Skip to main content
Travis J. Jacobs
Avvo
Pro

Travis Jacobs’s Answers

305 total


  • Condo insurance company is trying to make master insurance company take the claim.

    My condo was flooded due to cold weather freezing the drain. My condo insurance company says the master insurance should be the primary coverage for the damage to the ceiling of the garage. They say it is due to the bylaw, in specific, due to the ...

    Travis’s Answer

    First, you may need to fight your own insurance company. This isnt uncommon. But the paragraph the adjuster cites is useless. What matters is whether the source of the loss is a common utility ot common (anything). SO, if the drain that froze is a common drain that serves all units, then the master policy should cover it. But ifnyou submit the claim to the master insurer your unit insurance should not increase. IF the master insurance denies coverage, get a denial letter and resubmit to your insurance company. Then your insurer may cover it. But remember, insurance adjusters are not thete to ENSURE you get covered...theyre there first and foremost to determine is coverage is afforded under the policy. In basic terms, that means theyre looking for reasons NOT to have to cover the damage under your policy. And EVERYTHING you share with them, can and will be used to deny coverage if possible. If they still deny coverage after the master denies coverageand you give your insurer a copy of the denial letter, then you may want to hire an attorney. Under MA law, unfair or deceptive practices in settlement of insurance claims is a violation of MGL chapter 93A (via ch. 176D)...and may get you your attorney's fees and costs if you have to sue.

    See question 
  • It seems to be impossible to find a lawyer that will handle a "Fraud upon the court, by an officer of the court" case.

    Testimony was removed/edited from the recorded COPY of the transcript. I filed a motion for the ORIGINAL recording. A letter of opposition was entered, stating among other things that the original would provide testimony to harass the other party....

    Travis’s Answer

    Its not necessarily a requirement that a party submit an entire transcript to the court when filing a motion or memo of law for example. Excerpts are often used. It is up to the opposing party in its opposition to point out those omitted portions and explain why theyre relevant. For this reason, in part, youre unlikely to prive a fraud on the court. However, if the case is on appeal, as an example, and a transcript is obtained of trial or hearing testimony by the opposing attorney and he/she sent in a copy to the court (usually the transcriber does so) and the attorney removed key parts of it, then you may have a case.

    See question 
  • I leased a car but the dealer says the contract was signed in error and wants me to sign a new one. Is the contract void?

    I recently leased a car for 36 months. Today the dealer asked me to sign a new contract because the old contract was signed in error. The dealer said that they had given me a money factor (interest rate) of 0.0005 that was intended for 39 month le...

    Travis’s Answer

    You are NOT under any obligation to sign any new contract - that's certain. I happen to agree entirely with Attorney L, and he is absolutely correct - whatever you decide to do, make sure you get it all in writing and make sure the writing says what you agreed to do. The Dealer very well may try to confuse you or make it appear that X is required when it's not, and he/she may also try to make the transaction look like you are returning the vehicle for no reason as a voluntary repossession which constitutes a breach of contract. In that case, they will come after you for the full balance remaining on the lease contract, plus interest and fees and possibly the costs of collection (attorney's fees and court costs). Beware.

    See question 
  • I was given the option to buy stock for a startup I worked for but never bought them within the "90 Days". What do I do?

    I worked for a startup for 2 years. My offer letter said: "Stock Option Bonus: 10,000 options, vesting over a 4 year period of employment. • Your options will vest according to the following schedule, at which point you will have the right t...

    Travis’s Answer

    All may not be lost yet. There are several documents that will control the answer to your questions, and you need to retain counsel to review them - some you may or may not have, but whatever you DO have you should have him/her review asap: (1) the stock purchase and sale agreement, (2) the articles of incorporation/organization, bylaws or operating agreement (depending on type of entity, though I assume its a INC / Corporation), (3) employment agreement, (4) stock option plan (if any), (5) any severance agreement, or other agreement you may have signed when you left the company.

    See question 
  • My identity was stolen by my previous employer can I sue that business

    After I quite they continued to punch me in and cash my checks in there personal bank accounts for 5 months I didn't know until the government stopped my food stamps telling me in employed at this company

    Travis’s Answer

    If your prior employer did that, thn you very likely have a strong case against that company as well as those personally responsible. What the employer did is certainly unlawful conduct. The fact that youve lost your government benefits further complicates the issues this employer faces if you choose to file suit against it. You should contact a business litigation lawyer as soon as possible to discuss the details. You may be entitled to triple damages under MA law.

    See question 
  • I didn't pull a building permit when I finished my basement.

    I had my basement finished last year. Now we want to add on a garage but need a permit for the basement. The local inspector is on a power trip. What outside of not issuing a permit do these people have over homeowners? Can they make us tear out a...

    Travis’s Answer

    These inspectors can make your life very difficult, especially if you have done work like that without a permit. They can force you to remove the work done - and giving you a break means letting you pull the permit after-the-fact and the work inspected to ensure compliance. You can be ordered to fix anything not in compliance. Fighting in court is a difficult and very often unsuccessful option.

    See question 
  • I want to know if I have a case regarding my yorkie being spayed without my permission.

    I brought my yorkie to the hospital because she was having problems delivering her pups. One puppy was stuck in the birth canal. My dog was given oxyitocin to help her deliver the pup that was stuck. The puppy was dead. The vet said they wanted t...

    Travis’s Answer

    You very likely have a case against the hospital/vet who performed the spay without authorization. Animal laws have taken some significant steps in recent years. In prior years, animals were treated as mere property and you could only get the value of the animal as property if, say, the dog was killed by a hunter accidentally or died in a car accident that was someone else's fault. But in the last year there was a case where the Court awarded an animal owner not just the value of the animal but the 'costs to repair it' (I suppose that's an insensitive way of putting it, but animals are still considered property, so it's progress). In that case, the animal required significant treatment including surgery to repair injuries due to another persons negligence. The Court awarded the animal's owners the entire cost of the surgery/treatment. Here, you could argue something similar - i.e. that the dog had value as a breeding dog and base that value on average litters and average number of litters produced by a female dog. This would require a vet or other 'expert' to testify to this, and maybe even another breeder to be thorough. Then you could sue to recover the value you've lost since the dog cannot breed anymore. You could also attempt to make more 'personal' / 'emotional' claims (the dog can never bear pups again) but I dont believe the courts will take animal law that far at this time. Plus, as a breeder, the pups are taken from its mother anyway, so it doesn't elicit the same sense of loss as a human unable to give birth would have. Nevertheless, it's a very interesting case that you should certainly speak with an attorney about to decide whether to move forward.

    See question 
  • I was hired by a company and was moved from the job I had been hired for, so I found a new job. Do I have to repay relocation $?

    This is the section of the hiring contract that speaks about leaving the company and repaying relocation expenses. It does seem pretty clear, but am still wondering if there is a way around it: "In the event I voluntarily terminate employment with...

    Travis’s Answer

    Id be interested in reading the contract and discussing what the employer has done (if anything) since this all happened. The contract controls BUT there are wage and salary laws as well as considerable case law in MA that restricts what the employer can and cannot do. Contact an attorney to review the circumstances with you and to review the contract.

    See question 
  • How can I exit of my US company taking all my shares holding & contribute them to the sub company thus becoming its shareholder?

    MY partner and myself have 45 and 55% respectively in the US company based in NY. Our US company own 99% of the subsidiary company in Finland. Through the US company we, partners invested our contributions to the Finnish subsidiary financing it f...

    Travis’s Answer

    Im not sure liquidation is the way to go as it doesnt sound like you (or your partner) are looking to distribute out ALL the US entity's assets.Also, is your partner opposed to your plan? Do you intend to maintain the US entity's operations? Since the US entity owns 99% of the Finnish entity and you own 55% of the US entity you may be able to (internally) convert your 55% interest in the US entity to some % of ownership in the Finnish entity. Thst being said, you should absolutely consult a tax advisor. Finally, why do you want to convert your ownership in the US entity to the Finnish one? If the US entity owns 99% of the Finnish entity then you effectively receive/own/have rights to about 54% of the Finnish entity's net revenue/shareholder distributions / etc anyway - is it for tax reasons? Your reasons for doing so may also impact the options available to you and may change the method employed to achieve the same objective.

    See question