Ask DrewDevil your legal questions - Page 5

Slow Play Ray · #41 10-10-2007, 04:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is owner's title insurance really worth the cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely. Also, it is standard for the seller to pay the premium, which makes it free to you, the buyer!

[/ QUOTE ]

sure wish i knew that a month ago.

i really wonder what the actual incidence rate is. do you have any idea? i read that they have the highest margins in the insurance industry (about 80%!), which makes me question it. seems like a good gamble to not spend the extra $1000. i have until tomorrow afternoon to decide.

DrewDevil · #42 10-10-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is owner's title insurance really worth the cost?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, absolutely. Also, it is standard for the seller to pay the premium, which makes it free to you, the buyer!

[/ QUOTE ]

sure wish i knew that a month ago.

i really wonder what the actual incidence rate is. do you have any idea? i read that they have the highest margins in the insurance industry (about 80%!), which makes me question it. seems like a good gamble to not spend the extra $1000. i have until tomorrow afternoon to decide.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really, really, absolutely should buy title insurance OR have an experienced real estate attorney review the title documents and try to get an opinion letter from the atty stating that there are no title defects.

Of course, (a) that might cost you more than $1,000, and (b) most attys would probably decline to give an opinion and tell you to buy title insurance.

Why do you say you have till tomorrow? Have you not closed yet?

DrewDevil · #43 10-10-2007, 05:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Drew,

How would 'filled with the rage of the disenfranchised' hold up as a criminal defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to the craziest defenses I've heard of.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, would you object to being referred to as Dru Down from here on out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer either DrewDevil or Captain Awesome.

SlowHabit · #44 10-10-2007, 05:09 PM

Double Ds,

If an undercover cop pretends to be a lawyer and someone unknowingly hire him and tell him their secrets, is the "client-lawyer privilege" still exists? I got the example from a movie but am curious for an answer. My thinking is that the undercover cop can go to jail for pretending to be a lawyer [is this true?] but he get to testify against the person as a witness.

Another question. I go eat at a restaurant. I get food poisoning which I know for sure is from the restaurant. Can I sue? On the other hand, as a restaurant owner, what can I do to protect myself from getting sued in case my foods cause people to get fat or get sick or both? I know this question sounds ridiculous but curiosity got the best of me.

Thanks again!

miajag · #45 10-10-2007, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you taped the conversations without your wife's knowledge, you violated federal (and probably state) wiretapping laws, which means the conversation would probably be inadmissible and you could face criminal charges! Big no no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't these laws vary widely by state?

In New York, you only need the knowledge/consent of one party to record a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you're right, it's still a violation of federal wiretapping laws (Linda Tripp says hello), so it is manifestly unwise to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Tripp got in trouble under Maryland wiretapping law (which requires both parties' consent). The federal wiretap law only requires the consent of one party. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

Also, isn't evidence only excluded if law enforcement is the party that uses illegal methods? I thought if a private citizen obtained information illegally and then turned it over to law enforcement, yeah, he can get in trouble, but the evidence isn't tainted. Not 100% sure on this though.

gobbomom · #46 10-10-2007, 05:25 PM

this is awesome of you to do Drew! I want to elaborate on the previous situation I asked about.

My house caught on fire. Mortgage company sold out before claim was paid. Went to court and got the ins. co. to issue check to me and my attornies, because a 6th! mortgage company in succession claimed an interest but had no legal proof. Check was placed in trust while mortgage co. appealed. Appellate court ruled that mortgage co. had until Nov. 22 to provide proof. House was sold in bankruptcy court on Nov. 3, mortgage co. received the money without ever proving line of succession.

I fired my lawyers, went to court pro se for a summary judgment. Fired lawyers slapped a lien on trust. Judge ruled that neither I nor the mortgage company proved sole ownership to check and there would have to be a trial.

This mortgage company has now sold out.

Do you see my issues? The Joe Blow mortgage company received proceeds to the house w/ out ever showing title. I have no idea how to proceed to get the money out of trust. There will obviously never be a trial because another mortgage co. will never expend the hundreds of thousands this case has already cost even if they could somehow come up with proof of title, something 5 prior mortgage companies failed to do.

DrewDevil · #47 10-10-2007, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, if you taped the conversations without your wife's knowledge, you violated federal (and probably state) wiretapping laws, which means the conversation would probably be inadmissible and you could face criminal charges! Big no no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't these laws vary widely by state?

In New York, you only need the knowledge/consent of one party to record a phone call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if you're right, it's still a violation of federal wiretapping laws (Linda Tripp says hello), so it is manifestly unwise to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect. Tripp got in trouble under Maryland wiretapping law (which requires both parties' consent). The federal wiretap law only requires the consent of one party. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d).

Also, isn't evidence only excluded if law enforcement is the party that uses illegal methods? I thought if a private citizen obtained information illegally and then turned it over to law enforcement, yeah, he can get in trouble, but the evidence isn't tainted. Not 100% sure on this though.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right--it looks like it's okay to tape the conversation if you are one of the people involved in the conversation. He just couldn't tape his wife telling someone else that he never assaulted her, etc.

I don't know about the other thing.

This brings up another decent point: don't trust a lawyer who pretends to know everything about every facet of the law. No one knows everything about their specialty, let alone the broader legal landscape.

This is why this is just for general legal info, mmmkay?

Slow Play Ray · #48 10-10-2007, 05:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You really, really, absolutely should buy title insurance OR have an experienced real estate attorney review the title documents and try to get an opinion letter from the atty stating that there are no title defects.

Of course, (a) that might cost you more than $1,000, and (b) most attys would probably decline to give an opinion and tell you to buy title insurance.

Why do you say you have till tomorrow? Have you not closed yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I mean I have a real estate attorney reviewing the title documents as we speak, and he did actually find a missing [can't remember the term but whatever proves the mortgage was paid off] from 1983 but he's supposed to be clearing that up prior to closing. I know he will not give me any kind of opinion though. It all comes down to whether we want to accept the risk I guess. It just seems so overpriced to me, considering the likelihood of needing it.

No - we close on Monday, but they are supposed to give me the final costs on Friday, which means I need to decide whether or not to take the $780 title insurance policy by EOB tomorrow.

CallMeIshmael · #49 10-10-2007, 05:55 PM

Is piracy insurance legal in the US?

I know its happened in Sweeden, but I havent heard of it happening in the US.

J.A.K. · #50 10-10-2007, 06:03 PM

Drew,

Good thread thanks for doing this.

My grandfather died without a will and the property was/is in his name. My grandmother is now in hospice and has been in nursing home for ~8 years. She is of sound mind but she is fading fast. Is there a legal maneuver to retroactively get the property transferred into the childrens' names as this was my grandfather's (and grandmother's) intent? Does it automatically go to my grandmother once he died? I don't think anything has been legally done since my GF's death.