So about 3 months ago I saw that this girl kept writing on posts I wrote on OVER A YEAR AGO saying delete please. Well I had know idea who she was and after the 15 time I got that I found out through a mutual friend of my ex and I that his new gf...
If you can end the problem by deleting the posts I see no reason why you should not do that. In my opinion their actions do not rise to the level of conduct that a judge would order to be restrained. In addition, a restraining order will just prolong the drama. You have the power to stop it but taking the simple step of deleting posts and you'll save yourself a lot of time and money by doing that.See question
The buyers have disappeared, not made payments, destroyed the house and left no forwarding address. No paperwork was ever recorded and the property remains in our name. Do I need to do a forclosure. I have sent the default notices as requires and ...
It is unclear exactly what the agreement was. Perhaps a lease to own type of contract? In practical terms you probably don't need to do a foreclosure because the buyers are not coming back. Either way, you certainly need to determine if the buyers encumbered the property with any other liens while they occupied it.See question
How much is a family of four (2 adults and 2 children) in bankruptcy allowed to deduct in medical expenses? Do these have to be actual expenses or are they allowed to deduct a certain amount regardles whether they incur such expenses?
The answer is "actual expenses on a case by case basis." This is directly from the Arizona Chapter 13 Trustees. I've included the document in a link.See question
I worked for a company in AZ for 14 years and was laid off in June. I was the only person laid off after I made complaint to HR. Regarding harrassment after I had reported safety issues concerning upper management. When I was laid off I was inform...
You may have a claim under the Arizona Employment Protection Act but it is impossible to tell from the limited facts you gave. The Act states:
3. An employee has a claim against an employer for termination of employment only if one or more of the following circumstances have occurred:
(a) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in breach of an employment contract, as set forth in paragraph 2 of this section, in which case the remedies for the breach are limited to the remedies for a breach of contract.
(b) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in violation of a statute of this state. If the statute provides a remedy to an employee for a violation of the statute, the remedies provided to an employee for a violation of the statute are the exclusive remedies for the violation of the statute or the public policy set forth in or arising out of the statute, including the following:
(i) The civil rights act prescribed in title 41, chapter 9.
(ii) The occupational safety and health act prescribed in chapter 2, article 10 of this title.
(iii) The statutes governing the hours of employment prescribed in chapter 2 of this title.
(iv) The agricultural employment relations act prescribed in chapter 8, article 5 of this title.
All definitions and restrictions contained in the statute also apply to any civil action based on a violation of the public policy arising out of the statute. If the statute does not provide a remedy to an employee for the violation of the statute, the employee shall have the right to bring a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of the public policy set forth in the statute.
(c) The employer has terminated the employment relationship of an employee in retaliation for any of the following:
(i) The refusal by the employee to commit an act or omission that would violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state.
(ii) The disclosure by the employee in a reasonable manner that the employee has information or a reasonable belief that the employer, or an employee of the employer, has violated, is violating or will violate the Constitution of Arizona or the statutes of this state to either the employer or a representative of the employer who the employee reasonably believes is in a managerial or supervisory position and has the authority to investigate the information provided by the employee and to take action to prevent further violations of the Constitution of Arizona or statutes of this state or an employee of a public body or political subdivision of this state or any agency of a public body or political subdivision.
You should find and talk to an employment lawyer and allow him/her to give you some specific guidance.See question
My husband was terminated out of the blue, no repremands of any kind, nothing indicate that he needed to modify his work ethic,but he filed a workers comp claim in the state of Arizona one day prior to his termination. They indicated on the pink ...
The State Bar of Arizona has a "Find A Lawyer" feature on its website where you can get a list of Worker's Comp attorneys.See question
I am trying to purchase a home. I need a paper stating that I have no ownership within the company. My boss refuses to sign the paper and told the company CPA not to sign also. If I do not come up with the paper in 10 days I lose the financing and...
Your boss has no legal obligation to sign the document, and no, you do not have a case. I would try my best to explain to the lender that your boss refuses to sign the document.See question
IS WELLS FARGO GOING AFTER CHASE AND WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
You owe money to Wells Fargo, who has a judgment against you. You likely now bank at Chase Bank and have an account there. Wells Fargo is attempting to garnish your account at Chase Bank to satisfy the judgment it has against you.See question
Please let me know if i need to pay the said amount or it is not required. The contract which i have signed is below Termination of Employment: a. During the initial minimum term of 15 months employment, if the Employee terminates his/her te...
I agree, you'll need to let a lawyer look at the entire contract. I've run into the provision before regarding the costs associated with the employees immigration proceedings. I do not believe such a provision is lawful. However, consulting a lawyer who specializes in immigration (which I do not) would be advisable.See question
I'm asking for my sister. She works for a very busy retail outlet. They do have more than 50 employees if that matters over several locations. They probably have a few hundred employees in AZ. She is often scheduled to work 6 hours with no break a...
Neither Arizona nor Federal law requires an employer to give a lunch break or any other types of breaks. I've included a link to a Department of Labor web page where you can get more information for your sister.See question
I recently left a large mortgage corporation and went to work as a Recruiter with another organization in a different industry completely. One of the provisions of my non-compete says that anyone I hire must not have worked with my previous compa...
If you were a recruiter for the mortgage corporation then I'd be very careful about hiring the person. Presumably the purpose of the contract is to keep you from competing as a recruiter and so it might not matter that the individual would be hired in a non-competing industry. In Arizona restrictive covenants must be reasonably limited in both time and geography...12 months is generally considered reasonable as far as time goes. If the contract purports to cover all of Arizona, whether or not that geographical scope is reasonable is going to depend on your specific circumstances, e.g. what the industry it, etc. In my experience, such a geographic scope would likely be considered unreasonable. Arizona is very strict regarding a judge's ability to modify non-competes to make them reasonable when they are unreasonable on their face. I'd recommend having an attorney take a look at it. It's not going to cost you much to do that and might keep you from being sued.See question