Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
I think my question is about an interlocutory appeal from a family
32 views
Skip to first unread message
MediumBunny
Nov 11, 2012, 6:01:17 AM11/11/12
to
Hi all,
Let's say A and B are married in NJ for 20yrs, B runs off with
someone else but the two stay "wed" for a few more years until
the divorce is brought. B wants, in connection with the divorce,
to re-enter the home to inspect it (under the assumption that
some remaining B or A-B possessions remain and weren't liquidated
by A), while A is still residing in the marital home.
The deed is still held by A and B jointly. A has, since B ran off,
assumed full responsibility for the mortgage on the property, and
B has apparently signed over all of B's equity to A. A, for what
it's worth, has a drug habit and continually refinanced the home
(all the $ went up A's nose) and if it's worth $145k, the mortgage
is $130k. I didn't even think banks would let that happen (who
are these loan officers?).
Mid-divorce, the judge tells B to "get over it" and that no access
to the home would be granted. Judge assumes (and the lawyers agree)
that there is literally nothing, after all those years, in the home
that belongs to B or could be claimed as joint property by B.
That's despite that B is still on the deed.
Is that correct? Can B re-enter the home for an afternoon with
counsel or police chaperones? Does B have a right to inspect?
I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser who
confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts. B can't
believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't believe A has
liquidated everything (furniture, for example). Judge can and
does believe it and ruled that B's motion to re-enter to inspect
the home is not to be granted.
Looking to get B access, need help.
Thank you all,
MediumBunny
Let's say A and B are married in NJ for 20yrs, B runs off with
someone else but the two stay "wed" for a few more years until
the divorce is brought. B wants, in connection with the divorce,
to re-enter the home to inspect it (under the assumption that
some remaining B or A-B possessions remain and weren't liquidated
by A), while A is still residing in the marital home.
The deed is still held by A and B jointly. A has, since B ran off,
assumed full responsibility for the mortgage on the property, and
B has apparently signed over all of B's equity to A. A, for what
it's worth, has a drug habit and continually refinanced the home
(all the $ went up A's nose) and if it's worth $145k, the mortgage
is $130k. I didn't even think banks would let that happen (who
are these loan officers?).
Mid-divorce, the judge tells B to "get over it" and that no access
to the home would be granted. Judge assumes (and the lawyers agree)
that there is literally nothing, after all those years, in the home
that belongs to B or could be claimed as joint property by B.
That's despite that B is still on the deed.
Is that correct? Can B re-enter the home for an afternoon with
counsel or police chaperones? Does B have a right to inspect?
I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser who
confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts. B can't
believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't believe A has
liquidated everything (furniture, for example). Judge can and
does believe it and ruled that B's motion to re-enter to inspect
the home is not to be granted.
Looking to get B access, need help.
Thank you all,
MediumBunny
David L. Martel
Nov 11, 2012, 8:40:58 PM11/11/12
to
You describe a failed marriage where the home is currently jointly held.
One party, A, remains in the home, continues to pay the mortgage, et c.
The other party, B, runs off with someone. After a few years a divorce
is contemplated. B wishes to inspect the home and it's furnishings.
> I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser who
> confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts. B can't
> believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't believe A has
> liquidated everything (furniture, for example). Judge can and
> does believe it and ruled that B's motion to re-enter to inspect
> the home is not to be granted.
So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B now wishes
to perform this inspection personally. The court says no.
Sorry I side with the court here. B did send a competant appraiser over.
There's nothing in your post that indicates any reason why B should ignore
his own expert. You've also not indicated that B has any expertise in such
appraisals. I'm puzzled as to B's motives in trying to enter this house.
If it is important to B, a consult with a lawyer may show some path for
an appeal.
Good luck,
Dave M.
One party, A, remains in the home, continues to pay the mortgage, et c.
The other party, B, runs off with someone. After a few years a divorce
is contemplated. B wishes to inspect the home and it's furnishings.
> I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser who
> confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts. B can't
> believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't believe A has
> liquidated everything (furniture, for example). Judge can and
> does believe it and ruled that B's motion to re-enter to inspect
> the home is not to be granted.
to perform this inspection personally. The court says no.
Sorry I side with the court here. B did send a competant appraiser over.
There's nothing in your post that indicates any reason why B should ignore
his own expert. You've also not indicated that B has any expertise in such
appraisals. I'm puzzled as to B's motives in trying to enter this house.
If it is important to B, a consult with a lawyer may show some path for
an appeal.
Good luck,
Dave M.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Nov 11, 2012, 8:42:12 PM11/11/12
to
MediumBunny <faz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's say A and B are married in NJ for 20yrs, B runs off with
> someone else but the two stay "wed" for a few more years until
> the divorce is brought. B wants, in connection with the divorce,
> to re-enter the home to inspect it (under the assumption that
> some remaining B or A-B possessions remain and weren't
> liquidated by A), while A is still residing in the marital home.
>
> The deed is still held by A and B jointly. A has, since B ran
> off, assumed full responsibility for the mortgage on the
> property,
So far not remarkable
> Let's say A and B are married in NJ for 20yrs, B runs off with
> someone else but the two stay "wed" for a few more years until
> the divorce is brought. B wants, in connection with the divorce,
> to re-enter the home to inspect it (under the assumption that
> some remaining B or A-B possessions remain and weren't
> liquidated by A), while A is still residing in the marital home.
>
> The deed is still held by A and B jointly. A has, since B ran
> off, assumed full responsibility for the mortgage on the
> property,
> and B has apparently signed over all of B's equity to A.
> Mid-divorce, the judge tells B to "get over it" and that no
> access to the home would be granted. Judge assumes (and the
> lawyers agree) that there is literally nothing, after all those
> years, in the home that belongs to B or could be claimed as
> joint property by B. That's despite that B is still on the
> deed.
even though his name is on the deed he has no legal right to enter
as an owner. And if he had been gone long enough without asking
for any personal property, the court may well have determined that
he abandoned anything that he may have had a claim to.
> Is that correct? Can B re-enter the home for an afternoon with
> counsel or police chaperones? Does B have a right to inspect?
to anything in this situation. He can't just go on a treasure hunt
to claim things he sees and likes if he doesn't have any idea what
might be there and what might be his.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
nos...@isp.com
Nov 12, 2012, 3:45:17 PM11/12/12
to
MediumBunny <faz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think my question is about [whether the following
> facts provide a basis for a [N.J] interlocutory appeal.
Substantially less than extremely unlikely.
> [A and B have been married for twenty years. They
> separated about two years ago when B moved from
> the therefore now former marital residence in N.J.
> However, neither sued for divorce until recently. In
> the meantime, although the property's recorded deed
> named and still names both as joint owners, as between
> the two of them, A] assumed full responsibility for
> the mortgage . . . and B has apparently signed over all
probably self-misleading especially if (as seems) you are or you ask
on behalf of B. That is, presumably B knows or at least should
whether, as between the two, B had conveyed to A all of B's interest
in the property. Nor do you post facts that contravene concluding
that what you mean by "signed over" is that B has, in fact, provided A
with a signed writing memorializing B's relinquishment to A of B's
ownership interest.*
-----------------------------------------
* A not untypical reason why separated and eventually to be
divorcing spouses do this is to try to prevent the mortgage
holder from learning of the conveyance and declaring a
default and accelerating the full remaining mortgage balance
if/when, as is typical, the mortgage includes a provision to
the effect that a conveyance of a joint owner's interest
without the morgagee's written approval can trigger this
alternative if the mortgagee chooses.
As relevant to -- as indeed very probably would be essential for -- a
contemplated attempt to appeal from an order denying B's pretrial
motion for leave to enter and inspect the property would be an answer
to this related question which you raise in effect but (perhaps even
evasively) leave unanswered:
In light of whatever the signed by B document to which you refer says,
what documentary and/or other persuasive evidence has B provided to
the court so as to be included in a would-be record on appeal does B
rely to establish that the trial judge abused his discretion in
denying B's motion for access?
> B wants, in connection with the divorce, to re-enter the home
> to inspect it (under the assumption that some remaining B or
> A-B possessions remain and weren't liquidated by A), while
> A is still residing in the marital home . . . . [but] the judge
which would suffice to support and, indeed, come very close to
requiring the judge's ruling yet, according to you, both of which are
present -- why the judge was correct.
The first is that despite the lengthy passage of time since chose to
and did B move permanently from the former marital residence and
despite B's claim (which I arguendo posit to be largely accurate) that
A is a drug abusing spendthrift who, as such, probably long ago sold
whatever contents of the residence that had more than trivial dollar
value, you say that B nevertheless relied merely on an "assumption"
that, possibly, some not specified personal belongings in which B
might have some ownership interest might still be found there.
Presumably you are aware, however, that:
OTOH, pretrial discovery available as a matter of right in a N.J.
matrimonial action beyond that provided via comparatively exhaustive
financial disclosure required by the divorcing spouses filing/exchange
of a case information statement (CIS) of all of each's assets and
liabilities even if not subject to equitable distribution is limited
to interrogatories and depositions (other than of a non-adult family
member) except for claims that relate to the alleged grounds for
divorce, i.e., does not include as a matter of right the sort of
personal inspection to which you refer; and/but
OTOH, that (except only for production of identified documents
including as referred to in pleadings and for requests for admissions)
ALL other discovery in such a litigation is available only by leave of
the court as a matter of judicial discretion if, but only if, the
movant actually proves "good cause" for the requested relief and,
again, virtually by definition, an "assumption" about possibilities is
does not demonstrate good cause.
Secondly, independently, and (unless in this respect, too, you were to
explain otherwise as you have not yet done) very probably more
basically, you ought not have relegated what you say A's and B's
attorneys "agree" about this subject to a parenthetical aside. To the
contrary, if B's attorney manifested his or her "agree[ment]" in by a
writing of some kind exchanged in the litigation or by an
on-the-record statement in court (in substance even if not in these
exact words) that "there is literally nothing" left in the premises in
which B would have any ownership interest, such a stipulation would
bind the client, IOW, is deemed tantamount to an admission by the
represented client that what that party's attorney "agree[s]" with
opposing counsel to be a material fact is the fact for the purposes of
the lawsuit.
> Is that correct? Can B re-enter the home for an afternoon
> with counsel or police chaperones? Does B have a right to
> inspect?
You said that in or at the conclusion of a hearing at which B and B's
attorney appeared and participated the assigned judge answered these
questions.
> I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser
> who confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts.
> B can't believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't
> believe A has liquidated everything (furniture, for example).
Saying what a party "can't believe" is no more than to make a claim
about that party's subjective intellectual/emotional state. It is not
proof that what the party "can't believe" is or is not the fact. Nor
do you say what if any facts the would-be record on appeal would
contain that would undermine (not to dwell on contradict) what B's
chosen appraiser reported after that presumed expert's inspection of
the property on B's behalf.
>Looking to get B access, need help.
Your framing your query in terms of the probable availability or not
of an interlocutory appeal suggests that you have been advised that
leave for such an appeal is required but is only very rarely granted
in N.J. because of repeated judicial admonitions that such piecemeal
review is a presumptive "anathema" in that state and so is permitted
only "sparingly" in "exceptional" cases -- that is to say that,
especially re. pretrial discovery disputes, that such leave is granted
only in the most compellingly demonstrated abuse of discretion
circumstances.*
-----------------------------------------
* While one can't tell only from what you say in your posting
whether this additional consideration would apply, your very
vagueness about this issue may be worth noting in addition:
Even if B had seen to it despite you apparently indicating
otherwise that the prospective record on appeal very probably
substantively supports B's claim, you don't post any clearly
stated information about when the court made the order in
question so that you do not make clear whether requesting
leave to appeal would still be timely; yet untimeliness of
such a request often provides an independent judicial rationale
to deny such leave.
Another question your posting raises but does not answer if (as also
seems) B has been and remains represented by counsel of B's choice is
why you post your query to an Internet news group.
> I think my question is about [whether the following
> facts provide a basis for a [N.J] interlocutory appeal.
Substantially less than extremely unlikely.
> [A and B have been married for twenty years. They
> separated about two years ago when B moved from
> the therefore now former marital residence in N.J.
> However, neither sued for divorce until recently. In
> the meantime, although the property's recorded deed
> named and still names both as joint owners, as between
> the two of them, A] assumed full responsibility for
> the mortgage . . . and B has apparently signed over all
> of B's equity to A.
Your concluding "apparently" is confusing and, if you believe it,
probably self-misleading especially if (as seems) you are or you ask
on behalf of B. That is, presumably B knows or at least should
whether, as between the two, B had conveyed to A all of B's interest
in the property. Nor do you post facts that contravene concluding
that what you mean by "signed over" is that B has, in fact, provided A
with a signed writing memorializing B's relinquishment to A of B's
ownership interest.*
-----------------------------------------
* A not untypical reason why separated and eventually to be
divorcing spouses do this is to try to prevent the mortgage
holder from learning of the conveyance and declaring a
default and accelerating the full remaining mortgage balance
if/when, as is typical, the mortgage includes a provision to
the effect that a conveyance of a joint owner's interest
without the morgagee's written approval can trigger this
alternative if the mortgagee chooses.
As relevant to -- as indeed very probably would be essential for -- a
contemplated attempt to appeal from an order denying B's pretrial
motion for leave to enter and inspect the property would be an answer
to this related question which you raise in effect but (perhaps even
evasively) leave unanswered:
In light of whatever the signed by B document to which you refer says,
what documentary and/or other persuasive evidence has B provided to
the court so as to be included in a would-be record on appeal does B
rely to establish that the trial judge abused his discretion in
denying B's motion for access?
> B wants, in connection with the divorce, to re-enter the home
> to inspect it (under the assumption that some remaining B or
> A-B possessions remain and weren't liquidated by A), while
> tells B to "get over it" and that no access to the home would
> be granted. Judge assumes (and the lawyers agree) that
> there is literally nothing, after all those years, in the home
> that belongs to B or could be claimed as joint property by B.
These facts include at least two independent reasons -- either of
> be granted. Judge assumes (and the lawyers agree) that
> there is literally nothing, after all those years, in the home
> that belongs to B or could be claimed as joint property by B.
which would suffice to support and, indeed, come very close to
requiring the judge's ruling yet, according to you, both of which are
present -- why the judge was correct.
The first is that despite the lengthy passage of time since chose to
and did B move permanently from the former marital residence and
despite B's claim (which I arguendo posit to be largely accurate) that
A is a drug abusing spendthrift who, as such, probably long ago sold
whatever contents of the residence that had more than trivial dollar
value, you say that B nevertheless relied merely on an "assumption"
that, possibly, some not specified personal belongings in which B
might have some ownership interest might still be found there.
Presumably you are aware, however, that:
OTOH, pretrial discovery available as a matter of right in a N.J.
matrimonial action beyond that provided via comparatively exhaustive
financial disclosure required by the divorcing spouses filing/exchange
of a case information statement (CIS) of all of each's assets and
liabilities even if not subject to equitable distribution is limited
to interrogatories and depositions (other than of a non-adult family
member) except for claims that relate to the alleged grounds for
divorce, i.e., does not include as a matter of right the sort of
personal inspection to which you refer; and/but
OTOH, that (except only for production of identified documents
including as referred to in pleadings and for requests for admissions)
ALL other discovery in such a litigation is available only by leave of
the court as a matter of judicial discretion if, but only if, the
movant actually proves "good cause" for the requested relief and,
again, virtually by definition, an "assumption" about possibilities is
does not demonstrate good cause.
Secondly, independently, and (unless in this respect, too, you were to
explain otherwise as you have not yet done) very probably more
basically, you ought not have relegated what you say A's and B's
attorneys "agree" about this subject to a parenthetical aside. To the
contrary, if B's attorney manifested his or her "agree[ment]" in by a
writing of some kind exchanged in the litigation or by an
on-the-record statement in court (in substance even if not in these
exact words) that "there is literally nothing" left in the premises in
which B would have any ownership interest, such a stipulation would
bind the client, IOW, is deemed tantamount to an admission by the
represented client that what that party's attorney "agree[s]" with
opposing counsel to be a material fact is the fact for the purposes of
the lawsuit.
> Is that correct? Can B re-enter the home for an afternoon
> with counsel or police chaperones? Does B have a right to
> inspect?
attorney appeared and participated the assigned judge answered these
questions.
> I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser
> who confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts.
> B can't believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't
> believe A has liquidated everything (furniture, for example).
about that party's subjective intellectual/emotional state. It is not
proof that what the party "can't believe" is or is not the fact. Nor
do you say what if any facts the would-be record on appeal would
contain that would undermine (not to dwell on contradict) what B's
chosen appraiser reported after that presumed expert's inspection of
the property on B's behalf.
>Looking to get B access, need help.
of an interlocutory appeal suggests that you have been advised that
leave for such an appeal is required but is only very rarely granted
in N.J. because of repeated judicial admonitions that such piecemeal
review is a presumptive "anathema" in that state and so is permitted
only "sparingly" in "exceptional" cases -- that is to say that,
especially re. pretrial discovery disputes, that such leave is granted
only in the most compellingly demonstrated abuse of discretion
circumstances.*
-----------------------------------------
* While one can't tell only from what you say in your posting
whether this additional consideration would apply, your very
vagueness about this issue may be worth noting in addition:
Even if B had seen to it despite you apparently indicating
otherwise that the prospective record on appeal very probably
substantively supports B's claim, you don't post any clearly
stated information about when the court made the order in
question so that you do not make clear whether requesting
leave to appeal would still be timely; yet untimeliness of
such a request often provides an independent judicial rationale
to deny such leave.
Another question your posting raises but does not answer if (as also
seems) B has been and remains represented by counsel of B's choice is
why you post your query to an Internet news group.
MediumBunny
Nov 12, 2012, 3:48:48 PM11/12/12
to
David L. Martel wrote:
> > I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser who
> > confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts. B can't
> > believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't believe A has
> > liquidated everything (furniture, for example). Judge can and
> > does believe it and ruled that B's motion to re-enter to inspect
> > the home is not to be granted.
> So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B now wishes
> to perform this inspection personally. The court says no.
Correct. And, personally, I feel the matter is a waste of time. However, if B says
"here's $20,000, just file whatever motion is necessary to get me back in that house
for a little while!" when what would you do?
It's not frivolous to appeal the family court order denying access, in my opinion.
I am comfortable taking a further step here on this for my client, B. What do I do
to go from B's name being on the deed to getting B inside for a few hours?
> Sorry I side with the court here. B did send a competant appraiser over.
> There's nothing in your post that indicates any reason why B should ignore
> his own expert. You've also not indicated that B has any expertise in such
> appraisals. I'm puzzled as to B's motives in trying to enter this house.
In reality it's probably an emotional thing, wanting to see the house personally and
know all of B's knick-knacks are not there.
For our purposes though, let's say it's because B has something special hidden in a
secret false-floor. Something sexy and dangerous and totally legal.
> If it is important to B, a consult with a lawyer may show some path for
> an appeal.
*cough*
> MediumBunny wrote:
> You describe a failed marriage where the home is currently jointly held.
> One party, A, remains in the home, continues to pay the mortgage, et c.
> The other party, B, runs off with someone. After a few years a divorce
> is contemplated. B wishes to inspect the home and it's furnishings.
Hello, and thank you for weighing in.
> You describe a failed marriage where the home is currently jointly held.
> One party, A, remains in the home, continues to pay the mortgage, et c.
> The other party, B, runs off with someone. After a few years a divorce
> is contemplated. B wishes to inspect the home and it's furnishings.
> > I think where this really came from is B sent an appraiser who
> > confirmed A's appraisal value of the home: peanuts. B can't
> > believe A would have destroyed the home, B can't believe A has
> > liquidated everything (furniture, for example). Judge can and
> > does believe it and ruled that B's motion to re-enter to inspect
> > the home is not to be granted.
> So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B now wishes
> to perform this inspection personally. The court says no.
"here's $20,000, just file whatever motion is necessary to get me back in that house
for a little while!" when what would you do?
It's not frivolous to appeal the family court order denying access, in my opinion.
I am comfortable taking a further step here on this for my client, B. What do I do
to go from B's name being on the deed to getting B inside for a few hours?
> Sorry I side with the court here. B did send a competant appraiser over.
> There's nothing in your post that indicates any reason why B should ignore
> his own expert. You've also not indicated that B has any expertise in such
> appraisals. I'm puzzled as to B's motives in trying to enter this house.
know all of B's knick-knacks are not there.
For our purposes though, let's say it's because B has something special hidden in a
secret false-floor. Something sexy and dangerous and totally legal.
> If it is important to B, a consult with a lawyer may show some path for
> an appeal.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Nov 13, 2012, 11:16:45 PM11/13/12
to
MediumBunny <faz...@gmail.com> wrote:
do is to appeal.
> It's not frivolous to appeal the family court order denying
> access, in my opinion. I am comfortable taking a further step
> here on this for my client, B. What do I do to go from B's name
> being on the deed to getting B inside for a few hours?
It's not frivolous? What in the world is his reason for wanting to
go back inside? If he had anything of value there, he should
specify what it is. If he hasn't missed something for several
years, chances are he abandoned it. So I don't see any real
purpose that a court would go along with.
> For our purposes though, let's say it's because B has something
> special hidden in a secret false-floor. Something sexy and
> dangerous and totally legal.
Then he should identify that for the court. If he's not willing to
do that, no court is going to assist him.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
> David L. Martel wrote:
>> So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B
>> now wishes to perform this inspection personally. The court
>> says no.
> Correct. And, personally, I feel the matter is a waste of time.
> However, if B says "here's $20,000, just file whatever motion
> is necessary to get me back in that house for a little while!"
> when what would you do?
If the judge disagreed, really the only thing you can legitimately
>> So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B
>> now wishes to perform this inspection personally. The court
>> says no.
> Correct. And, personally, I feel the matter is a waste of time.
> However, if B says "here's $20,000, just file whatever motion
> is necessary to get me back in that house for a little while!"
> when what would you do?
do is to appeal.
> It's not frivolous to appeal the family court order denying
> access, in my opinion. I am comfortable taking a further step
> here on this for my client, B. What do I do to go from B's name
> being on the deed to getting B inside for a few hours?
go back inside? If he had anything of value there, he should
specify what it is. If he hasn't missed something for several
years, chances are he abandoned it. So I don't see any real
purpose that a court would go along with.
> For our purposes though, let's say it's because B has something
> special hidden in a secret false-floor. Something sexy and
> dangerous and totally legal.
do that, no court is going to assist him.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
A Michigan Attorney
Nov 13, 2012, 11:28:32 PM11/13/12
to
MediumBunny wrote:
>> So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B
>> now wishes to perform this inspection personally. The court
>> says no.
> Correct. And, personally, I feel the matter is a waste of
> time. However, if B says "there's $20,000, just file whatever
>> So, B did send an agent over to do the desired inspection. B
>> now wishes to perform this inspection personally. The court
>> says no.
> Correct. And, personally, I feel the matter is a waste of
> motion is necessary to get me back in that house for a little
> while!" when what would you do?
I would say no thank you. The judge has ruled on the request and you
> while!" when what would you do?
haven't given me any factual grounds to take another stab at it, so
another motion would be frivolous and would expose both of us to
sanctions. I appreciate your business, but you'll have to find another
lawyer if you insist on going down this road.
> It's not frivolous to appeal the family court order denying access,
> in my opinion.
chance that it would be. And even if it wasn't frivolous it would
be a waste of time because the chance of a reversal is *very* slim.
> I am comfortable taking a further step here on this for my client, B.
> inside for a few hours?
Offer A money. I suspect $1,000 for a pass (lease or license) would
get B inside for a day, and it would be a lot cheaper than an appeal
that is doomed from the outset.
> > I'm puzzled as to B's motives in trying to enter this house.
> In reality it's probably an emotional thing, wanting to see the house
> personally and know all of B's knick-knacks are not there.
> For our purposes though, let's say it's because B has something
> special hidden in a secret false-floor. Something sexy and dangerous
> and totally legal.
B's problem can be summed up in one word: Abandonment. There's a
> special hidden in a secret false-floor. Something sexy and dangerous
> and totally legal.
big difference between ownership and possession. When B left for "a
few years", B changed residences and abandoned the house and
everything in it. B doesn't live there anymore. But A does. B has no
right to enter the house (barring a state law to the contrary), so the
court's ruling was within the bounds of discretion.
0 new messages