Stuck with bills STILL in my name

[mistoffolees]

Now would that allow the OP to get the power bill, say, out of his name? It might, it might not. But it'd be worth a try.

It would be worth a try - and might work on an electric bill, but I can't believe that it would work on a real estate transfer.

 

[MacKennaLaw]

but that isn't what you said previously.



with that statement, you were clearly stating that the order did in fact require the utility company to act based on that order. That simply isn't factual.

That's clearly not what I said at all. But I can see how you could make that error if you weren't reading carefully. That's why in most of these situations the poster would be best served to consult with an attorney to make sure he's clear on what he's being told, and not confused.

Anyway, the long and short of it is that the OP here probably needs to file a motion for contempt. There are other approaches he can try, but the contempt motion is the most straightforward and the most common.

 

[justalayman]

what do you mean that wasn't what you said? I quoted your post. Of course it is what you said.

2) Secondly, whenever I draft a divorce order, I usually include language that allows the order itself to be used as authorization for whatever it is that is supposed to be done. If your attorney had the foresight to do that, then you could take the order to, say, the electric company and say, "look, here is a court order telling you to take my name off of this account. If you have a problem with that, talk to the judge!"

you told the OP to take some order he was given, take it to the utility company and tell them the order requires them to act as the order states. You were wrong when you said it before and you are still wrong.

you continued with telling the OP to tell the utility company to tell the utility company to call the judge if they didn't agree with the order. The utility company is an outside party who would have no right to contact the judge regarding the order nor would they even need to. The order is between the OP, his former spouse, and the court.

 

[MacKennaLaw]

Yep, that's what I told him to do. I didn't tell him that it would actually require them to comply, but if he wanted them to take his name off the account, he should tell them to either do it or call the judge. And yeah, in the unlikely event that they actually did call the judge, it might or might not work - it depends on the wording of the provision in the order (which I provided) and on the temperament of the individual judge.

You were reading an inference that wasn't actually there into what I wrote, but I can see how you could easily make that mistake.

 

[mistoffolees]

Yep, that's what I told him to do. I didn't tell him that it would actually require them to comply, but if he wanted them to take his name off the account, he should tell them to either do it or call the judge. And yeah, in the unlikely event that they actually did call the judge, it might or might not work - it depends on the wording of the provision in the order (which I provided) and on the temperament of the individual judge.

Do you REALLY think that the judge is going to go along with that?

"Hello, Your Honor. I'm Bill Electric from the phone company and Tom Jones brought in a court order from his divorce from Lisa Jones that says we have to turn off his electricity. When did we become a party to their divorce?"

It might bully someone at the phone company to disconnect the electricity, but to suggest that a judge is going to back that up if the phone company calls is just plain silly.

 

[justalayman]

=MacKennaLaw;2670587] I didn't tell him that it would actually require them to comply

,yes you did.

I usually include language that allows the order itself to be used as authorization for whatever it is that is supposed to be done. If your attorney had the foresight to do that, then you could take the order to, say, the electric company and say, "look, here is a court order telling you to take my name off of this account. If you have a problem with that, talk to the judge!"

an order, TELLING YOU (the utility) to take his name off the account. That is not what the order would say.


that is you telling the OP that the court would require the utility to comply with the order.

Now, if you meant to say the OP could take an order he received and try to BS the utility company to act, then say so. You clearly stated the order would require the utility company to comply.

And yeah, in the unlikely event that they actually did call the judge, it might or might not work - it depends on the wording of the provision in the order (which I provided) and on the temperament of the individual judge.

what would work/ The judge ordering them to take the OP's name off? Again, no. The utility company is not a party to the issue. The judge would have no right to order the utility company to do anything unless they were brought into the suit.

You were reading an inference that wasn't actually there into what I wrote, but I can see how you could easily make that mistake.

this is not an inference:

"look, here is a court order telling you to take my name off of this account.

that is a clearly worded statement telling the OP the court would issue an order the utility was required to comply with. You were wrong the first 2 times you said it and you are wrong this time as well.

You can try to backpedal and try to make it appear I did not understand what you wrote but the problem is, I do understand what you wrote and it is wrong and you simply refuse to admit it.

 

[MacKennaLaw]

If you can't comprehend the very simple concept that I was suggesting that the OP take the order and try to BS them into doing what we wanted them to do, then there's nothing I can do to further educate you. Perhaps if you actually *were* a lawyer, this would be clearer to you.

And "mistoffolees", take another look at the language in the order. If you don't know that there are plenty of judges who would tell "Bill Electric" that he meant exactly what it said in his order, then you must not know many judges.

 

[justalayman]

If you can't comprehend the very simple concept that I was suggesting that the OP take the order and try to BS them into doing what we wanted them to do, then there's nothing I can do to further educate you. Perhaps if you actually *were* a lawyer, this would be clearer to you..

If you had said that you were suggesting he BS the guy and not claim the order actually said exactly that, you might be a bit more believable.

Maybe if you were a smart lawyer, it would be clearer to you.

 

[MacKennaLaw]

Since you're especially slow, I'll explain this one more time.

I suggested that the OP tell the utility company that the order required them to comply. That is *not* the same as telling the OP that the order required them to comply. Had I added something like "and they'll have to do it," then you would have a point. As it is, you are merely sticking your foot farther and farther into your own mouth. Pretty soon you'll be able to kick your own ass.

 

[justalayman]

MacKennaLaw;2670631]

I suggested that the OP tell the utility company that the order required them to comply.

well, I think you are the only one that was able to read your mind and understand that when you told the OP to tell the utility company that the order required them to comply that is was just an attempt to BS the utility company to comply.



but in reality, all we have to do is read what you posted to discover that you did not intend it to suggest the OP BS the utility company. It was a statement that you would actually seek an order from the court that would allow the OP to do precisely what you said.

2) Secondly, whenever I draft a divorce order, I usually include language that allows the order itself to be used as authorization for whatever it is that is supposed to be done. If your attorney had the foresight to do that, then you could take the order to, say, the electric company and say, "look, here is a court order telling you to take my name off of this account. If you have a problem with that, talk to the judge!"

that very clearly states you (claim to be able to) write an order that does in fact require the utility company to comply with the order.

So, I think you are the one that needs to worry about what size shoe is worn and how well it fits in your mouth.

 

[MacKennaLaw]

I've written this very order many times. How many have you written?

 

[justalayman]

I've written this very order many times. How many have you written?

Oh, so now you are saying it wasn't meant to direct the OP to BS the utility company and did in fact mean the utility company could be bound by an order that came from such a divorce suit.

sounds like you can't make up your mind there Mackenna.

 

[justalayman]

I've written this very order many times. How many have you written?

to direct an outside party to act? So, what did you do when that party told you to piss off?