"Without Prejudice"

[NYC cue dude]

Just spoke to my attorney. In the state of New York, and possibly many other states, If you cas the checks, you may lose your future rights.

It happens all the time in landlord tenant courts here in the city all the time. Tenant owes landlord large amounts of money. Landlord starts proceedings. Tenant sends small payment. Landlord deposits, and loses the option to sue at that point. Must refile the suit.

By simply printing "without prejudice" on the front and back of the check preserves your rights to pursue legal action. Also, you should specify that the payment is 1/3 of the amount owed, and write the schedule on the memo portion of the check. If all the players do that, then the court will deem it more than coincidental that the players were under the same understanding.

I have been muzzled recently by my attorneys. Rest assured that i am still very much HERE!!!!!!!!, and working hard.

This was way too important for me not to post.

I ask all interested parties to frequently bump this to the top so everyone can be made aware of the situation.


rg

 

[Eydie Romano]

Just spoke to my attorney. In the state of New York, and possibly many other states, If you cas the checks, you may lose your future rights.

It happens all the time in landlord tenant courts here in the city all the time. Tenant owes landlord large amounts of money. Landlord starts proceedings. Tenant sends small payment. Landlord deposits, and loses the option to sue at that point. Must refile the suit.

By simply printing "without prejudice" on the front and back of the check preserves your rights to pursue legal action. Also, you should specify that the payment is 1/3 of the amount owed, and write the schedule on the memo portion of the check. If all the players do that, then the court will deem it more than coincidental that the players were under the same understanding.

I have been muzzled recently by my attorneys. Rest assured that i am still very much HERE!!!!!!!!, and working hard.

This was way too important for me not to post.

I ask all interested parties to frequently bump this to the top so everyone can be made aware of the situation.


rg

This is VERY VERY True.

Randy, you Rock!!!!!

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

This may have been covered and I missed it, but, if you accept the 'deal' for 1/3 (33%) of the money owed you and you get the first monthly payment and then no further payments arrive, would you then have to sue for your remaining 22%. Once you give up your right to collect 100% of your money, is it worth retaining an attorney at 33-40% to try to get only 22% ?
Did that make sense ?
Doug

 

[Johnnyt]

This may have been covered and I missed it, but, if you accept the 'deal' for 1/3 (33%) of the money owed you and you get the first monthly payment and then no further payments arrive, would you then have to sue for your remaining 22%. Once you give up your right to collect 100% of your money, is it worth retaining an attorney at 33-40% to try to get only 22% ?
Did that make sense ?
Doug

bumpity bump bump. Johnnyt

 

[ribdoner]

This may have been covered and I missed it, but, if you accept the 'deal' for 1/3 (33%) of the money owed you and you get the first monthly payment and then no further payments arrive, would you then have to sue for your remaining 22%. Once you give up your right to collect 100% of your money, is it worth retaining an attorney at 33-40% to try to get only 22% ?
Did that make sense ?
Doug

The attorney would get his % + expenses out of the amount recovered

DISCLAIMER---this answer is only applicable if it fits the question you asked

 

[Steve Lipsky]

This may have been covered and I missed it, but, if you accept the 'deal' for 1/3 (33%) of the money owed you and you get the first monthly payment and then no further payments arrive, would you then have to sue for your remaining 22%. Once you give up your right to collect 100% of your money, is it worth retaining an attorney at 33-40% to try to get only 22% ?
Did that make sense ?
Doug

Doug, it's late and I'm just not seeing this. How did 66% suddenly become 22%? Even if you are talking about after the lawyer's cut, that would still be about 40% left for you.

Please explain so I can go to bed .

- Steve

 

[av84fun]

<<It happens all the time in landlord tenant courts here in the city all the time.>>

Writing "without prejudice" or as I suggested in another thread "all rights reserved" is the same thing...BUT N.Y. tenant/landlord law has little to do with the matter at hand which is CONTRACT law which is a whole different can of worms.

If there is a CONTRACT (written, oral or implied) where one party agrees to accept installment payments and all the installments are not paid, that party would NOT waive the right to sue for the unpaid balance simply by having cashed a check for any particular installment payment...PERIOD.

In fact, they would have a breach of contract claim for the unpaid balances.

Even in N.Y. tenant law by accepting partial payment the landlord would not WAIVE and forever be precluded from filing suit...the landlord might just have to REFILE another suit for the remaining unpaid balance...and if the check was cashed BEFORE suit was filed...that check would simply be credited to the OLDEST outstanding rental payment and there would be NO waiver of the right to collect on those balances.

So, the example given is apples to oranges. HOWEVER, there would be no harm done by writing "without prejudice" on the check so it is good advice to do so.

BUT THE BEST ADVISE IS NOT TO TAKE ANY ADVICE FROM ANY POSTER TO THIS FORUM....INCLUDING ME...AND RATHER TO OBTAIN THE ADVICE OF A LAWYER.
Regards,
Jim

 

[jasper]

Don't listen to them!

Cash your checks....you've waited waited long enough for this money.

 

[Roy Steffensen]

Cash your checks....you've waited waited long enough for this money.

Jasper: Sorry to ask you this favour, but can you please shut the F*** up for a while!? (Sorry Mr. Wilson)

Don't you understand that the first payment of the 1/3 will only be the payment that the IPT have received from the players who have entered qualifiers for the Tour Card Qualifier?

IF the players accept this they will have no rights in a court of law if the IPT won't pay the second and third time, and if no more tournaments are going to be organized...

 

[jasper]

Jasper: Sorry to ask you this favour, but can you please shut the F*** up for a while!? (Sorry Mr. Wilson)

Don't you understand that the first payment of the 1/3 will only be the payment that the IPT have received from the players who have entered qualifiers for the Tour Card Qualifier?

IF the players accept this they will have no rights in a court of law if the IPT won't pay the second and third time, and if no more tournaments are going to be organized...

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jay helfert]

Cash your checks....you've waited waited long enough for this money.

The official Forum attorney has spoken. You know what they say about "free" advice. It's worth every penny.

 

[shanesinnott]

Doug, it's late and I'm just not seeing this. How did 66% suddenly become 22%? Even if you are talking about after the lawyer's cut, that would still be about 40% left for you.

Please explain so I can go to bed .

- Steve

Steve,

The offer on the table is 33% of what is owed to the players (to be made in 3 installments). The first installment is 11% of what is owed, then 22% of what is owed remains in the form of 2 more 11% payments

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

Originally Posted by Smorgass Bored
This may have been covered and I missed it, but, if you accept the 'deal' for 1/3 (33%) of the money owed you and you get the first monthly payment and then no further payments arrive, would you then have to sue for your remaining 22%. Once you give up your right to collect 100% of your money, is it worth retaining an attorney at 33-40% to try to get only 22% ?
Did that make sense ?
Doug

Doug, it's late and I'm just not seeing this. How did 66% suddenly become 22%? Even if you are talking about after the lawyer's cut, that would still be about 40% left for you.
Please explain so I can go to bed .
- Steve

Well, if the IPT owed you $18,000 and offered to pay you 1/3 in three payments and you agreed, you'd be getting $6,000 (in three payments of $2,000). Now, you've 'agreed' to taking only 1/3 of what had been owed to you. You get your first payment of $2,000. Now, time goes by and you DON'T receive another payment. You can't get a lawyer and sue for the balance of the original $18,000 because you made a deal to accept 1/3.

All that you are owed now, is $4,000. It isn't cost effective (imo) to retain an attorney which would charge you 33%-40%, plus expenses on a contingency basis to recover your balance of $4,000.

I just picked these numbers at random for illustration purposes. But use the $5,000 figure that many are currently owed and the offer of 1/3 or $1,666. You take the offer and receive your first payment of $555 and KT makes you whistle Dixie for the next two payments. What are you gonna do ?
Doug
( btw, math & law are not my strong suits and I may be completely wrong )
.
.Edited to say that once you take the 1/3 (33%) offer, you are giving up 66%. Once you recieve your first payment, you have received only 11% of what had been your 'true' balance owed. The next two payments amount to the 22% stilled owed. Like this:
11%
11%
11%
---------
33% or 1/3 of what was owed after Reno failed to pay.....

 

[shanesinnott]

The real question of the day is does Doug really eat popcorn at 8.15am on a Saturday morning...I think so!

 

[!Smorgass Bored]

Popcorn, Fries and Beer.....oh, and a Toothpick

The real question of the day is does Doug really eat popcorn at 8.15am on a Saturday morning...I think so!

I just had two cups of black coffee with a shot Jack Daniels in each,some popcorn and a handful of pills to compensate for my lifestyle. I'm messin around here and then taking a shower and heading out to Baker's Billiards to sweat some pool (and dabble in the calcutta)... I'm also going to vote (early vote). I'm not having any popcorn until AFTER I've voted, because i live in florida and don't wish to cloud my thinking.
Doug
( I used to really abuse myself before the open heart surgery and the diabetes, but I've cut back.......some )

 

[shanesinnott]

I'm also going to vote

Vote? Is there some kind of election going on? Living in Florida and watching TV all the time you think I would have seen a political ad or 2

 

[jjinfla]

Vote? Is there some kind of election going on? Living in Florida and watching TV all the time you think I would have seen a political ad or 2

Not on the cartoon channel.

 

[jjinfla]

Just spoke to my attorney. In the state of New York, and possibly many other states, If you cas the checks, you may lose your future rights.

It happens all the time in landlord tenant courts here in the city all the time. Tenant owes landlord large amounts of money. Landlord starts proceedings. Tenant sends small payment. Landlord deposits, and loses the option to sue at that point. Must refile the suit.

By simply printing "without prejudice" on the front and back of the check preserves your rights to pursue legal action. Also, you should specify that the payment is 1/3 of the amount owed, and write the schedule on the memo portion of the check. If all the players do that, then the court will deem it more than coincidental that the players were under the same understanding.

I have been muzzled recently by my attorneys. Rest assured that i am still very much HERE!!!!!!!!, and working hard.

This was way too important for me not to post.

I ask all interested parties to frequently bump this to the top so everyone can be made aware of the situation.
rg

So you are giving legal advice to the players? Is that legal?

Or are you passing legal advice from your attorney?


Did your attorneys tell you that bit about about "without prejudice" or is that something you read somewhere else? That sure sounds like legal advice. Other attorneys may not like you practicing law without a license.

I suggest you listen to your attorneys and put the muzzle back on.

And next time instead of speaking "to" the attorneys speak "with" them. In fact don't speak at all, just listen.

Jake

 

[Timberly]

So you are giving legal advice to the players? Is that legal?

Or are you passing legal advice from your attorney?


Did your attorneys tell you that bit about about "without prejudice" or is that something you read somewhere else? That sure sounds like legal advice. Other attorneys may not like you practicing law without a license.

I suggest you listen to your attorneys and put the muzzle back on.

And next time instead of speaking "to" the attorneys speak "with" them. In fact don't speak at all, just listen.

Jake

Jake, go take your meds, please.

 

[RedGuru]

Vote? Is there some kind of election going on? Living in Florida and watching TV all the time you think I would have seen a political ad or 2

Vote no on retention.