- law dawg
- 23 Comments
- 3353 Views
- Is Nevada’s Wildlife Commission on the brink of extinction? [Nevada Current]
- Prosecutors to argue for trial delay in Telles trial. [RJ]
- Nevada Supreme Court sets oral argument over A’s stadium ballot measure. [News3LV]
- Longtime Boulder City muni judge/justice of the peace, Victor Miller, to retire. [BCR]
- Could Nevada say farewell to daylight saving time? [KTNV]
Boeing whistleblower committed “suicide” in between deposition days. Not shady at all.
Glad I wasn’t the only one who thought so. The subject for the next Octopus Murders on Netflix.
Binged that over the weekend. Blew my fkg mind.
🤯
He must have admitted he knew something about the Clintons in the depositions.
Watch the movie “Michael Clayton” starring George Clooney. Great lawyer movie.
The reporter that exposed the Panama papers was blown up in a car bomb and the main stream media acted like it never happened. Nothing to see here.
https://twitter.com/Nv8thC/status/1767615245269569802
Telles trial continued.
The DA is skeered to deaf.
Checked into the blog today to see what’s happening. Not much, as has been the situation frequently.
I appreciate the work that it takes to daily assemble and offer topics for discussion. Thank you.
However, the fact remains that the blog is no longer “lively”.
I respectfully offer this thought: The sometimes heavy handed deletions, which sometimes appear arbitrary or leaning in a particular direction, may be choking the life out of the blog. Food for thought.
Start your own blog. You could call it the “Don’t Make Me Anti-SLAPP You Blog”
Question for you all about NRS 108.665:
2. The lien may not be foreclosed during the:
(a) Lifetime of the owner of the property, the owner’s spouse, the owner’s dependent adult
child if that child is mentally or physically disabled or a joint tenant if the joint tenant was a
joint tenant at the time of the patient’s discharge; or
(b) Minority of any child of the owner,
if the owner or joint tenant resides on the property, or the owner’s spouse, dependent or
minor child resides on the property and has acquired title thereto.
3. If the hospital does not file a suit to foreclose the lien within 2 years after the date the notice of lien is recorded by the hospital, the lien is extinguished.
So I would read this as saying that if UMC records a lien on your house, they have 2 years to foreclose, but cannot do so while you live there. So effectively, if you wait more than 2 years you are home free. I found no caselaw on this. What do you all think?
I don’t know because I’ve never pressed it that far. I do know that medical bills are just made up out of thin air, and that UMC will bend over and gratefully take pennies on the dollar.
Check out former Las Vegas Sun investigative reporter Marshall Allen’s book, “Never Pay the First Bill (And Other Ways to Fight the Health Care System and Win)”
https://www.marshallallen.com/
You might want to research the effect of equitable tolling on the lien. If they cannot foreclose, their rights might be tolled during the time that they are prohibited. Its been a number of years, but it can be a very effective argument for the preservation of rights.
Yeah, the tolling argument should be looked into. It would be odd for the legislature to enact a hard extinguishment deadline knowing it would be impossible to meet in what, the vast majority of cases, a foreclosure deadline that functionally is not possible.
Good call. It looks like that a practical matter the hospital is out of luck. Relatively rare will be the case where the patient’s spouse, child, dependent etc. does not survive for two years. The key of course is for someone of the identified class to “reside” on the property.
The lien may not have survived, but that doesn’t mean the unsecured liability didn’t.
4:44 here, this debt is from 24 years ago, I think they are home free lol.
I tend to agree. Is escrow giving you grief about it and holding up a pending sale? FFS, the debt’s unsecured enforceability itself expired 18 years ago.
Family Court Update: A certain family law attorney with an office on Bonanza has been circulating bad briefing in response to the Falconi writs. However, RM and PG have both gotten briefs from Luke Busby, the attorney who won the Falconi writs, explaining the actual law and shockingly they’re paying attention. Are we more concerned that the family court bench is carrying water for Mr. Office-on-Bonanza or are we more concerned that the family court bench, with all those law clerks running hither and yon, chooses to listen to the errant briefing of an attorney with an ax to grind instead of doing the analysis themselves?
The family law bar culled the family law listserv because they don’t like being called out about their hysterics. They may think they got the culprit, but there are family law attorneys who are quietly and methodically leaking the listserv posts to the media and other free speech advocates. Maybe it’s time for Jen’s BF to admit that the people who smile to his face don’t agree with him at all? Haha dumbasses
Can I get this with English subtitles please?
IYKYK
If you choose to read the opinion issued in the Falconi decision you will find an interesting footnote on page 3. That attorney with the office on Bonanza was actually cautioned about misrepresenting information to the court.