that was definitely wrong

you guys can reinterpret it or inject as much moral ambiguity as you want

the fact that you have to reframe the situation to make it 'right' or 'just' is evidence in of itself that it was wrong

 

What are you talking about? My analysis was from a legal stand point. There is nothing moral about whether something is legal. Morality is a judgment of opinion from person to person, legality is determined by laws set fourth.

 

If you want to get legal, there is a 99.9% chance that the OP's insurance policy includes a subrogation clause (a LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT), which would require him to reimburse the insurance company for proceeds from a judgment or a settlement. I'm pretty sure that that's what Sprockett's dad was talking about.

Also, not all hearsay is inadmissible. If the OP was a defendant in court, a LOT of the things that he said would be admissible as a party admission.

It's amazing how people suddenly think they're lawyer's because they've seen an episode of Law and Order. What statute is the 9/10ths of the law rule? LOL

 

Your assuming the case wouldn't be thrown out. Also, who are you assuming would be pressing charges? If the insurance company pressed charges for the value of fixing the car, it would not be hard at all to make the case of a settlement. The ONLY evidence they would have that the $3500 was not a settlement would be the testimony of the person who paid him, which would not carry much weight in court since he was involved with the altercation and obviously would be biased in his testimony. Also, while it is possible for hearsay to be admissible, it generally has to be additional evidence. In this case, what would be the key evidence?

Do you think a judge would take a case that was purely he said she said other then judge Judy? It would be the insurance company walking in to court with their only piece of evidence being a bitter old man who's son was involved in a hit and run and paid hush money to someone to drop prosecution... the defense attorney would have a field day.

PS: The settlement would only have to be reimbursed if it were to pay for the damages to the car. My argument is that it was settlement for the pending litigation of the son.

 

"CasperIV;7058506]Your assuming the case wouldn't be thrown out. Also, who are you assuming would be pressing charges? If the insurance company pressed charges for the value of fixing the car, it would not be hard at all to make the case of a settlement."

Why would the case be thrown out? First of all, a $3500 claim would be in small claims court, which has very broad jurisdiction and usually does not have the same evidentiary restrictions. It doesn't matter if it was a settlement. If it was paid as compensation for damages to the car, then it he's contractually bound to reimburse the insurance company.

"The ONLY evidence they would have that the $3500 was not a settlement would be the testimony of the person who paid him"

Once again, it doesn't matter if it was a settlement or a judgment.

"which would not carry much weight in court since he was involved with the altercation and obviously would be biased in his testimony."

What is this statement based on? The dad can clearly testify, HE WAS THERE! And please don't assume how much weight someone's testimony carries. If anything, a juror will believe a dad who's trying to right a wrong by his son over some kid who trying to make out with a new bumper + $5000.

" Also, while it is possible for hearsay to be admissible, it generally has to be additional evidence. In this case, what would be the key evidence?"

Again, you're assuming that there MUST be other evidence other than hearsay. This is not true. If you killed someone, and you told me "I killed XXX," that may be the KEY evidence that puts you away. Why do you assume that his words don't mean anything in court?

"Do you think a judge would take a case that was purely he said she said other then judge Judy?"

Look up the rules at your local small claims court. It's very easy to establish a prima facie case.

"It would be the insurance company walking in to court with their only piece of evidence being a bitter old man who's son was involved in a hit and run and paid hush money to someone to drop prosecution... the defense attorney would have a field day."

I guess I assumed that the truth would come out in court. If this guy is going to lie in court to keep $3500 that he doesn't deserve, then more power to him. Most small claims courts don't allow attorneys, so unless he can create this "field day" on his own, i think the insurance company would have a better shot.

"PS: The settlement would only have to be reimbursed if it were to pay for the damages to the car. My argument is that it was settlement for the pending litigation of the son."

"$3500 is what it cost me out of pocket to repair my car to satisfaction"- he doesn't say anything about a pending litigation. Plus, there was no pending litigation. There was an accident investigation at the very most.

I'm not saying that this guy can lie his way out of court. He can obviously do that. But you can't base your "legal" analysis on that. My point is, don't claim that you're basing your opinions on a "legal" analysis, when you obviously don't have a thorough understanding of the law. I'm done with this thread.

 

Can anyone say

 

what are you talking about? i read the first page and replied. i didn't read your post.

 

Morexviit, unless there is actually a lawsuit neither one of us can claim to know how the case would proceed, therefore I would appreciate it if you kept your argument directed at the facts we were discussing rather then what you perceive my understanding of the law to be. Since I do not know anything about your knowledge on the subject I have shown you the decency of not attacking your personal understanding, simply the debated topic and facts at hand.

It would seem from your argument that you believe in some way truth and what is "right" have any real bearing on a court case. In my opinion what is "right" is that the parent of this dysfunctional delinquent was forced to pay for his offspring's transgressions. His motives or the methods he used to acquire the $3500 from the father may not have been entirely ethical by my standards, but the outcome was. The key is that none of this matters. Right, wrong, none of it applies to a court case.

I can say with very little doubt that this case would not be ruled in favor of the insurance company. Of course you may believe otherwise, but I think this turned into more of an argument between me and you rather then a debate of the facts.

 

That would be why it was so confusing... you didn't say who you were responding to.

 

Do you know what hearsay is, statements made in the presence of the defendant are direct evidence.

Possession isn't 9/10th of the law when possession is obtained through fraud (obtaining property by deception), withholding information regarding the insurance payout is the definition of deception.

As for the last sentence, and forum users.......lol

 

As long as the other party doesn't find out about it he's fine. I mean, i don't know why they would, they're probably scared shitless and the dad probably gave his son hell.

I mean, you really think wompa is gonna' call up the insurance company and tell them? How are they gonna' find out?

I hope the kid gets what he deserves, hopefully his dad bought him that truck and is now taking it away.

 

"The best lawyers, are the best liars."

 

Ergo, the best politicians are the best layers, which are the best liars.

:-) neil

 

You might want to check your spelling there...

 

this ending was sooo much better than that damn Titanic movie.....******* boat sinking at the end....ITS NOT LIKE THE ICE BERG WAS ******* TINY and you couldn't see it!!! dumbfucks.

 

I think it's kinda shitty what he did, but I won't hate on him. So long as he dropped all the charges as implied, then I would say he SETTELED the matter.

From what I read it was a matter of criminal prosecution being threatened and the father paid to drop the charges.

 

IMO, the father that bailed out his bitch *** son is why this all started. If the son was held in check and was raised right, this never would of happend. But you spoil someone, and BAM instant *******, all the way to the reality check when daddy stops writing the checks, and the dude gets a bullet.

 

Man, As soon as I found that guys truck at his apartment, it would have all been over for his truck..

 

I would have just wedged a container of liquid nitrogen behind his tires about an fifteen minutes before he normally leaves in the morning and poured some on his shocks...

 

for everyone saying Fraud your sad sad people. ok think of it this way he got paid for putting on a show. a play of sorts. he had a script(in his head),Props(the police report and pictures). In a sense the father just paid $5000 for a very convincing show.

 

LOL...so many ways to look at this situation...

 

or it could all be made up...

 

This is part of Grisham's next novel.

 

i think you just defined fraud. good job.

"A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

 

I think the root of the debate here is whether or not he gained the $5000 unlawfully or unfairly. I've already said that he shouldn't have been such a dick about it, so I'll leave it at that.