Damn, my life is over.... fuck!!!!!!!!

[ToddInVegas]

Uh, he did and the judge allowed it. My lawyer objected but was overruled. It's all total bullshit. Now I know why people go on shooting rampages.

Obviously I dont know the details of the case, however...very few civil litigation cases actually make it to court. Most are settled prior to a trial, especially personal injury. I;m sure at some point you had a settlement before you and you likely thought you could get more. You took a gamble and lost. You got greedy and now you're in a hole.

Bottom line, you didnt have to sue, you likely could have settled at some point or made sure you had a better case before you went this far. IF you went to trial and lost, no doubt your position was weak.

 

[Timetopay]

They offered $2k.... but lawyer wanted 5 figures.

HAHAHAHAAHA. You continued a case to try and maybe bust 5 figures and owe 50k.

You got fuckin hosed and deserve it.:lolBIG:

 

[ToddInVegas]

They offered $2k.... but lawyer wanted 5 figures.

That 2k is looking pretty good right now I bet.

 

[ewitty]

You took a gamble and lost. You got greedy and now you're in a hole.

While this may be true (though I don't personally believe it is) it's not particularly helpful and certainly not what crunch needs to hear right now. He's in the position he's in and we should either help him climb out of it or leave him alone.

Litigation isn't about greed, it's about placing the person back in the position they were in before the tort as best money can do. The plaintiff certainly shouldn't be in a WORSE position than before they entered into the justice system, unless they were participating in a malicious prosecution or something like that, of which we have no evidence whatsoever in this case.

At worst, I would think a losing case would mean the plaintiff owes the lawyer fees (although this would be zero if the lawyer worked on contingency) and court costs. The winning defendant obviously doesn't want to get stuck holding the bag on his lawyer's fees, and thus can sue the plaintiff for them, which it seems he is effectively doing. However, it seems to me that these costs should be attributed to the plaintiff's lawyer and not the plaintiff himself, because a) it was the lawyer who decided to proceed with litigation and b) the lawyer is insured, which means it is less of a strain on the lawyer than it would be on crunch, plus suing an insured party is always smarter than suing an uninsured 20-something. Blood from a stone and all that.

Just my opinion, but I think crunch will be a-ok.

 

[ToddInVegas]

Litigation isn't about greed, it's about placing the person back in the position they were in before the tort as best money can do. The plaintiff certainly shouldn't be in a WORSE position than before they entered into the justice system, unless they were participating in a malicious prosecution or something like that, of which we have no evidence whatsoever in this case.

True enough but there has to be a deterrent to frivilous litigation. The courts are back logged with cases that should have been settled before trial. We do not know the details of the case, however, if a settlement was there then he should have taken it.

The question is did he want vindication that he was in the right? If so he would have taken the settlement that was offered and walked away satisfied that he was vindicated.

Or did he want the big pay day...get rich on some other guys $$$. In that case he would likely turn it down and try to get the huge windfall.

To me its quite obvious he put his greed above his principles and tried to make money. It was a gamble, he lost and he has nobody, not the judge, legal system, experts, his lawyer or the defendent to blame.

Not once did he say he felt let down because he was right. It was about the money from the get go. He blamed everyone else without taking responsibilty for his own decision.

I'm sure he'll be fine in the end but isnt there a saying about looking a gift horse in the face?

 

[CalvinTy]

The plaintiff certainly shouldn't be in a WORSE position than before they entered into the justice system, unless they were participating in a malicious prosecution or something like that, of which we have no evidence whatsoever in this case.

I admit I'm in agreement there. It's so ironic that the plaintiff loses -$50K rather than accept a +$2K paltry settlement by the defendant THREE years ago.

At worst, I would think a losing case would mean the plaintiff owes the lawyer fees (although this would be zero if the lawyer worked on contingency) and court costs. The winning defendant obviously doesn't want to get stuck holding the bag on his lawyer's fees, and thus can sue the plaintiff for them, which it seems he is effectively doing.

Yes, true, If I was sued for something and I offered a settlement (even if it's tiny one) but the plaintiff wants to take me to a jury court & I win--- no way in hell I'm paying for any damned attorney fees.

However, it seems to me that these costs should be attributed to the plaintiff's lawyer and not the plaintiff himself, because a) it was the lawyer who decided to proceed with litigation and b) the lawyer is insured, which means it is less of a strain on the lawyer than it would be on crunch, plus suing an insured party is always smarter than suing an uninsured 20-something.

Fascinating thought. I'm sure FHM would chime in here if not already, but yeah, in a perfect world, that'd be a great way to balance the necessity of having to go into court to seek for justice that's deserving as opposed to "wanting" to go into court but ending up "wasting everyone's time if the judgment goes for the defendant anyway".

But there'd be catch-22 when many more lawyers would be so chicken to even recommend litigation when you really have a good case to seek the proper justice.

Crunch99, keep your chin up & I'm sure you'll find ways to make best out of this situation.... just don't try to imitate Dubpoet too much... (just a bad joke as Dubpoet just missed out on a large parlay payout).

* CalvinTy

 

[ToddInVegas]

However, it seems to me that these costs should be attributed to the plaintiff's lawyer and not the plaintiff himself, because a) it was the lawyer who decided to proceed with litigation and b) the lawyer is insured, which means it is less of a strain on the lawyer than it would be on crunch, plus suing an insured party is always smarter than suing an uninsured 20-something. Blood from a stone and all that.

A lawyer cannot proceed without his clients approval. If Crunch wanted to settle his lawyer would have settled. He admitted he was told he could expect 5 figures. He wanted the big money, otherwise he would have taken the settlement and walked away knowing he was in the right.

 

[crunch99]

A lawyer cannot proceed without his clients approval. If Crunch wanted to settle his lawyer would have settled. He admitted he was told he could expect 5 figures. He wanted the big money, otherwise he would have taken the settlement and walked away knowing he was in the right.

Not really, the most he said I could get was $4k, although he'd get 5 figures in attorney's fees. He didn't tell me this until the offer was rejected. Anyways, the entire $2k would've gone to the lawyer.

 

[fhmesq44]

Crunch,

Before you decide anything on the appeal get the advice of another attorney. Contrary to what EJ says, $10k to file an appeal isn't much. Not to say you should spend it though. Spending $20 to get $10 is stupid.

 

[primetime21+]

crunch, what state do you live in? none of this makes much sense. I am from NY, so perhaps the rules are different from where you are, but i have never seen a plaintiff pay attorneys fees if they lose a PI case.

Again, i am from NY, so perhaps the laws of your state are different. I just can't see them being that much different. it seems pretty backward.

 

[crunch99]

What would be the purpose of an appeal anyways? My lawyer's already admitted that it succeeding is almost nil. Is it just to delay paying the attorney's fees or hoping they give up?

 

[parlayin]

ewitty, you talk like a lawyer, but you're not a lawyer? law student?

 

[crunch99]

crunch, what state do you live in? none of this makes much sense. I am from NY, so perhaps the rules are different from where you are, but i have never seen a plaintiff pay attorneys fees if they lose a PI case.

Again, i am from NY, so perhaps the laws of your state are different. I just can't see them being that much different. it seems pretty backward.

There's a law that if you are offered a settlement amount but go to trial anyways, you must get higher judgement (than the settlement offer) or you will be responsible for the winning side's attorney fees.

 

[ZZZSpeedster]

Dead wrong jackass - I am an attorney - get my email and I will help you out - I don't want shit and will let you know your options - I think you are really overreacting - did you say you were 23 - uncollected judgments are worthless and expire eventually.

If people could just not pay, or file bankruptcy what is the point of suing anyone but a large company?

Lets say for example:

I contract with someone for $20,000
$10,000 straight up, and $10,000 when the job is done

The person does hardly anything on the job, and they royally screw me over. If I take that person to court, and he hires an attorney...and he loses the case.

I have a judgement for the $10,000 back and my attorney fees. This guy can simply file bankruptcy and not have to pay a dime? (assuming he spent the money already and he doesnt care if he files bankruptcy)

There has to be some type of clause saying you can deduct from his wages until the amount is paid off, etc. The person is obviously going to have to work again in his lifetime, unless his name is OJ Simpson.
Any good collection attorney I'm sure can make it so this guy would have to pay up the judgement eventually, and make it so he doesn't just file bankruptcy and off he goes on his way.

 

[ZZZSpeedster]

Why shouldn't I complain? When we got a shitty justice system that takes 3 years to hear a court case because the defense lawyers file motion after motion, then we got judges that allow them to get away with murder, not to mention throwing out our experts from testifying and jurors that don't want to serve so they side with the defense so they can get out of jury duty faster. that's BULLSHIT.

What state are you in?

They must have had a valid reason for throwing out your experts?

I know you are bitter from losing, but sounds strange.

Are you going to appeal it?

 

[ZZZSpeedster]

I doubt the opposing lawyer told them to side with him so they could avoid determining damages and I doubt the judge would have allowed him to say that.

Yeah I dunno. I have yet to hear about a case anywhere where its truly totally anarchy in the courtroom. Maybe he lives in some backwoods state. Plus, I find it hard to believe that EVERY juror would think you're claim is valid, but say "we're going to screw this guy, so we can go home! even though we know he is right!"

 

[ZZZSpeedster]

So 12 people collectively don't give a fuck about justice at the same time, because they want to go back to work tomorrow?

You said it yourself that you knew they were gonna rule against you last night. Why is the correct ruling in your favor? Sell it on here, since you didn't sell the jury.

That's what I'm saying

Something doesn't sound right.

Maybe 1 or 2 might think that, but I find it haaaaaaaaaard to believe 12 people decided to royally screw you good

 

[ZZZSpeedster]

Not really, the most he said I could get was $4k, although he'd get 5 figures in attorney's fees. He didn't tell me this until the offer was rejected.


Anyways, the entire $2k would've gone to the lawyer.

Ok that settles it for me right there.

Something is WAY out of whack with this whole situation.

If a settlement was offered, and the attorney was going to take THE WHOLE THING, something is definitely up.

He doesn't tell you that the most he thought you could get was $4k until AFTER you told him to go forward?
and then he tells you that HE was hoping to get 5 figures?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

YOU GOT SERVED BY YOUR ATTORNEY...believe that

 

[Climate]

Dude, you got problems, but your life is not over. Far from it. Your problem is big, but not as big as you make it. You will realize this later. As they say "This too shall pass."

I had a pain in my side which would not go away about 6 months ago. One week passed, two weeks passed. The doctor said I was OK. After 4 months the pain got worse, and spread from my right side over to my left and my left side from my waist up to my kidneys. It went from hurting some of the time to almost all of the time.

I had to go in for an abdominal ultrasound 3 weeks ago. If it was positive for what I hoped it was not, that meant I had about 3 months to put my affairs in order. How'd you like to walk around for a week knowing you have to go in for a test like this. It was not a good week. Anyway, I was Ok, no malignancy.

They are still running tests, and we are not sure what my problem is. I have some good days, and some days which are not so good. I should be ok God willing.

I have been lucky so far. I also learned that a lot of stuff is a lot less important than I might think. It's just a court case. You are not going to die, and you are not going to jail. Consider yourself lucky. It could be a lot worse.

I sat next to a couple of people in the hospital who knew they were up against it. They had a lot more to deal with than losing a court case and some bucks. You can make bucks. Peace.

 

[Livinthedream]

They typically do not award opposing side attorney's fees