence to uphold her palimony claim. L’Esperance, a pioneer in laser eye surgery, provided Devaney with money and a condominium in North Bergen.

Devaney was 23 and L’Esperance 51 when she went to work for him in 1983. After a few months, their relationship became intimate. She knew he was married, but he told her he planned to get a divorce. The couple saw each other no more than two or three evenings each week and sometimes one day on the weekend. During the seven years Devaney lived in the condo, L’Esperance spent no more than seven nights there, according to the decision.

The justices noted the trial judge found Devaney relied on L’Esperance’s promises to take care of her and she eventually became financially dependent on L’Esperance.

“As the trial judge so aptly phrased it,” Wallace wrote, “‘the parties’ relationship was best characterized as a dating relationship.’”

Tom Hester may be reached at thester@starledger.com or (609) 292-0557.

Best answer:

Answer by johno
That is ridiculous! I’m glad she didn’t get any money, she is probably just pis*ed about wasted many years of her life. It’s not the guys fault why should he have to pay, can’t she work?

What do you think? Answer below!

Question by johnnybassline: What do you think about this court decision? from Yahoo News… Judge: Man must display victim’s picture?
BARTOW, Fla. – A judge has ordered a man who pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide to display a large picture of the victim in his home after serving two years in prison.
Circuit Judge Robert Doyel said Friday that the picture must be at least 2 feet wide and displayed prominently. It also must include lettering that says: ‘I’m sorry I killed you.’
Arthur Pierce, 31, was racing with his cousin on a busy street when they caused an accident that killed 17-year-old Chelsi Gregory, authorities said. Witnesses told police Pierce was swerving in traffic at about 120 mph when his Cadillac collided with a pickup in which Gregory was a passenger.
A prosecutor also said alcohol was a factor in the crash. Pierce’s cousin, Christopher Pierce, is set to be sentenced April 5.
An advocate for Mothers Against Drunk Driving requested the photograph be part of Pierce’s sentence, according to The Ledger of Lakeland newspaper.
The judge said that Pierce’s probation officer will be allowed to search his hom
The judge said that Pierce’s probation officer will be allowed to search his home at any time, and if the photograph is not displayed, it will be considered a probation violation.

Best answer:

Answer by Ed P
If it makes him think ?/?Remember he was convicted once. How many times did he not get caught????

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by spike_is_my_evil_vampire: My brother in law has alcoholic hepatitis, do you know someone who has survived with this?
His chances aren’t good (maybe a 30% chance) but if he survives, he can never ever drink again which will be hard for him because he would normally drink a case of beer a day.

Does anyone know of any good vitamins, therapies, etc. that could help? My family is just grasping at straws but I thought I’d ask.

Best answer:

Answer by little ace
nope hepatitis is in the liver ounce you got it you have it my mom had it hepatitis A-B, just be sure when you are around him you dont drink out of the same glass or use the same fork or spoon that he uses and be careful about who kissing him on the lips because hepatitis is very contuses especially the Sylvia and if he has a cold or if he cough a lot especially around children ask him to wear a mask and always wash your hands

Give your answer to this question below!

Best answer:

Answer by steve.sicard
i dont know what bar your going to that documents everyone who walks in the door but no they cannot reveal personal information unless a court order is executed to investigate your personal records, including bar records i guess. never heard of a bar doing that though.

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Question by Drunk Slut Lindsay: should the judge that ordered me to wear this alcohol monitoring device be in prison? I was in Mean Girls?

Best answer:

Answer by Major Deek
I’m tellin ya, it just ain’t funny.

Give your answer to this question below!

My first tattoo says ‘Alis Volat Propriis’ which means she flies with her own wings, going down my left arm

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa276/renzy19/tattttoo.jpg

This tattoo means a lot to me because I cut this into the same arm at my lowest point, before a suicide attempt. To me that tattoo represents independence and how only I can make myself better.

My next tattoo I want to get is to represent my past and moving forward. I want Bansky’s Girl & balloon with a quote from thriving ivory’s “Hey Lady” “Don’t give up on me, don’t burn your heart out love

This tattoo, to me represents losing the ability to love at a weak point in your life, which I lost the ability to love myself, and you know how the saying goes “You can’t love someone else, until you love yourself.” I believe from may until two weeks ago was my weakest point. And the girl is reaching out for it, which for me symbolizes my treatment, and me trying to make myself better, and gaining control of my life again. It also symbolizes loss of innocence, which relates to me because I was raped when I was 12, grew up with an abusive stepfather with a neglectful mother, I was quite promiscuous growing up, and abused numerous drugs and alcohol. It also symbolizes growing up, which I never planned on doing, considering I made a suicide pact with myself when I was 12 that I would kill myself by 18. Now I’m ready to try. I think it symbolizes letting go too, I need to let go of my past in order to live a full and happy life. The quote also means a lot to me, I found Thriving Ivory a couple days before every thing started happening, and Hey Lady represent my teacher who’s been supporting me from Day 1 of all this.

So my question is where should I get this tattooed? I’m leaning towards my chest, I want it somewhere visible, any suggestions?
Here’s a picture of me if it helps

http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa276/renzy19/untitled.jpg

Thank you in advance (:
Thank you guys. (:

I can’t really do feet, although I like the idea, because of the quote :/ I want it somewhere so the world can basically see where I’ve been, and where I’m going.

Alis Volat Propriis is latin (: