Ask the Law Guy

I was in CompUSA the other day and purchased a printer. Upon picking up the item, I noticed another printer that someone else was returning. On a spur of the moment thought, I actually took both printers with me from the store. I returned the printer I purchased the next day. After reviewing my online bank records a week later, I noted the credit for the returned printer, but also noticed a new charge for the second printer I had taken. Yes, I know I should have returned the second printer. But does the store have the right to charge my credit card after the fact without my permission? If they wanted to prosecute me for the theft, could they do it days later based solely on a video tape? Did the store manager go beyond the law to get even with me or did he do me a favor by running my credit card in lieu of prosecution? What are my rights and should I just bite the bullet and live with it? Also what’s to stop the store from charging my credit card anytime they wanted to? BTW, the second printer was twice the price of the first. I learned my lesson.

Let me get this straight, you stole from the store and you are mad because it charged you for the item you stole. Is that it?

The law frowns on people taking things that do not belong to them. If I was the store manager I would try to get you prosecuted. If there is a video of you stealing the printer, prosecution should be a cinch.

The store did not have the authority to charge your credit card for the printer. A credit card is a three-party contract between you, the issuer (the credit card company) and the merchant. In that contract the merchant agrees to provide the customer merchandise, the issuer pays the merchant and the customer pays the issuer. A credit card holder is only responsible for authorized charges. Since you did not authorize the charge on your account, you can notify the issuer of that and the charge should be removed from your account.

A co-worker of mine is finding himself in some trouble. He has been charged of a bogus check charge to the Pizza Hut for the amount of $47. He has gone to the DA numerous times to try to see the check and verify the signature so he could end this and be done with it. The DA has never showed him the check and to his knowledge he did not have a checking account during this time frame. He is not sure. The DA has charged him and sent him to court. The court told him to get an attorney. He still has not seen the check. If it is his he will pay but now they told him not to pay for it will enter a plea of guilty. I am not sure how the law works on this but shouldn’t he be allowed to see the check before it got this far? How can he go about now to see the check. He has done everything the DA has told him to do and feels he is being led in the wrong direction. Can you help us understand why they are not showing him the check?

Every day ordinary citizens come to court without attorneys thinking that their criminal case is just a small misunderstanding that they should be able to work out without the services of an attorney. Those trusting folks are called "inmates" and "convicted." If you have been charged with a crime, you need an attorney.

At some point your friend should be entitled to see the evidence against him, but he needs advice and representation from a local attorney experienced in criminal defense not a few tips via e-mail.

Is it legal to video tape a visitor in the privacy of my own home - even if the visitor does not know it and the camera is not visible?

The homeowner would be included in the taping - does that make a difference?

The general rule is that a participant in a conversation may record it without the other's knowledge. It would be illegal to install hidden cameras and record conversations that the homeowner was not participating in. It is illegal to record telephone conversations that you do not participate in.

Posting a sign that activities on the property are recorded could be used to show that anyone present on the property consented to the recording.

State laws may further restrict recording.

More on the Federal Wiretap Act.

We recently purchased a new construction and immediately had problems with our neighbor (He drained his pool and washed out the front of my yard). A couple of other issues with his dog occurred and I decided to erect a privacy fence. His fence was over our property line and I asked him several times to move it, twice in writing. After the second letter his wife came over and asked exactly what I wanted done. We walked the ground and she agreed to move the fence. She did not by the agreed upon date so I moved two sections that were on my property. He has now threatened to “be the worst neighbor ever” and to sue me for erecting a privacy fence without consulting him. Anything I can do? I provided him a copy of my survey and pointed out the markers. Talking to him is out of the question since whenever he sees me the first words out of his mouth are, “F%!* You!”

You were entitled to remove the sections of the fence that were on your side of the property line. Unless local ordinances or restrictive covenants say otherwise, you were entitled to build a fence on your side of the property line.

Unfortunately your neighbor is entitled to act like a jackass, as long as he does not otherwise break the law. For extreme situations a civil suit alleging that your neighbor is creating a nuisance might be possible, but it would be impractical for most homeowners.

Our neighbors have 2 young boys riding wheelers right along the edge of our property. If they happen to wreck and roll into our yard, we are responsible? How can we stop us from being liable for that kind of incident? Can we post no trespassing signs? Is this enough to keep us from being held liable for any injury they would accidentally receive on our property?

In most jurisdictions landowners are not liable for an injury just because it happens on their land. Usually landowners have a duty to use reasonable care to prevent injuries to people invited on their property.

You are free to put up "no trespassing" signs, but a fence might be more effective. If a person trespassing on your property on a 4-wheeler was injured, it is unlikely they could successfully sue you.


				*Ask the Law Guy*



	Home