text:
Home /
Our Sources / About Us
/ FAQs /
Advanced Search
Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
November 21, 2012
ROLLY REDLAND, KENDRICK REDLAND, AND TERESA SHELTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ROBERT AND IRENE REDLAND FAMILY TRUST, DATED AUGUST 10, 1989, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),v.ROBERT REDLAND, INDIVIDUALLY, ROBERT REDLAND, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT AND IRENE REDLAND FAMILY TRUST DATED AUGUST 10, 1989, LISA KIMSEY AND MIKE KIMSEY, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS), AND ROBERT REDLAND, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT REDLAND REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED OCTOBER 30, 2002, AND AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE IRENE REDLAND REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED OCTOBER 30, 2002, APPELLEE (PLAINTIFF). ROBERT REDLAND, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT/THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF),v.ROLLY REDLAND, KENDRICK REDLAND, ROALENE MCCARTHY, AND TERESA SHELTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS BENEFICIARIES OF THE ROBERT AND IRENE REDLAND FAMILY TRUST, DATED AUGUST 10, 1989, APPELLEES (PLAINTIFFS), AND SHARON REDLAND, APPELLEE (THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT). ROALENE MCCARTHY, APPELLANT (PLAINTIFF),v.ROBERT REDLAND, INDIVIDUALLY, ROBERT REDLAND, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT AND IRENE REDLAND FAMILY TRUST DATED AUGUST 10, 1989, LISA KIMSEY AND MIKE KIMSEY, APPELLEES DEFENDANTS.
Appeal from the District Court of Big Horn County The Honorable W. Thomas Sullins, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN*fn1 , HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
[¶1] These consolidated appeals stem from the Redland family's dispute over ranch property and operations. Appeals numbered S-12-0010 and S-12-0012 relate to real property that some of the Redland children claim their father, Robert Redland, agreed to place in a family trust. The district court granted Robert Redland partial summary judgment, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and by the statute of frauds, and the Redland Children appeal that summary judgment order.*fn2
[¶2] Following the entry of partial summary judgment, a bench trial was held on the remaining issues. Among the issues tried were claims for unjust enrichment by the two Redland sons, Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland, against Robert Redland for improvements that they had made to the disputed trust properties. The trial court ruled against Robert Redland on the unjust enrichment claims and awarded damages to both Rolly and Kendrick Redland. The trial court also ruled against Robert Redland on his counterclaim against Kendrick Redland, and his wife, Sharon, for a partnership interest in Kendrick and Sharon Redland's Angus cattle operation. In Appeal No. S-12-0011, the father appeals the trial court's rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims.
[¶3] We reverse the entry of summary judgment and affirm the trial court's rulings on the unjust enrichment and partnership claims.
[¶4] Appeals S-12-0010 and S-12-0012 are both appeals from the district court's order granting partial summary judgment. In S-12-0010, which was filed by three of the Redland children, Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland and Teresa Redland Shelton, the following issues are presented for this Court's review:
1. Whether the District Court erred when it determined the [S]tatute of Frauds barred Appellants' claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance after Appellants had fully performed the agreement?
2. Whether the District Court erred when it determined that the applicable statute of limitations barred Appellants' claims for declaratory judgment, recovery of real property, estoppel and specific performance when there was no evidence that Appellants knew or should have known that the Agreement was breached before the limitations period expired?
[¶5] In Appeal S-12-0012, Roalene Redland McCarthy, in a separately filed appeal from the summary judgment ruling, states the issues differently but presents essentially the same questions for our review:
ISSUE I: For purposes of the Statute of Limitations, when did the cause of action for specific performance accrue? ISSUE II: Whether full performance by the Appellant of a Trust Agreement presented a genuine issue of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment on the basis of the Statue of Frauds.
ISSUE III: Did the discovery of a breach present a genuine issue of material fact that precluded entry of summary judgment for filing outside the Statute of Limitations?
ISSUE IV: Where one of seven parties to a Trust Agreement breached the contract, was it error in applying the "discovery rule" for the District Court to impute to Appellant what that court apparently concluded was either known or should have been known by others of the non-breaching contracting parties?
[¶6] In Appeal S-12-0011, Robert Redland appeals the district court's rulings following a bench trial and presents the following issues on appeal:
A. Issues Related to Unjust Enrichment
1. Did the trial court err when it found that Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland had proven the elements of unjust enrichment?
2. If Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland proved the elements of unjust enrichment, did the trial court err in the amount of the damages awarded?
B. Issues Related to Redland Angus
1. Did the Court err when it admitted Plaintiff's Exhibit 105 redacting Plaintiff's sticky note which said "part of bull sale[?]"
2. Did the Court err when it found that Robert Redland is not and was not a partner in Redland Angus?
[¶7] The claims regarding the disputed trust property include the Redland Children's claims that certain property should be conveyed to the family trust, and Rolly and Kendrick Redland's alternative claims for unjust enrichment for improvements made to that property. Those claims are independent from and unrelated to Robert Redland's claims to a partnership interest in Kendrick and Sharon Redland's Angus cattle operation, Redland Angus. We will thus set forth the facts relating to the trust property claims and those relating to the Redland Angus operation separately. In this first part of the opinion, we will set forth the facts relating to the disputed trust property, and the legal proceedings that led to the present appeal. We will set forth the facts relating to Robert Redland's claims to a partnership interest in Redland Angus in the latter part of the opinion when we discuss that portion of Robert Redland's appeal.
A. Disputed Trust Property
1. Property Names
[¶8] The Redland property that is in dispute and that will be discussed throughout this opinion is located in three areas of the Big Horn Basin. It includes the following:
Manderson Place
[¶9] The Manderson Place is located in Big Horn County. The parties variously refer to the deeded portion of this property as the Manderson Farm, the Manderson Place or the Home Place. Associated with this property is State of Wyoming Lease No. 3-8179. Also associated with the property is Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lower Nowood Allotment No. 00144. For ease of reference, throughout this opinion, we will refer to the deeded property as the "Manderson Place," and to State Lease No. 3-8179 by number or as the "State Farm at Manderson."
Original Mountain Land & Additional Mountain Land
[¶10] The Original Mountain Land is located in Washakie and Johnson Counties. Associated with the deeded property is State of Wyoming Lease No. 3-8195, BLM Box Canyon Allotment No. 02008, and BLM Cedar Ridge Allotment No. 00145. For ease of reference, when we refer to State Lease No. 3-8195 separately, we will refer to it by number or as the "Mountain Land State Lease."
[¶11] The Additional Mountain Land is located in the area of the Original Mountain Land and is deeded land that was owned by Eric Redland, Robert Redland's brother, until Eric's death in 1992.
Woody Place
[¶12] Woody Place is also located in Washakie County, south of the Mountain Land. Associated with this property is State of Wyoming Lease No. 3-8248, BLM West Allotment No. 00147, and BLM East Allotment No. 00146. For ease of reference, we will refer to State Lease No. 3-8248 by number or as the "State Lease at Woody Place."
2. History of the Property and Events Leading to Dispute
[¶13] Richard and Nellie Redland were the parents of Robert Redland and the grandparents of Robert and Irene Redland's five children: Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland, Roalene Redland McCarthy, Teresa Redland Shelton, and Lisa Redland Kimsey. Throughout their lifetimes, Richard and Nellie Redland accumulated ranching and farming property in the Big Horn Basin, including deeded land and federal and state leases, which they hoped would be held and operated by future Redland generations. All of the property that is in dispute in this action is property originally acquired by Richard and Nellie Redland.
[¶14] Robert and Irene Redland were married in 1951, and began living on Manderson Place in 1953. Sometime between 1959 and 1962, they purchased the Manderson Place from Richard and Nellie Redland. Robert and Irene raised their five children on the Manderson Place, and during those years they ran sheep on the Original Mountain Land and grew crops on BLM land near Manderson.
[¶15] In 1971, Robert and Irene Redland purchased Woody Place from Richard and Nellie Redland. The purchase included the deeded land and an assignment of the State Lease at Woody Place. The State Lease at Woody Place is important to the Woody Place operations because the leased land is adjacent to the deeded property and holds all of the operation's water.
[¶16] When Robert and Irene Redland purchased Woody Place in 1971, Rolly Redland, Robert's oldest son, was attending community college in Riverton, Wyoming. Robert called on Rolly to work the new property and to manage the cows Robert then owned. Woody Place required substantial work, including clean-up, fencing, and irrigation work, and after making some initial improvements to the property, Rolly stayed on and has since 1971 lived and ranched at Woody Place.
[¶17] Kendrick Redland began his fulltime career as a rancher in 1973. Kendrick lived on Manderson Place, and he conducted his operations primarily on Manderson Place and the Original Mountain Land. While the two Redland sons lived on separate properties, they often operated together and with their father. This included running their cattle together and supplying veterinary care, breeding and feed for the cattle.
[¶18] Robert Redland's father, Richard Redland, passed away in 1971. In his will, he left to his wife, Nellie Redland, a life estate in all of his properties. To his sons, Robert and Eric Redland, he left a divided option to purchase the Original Mountain Land for $27.50 per acre, which option could not be exercised until the death of Nellie Redland. The will included any federal allotments and the Mountain Land State Lease in the right to purchase, with no additional charge for those property interests.
[¶19] In March of 1983, Robert Redland paid Eric Redland $100,000 for his one-third option in the Original Mountain Land. As of 1983, then, Robert owned the entire option to purchase the Original Mountain Land as set forth in Richard Redland's will.
[¶20] By 1989, the operations of Robert Redland and his two sons, Rolly and Kendrick Redland, had grown, with each individually continuing to increase the number of livestock they were running. Also in 1989, Nellie Redland passed away, and Robert was able to exercise the option to purchase the Original Mountain Land as described in Richard Redland, Sr.'s will. Before exercising the option, however, Robert took two steps. First, on August 8, 1989, Robert assigned part of his purchase option to his wife, Irene, and then they both made partial assignments of their interests in the purchase option to their five children, with the end result being that Robert, Irene and their five children each owned a one-seventh interest in the option to purchase the Original Mountain Land. Robert's next step was to create a family trust.
[¶21] On August 10, 1989, Robert and Irene Redland executed a Trust Agreement with their five children, which created the Robert and Irene Redland Family Trust ("Redland Family Trust"). Robert, Irene and the five children were beneficial owners under the trust, and Robert and Irene were the trustees. The Trust Agreement established the trust for the purpose of holding and managing property. It provided as follows concerning property acquired by the trust:
The parties hereto declare that all property now held or hereafter acquired by the trustees or their successors, as trustees, and all income and profits therefrom, shall be by the trustees managed, administered, received, collected, disposed of, and distributed for the benefit of such persons as may from time to time be owners of beneficial interests in this trust estate, in the manner herein provided and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this instrument and any amendments hereto.
[¶22] At its inception, the Trust Agreement identified only the first property the Redland Family Trust would hold, the Original Mountain Land. Concerning that property, the Trust Agreement specified:
Each of the above named parties transfers to this trust their interest in the options to purchase from the Estate of Richard Redland, Sr. . [sic] the lands described in Exhibit A annexed hereto subject to any indebtedness on said options and lands and the sum of $27,500.00.
[¶23] The Trust Agreement provided more specifically for the addition of property to the Redland Family Trust in Section Ten of the agreement, which stated:
The Parties hereto and any other beneficial owner of the trust estate may at anytime add other property acceptable to the trustee to the trust estate by conveyance, assignment, will or any other mode of transfer. Such property when received and accepted by the trustee shall become part of the trust estate and shall be subject to all the terms and conditions of this trust instrument.
[¶24] After the initial contributions were made to the Redland Family Trust, the trust exercised the option to purchase the Original Mountain Land. On September 11, 1989, the property was conveyed by warranty deed from the Estate of Richard Redland, Sr. to the Redland Family Trust. This conveyance created the circumstance for the first disputed Redland property.
[¶25] The Redland Children contend that when they each assigned their one-seventh interest in the option to purchase the Original Mountain Land and contributed cash to exercise that option, it was their intention and understanding that exercising the option would result in the trust acquiring the property described in Richard Redland Sr.'s will, which property included the deeded property, the BLM allotments, and the Mountain Land State Lease, that is, State Lease No. 3-8195. Robert Redland, on the other hand, contends that the only property conveyed to the trust when it exercised the option was the deeded land and the BLM allotments, and that the state lease was conveyed separately to him in his individual capacity. We will set forth additional relevant facts related to this portion of the property dispute in our discussion of the district court's summary judgment order.
[¶26] In 1991, Eric Redland passed away, and Robert Redland approached the Redland Children and requested cash contributions to purchase land from Eric Redland's estate. The children agreed to the cash contributions, and two pieces of property were purchased from the estate. One property purchased was the Additional Mountain Land. By a Court Officer's Deed dated June 30, 1992, the Additional Mountain Land was conveyed to the Redland Family Trust. The other property purchased from Eric Redland's estate was State Lease No. 3-8179, the State Farm at Manderson. By order dated February 5, 1992, the probate court approved the sale of State Lease No. 3-8179 to Robert or Irene Redland. The record does not contain a court officer's deed conveying the property, but the parties do not dispute that State Lease No. 3-8179, the State Farm at Manderson, was conveyed to Robert or Irene Redland individually, and not to the Redland Family Trust. The conveyance of State Lease No. 3-8179 is the source of the second property dispute.
[¶27] The parties disagree as to the amount of the cash contributions made to purchase property from Eric Redland's estate and the property that those contributions were to be used to purchase. Robert Redland contends that each trust member contributed $13,000, which was just enough money to purchase the Additional Mountain Land, and that there was no agreement that the State Farm at Manderson would be purchased for the Redland Family Trust. The Redland Children contend that they contributed far more than $13,000 each and that the agreement was that the money would be used to purchase the Additional Mountain Land and the State Farm at Manderson, and that both properties would be placed in the trust. As with the other disputed property, we will set forth additional relevant facts related to this portion of the property dispute in our discussion of the district court's summary judgment order.
[¶28] In December of 1992, Robert and Irene Redland gifted by warranty deed to each of their children a one-fourteenth interest in Woody Place. Exhibit A to each warranty deed contained an identical property description, which description did not include a reference to State Lease No. 3-8248, that is, the State Lease at Woody Place. In January of 1993, Robert and Irene Redland repeated the same transaction, using identical warranty deeds, and transferred an additional one-fourteenth interest in Woody Place to each of their children. Thus, after the 1993 conveyance, Robert and Irene and each of their children owned a one-seventh interest in Woody Place.
[¶29] In 1995, Robert and Irene Redland and their children each conveyed their one-seventh interest in Woody Place to the Redland Family Trust. This conveyance is the source of a third property dispute between Robert Redland and the Redland Children. The Redland Children contend that the one-seventh interest in Woody Place, which they were each gifted and then each in turn conveyed to the trust, included the State Lease at Woody Place, State Lease No. 3-8248, and it was their understanding and intention when they agreed to convey the property to the trust, that the state lease was included. Robert Redland contends to the contrary, that none of the Woody Place transactions involving the children and the trust included a conveyance of the state lease, and that he retained individual ownership of that lease, separate from the Woody Place deeded property. Again, we will set forth additional relevant facts related to this portion of the property dispute in our discussion of the district court's summary judgment order.
[¶30] Also in 1995, an amendment to the Trust Agreement was executed. The amendment provided for the appointment of a successor trustee in the event of the death, resignation or inability to act of any trustee and required that there be two trustees serving at all times. The amendment also added a Section Fourteen to the Trust Agreement, which provided:
All B.L.M., Forest Service, and State leases and/or grazing permits added to the assets of the Trust shall remain the property of the Trust unless and until a three-fourths (3/4) majority of the beneficial owners of the Trust estate agree in writing to the removal of the B.L.M., Forest Service and State lease and/or grazing permit from the assets of the Trust.
[¶31] Following formation of the Redland Family Trust, the subsequent land transactions and the amendments to the Trust Agreement, the Redlands continued to grow their operations. Robert, Rolly, and Kendrick Redland ran livestock together, and the BLM allotments associated with all of the Redland properties listed the individual brands of Robert, Rolly, and Kendrick as the brands allowed to run on the allotments. Rolly and Kendrick, and their families lived and operated on the Redland properties and made improvements to those properties.
[¶32] Rolly Redland and his family maintained Woody Place and in 1998, installed a manufactured home on the property, which Robert Redland approved of as long as Rolly paid for the home and all of the associated expenses. Kendrick Redland and his family lived and operated on the Manderson Place property and improved the trailer in which they were living by constructing an addition and a deck on a permanent foundation. They also improved the home by putting in a cistern, a septic system, and water lines, which also served the livestock operations, and by running a power line to the home. Kendrick and his wife paid for all of these improvements, and Robert Redland did not object to them. Kendrick and Sharon also constructed a feedlot on the Manderson Place property, for which they provided all of the materials and shared in the labor with one of Robert's laborers.
[¶33] In the spring of 1992, Kendrick and Sharon Redland also began working the land on the State Farm at Manderson (State Lease No. 3-8179). They cleaned up the land, began haying and irrigating, built two new hay yards, pulled out old ties and set new ones, repaired the corrals and fences, paid to have new fences built, built a new cattle working facility and purchased a cattle chute to be placed on the property. As with the improvements to the Manderson Place property, this work was performed with Robert Redland's knowledge and was paid for by Kendrick and Sharon.
[¶34] Sometime around 2000 or 2001, Rolly Redland and his wife, Deb, and their children, with the approval of Robert and Irene Redland, began living at least part of their time in a home on the State Farm at Manderson (State Lease No. 3-8179), so the children would be closer to the school they were attending. Rolly and his family cleaned and maintained the farmstead on the State Farm at Manderson, and also made other improvements to the property. They graded and graveled the road from the highway to the barnyard, built a calving shed, and installed water hydrants and tanks. Robert knew the improvements were being made, but other than the posts for the calving shed, which Robert supplied, Rolly paid the costs of the improvements.
B. Legal Proceedings
[¶35] Sometime in 2006, Rolly Redland became concerned with the activities of Robert Redland and Lisa Redland Kimsey, Rolly's youngest sister. Robert had sold or given land on Manderson Place to Lisa on which to build a house, and it was land that Rolly had understood was land held by the Redland Family Trust. Also, Robert and Lisa were spending an unusual amount of time with Robert's attorneys in Casper. Rolly thus had a title search run. The title search revealed that property Rolly and his siblings, Kendrick, Roalene, and Teresa, thought was held by the Redland Family Trust, had not in fact been conveyed to the trust. This included Manderson Place, the State Farm at Manderson (State Lease No. 3-8179), the BLM allotments at Manderson, the Mountain Land State Lease (State Lease No. 3-8195), and the State Lease at Woody Place (State Lease No. 3-8248).
[¶36] In September 2007, Irene Redland passed away. A few days after Irene's funeral, Rolly Redland, Kendrick Redland, Roalene Redland McCarthy, and Teresa Redland Shelton prepared and presented to Robert Redland a document entitled Family Resolution Proposition. The document was a proposal to transfer all property into the Redland Family Trust that the Redland Children originally believed had been placed in the trust and a proposal for the use of those lands going forward. Robert rejected the proposal.
[¶37] During this same time frame, shortly after Irene Redland's death, Robert Redland sold his sheep to his daughter Lisa Redland Kimsey, and her husband, Mike Kimsey. As part of the transaction, Robert leased some of the trust's mountain land to the Kimseys, for the purpose of running the sheep and providing guided hunts. Robert leased the property as trustee and did so before the appointment of a new trustee to succeed Irene Redland.
[¶38] In November 2007, Rolly Redland called a special meeting of the Redland Family Trust beneficial owners. Among the agenda items was appointment of a new co-trustee, to replace Irene Redland, the transfer of property to the trust, and the propriety of leases that Robert Redland had entered into as trustee without approval of a co-trustee. Rolly was elected co-trustee at the meeting, and the co-trustees, now Robert and Rolly Redland, did not agree on resolution of the remaining issues.
[¶39] In April 2008, the Redland Children filed a complaint against Robert Redland individually, Robert Redland as trustee of the Redland Family Trust, and Lisa Redland Kimsey and her husband, Mike Kimsey, (collectively "Robert Redland"). The Redland Children amended their complaint in May 2009, asserting claims:
1. For declaratory judgment that:
a. Rolly, Kendrick, and Robert Redland operated all of the family or trust properties as partners;
b. Robert and Irene Redland were required to transfer all Redland property, including deeded lands, state leases and BLM permits to the Redland Family Trust;
c. The Redland Family Trust requires any action of the trust to be approved by two trustees and any action taken without that approval is void;
d. A partnership by estoppel exists, or recognizing that the Redland Family Trust created a de facto partnership; and
e. Each beneficiary under the Redland Family Trust has an interest in directing its operations.
2. For declaratory judgment that the lease of trust lands Robert Redland made to Lisa and Mike Kimsey is void for failure to obtain approval by two trustees;
3. For declaratory judgment that Robert Redland must transfer all of the Redland property to the Redland Family Trust and should be estopped from claiming the properties as his own;
4. For an accounting of trust assets and funds;
5. For declaratory relief establishing a tie-breaking mechanism in the event the trustees of the Redland Family Trust are deadlocked; and
6. For the recognition of a constructive trust or equitable lien against Robert Redland's individual property to the extent that he misapplied trust assets or funds to his own use.
[¶40] Robert Redland denied all of the Redland Children's claims and asserted the following counterclaims:
1. As trustee, against Rolly Redland for rent and grazing fees on trust property;
2. As trustee, against Rolly Redland for hunting fees on trust property;
3. Personally, against Kendrick and Sharon Redland for an accounting and payment of partnership distributions from Redland Angus; and
4. Personally, against the Redland Children for a ruling that if Robert Redland had to contribute personal assets to the Redland Family Trust and be subject to an accounting, the Redland Children should be required to do likewise.
[¶41] Robert Redland moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Redland Children's claims to recover real property were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. In this motion, Robert Redland also claimed that the Redland Family Trust was void because it violated the rule against perpetuities. The district court granted Robert Redland's motion for summary judgment on the claims to recover real property, finding that no genuine issue of disputed fact existed and the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. Specifically, the district court found:
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact of concern to those claims for relief, that Defendant Robert Redland is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with respect to those claims for relief, that the applicable statutes of limitations (whether it be under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-3-103, 1-3-105, or 1-3-109) bar recovery on those claims for relief, and that Wyoming's statute of frauds, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-23-105 and applicable case law, including Davis v. Davis, 855 P.2d 342 (Wyo. 1993), Fowler v. Fowler, 933 P.2d 502 (Wyo. 1997), and Parkhurst v. Boykin, 2004 WY 90, 94 P.3d 450 (Wyo. 2004), preclude recovery on those claims for relief, as asserted in this action.
[¶42] In that same order, the district court allowed Robert Redland to amend his counterclaims to seek declaratory relief that the Redland Family Trust violates the rule against perpetuities; to seek ejectment of Kendrick and Sharon Redland from the Manderson Place; and to seek ejectment of Rolly and Debbie Redland from the State Farm at Manderson. Robert's amended counterclaims also included claims against Rolly Redland for conversion of a sheep wagon and a tractor. In response, Kendrick, Rolly and their spouses counterclaimed for the value of the improvements that they had made to Manderson Place and the State Farm at Manderson.
[¶43] Shortly after the district court's entry of summary judgment, Rolly Redland filed a motion requesting that Judge W. Thomas Sullins recuse himself from the case, asserting a conflict of interest because Judge Sullins was a former partner in the law firm that represented Robert Redland, and because that same law firm drafted many of the trust documents that would be ruled on at trial. Judge Sullins denied any conflict of interest but entered an order of recusal and reassigned the case to the Honorable Keith G. Kautz.
[¶44] A five-day bench trial was held before Judge Kautz beginning on August 30, 2010. On December 2, 2010, while the case was under advisement, the parties filed a stipulation resolving certain of the issues. The Redland Children dismissed their first cause of action seeking declaratory judgment that the family operated as a de facto partnership, dismissed their claim for an accounting, dismissed their request for a court implemented trust tie-breaker mechanism, and dismissed their breach of fiduciary duty claim. They reserved their right to appeal the summary judgment order against their property claims. Robert Redland agreed to not pursue efforts to have Rolly Redland removed as a trustee, and Robert reserved his causes of action for contribution of assets and an accounting in the event the Redland Children succeed in the appeal of the partial summary judgment on their property claims. Last, the parties submitted to the court a tie-breaker amendment to the Redland Family Trust and requested that the court approve the amendment in the event the court ruled that the trust is valid and not void for violating the rule against perpetuities.
[¶45] On February 15, 2011, the district court issued its decision letter. The court made the following rulings:
--The court found that the Redland Family Trust does not violate the rule against perpetuities, and it approved the parties' stipulated tie-breaker amendment;
--The court found the lease agreements Robert Redland entered into with Lisa and Mike Kimsey for use of trust property were void for failure to obtain the required co-trustee approval;
--The court found that Rolly Redland owed the Redland Family Trust $6,360.00 for rent of the Woody Place for the year 2010;
--The court found no evidence that Rolly Redland had wrongfully withheld hunting fees for the Woody Place and found against Robert Redland on that claim;
--The court found that Robert Redland had not proven his claims for damages to Manderson Place or the State Farm against Rolly and Kendrick Redland and denied those claims. The court further found that Rolly and Kendrick had vacated Manderson Place and the State Farm, and it concluded that Robert's ejectment action against them was thus moot;
--The court found that Kendrick Redland had proved his unjust enrichment claim for improvements to Manderson Place, and it awarded him damages in the amount of $28,737.00;
--The court found that Rolly Redland had proved his unjust enrichment claim for improvements to the State Farm at Manderson, and it awarded him damages in the amount of $14,040.00.
--In his closing argument, Robert Redland conceded that he had not proved his claim against Rolly Redland for conversion of a tractor. The court further found that Robert had not proved his claim against Rolly for conversion of a sheep wagon, and it ruled against Robert on that claim; and
--The court found that Robert Redland had not proved that he had a partnership interest in Redland Angus and denied all of Robert's claims relating to that operation.
[¶46] Following entry of the district court's judgment, Robert Redland appealed the court's rulings on Rolly and Kendrick Redland's unjust enrichment claims and the court's ruling on the Redland Angus partnership claims. The Redland Children appealed the order granting partial summary judgment against their property claims.
[¶47] The Redland Children's appeal of the district court's order on their trust property claims is an appeal from a summary judgment order, and we therefore consider their appeal under our summary judgment standard of review. Motions for summary judgment come before the trial court pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that
[t]he judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Formisano v. Gaston, 2011 WY 8, ¶ 3, 246 P.3d 286, 288 (Wyo. 2011). We review a grant of summary judgment as follows:
We review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards. Id.; 40 North Corp. v. Morrell, 964 P.2d 423, 426 (Wyo. 1998). We examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. Id. A material fact is one which, if proved, would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Id. If the moving party presents supporting summary judgment materials demonstrating no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden is shifted to the non-moving party to present appropriate supporting materials posing a genuine issue of a material fact for trial. Roberts v. Klinkosh, 986 P.2d 153, 155 (Wyo. 1999); Downen v. Sinclair Oil Corp., 887 P.2d 515, 519 (Wyo. 1994). We review a grant of summary judgment deciding a question of law de novo and afford no deference to the district court's ruling. Roberts v. Klinkosh, 986 P.2d at 156; Blagrove v. JB Mechanical, Inc., 934 P.2d 1273, 1275 (Wyo. 1997).
Lindsey v. Harriet, 2011 WY 80, ¶ 18, 255 P.3d 873, 880 (Wyo. 2011).
[¶48] Because the unjust enrichment and partnership rulings appealed by Robert Redland were issued by the court following a bench trial, we apply the following standard of review:
Following a bench trial, this court reviews a district court's findings and conclusions using a clearly erroneous standard for the factual findings and a de novo standard for the conclusions of law. Piroschak v. Whelan, 2005 WY 26, ¶ 7, 106 P.3d 887, 890 (Wyo. 2005).
The factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a jury verdict. While the findings are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record. Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review does not entail re-weighing disputed evidence. Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous. A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Piroschak, ¶ 7, 106 P.3d at 890. Findings may not be set aside because we would have reached a different result. Harber v. Jense[n], 2004 WY 104, ¶ 7, 97 P.3d 57, 60 (Wyo. 2004). Further, we assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from it.
Claman v. Popp, 2012 WY 92, ¶ 22, 279 P.3d 1003, 1012 (Wyo. 2012) (quoting Pennant Serv. Co., v. True Oil Co., LLC, 2011 WY 40, ¶ 7, 249 P.3d 698, 703 (Wyo. 2011)). We review the district court's conclusions of law de novo. Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 2009 WY 65, ¶ 40, 208 P.3d 1296, 1308 (Wyo. 2009).
A. Redland Children's Partial Summary Judgment Appeal
[¶49] The parties' property dispute stems from the formation of the Redland Family Trust. The Redland Children contend that when Robert Redland approached them with the proposal to form a trust to hold the Redland properties, which would require contributions of capital by all of the parties, he promised that, in exchange for those contributions, all Redland property would be conveyed to the trust and managed as required by the trust. Robert Redland disagrees that any such promise was made.
[¶50] The parties do not dispute that the Redland Family Trust owns the Original Mountain Land, including its associated BLM allotments, the Additional Mountain Land and Woody Place. The property in dispute is Manderson Place, which is deeded land, the State Farm at Manderson (State Lease No. 3-8179), the Mountain Land State Lease (State Lease No. 3-8195), and the State Lease at Woody Place (State Lease No. 3-8248).
[¶51] The district court found no genuine issues of material fact existed and that as a matter of law, the Redland Children's claims to the disputed property were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. We address first the statute of limitations ruling and then the statute of frauds ruling.
1. Statute of Limitations
[¶52] The Redland Children's property claims assert a breach of either an oral or written agreement to convey real property. The applicable statute of limitations is thus either ten years or eight years. See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(i) (ten years for action on written agreement); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-105(a)(ii)(A) (eight years for action on oral agreement); Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-3-103 (ten years for action to recover real property).
[¶53] The Redland Children argue that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until 2006 when they discovered that Robert Redland had not conveyed the disputed property to the trust as they contend he had promised. Robert Redland contends that the statute of limitations began to run in 1992 at the latest, the date by which Robert had ownership of all the property he allegedly promised to convey to the trust. On review of the summary judgment record, we conclude that when the statute of limitations began to run is a disputed issue of fact.
[¶54] Wyoming is a discovery jurisdiction, which means that a statute of limitation is triggered when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the existence of a cause of action. Carnahan v. Lewis, 2012 WY 45, ¶ 27, 273 P.3d 1065, 1073 (Wyo. 2012); see also Platt v. Creighton, 2007 WY 18, ¶ 11, 150 P.3d 1194, 1200 (Wyo. 2007); Olson v. A.H. Robins Co., 696 P.2d 1294, 1297 (Wyo. 1985). We have explained:
That is, the statute begins to run when the claimant is chargeable with information which should lead him to believe he has a claim. If the material facts are in dispute, the application of a statute of limitations is a mixed question of law and fact; otherwise, it is a question of law.
Carnahan, ¶ 27, 273 P.3d at 1073 (citations omitted).
[¶55] The Redland Children support their statute of limitations argument with the affidavits of Rolly Redland and Kendrick Redland, which they submitted in opposition to Robert Redland's motion for summary judgment. In those affidavits, Rolly and Kendrick describe the Redland Children's agreement with Robert and Irene Redland, the parties' conduct following that agreement, and their unequivocal statements that they did not know that the disputed property had not been placed in the Redland Family Trust until 2006.
[¶56] By affidavit, Rolly Redland attested that during meetings attended by Kendrick Redland and Robert and Irene Redland, to discuss the formation of the trust, Robert made repeated promises that "it is all going in (to the Trust), the farm and all of the property of Granddad's, is going into the Trust." Kendrick's affidavit is to similar effect. Kendrick stated that in the trust formation meeting, "[w]e all talked about ways to pass on the Land that Grand[d]ad & Grandma had put together and limit or avoid inheritance taxes." Kendrick further stated in his affidavit:
At the meeting about setting up the family trust, Dad said that each of us kids contribute money from our CD's in order to secure and purchase all of the land that we were running our livestock on including the Farm at Manderson, the Woody Place at Ten Sleep, the Mountain Ground and the BLM & State grazing leases attached to those grounds. Bob made it very clear that all the ground we were running on would eventually go into the trust over time and if Eric (Pooch) Redlands' [sic] ground became available, his part of the mountain & slope, the State Farm, or his ranch at Ten Sleep became available in the future, we needed to be in a position to acquire those also so that they could be put in the family trust we were setting up.
[¶57] After the Redland Family Trust was established and the Redland Children made the contributions that Robert Redland requested, the parties operated on and made improvements to Redland property, including both trust and now disputed trust property.*fn3
According to the affidavits of Rolly and Kendrick Redland, between the years 1989 and 2006, Robert Redland never informed Rolly or Kendrick that they were making improvements to land that was not trust land or were operating on property that did not belong to the Redland Family Trust. Concerning the improvements and operations, Kendrick stated in his affidavit, "Not once did Robert tell us that we were wasting our time because the property was not Trust property." Rolly stated that Robert "never once complained about us running cattle on what is now non-Trust lands. Nor did he complain about all of the time and expense we were putting into non-Trust lands for very little return on the investment."
[¶58] Kendrick Redland denied any prior knowledge or understanding that Robert Redland had not conveyed the disputed property to the Redland ...
Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.
Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.
Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.
LRC, Inc. About Us


text: Hunter Education Requirements Anyone born after January 1, 1960 is required to provide proof of Hunter Education, in order to purchase a Nevada hunting license. Proof of Hunter Education is an official Hunter Education card or certificate from any state or Canadian province, with the Hunter Education number and state or provincial logo or seal or a previous year's hunting license with the Hunter Education number or mark. If you have taken a hunter education class in another state or Canadian province, verification must be provided. The only way to receive a new Nevada Hunter Education certificate is to attend a Nevada Hunter Education course. The course consists of independent home study and a certification class that lasts a minimum of eight hours. The independent study component requires the completion of a workbook or online course prior to attending the certification class. Students have three options for meeting the home study requirement; complete the Today's Hunter workbook or complete the required work online. The workbook and Today's Hunter-Nevada student manual (reference for completing the workbook) may be obtained free from any NDOW office. Students have two choices of internet course; www.hunter-ed.com and www.huntercourse.com, with both courses charging an additional fee over the basic $5 class fee. Students must bring their completed workbook or Nevada Online Course Completion Confirmation (printed off the hunter-ed.com website upon successful completion) to the class to gain admittance. Hunter Education classes are offered year-round throughout Nevada. Click the link to your Region to find a class near you. Early sign-up is encouraged. Remember, the workbook or online course must be 100% complete before attending the class. Work books will be mailed only to those students outside the areas serviced by regional offices located in Las Vegas, Henderson, Reno, Fallon, Elko, Winnemucca, and Ely. A class fee of $5 will be collected at the beginning of the course. There is no minimum age required to take the class. However, students under the age of 11 are required to attend with an adult. The parent(s) or guardian(s) of minor students are required to check-in the minor student(s) with NDOW instructor(s) at the beginning of class and pick-up their student(s) from the instructor(s) at class end. Under no circumstances are minor students to be dropped off or picked up without notifying the instructor(s). Parents or guardians are also solely responsible for student transportation and should notify the instructor(s) at the beginning of class if someone other than a parent or guardian is picking up the student after class. Participants taking a class on the weekend are reminded to bring a lunch. Classes will often spend two hours or more outdoors, please dress accordingly. NOTE: Individuals with a disability who are in need of special services should contact the Department at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. The contact information for each region can be found at the bottom of this page. Register Your Hunter Safety Card If you are a first time applicant for tags in Nevada and are born after January 1, 1960, you need to register your hunter safety card by adding it to your sportsman account to satisfy the hunter safety requirement. Go to: www.ndowlicensing.com Click the orange Support button at the bottom right of the page Enter your first name, email address and last name Select Hunter Safety Education Certificates as the reason for your request and enter your date of birth Attach a picture of your hunter safety certificate Click send to submit your request Education Resources www.hunter-ed.com www.huntercourse.com Edible Portions Guide Still Have Questions? Contact NDOW's Hunter Education Coordinator in your region. Western Region: Dawn Andersenph - (775) 688-1622 fax - (775) email@example.com Eastern Region: Joe Doucette ph - (775) 777-2305 fax - (775) firstname.lastname@example.com Southern Region: Martin Olson ph: (702) 486-5127 ext. 3501 fax: (702) firstname.lastname@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I had the pleasure of having Daniel Briggs on the podcast today. Dan is a Mittagong local and volunteer who is passionate about emergency preparedness in his community.
We talked about blokes and safety, how we tend to charge on into things and perhaps don't think about the consequences. We talked about how Wingecarribee SES is hosting an evening for men on 17 July focussed on getting men prepared to manage difficult situations.
As the podcast went on, I got a bit philosophical about a being a man and what it means to manage my own health and safety. How a simple error could impact my whole family and how as a man I think sometimes I can do everything when really I can't.
Today was another great discussion that has increased my awareness and understanding of the world. I love doing this podcast… Thanks Dan!


text: In the Roaring Fork Valley and Aspen irrigation services are essential due to the extreme nature of our climate. Our trained and uniformed staff can provide numerous services to ensure the proper results of an irrigation system. Whether designing a new system or monitoring an existing one we can provide a program for you needs.


text:
In the case of Hidden Meadows Townhomes v. Ross [2012 Ohio 6017 (Ohio App. 1st Dist. 2012)] the tenant was on Section 8 housing assistance that was paying 100% of the rent due, $710.00 per month. The landlord failed to provide the tenant with the notices required by HUD to sign her annual re-certification forms. As a result Section 8 terminated the tenant's rent subsidy. The landlord then filed an eviction against the tenant for not paying the $710.00 rent. The trial court granted the eviction, but it was stayed pending appeal. The appellate court ruled that because the landlord had not complied with the HUD regulations, it was not authorized to increase the tenant's portion of the rent from $0.00 to $710.00. Thus, as no rent was due, the landlord could not evict the tenant for failure to pay rent.
Court Rules landlord not entitled to collect rent !
01 Thursday Aug 2013
Posted Landlord - Tenantin


text:
Texting programs may be a key to chronic disease management, according to a recent study published in JAMA Internal Medicine. Researchers analyzed 16 recent trials on text messaging to promote medication adherence, which means taking medications as prescribed. More than 2,700 patients were included in the analysis. All patients took medication for chronic diseases such as heart disease, HIV, asthma and diabetes.
Through the clinical trials, patients were randomly assigned to either text messaging programs or standard care, which included information on chronic disease management. Interventions lasted anywhere from one to four months, during which time researchers tracked medication adherence.
Overall, researchers found that text messaging more than doubled the odds of medication adherence in patients with chronic diseases. In other words, patients receiving text reminders were more than twice as likely to take their medications as prescribed than those who didn't. Although text message programs differed slightly among studies, text message characteristics didn't significantly impact medication adherence. For example, personalized texts that addressed patients by name were no more effective than universal medication reminders.
The take-home message, as authors explain, is that text messaging has great potential when it comes to chronic disease management. Medication adherence is crucial for the management of chronic diseases, yet only 50% of patients take their medications consistently as prescribed. Poor medication adherence can increase risk for serious complications.
However, experts also highlight the need for additional research on the topic. Many times, medication adherence is measured through surveys, which are not always accurate. Most studies have also been smaller with relatively short follow-up periods. Through larger, well designed studies, experts hope to better understand the impact of texting programs on outcomes for patients with chronic disease.
How can patients help improve medication adherence on their own?
Serious threats to your health can occur when your medication regimen is skipped, modified, or ignored.
Heart disease accounts for 1 in 3 deaths, highlighting an urgent need for prevention and treatment.
The benefits of healthy choices carry long into older adulthood.
This year's most-read patient stories worth a second look.
Visit our "Find a Drug" page »


text:
Price: $8.00
Quantity: 1 available
Book Condition: Good
In the richest neighbourhood of Minneapolis, two elderly women lie murdered in their home, beaten to death with a metal pipe, the rooms ransacked, only small items stolen. It's clearly a random break-in by someone looking for money to buy drugs. But as he looks more closely, Davenport begins to wonder if the items are actually so small or the victims so random, if there might not be some invisible agenda at work here. Gradually, a pattern begins to emerge - and it will lead Davenport to somewhere he never expected. Which is too bad, because the killers - and there is more than one of them - the killers are expecting him.
Title: Invisible Prey #17 Lucas Davenport [used book]
Categories: Crime Fiction,
Publisher: UK, Simon & Schuster Ltd: 2007
ISBN Number: 0743276256
ISBN Number 13: 9780743276252
Binding: Soft cover
Book Condition: Good
Type: Book
Size: Trade Paperback
Kg: 1.00 Kg
Seller ID: 000700


text:
Phoenix Suns, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Officially Open Talking Stick Resort Arena
Published October 9, 2015
PHOENIX – The Phoenix Suns and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC) officially opened the doors to Talking Stick Resort Arena tonight, prior to the Suns' first preseason home game against the Sacramento Kings.
Phoenix Suns President Jason Rowley, SRPMIC President, Delbert Ray Sr., and Phoenix City Manager Ed Zuercher, celebrated the naming rights transition with a ribbon-cutting ceremony on the Talking Stick Resort Arena plaza. Members of the Tribal Council and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community were in attendance for the event, and were the first individuals to enter the facility under its new name.
"The Talking Stick is an emblem of our traditional Pima calendar stick which is used to record significant events that happen for our Community and its members. The Talking Stick Resort Arena name is a nod to this calendar stick," said Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community President, Delbert Ray.
"We want this naming acquisition to be an extension of our branding efforts for the Talking Stick Destination. There is no better partner than the Phoenix Suns to align ourselves with because they are an exceptional organization."
The name change is evident throughout the venue, with Talking Stick Resort Arena being prominent on the exterior of the building; on the underbelly of the center hung scoreboard; on the arena's rooftop; and featured on the Suns and Mercury basketball courts. The naming rights agreement builds upon a 15-year relationship between the Community and the Suns.
"As we tip off our 48th season of Suns basketball, we look forward to continuing a tradition of unforgettable moments and events in an arena that now bears the Talking Stick Resort name," said Suns President Jason Rowley. "Tonight we build upon our historic partnership by opening the doors to Talking Stick Resort Arena, a name which speaks volumes about our respect and appreciation for the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community."
Talking Stick Resort Arena, which opened in 1992, has earned a reputation for excellence, having received a prestigious Prime Site Award from Facilities & Event Magazine as well as a Top 30 ranking for North American Arenas from Pollstar. It hosts an average of 130 events each year with a collective annual audience of one million people. Not only is the arena the home of the Phoenix Suns, but also the three-time WNBA world champion Phoenix Mercury. It is also the home field for five-time arena football world champions, the Arizona Rattlers.


text:
Join us today! We are on an amazing run in both college basketball and the NHL
Start out with a guaranteed 1 day of picks or save on a 1 week package – either way the picks are guaranteed to profit ….
Underground Sports Connection Sports Betting Info 24/7
Team Underground a Team of Sports Handicappers providing clients with winning sports Information daily.


text:
What is the difference between a "claim" and a "lawsuit"?
There is often confusion between the terms "claim" and "lawsuit." Generally speaking, a claim precedes a lawsuit, meaning that a claim comes first, and if the claim cannot be amicably resolved, the claim can result in a lawsuit. The claim can be a personal injury claim, an insurance claim or any other type of situation where one party believes it has been wronged by another. For example, if you enter into a contract with a roofing company and it fails to complete the job or it doesn't do the job correctly, you have a claim against the roofing company. The claim arises when the roofing company fails to perform. Depending on the language in the contract, you may need to do certain things to perfect the claim, but the claim nevertheless exists when the work isn't done or isn't done right.
A lawsuit is a dispute that has been brought to court. Someone who has a claim but believes they haven't been properly compensated can file a lawsuit in court. The party who brings a lawsuit is called the "plaintiff," and the party who is sued is called the "defendant." A lawsuit is sometimes referred to as a "case." Technically, a "case" and a "lawsuit" are the same and are different than a "claim," which comes before a case or a lawsuit.
If you are injured in a car accident and the other driver was at fault in causing the accident, you have a "claim" against the other driver, as a car or motorcycle accident lawyer Delray Beach FL relies on can explain. If attempts are made to settle the claim, but the attempts are unsuccessful, the next step in obtaining fair compensation would be to file a "lawsuit" in court against the other driver. The lawsuit is often referred to as a "case," and the two terms can be used interchangeably.
A lawsuit also differs from a claim because in a lawsuit, a judge oversees the case and a jury may decide the important issues. In a claim, there is no judge or neutral third-party to oversee the process. A lawsuit can also result in an appeal, where one side or the other can ask a higher court to review some of the decisions made by the judge or jury. The appellate court can confirm the decision reached by the judge or jury, can reverse the decision made or can order a new trial on all or some of the issues. The lawsuit and appeal process can take a number of years to reach a conclusion.
Finally, a claim and a lawsuit are different because there really is very little risk to someone in bringing a claim, while there is risk in filing a lawsuit. Bringing a claim doesn't usually cost anything, and if it is denied, there is virtually no risk. On the other hand, a lawsuit costs money to file, and if the case is lost in court, the party bringing the lawsuit can be responsible, in certain types of cases, for the defendant's attorney's fees and costs. These fees and costs can be tens of thousands of dollars or more, resulting in real risk to the party filing the lawsuit.
Thanks to our friends and contributors from The Law Office of Eric H. Luckman P.A. for their insight into the difference between a claim and a lawsuit.
Three Types of Legal Fees
1) Hourly Fees
This is the default way lawyers bill their clients. They charge a certain amount per hour and multiply that by the number of hours worked on the case. It sounds simple, but there are a few things to watch out for before you enter this type of fee agreement. First, what's the hourly rate. It's impossible to say what's fair, but you should try to find out how the rate compares to other lawyers in your market. You want to make sure you're paying a fair rate based on the lawyer's experience. Next, make sure you know what the minimum billing unit is. Most lawyers bill in 6-minute increments, but some bill in anything up to 15-minute increments. Make sure you know what your lawyer's practice is. You don't want to be surprised at your monthly bill.
2) Flat Fees
This is a more modern type of fee agreement where the lawyer agrees to do work for a flat fee regardless of the amount of time it takes. This allows the client to be sure what the price is before getting involved in a case. Flat fees don't work for every type of legal issue though. While they work well for document drafting, simple negotiations, or contract review, they do not work well for complex litigation issues. This is because it is almost impossible to know in advance how long litigation will last. Flat fees are usually very client friendly, but they are only available in limited types of cases.
3) Contingent Fees
Contingent fees is often called "no win no fee." At its most basic, a contingent fee means your lawyer will work without being paid up front in return for being paid a percentage of the settlement or judgment at the end of the case. These fee agreements are complicated though, so you need to know a few things before you sign on. First, you need to know who is responsible for the costs of the case. Depositions and expert witnesses can get expensive quickly. If you are responsible for these fees, the fact that you're not paying your lawyer up front may not mean much. In addition, If you and your lawyer fall out, there are usually provisions in these agreements regarding how the lawyer is to be paid. Often, if you fire your lawyer without cause, you will owe him or her the reasonable value of what the lawyer did for you. Even if the lawyer chooses to end the attorney-client relationship, you may have to pay him or her a portion of the fee at the end of the case.
If you need a lawyer relies on, make sure you understand the type of fee agreement you are signing.
Why was the fourth amendment added to the constitution?
The 4th amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights, and protects against unlawful search and seizure, as a skilled criminal defense lawyer you rely on can explain. The text of the Constitution reads, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The History of the 4th Amendment
While the 4th amendment was written as a result of colonial experiences, its basis goes back to English common law. Dating back to the early 1600s, there was a tradition in England, including in case law, that a "man's house is his castle," such as expressed by Semayne's Case from 1603.
- This case discussed both the right of the homeowner to defend from illegal entry, even by government agents, as well as the right of those agents to be authorized to enter based on the King's process.
- While this falls far short of the 4th amendment's protections, the genesis of the amendment is visible here in the principle that a homeowner has the right to defend their home from unauthorized entry.
About a hundred years after Semayne's Case there was another, very famous and relevant case in England was Entick v. Carrington which was regarding general warrants that did not require specific cause, but were rather regarding all material related to a separate case. The English Supreme Court ruled that kind of warrant invalid because it didn't give an accounting of what was needed to pursue justice. Instead, it was used to access all of a person's papers rather than the ones relevant to what was being investigated. There was no showing or declaration of probable cause.
Writs of Assistance
In the American colonies, the issue was with a specific subcategory of general warrant known as, "writs of assistance." These writs were used to prevent smuggling, by allowing English authorities to enter any business or home and seize smuggled goods. A writ, once issued, was valid through the life of a monarch, and six months beyond that. Following the death of George II, the writs were challenged in the colonies by James Otis. Otis lost, but the arguments he made influenced the future 4th amendment.
Birth of the Basic Principles of the 4th Amendment
The first explicit mention of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures was from Samuel Adams in Boston, in 1772. The document The Rights of the Colonists and a List of Infringements and Violations of Rights was part of the lead up to the Revolutionary War, and was enumerating the rights the colonists had. While the 4th Amendment was over a decade away, the principles it contains were part of the makeup of the political scene of Revolutionary America.
As with much of the Constitution, the 4th amendment has a long backstory that led it to becoming a significant part of the document which forms the basis of the United States' legal system. Over 400 years of history, starting in English common law, have led to the way we interpret the amendment today.


text:
Workout with a partner or alone and blast those arms and ab muscles. Carry a Progression Fitness Medicine Ball while doing lunges or squats with the easy to hold velcro-adjustable handles. Medicine Balls can add to almost any workout and Progression Fitness has them in a variety of weights from 2lbs up to 30lbs.
*Stand Not Included
*The 20 lbs and 30 lbs medicine balls do not have handles and are Blue and Black
|Rubber Medicine Ball, Woven Nylon handles
|2lbs, 4lbs, 6lbs, 8lbs, 10lbs, 12lbs, 14lbs, 15lbs, 16lbs, 18lbs, 20lbs, 25lbs, 30lbs
|All balls (except 20 and 30 lbs) have removeable handles, and colour coded sizes. The 20 and 30 lbs balls are blue/black with no handles
|red/black, yellow/black, blue/black, orange/black, green/black, grey/black
- I think it's expensive as there's so much used products available. I just like the handles
Let's stay fit
Value Quality Price
Write Your Own Review: Progression Fitness Medicine Balls


text:
Check out all our past messages. Watch them again yourself or share with a friend. If you're looking for video of a special guest speaker, you can find it here.
Want to learn more or dig deeper? We have lots of resources available to you to do just that. Check out the thousands of video Bible studies available on Right Now Media, our new podcast, Church Unplugged, and more.
Special Events
From Christmas concerts to conferences, browse our special events page for an archived list of gatherings outside the scope of our typical weekend services.


text:
Ultimate back to campus list
Fall classes start Thursday, Sept. 5, 2019. It's an exciting time, but there's a lot to think about as you prepare for the semester. To make things easier for you, here is a list of resources that support a smooth transition as you arrive on campus.
Getting Started
Find Your Way Around
Although Laurier is known for its small campus size, it's a good idea to familiarize yourself with campus and find your classes in advance to avoid stressing about the location of your classroom on the first day.
Know Important Dates and Documentation
It's up to you to know when to apply to co-op, apply to graduate or to declare a minor. Keep an eye on the academic calendar and stay up to date on important academic deadlines.
Get on top of any documentation you need as soon as possible. This includes administrative forms required to change your program, verify enrolment or register for a course at another university. It can be difficult to understand the forms you're responsible for, but Service Laurier can help – check out their frequently used forms.
Download the SAFEHawk App
Stay safe with real-time alerts about campus safety issues. Using the SAFEHawk app, you can also connect with personal and academic support resources, report outages to building features, reach Special Constables and report suspicious activity.
The SAFEHawk app is available for free download on iPhone, Android and Blackberry devices.
Get your OneCardYour OneCard lets you "bank" online and check your account information. It's also your student identification card. Make sure to get your OneCard as soon as you can.
Stock Your Shelves
If you're living on your own, with roommates or in apartment-style residence, it's always a good idea to stock up on groceries and essentials at the start of the semester. Think condiments, toilet paper and dish soap.
For affordable fresh food, drive or take the bus to the St. Jacobs Farmers' Market on Thursdays or Saturdays. You'll find local vendors selling everything from fresh meat and cheese to breads, fruits and vegetables.
Closer to campus, there is a plaza at the corner of Erb and Bridgeport, where you'll find Walmart, Sobeys and a bulk foods store, Bulk Barn. There is also a Valu-Mart in Uptown Waterloo; a Zehrs at Conestoga Mall; a Zehrs on University Avenue a few minutes east of campus; and Central Fresh Market on King Street West, across from Grand River Hospital.
Show your OneCard when you check out to receive a discount on student discounts days:
- Sobeys: 10% off on Tuesdays, with Air Miles card
- Bulk Barn (all locations): 10% off on Wednesdays
- Valu-Mart: 10% off on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays
- Zehrs (all locations): 10% off on Tuesdays
The grocery store FreshCo is a five-minute walk from campus. You can use your OneCard here. There's also a No Frills and a Metro nearby.
The Brantford Farmers' Market is near the downtown area, less than a 10-minute walk from campus. You can stock up on some fresh goodies on Fridays and Saturdays here.
Buy Your Books
See your booklist for the fall term on the Bookstore's website. Create your own custom book list and purchase your books online or in-store. Books purchased online can be shipped to you or you can pick them up at the store.
Sell Old Books
If you're an upper-year student and would like to sell your books back to the Bookstore, textbook buy-back happens in the first two weeks of September. Stop by the Concourse (Waterloo) or the RCW lobby (Brantford) and sell your used books. See what you will get for your used textbooks at sellmytextbooks.org.
Student Life
Experience O-Week
First-year students: Start your university experience off with an epic week of activities. Meet new people, explore campus, discover our community and come together to raise money for charity. Visit the Students' Union website for a schedule and more information.
Graduate students: Graduate Student Orientation is a one-day event that will get you acquainted with Laurier. Visit the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for more information.
International students: International Student Orientation occurs just before the general Orientation Week. Visit Laurier International's webpage for more information.
Be a Responsible Student
Being part of the Golden Hawk family comes with certain rights and responsibilities as a student. Learn about the Non-Academic Code of Student Conduct and become familiar with the Dean of Students office, which can provide valuable resources to help you succeed at Laurier.
If you're in residence, read the residence policies and procedures. Refer to the Residence Guidebook that will be in your room on move-in day.
Money Matters
Apply for Scholarships, Awards and Bursaries
Upper-year students: To apply for competitive scholarships, awards and bursaries, complete your LORIS student awards profile.
First-year students: If you're applying for a faculty-specific award, check to see when your LORIS profile opens and when the submission deadline is on the Scholarships, Awards and Bursaries page.
Graduate students: Visit the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for more information.
Budget for Student Life
September is the perfect time to create a budget for the academic year. Make your money stretch — know your income, understand your expenses and create a plan to be financially healthy.
Need some help? Sign up for free money management workshops and/or email Laurier's financial literacy specialist at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Get Smart About OSAP
Pay attention to important dates for applying to OSAP. And visit the OSAP website for details about the release of OSAP funds.
Succeed at Laurier
Get Help When You Need It
University can be overwhelming and stressful. But we're here to help you navigate it all. Familiarize yourself with the support services available to you:
- Academic advising
- Accessible Learning Centres
- Incoming student supports
- Indigenous initiatives and services
- International Student Support
- Writing Centres
Take Care of Yourself
Living in residence, late-night studying and the daily stresses of university can lead to unhealthy habits and behaviours. Take care of yourself from the start with support from the Student Wellness Centres, which offer an extensive list of services to meet your health care needs.


text:
Soundtrack review: Angry Video Game Nerd: The movie (Bear McCreary, 2014)
Sooo…back when we were kids, all of us must have had a few favorite foods, ranging from French fries to cakes and soups and weird sandwiches. Occasionally, because we didn't know better, we might have even combined a few of them in the same time, to the dismay of our parents…I mean who puts chocolate cake, French fries and a few sticks of chewing gum on the same plate, and actually enjoys the result? Well…
…I don't know if Bear McCreary did this when he was kid. I don't know how the ones around him reacted if he did, but judging by what I've just listened to, I think the others not only enjoyed what weird combinations he came up with, but actually encouraged him to continue. Bear is all grown up now (I guess) and he went into his studio and decided to have some fun and replicate those moments, but with music genres. He took electronic music, heavy metal music, orchestral music and even a dash of western music and poured them together into the score for "Angry video game nerd: The movie". And, naturally, since he was having so much fun being a kid again, he brought his brother in as well to contribute with two cheesy glam rock songs which made me think of bands like Twisted Sister (just listen to "Nerds before birds". It's 80s rock magic). The result? An insane, funny and awesome movie score which not only pays homage to the early arcade video games and their unforgettable sounds but also to hair metal and the entire nerd culture.
Highlights? Well, just try "Sacred ground on the golden turd". That's one funny and catchy track, and it's way sweeter than it looks. Then, I can only imagine the fun Bear had playing with all this when I listen to the "Source music medley", a track based collection of sounds from the video games we all loved. He took those sound effects and sprinkled chiptunes all through the score. Nostalgia factor is very high on this one for me! I also love the main theme, an action track with a great beat, and some sudden orchestral inserts that make my adrenaline level rise. I actually feel like a poorly drawn 8-bit video game character running from monsters. I also enjoy the fact that it's almost 5 minutes long, because that means my character can't lose a life for that long. And the guitar riff towards the end? Pricelesssssssssss!
"Zandor's tale" is the most special cue of the score for me, because it breaks the mood with some serious suspenseful and dramatic tones. The electronics are at a minimum, and this is the one track that reminds me that this is an album gifted to us by the guy who scores "The walking dead" and who composed one of the most unbelievably awesome themes in recent years, for "Black sails".
My favorite cue though is "Unidentified flying nerd". It opens very grungy and alert…then it suddenly turns into the classic, unmistakable old school flying saucer sound, which is just the prelude to an orchestral madness which breaks again into arcade game sounds and …it really is a magnificent and addictive track.
Bear McCreary proves once again that he is one of the most versatile composers around, and I just can't wait to see what he comes up with next.
P.S. If you liked this score, you might find something similar…nowhere. Absolutely nowhere. It's one of a kind.
My ratings:
Cue score: 70 / 100
Total minutes of excellence: 35 / 78
Album excellence: 44%


text:
As COVID-19 reshapes our economy, our newsletter will help you unpack the news from the day.
Uber and Lyft drivers are banding together to launch a strike on Wednesday in several major American cities. The strike comes just days ahead of Uber's IPO launch, planned for Friday. The drivers are seeking better working conditions, higher pay and a cap on corporate commissions. Frustration among rideshare drivers has been exacerbated by controversial public offerings from Lyft and Uber. In their IPO filings, both companies have described drivers' employment status and pay as threatening revenue. Meanwhile, drivers are divided on whether they should remain independent contractors or fight for the security of full-time employment.
Click the audio player above to hear the full story.
If you're a member of your local public radio station, we thank you — because your support helps those stations keep programs like Marketplace on the air. But for Marketplace to continue to grow, we need additional investment from those who care most about what we do: superfans like you.
Your donation — as little as $5 — helps us create more content that matters to you and your community, and to reach more people where they are – whether that's radio, podcasts or online.
When you contribute directly to Marketplace, you become a partner in that mission: someone who understands that when we all get smarter, everybody wins.
Our daily newsletter unpacks what's happening in the COVID-19 economy and what it means for you.


text:
Home Based Recycling Business
A technological externality exists when the production function of one agent enters another agent's production or utility function, without the latter being compensated (Kolstad, 2000). Environmental externalities (when they affect productive processes such as polluted irrigation water) are, of course, specific examples of the more general case of technological externalities. However, they are by no means the only type of technological externality. In this section, the focus of the discussion is on "non-environmental" technological externalities which tend to reduce recycling rates.
In the area of waste, technological externalities would arise when one firm manufactures a product in such a way which increases the cost of recycling for the downstream processor, but for institutional reasons there is no means by which the potential waste recovery facility can provide the manufacturer with the incentives to change their product design (Porter, 2002 and Calcott and Walls, 2000). An illustrative list of areas in which technological externalities might exist would include the following:
All such product characteristics clearly provide benefits in the "primary" market, or they would not be undertaken. For instance, the use of complex plastic mixes in food packaging which reduce recyclability is used to ensure minimum hygiene standards and reduction of food wastes. Thus, whether or not the examples of technological externalities cited above have adverse impacts on social welfare is dependent upon whether or not the benefits conferred by such designs are greater or less than the costs. Stated differently, would the firms have designed their products in such a way if they could capture the benefits of increased recyclability themselves? As such, in order to identify the existence of a technological externality it is not sufficient to identify attributes of products which restrict recyclability. Many characteristics of products restrict recycling, and even if there were no missing markets firms would continue to design them in such a way.
The externalities will be internalised if subject to a market transaction between those who are deriving benefits and those who are bearing the costs (Kolstad, 2000). For instance, in cases where the manufacturer is linked with the recycler by commercial transactions - as for many types of industrial waste - the potential externality is internalised within the market. Similarly, the problem is likely to be obviated in cases where the waste stream exists within vertically-integrated industrial sectors. In this case internalisation is within the firm itself. In both cases the manufacturer will have incentives to change product design.
This is an area in which the distinction between the environmental externality and the non-environmental externality is particularly subtle. The sub-optimal level of recycling due to technological externalities has nothing to do with any loss of environmental benefits associated with recycling, but rather with the economic costs of not recycling. As such, the externality should be addressed, irrespective of environmental concerns. Of course, the level of recycling would be greater still if efforts to internalise associated environmental externalities favoured recycling over other strategies, but the two failures are quite distinct. Indeed, environmental internalisation may result in lower levels of recycling (if for instance incineration is a more efficient response from the environmental perspective), with technological internalisation pushing in the opposite direction.
There are good reasons to believe that technological externalities arising from the recyclability of product design are endemic in some waste streams due to the prevalence of "missing markets". For instance, for municipal solid waste streams it is only rarely that manufacturers bear the cost of producing goods which cannot be easily recycled. In practice, overcoming the joint presence of environmental externalities and "missing markets" for product attributes is often achieved through the application of single instruments which seek to deal with both problems simultaneously.
Products which are subject to deposit-refund schemes or other forms of extended producer responsibility would be one such example. Indeed, the presence of technological externalities was often the (usually unstated) logic behind product take-back schemes. An alternative is to provide support for "design-for-environment" such as through subsidies for research and development in product designs which are more recyclable. However, this does not address the fundamental problem of missing markets. Incentives have been changed, but in a rather crude manner, which requires large amounts of information for the public authority concerning alternative design options. Nonetheless, for markets which are relatively immature, "design for environment" policies can play an important role in helping to overcome barriers to the market penetration of recycled materials.
Worse still would be support for recycling technologies which reduce the downstream impacts of technological externalities at the recycling stage, without simultaneously affecting the upstream incentives to internalise such externalities. Implicitly, this indirectly provides incentives for the design of products which possess technological externalities. The public authority may find itself "chasing its own tail", providing increased levels of public support for recycling technologies to address technological externalities, generated by firms who face no incentive to design their products for recyclability. Thus, for example, if significant resources are devoted toward the development of sorting technologies to allow for the recycling of complex mixed wastes, product designers and manufactures will be discouraged from redesigning their products even if the net social costs would be less.
A final policy implication in this area relates to the formulation of product standard in light of potentially conflicting public policy objectives. For instance, in areas in which product standards are provided for other reasons related to the public good (i.e. hygiene standards for food packaging), it is important to balance the two objectives (environmental and health) appropriately. The examples cited above concerning the performance standards of certain products derived from construction and demolition waste are relevant in this regard (Papineshi, 2003).
Was this article helpful?
Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success At Helping Save The Earth. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To How To Recycle to Create a Better Future for Our Children.


text: Former education secretary Justine Greening warns cheaper degree plans could stifle social mobility Nicholas Mairs 3 min read18 February 2018 Justine Greening has warned ministers that proposals to make some degrees cheaper than others could see poorer students miss out on courses they want to study. The former education secretary suggested the move mooted by her successor Damian Hinds risked inadvertently hitting the disadvantaged. Writing in the Sunday Times this morning, Mr Hinds said courses that were cheaper to run, less employment-oriented and less value to the economy could be cheaper. The move would usher in fee cuts to arts and social science degrees, while science and engineering subjects could attract a higher rate. However Ms Greening, who was removed from her post in last month's reshuffle, said it could leave poorer students unable to "unlock their potential". "I think the... thing that really matters from my perspective is social mobility," she told ITV's Peston on Sunday. "And making sure that we don't end up with a system where young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds feel like they ought to do one of the cheaper degrees rather than doing the degree that they actually want that will really unlock their potential in future." Ms Greening also said ministers would struggle to work out which degrees were of greater value. "I think they'll have a challenge working out what's a beneficial course," she explained. "I think if you're in the media or creative industries, this is one of our pretty important sectors for the economy, I think that many companies that have [Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] degree skill shortages will sort of wonder whether it is right to make those sort of degrees more expensive." And she suggested interest payments for tuition loans could be abolished in a bid to help poorer students. The intervention comes as the Prime Minister prepares to appoint a chair of the independent panel to review fees – as promised in autumn of last year. The study will look at whether students are paying a fair amount, the efficiency of the current system, and whether students are getting value for money. Former universities minister under the coalition government, Lord Willetts, told the same programme that the main area of reform to focus on in the review should be vocational training and that universities already have "proper funding". "It's the opportunities of the other half of young people who don't go to university and I hope this tertiary review focuses on helping them rather than focusing help on the university bit where we have actually hot proper funding behind the education of young people at university and then not paying up front. "It would be really dangerous if we reduce the unit of resource for the educating people at university because that is something they would notice, they would feel that." Related Coronavirus: Kids eligible for free school meals to get £15 shop vouchers in bid to help struggling parents By Matt Honeycombe-Foster 31 Mar Read the most recent article written by Nicholas Mairs - Public sector workers to get 5% pay rise from April if Labour wins election


text:
If you would like to sell items by auction with Sworders, the first thing we need to do is to provide you with a complimentary auction valuation, whether you are enquiring about a single item or an entire collection.
An auction valuation is an estimate usually given as a price range, e.g. £100-150. This is the range in which our specialist believes the item will sell at auction. It is based upon a range of factors, including past auction results for similar items and market trends.
There are a number of easy-to-use ways to receive a valuation:
Our specialists are on hand to talk you through the process of selling at auction, offering free valuations at each of our locations. We offer an open door policy, though should you wish to discuss an item of a particular specialism, it is advised to call ahead to make an appointment with the appropriate valuer.
Stansted Mountfitchet Auction Rooms - 01279 817778
Hertford - 01992 583 508
London - 0203 971 2500
If your goods are too large to bring in for a valuation, or if you are looking to clear house contents, please contact us and we can arrange for one of our valuers to visit your home.
Our easy to use valuation form allows you to get a valuation from the comfort of your own home. Please click here.
If you would like us to conduct a valuation via email, please send a description of the item, or collection, with image(s), to us at email@example.com. Please note the more information you can provide, the more accurate our valuation will be. Once we have received your email, one of our specialists will be in touch.
Our team of valuers and specialists are available to offer free, professional advice at our Stansted Mountfitchet Auction Rooms, Hertford Office and London Gallery as well as other locations around the country. See our Valuation Day Calendar for more details.
If you have too many items to bring in to us, or if they are too large, fragile or valuable, we may be able to arrange for one of our valuers to visit you free of charge, to provide informal, verbal identification, valuation and sales advice. Contact email@example.com to arrange.
We will charge you a commission on the sale of the Goods calculated as a percentage of the Hammer Price at 17.5% plus VAT, except for Fine Wines and Spirits which will be 12% plus VAT on the first £250 and 8% plus VAT thereafter, unless we agree with you otherwise. There is a minimum commission charge of £7.50 plus VAT per lot.
We reserve the right to photograph all lots for use in cataloguing and marketing unless you specifically request us not to and charge a small fee for this service. The charge will vary in specialist auctions, depending upon the size of the catalogue illustration. A charge of £5 plus VAT per lot will be made on lots entered into the Homes and Interiors auctions.
Please enter your email address below, we will send you a notification email when the sale is available to view online.


text:
5 Reasons to Love The First Dinner 2 Lunch™ Recipe May 10, 2018
Join us in celebrating the official launch of Dinner 2 Lunch™ with this Chorizo and Beef Chili dinner that doubles as a Chili Burrito for lunch — on the menu the week of May 19 – May 25.
1. You only have to cook once, but you can eat twice
For the first meal in this 2-in-1 recipe, there's a hearty beef chorizo chili over rice with all the fixings (we're talking cilantro, cheddar, sour cream, scallions, and even jalapeños). But it get's better, because the next day all that deliciousness, plus a few bonus ingredients, rolls right into a burrito for lunch.
2. You're not just heating up leftovers
Because let's be honest… leftovers can get a bit boring. But with the help of some fresh add-ons that make an appearance only at lunch (in this recipe, there's tortillas and fresh tomatoes), the mid-day meal takes on a whole new meaning.
3. The chili tastes even better the next day
The secret? Giving all those spices in our Enchilada Blend (chili powder, cumin and oregano) time to rest and mingle with each other. This way, by the time lunch rolls around, they'll be best buds.
4. Lunch is easy to transport to work or school
When you're ready to pack lunch, just slice the fresh tomato into thin rounds. Spread tortillas with remaining sour cream, sprinkle with cheddar, then pile on the tomato, chili, jalapeño, rice, and cilantro. Roll into a burrito and place in your lunchbox. Reheat before enjoying, and we promise you'll be the envy of your coworkers.
Don't want to assemble the burrito in the morning? No problem! Store the tomato rounds in one section of your lunch box (or in a plastic bag if your lunch box doesn't have dividers). Keep the chili in another section, and the rice/toppings as well. Then, reheat and assemble at work.
5. It's just the first of many Dinner 2 Lunch™ recipes to come
Because starting May 19, these time-saving, two-in-one, deliciously efficient recipes will be on the menu every. single. week.
Are you thinking what we're thinking? DROP EVERYTHING AND SELECT THE MEAL RIGHT NOW!
25 comments
Where can I purchase the cute lunch box?
Hello, what a great idea! Is it 2 servings for dinner and 2 servings for lunch, or one of each?
Will you be offering the Dinner 2 Lunch option in the veggie plan also?
Are you including extra food? With two teens in the house, we've never had leftovers from a Hello Fresh meal.
We have the family plan (4 people), and I do not see these options listed on my menu choices. When will they be available?
Will this be an option for vegetarians too? (Please?)
Funny because the first order I ever did with Hello Fresh was a month ago and I actually used the other half of the meal for lunch or dinner the next night but put it in a tortilla just to change it up. Ya'll stole my idea. ha ha Just kidding!
I am very disappointed! I thought I had ordered this week's menu (May 14 – 18) and found nothing has been delivered. I am waiting to see if I was billed for this order even though it was never received.
I am seriously considering cancelling all future orders and going back to making my own items.
Please let me know what happened to my order!
This meal isn't available on the family plan. Will you be featuring meals from the family plan in the future?
Hi Jacquline,
I have a classic plan, for 4 people, with three meals a week, but have yet to see any of the Dinner 2 Lunch options on my menu. Is there another setting tjat I need to adjust? Thanks!
Just wondering why we were charged an extra $10 fee last time.
I selected the chorizo dinner2lunch and I'm excited about it, but I don't see a d2l option for the following week. You said "every. single. week," right?
What gives?
Oh! Nevermind, it's just not tagged as D2L with a colorful box this week.


text:
iPhone 5: Will Apple be able to out-innovate everyone again?
This is the first time that Apple will have to "run the table" and dazzle - because iPhone now has some very strong Android competition.
The level of anticipation is absolutely amazing. Whatever Apple announces will have to be super-duper-amazing to live up to even 50% of the hype flying in every direction.
We're not 1,000% sure exactly what they're going to be announcing. Is it one new phone? Or two? Is it a new, top-of-the-line iPhone 5 – or a "super-spec'd" iPhone 4s? Or both? Or maybe neither?
Will there hints about what to expect concerning a third generation iPad? Or maybe a newly revised iPod touch? Possibly sporting a larger screen? That would make it a smaller tablet which might compete with all the soon-to-be-unleashed $199 Android tablets. Then again, maybe none of the above.
Here's what we do know. It's time for Apple to release a new phone design. It's been more than a year since the iPhone 4 was unleashed upon the smartphone buying public. Despite Apple's stupid antenna design fiasco and the Band-Aid fix), the device has been been an unquestionable success. Sales figures are through the roof and climbing.
But, unlike previous years, there is now competition for the Apple phone. Android has caught up in many, many ways. Plus, in a few cases, such as compared to Samsung's Galaxy S-II Epic 4G Touch (could Sprint make that name any longer?) the iPhone is now firmly in second place when it comes to competing for that elusive "Best Smartphone Today" title.
Let's not even begin to discuss the upcoming T-Mobile version of the Galaxy S-II. In addition to a (hopefully) shorter name – this phone will run on T-Mobile's new, "42 Mbps-capable" 4G network, have a dual-core, 1.5 GHz processor (compared to Sprint's 1.2 GHz chip) and will take Samsung's design to a whole new level.
Why do you think Apple has been giving Samsung a difficult time with patents (tablet and otherwise) in other countries? Apple knows a threat when they face one.
The iPhone 5 (or 4s, or both) will need to take advantage of AT&T and Verizon's new 4G/LTE networks to even be considered in the same league as these new super-Androids. Rumors that Apple plans to unveil it's "iCloud" storage scheme is great – but it won't be good enough.
It would also be nice if Apple could perfect voice calls on their phone(s). I know people who love the iPhone 4 (AT&T as well as Verizon models) who still curse their devices when calls are dropped. And that happens a lot more often then with any of the dozens of Android phones I've tested.
On the other hand, Apple seemingly has the semi-official lock on the buying public's hearts and minds all over the world. So as long as they make a few more changes/improvements they will continue to be heralded as the kings of mobile media.
But, this year Apple hears the competition's collective footsteps getting louder and louder. The din must be almost deafening, at this point.