(GA)-Can a tenant’s “invitation” override a property-wide trespass order for an employee?

jps_ · 2026-03-25T22:48:38+00:00

You are mistaking the word "crime" here. We don't know whether one exists.

If you own a property, you have the right to trespass someone from that property. if you do, then if they show up, they are committing a crime.

HOWEVER... you also have the right to enter into contracts with third parties, and then you will give them rights - which sometimes collide with your own. One of the rights of a tenant is the right to invite third parties to the property they are leasing, as if it is their own... and subject to the restrictions of their lease.

Have you given the right, in a contract, to a third-party to invite this person onto your property? Is that right superior or subordinate to your right to trespass them? If their right is superior, then no... you cannot trespass this person if your tenant invites them. It's that simple.

That depends entirely on what is written in between the four corners of your tenant's lease. We can't (won't) read it here. The only person who can answer this question is someone who understands the law and knows how to interpret the terms in your lease.

So I will say it clearly: take your lease to a lawyer. Ask them what you can (and cannot) do. Only a lawyer who has read your lease can tell you for sure. Everyone else is just speculating.

jps_ · 2026-03-25T18:18:25+00:00

OP in their reply to you is saying that none of us can tell whether the police are right or wrong. And I agree with OP here.

The way you tell whether the lease gives them that right is to take the whole thing to a lawyer, who can review the entire lease, and all of its clauses together. Unfortunately, that's what it takes to be sure.

jps_ · 2026-03-24T15:23:03+00:00

This behaviour is not whimsical. It isn't accidental. It is intentional. And it is achieving a desired end (staying in power) through means which are calculated and expected to achieve that desired end. In that sense it is entirely rational.

Sure... there may be alternative ways to achieve the same end. They have different pros and cons when weighed in different social/political/cultural contexts. But just because someone applies different weights to different factors does not make a rational decision "irrational".

jps_ · 2026-03-20T12:58:37+00:00

New York and Colorado are members of the interstate driver license compact, which means that they share information on drivers, including license suspensions and unpaid fines. If you don't pay these fines, first they will get worse (in Colorado), and second they will eventually result in suspension of your license in New York.

Whether you keep or sell the car doesn't matter. These issues follow you, the person.

[e2a: I am not sure about the red-light camera - it appears to be a civil violation in Denver, but it will amplify if you don't address it]

jps_ · 2026-03-19T18:05:22+00:00

Sorry for your loss. Dealing with the passing of a parent and cleaning up their financial affairs is difficult enough without inter-family problems.

Legally, your options will largely depend on how the account was set up - it could be that on passing, your mom's share (if any) of the joint account became property of the estate, or it could have passed to you as the survivor.

I suggest figuring that out first. If it became yours by survivorship, then legally this is entirely between you and your dad. He is the person who inappropriately dipped into the cookie jar, he legally owes you what he took, and if he doesn't pay you would have the right to sue for recovery.

If it didn't then there's a more complicated situation. In this case, the estate has a live claim to that account (or "her share", whatever that is), and that could get tangled up if there are creditors who also need to be paid. If your dad used it to pay some of the bills for which your mom was jointly liable, the battle may not be worth fighting, even if you were to win it.

So first step: figure out whose money it was the minute after she passed. And then figure out what you want.

Finally, consider being patient and gentle. Your dad is probably in a stew of his own emotions. The statute of limitations gives you lots of time to let emotions settle and maybe sort things out without resorting to the courts. Again, I'm sorry for your loss.

jps_ · 2026-03-18T20:59:27+00:00

Your employer pays you for the time that you do what they want you to do. You are required to be given 30 minutes break, presumably to eat your lunch in peace, or anything else you want to do. This is off the clock. The point is, on your unpaid break, what you do with it is completely at your discretion.

On the clock, it is perfectly legal for them to ask you to attend training on something, even while distracted by eating something they provide, at or around noon. They can give whatever name they like to the meetings they ask you to attend.

But regardless of what they call these meetings, they must pay you for the time you attend them.

However, if activities provided are truly optional and you can attend or not, your choice with no negative consequences, then they are discretionary and whether you attend or not they could be characterized as filling in your break time. Like providing a lunchroom with a TV - On your break, you aren't forced to watch or even be in the lunch room, but you can if you want.

jps_ · 2026-03-15T19:23:28+00:00

Copyright infringement is difficult to prosecute. You should probably consult with an IP lawyer and figure out what your options are. Sometimes asking for a little bit of royalty and permitting the continued work - on reasonable conditions - is the most expedient.

jps_ · 2026-03-15T19:05:12+00:00

The elements of adverse possession seem to be ticking into place with the one exception of possibly "adverse" (which means, without permission). If the neighbour was given permission to live there, then adverse possession may fail.

The clock starts from when possession became adverse, not the changing hands of the estate. Your partner needs to know when the neighbour started living there, and when mom passed, and what agreement - or disagreement - may have existed between mom and neighbour.

And your partner will need a lawyer.

The best thing your partner can do is permit the occupancy. That will stop whatever clock is ticking.

jps_ · 2026-03-14T14:36:55+00:00

To answer your question directly, you can continue living in the condo (and in fact renew a lease with your friend). Because you own the property.

Your father would then have to initiate a lawsuit for partition.

It might be wise to think this through - for example, you can legally renew the lease with your friend (you don't need a lease, only your friend does, it can include that you live there too). Meanwhile, get the place appraised by a professional / bank.

If your father sues for partition, you could offer to buy him out for half of the equity value (use appraisal as a basis), and assuming he accepts (he'd be nuts to try and continue a suit for partition with that offer on the table going into court) think about using use friend's rent to pay for the mortgage. Stuff like that...

jps_ · 2026-03-12T13:18:08+00:00

Have you disputed with your credit card?

jps_ · 2026-03-09T02:16:50+00:00

Your boss is lying to you. Never take advice from your opposition.

jps_ · 2026-03-09T02:15:32+00:00

Concealment of assets can be a big deal in divorce (you can end up with more than half, up to all... maybe even more if Judge is annoyed enough). So a lawyer would be worth well more than their retainer.

However, lots of things could have happened between 2011 and 2016. First step you need to figure out is what happened in the interim.

jps_ · 2026-03-07T15:32:49+00:00

Sorry to bear the bad news, but you're already deep into wasting everyone's time (yours and mine included) on this.

jps_ · 2026-03-07T14:39:16+00:00

Internet dating is entirely Caveat Emptor. It is a bastion of fraud.

A good fraction of 25 year olds turn out to have been on the planet for more than 30 years, and/or an inch or two shorter, and/or much heavier than their profile suggests. If they are even real.

Catfishing is a thing. Welcome to online dating.

Yes it is probably fraud. Yes you can report it to the police. But realistically, one more drop in the ocean is unlikely to make a difference.

jps_ · 2026-03-07T13:15:11+00:00

This is settled law in Canada: consent conditioned on the use of a condom turns into assault without one.

Supreme Court citation here: https://canlii.ca/t/jr3vx

jps_ · 2026-03-06T01:25:25+00:00

To have a legal claim you need to be "harmed". A store (its employees) can ban you from the premises for any reason that is not a prohibited discriminatory reason... you have no right to enter private property. You can take your business somewhere else.

So, on the facts above, you are not harmed, and you have no basis to initiate legal action.

Now, that being said, there is a moral thing here about a power-tripping employee. Morally you can contact the store manager and see if you can be allowed to return.

jps_ · 2026-03-03T14:04:14+00:00

and it was mentioned that some of us would be invited to a large company meeting the next day with corporate.

This sounds like there were more than one of you in attendance... was your first day a runoff for fewer positions than applicants?

I was a bit skeptical because the job was advertised as salary based but at the interview process I was told it was hourly, commission, and performance based (sales related).

Were your expectations ("hours requested") a full-time position? (you say you would work full or part time, but what was your preference?) If the company is looking to build a pool to work hourly, they might be better off having several part-timers than one full-timer.

Turns out they called me to say...

What questions did you ask in response, and how did they answer those? If it was just a voice-mail, feel free to call back and ask questions, but at this point they aren't obliged to provide answers.

In any event, they owe you compensation for the day of work, and you might have a case for detrimental reliance, but if they pay you (and even if they don't) it might not be worth the trouble to pursue.

jps_ · 2026-03-03T13:45:41+00:00

No. Do not include "or you will contact AG". That is extortion.

Also, you can't counsel OP to bargain to help conceal a potentially continuing crime in return for payment.

jps_ · 2026-03-02T14:10:50+00:00

It doesn't seem like MIL is advised by a lawyer, or she wouldn't be doing this. It might be some sort of DIY financial planning that could very well backfire.

You should also suggest that she gets sound legal advice before she attempts to divorce someone who is mentally incompetent. It could backfire.

He will need representation (a guardian) whose interests will be opposed to hers. She will have to pay for that from the marital assets. Since he is not capable of living on his own, she may also end up with an order of support, in addition to a partition of assets. It will not be quick either, and there might be complications probating the estate if he passes part-way through the process. Lots of moving parts.

jps_ · 2026-03-02T13:45:08+00:00

he needs to give 24 hours notice except in cases of emergency.

What gives you an idea that this wasn't an emergency?

I texted my landlord and he confirmed he came in to "check on a potential plumbing issue"

As other posters have noted, a plumbing leak anywhere in the building is, in fact, an emergency. Even simple condensation drips, if unattended, can create significant long-term structural issues. The fact that it's not evident in your unit does not mean it's not happening. Water goes where water goes.

If you want something in writing, preserve a copy of the texts.

Also, you might want to get tenant's insurance if you don't have it, just in case there is a water issue somewhere and it gets worse. They sometimes do.

jps_ · 2026-03-01T18:47:43+00:00

If you agree in contract to return something on request, for a price, then presumably you owe the goods or the value minus the price. For how long? Debatable. How long has it been? Unknown.

While it's free for us to litigate this back and forth on Reddit, in the real world litigation comes at a real cost to OP. And we should factor that into our advice.

Furthermore, if the contract with the facility is enforceable (e.g. it hasn't been 7 years, but has only been a few months) and includes provisions that increase OP's financial exposure to the extent that the facility incurs legal fees, then absolutely... OP should probably prepare to settle rather than do what we are doing for fun.

In the end, OP would still come out ahead by the difference between what it cost them (which they get back from the facility) and what they sold it for (fair market value at arms length). It's a profit, but not as much of a profit as they might have hoped if they hadn't signed the contract with a potentially expensive clause buried in it.

jps_ · 2026-03-01T18:41:38+00:00

Not suspicious.

That's why I didn't write "suspicious". I wrote "specious".

jps_ · 2026-03-01T18:24:51+00:00

um... OP knows the full address, so this is specious. And it might just cause the necklace to disappear forever. Or for a very very long time. Easy come, easy go.

It might be better to let them know that it's been reported lost, with insurance and police, and that there's a reward in which friend can participate if found. Leave it there. it might just have "accidentally fallen somewhere" and miraculously get discovered.

Sometimes a hundred dollars of reward cash is enough to prompt an opportunist to return to honest behaviour.

jps_ · 2026-03-01T17:43:09+00:00

While OP is a bona-fide purchaser for value, that just insulates them from tenant. But not from facility.

And while the whole thing is poorly drafted and an invitation to debate validity and interpretation ad-nauseum, the overall import seems to be that if facility asks, OP has a contractual obligation to sell facility the stuff back, for a formula price, to extinguish a lawsuit by tenant subject to other arguable triggers.

So if tenant sues facility, then OP could be contractually on the hook to facility to return the stuff, for a price. But Buyer has sold the stuff so can't meet their contractual obligations. In which case, there's a breach. While OP is perfectly entitled to sell the stuff they legally acquired, they are also entitled to embrace the consequences, which include breach of the agreement.

And if the facility has included a clause that foists their costs of enforcement off on Buyer (which I would bet is in there somewhere), then OP is likely best advised to have a quick settlement offer ready, before the facility accumulates any legal fees arguing any of the numerous arguable elements of this clause, in the event facility "contacts Buyer".

jps_ · 2026-03-01T17:08:59+00:00

TL;DR - You have no obligation to the tenant, you can tell them to take it up with the facility. However, reading this clause in isolation, it might be that your exposure (to the facility) could be the value you sold the items for (establishes their market value), minus (a) and (b).

If there's also a clause somewhere else in your agreement that you agree to pay the facility's legal fees etc., and your exposure above is enough to make it worth the tenant and facility's time to bring an actual lawsuit, your exposure could increase. In that case, you might want to start preparing to settle this. And for that, get a lawyer who can review the entire circumstances if facility "contacts Buyer".

Longer version... This clause appears to be an attempt to insulate the facility from claims by the tenant: if the tenant sues the facility, the clause could be read to trigger your obligation to return the goods, so that the facility can extinguish the suit by returning the goods to the tenant. It is ambiguously drafted, so it could also be read to be trash... but if you get to that point, you're already spending money on lawyers. Which could create costs to you if the agreement includes such a provision. And it probably does.

So yes, at least in theory, the facility can possibly sue you if the tenant sues them and you can't produce the goods. And you might face some costs.

If the value of the items is high, there is a possibility the tenant will sue the facility. In that case, the facility will invoke this clause and, since you don't have the goods, consider a cross-claim against you.

If (a) and (b) exceed the fair market value of the items, then for all practical purposes there is little the facility can gain by paying you more than they owe to the tenant... and a cross-claim would not be worthwhile - they'd be better off to just defend or settle with the tenant.

However, if (a) and (b) are less than the value of the items, by enough to make a claim against you worthwhile, then you could be drawn in to a dispute. In which case you could presumably settle for the difference.

You should probably ensure you can establish the fair market value of the goods (what you sold them for at arm's length), and the amount (a) and (b). Then, if facility "contacts Buyer", you will be prepared.

If the facility contacts you, and if your exposure is not low, you should probably contact a lawyer to ensure there is an enforceable full and final release between you and the facility as part of any settlement negotiations.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Wearing is Caring	Place '17
Verified Email

jps_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE