Recently in FindLaw Answers Category

Some of our most challenging queries on FindLaw Answers come from the Immigration Board. They can be complex because each set of facts is unique and involves international considerations while also implicating other fields of life and law.

Here, user Lupita_2009 describes her sticky situation and calls for help. Her scenario:

My boyfriend was arrested for first time domestic battery against me and was transferred to a judicial center, and they had told me he has a DUI from 5 years ago and also has an immigration hold.

Coming to terms with a relationship that has involved abuse is a major issue in itself; however for this user, it is only a part of her situation:

He has been in custody for 40 days. I wanted to know if there is a way the immigration hold could be removed because I am a US citizen and so is his 5 month old. We are not married, [but if we did get married], would this help in removing the immigration hold?

Time to put those Greedy smarts to use once again, and help a FindLaw Answers user approach a tricky legal question. This week, appropriately for the times, we feature a bankruptcy-related question.

One of the curious difficulties of initiating a bankruptcy petition is that it usually requires money. User jasontherock wants to file for bankruptcy, but has run into the money problem:

I have retained a bankruptcy attorney , but I have not yet paid them enough to start the process. I am on a payment basis and when I reach the required amount (in about a month) they will start the process.

Should we really be surprised to learn that a lot of people who want or need to file for bankruptcy find it difficult to pay an attorney to do that filing? Probably not. The problem for jasontherock is that, while he diligently saves up and pays his lawyers, the world marches on and his other creditors keep calling:

It's time once again to take a break from billing clients and put in a little pro bono effort.  Put your Greedy smarts to use and help the users of FindLaw Answers through the ever-disputed territory of landlord-tenant law.

Today we present pair of posts that really intrigued us.  Not so much for their legal substance, although there is a real legal question at issue here, but for their eerie similarity.  It certainly appears to us that a landlord and a (former) tenant have independently sought the help of the Answers community to resolve their dispute.  Read on and see if you agree.

First, we have a post from "sugarkitty," a landlord in Virginia, whose long-ago tenant moved away without bothering to collect her security deposit refund:

I had a tenant who vacated my property in early 2005 and refused to provide a forwarding address. I haven't heard from her in all this time but she called today demanding immediate return of her security deposit and threatening a lawsuit. After more than four years am I required to return it to her now?

We don't know too many tenants who don't want (or, frankly, need) their security deposits back after moving, so this is already an interesting story.  A later post by "blaize125" on the Real Estate board, though, made us take note:

Contracts meets consumer protection today in FindLaw Answers.  Put your Greedy smarts to use to help out user donnak69, who has a problem with an item she's sold:

Our dog had a litter of pups, which we sold.  One of the buyers has decided she doesn't want the puppy after having it for a week.  We don't want the puppy back. So far, the buyer has not paid any money.  Do we have to take the puppy back? or can we refuse?

Now, obviously, anyone who would want to return an adorable puppy is a heartless, soulless robot-person.  Nevertheless, donnak69 needs to know what her obligations are after the sale.  Do her prior representations to the buyer matter?  Is it a question of state law?  Does it matter if there's a written agreement?  Ponder these things, and click on over to this question thread to help out.

We have a theme for today's questions: many FindLaw Answers users have been hitting the Criminal Law board to ask about police searches of their cars.  Grab your favorite Fourth Amendment treatise (don't forget to get current with a quick read of Arizona v. Gant) and jump in:

Start with Answers user yallen, who wants to know whether the smell of marijuana constitutes probable cause for a search:

My boyfriend was recently pulled over (while I was in the car) and the police proceeded to search the car. I did not give them the authority to search. Well, they found drugs. The police report said he didn't signal a right turn, and the car smelled like marijuana.  Did the officer have sufficient probable cause to search the car by saying he smelled pot?

Got that one figured out?  Good, because here comes the Gant question.  (Hey, we warned you to look it over.)  User joej3839 wants to know the extent of Gant's restriction on searches incident to arrest:

Today's featured answer comes from the FindLaw Answers Family Law board, where user DroppedOnMyHead wants to know if there is anything she can do to avenge herself upon her erstwhile fiance, like sue him for breach of a promise to marry:

I know that suits of this nature have generally fallen out of favor and off the books of many states, as simply calling off an engagement/wedding is no longer the social reputation breaker it once was - but how about when serious financial detriment has been caused to the woman by a man's repeated promises to support, be there to assist in all ways,  and to take care of the woman? When he insists that the woman must put herself in his hands - sell her home, move, give up her job to be with him, etc. - does a woman have any legal recourse in most/any states anymore?

This time, regular Family Law contributor Ted_From_Texas suggested that if anything can help, it'll be contract law:

File today's question under "Law and Public Perception."  Many posters on the Employment board in FindLaw Answers have similar questions about breaks, overtime, and limitations on work hours.  Misinformation concerning these topics is all too common and spreads easily in workplaces everywhere, leading to questions like this one:

I've heard that there is an employment law that states your employer cannot legally ask you to be to work the next morning any sooner than 12 hours from the time that you leave work.  As in, if I work until 9:30 pm one night, I shouldn't be asked to be to work the next morning any earlier than 9:30 am.  Is this true?

Employment lawyers: we need your help!  Click over to FindLaw Answers and offer up your lawyerly knowledge to cut through the confusion.

It's time once again to put those Greedy smarts to use.  FindLaw Answers users have questions, and they need (free) answers.  Today, we bring you a pair of entries in the ongoing Landlord-Tenant Wars.  There's never a shortage of crazy-landlord/crazy-tenant stories on Answers, and today we look at an issue that, in the experiences of some tenants, rockets right up the Creepy Scale: when can (or should) a landlord just stroll on in?

First, we have the landlords.  Have sympathy for us, they say.  Landlording is a thankless business.  We are suffering in the down economy.  Mortgage, taxes, and maintenance are heavy expenses, and our property values are through the floor.  On top of all that, there are the daily confrontations with the intricacies of landlord-tenant law; for, instance, asks amysanchez7, what do I do when Johnny Law wants access to my tenant's space?

When should a landlord give police access to a tenants apartment or dwelling place? If there is no search warrant, and no imminent danger is present, should the landlord give access to a unit?  If access is determined as unreasonable search and seizure and a violation of the 4th Amendment, can I be sued?

Yes, it's tough out there for landlords.  But tenants get no peace either.  Read on for the other side of this story.

Perhaps you've already responded to our suggestion to banish workplace boredom by putting your Greedy smarts to use answering the queries of FindLaw Answers users.  If not, well, just look what you could have accomplished in a few spare non-billable minutes.  Recently on the Criminal Law board, user Thevirg wanted to know why the Fifth Amendment doesn't shield him from telling the IRS about illicit income:

Congress requires, via the IRS, that you report to the IRS any income from illegal activities, such as drug dealing. If you report the income, you reveal your illegal activities. If you do not report the income and the dealing is discovered, you can be charged with income tax evasion. Does this violate the Fifth Amendment? If not, why not?

Luckily for Thevirg, Answers regular Tax_Counsel was on hand and ready to expound on crime and taxes:

Bored at work?  Put your Greedy smarts to use! Users of the FindLaw Answers message boards have questions, and they need (free) answers.  In today's featured question, one user suggests a creative way to raise cash in today's uncertain economy, while avoiding the pesky legal obstacles surrounding the sale of human organs: