legal Free Legal Advice

[rocco69]

Basically, ang "special power of attorney" appoints the person named in the SPA as an agent of the principal to perform the special acts mentioned in the SPA. In other words, agent lang yung kaibigan mo ng mga magulang niya.

 

Ngayon, sa ilalim ng Art. 1919 ng Civil Code

 

Art. 1919. Agency is extinguished:

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

(3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent;

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

Ang ibig sabihin, nung namatay yung magulang ng kaibigan mo, lahat ng hawak niyang SPA nawalan na ng bisa, kasi nga, a dead person can no longer appoint and have an agent. Your friend cannot act on the properties on the basis of the SPAs na hawak niya kasi nga paso na ang mga to.

 

All the heirs will have to talk and decide what to do (and how to apportion among themselves) the properties. If they can all agree, they can execute an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of the properties of their parents. Kakailanganin siguro para dito ang inventory ng lahat ng properties na naiwan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

question po:

 

may friend is holding several s.p.a.'s naming him as atty in fact for his parents who went abroad for several years na. he has several siblings na abroad na rin and meron din nakatira dito pero may kanya-kanya ng bahay sila.

 

about 5 months ago, naaksidente yung mag-asawa. unfortunately, walang naiwan na last will and testament.

 

question is will the s.p.a.'s na hawak niya be sufficient to exercise his decisions over the properties? pwede na ba niya i-claim na since siya ang may s.p.a., siay ang may karapatan na mag-desisyon kung ano gagawin niya dun sa mga property?

[dgr81]

Question....pwede ba 95 meters ang pagitan ng pc using wired router? d ba babagal? also im using smart bro connection im only getting 40kB/s max total download sa mga utorrent pero i have a friend also on smart bro pero umaabot ng 100kB/s ang download nya. What is the problem kaya?

[Gameraker]

mga pre, napakalaki ng maitutulong nyo sakin pag alam nyo ang solusyon sa problema kong ito. nag attached ako ng pics na lagi lumalabas sa screen bago mag restart PC ko. thanks in advance...

 

just my 2 bits... in rare cases, this can be caused by static/grounding problems in your components. remove your expansion and memory cards (or get someone knowledgable to help), and rub the contact points with pencil eraser to clean them. also clear any static from the case/motherboard (again, get help if you have not done this before). make sure no "libag" from the eraser remains. remains. reassemble, then boot up...

[zeromike22]

how do you compressed dvd files??? .. so that i can put 2 or 3 movies in one dvd...

 

what program should i use??

 

how do you compressed dvd files??? .. so that i can put 2 or 3 movies in one dvd...

 

what program should i use??

[jake_roxas]

question po:

 

may friend is holding several s.p.a.'s naming him as atty in fact for his parents who went abroad for several years na. he has several siblings na abroad na rin and meron din nakatira dito pero may kanya-kanya ng bahay sila.

 

about 5 months ago, naaksidente yung mag-asawa. unfortunately, walang naiwan na last will and testament.

 

question is will the s.p.a.'s na hawak niya be sufficient to exercise his decisions over the properties? pwede na ba niya i-claim na since siya ang may s.p.a., siay ang may karapatan na mag-desisyon kung ano gagawin niya dun sa mga property?

 

would you know exactly how the SPA was written? while death extinguishes the agency and thus, the SPAs become ineffective, i am having this wild/far-off/out of this world theory. baka makalusot.

 

thanks.

Edited October 7, 2006 by jake_roxas

[fauxhead]

Huwag mo na ilusot. Baka sabihin na naman na lahat ng katarantaduhan at panlalamang galing sa mga abogado.

 

would you know exactly how the SPA was written? while death extinguishes the agency and thus, the SPAs become ineffective, i am having this wild/far-off/out of this world theory. baka makalusot.

 

thanks.

[rocco69]

No, no, no. I'm interested in this so-called "far-out theory." As it is, the only way I can see for the friend to use the SPAs as authority/basis for acting on the property is if the same are executed with the formalities of a will and with "animo disponendi" (which I doubt would be the case). For academic purposes, however, let jake expound on his theory (let's disregard the actual wording of the SPAs as I believe that the same would be pro forma SPAs which would have become functus officio at the death of the principal) so we may see the merits of the same.

 

Huwag mo na ilusot. Baka sabihin na naman na lahat ng katarantaduhan at panlalamang galing sa mga abogado.

[mason_rod]

I have a picture scanned by a friend. Instead of a JPEG file,he made it a Scrap object on Microsoft Word Document.

 

How can I extract the image only to a JPEG file?

[jake_roxas]

yup thats right, "animo disponendi", or the absence/lack of it, is the biggest obstacle this theory would have to hurdle considering the pro-forma nature of these SPAs. but i am still interested in how the SPAs were actually worded.

[jake_roxas]

Huwag mo na ilusot. Baka sabihin na naman na lahat ng katarantaduhan at panlalamang galing sa mga abogado.

 

 

hehe, di naman siguro. i think this would even speed things up. i of course assume that human nature is intrinsically good. anyway, this is just a shot in the dark. we'll never know and everything could be possible because in succession cases sometimes even a footnote could be a legal basis.

[b_9904]

Guys,

 

ask ko lang...

 

saan ko makikita ito?

 

1. Crain v. Crain, 37 ALR 4th 15

 

it's about the HLA testing kaso hindi ko alam kung anong ibig sabihin ng "37 ALR 4th 15"

 

thank you po in advance

[rocco69]

ALR stands for American Law Reports. Bale that means Vol. 37 of the 4th edition of the American Law Reports, the 15 either stands for p. 15 or Section 15 of the said volume.

 

sa pagkaka-alam ko, ang UP Law Library ang pinaka-kompleto sa law books dito sa Pinas. Subukan mong pumunta run at baka may set sila ng ALR 4th ed. May bayad pag di taga-UP tsaka kung non-lawyer ka, you need a letter coming from your librarian. Kung lawyer, IBP ID pwede na tsaka wala atang bayad.

 

 

 

Guys,

 

ask ko lang...

 

saan ko makikita ito?

 

1. Crain v. Crain, 37 ALR 4th 15

 

it's about the HLA testing kaso hindi ko alam kung anong ibig sabihin ng "37 ALR 4th 15"

 

thank you po in advance

[jake_roxas]

Guys,

 

ask ko lang...

 

saan ko makikita ito?

 

1. Crain v. Crain, 37 ALR 4th 15

 

it's about the HLA testing kaso hindi ko alam kung anong ibig sabihin ng "37 ALR 4th 15"

 

thank you po in advance

 

see full text of the decision below. but please check again if you got the correct citation. thanks.

 

 

925 S.W.2d 232

 

Court of Appeals of Tennessee,

Middle Section, at Nashville.

Albert Lee CRAIN, Plaintiff/Appellee,

v.

Velma Christine CRAIN, Defendant/Appellant.

 

Feb. 14, 1996.

Permission to Appeal Denied by the

Supreme Court July 8, 1996.

 

Husband filed for divorce, and wife counterclaimed for divorce and requested alimony pendente lite. The Chancery Court, Maury County, Jim T. Hamilton, J., declared parties divorced and determined that wife would not be paid further spousal support. Wife appealed. The Court of Appeals, Koch, J., held that record contained no grounds for concluding that trial court misapplied factors influencing decision of whether wife should receive rehabilitative alimony.

Affirmed and remanded.

 

*232 Thomas L. Whiteside, Fowlkes & Whiteside, Nashville, for appellant.

Barbara J. Walker, Columbia, for appellee.

 

 

OPINION

 

 

KOCH, Judge.

This appeal involves the dissolution of a 27-month marriage. After declaring the parties divorced pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-4-129( (1991), the Chancery Court for Maury County awarded the parties the property held in their separate names and declined to award the wife rehabilitative spousal support. The wife now takes issue with the trial court's denial of her request for rehabilitative spousal support. We have determined that the wife is not entitled to spousal support under the facts of this case and, therefore, affirm the judgment.

 

 

*233 I.

 

Velma Christine Crain and Albert Lee Crain were first married in 1949. They divorced in 1973, and Mr. Crain remarried shortly thereafter. Mr. Crain was a radio engineer in the business of owning and constructing radio stations. He was quite successful with his business after his divorce in 1973. Mr. Crain began visiting the first Ms. Crain every weekend after separating from his second wife in April 1991. Mr. Crain eventually divorced his second wife in April 1992.

The Crains married for the second time in July 1992. Mr. Crain moved from Mississippi to Columbia where Ms. Crain owned a home. Ms. Crain had been working for the Veterans Administration Hospital in Nashville for approximately five years. She managed the eye clinic and earned approximately $16,000 per year. Shortly after the marriage, Ms. Crain retired from the Veterans Administration because she expected to become a homemaker and to travel with Mr. Crain on his business trips.

After the marriage, Mr. Crain bought Ms. Crain a new $18,000 automobile and helped her refinance her home mortgage to reduce the interest rate from 11% to 7.5% and to shorten the term of the loan from fifteen to ten years. He provided Ms. Crain with $1,500 per month for her personal and household needs, including her mortgage payments. Mr. Crain also opened a joint checking account, and both parties liberally withdrew funds from this account for personal and marital expenses.FN1 Ms. Crain, for example, used funds from the account to pay for eye-lid surgery that had been performed before the marriage.

 

FN1. The parties disagreed concerning the amount of their withdrawals from this account. Mr. Crain insisted that Ms. Crain withdrew $48,000 for her personal use; while Ms. Crain accused Mr. Crain of placing $35,000 in a separate account. The trial court did not attempt to resolve these disputes, and we need not do so here.

 

 

The Crains' marriage was short-lived. Mr. Crain moved out of the house after only twenty months and filed for divorce in March 1994. Ms. Crain counterclaimed for divorce and requested alimony pendente lite. The trial court directed Mr. Crain to pay Ms. Crain $2,000 per month until the date of the hearing on their divorce. Shortly after a hearing in October 1994, the trial court entered an order declaring the parties to be divorced without regard to fault and directing that the parties should retain the property presently held in their own names. The trial court also terminated Ms. Crain's alimony pendente lite and determined that Mr. Crain would not be required to pay Ms. Crain further spousal support of any sort. Ms. Crain has appealed from this decision.

 

 

II.

 

Ms. Crain insists that the trial court misapplied the statutory factors when it denied her request for rehabilitative spousal support. She asserts that the trial court did not give appropriate weight to her age, her limited employment prospects, Mr. Crain's superior earning capacity, and her contributions as a homemaker during the marriage. Mr. Crain responds that Ms. Crain's post-divorce finances are better than her pre-divorce finances, that she obtained many new assets during the marriage, and that Ms. Crain is able to work but has not seriously pursued a job.

[1] [2] [3] There are no hard and fast rules for determining whether a spouse should be required to support a former spouse. Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d 48, 50 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989). These decisions are heavily fact-dependent and require the careful balancing of many factors, including those identified in Tenn.Code Ann. § 35-5-101(d)(1) (Supp.1995). Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d 622, 625 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994); Loyd v. Loyd, 860 S.W.2d 409, 412 (Tenn.Ct.App.1993). Appellate courts give wide latitude to trial courts' spousal support and maintenance decisions. Jones v. Jones, 784 S.W.2d 349, 352 (Tenn.Ct.App.1989). These decisions are, however, subject to appellate review. We will scrutinize them to determine whether they reflect a proper application of the relevant legal principles and whether they are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Cranford v. Cranford, 772 S.W.2d at 50.

*234 [4] [5] The most common factors influencing spousal support decisions are the need of the spouse requesting support, the fault of the obligor spouse, and the ability of the obligor spouse to provide support. Hawkins v. Hawkins, 883 S.W.2d at 625; Bull v. Bull, 729 S.W.2d 673, 675 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987). In the case of marriages of short duration, the justification for spousal support is diminished when the spouse seeking support has contributed little, directly or indirectly, to the marriage. Flanagan v. Flanagan, 656 S.W.2d 1, 3-4 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983) (spousal support limited to $750 when the parties' second marriage lasted only thirteen months); Spencer v. Spencer, App. No. 01-A-01-9109-CV-00328, slip op. at 7-8, 17 T.A.M. 43-16, 7 T.F.L.L. 1-16, 1992 WL 247641 (Tenn.Ct.App. Oct. 2, 1992) (no spousal support needed following the dissolution of a short-term marriage).

[6] This record contains no grounds for concluding that the trial court misapplied the factors influencing whether Ms. Crain should receive rehabilitative alimony. As a result of the marriage, she has received an $18,000 automobile, funds to pay a pre-existing medical bill, and assistance in obtaining a more favorable mortgage on her home. She has also made liberal use of the funds Mr. Crain placed in their joint account as well as $8,000 in alimony pendente lite. The value of these items offsets the value of her contributions to the marriage.

Ms. Crain retired from the Veterans Administration because she anticipated that Mr. Crain would support her for the rest of her life. Mr. Crain did not object to her early retirement but did not demand it either. While her marriage to Mr. Crain played a significant role in her decision to stop working at the age of sixty-three, it would be unfair to find that Mr. Crain was solely responsible for this decision. Ms. Crain must also accept part of this responsibility.

Even though Ms. Crain was sixty-five years old at the time of the hearing, her age and physical condition do not disqualify her from seeking employment. She has held several types of jobs during her career. She requested rehabilitative support but never described what additional training or education she intended to pursue or how this training would enhance her employability. The most significant barrier to her re-employment appears to be her lack of motivation to look for work. Since the separation, she has done little more than “accumulating information concerning return to federal employment.” She has not pursued private sector jobs because she favors the government's benefits and because she would “rather not work at McDonald's.” Balancing all the equities in this case, Mr. Crain should not be required to pay Ms. Crain rehabilitative spousal support simply because she decided to retire from the Veterans Administration when she married Mr. Crain.

 

 

III.

 

We affirm the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for whatever other proceedings may be required. We also tax the costs of this appeal to Velma Christine Crain and her surety for which execution, if necessary, may issue.

 

TODD, P.J., (M.S.) and CANTRELL, J., concur.

[jake_roxas]

unless they have relocated it, the ALR collection may be found at the second floor together with the Am Jur and the CJS

[jake_roxas]

now maybe its my turn to ask here.

 

1. FAMILY leased a condo unit from OWNER COMPANY for a term of one year, renewable.

 

2. BANK filed case against OWNER COMPANY and subsequently foreclosed the condo unit including the one leased by FAMILY.

 

3. MTC ordered OWNER COMPANY to vacate and turn over premises to BANK.

 

4. BANK now wants to cancel lease contract of FAMILY (month 7) and impose a new lease contract.

 

Question: [without regard to the provisions of the lease]

 

1. Substantive

- is the contract of lease between FAMILY and OWNER COMPANY automatically terminated by reason of the foreclosure such that BANK may now disregard the lease contract?

 

2. Procedural

- if the FAMILY has a cause of action against BANK and/or OWNER COMPANY, (a) what is it? and ( what will be the procedural remedy that FAMILY may avail to enforce such cause of action? © should it be enforced in the same case (mere motion to intervene) or an independent action?

 

TIA!!!