JETX said:
That is the way I read it.
"I had a restraning order aganist her"
Okay.
"but was it dropped because we talked it out."
Okay.
"Then I got in trouble with the police for fileing a false police report and they say I owe them 275 for their attorney for both cases."
Here is the problem as I see it.... presumably the 'false police report' was in obtaining the TRO. Therefore my post, that if 'they' incurred costs in defending against the false report, the OP would be liable.
Or it is possible that this 'false police report' has absolutely nothing to do with TRO.... and my response would still apply.
Bottom line.... if 'they' incurred legal fees in defending against the false report, the OP is likely liable for them.
I'm not arguing the liability under ther false report (under either possible version), but as I see it,
if the original TRO was wholly unrelated to the false report (ignoring that it was "worked out"), how does a subsequent false police report create liability for the initial TRO defense?
That is, assuming the TRO wasn't bogus (I do realize that in all likelihood, it was), but does the filing of the false report create an assumption that all prior claims were false as well? (Because if it doesn't, I can't figure out what basis there is to make him pay for the portion of the fees for the presumed-legit TRO).
Back to the OP: No one mentioned that 270 bucks for a lawyer for two cases is a freaking steal and a half. (If I go into a courtroom, it costs that much just for me to get past the metal detectors). Be glad she didn't hit you with a bill for a few grand.