Teen Sues Parents for Cash and College Tuition. Does She Have a Case?

[Sunshine]

Yes, but living with has many meanings. My guess is she's a house guest although some claim it's more than that. I'm guessing it's just a place for her to live.

The lawyer is her boyfriend's father, according to one article.

And he should be disbarred. He's swindling Rachel and her parents.

Trying. Not succeeding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

She should have counted her blessings!

Lacrosse? A free car? Choices to go to various universities? I don't think she understood how stinking fortunate she was, or how ungrateful. It may be better for her to learn the hard way and suffer a bit, so that she may become wise and understand the world for what it is.

It would be more learning for her to do without. Nothing more real world than that. She needs to know that there are people less fortunate than her out there.

The lawyer supposed family friend didn't make any money off her, so he will likely shove her out into a homeless shelter before long.

As unmerciful as this may sound, that might be the best thing he could do for her. That could be the elixir she needs to set herself straight.

 

[Sunshine]

It would be more learning for her to do without. Nothing more real world than that. She needs to know that there are people less fortunate than her out there.

The lawyer supposed family friend didn't make any money off her, so he will likely shove her out into a homeless shelter before long.

As unmerciful as this may sound, that might be the best thing he could do for her. That could be the elixir she needs to set herself straight.

One thing is certain, this lawyer has no intention of allowing this girl to sponge off him. And HE knows better than anyone that a 'promise' is not a 'contract' and cannot be enforced in court. If I were the judge in that case, I would be insulted that he even tried to bring it before me.

 

[oldfart]

She should have counted her blessings!

Lacrosse? A free car? Choices to go to various universities? I don't think she understood how stinking fortunate she was, or how ungrateful. It may be better for her to learn the hard way and suffer a bit, so that she may become wise and understand the world for what it is.

In my experience, high school hot shots end up doing one of two things. One group screws up starting usually in the Junior or Senior year of high school and come close to or actually do flunk out in college when they discover that everyone who made is generally pretty bright, and work habits count for more than intelligence the further you go. Some recover and some don't. Those that do have learned a great life lesson and can become pretty decent people.

The other group are the kids who do all the right things, work hard, obey the rules, and keep going. That is until life deals them a lousy hand, which eventually it almost always does. The ones who learn that it's not enough to just work hard and play by the rules also turn into pretty decent human beings.

I guess I'm saying that both good kids and screw ups need dealing with adversity to really grow up. That can happen at 16 or 26. Sometimes it hasn't happened at age 46.

BTW, I put myself, my kids, and my grandkids in one of those categories. I stayed on the razor edge between the two groups and it's a miracle I don't have a criminal record!

 

[TemplarKormac]

That may be true, Sunshine, but that wouldn't be sufficient enough of a reason to deny someone their due process rights, no matter how ludicrous the case being brought before him is. He is obligated to hear the case and show impartiality in his judgements.

 

[oldfart]

It would be more learning for her to do without. Nothing more real world than that. She needs to know that there are people less fortunate than her out there.

The lawyer supposed family friend didn't make any money off her, so he will likely shove her out into a homeless shelter before long.

As unmerciful as this may sound, that might be the best thing he could do for her. That could be the elixir she needs to set herself straight.

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

 

[oldfart]

That may be true, Sunshine, but that wouldn't be sufficient enough of a reason to deny someone their due process rights, no matter how ludicrous the case being brought before him is. He is obligated to hear the case and show impartiality in his judgements.

In general I would agree with you. But to make the system work, there have to be sanctions against frivolous cases. Advocates must be accountable to not burden the system unless there is some kind of probability of success. I don't know in this case whether such a standard has been met, but it's close.

In my field (tax law), I can be disbarred and fined for taking frivolous positions. I won't bore you with the "substantive authority" rule or the "one-in-three" standard, but I hope you understand that I can't represent anyone who wants to fall back on constitutional arguments or other positions listed in the "frivolous position" regs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The lawyer supposed family friend didn't make any money off her, so he will likely shove her out into a homeless shelter before long.

As unmerciful as this may sound, that might be the best thing he could do for her. That could be the elixir she needs to set herself straight.

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

Amen and Amen.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That may be true, Sunshine, but that wouldn't be sufficient enough of a reason to deny someone their due process rights, no matter how ludicrous the case being brought before him is. He is obligated to hear the case and show impartiality in his judgements.

In general I would agree with you. But to make the system work, there have to be sanctions against frivolous cases. Advocates must be accountable to not burden the system unless there is some kind of probability of success. I don't know in this case whether such a standard has been met, but it's close.

In my field (tax law), I can be disbarred and fined for taking frivolous positions. I won't bore you with the "substantive authority" rule or the "one-in-three" standard, but I hope you understand that I can't represent anyone who wants to fall back on constitutional arguments or other positions listed in the "frivolous position" regs.

I am inclined to agree with you. There should be limits placed on the frivolity of the cases Judges can take.

The question now would be: How would you put these limits/sanctions into place without someone suing under the 5th and 14th Amendments? People are walking on a sheet of thin ice if they believe they can lay down sanctions prohibiting certain types of lawsuits. Those two amendments lit up in my mind the moment I heard the words "we need sanctions against frivolous cases." I can think of many ways to sue the the the government for enacting these types of sanctions. And by their enactment I believe they would create an even further and unnecessary burden on the system due to the lawsuits generated by such events.

By the way, I can always research those regulations, heck I'll even keep copies of them on my hard drive. I like to study laws and regulations, so boring me in that subject area would be near impossible to do.

 

[DriftingSand]

The lawyer supposed family friend didn't make any money off her, so he will likely shove her out into a homeless shelter before long.

As unmerciful as this may sound, that might be the best thing he could do for her. That could be the elixir she needs to set herself straight.

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

Working ones way out of squalor is one of the best ways to build ones character. Setting goals then striving to reach them is a cornerstone of human existence.

Here's a basic truth that should apply to all of mankind:

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." 2 Thes. 3:10

 

[DriftingSand]

That may be true, Sunshine, but that wouldn't be sufficient enough of a reason to deny someone their due process rights, no matter how ludicrous the case being brought before him is. He is obligated to hear the case and show impartiality in his judgements.

In general I would agree with you. But to make the system work, there have to be sanctions against frivolous cases. Advocates must be accountable to not burden the system unless there is some kind of probability of success. I don't know in this case whether such a standard has been met, but it's close.

In my field (tax law), I can be disbarred and fined for taking frivolous positions. I won't bore you with the "substantive authority" rule or the "one-in-three" standard, but I hope you understand that I can't represent anyone who wants to fall back on constitutional arguments or other positions listed in the "frivolous position" regs.

I am inclined to agree with you. There should be limits placed on the frivolity of the cases Judges can take.

The question now would be: How would you put these limits/sanctions into place without someone suing under the 5th and 14th Amendments? People are walking on a sheet of thin ice if they believe they can lay down sanctions prohibiting certain types of lawsuits. Those two amendments lit up in my mind the moment I heard the words "we need sanctions against frivolous cases." I can think of many ways to sue the the the government for enacting these types of sanctions. And by their enactment I believe they would create an even further and unnecessary burden on the system due to the lawsuits generated by such events.

By the way, I can always research those regulations, heck I'll even keep copies of them on my hard drive. I like to study laws and regulations, so boring me in that subject area would be near impossible to do.

There may be a fix: Anyone and everyone can sue for any reason but if it is determined that the lawsuit was frivolous then the person responsible for the suit would have to pay the court and anyone who's life was adversely affected by the frivolous suit (loss of reputation; time from work; fuel costs; etc.). In other words, folks would have to think long and hard prior to suing someone in a court of law. If their suit is justifiable then move forward but if it's frivolous then know in advance that there can be unpleasant consequences.

 

[Antares]

Personally, I think college tuition should either be free or on a scale depending on ability to pay.

That said?

This young woman has all sorts of options open to her.

There are plenty of grants and stipends.

She could also join the military or find a job that offers to partially pay for college.

Suing her parents is definitely the wrong way to go.

Of course you do, you think we should pay for everything for everybody.

That is your attitude, Antaresroo, that all of us should pay your health insurance industry too much money for so little care.

The girl will find her way by herself, and so will you when the time comes.

Poor lying Jake, go vote for Obama again.

The girl is an idiot, Swallow is an idiot, and you are a run of the mill liar.

People are paying more for less coverage today than they were last year....you just aren't bright enough to understand that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In general I would agree with you. But to make the system work, there have to be sanctions against frivolous cases. Advocates must be accountable to not burden the system unless there is some kind of probability of success. I don't know in this case whether such a standard has been met, but it's close.

In my field (tax law), I can be disbarred and fined for taking frivolous positions. I won't bore you with the "substantive authority" rule or the "one-in-three" standard, but I hope you understand that I can't represent anyone who wants to fall back on constitutional arguments or other positions listed in the "frivolous position" regs.

I am inclined to agree with you. There should be limits placed on the frivolity of the cases Judges can take.

The question now would be: How would you put these limits/sanctions into place without someone suing under the 5th and 14th Amendments? People are walking on a sheet of thin ice if they believe they can lay down sanctions prohibiting certain types of lawsuits. Those two amendments lit up in my mind the moment I heard the words "we need sanctions against frivolous cases." I can think of many ways to sue the the the government for enacting these types of sanctions. And by their enactment I believe they would create an even further and unnecessary burden on the system due to the lawsuits generated by such events.

By the way, I can always research those regulations, heck I'll even keep copies of them on my hard drive. I like to study laws and regulations, so boring me in that subject area would be near impossible to do.

There may be a fix: Anyone and everyone can sue for any reason but if it is determined that the lawsuit was frivolous then the person responsible for the suit would have to pay the court and anyone who's life was adversely affected by the frivolous suit (loss of reputation; time from work; fuel costs; etc.). In other words, folks would have to think long and hard prior to suing someone in a court of law. If their suit is justifiable then move forward but if it's frivolous then know in advance that there can be unpleasant consequences.

Of course!

So, I suppose a hefty fine for wasting the judge's time may be in order in that case. But on the other hand, it's risky business to leave the determination of a case's frivolity purely up to a judge's discretion. Is there any legal precedent that would possibly guide him in such a decision?

 

[bodecea]

As unmerciful as this may sound, that might be the best thing he could do for her. That could be the elixir she needs to set herself straight.

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

Amen and Amen.

Of course, that begs the question...What would you know about that?

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

Amen and Amen.

Of course, that begs the question...What would you know about that?

Read it on the internet

 

[DriftingSand]

I am inclined to agree with you. There should be limits placed on the frivolity of the cases Judges can take.

The question now would be: How would you put these limits/sanctions into place without someone suing under the 5th and 14th Amendments? People are walking on a sheet of thin ice if they believe they can lay down sanctions prohibiting certain types of lawsuits. Those two amendments lit up in my mind the moment I heard the words "we need sanctions against frivolous cases." I can think of many ways to sue the the the government for enacting these types of sanctions. And by their enactment I believe they would create an even further and unnecessary burden on the system due to the lawsuits generated by such events.

By the way, I can always research those regulations, heck I'll even keep copies of them on my hard drive. I like to study laws and regulations, so boring me in that subject area would be near impossible to do.

There may be a fix: Anyone and everyone can sue for any reason but if it is determined that the lawsuit was frivolous then the person responsible for the suit would have to pay the court and anyone who's life was adversely affected by the frivolous suit (loss of reputation; time from work; fuel costs; etc.). In other words, folks would have to think long and hard prior to suing someone in a court of law. If their suit is justifiable then move forward but if it's frivolous then know in advance that there can be unpleasant consequences.

Of course!

So, I suppose a hefty fine for wasting the judge's time may be in order in that case. But on the other hand, it's risky business to leave the determination of a case's frivolity purely up to a judge's discretion. Is there any legal precedent that would possibly guide him in such a decision?

Perhaps not all cases would automatically be deemed "frivolous." Perhaps pending cases could pass through a panel of "legalists" to determine its merits. Of course, there would be extra costs there.

One way or another, a fix should be found. The courts are bottlenecked with frivolous suits. A man in California is suing McDonalds because he didn't get enough napkins. When he didn't get the response he wanted from the manager he decided he was being discriminated against based on his race. That's total nonsense!

Man sues McDonald's for $1.5 million after being given only one napkin* - NY Daily News

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

Amen and Amen.

Of course, that begs the question...What would you know about that?

Plenty more than you would ever know, my friend. Given that I've helped people in that situation, I know plenty.

 

[bodecea]

I am inclined to agree with you. There should be limits placed on the frivolity of the cases Judges can take.

The question now would be: How would you put these limits/sanctions into place without someone suing under the 5th and 14th Amendments? People are walking on a sheet of thin ice if they believe they can lay down sanctions prohibiting certain types of lawsuits. Those two amendments lit up in my mind the moment I heard the words "we need sanctions against frivolous cases." I can think of many ways to sue the the the government for enacting these types of sanctions. And by their enactment I believe they would create an even further and unnecessary burden on the system due to the lawsuits generated by such events.

By the way, I can always research those regulations, heck I'll even keep copies of them on my hard drive. I like to study laws and regulations, so boring me in that subject area would be near impossible to do.

There may be a fix: Anyone and everyone can sue for any reason but if it is determined that the lawsuit was frivolous then the person responsible for the suit would have to pay the court and anyone who's life was adversely affected by the frivolous suit (loss of reputation; time from work; fuel costs; etc.). In other words, folks would have to think long and hard prior to suing someone in a court of law. If their suit is justifiable then move forward but if it's frivolous then know in advance that there can be unpleasant consequences.

Of course!

So, I suppose a hefty fine for wasting the judge's time may be in order in that case. But on the other hand, it's risky business to leave the determination of a case's frivolity purely up to a judge's discretion. Is there any legal precedent that would possibly guide him in such a decision?

Is that not the responsibility of a judge? If not a judge, then who?

 

[daws101]

Nothing can match the gritty determination of someone who has endured more than they thought they could ever endure, has picked themselves up out of the gutter, and vowed to never let themselves get into that situation again.

Amen and Amen.

Of course, that begs the question...What would you know about that?

damn right.
I get the feeling some of the posters on this thread have never missed a meal let alone "pulled themselves up from poverty"
the disingenuousness is thick in here

 

[daws101]

Amen and Amen.

Of course, that begs the question...What would you know about that?

Read it on the internet

saw it on hoarders!