A new girlfriend?
I don’t disagree with you. Which is why I was careful to say that men can be nutty too but over a slightly different set of things.
ETA: Well, it’s probably not 12 to 1 either way. If I had to guess, I would say the percentage of men who are crazy is roughly the same as the percentage of women who are crazy. Except that crazy men are more likely to end up in jail or dead, so you meet a few more crazy women in day to day life.
That would be the #2 most pressing reason I’m appealing.
I’m on the hook for them in the judgment, which covers the trial court portion of our show.
If he pays his lawyer to do the appeal (sometimes people don’t respond to an appeal, they don’t have to, and sometimes it’s better not to. By default they are in a better position going in because they won and the appeals court starts from the position that the trial court got it right.) and I win the appeal, he pays his lawyer and my costs. If I lose, I pay his costs. For the appeal portion. If I win a complete reversal that would obviously include the attorney fees that were awarded in the judgment for the trial court part. If I win a little, lose a little… don’t know until that happens.
As I mentioned earlier, the house is not the biggest issue, and I believe I will have solved that before the appeal brief is filed, so that issue will be moot.
As for the rest, well, that’s really the heart of what I’m trying to find out from my Tier Three Legal Techsupport… the rulings were so convoluted, that figuring out what the undo can undo is a major question. I have theories, but I haven’t yet found any cases that are close enough in the particulars to give me any grounding. Although I just had a conversation that helped to frame things in a new way that may help unearth something.
All of which isn’t very helpful to your question, I know.
In a larger sense, the appeals court is (supposedly) interested in seeing you returned to where you were before the bad judgment, assuming you can convince them that the judgment was bad (which, as I pointed out earlier, is not at all easy.) If I were to win a complete reversal (possible for a couple of reasons, not least because under some theories her judgments were actually void, at least in part…and that’s a legal concept that I’ve had a very hard time with. “If it’s void on it’s face” if it’s not void on it’s face" -ummm…exactly how do you define a vs. b? Judgments can be void for lack of jurisdiction, let’s say…is that “on the face” or not? I think, though I’m not sure, that it might have something to do with a judgment being void from the start or merely voidable… because the thing that makes it void is either fixable or beyond fixing… are your eyes crossing yet? Mine too. ) and the goal and hope would be to return me to where I started, it’s impossible. The damage in some respects is irreversible. But in others… and that’s where the tricky theories come into play.
But that gets into stuff I’m not going to post about publicly. I’ll explain it when it’s all over, though.
Every single thing he asked for. It just didn’t turn out the way he and his lawyer plotted for it to.
And to get it, he cost us both (whomever ends up paying, if anyone) about 5 times what we were ever worth on our best day.
It was insanely stupid and destructive.
Huh, that is sort of major crazy. I think I will step away now. I don’t have a reference frame that can handle this sort of irrationality. Best of luck to you both, you definitely need it.
Here’s how crazy and scary I am. The following is from a letter I wrote to him on April 15, 2006, after he had failed to respond to any of my offers, even to state clearly that he was rejecting them! He would call and argue that it wasn’t fair and it would turn into an emotional mess that went nowhere.
After he got this letter, which I put into his hand, he never wrote me, he never did anything. He came by to see the dogs a month later, and said he wanted to get our money issues sorted out. I said I did, too, but that I only wanted to do it in writing. He said “Yeah, I know, I’m just saying.” and I thanked him.
I never heard another word about it until he sued me in October. (And I didn’t keep after him because 1. I know he has a differnet internal clock than other people. It takes him 10 times longer than anyone else to do anything. And #2, my one “Goddamnit, screw you!” position was that was SICK of figuring everything out. He is a lot younger than me and we were both fed up with our parent-child dynamic. He left so he could be a man and make decisions and be respected. Great. Grow the fuck up and come to the table like an adult, stop waiting for Mommy to fix everything. So he got a lawyer to be his mommy instead, only the lawyer mommy’s idea of how to handle it was to go on the attack, stay on the attack, and never, ever tell the truth if you can lie.)
Well, he sure showed me on that whole partition thing!
Oh, and the point of all this was that he was demanding a quarter of a million dollars for what was worth maybe $100,000. He didn’t have any basis for his demand…it was just what he wanted. So I wanted him to get in front of someone who would straighten him out about reality and money and what was reasonable. Oh well.
I especially liked the way she skipped over the initial article (which did not agree with her), went to the original cases, quoted large sections of text which comprised analysis and not rules, and decided she was right all along. :rolleyes:
Precisely!
The rules only mean what the appeals and Supreme courts say they mean. And what they mean is laid out in case law written by the justices of the reviewing courts.
Articles mean nothing. Rules without analysis and application and decisions mean nothing. What counts is what the law actually does, and the law is defined by the higher courts.
I went straight to what counted.
This is both hilarious and illustrates why people should hire lawyers! 
Yes. That letter reinforces what everyone is saying.
I didn’t know you lived in Louisiana, Stoid.
I’m sorry, I know this is wrong, but I can’t help picturing the stud muffin writing TLDR over that letter and sending it back.
brazil84; you’re right, the male/female batshit crazy ratio is probably closer to 1/1 than my pulled from the ether 12/1. 
+1
I’m an attorney. If this was a GQ I probably would have given some general pointers. But there is nothing to gain and everything to lose from giving advice or information to a crazy. So I’ll sit this one out.
I was just about to say that!
The reason why the article disagrees with you, Stoid, is that the author of the article (Lanctot, a professor at Villanova University Law School) knew to look at certain sections of cases and focus on them. You, however, looked at the wrong parts of the cases (which you quoted, helpfully, thank you). You completely missed the point and came to the wrong conclusion.
If you are doing this in your research I’m afraid to tell you that you’ve wasted a great deal of time reading about Rose of Aberlone and very little time reading mistake of fact. If you’re trying to find cases that match your exact fact pattern you are wasting your time.
You want someone to find a case with lawyers getting sued for providing advice on message boards. There may be that exact case out there somewhere, but it doesn’t matter because the ruling will come from the cases that Lanctot quoted, or cases substantially similar. They still apply even if the fact patterns are different.
I am going to stop banging my head against this particular brick wall.
From your letter:
From your earlier posts in this thread:
…and a potload more of the same flavor.
Is there any, tiny, incredibly unlikely (yet mathematically possible) chanve that indtead of all these different people being wrong and misunderstanding you, and you being the model of perfect clarity and calm reason… that it’s not that way.
Then fucking hire one of them and stop asking anonymous people on a message board, for Christ’s sake.
It is a mistake to assume that nothing but primary sources (i.e., case law) counts. Secondary sources are important because they help to illuminate primary sources (by clarifying, challenging, or explaining rulings) and can help to explain why a court ruled as it did, or predict how another court might rule in future. Secondary sources are also important because primary source writers read them, too. So to say that “articles mean nothing” is short-sighted and naive. Scholarly articles are “analysis and application” – frequently more thoughtful and lenghty analysis and application than you’ll find in the decisions. They “count;” they just don’t count in the same way.
Are secondary sources binding authority? No. But if you think the decisions themselves are be-all and end-all of legal research, analysis, or argument, you are simply wrong. Again.
This is kind of a drive by, but count me in among the attorneys who find this thread morbidly fascinating and who also wouldn’t touch a question asked by Stoid with ten-foot pole.
Why do you (and every other lawyer here) hate Stoid?
(“I’m only asking for information, not advice” he added hurriedly…)