To: Jennifer Moore, Esc.
From: Joe Maletz
Date: 17th September 2015
RE: Issue of Engagement ring and whether John can get it back.
Legal Memorandum:
Facts: In Massachusetts law, John Smith and Patty Jones were engaged. John Smith proposed to Patty Jones on February 14th, 2014. Upon proposal, John presented Patty with a 2-carat diamond engagement ring. Three months ago from now, John Smith caught Patty Jones having an affair with Brian Wilkinson. Brian Wilkinson is a best friend with John Smith. John called off the engagement. John demanded that Patty return the engagement ring. Patty refused to return the engagement ring. Patty claims that it was a “gift” from John. John now wants to hire a lawyer to represent him in a potential lawsuit.
Legal Issue: John Smith and Patty Jones were engaged with full intentions to marry one another. John Smith presented Patty Jones with an engagement ring. Patty Jones believes and argues that John Smith gave the 2-carat diamond ring to her as an unconditional gift. An unconditional gift being a gift that is given to one person by another, with no expectation of anything in return. John Smith would argue that the engagement ring was given to her as a contract. This means that the ring was given as a contract to one day be married to one another. Which would make the affair a breach and break off the contract; therefore returning the ring back to John Smith
Legal Discussion: Assuming that everything John Smith has presented to
Id. at 286. In In Re Estate of Hunsaker, the living spouse testified they felt married, the couple wore engagement rings, and displayed a grandfather clock engraved implying the same last initial. Id. These three facts, led the Supreme Court of Montana to conclude the couple had satisfied mutual consent. Id. The court reasoned that the implications of the facts are sufficient. Id. (Citing Slavens P.2d 293 at 295).
The parties' property settlement agreement provided that the wife would receive a pickup truck value at $ 11,000. Galloway v. Galloway, 622 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). Each party waived spousal support. Id. at 267. Under the agreement, the husband was given all of the interest in the marital residence and in the
Joy Salmon was seeking damages for George Brown who she cared for while as a nurse and his estate. Joy Salmon hired Virgina Atkinson as her lawyer in this case. Joy Salmon entered a contingency contract with her lawyer Virgina Atkinson. This contract stated if Joy Salmons case for Geroge Brown's damages did not end in her favor she was not obligated to pay attorney fees to Virgina Atkinson however if the case was in favor of Joy Salmon she was required to Virginia Atkinson for her services. Attorney Virgina Atkinson billed Joy Salmon approximately $7200 for her services and Joy Salmon refused to pay the bill for Virginia Atkinson's services as an attorney. Virgina Atkinson was billing Joy Salmon $150 a hour for approximately forty eight hours of service to the case. Virginia Atkinson filed a lawsuit against Joy
Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) Husband filed a cross-bill on claims of his wife’s adultery, and persuasion to sign a property settlement agreement without consultation with counsel. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989) The husband claimed he was coerced into signing the papers with a false pretense of his wife’s eventual return to the family home. Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E. 2d 74 (Va. Ct. App. 1989)
In paper, Greene’s Jewelry has a strong case against Jennifer Lawson because Jennifer breached the confidentiality agreements that she signed with Greene’s Jewelry. In the agreement, it specifically indicated that Jennifer could never disclose any information regarding “Ever-Gold” creating process, which is patented and owned by Greene’s Jewelry. Jennifer not only stole a draft letter that contains the details of creating Ever-Gold but also took it to Greene’s competitor Howell Jewelry World in order to obtain a job offer from the company. The employment contract that Jennifer signed with Howell is a certain evidence of her unjust enrichment. Regarding Jennifer Lawson’s claim that she encountered wrongful termination at Greene’s, it is simply a misinterpretation of Greene’s legitimate reduction in force. The company no longer had a need for any junior executive secretaries. The downsizing was unfortunately but legal.
Mr. Moran’s pre-marital agreement with Ms. Moran is enforceable under Oregon law because Ms. Moran voluntarily entered into the premarital agreement and because the agreement was not unconscionable when it was executed. In Oregon, a premarital agreement can only be rendered non-enforceable if the party seeking to do away with the agreement is able to prove that they had not voluntarily entered into the agreement or that the agreement had been unconscionable at the time it was signed. 11 O.R.S. § 108.725 (2015). In the case at hand, neither of these requirements has been met, and thus the lower court’s judgement for Ms. Moran should be reversed and judgement rendered for Mr. Moran.
The boyfriend’s mother called her at work and told her the boyfriend had her car keys. Rodman told the mother to have the boyfriend call her at work. When he did, she informed him that she could not talk to him at her duty station, and he hung up on her. He called her back and left a number where he could be reached. She left the work area and went to the break room to call him. After returning to her duty station, Rodman got another telephone call from her boyfriend who told her to go downstairs to the lobby to meet him and pick up the keys. When she refused, he told her that if she did not come down he would come up to her department. Claimant left the department to confront her boyfriend, and, because her supervisor was at lunch in the hospital cafeteria, Rodman notified a co-worker, a registered nurse, that she was leaving. Rodman testified, “I didn’t want any kind of confrontation at the desk, so I went downstairs.” Before she left her desk, Rodman called the employer’s security guard and asked him to meet her in the lobby because she anticipated that a problem could develop. When Rodman got to the lobby, her boyfriend started yelling and forced her outside. In doing so, he tore her shirt. At this point the security guard arrived and observed them arguing. Rodman was in the passenger seat of her car. The security guard instructed the boyfriend to
Colleen McCarthy reverses Mike’s legal obligation and payment. Deliberately omitting that she initiated my dentist’s
Issue: Did the Crystal Bar, the defense, breach its duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Harrington, the plaintiff, from the harm of another patron of the bar? (citing elements of Nevin v. Carlasco, 139 Mont. 512, 514, 365 P.2d 637, 638 (1961))
She sued him for battery, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. (Bichenbach, 2006) A doctor
Facts: Parties: Mitchell (M), Neff (N), Pennoyer (P). Land was sold at an auction to allow M to collect on a judgment he won by default. The judgment arose because N did not pay attorney fees owed to M. M won by default because N did not appear in court. However, M, who lived in Oregon, published notice of the matter in an Oregon newspaper, not in California. N lived in California. The Oregon court placed the judgment against land N owned in Oregon, which was sold to a buyer called P. M was paid from the sale of the property, but years later N sued the buyer to get his land back.
Can Joyce Byers successfully sue her attorney, Martin Brenner, for legal malpractice due to his failure to obtain child support during her divorce proceeding?
The organisation, Gerard Cassegrain & Co Pty Ltd, claimed a dairy farm in New South Wales. The Husband, in his ability as executive of the organisation, exchanged title of the land to both himself and his wife as joint occupants in like manner. The spouse later moved his enthusiasm for the property to his wife for $1. An Application was brought by the organisation against the spouse and wife in the New South Wales Supreme Court looking for that the property be exchanged back to the organisation because of fraudulent activities of the spouse. The trial judge requested that the spouse pay remuneration to the organisation, however dismissed the procedures against the wife as she herself was not a knowing party to the fraud.
On January 1, 2008, four lawsuits involving Brad Pitt were filed in Ohio. The first was brought by Matt Damon against Brad Pitt to acquire quiet title to one-acre of Brad’s land that Matt had cleared and built a barn on. Looking into quiet titles and adverse possession laws will determine if Matt can get title to the land or not. The second case involves Snazzy Jeff, a paparazzo, seeing Maddox, Brad’s son, dropped his Pokémon camera. Snazzy Jeff then came up and took the item hoping to find pictures to sell on it without informing Brad or Maddox. This may be a case of lost property or theft that needs to be evaluated. The third case involves Brad suing Jackie Philabaum at the request of his wife. At the parade, Brad took off his coat and
As presented in the overview of the case, Meyer and Mitnick fell in love and became engaged, only to have it fall apart upon discussing the topic of a pre-nuptial agreement. The disagreement over the pre-nuptial led to the larger issue of the engagement ring being settled in court.