Lifelong Cat Lady
@nikkistar
9 Years10,000+ Posts
Comments: 7399 · Posts: 18799 · Topics: 84
Brainstorm: The DXP Game (new)
GAME 1: The case of the Widow
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. All parties involved live in Texas.
2. The man involved passed away five years ago.
3. Before passing, the man had a child (son) out of wedlock with his ex.
4. The man's son is currently 16 years old.
5. Four months before his son was born, the man met his now widow.
6. Three years after his son was born, the man married his now widow.
7. Four years after his son was born, the ex gained full custody of the son.
8. Before passing, the father saw his son once a month by court order.
9. Before passing, the son exhibited difficulty when visiting the widow and man's house. (Not listening, defiant)
10. Before passing, the ex exhibited difficulty in all interaction with the father,
11. Five years after his son was born, the man and his now widow bought a house jointly.
12. Before passing, the man had a child (daughter) with his now widow.
13. The man's daughter is currently 10 years old.
14. The widow indicates that the son mistreats the daughter, and herself.
15. When the man passed away, his will left everything to his now widow.
16. Following the man's passing, the now widow indicates that she had to begin working again.
17. Following the man's passing, the now widow continued to pay child support for his son for an additional year.
18. Following the man's passing, the now widow indicates that she left mementos to the son, from his father.
19. Following the man's passing, the now widow indicated that she used savings to pay off the house.
20. Currently, the now widow indicates that she is looking to sale the house and relocated to CA.
21. The son's mother (man's ex) is now seeking 25% of the sale price of the widow's house.
22. Before and prior to the man's death, the widow indicates that she has no idea what the relationship between father and son was.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. All parties involved live in Texas.
2. The man involved passed away five years ago.
3. Before passing, the man had a child (son) out of wedlock with his ex.
4. The man's son is currently 16 years old.
5. Four months before his son was born, the man met his now widow.
6. Three years after his son was born, the man married his now widow.
7. Four years after his son was born, the ex gained full custody of the son.
8. Before passing, the father saw his son once a month by court order.
9. Before passing, the son exhibited difficulty when visiting the widow and man's house. (Not listening, defiant)
10. Before passing, the ex exhibited difficulty in all interaction with the father,
11. Five years after his son was born, the man and his now widow bought a house jointly.
12. Before passing, the man had a child (daughter) with his now widow.
13. The man's daughter is currently 10 years old.
14. The widow indicates that the son mistreats the daughter, and herself.
15. When the man passed away, his will left everything to his now widow.
16. Following the man's passing, the now widow indicates that she had to begin working again.
17. Following the man's passing, the now widow continued to pay child support for his son for an additional year.
18. Following the man's passing, the now widow indicates that she left mementos to the son, from his father.
19. Following the man's passing, the now widow indicated that she used savings to pay off the house.
20. Currently, the now widow indicates that she is looking to sale the house and relocated to CA.
21. The son's mother (man's ex) is now seeking 25% of the sale price of the widow's house.
22. Before and prior to the man's death, the widow indicates that she has no idea what the relationship between father and son was.
Question 1:
Based on the facts of this case, would the son be entitled to the 25% of equity in the sale of the house? Give a reason for why you agree, or disagree.
Question 2:
How old was the son when the man passed away?
Question 3:
How old was the daughter when the man passed away?
Question 4:
At what age was the son, when the man and the widow married?
Question 5:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise is the relationship between the ex and the man prior to his death? Give a detailed explanation for why you believe that.
Question 6:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise the relationship between the son and the widow was prior to the man's death? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 7:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise is the relationship between the ex and the widow was prior to the man's death? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 8:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise is the reason the ex has full custody of the son? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 9:
Did the widow provide over and beyond what the son was entitled to, after the man's death? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 10:
Based on the facts of this case, should the son be given anything else, outside of what the widow provided for him? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
(Edit: Questions are all put in)
Based on the facts of this case, would the son be entitled to the 25% of equity in the sale of the house? Give a reason for why you agree, or disagree.
Question 2:
How old was the son when the man passed away?
Question 3:
How old was the daughter when the man passed away?
Question 4:
At what age was the son, when the man and the widow married?
Question 5:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise is the relationship between the ex and the man prior to his death? Give a detailed explanation for why you believe that.
Question 6:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise the relationship between the son and the widow was prior to the man's death? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 7:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise is the relationship between the ex and the widow was prior to the man's death? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 8:
Based on the facts of this case, what would you surmise is the reason the ex has full custody of the son? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 9:
Did the widow provide over and beyond what the son was entitled to, after the man's death? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
Question 10:
Based on the facts of this case, should the son be given anything else, outside of what the widow provided for him? Give a detailed explanation as to why you believe that.
(Edit: Questions are all put in)
Posted by Notmyrealname
Fun! I’m hoping this isn’t a real case btw and I’m not offending anyone here.
It is not a real case, None of my scenarios will be 🙂
Are these your final answers? You may change any if you wish.
Oooh! I can’t wait! Ima get my laptop out for this 💅🏽
No.
Too much thinking 😱🤯🤪
Too much thinking 😱🤯🤪
1. It would highly hinge on whether or not the child support payments the widow provided covered the remaining payment. There's a high likelihood the son would be entitled given the law stating the Obligor's estate would be factored in (given the 6 year discrenpency that the son went without child support).
2. 11
3. 5
4. 3
5. Bitterness and Indifference I would say between the ex and the man. The ex promptly took full custody of the son a year after the man married the now widow. As I understand in order to take full custody the man in thise case must relinquish his wishes for joint custody. There's a strong possibility of disagreement between the man and the ex due to the court ordered visitation which would suggest neither parties have agreed on an arrangement. The other possible arrangement is the abandonment of child support from the man in order for the ex to gain full custody, this is also very likely given how the widow has no notion of the man's relationship to his son.
6. Stemming from above point, possibly a case of abandonment issues and acting out of spite. There'd be too much speculation but from facts known it does not say the son mistreats the man so in all likelihood the son although defiant did not mistreat the father and only the widow and her daughter.
7. From facts known you can only conclude there wasn't any sort of relationship between the ex and the widow. They were never stated to have any interaction and only via proxy through the son. There is a hint of entitlement from the ex's side due to wanting 25% of the sale price and also the fact prior to the man's death the widow did not work and was catered for by the man but not concrete enough to conclude on.
8. Honestly I skimmed the Texas Law but one condition to gain full custody is if the man had relinquished his right as a parent. Given the other avenues to gain full custody it's unlikely the man could fall into any of the other categories. The only other likely prospect is that the man did not meet the requirements to uphold joint custody i.e. abandoning child support payments which can also lead to the ex gaining full custody.
9. No I don't think she paid over and beyond what the son was entitled to. One pertaining fact is that the man had left his inheritence to the widow but by Law if a parent (Obligor) were to pass away before the child reaches adulthood their assets would still be considered a form of collateral. Now it states the widow did continue to pay child support for an additional year but it doesn't state how much she paid so it can be a point of contention. I.e. usual payments would be insufficient, accelerated payment which covers the child up til adulthood would be sufficient.
10. This really depends on point 9. Which I think it's not about whether the son should be given more but what the law dicatates.
Amended final answer: changed my view about the dad and son also reviewed the child support owing. Slight review to widow + ex.
2. 11
3. 5
4. 3
5. Bitterness and Indifference I would say between the ex and the man. The ex promptly took full custody of the son a year after the man married the now widow. As I understand in order to take full custody the man in thise case must relinquish his wishes for joint custody. There's a strong possibility of disagreement between the man and the ex due to the court ordered visitation which would suggest neither parties have agreed on an arrangement. The other possible arrangement is the abandonment of child support from the man in order for the ex to gain full custody, this is also very likely given how the widow has no notion of the man's relationship to his son.
6. Stemming from above point, possibly a case of abandonment issues and acting out of spite. There'd be too much speculation but from facts known it does not say the son mistreats the man so in all likelihood the son although defiant did not mistreat the father and only the widow and her daughter.
7. From facts known you can only conclude there wasn't any sort of relationship between the ex and the widow. They were never stated to have any interaction and only via proxy through the son. There is a hint of entitlement from the ex's side due to wanting 25% of the sale price and also the fact prior to the man's death the widow did not work and was catered for by the man but not concrete enough to conclude on.
8. Honestly I skimmed the Texas Law but one condition to gain full custody is if the man had relinquished his right as a parent. Given the other avenues to gain full custody it's unlikely the man could fall into any of the other categories. The only other likely prospect is that the man did not meet the requirements to uphold joint custody i.e. abandoning child support payments which can also lead to the ex gaining full custody.
9. No I don't think she paid over and beyond what the son was entitled to. One pertaining fact is that the man had left his inheritence to the widow but by Law if a parent (Obligor) were to pass away before the child reaches adulthood their assets would still be considered a form of collateral. Now it states the widow did continue to pay child support for an additional year but it doesn't state how much she paid so it can be a point of contention. I.e. usual payments would be insufficient, accelerated payment which covers the child up til adulthood would be sufficient.
10. This really depends on point 9. Which I think it's not about whether the son should be given more but what the law dicatates.
Amended final answer: changed my view about the dad and son also reviewed the child support owing. Slight review to widow + ex.
Posted by aquasnoz
1. It would highly hinge on whether or not the child support payments the widow provided covered the remaining payment. So I cannot agree or disagree.
2. 11
3. 5
4. 3
5. Bitterness and Indifference I would say between the ex and the man. The ex promptly took full custody of the son a year after the man married the now widow. As I understand in order to take full custody the man in thise case must relinquish it. In all likelihood it was the man who pursued visitation rights given the diffilculty in interaction and communication between the man and his son and ex.
6. Stemming from above point, possibly a case of abandonment issues and acting out of spite. There'd be too much speculation but from facts known it does not say the son mistreats the man so in all likelihood the son although defiant did not mistreat the father and only the widow and her daughter.
7. From facts known you can only conclude there wasn't any sort of relationship between the ex and the widow. They were never stated to have any interaction and only via proxy through the son. There is a hint of entitlement from the ex's side due to wanting 25% of the sale price but not concrete enough to conclude on.
8. Honestly I skimmed the Texas Law but one condition to gain full custody is if the man had relinquished his right as a parent. Given the other avenues to gain full custody it's unlikely the man could fall into any of the other categories. Also given no facts I see no other paths the ex would've taken to gain full custody.
9. No I don't think she paid over and beyond what the son was entitled to. One pertaining fact is that the man had left his inheritence to the widow but by Law if a parent were to pass away before the child reaches adulthood their assets would still be considered a form of collateral. Now it states the widow did continue to pay child support for an additional year but it doesn't state how much she paid so it can be a point of contention. I.e. usual payments would be insufficient, accelerated payment which covers the child up til adulthood would be sufficient.
10. This really depends on point 9. Which I think it's not about whether the son should be given more but what the law dicatates.
You, my friend, are the closest.
I'm reading through everything to see what I missed 😆
Wait am I allowed to review my answers or is this like final final.
Posted by aquasnoz
Wait am I allowed to review my answers or is this like final final.
Yes you can. Just tell me "FINAL" once you do.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
I haven't played a commercial game since 2003 and it is the steam sales.
what should I play?
Who ever can decipher what AYBETBAJ means...wins.
There are no points, no fancy pics, no fancy names...you just have the honor of figuring out what it stands for and will be champion of the world.
Good luck...clock runs out at midnight..
Reeeeee
Hi everyone, ET here and I wanna try to do another Mafia game if possible!
Gonna readjust the amount of players and roles (As some roles aren't possible in a forum section such as ToS and in addition, the vanilla game which I base Mafia off
I will weather the storm of DXP Slowness and host a mafia game. I would even like to do mafia games based on a continuing series over time. So if you have interest let me know..
HOWEVER there is a catch. I can/will only host this game if 4 more people
Pro - I can get an ps4 orignal which is the one I want for super cheap ( $100-150)
Con- not comfortable going to someone's house and playing it first to see if it works
also i don't want to be robbed or killed lol
@nikkistar
@ellesbelles
@Arkansassy
This final challenge is what I like to call...The Tumblr Maze!
At 9:05 I will be PMing you all a link to a tumblr archive. This tumblr archive has clues that will take you to other tumblrs that you need to get
For the final five
@xoxflute
@nikkistar
@ellesbelles
@Arkansassy
@justagirl
You must record a vocaroo advertisement
The ad needs to be at least 1 minute long, but cannot be longer than 2 minutes
In this vocaroo you must make it like an
Its Scavenger Hunt Day!
*You must make a paper with your screen name on it that needs to be in all of the pictures of items that you will take.*
Unlike past Scavenger hunt challenges I have done this one will be in rounds.
Each round will be 10
Will post directions here soon
We get to an apprentice challenge.
But first we need to get to the audience vote. Yesterdays votes were both for advantages tho there is a condition with the second one.
The first ADVANTAGE: This person will not be known publicly. They will get to c
In this game, I have come up with a specific "real" "factual" outcome and events that have occurred. You as the player, must correctly answer the questions that I post that will be included with the facts, in order to win. You will only receive a list of facts. which you will use to answer questions that I post. The winner, will be the person that comes closest to figuring out the scenario's outcome that I have already predetermined as the accurate one.
This game will require various levels of thinking, to get the right "answer". All real life laws, and information is applicable to answering the questions correctly.
If you have questions, please feel free to ask me. This is open for anyone wishing to participate.
Except for @_Dazed this round, as he helped me fine tune this game before I posted it. He will be allowed to do so, on the next series, as I plan for this to be something I will keep doing if people have fun with it
So, can you be DXP's Brainstorm Champ?