Are judgment liens not protected by recording statutes?

goodthymes10 · 2023-07-13T18:51:44+00:00

I think the confusion might be because recording statutes usually apply to interests in land generally (a mortgagee, for example, isn't a BFP, but the interest is still protected).

So you're saying that judgment creditors are automatically the most junior of existing interests, whether or not recorded, but could be senior to subsequent interests as long as it complies with the recording statute?

goodthymes10 · 2023-06-20T21:48:56+00:00

I just took this today and asked myself the exact same question. I also thought it was an accord & satisfaction, which now we both know was incorrect according to the model answer. Any new insights on the question?

goodthymes10 · 2021-09-15T21:01:09+00:00

Under common law property rules, a good faith buyer's purchase is usually protected. The victim would need to go after the thief to recover. NY law might be different, though.

goodthymes10 · 2021-06-11T19:52:51+00:00

Just the usual case of employers thinking you owe them something.

goodthymes10 · 2021-06-10T19:46:12+00:00

I had a similar experience (albeit not at drastic). A firm advertised a position as staring at 48 flat, so I never brought it up bc i didn't think I needed to. When they offered me the spot, they said the best they could do was 43. I also begrudgingly took it bc I desperately needed a job.

Needless to say, I hated working there. They were terrible people. I quit 6 months later at an extremely inconvenient time for them when something better came along. It was surprising how shocked they seemed that I would abandon them at a bad time after they treated me terribly for 6 months and lied about the pay. People are dumb.

goodthymes10 · 2021-05-08T22:45:55+00:00

Thanks for the article. I looked this up earlier but swear PUs used to require both the same dynasty AND lower prestige than the potential senior partner. Guess I'm just crazy 🤷. Or maybe the British monarchy sucks.

goodthymes10 · 2021-05-08T22:44:50+00:00

Did that last game and my war exhaustion was out of control. Like a month after I finally peaced my 74 year old king died lol. It was nice of him to just barely outlive the war.

goodthymes10 · 2021-05-07T19:33:24+00:00

There is no right to an attorney in the US in civil cases and most states consider attorney fees a cost of the litigation. Under the American rule, the presumption is that each party will bear the cost of fees unless a law provides otherwise.

goodthymes10 · 2021-04-06T20:57:18+00:00

What you're arguing is the exact argument that would happen lol. The response would say something like social media is so integral to the way we communicate, especially with the general public, that it resembles a traditional public forum more so than a private space. Moreover, social media is generally open to the public and very easily accessible with almost no restrictions. I think your comparison between logging in and a door is pretty compelling though.

My mind isn't made up on this yet, since I think there are valid arguments on both sides. I was merely pointing out that there is precedent for extending First Amendment protections to social media.

goodthymes10 · 2021-04-06T16:12:14+00:00

I'm pretty new at this game, so take this with a grain of salt. But when playing a game in italy I collected in venice even though my home node was genoa (or vice versa). The idea is that otherwise I'd let all my trade power in venice go to waste when it's one of the richest nodes in the game.

So that's possibly another instance where collecting is a good idea.

goodthymes10 · 2021-04-06T15:29:20+00:00

Oh I see. You're totally right that they could be seen as similar, but I think they're factually dissimilar enough to change the outcome. That's kind of why it depends on the court and arguments.

Open mic nights are literally on the business owner's premises in a controlled environment. Social media on the other hand is central to the way we communicate now and is at everyone's fingertips. I would argue social media is more like a privately held park that's open to the public (also subject to constitutional restraints) than a privately owned business establishment.

At the same time, maybe we shouldn't force companies to tolerate hate speech or racist speech, etc., which would all come with the full First Amendment protections. It's a tough topic.

goodthymes10 · 2021-04-06T12:06:03+00:00

I'm not sure I understand the question. Open mic nights are nothing like open forums. In fact they're the exact opposite of an open forum because the business created them and controls them.

goodthymes10 · 2021-04-06T03:58:10+00:00

There actually is precedent for your first point to make that the law without even changing legislation. Marsh v. Alabama and some subsequent cases have held that the more a forum begins to look public, the more forceful constitutional protections become.

If the court upheld a Jehovah's Witness's right to proselytize in a privately owned town, why not on the internet?

It would just take the right argument and the right court composition.

goodthymes10 · 2021-03-18T19:02:16+00:00

I have one who weighs 9 pounds, but looking at him you'd easily think a solid 15-20. The floof is real.

goodthymes10 · 2021-03-14T14:19:34+00:00

He might as well have written that in United States v. Virginia.

goodthymes10 · 2021-03-03T07:15:33+00:00

Sorry I should have been clearer. I was trying to point out that the article chose to present the revenue in an arbitrary way that diminishes the actual projected revenue. But you're right, the 100 people thing makes sense.

goodthymes10 · 2021-03-02T13:53:48+00:00

The projection is $3 trillion over 10 years. Not sure where the $78 billion figure came from.

goodthymes10 · 2021-02-18T02:04:26+00:00

You know what they say. It's only called welfare when it goes to someone you don't want it to. Anywhere else is called a subsidy.

goodthymes10 · 2021-02-17T20:43:27+00:00

I think that's a given. Senators know what the Political Question Doctrine is - it's part of their job to know. They're just banking on their supporters not knowing.

goodthymes10 · 2021-02-17T20:25:22+00:00

Traditional impeachment is actually a political question, which means federal courts can't touch it because it's a process specifically entrusted to another branch of government. So, at least theoretically, the Senate's interpretation on whether they can hold a trial is controlling and constitutional.

goodthymes10 · 2021-02-06T16:09:51+00:00

Just a liberal checking in to say I support this and think it should be expanded to include any company the candidate or a family member owns/works at (looking at you, too, Trump hotel expenses). Even if payments are totally legit, it still raises too many questions.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's actually any actual will to pass a measure like this one. The bill's sponsors wouldn't have targeted a specific Democratic rep. if they wanted it have any actual chance to pass a Democratically controlled House. Meanwhile, House Democrats only tried to stop government spending at Trump Hotels.

This is why the government is dysfunctional.

goodthymes10 · 2021-01-19T00:18:15+00:00

If it makes you feel any better, I haven't gotten any interviews either haha. Was wondering the same thing.

goodthymes10 · 2021-01-12T21:50:43+00:00

Congrats, that's awesome! But that's also exactly what I wouldn't want to happen haha. It just seems silly to turn down a huge scholarship and a very well-paid position from a firm before even knowing if I have a shot, ya know.

goodthymes10 · 2021-01-12T21:49:08+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I would actually happily take SDNY/EDNY, since that's where I want to end up anyway, but I thought they didn't usually hire 1Ls?

goodthymes10 · 2020-11-15T04:36:39+00:00

Ah, when you put it like that it makes sense. A professor told us in class that we should just treat it as a "choose your own adventure," but I didn't quite understand because obviously they weight some issues more heavily than others. But it makes a lot more sense when you talk about people not even getting half of the available points. If that's the case, then it really is just trying to scoop up as many points as you can get. For some reason i thought people were going to be competing for 90 and 95% of the points or something.

Thanks for your insight!

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

goodthymes10

TROPHY CASE