Comments on: 5150

By: The Freeholder

The Freeholder — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:46:07 +0000

Yes.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 05:03:28 +0000

I do. Firsthand, unfortunately.

By: nk

nk — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 03:34:45 +0000

I don't know that these things are all that important when a man and woman find it better to live alone. .-= nk´s last blog ..My Wife Left Me =-.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:46:33 +0000

Not sure I get the “because” part, unless the theory is that one dumb law deserves another. The combined effect of the two is that anyone who works for a living can’t get out of his marriage without leaving his own home, and with it the right to come back, but NOT the obligation to pay the mortgage, property taxes, etc. while his ex gets a free home.

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:47:16 +0000

I imagine that NC has that law because they require a minimum legal separation before a divorce can be issued.

By: nk

nk — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:09:47 +0000

In Illinois, statutes in derogation of the common law are supposed to be narrowily construed. .-= nk´s last blog ..My Wife Left Me =-.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:18:21 +0000

Not sure I follow the logic there. My understanding is that every state in the union except Louisiana is a common law state, but where the common law and the statutory law conflict, the statute prevails every time. Am I wrong?

By: nk

nk — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:46:05 +0000

I’ll grant you that the domestic violence statutes are not always the sharpest knife in the drawer — mostly they’re pandering.

I dunno, is North Carolina a common law state and is this in derogation of the common law? (It does sound like it is.) Because when it comes to property rights, in a common law state, neither the lease nor the statute necessarily controls.

By: B Woodman

B Woodman — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:10:01 +0000

Sounds like the “priest” is one of those new-age wealth re-distribution socialists. “Steal only from the big soulless corporations and not from the mom-&-pop.” Pfffttt! Stealing is stealing, no matter who, where or why.

Idiot, along with any who would listen and follow his “advice”.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:03:23 +0000

A tenant’s possession of land is exclusive of the owner only because the owner has conveyed that right to him, if indeed he has (check the lease). This law, by contrast, is based purely on squatter’s rights: mere occupation of the property, if not inherently unlawful, gives the squatter a right to have criminal charges brought against the owner for “trespassing” on his land. AFAIK a real trespass by anyone else would not be a crime at all; ordinary trespass generally isn’t.

As to the priest, your guess is as good as mine.