Estate atty not giving me my inheritance!

[LdiJ]

I am done with this thread. Its impossible to discuss anything with you.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I have no idea what you’re talking about and it really doesn’t even make sense to me.

Now, if you hire a painter to paint your house and you know he is a crappy painter, of course one shouldn’t expect to have a nicely painted house. In that sense the person doing the hiring does bear some responsibility for how things turned out


But to your odd statement all I can say is

HUH?

what is odd is you hired someone who you knew was crappy. ON what planet do you live where people know someone is bad and hires them anyways?

So is it your silly premise that people can't and don't sue each other?

ROFLMAO! OMG THAT IS HILARIOUS! SO you're saying the entire premise of our legal system is incorrect cause the person liable is the person harmed? OMg priceless. I hope you are not an atty!

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I am done with this thread. Its impossible to discuss anything with you.

Its' impossible to get you to admit that when an atty does not file simple easy paperwork in 8 months that is wrong.

You really are quite dishonest!

YOu also added nothing to the conversation. NO great loss but rather a large gain to see you go!

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

what is odd is you hired someone who you knew was crappy. ON what planet do you live where people know someone is bad and hires them anyways?

So is it your silly premise that people can't and don't sue each other?

ROFLMAO! OMG THAT IS HILARIOUS! SO you're saying the entire premise of our legal system is incorrect cause the person liable is the person harmed? OMg priceless. I hope you are not an atty!

YOu didn't find out he was a crappy painter UNTIL AFTERWARDS genius! duh???

 

[justalayman]

I don't know of anybody who hires someone to do the job and then when the person screws up - sues himself.

nor do I and I don’t recall anybody ever making that suggestion here, well, unless it was sarcastic to make a point

They ALWAYS sue the person who did not do the job right.

. Not true. Especially in a situation where respondent superior applies, the proper defendant would be the employees employer.



It would also be the case with a trust such as you are discussing


One sues the party that is believed to be liable. That isn’t always the party that directly caused the injury. It usually is but not always.


In your situation you look to your brother first because the law says he is responsible for the trust. If he does not perform his duties properly you sue him. The attorney owes his allegiance to the person that hired them and acts as directed.

Now, there are situations, such as if the attorney steals all the money from the trust the proper defendant wowjld be the attorney but if attorney is acting as the trustee directs and it is not unlawful, the trustee is to blame.

The trustee may be able to hold the attorney he hired to blame because there is a legal relationship there. The attorney has a fiduciary duty to the trustee. If the attorney fails to perform as that duty obligates him to, the trustee has an action against the lawyer. That does not mean the beneficiaries would have an action against the lawyer. More likely than not their action would be against the trustee. The trustee has a duty to the beneficiaries.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

Ok, lets clear things up. In y opinion the attorney is one of those asshole attorneys who just aren't interested in doing their job because its not worth enough money to them for the amount of tedious work they have to do. Is that enough information to get you to understand that nobody here is even remotely interested in covering for the freaking attorney????

What we are trying to get you to understand is that the person who is responsible to YOU is your brother. The attorney is HIS employee, not yours.

Just like I said - YOU'RE STILL covering for the atty! You just won't admit it's wrong to not file paperwork for 8 months. Wow - that's massively amoral!

$300 an hour is not enough to fill out some simple paperwork? Really? Then why did he agree to do it? As it is - he probably has his secretary do it anyways!

 

[justalayman]

YOu didn't find out he was a crappy painter UNTIL AFTERWARDS genius! duh???

I said

If you hire a painter you know does poor work, as in being aware of his poor work prior to hiring him


But let’s run with your odd interjection

If you hired the actual painter, yes, of course you sue the painter

BUT

if you hired the company the painter works for, you sue the company. The company is who you have a contract with and as such, established a duty to perform. The painter is simply some guy the company told to go paint your house. You have no contract with the painter and as such, the painter has no duty to you. His duty is to his employer.

 

[justalayman]

Just like I said - YOU'RE STILL covering for the atty! You just won't admit it's wrong to not file paperwork for 8 months. Wow - that's massively amoral!

$300 an hour is not enough to fill out some simple paperwork? Really? Then why did he agree to do it? As it is - he probably has his secretary do it anyways!

It may very well be wrong to not file paperwork for 8 months but you aren’t understanding it is the trustee who is liable for the the fact paperwork has not been filed. He either demands this attorney do what he is hired to do or the trustee hires another attorney. If he doesn’t, it is the trustees failure thst you have an action against, not the attorney. The trustee has failed to operate the trust as the laws require. That is the trustees fault, not the attorneys.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I didn't say I WAS GOING TO SUE - I was simply making the point that the atty is at fault!!! I don't recall that I used the word sue first - someone else may have - I've lost track

I UNDERSTAND I CAN'T SUE THE ATTY BUT I WAS JUST SAYING MY BROTHER COULD! CAN YOU NOT READ? i STATED THAT MULTIPLE TIMES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!

"That isn’t always the party that directly caused the injury. It usually is but not always."

so in other words - you'll go to all lengths to avoid admitting you are wrong and I am right.

2nd request - can you simply admit - that if there were no complications or impediments - an atty who does not file the paperwork for 8 months - is at fault?

Or are you just going to keep stonewalling?

IF you are just going to keep stonewalling then you are doing a disservice to the point and I would appreciate it if you stopped posting on this thread.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I said

If you hire a painter you know does poor work, as in being aware of his poor work prior to hiring him


But let’s run with your odd interjection

If you hired the actual painter, yes, of course you sue the painter

BUT

if you hired the company the painter works for, you sue the company. The company is who you have a contract with and as such, established a duty to perform. The painter is simply some guy the company told to go paint your house. You have no contract with the painter and as such, the painter has no duty to you. His duty is to his employer.

the painter is sole proprieter. who gets sued then?

wow - you will go to any lengths to protect your fragile ego won't you? You're really grasping at straws on that one.

If you are going to just keep stonewalling me - and are unwilling to admit that an atty who does not file paperwork for 8 mos is in the wrong - the please stop posting in this thread.

 

[justalayman]

$300 an hour is not enough to fill out some simple paperwork? Really? Then why did he agree to do it? As it is - he probably has his secretary do it anyways!

those are really good questions to ask


Of the TRUSTEE

it is the trustee that has contracted the attorney so it is the trustee that asks such questions.

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

I said

If you hire a painter you know does poor work, as in being aware of his poor work prior to hiring him


But let’s run with your odd interjection

If you hired the actual painter, yes, of course you sue the painter

BUT

if you hired the company the painter works for, you sue the company. The company is who you have a contract with and as such, established a duty to perform. The painter is simply some guy the company told to go paint your house. You have no contract with the painter and as such, the painter has no duty to you. His duty is to his employer.

So all lawsuits are simply lawsuits versus companies? ARe you saying the entire legal system is based on only companies being sued and no individuals are ever sued? Really? You're grasping at straws to protect your fragile ego- it's obvious. Please cease and desist in posting in this thread. You are part of the problem and not part of the solution

 

[Gettingrippedoff]

those are really good questions to ask


Of the TRUSTEE

it is the trustee that has contracted the attorney so it is the trustee that asks such questions.

If you are going to continue to not be able to read or comprehend where I stated numerous times that I know about the relationship between the trustee and the atty then please just stop posting here. If it hasn't sunken into you after the last 5 times I acknowledge that then it probably never will so please just go away and stop your silliness

 

[justalayman]

the painter is sole proprieter. who gets sued then?

wow - you will go to any lengths to protect your fragile ego won't you? You're really grasping at straws on that one.

If you are going to just keep stonewalling me - and are unwilling to admit that an atty who does not file paperwork for 8 mos is in the wrong - the please stop posting in this thread.

With whom did you enter into a contract with? That is who you would sue if is necssary to sue somebody

If you can’t figure out who you contracted with (the business entity or the individual entity), you sue both and desl with who is the proper party through the activities of the suit.

 

[justalayman]

So all lawsuits are simply lawsuits versus companies? ARe you saying the entire legal system is based on only companies being sued and no individuals are ever sued? Really? You're grasping at straws to protect your fragile ego- it's obvious. Please cease and desist in posting in this thread. You are part of the problem and not part of the solution

Of course not.. there is very little simple in the law.

But you are not undertsnding why a company is likely to be the proper party even if one of their employees is who physically caused your damages.