Because her boyfriend wouldn’t accept her ridiculous original offer and as far as I can tell from her subsequent posts she refused to budge. I could be wrong. I only know what I’ve read here.
To those following along at home I think this is the first relevant thread. And it’s not very long!!
I figured I covered the other possibility when I said “or they couldn’t come to an agreement.” 
If I follow where you seem to be going, you appear to be distinguishing between him “saying” it and his conveying his meaning in a manner other than to have “said” it. That he “instructed” me in a some other nebulous and unidentified fashion that does not qualify as “an assertive statement”.
The definition of an assertive statement includes speech, writing, and non-verbal communication (perhaps he gestured at the bills and then made “no” motions to convey his meaning).
His testimony is that he (somehow) conveyed to me that he did not want the bills paid. It seems to me that there is no way for him to have “instructed” me if he did not “assertively state” in writing, or orally, or by gesture or act, that he did not want the bills paid.
Are you saying that his assertion about the bills is not “an assertive statement”? Because that’s the only distinction I’m seeing, please clarify if you intend some other.
Wait, wait, wait… so I’ve been treated to reading the rantings of a lunatic because said lunatic wanted to screw her spouse out of a good chunk of his equity in a house, and he didn’t willingly bend over and accede???
HA
Oh, and it’s possible that you are unclear on what he was trying to prove, which was that he did in fact say it. His contention was that he said it and I ignored it. The fact is that he never said it, so the “controverted issue” is whether he conveyed his desire that I not pay the bills or he didn’t.
Whether a statement counts as hearsay depends on whether the out-of-court statement is being offered to prove the truth or falsity of *what was asserted * in that out-of-court statement. A verbal act is not encumbered by the general prohibition against hearsay.
Heh, I think that pretty much sums it up. Now both are bankrupt, there are no assets to divide and she’s appealing on a technicality. Note IANAL, just a casual internet observer. I’m sure I’ve missed the nuances. Still seems like a pyrrhic victory at best.
I am in Los Angeles, five blocks from LASC.
I promise that I will faithfully attend every day of proceedings and report back to you all in a dedicated thread.
Stoid, what is your case name, number, and judge?
Oh yeah, Judge Kozinski. He has some great lines in his opinions. Last month we had him as a guest speaker at a media law CLE I help coordinate and he was extremely interesting.
I understand your confusion about who was screwing who, or trying. He felt the same way you do. Your point of view is entirely understandable.
So when two people disagree about what’s fair, what should they do? Try to kill each other? Destroy everything in sight screaming they’re right?
Well, civilized people turn to sources outside their own minds and opinions, and ideally, in a situation regarding property rights, they turn to experts and the law, which is what I did. Intitially, I found an ATTORNEY who specializes in this sort of thing, wrote a whole manual about it. It’s 187 pages, so I don’t think this is a big copyright problem:
AND…
But wait! There’s more!
C. Robert Nattress & Assocs. v. Cidco, 184 Cal. App. 3d 55 - available online, I think this link will work.
The focus of the case is right of first refusal, not calculating buyouts between cotenants. But if you read it, you will see that it applies. (I thought it was an SC decision, only appeals. Good enough.)
And here’s the key part:
AND, at the end…
Now, you and my ex and anyone else is entitled to disagree with the opinions of Mr. Sirkin and Fourth District court of California, of course, and feel that Ex should have received twice as much from me as anyone else, leaving me in 2009 with a house worth half as much, and if I sold it (even prior to going underwater) having to pay all the commissions. Maybe that’s why it’s a good thing you aren’t making the laws, frankly.
Because in this disagreement with my ex about what he should receive, the only authoritative words that anyone on either side ever found addressing the issue at all were the words quoted above.
And those authorities say that it’s my ex who was looking to rip ME off, they just used words like “absurd” and “inequity”. And he was SO dedicated to ripping me off that filed a lawsuit that, even without the economic insanity going on, would have eaten up every extra penny he was so sure he was entitled to receive, and was wrong about. So…I’m the greedy lunatic?
Sure. Ok. Absolutely. I’m convinced.
Your analogies may be inapposite
You tilt the tray at a 33.3 degree angle and put the spout of the faucet at the higher end in the middle, waiting for the water to trickle down and fill the lower slots, at which point you return the tray to center, tap once to get out bubbles, and carefully place it back in the freezer. Anyone who says any different is a stupid fucking whore who couldn’t make ice at the goddamn fucking North Pole even if Santa his motherfucking self gave her super ice making powers.
Stoid, I think what you need to do - and here I am quite honestly not being snarky, but offering a very honest and heartfelt opinion - is drop the case, drop everything, and move as far from southern California as you can without needing a passport and never, ever go back. If you insist on warm weather, Charleston, SC is very nice.
Seriously.
That’s why I find this so eye-crossing.
He’s trying to prove he said what he said by saying he said it!
Yep. Just like one way to prove that you didn’t run the red light is to testify that the light was green when you went through. Testimony is evidence. Get over it.
ENugent is right. Admissible evidence doesn’t necessarily have great probative value. Instead, its probative value must not be *substantially * outweighed by the possibility of undue prejudice/delay/confusion/etc.
Nothing to get over. As I explained, this was merely an exercise. Whether it was hearsay or not is incidental to the fact that its a lie.
Nothing says you can’t impeach the other party.
Well, okay. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Although I can’t imagine what you believe that would accomplish or how being in the only place I’ve lived in my entire life, among friends I’ve had for 40 years, and my family, and everything I care about…is bad and should be shed.
But sincerely offered attempts to be helpful are always nice, so thanks.
Oh, and South Carolina isn’t “warm weather” it’s in the south. It’s a sweatbox torture chamber of icky wet heat. Gak! ( My sis lived in Key West for awhile…in February it was lovely. In May it was a nightmare. An ocean that’s hotter than pee? What kind of sick joke is that?
LA is warm weather. San Diego is warm weather. Santa Barbara is warm weather.