Massachusetts Civil Litigation Legal Questions

You have many defenses, including that it was a gift and that in any case you repaid the money in other ways.  He can sue you for whatever he wants, although unjust enrichment doesn't realy fit as well as breach of contract (to repay the expenditure), but who will wins depends on who the judge/jury believes.... Read More

There is nothing for you to do until and unless you are sued.  At that time you should probably seek the assistance of legal aid (I assume that you cannot afford an attorney) to determine what your best course of action is, but since you admit liability it seems that, at that time (not now), assuming that the plaintiff will not agree to a payment  plan that you can afford in a settlement, your only choices will be to allow a judgment to be entered against you, or to declare bankruptcy.  A lot depends on the amount you owe, the reason you owe it (not all debts are dischargeable in bankruptcy) and what your financial prospects are.  But right now there is nothing to do.... Read More

It is possible that the Texas court lacks jurisdiction over you, but also possible that the court has jurisdiction.  Although the Supreme Court has recently narrowed the bases for personal jurisdiciton, nevertheless residence is not the only basis for a court to exercise jurisdiction.  For example, if this claim arose out of a contract which was to be performed in Texas, and/or contained a provision where you agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Texas court, personal jurisdiction probably exists, even though you now live in Massachusetts. Bottom line is that you can move to dismiss the Texas action on jurisdictional grounds, but you might not win.  You can also take your chances, default in the Texas action, and when the plaintiff seeks to enforce the Texas judgment, claim that the Texas court had no jurisdiction over you.  If you do that, however, you can only fight the judgment on jurisdictional grounds, you will have waived all other defenses by defaulting; if you have any other defenses, you probably shouldn't take the risk of defaulting.... Read More

If a lawyer has personal knowledge of relevant unprivileged information about a case, he can be compelled to testify just like anyone else.  It is unclear to me, however, what you want the lawyer to testify to.  Generally, attorneys' don't have personal knowledge of hte facts of the case, they only  know what has  been communicated to them by others, which in general would be inadmissible hearsay and/or protected from disclosure by the attorney/client privilege.   ... Read More

Good afternoon. Typically we are able to get your unit or master insurance policy to pay the entire amount of the claim.  You should not have to sue the abutting unit owner in order to be made whole.  I have been protecting the rights of insureds for about 30 years.  We may be able to assist you. Please feel free to call at your convenience. Thank you, Richard E. Palumbo, Jr. Law Offices of Richard Palumbo, LLC* 535 Atwood Avenue, Suite 4 Cranston, RI 02920 www.richardpalumbolaw.com / rpalumbo@richardpalumbolaw.com  Tel: 401.490.0994 / Fax: 401.490.0945 *Our attorneys are admitted in RI, MA, CT and US District Court - RI and MA   ... Read More

it is simple and easy to file suit, difficult to win.  In my experience, the two most common problems with defamation suits is that (a) what the defendant said or wrote is often considered a statement of opinion, not fact and (b) the plaintiff can't show any damages from the defamatory statements (although with some types of statements, it is not necessary to show actual monetary damages).... Read More

You don't have to wait.  However, civil courts will often stay all or parts of civil cases while criminal proceedings are ongoing in order no to prejudice the defendant's rights in the criminal proceeding.  Also, you may want to wait (assuming the statute of limitations is not a problem) because a finding of guilty or guilty plea in the criminal case can be used against the defendant in the civil case. ... Read More

12% interest is pretty steep, but unfortunately, that is what Massachusetts law provides for in what is called "post-judgement interest" (there is also "pre-judgement interest").  The purpose of the law is to encourage settlement by scaring people with a ridiculously high interest rate.  The more unscrupulous collection companies use this to generate profits, while the people who are really interested in just collecting judgements for money owed to them will often waive pre and post judgement interest as part of a settlement.... Read More

In court you have the right to assert "counterclaims" for anything that your landlord did that was against the law.  If you do have counterclaims, these can offset any money the landlord owes you. You should talk to a lawyer to find out if there are any counterclaims you can assert. If if turns out that you do owe your landlord some money, the court can order that you pay the money within a certain time and/or evict you.  Your question was not clear about whether your landlord is suing you for money or for eviction or both.  If it is only money, then the only thing your landlord can get is a document called a "judgement," which he can use to collect the money you owe.  If you are being evicted, then the court can give him an "execution" as well, which is a document your landlord can then give to a sheriff to have your property physically removed from the premises. ... Read More

With few exceptions (generally involving small claims cases and/or law students), non-attorneys can't represent anyone other than themselves.  Your mother can help you, but she probably won't be allowed to ask questions of witnesses, and may not be allowed to sit with you at counsel's table in Court.... Read More

The evidence is  not hearsay.  Mary did not say "he said that he was afraid of his father."  If she had, the testimony would still likely still have been admitted to show the boy's state of mind and/or under an exception to the  hearsay rule, such as present sense impression. Mary's testimoney was a conclusion.  It would have been more proper if she had testified to the factual basis for that conclusion, i.e. something along the lines of "Several times I saw him hide in the garage when his father came home."  Thus, the testimony may have been objectionable, but I don't think it was plain error to allow it - evidentiary rulings rarely are.  I also don't think that your attempt to raise the issue on appeal, contending that it was plain error to allow the testimony, is frivolous, so it is perfectly proper for you to raise it, although I do not think you will succeed.  You have nothing to lose.... Read More

In most states (I don't know specifically about MA, but I doubt it has substantially different rules), the accident you describe would be covered by workers compensation, and you would not be able to sue your employer for it.  This does not mean that you are precluded from asserting a claim against any other responsible party, such as, for example,  the forklift operator (unless he/she was also employed by your employer), or perhaps the forklift manufacturer (if, for example, the accident was caused by a faulty design, such as a faulty brake system) or an outside mechanic who maintains the fork lift (if the accident could have been caused by, for example, improper maintenance of the brakes).... Read More