Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Frivolous lawsuit? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Frivolous lawsuit?
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

quote:
I think that goes with the intent to be bound. The agreement is the meeting of the minds and they don't need to have expressed it verbally if it should have been reasonably understood that she would not leave and shack up in the middle of high school.
I don't agree that that is necessarily the case that she should have known or believed that her leaving the house would have cut off access to her funds for college.

quote:
Furthermore there's no attorney's fees under promissory estoppel, so it's clear they are proceeding under a contract theory where such can be awarded.
There are multiple things for which the parents are being sued - the other items might be justification for the attorney's fees.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
a number of ways in which Promissory Estoppel and Detrimental Reliance could occur,

I know it seems that way when you read the words explaining it, but it's not going to operate as you describe.
quote:
it could have prevented her from applying to other schools
Which isn't going to help, since she can still apply to those schools. For there to be a claim on a basis like this, there has to be a provable lost opportunity that can't be replaced. Like she had a scholarship offer to School B in hand, but she declined based on her parents promise to pay. The court's do not generally accept arguments on this that have any uncertainty. Not applying for and winning the scholarships would preclude an argument that she could have applied for them for instance.
quote:
- ie perhaps she would have applied to a cheaper school she could have afforded without tuition assistance or that would have provided a better scholarship.
Which she can still do, hence not foreclosed and not a loss. An opportunity cost has to be just about 100% certain to be relevant in these kind of cases.
quote:
Or she might have gotten a job to afford tuition, etc.
Still can. A vague sense of loss of time is not going to be certain enough to support his claim.
quote:
Also it is entirely possible that the tuition was promised based on previous actions (ie do well in high school), etc. In which case we would have a contract with consideration.
Actually not. You'd have to do the research, but I'm pretty sure its settled law that something that is for the person's own benefit (like getting good grades) can not be used as consideration for the contract. If I recall correctly, there are specific cases on this in inheritance law where there was reneging after the grades were earned.
quote:
Seriati was quoting my response to you, so he didn't misattribute the argument.
Pete, yes on this. I mayhaps should have clarified, but I left the quotes as they were originally written.
quote:
quote:
Because you have to have consideration for a contract or detrimental reliance for promissory estoppel
See the link - it states,
LR, I don't need to see a link to know how this works.
quote:
As long as detrimental reliance occurs, and it was 'reasonable' then the promisor can be on the hook for an equitable remedy even without consideration.
Yes they can. However, you neither have detrimental reliance or loss as those terms are commonly understood by a court in this case, which moots your point.
quote:
In this case is it reasonable for a child to make plans based on a promised scholarship, especially when that scholarship is in a savings account dedicated for that purpose?
Sure. But the standard isn't reasonable plans, its demonstrable losses. They don't exist here, not for future college plans anyway.

Her legitimate losses, are probably 2 days upkeep.
quote:
No, she would only have to show that she could have gotten a job that would cover part of the expenses.
That's not an accurate summation of how that would work. Again she'd have to show she was harmed, and the parents could offset it with the living expenses they provided while she lived with them, the freedom to study that they provided that wouldn't have existed with said job, etc.

You should read some of these cases rather than trusting your plain English reading of the doctrine, it doesn't actually mean what you think it says.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriati,

I disagree - forgoing four years of working almost certainly would be considered detrimental reliance. It will cost her delayed entry into the college of her choice and have tangible impact on her future earnings.

I know plenty of kids who have achieved 4.0 GPA, etc. while holding down part time jobs. Also there are plenty of part time jobs that you can study while doing them (for instance sitting at a desk to check in guests at a hotel; or a dormitory).

I realize that a 'plain english reading' doesn't always translate to the lawful reading. I do think that this could potentially count lawfully as detrimental reliance.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Understood. My mistake, Seriati. Thanks.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, use your LexisNexis connection and dig into the top five cases on PE. You can't get it from a description. Proof of loss is stricter than your guesses here.

Plus even your dream fact pattern did not claim parents required her to stop working. So where is detriment?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the judge already ruled against child support and private school tuition, and next month he'll rule on college tuition, but it doesn't look good for the whiny brat.

For an in-depth backstory on all of this, here's a link:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572711/Father-spoiled-high-school-cheerleader-18-suing-parents-claims-daughter-ran-away-believed-better-own.html

There was a priceless voicemail which got admitted into court where the daughter was telling the parents off in an explicit manner and telling them she never wanted to see them again.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" There was a priceless voicemail which got admitted into court where the daughter was telling the parents off in an explicit manner and telling them she never wanted to see them again."

Yeah, I smelled a rat on that stuff about them cutting her off from "emotional support"

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If there was abuse as she claims, that changes the story. And there is insufficient evidence here to judge that.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
She has 2 younger sisters according to the expanded story. If she IS just a spoiled brat trying to slander her way to a pay day then I feel bad for the other two daughters. That money would be better spent on kids who haven't determined to be selfdestructive just yet. [Frown]

The more I read in that second link the more of a trainwreck this seems to be. Seems this is getting attention because it's tabloid fodder more than a potentially strange precedence it could form. Sorry for my part in Jerry Springering this place up.

[ March 05, 2014, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
I disagree - forgoing four years of working almost certainly would be considered detrimental reliance.

I assume this is your opinion, would you clarify if you think you have a legal basis for this.

Foregoing four years of working is not a harm in and of itself. And detrimental reliance requires other elements than just a harm.
quote:
It will cost her delayed entry into the college of her choice and have tangible impact on her future earnings.
Delayed entry is not a harm, and it's settled principal that the argument you are making about future earnings is a speculative argument and not recoverable as contract damages (detrimental reliance is a contract theory and is limited to contract damages as well).

As a matter of logic, you're correct, as a matter of law it just doesn't work that way.
quote:
I know plenty of kids who have achieved 4.0 GPA, etc. while holding down part time jobs. Also there are plenty of part time jobs that you can study while doing them (for instance sitting at a desk to check in guests at a hotel; or a dormitory).
Which has zero relevance. She has to prove concrete specific losses without speculation that arose directly because she relied on a specific promise. Do you not understand how extra study time undermines any possible certainty on that?
quote:
I realize that a 'plain english reading' doesn't always translate to the lawful reading. I do think that this could potentially count lawfully as detrimental reliance.
I think you mean it could count as a loss to base the claim on. However, you're not correct on that point. Showing detrimental reliance (even breach of contract) gets you nowhere if you can't demonstrate specific losses.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I know plenty of kids who have achieved 4.0 GPA, etc. while holding down part time jobs. Also there are plenty of part time jobs that you can study while doing them (for instance sitting at a desk to check in guests at a hotel; or a dormitory"

But if the court guys that argument, you lose the DR argument because then she should have taken those jobs. Where is the reliance?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

quote:
But if the court guys that argument, you lose the DR argument because then she should have taken those jobs. Where is the reliance?
Why should she have taken those jobs? Doing a job, even one such as those, has costs of time and energy etc. While it is entirely possible to do so, if one believes they are earning a scholarship it is far better to forgo the extra earnings to ensure your goal of earning the scholarship is fulfilled.

Whatever her current actions - if they had an agreement that she would have her college paid for if she did well in school and didn't specifically attach a 'but only as long as you don't make any decisions we disagree with' - I think the parents should have an obligation to fulfill that.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriarti,

quote:
Delayed entry is not a harm, and it's settled principal that the argument you are making about future earnings is a speculative argument and not recoverable as contract damages (detrimental reliance is a contract theory and is limited to contract damages as well).
Opportunity cost damages are recognized in contract law. The argument could certainly be phrased such that it is a recognized opportunity cost damage.

In this case the opportunity foregone was a job to pay for college due to the promise of a scholarship.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Regarding case law,

I think Hamer v. Sidway is exactly on point

quote:
Issue: Is forbearance from permissible legal conduct sufficient consideration to create a valid and enforceable contract?

Holding and Rule: Yes. The mere abstention from a permissible legal conduct is sufficient consideration to make a promise based on that forbearance a valid contract. Consideration is not measured as a benefit to the promisor.

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hamer-sidway.html

And perhaps Ricketts v Scothorn

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/ricketts-scothorn.html

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete and Seriati,

With Hamer v. Sidway we have almost the exact same pattern of facts

a blood relation (uncle nephew)
in exchange for the individual engaging in specific longterm behaviour beneficial to the individual (refraining from drinking and wasting time in pool halls till he was 21)
promises a sum of money

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In sidway forbearance was the conduct bargained for, LR. If the parents specifically said, if you forbear from getting a job and focus on schoolwork, we will pay your tuition, then your analogy would be valid.

[ March 05, 2014, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

what presumably was 'bargained for' in this case was doing well in school. I don't see how a commitment from this young woman to work hard in school, is materially different from a young man abstaining from particular practices harmful to his moral character or health. They are both predicated on specific performance.

The 5000$ was not to compensate him for whatever money he might have earned gambling in poolhalls. It was due him because it was promised him if he engaged in a particular course of behaviour.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" what presumably was 'bargained for' in this case was doing well in school"

That distinguishes this case from Sidway where the uncle simply welshed on the promise. Here the parents demand another condition. If in Sidway, nephew started smoking pot when 20, and uncle said, you need to cut that out or I'm withholding the promise, then it's a different case.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete,

quote:
That distinguishes this case from Sidway where the uncle simply welshed on the promise. Here the parents demand another condition. If in Sidway, nephew started smoking pot when 20, and uncle said, you need to cut that out or I'm withholding the promise, then it's a different case.
So by your construction it would seem pretty easy to get out of his promise, when the individual has almost completed the terms of agreement over a 5 year period, in the last few months just pile on whatever terms would be offensive enough to them that they refuse to comply by the additional terms.

[ March 05, 2014, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nevertheless Sidway is not relevant as to not working as that was not bargained for.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The 'not working' doesn't appear to be a necessary component. Simply her fulfilling 'her part of the bargain' appears to be adequate based on Sidway.

If that is correct, then we get into the situation above of whether is equitable to change the conditions of the agreement, when it is close to being fulfilled. Since it would be easy to use that as a tool to break the agreement by picking additional terms that the individual can be guaranteed to be unwilling to fulfill,and likely never would have been agreed to if they were a part of the original conditions.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Looks like she lost on most issues, college tuition decision is still pending,

quote:
A New Jersey family court judge has ruled that her parents Sean and Elizabeth do not have to pay high school tuition, give her a weekly allowance or provide further financial support for attorney fees.

But a decision on whether they should pay for her college tuition was delayed until next month.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/05/spoilt-cheerleader-18-fails-in-first-bid-to-sue-her-parents-4412561/

Her legal strategy was to be declared nonemancipated

quote:
Rachel Canning — who has been accepted to several colleges, including a $20,000 scholarship to the University of Vermont — wanted the court to declare she’s nonemancipated because under the law a parent has an obligation to support their child if he or she is not emancipated.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/nj-students-lawsuit-against-parents-headed-to-court/

[ March 05, 2014, 10:23 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the update.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
The 'not working' doesn't appear to be a necessary component. Simply her fulfilling 'her part of the bargain' appears to be adequate based on Sidway.

If.

You are using Sidway to support a position not on point in the Sidway holding.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Looks like she lost on most issues, college tuition decision is still pending,

quote:
A New Jersey family court judge has ruled that her parents Sean and Elizabeth do not have to pay high school tuition, give her a weekly allowance or provide further financial support for attorney fees.

But a decision on whether they should pay for her college tuition was delayed until next month.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/03/05/spoilt-cheerleader-18-fails-in-first-bid-to-sue-her-parents-4412561/

Her legal strategy was to be declared nonemancipated

quote:
Rachel Canning — who has been accepted to several colleges, including a $20,000 scholarship to the University of Vermont — wanted the court to declare she’s nonemancipated because under the law a parent has an obligation to support their child if he or she is not emancipated.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/nj-students-lawsuit-against-parents-headed-to-court/

If she's not emancipated, can't her parents require her to live at home?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From LR's article:

". Judge Peter Bogaard noted that Rachel Canning’s behavior over the past year was a concern — one or two school suspensions, drinking, losing her captaincy on the cheerleading squad and being kicked out of the campus ministry."

I can understand why the parents would want to leverage the tuition to get her to live under stricter rules. And society should not interfere with that. The uncle.in Sidway was just being cheap. Here the parents are acting in the kid's interest.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mine began charging me rent as soon as I graduated highschool. Didn't even offer my youngest sibling that option when she finished highschool and turned 18. [Razz] College tuition was never even a remote possiblity.

Rich people problems...
I guess money CAN cause problems. If you got your head up your ass far enough.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guess who just became the new poster child for late teen spanking?
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's a pro Rachel article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/156497.php

the writer misses the point that Rachel really was getting in trouble with underage drinking and getting suspended.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It can be really challenging to try to fund higher education if one has parents who theoretically could afford to pay tuition but refuse to do so. I know several people who entered into marriages of convenience in their early twenties in order to be eligible for financial aid.

It's all very well to say that she's a spoiled brat for expecting anything from her parents, and who knows maybe it's true - but if her parents won't help her (and especially if they won't even fill out the forms), she is significantly more screwed for financial aid purposes than if she just didn't have parents.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If she was actually abused, the whole story changes.

But if not, then she can't expect to write her parents off and expect them to pay the bills. That's the combo, not the expectation of help, that makes her a brat.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, what's the link intended to point to. I keep getting this.

What Is Tonsillitis? Who Gets Tonsillitis?

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm just trying to clarify here.

Abuse or no abuse, and expectation of help or no expectation of help, the government assumes for financial aid purposes that her parents will be helping her, and need-based financial aid awards will be determined accordingly. Moreover, if her parents refuse to fill out the FAFSA, she will not get aid at all, which is the real kicker.

There are only a few ways to get out of this situation: age out (wait until you're 24 to start an undergraduate degree), or getting married will do it.

For a person who wants a college education and who is not on good terms with the parents, but whose parents are wealthy, this is really hard. The Department of Education looks at the parents' financial situation and the college fund they have saved and says the Expected Family Contribution is (for example) $20,000 per year. There's no way an 18-year-old without her own resources can produce that; if the EFC took only her finances into account, the EFC would probably be zero and she would be eligible for federal grants and loans as well as need-based aid from her particular institution.

A lawsuit is an original (and laborious) way of handling this though - most of the people I know who got caught up in this trap got married to their similarly-afflicted acquaintances. Problem solved, more or less.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Opportunity cost damages are recognized in contract law. The argument could certainly be phrased such that it is a recognized opportunity cost damage.

Opportunity costs are a recognized damage concept, however, it is exceedingly unlikely that anything you've cited would be deemed sufficiently non-speculative to be recoverable. There is a zero percent chance that a post college graduation job income difference would meet the burden.
quote:
In this case the opportunity foregone was a job to pay for college due to the promise of a scholarship.
What job? What was the pay? If she didn't have it and quit after a specific promise it's not going to work, even in that circumstance its unlikely. An idea she can show recoverable damages based on an idea that she can claim that she could have gotten a job is speculation of the type that doesn't ever hold up, and particularly not where there is no clear harm. There is no non-speculative way to show that on net the benefits of a job that a minor can hold down outweighed the benefits she received by not having to have the job. I know this all sounds reasonable to you, but it just doesn't work.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Here's a pro Rachel article:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/156497.php

the writer misses the point that Rachel really was getting in trouble with underage drinking and getting suspended.

Hahahahaha

Sorry. This is the link I meant to post. http://www.yourtango.com/experts/stop-raising-einstein/parenting-advice-rachel-canning

Thanks DW!

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OpsanusTau:
I'm just trying to clarify here.

Abuse or no abuse, and expectation of help or no expectation of help, the government assumes for financial aid purposes that her parents will be helping her, and need-based financial aid awards will be determined accordingly. Moreover, if her parents refuse to fill out the FAFSA, she will not get aid at all, which is the real kicker.

There are only a few ways to get out of this situation: age out (wait until you're 24 to start an undergraduate degree), or getting married will do it.

For a person who wants a college education and who is not on good terms with the parents, but whose parents are wealthy, this is really hard. The Department of Education looks at the parents' financial situation and the college fund they have saved and says the Expected Family Contribution is (for example) $20,000 per year. There's no way an 18-year-old without her own resources can produce that; if the EFC took only her finances into account, the EFC would probably be zero and she would be eligible for federal grants and loans as well as need-based aid from her particular institution.

A lawsuit is an original (and laborious) way of handling this though - most of the people I know who got caught up in this trap got married to their similarly-afflicted acquaintances. Problem solved, more or less.

Marriage does seem like a more honorable solution than suing one's parents with false allegations of abuse.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Sorry. This is the link I meant to post. http://www.yourtango.com/experts/stop-raising-einstein/parenting-advice-rachel-canning

Ouch, I think I found the tonsilitus article more informing. The writer at no point explains away the inconsistency of claiming that Rachel is an adult being punished for her decisions, while demanding that the adult have other adults pay out large sums of money for the next four years. The idea that Rachel deserves a future and the chance to suceed at school does not necessitate that her parents must fund it. It's a bizarre entitlement argument at its root, that's inconsistent with the picture of being an adult that she repeatedly invokes to generate sympathy.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The two Rachaels

Here are two different protrayals of the young women. The first is the narrative that pretty much every news source has taken.

quote:
Rachel is a rebellious and spoiled teenager who is after her parents’ money. She refuses to live by her parents’ rules, which is unfortunate, because it is clear that they only want what is best for her. Her parents are heartbroken and puzzled by how their daughter sees her idealistic home as abusive in any way. Rachel bullies her sister, dates an unsuitable boy, and has spitefully decided to take her parents to court so they continue to provide for her even though she refuses to live by their reasonable rules.
This is an alternative narrative, containing facts and allegations that the media generally leaves out.

quote:
Rachel Canning is a hardworking teenager on the brink of adulthood. She has continually proven herself to be a good citizen in school by maintaining excellent grades and participating in extra-curricular activities. Unfortunately, Canning has shown some signs of distress within her home life. A teacher witnessed Canning’s mother making a harmful remark toward her daughter, and after hearing some recent allegations of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, Canning’s school has advised that the teen not return home. Canning is concerned about spending time with her father as he has behaved inappropriately towards her in a way that has made her uncomfortable and might be considered sexual. Both parents deny any wrongdoing, claiming that their child is rebellious and a liar. Canning is just trying to get through high school so she can go to college. The teen has already been accepted to several schools and received at least one solid scholarship.
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/rachel-canning-claims-abuse-and-is-disgraced-by-media-labeled-rebellious/

Seriati,

do you think Hamer v Sidway applies?

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/hamer-sidway.html

As I noted above, it seems to parallel the facts of the current situation rather nicely.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So either she is extorting her parents for money by making false claims, or she is smart enough to know she can’t prove what happened and is using another tactic to “seek damages” she would have been using to pay for her education. Is she a smart girl who knows the system will fail her if she just reported the abuse, or is she a smart girl who knows that she can get her parents to settle just to end this battle for the sake of the rest of their family? I see why the media is interested. It’s high drama either way. I just found the legal question interesting.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LR, I am not trying to win an argument. I'd like to teach you to read case law. You have amazing tools at your disposal and I'd like to show you how they are used. I wish I still had access to them!

Using LexisNexis,
Shepardize Sidway, and read the propositions for which Sidway is cited. Those citable parts are the points on which Sidway is considered citable case law. That's the shortcut. I could explain how the legal community determines what part of the court opinion is HOLDING vs just reasoning or dicta, but that would take a couple weeks.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1