Truyện Ma Có Thật Lời nói đầu tiên gửi đến các bạn . Đây là trang web truyện ma có thật được sưu tầm từ nhiều nguồn trên mạng . Tại TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn có thể Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma cực kỳ rùng rợn. Được những nhân chứng sống kẻ lại mang đậm tính ma quái Việt Nam. buc anh ky quai 2 Truyen ma Co That Ma là một khái niệm trừu tượng, một phần phi vật chất của một người đã chết (hay hiếm hơn là một động vật đã chết). Theo quan niệm của một số tôn giáo và nền văn hóa, con người gồm thể xác (mang tính vật chất) và linh hồn (mang tính phi vật chất). Khi thể xác chết, linh hồn xuất khỏi thể xác. Nếu linh hồn đó không có cơ hội đầu thai hoặc nơi trú ngụ chung với các linh hồn khác mà tương tác với cõi thực có con người sẽ gọi là “ma”, “hồn ma”, “quỷ”; nhưng nếu các phần phi vật chất đó tương tác với cõi thực của con người theo tình cảm, theo trách nhiệm được giao của các tôn giáo thì lại gọi là “hồn”, “linh hồn”, “thánh”, “thần”, “thiên sứ” . Và khi Doc Truyen Ma và Nghe Truyen Ma của TruyenMaCoThat.Net các bạn nhớ là nó chỉ mang tính chất giải trí thôi nhé các bạn đừng nên tín quá nhiều cũng như cố gắng tìm mọi cách để nhìn thấy ma nhé thật không tốt chút nào ??? . Chúc các bạn có những phút giây giải trí thật sử thoải mái cùng với TruyenMaCoThat.Net Truyen Ma Co That – Doc Truyen Ma Co That – Nghe Truyen Ma Co That miễn phí tại TruyenMaCoThat.net truyen ma nguyen ngoc ngan truyen ma kinh di mystoningtongarden.com

Alimony Order Against Unemployed Lawyer Overturned

In a decision to be released next week, Keller vs. Keller,  the Connecticut Appellate Court has overturned a hefty order of alimony and support entered by a Superior Court judge.

The Defendant husband held a law degree from Columbia University and was licensed to practice in two states.  After a brief practice, he had gone into finance and most recently had owned a hedge fund that had , at first, done very well but had later turned sour. At the time the order entered, the fund was closed. The evidence showed that  Attorney Keller had no income and the family was living on borrowed money and the last of their liquid assets.

In Connecticut and elsewhere, judges may make orders of alimony and support based on a finding that the payor has earning capacity even if he or she is unemployed or underemployed.  Tn the Keller case, the judge did just that, finding that Attorney Keller had a gross earning capacity of $25,000 per month.  Based on that finding, the court ordered him to pay combined alimony and support of $9,000 per month during the pendency of the case.

The Appellate Court overturned the order, not because the lower court did not have discretion to consider earning capacity but because the court failed make a finding as to Attorney Keller’s net earning capacity.   Under Connecticut law, orders of alimony and support must be based on net income whether that income is real or merely imputed.

The lesson for litigants hoping to obtain orders against their unemployed or underemployed spouse is to present evidence specifically on the subject of what they believe their spouse could earn after taxes.


NAVIGATING THE CONNECTICUT HOME IMPROVEMENT ACT — A NEW CASE IS GOOD NEWS FOR SUBCONTRACTORS AND BAD NEWS FOR HOMEOWNERS

A decision to be released this week by the Connecticut Appellate Court — Probuild East LLC vs Poffenberger —  tells a cautionary tale of the perils and pitfalls of home improvement contracting  for everyone involved in the process including owners, general contractors, and subcontractors.

The facts of the case were relatively simple:  A homeowner hired a general contractor  who failed to make sure the contract complied with the Connecticut Home Improvement Act — a statutory scheme designed to protect homeowners.  Once the job — which included  completed change orders — was finished, the general contractor was still owed $10,800.

Enter the plaintiff,  a materials supplier  who recorded  a timely mechanic’s lien for $15,275 to cover materials for which he had not been paid by the general contractor.  The plainiff bypassed the general contractor and instead sued the homeowner seeking foreclosure of the mechanic’s lien.

At trial, the homeowner who knew nothing of the subcontractor  raised the defense that, based on flaws in the contract between the homeowner and the general contractor, the general contractor could not have collected the balance of money he was owed.  Since the homeowner’s only contract was with the general contractor, it followed, he argued, the the Home Improvement Act also protected him from claims by subcontractors on the job.

The trial court rejected the owner’s defense and ordered a sale of the property to satisfy the subcontractor’s claim, or at least that portion of it that would otherwise have been owed to the general contractor.

On appeal, the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court holding that the general contractor’s failure to protect its own rights did not affect the right of the subcontractor to collect its debt as long as the homeowner had not paid for the job in full.

Here are the lessons:

FOR THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR – Take care that each and every contract you present to a homeowner complies with each and every requirement of the Home Improvement Act.  If it does not, you may never be able to collect your money regardless of the quality of your work and regardless of any windfall this creates for the non-paying homeowner.

FOR THE HOMEOWNER – Pay attention to the job.  Find out who your general contractor is bringing on board.  Ask to see materials invoices and subcontracts.  Demand  lien wavers from subcontractors each time you make partial payments on the job.  Remember that you may be forced to pay subcontractors with whom you had no direct dealings even if you couldn’t also be forced to pay the general contractor for the same services.

FOR THE SUBCONTRACTOR – Keep on top of collections making sure to document all dealings with the general contractor and follow the rules for filing mechanics liens when payment is late.

Especially in this difficult economy everyone is watching the bottom line closer than ever and anyone who chooses to do business on a handshake does so at his own peril.  In the end — at least when the judicial system becomes involved in the process — he who exercises the greatest caution wins.