Lo's Inquisition

[loCAtek]

Do you want a ban placed on PSMP for just being a member

Good thing, I didn't say that.

[loCAtek]

mustamist that, where did she post it?

Back on CSB in 2009, [in response to ~Steve, criticizing my alcoholism] so now we have an admission that he/she have been stalking me for at least that long.

[Scooter]

Posted by you, at Plan B, right here, precisely when PMSP said it was. Meaning that said post could have been searched as late as day before yesterday and as such is not an admission of any kind.

Nice try, though.

[Gob]

ROTFLMCO!!

[The Hen]

Do you want a ban placed on PSMP for just being a member

Good thing, I didn't say that.

Still unable to explain your intent or answer my questions, Lo?

I'm hardly surprised. You just want the attention.

I find that incredibly funny. You are happy to fuck what relationships and friendships you have for attention, regardless of whether it is positive or negative.

Whatt is more, you continually repeat the same destructive behaviours and have done so for years, Seek some professional help dear. You need it.

[loCAtek]

Posted by you, at Plan B, right here, precisely when PMSP said it was. Meaning that said post could have been searched as late as day before yesterday and as such is not an admission of any kind.

Nice try, though.

Reposted from the original '09 investigation of ~Steve; too bad her searches were so shallow.

Meanwhile, she/he continues to ignore;

email and social network posts are admissible in court: save them.

From the same thread ...which I've said three times now. Ignorance is no excuse of the law.

[The Hen]

Posted by you, at Plan B, right here, precisely when PMSP said it was. Meaning that said post could have been searched as late as day before yesterday and as such is not an admission of any kind.

Nice try, though.

Reposted from the original '09 investigation of ~Steve; too bad her searches were so shallow.

Just because you reposted it, doesn't mean she had seen the original posting. You can't be that thick?

Why don't you follow the advice and lodge a complaint of stalking?

Whining and airing your dirty laundry on Plan B is NOT helping your situation. The stalking is not occurring here. The only thing that is occurring here is that PSMP is a member. You state that you didn't say you wanted her banned.

What is your intent then?

Do you have one?

[Econoline]

I'm not sure what loCAtek wants to be done about the situation, and I doubt if anything can be done about it, but IMO might help if everyone who dislikes loCAtek stopped acting like PMS Princess just accidentally stumbled across the Plan B Forum and joined because we're all such a nice group of characters. Considering this place didn't even exist when Lo and her ex got divorced, the X-tek and his girlfriend obviously went to some trouble to track her down over here, supposedly just to "keep tabs on her"...but their obvious intent--HIS obvious intent--is to keep her constantly reminded that they're watching her and can track her down wherever she goes.

Maybe nobody else here finds this creepy and disturbing, but I do, and I wanted to say so.

Bigskygal thought so too, and stated her case well enough that I can't improve on it, so I'd like to just repeat what she said in that earlier thread:

As far as PMS Princess goes; I'd like to be welcoming, but frankly I find it more than a little creepy that she's stalked loCAtek to this board, then taken the opportunity of her absence to post a screed of detailed, negative, alleged IRL information about her. That behavior is no better than what we all just finished criticizing loCa for; in fact, IMHO, it's worse.

I found some of loCA's recent behavior reprehensible, but at least she had a history of decent behavior against which to balance her recent acts - as well as the context of ongoing admitted struggles with substance abuse and the disappointment she clearly felt over her failed friendships with Gob & Hen.

[The Hen]

I am not acting as if PMSP magically stumbled here.

However, I don't think Lo spilling more of her life on this Board does anything to improve the situation. Lo should take her advice and lodge a complaint.

Posting more tragic tales is not doing her any favours. If she doesn't lodge a complaint and keeps posting more tales and stating she doesn't want to be stalked it isn't going to achieve anything.

Her 'investigating lawyer' won't have anything more than Lo's complaint and a whole load of sad life tales seeing as PMSP isn't doing any stalking here, she simply IS here.

[Gob]

Econo, if one of my ex's was spreading shit about Hen on a forum, and I knew where it was, I'd likely put a show in, and I'd not be as damn nice about it as PMSP has been so far.

Let's not for get, as in this thread for example, that LO has reawakened the PMSP debate, and dragged up her ex, time after time after time.

She's very damaged and wants attention, I do not blame PMSP for keeping an eye one her.

PMSP may have been better off doing it without announcing her presence, but that was her choice, and she's not done 1/10000000 of the stuff Lo has here in terms of pissing on her own fireworks and causing ill will.

[The Hen]

Plus if Lo is keeping her ex on the mortgage and continually defaulting on it and fucking up his credit rating, I think they may have a reason to keep an eye on her.

[Econoline]

(1) It's not quite so easy to "take someone's name off" a mortgage. You have to get a new mortgage, and under the circumstances I can see why she can't do that. (2) If your name is on the mortgage, you don't have to track down which BBS your ex is posting at and keep tabs on her personal life; the bank that holds the mortgage will give you whatever information they have on a mortgage with your name on it.

[The Hen]

If Lo didn't spill her personal life all over this Board, there would be nothing to keep tabs on.

Which bring me back to the question of why is she?

Even Lo can't answer that. Perhaps you can Econoline?

[Gob]

Or could it be Econo old son, that lo has just spun a whole web of increasingly lurid bullshit about her life, her ex, her "problems'*, on both here and the old CSB, and that is sufficient reason for anyone unfortunate enough to have a connection to her to keep tabs on what she is saying?

*all everyone else's fault, not Lo's fault she has these problems, she is totally innocent in everything. It's just everyone else's fault.

[Lord Jim]

(1) It's not quite so easy to "take someone's name off" a mortgage. You have to get a new mortgage, and under the circumstances I can see why she can't do that.

Okay, I'm no expert on California divorce law, but it seems to me that if someone is awarded a property as part of a divorce settlement, there must be some procedure for having that property put exclusively in the name of the person awarded it, otherwise what meaning does the award have?

[Gob]

After separation one spouse stays in the family home while the other spouse pays the mortgage. What are the consequences?

It’s often the case that after separation one spouse moves out of the family home (“the out-spouse”) while the other spouse stays in the home with the children (“the in-spouse”). The out-spouse, usually the husband, may offer to maintain the status quo by continuing to pay the mortgage payments and other payments such as property taxes to maintain the property. In such a situation, the in-spouse should be warned that there may be serious consequences of such an arrangement at the time of trial.

We’ve already seen one consequence. The out-spouse paying the mortgage payments may be entitled to Epstein credits because he or she is paying separate property earnings towards a community property debt unless there was an agreement to waive such reimbursements or such payments were a form of child or spousal support.

The other major consequence is that if the reasonable rental value of the family home is more than the mortgage payments, the in-spouse may be required to reimburse the community for the difference in these payments between the date of separation and the date of trial. These are called Watts charges after the case that established the rule.5 The general rule is that where one spouse has the exclusive use of community assets between the date of separation and trial, that spouse may be required to compensate the community for the reasonable value of that use. Consider this example. Bob and Jackie separate. Jackie and the kids stay in the family home after separation. Bob agrees that he’ll continue to support the family and pay the mortgage and other expenses. The mortgage payments are $1,500 per month. If Jackie had to pay the fair market rent for the property she’d pay $2,500 per month. Bob pays the mortgage for 10 months from the date of separation to the date of trial. Bob could argue that he should be reimbursed Watts charges of $10,000 ($2,500 - $1,500 x 10). In a division of community property he’d be entitled to an extra $5,000. Bob could argue that he should also be entitled to Epstein credits of a further $15,000 ($1,500 x 10) which would increase his share of community property by $7,500.

This would mean that Jackie’s entitlement to community property would be reduced by $25,000 when she thought that Bob was supporting her and maintaining the status quo. Isn’t this grossly unfair?6 You’d think so but that didn’t stop the Court of Appeal from awarding Epstein credits and Watts charges in similar circumstances in In re Marriage of Jeffries (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 548. But wait a minute. Isn’t there an exception to the rule where payments are made “in lieu of spousal support”? The answer is yes, but this has to be clearly spelled out before the Court will treat such payments as support. In Jeffries, there was even an Order of the Court that said the payments were “in lieu of spousal support.” However, the Order also said that the Court retained jurisdiction to characterize the payments and determine whether the husband should be entitled to reimbursements.

In another case the Court of Appeal reached exactly the opposite conclusion to Jeffries.7 In this case the husband also paid the mortgage pursuant to a temporary court order “in lieu of spousal support” and at trial claimed Epstein credits and Watts charges. The Court of Appeal held that public policy and the language of the Court order required that the Court deny the husband’s claims for Epstein credits. The Court then decided that since the wife was, in effect, paying the mortgage she would not have to pay any Watts charges because the monthly mortgage payments were the same as the fair market rental value of the home.

The only solution to this mess is for the parties and their attorneys to agree early in the proceedings whether a spouse’s payment of community debts (such as the mortgage) and one spouse living in the family residence should be treated as spousal support which does not generate Epstein credits or Watts charges. If it’s treated as spousal support, any agreement or order should contain explicit language that mortgage and other payments by the out-spouse and exclusive residence by the in-spouse in the family home “shall be treated” as spousal and, if applicable, child support and the paying spouse shall not receive any reimbursements such as Watts, Epstein, or Jeffries credits and charges.

[The Hen]

She could always hope to cash in on that life insurance policy ...



No offence intended PMSP.

[Lord Jim]

I may be mistaken, but in this case, I don't believe that LoCa's ex was required to keep making any mortgage payments as a part of the agreement, (I don't believe that's ever been said, so I assume that LoCa was the one who assumed responsibility for all future payments as part of the settlement) so I'm not sure how much of that article would apply.

[The Hen]

However if Lo defaults on payments, then his credit rating is up poop creek if he is still on the mortgage. A good reason to know what Lo is up to if it is happening frequently.

[Lord Jim]

However if Lo defaults on payments, then his credit rating is up poop creek if he is still on the mortgage.

Well that is certainly true....