Taking Jurisdiction Personally - T3BE 46
Added 2024-10-30 07:52:38 +0000 UTCIt's OA Bar Prep with Heather! First we get the answer to last week's Mario Kart easement question, and then we get question 46 - The Fraudulent Flight to Florida
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs
Comments
First time commenter on these things. I think what Thomas was missing about the easement question, and which I didn't hear mentioned anywhere, is that if the easement specified X go-carts, and the company planned to have 2X go-carts, then even if that's not allowed under the easement, the easement would still exist. It's not a contract where a breach can lead to termination of the contract. I assume there'd be a cause of action, but it would be limited to enforcing that only X go-carts could be used, and possibly damages, but the easement itself would continue to exist.
David Crafti
2024-11-05 10:12:52 +0000 UTCHaving been divorced 4 times I’m pretty sure that the answer is D. You can file for divorce wherever you live and can have your soon to be ex-spouse served wherever they are.
Not that millionaire
2024-10-31 21:26:23 +0000 UTCI won, woo-hoo!
Not that millionaire
2024-10-31 21:16:19 +0000 UTCI think it's D. If Don established residency in Florida, he should be allowed to file there. I don't think Patty's fraudulent enticement to Florida grants her a mulligan on being served divorce papers. That can't be how it works. Also, why would she want to avoid getting divorced from that jerk after he abandoned her and fucked off to Florida? That last bit has no bearing on my answer; it just needed to be said.
Kait from Seattle
2024-10-31 17:14:42 +0000 UTCI was told when closing on a house that so much of the paperwork has language mandated by law that there's not much to find. But for some reason engineers tend to insist on reading all of it.
Brian Pemberton
2024-10-31 14:50:42 +0000 UTCWhile her mother fell for the big envelope scheme hook, line, and sinker; fraud fishie hates nothing for Patty. Patty knew there was no house awaiting them in florida, so she visted to the state of her own volition. She is subject to personal jurisdiction even if she didn't consent to it. D.
limezest
2024-10-31 13:01:52 +0000 UTCI'm going with B. First, I think fraud is a distraction here. If this case was about a person defrauding someone in another state, the victims of that fraud might be able to sue in their home state and still have personal jurisdiction. But Big Envelope Winnings isn't a party to this suit. C is easy to eliminate since nowhere in the question did it say Patty consented to personal jurisdiction. If she had consented, then the Florida court absolutely would have personal jurisdiction over Patty. Answer D is tricky. It sounds good but I'm pretty sure that to have personal jurisdiction over a Defendant, they usually have to have some minimum contact with the state. I don't think that this one trip to Florida is enough.
Shad Riley
2024-10-31 02:02:10 +0000 UTCI'm totally getting hung up on the fraud part here. If there is a rule that you can't be brought to the state under fraudulent means, wouldn't Patty be able to accuse Don of being involved with Big Envelope Winnings to get out of this? Or because the question doesn't mention her having suspicion of Don being involved, we can assume she doesn't meet the bar to be allowed to allege fraud in this case? And if there is no rule barring fraudulent means, wouldn't there be shady process servers laundering tricks through sweepstakes companies and mothers to be able to serve people? Wait, are there? That seems bad. Anyway, I think my point is the world sucks whether A is right or wrong. So God has disappeared in a poof of logic, and my answer is B mostly because I want a yes answer for Patti's sake.
Cheers to The Onion, the greatest media outlet in the history of humankind
2024-10-31 00:42:02 +0000 UTCIs there any interaction between easements and adverse possession? If I understand correctly, if a third party had been using Betty's land for years (the same land covered by the easement) the third party may have been able to take possession of that land, but Betty using her own land for that time doesn't override that easement.
Why do podcasters say moron that later
2024-10-30 21:42:33 +0000 UTCThe answer is d, thanks to old time England for this one weird trick. If you step in the jurisdiction, and get served while there, it’s basically dodgeball rules. If you are driving from NY to MA, and you get served while getting gas in CT, have fun in CT court.
Steve S
2024-10-30 20:24:47 +0000 UTCOk haven’t listened to Thomas yet, and I know nothing about jurisdiction law, but I think it’s D. It sucks that she was there because of fraud, but as the fraud was not part of Divorcing Don’s actions, I don’t think he is limited by another company’s actions. Physical location is a big part of jurisdiction so I say D, but hopefully she can request a change of venue due to hardship if there will be much need to physically appear in court…
Matt is a movie star ask him about The Gamers
2024-10-30 20:00:57 +0000 UTCThat’s a good point; I totally get why Thomas was miffed and I support his appeal morally, but that’s a succinct way of describing why I chose C myself, because the number of go karts wasn’t mentioned so it must not be part of the answer.
Matt is a movie star ask him about The Gamers
2024-10-30 19:57:38 +0000 UTCI think I have to agree with you on B, if instead of a divorce I think of it as literally any other civil proceeding, it’s something that happened in california; both parties resided in California at the time it happened. It seems logically incorrect to me that the plantiff could then move to Florida and force her to defend herself in Florida when no part of the case has anything to do with Florida other than her just… showing up there once
Jinx Greymoon
2024-10-30 17:06:48 +0000 UTCUnfortunately, I think you got this one wrong as well. Personal jurisdiction is about whether a court does or does not have power over a particular defendant. D is correct because Patty was served while physically present in florida, which gives the court power over her. A is wrong because the “minimum contacts” analysis is for situations regarding out of state defendants and Patty was present in the state. B is wrong because the fraud was unrelated to the divorce proceeding. C is wrong because mere presence does not equal consent. Eg if Patty had returned to CA without being served while jn FL, the court would only be able to claim personal jurisdiction over her if she had sufficient minimum contacts with FL.
Michael Anderson
2024-10-30 16:22:22 +0000 UTCLong time listener- first time ever getting a shout out anywhere!💃🏻💃🏻💃🏻
Reese
2024-10-30 15:14:02 +0000 UTCGotta go with C. If you land in a state and immediately break a law, it's not as if Florida couldn't prosecute you because you haven't been there long enough. That would make doing crimes a lot easier though! Not a lawyer obviously but to me C seems like the no-nonsense answer because she came to Florida voluntarily and once there should absolutely be consenting to personal jurisdiction.
Quick update, Ovechkin is only 36 goals from The Record
2024-10-30 14:46:49 +0000 UTCI think the answer is D. I don't think it even matters if Patty is connected to Florida at all, as long as Don has lived there for long enough--the answers don't address this at all, so I'll assume it's not a factor. The only question is whether the service is legitimate, which I think it is since she was in Florida. Strangely, the question seems to imply that Don served her personally which I think is not valid but Patty is only arguing personal jurisdiction. Get a lawyer Patty, they'll get this dismissed for ya.
Drew Hickcox
2024-10-30 14:20:58 +0000 UTCMy initial thought on the question as a former teacher: the question not specifying the number of go karts in the original set up is not missing information that is extra information telling you that the number of go kart is not important
Test Ease Interpreter
2024-10-30 11:33:30 +0000 UTC
