Peter

You are wrong for two reasons: 1) In your rush to be disagreeable, you mixed up A and B in your example. 2) You are wrong. There is no right to a $1 million. The plaintiff has the burden of proving that right and persuading a jury (or the judge as the trier of fact). Just because you can afford the filing fee does not mean that you are able to deposit a $1 million in your bank account at the inception of any litigation. She has no underlying right to stay at that house. She does not own the house. She does not have a written lease. She was allowed to stay as a guest and was a tenant at will (the will of Shady). He said move out and has gone through the eviction process and the judge will find that her tenancy at will terminated when Shady said he no longer wanted her there. Just because she has delayed things does not mean she has underlying rights. Have fun. I am signing off.

A "right" to appeal does not mean that she had an underlying substantive "right." You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

That is like saying just because someone sues someone for $1 million that they have the right to $1 million until a jury says otherwise. The judge is going to find that she has NO right to stay there. You are arguing semantics just like DC Tom.

No sh*t Sherlock. This stupid argument started based on my saying that she was guest/tenant at will who only had a right to stay at the premises at the discretion of the owner: The fact that someone does something does not mean that they have the "right" to do so. The "right to appeal" is different from whether she has any right to stay there. Even an appeal is NOT open ended. You also do not have a right to bring a frivolous appeal.

Just because a party drags something on does NOT mean that they have a RIGHT to do so. Anyone who understands litigation would know this.

There is NOTHING open ended about it.

Go argue with yourself then. There is a word for that.

You are picking a fight for no reason at all. She is a tenant at will and the law provides a procedure for her to get the hell out within a certain period of time. The timing is totally at the will of the owner. She has no has no lease or rights beyond what the owner affords her. Once she is advised to move out, the clock ticks . . . . It appears that she has stayed well beyond the 60 days in any event. I am not going to call you and idiot (no matter what I may think about the subject) because that would not be good form. I will say that this argument is idiotic though.

The point that I made was that she has no right to stay there other than at the will of the owner. Georgia law recognizes this. Why you went out the way to disagree is beyond me.

Ga. Code Ann., § 44-7-6 § 44-7-6. Tenancy at will when no time specified Currentness Where no time is specified for the termination of a tenancy, the law construes it to be a tenancy at will. Ga. Code Ann., § 44-7-7 § 44-7-7. Notice to terminate tenancy at will Currentness Sixty days' notice from the landlord or 30 days' notice from the tenant is necessary to terminate a tenancy at will. Ga. Code Ann., § 44-7-10 § 44-7-10. Delivery of possession Currentness The tenant shall deliver possession to the landlord at the expiration of his term; and, if he fails or refuses to do so, a summary remedy pursuant to Article 3 of this chapter is given to the landlord.

He was in the process of evicting her. Whether you like it or not, the law is that she is there at the will of the owner. She has no entitlement to stay there even though he might have to go through the "process" as McCoach might say.

In which case, the same analysis regarding scenario 1 applies. Why the hell would anyone pistol whip a woman to return jewelry to someone else to avoid paying for it (whether it was lent to him or he guarantied its return). It would be beyond stupid and easily determined whether he or one of his friends returned the jewelry. I do not see that Shady is stupid enough to hatch such an idiotic plan especially given that he has gone to the lengths to undertake the legal proceeds to evict her. Why would he all of a sudden engage in self help like this . . . not just self help but complete idiocy.

The point is that she is there at the will of the owner. Once the owner says out, she has no right to stay there. He is evicting her and she came up with an excuse to delay the hearing. She is very desperate because even she knows that she has no right to continue living there. I do not need to read 129 pages to make that determination. It was a rhetorical question. Get it?

That is the point. He would only care if it were loaned to him. In such case, he would have been stupid to hire someone to pistol whip her, take the jewelry, and then return it. I don't think he is stupid. If the jewelry had been lent to her (as the one report states, perhaps incorrectly), Shady would not have cared at all and why would she insinuate that he was responsible for pistol whipping her and taking the jewelry. Neither scenario makes much sense to me.

How long is the tenancy of a tenant at will? How many days out of the year has this woman been pistol whipped and had her jewelry taken?

As an aside, if the jewelry belonged to a jeweler that lent it to Shady, it would have been beyond stupid to hire someone to pistol whip a woman to take the jewelry to return it to the jeweler. I don't think that Shady is stupid. Update: Another post now says the jewelry was lent to her. That conflicts with other reports. Nevertheless, if it were lent directly to her, why would Shady care if she returned it or not.

Tenant? Guest maybe, but not tenant. Even if she were considered to be a "tenant," at best, she has month-to-month tenancy unless there is something in writing with LKM.

It doesn't?!?

"THE FEMALE ADV SHE IS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX BUT SHE DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR IT." ??????? "THE CALLER SON IS MISSING - 16 YEAR OLD." ?????? I wonder what the implications are regarding the two statements quoted above.

That is interesting.

Who sought the continuance?

And that is presumably why it was taken down. There already is a discrepancy.

It kind of seems like he did stay far away given that he is in Miami.

Was the description of what allegedly happened different on Intagram v. Facebook? Someone suggested that elsewhere. If so, that might explain why one was taken down. Although it would be recoverable.

I live in Miami and have been to many Bills games here. In the 30 plus years that I have been going to games down here, I only have had a problem once. The primary advice that I would give is: Remember you are a guest and don't be a dick. Seriously. It is as simple as that. The people that I have seen get in trouble in that stadium (for the most part) are drunk or jerky Bills or Jets fans who you could have predicted would elicit a negative reaction from people around them. This is not a place like Philadelphia (Flyers or Eagles). Two years ago, there were some Bills fans sitting in front of us who were acting like dicks. To diffuse a situation that they were creating, I was the one that actually told them that they should tone it down while still having fun because they were likely to get into to trouble and guess who security always seems to kick out. You guessed it, the away fans. Fortunately, they listened to my advice and the situation was diffused. As for the Hard Rock Stadium improvements, I love them. The stadium looks great and does provide significant shade. I have Miami Hurricane season tickets (30 yard line, lower bowl, home team side), and I love the improvements and think that what the Dolphins (Ross) did could serve as an alternative to what the Bills could do with New Era Stadium instead of building a new stadium. It looks looks like a brand new stadium, provides protection from the elements, and provides the home team an acoustic advantage - it holds the sound in.