[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] Spend time with loved ones. The process for bankruptcy can be brutal. It takes a long time, it can be stressful, and people feel unworthy, guilty and ashamed. There are a number of people who wish to go into seclusion while undergoing the process of personal bankruptcy. However, you will only feel worse about what has happened, which may lead you into depression. Therefore, it is important that you continue to spend quality time with your loved ones despite, in spite of your current financial situation.Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...] Source: financialdata.com
Video: Right Path Business Solutions – Business Bankruptcy Alternatives
Alternatives to Bankruptcy Canada: The Top Five Bankruptcy Alternatives
after bankruptcy assets avoiding bankruptcy bank loans bankruptcy bankruptcy alternatives bankruptcy Canada bankruptcy in canada bankruptcy trustee budget business canada canada bankruptcy canadian bankruptcy collection call consumer proposal credit credit card credit card debt credit cards credit counseling creditors debt debt consolidation debt consolidation loans debt management plan debt settlement declaring bankruptcy economics file bankruptcy filing finance insolvency insolvency law loan loans payday loan personal finance student loan surplus income tax refund top five trustee what you own why Source: bankruptcy-canada.com
Debt Settlement Negotiations as an Alternative to Bankruptcy
Debt settlement companies charge outrageous fees. If you compare what a bankruptcy attorney charges to what a debt settlement company charges, the debt settlement company will almost always be more expensive. Typically, your fee will be several thousand dollars. To make matters worse, these companies will not negotiate with your creditors until they are paid in full. In other words, for the first six months to a year, your monthly payments go directly to the debt settlement company and not your creditors. And forget about the debt settlement company negotiating anything on your behalf until they are paid in full. Source: nationalbankruptcyforum.com
Bankruptcy Alternatives to Try Before Deciding to File
Student loan debt. If you are struggling to pay a large number of student loans, consolidation of these debts may offer some relief. The most important thing when deciding whether to consolidate your student loans is to make sure you get the loan from a reputable company and consider the cost very carefully. They may lower your monthly payments, but these companies will still make money off you by extending the loan for a few years. Do the math and decide whether it is worth it before agreeing to consolidate your student loans. While student loans are currently non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, if you file a Chapter 13 proceeding, it will ease your burdens and you will have an easier time paying them off. Source: stopirsproblemblog.com
What are Bankruptcy Alternatives
Bankruptcy is not the only solution for managing debt; you can also seek help from your creditor in the beginning. If you have good convincing power you will be able to finalize a solution like a payment option which would be different from the current one. Talks are the primary weapons which often work if you can explain your position. If you are able to cut down the monthly payment to minimum by getting rid of late fee, even then you can tackle it. Else, pay heed to some of the solutions suggested here. Source: personalfinancepower.org
Chapter 7 And Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Alternatives
Bankruptcy is a difficult and stressful process, and you will need all the help you can get. Look for a good attorney who can help you through the process. Do not hire based on cost. When it comes to choosing the right attorney, consider quality before cost. Do not choose an attorney until you have interviewed them, checked with the better business bureau and checked their standing with the bar association. You could also sneak into court to watch a real live bankruptcy proceeding to see how that attorney handles the situation. Source: lowapronlinecreditcards.com
Chapter 7 And Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Alternatives
A bad credit score appropriate Funds Assistance loan Online Cash advance loan Cash loan fast cash Mortgages Credit-A Income fast Immediate Aid Financial loans Financial products funds immediately Hard cash Lending Hard cash loans Hard cash Personal loans Immediate cash lent Fast Revenue Low credit score Mini Credit Modest dollars loans Money advance Money Loans Personal loans personal loans on the road Poor credit loan Punished And funds Swift hard cash loans Swift Payday Swift Payday Loan Swift Payday Loans Ways to Choose Loan Source: paydayloansarticle.com
Chapter 7 And Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Alternatives
appropriate Funds Assistance loan Online Below average credit Cash advance loan cash Mortgages Companies loan credit Background credit ratings Cash Emotional stress Financial products funds immediately Hard cash loans Hard cash Personal loans Immediate cash loan fast loan fast Immediate Low credit score Mini Credit Money Loans Payday advance payday advances lending Payday loan Without a job Personal loans personal loans on the road Poor credit Cash Straightforward Hard cash Swift hard cash loans Ways to Choose Loan Source: ownerfinanceinterestrate.com
If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy, you may not be sure where to start. Finding the right bankruptcy attorney to handle your case could be the best way to deal with your bankruptcy questions. In the meantime, before filing for bankruptcy, you might consider other alternatives. A bankruptcy will remain on your record for a long period of time. However, there is a good chance that if you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy, then your credit is probably in bad shape already. A bankruptcy could be your chance to relieve your debts completely and give you a fresh start. According to the revised Bankruptcy Code, an individual is required to attend credit counseling to discuss other options, 180 days prior to the bankruptcy filing case. If bankruptcy is right for you, then you might want to look into what chapter of bankruptcy applies to your case. One of the more popular chapters is a chapter 7 bankruptcy where your debts can be completely liquidated. However, in order to qualify for this chapter, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) demands that individuals take the means test before filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy. The other common chapter is the chapter 13. Individuals who file for this chapter generally have a steady income and will set up a payment plan to pay off their debts. If you are looking to hire a bankruptcy attorney, it would be a good idea to hire someone you can be in direct contact with, versus a paralegal from a large law firm. Once you have selected a bankruptcy lawyer, you could then set up a meeting time to discuss your bankruptcy case and your best strategy going forward. Your attorney may also provide you with the means test. The cost for a bankruptcy attorney will also vary. Some attorneys require a flat fee, while others will let you pay them in installments. The fees will also depend on your location. In some instances, you may be able to file for free, but if you decide to file for a chapter 7, then you will most likely have to pay your attorney fees before your case is filed. In a chapter 13, your attorney fees may be included in your payment plan that you have laid out in your file. You can talk with your attorney about fees and the associated costs with filing for bankruptcy to get a better idea of what you will be paying up front. Once you have a bankruptcy attorney secured, you may then direct your creditors to his or her office. Your bankruptcy attorney will most likely handle all your creditor calls on your behalf and the automatic stay will go into effect. This automatic stay prohibits creditors from contacting you to harass you about your debts. Creditors are most likely held liable if they violate the automatic stay in which case you could be awarded for punitive damages. When your file is submitted, you may get a letter in the mail for a creditor meeting, also known as the 341 meeting. This meeting will enable the trustee of your file to ensure with you that your file is truthful and that you understand the terms of a bankruptcy. Your bankruptcy attorney will probably go over all of your listed debts with you prior to this meeting so that you can be prepared. Your answers in the meeting may be recorded, but on average, the meeting will last only approximately 10 minutes. Your trustee may then decide which assets are exempt and which are non-exempt. If there are assets listed that are considered non-exempt, these properties may be sold. In a chapter 13 bankruptcy, you may enter a three to five year plan that involves paying back your creditors over time. While you are filing for bankruptcy, it would be a good idea to discontinue using your credit cards as well. If you use these, your creditor may utilize this against you in a lawsuit by challenging your right to a debt discharge. In most bankruptcy cases, your creditors will have sixty days from your meeting to challenge the discharge of your debts. If no lawsuits are filed, you may receive a discharge of your debts. In a chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can be notified anywhere from thirty to sixty days after your last payment and the trustee declares that your plan has been completed. Keep in mind that not all debts can be discharged in a bankruptcy, including student loans and specific taxes. Discharged debts usually depend on certain bankruptcy provisions and whether your creditor persuaded the judge to not discharge a particular debt. In any bankruptcy case, it would be a good idea to hire an attorney who can help you through the bankruptcy process so that you can hopefully be debt and stress free. Source: lawadvicenow.com Source: bankruptcyforumco.com Source: bankruptcycaliforniaco.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcycaliforniaco.com Source: insolvencyco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
Video: Bankruptcy for Dummies – Part 1
Advice On Personal Bankruptcy For Dummies
If you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy, you may not be sure where to start. Finding the right bankruptcy attorney to handle your case could be the best way to deal with your bankruptcy questions. In the meantime, before filing for bankruptcy, you might consider other alternatives. A bankruptcy will remain on your record for a long period of time. However, there is a good chance that if you are thinking about filing for bankruptcy, then your credit is probably in bad shape already. A bankruptcy could be your chance to relieve your debts completely and give you a fresh start. According to the revised Bankruptcy Code, an individual is required to attend credit counseling to discuss other options, 180 days prior to the bankruptcy filing case. If bankruptcy is right for you, then you might want to look into what chapter of bankruptcy applies to your case. One of the more popular chapters is a chapter 7 bankruptcy where your debts can be completely liquidated. However, in order to qualify for this chapter, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA) demands that individuals take the means test before filing a chapter 7 bankruptcy. The other common chapter is the chapter 13. Individuals who file for this chapter generally have a steady income and will set up a payment plan to pay off their debts. If you are looking to hire a bankruptcy attorney, it would be a good idea to hire someone you can be in direct contact with, versus a paralegal from a large law firm. Once you have selected a bankruptcy lawyer, you could then set up a meeting time to discuss your bankruptcy case and your best strategy going forward. Your attorney may also provide you with the means test. The cost for a bankruptcy attorney will also vary. Some attorneys require a flat fee, while others will let you pay them in installments. The fees will also depend on your location. In some instances, you may be able to file for free, but if you decide to file for a chapter 7, then you will most likely have to pay your attorney fees before your case is filed. In a chapter 13, your attorney fees may be included in your payment plan that you have laid out in your file. You can talk with your attorney about fees and the associated costs with filing for bankruptcy to get a better idea of what you will be paying up front. Once you have a bankruptcy attorney secured, you may then direct your creditors to his or her office. Your bankruptcy attorney will most likely handle all your creditor calls on your behalf and the automatic stay will go into effect. This automatic stay prohibits creditors from contacting you to harass you about your debts. Creditors are most likely held liable if they violate the automatic stay in which case you could be awarded for punitive damages. When your file is submitted, you may get a letter in the mail for a creditor meeting, also known as the 341 meeting. This meeting will enable the trustee of your file to ensure with you that your file is truthful and that you understand the terms of a bankruptcy. Your bankruptcy attorney will probably go over all of your listed debts with you prior to this meeting so that you can be prepared. Your answers in the meeting may be recorded, but on average, the meeting will last only approximately 10 minutes. Your trustee may then decide which assets are exempt and which are non-exempt. If there are assets listed that are considered non-exempt, these properties may be sold. In a chapter 13 bankruptcy, you may enter a three to five year plan that involves paying back your creditors over time. While you are filing for bankruptcy, it would be a good idea to discontinue using your credit cards as well. If you use these, your creditor may utilize this against you in a lawsuit by challenging your right to a debt discharge. In most bankruptcy cases, your creditors will have sixty days from your meeting to challenge the discharge of your debts. If no lawsuits are filed, you may receive a discharge of your debts. In a chapter 13 bankruptcy, you can be notified anywhere from thirty to sixty days after your last payment and the trustee declares that your plan has been completed. Keep in mind that not all debts can be discharged in a bankruptcy, including student loans and specific taxes. Discharged debts usually depend on certain bankruptcy provisions and whether your creditor persuaded the judge to not discharge a particular debt. In any bankruptcy case, it would be a good idea to hire an attorney who can help you through the bankruptcy process so that you can hopefully be debt and stress free. Source: lawadvicenow.com Source: bankruptcyforumco.com Source: bankruptcycaliforniaco.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcycaliforniaco.com Source: insolvencyco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com
springtime clair: Bankruptcy auto loans Milwaukee ?
This entry was posted on Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 1:42 am and is filed under Bankruptcy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Source: blogspot.com
ethelyn cyder: Bankruptcy auto loans Milwaukee ?
This entry was posted on Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 1:42 am and is filed under Bankruptcy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Source: blogspot.com
travel tickets cheap: Bankruptcy auto loans Milwaukee ?
This entry was posted on Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 1:42 am and is filed under Bankruptcy. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Source: blogspot.com
personal bankruptcy laws for dummies
P Caher, John M Caher, including new & used copies, rare, out-of-print signed editions, and … With tips on understanding — and surviving — the new bankruptcy laws If you’re personal bankruptcy laws for dummies considering bankruptcy, you need straightforward answers and reliable advice. This … Amazon.com: Personal Bankruptcy for Dummies (0785555112735): James P. Caher, John M. Caher: Books … Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies by James P. Caher Paperback AbeBooks.com: Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies®, 2nd Edition: New Download Free eBook:Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies – Free chm, pdf ebooks rapidshare download, ebook torrents bittorrent download. Recent Posts. Kodak files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after all; How much does bankruptcy cost? Louisa Hillsman: Is Bankruptcy right for me? Resorting to Bankruptcy … James P. Caher, a practicing attorney with 30 years of experience, is a nationally recognized expert on consumer bankruptcies and authority on the Bankruptcy Abuse … Recent Posts. Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies online; What the New Bankruptcy Laws and Tort Reform Have in Common; Beware of Bankruptcy through Online Identity Theft sources: 49728 Source: posterous.com
Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies read online
This. you will learn about the major changes in bankruptcy law,. Personal Bankruptcy. Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies, 2nd Edition: James P. Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies – Prevent Foreclosures This book called Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies has tips on understanding. This book is divided into three sections:. Get the Book. Caher.. Personal Finance – Books Downloads on iTunes The Smartest Retirement Book You’ll Ever Read; The One Minute Millionaire; The Smartest Portfolio You’ll Ever Own;. This book called Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies has tips on understanding. This. Personal Finance Tax Law i.e., each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND. From Personal Bankruptcy Laws For Dummies, 2nd Edition by James P. Recommendations On Personal Bankruptcy For Dummies Recommendations On Personal Bankruptcy For Dummies.. Get to Know Us. Amazon.com: Personal Bankruptcy for Dummies (0785555112735):. Caher, John M. Alibris has Personal Bankruptcy Laws for Dummies and other books by James P Caher, John M Caher, including new & used copies, rare, out-of-print signed editions, and Source: typepad.com
Many are debating the breadth of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern. The arguments are interesting and, in some instances, mind-numbing. For today, I leave those arguments to others because I believe that the issue before me can be more simply, and practically, decided. It would be incredibly ironic for this Court to lack constitutional authority to finally determine the Trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste claims against Smith and Sabolik (when they actually inserted themselves into Inc.’s bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim) as the Supreme Court has clearly held in Stern, but to have constitutional authority to finally determine the Trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty claims (arising from substantially the same acts or failures to act) against Linehan, the Outside Directors, and Letson, who chose not to involve themselves in the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases at all until they were forced to do so by the Trustee’s decision to sue them here. As a practical matter, this Court concludes that such a result is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Stern. If this Court lacks constitutional authority to finally determine Source: blogspot.com
Video: The Office – I declare bankruptcy! Michael Scott
Will I lose my stocks in Bankruptcy: I intend to claim bankruptcy …
As part of the bankruptcy your trustee will have to look to liquidating those stocks as part of the bankruptcy process. If they have no re-sale value then at the end of the bankruptcy you can arrange with your trustee for those stocks to be turned back over to you. Source: bankruptcy-canada.ca
Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Claims
The Virginia Supreme Court took up the question of whether the plaintiff had standing to file her personal injury claim. In analyzing the facts, the Virginia Supreme Court held that during the time from when the plaintiff filed bankruptcy about one and a half years after her car accident until the time that the bankruptcy court exempted the personal injury claim about five years after the car accident, the personal injury claim “belonged” to the bankruptcy trustee. As a result, while the trustee could have filed the personal injury claim on the plaintiff’s behalf, the plaintiff lacked any right or “standing” to file the claim. The lawsuits that the plaintiff filed were held to be “legal nullities” that did nothing to prevent the expiration of the two year statute of limitations governing the plaintiff’s personal injury claim. Source: allenandallen.com
Contract Claims Not Necessarily an Ace for Parties Challenging Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction Under Stern
The Second Circuit immediately found that the proceeding was core with respect to the postpetition contracts at issue and noted that these contracts were part of the estate. It found that the proceedings regarding the prepetition contracts were also core because the nature of the proceeding would likely “‘directly affect a core bankruptcy function.’” Specifically, a determination on the scope of the insurance policies would have the effect of defining whether claims asserted against the debtor in the bankruptcy case by both the insurers and the agencies were valid. For example, if the group of workers’ compensation claims in issue were covered by the policies, then the insurers would have a substantial reimbursement claim against the debtor, and the claims asserted by the agencies against the debtor would not be allowed because those claims would instead run against the insurers. The court also held that determination of the adversary proceeding concerned the administration and liquidation of the estate, core bankruptcy functions, because it could have a substantial effect on the estate and the priority of creditors that could “‘set the table for the determination of matters under chapter 11.’ Source: weil.com
Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Claims
Texas, Gonzalez de la Garza Genealogy Collection Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 Washington State County Land Records, 1852-1935 Washington State County Probate Case Files, 1832-1950 Washington State County Records, 1885-1950 Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Public Library Records, 1848-1980 New images have been added to the following databases unless otherwise noted: Australia, Queensland Cemetery Records, 1802-1990 Australia, Tasmania, Miscellaneous Records, 1829-1961 Austria, Seigniorial Records, 1537-1888 Bolivia, Catholic Church Records, 1566-1996 Brazil Civil Registration, 1870-2009 Canada, Ontario Births, 1869-1912 (Index records) Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Canada, Saskatchewan, Judicial District Court Records, 1891-1954 Canada, Saskatchewan, Probate Estate Files, 1887-1931 Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Chile, Santiago, Cementerio General, 1821-2010 China, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-1900 Colombia, Catholic Church Records, 1600-2008 Costa Rica, Civil Registration, 1860-1975 Czech Republic, Censuses, 1843-1921 Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1935 Czech Republic, Land Records, 1450-1850 Czech Republic, Třeboň, Nobility Seignorial records, 1664-1698 Dominican Republic Civil Registration, 1801-2006 El Salvador, Civil Registration Records, 1836-1910 England and Wales Census, 1871 England, Norfolk Parish Registers, 1538-1900 (Index records and images) Estonia, Church Books 1835-194 Germany Marriages, 1558-1929 (Index records) Germany, Bavaria, Dinkelsbühl Miscellaneous City Records, 1804-1946 Germany, Württemberg, Albstadt, Miscellaneous City Records, 1705-1850 Guatemala, Catholic Church Records, 1581-1977 Hungary Catholic Church Records, 1636-1895 (Index records) Hungary Reformed Church Christenings, 1624-1895 (Index records) Hungary, Civil Registration, 1895-1980 Italy, Bologna, Bologna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Catania, Caltagirone, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1861-1941 Italy, Catania, Catania, Civil Registration (Comune), 1820-1905 Italy, Cuneo, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1795-1915 Italy, Genova, Chiavari, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Napoli, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1809-1865 Italy, Pistoia, Pistoia, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Ravenna, Ravenna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Trieste, Trieste, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1924-1939 Jamaica, Civil Birth Registration Korea, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-2009 Mexico, Morelos, Civil Registration, 1861-1920 Micronesia, Pohnpei, Land Records, 1971-2007 Nicaragua, Diocese of Managua, Catholic Church Records, 1740-2008 Norway Census, 1875 (Index records) Peru, Civil Registration, 1874-1996 Philippines, Civil Registration (National), 1945-1980 Poland, Roman Catholic Church Books, 1600-1950 Portugal, Aveiro, Catholic Church Records, 1550-1911 Portugal, Aveiro, Passport Registers, 1882-1965 Portugal, Aveiro, Testaments, 1900-1936 Portugal, Braga, Catholic Church Records, 1530-1911 Portugal, Bragança, Catholic Church Records, 1541-1985 Portugal, Coimbra, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Coimbra, Passport Registers and Application Files, 1835-1938 Portugal, Diocese of Lamego, Catholic Church Records, 1532-1911 Portugal, Diocese of Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1575-1975 Portugal, Faro, Catholic Church Records, 1587-1880 Portugal, Guarda, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Catholic Church Records, 1534-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Passport Registers, 1861-1901 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1535-1949 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1582-1908 Portugal, Setúbal, Catholic Church Records, 1555-1911 Portugal, Viana do Castelo, Catholic Church Records, 1537-1909 Portugal, Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1533-1941 South Africa, Orange Free State, Estate Files, 1951-2004 South Africa, Reformed Church Records, 1856-1988 Spain, Cádiz, Testaments, 1550-1920 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Municipal Records Sweden, Älvsborg Church Records, 1642-1897; index 1681-1860 Sweden, Blekinge Church Records, 1612-1916; index 1646-1860 Sweden, Gävleborg Church Records, 1616-1908; index 1671-1860 Sweden, Göteborg och Bohus Church Records, 1577-1932; index 1659-1860 Sweden, Gotland Church Records, 1582-1940; index 1655-1860 Sweden, Halland Church Records, 1615-1904; index 1615-1860 Sweden, Jämtland Church Records, 1582-1928; index 1642-1860 Sweden, Jönköping Church Records, 1581-1935; index 1633-1860 Sweden, Kalmar Church Records, 1577-1907; index 1625-1860 Sweden, Örebro Church Records, 1613-1918; index 1635-1860 Sweden, Skaraborg Church Records, 1612-1921; index 1625-1860 United States: Alabama State Census, 1855 (Index records) Alabama State Census, 1866 (Index records) Alabama, County Estate Records, 1800-1996 Alabama, Sumter County Circuit Court Files, 1840-1950 California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (Index records) California, San Francisco Area Funeral Home Records, 1835-1931 California, San Francisco County Records, 1824-1997 California, San Mateo County Records, 1856-1967 Connecticut, Death Index, 1949-2001 (Index records) Delaware, Vital Records, 1680-1962 District of Columbia Marriages, 1811-1950 (Index records and images) Florida Marriages, 1830-1993 (Index and images) Florida, Tampa, Passenger Lists, 1898-1945 Georgia Headright and Bounty Land Records, 1783-1909 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Minidoka County Records, 1913-1961 Illinois, Probate Records, 1819-1970 Indiana, Death Index, 1882-1920 (Index records) Indiana, Marriages, 1811-1959 (Jay and Hamilton counties) (Index records) Kentucky, Confederate Pension Applications, 1912-1950 Kentucky, County Marriages, 1797-1954 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Orleans Parish Vital Records, 1910, 1960 Louisiana, Parish Marriages, 1837-1957 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Second Registration Draft Cards, compiled 1948-1959 Maine, State Archive Collections, 1790-1966 Maine, Washington County Courthouse Records, 1785-1950 Maryland, Garrett County Probate Estate and Guardianship Files, Source: blogspot.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Your Blog Connection: Bankruptcy in Omaha
An Omaha Bankruptcy Attorney will provide you with a sense of relief. If you’ve tried everything else, and if you have paid the interest rate so many times your $1200 worth of necessities has now cost you more than $5000, you owe it to yourself to find a Nebraska Bankruptcy Lawyer who will provide for you a fresh start. Click any of the links in this blog to find one. Source: blogspot.com
Business News : Insight: China pays high price to spare state firm from bankruptcy:LATEST NEWS TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE
“Even if a Chinese bank wanted to try to petition for bankruptcy on a creditor claim, my strong suspicion – especially if it’s a high-profile situation – is that the court is unlikely to accept the petition unless the relevant local government is prepared to let this happen,” said Neil McDonald, a Hong Kong-based partner at law firm Hogan Lovells, who is currently working on the bankruptcy of Sino-Forest Corp. Source: blogspot.com
Octomom Bankruptcy Tossed after Failing to Complete Petition
Suleman’s initial filing included a list of over 20 creditors which includes a Christian school, her father and unpaid utilities. As far as not completing the petition, the Orange County Register reports that when she originally filed her claim she was given a deadline by the bankruptcy court to submit required documentation by Monday, May 14th. The deadline has come and gone with court records showing no contact from the mom of 14 kids. Suleman became famous in January 2009 after giving birth to eight babies. They were conceived using fertility treatment while she already had six children. She doesn’t have steady employment but reports claim she has been posing topless for photos. Source: allmandlaw.com
Derivatives: The risk that still won’t go away (Fortune 2009)
It was the earliest casualty of these, Bear, that brought a new concept—”too interconnected to fail”—to the forefront. Going in, the government really did not want to save the company. Robert Steel, a ranking member of Henry “Hank” Paulson’s U.S. Treasury team, remembers the case against a rescue: “Gee whiz, this isn’t a depository institution. It should just go out of business.” Nor was it that Bear was a colossus in derivatives: Its book at the end of the company’s 2007 fiscal year (its last) had a notional value of “only” $13.4 trillion, compared to $85 trillion for the giant among U.S. derivatives dealers, J.P. Morgan. Bill Winters, co-head of investment banking at J.P. Morgan, says that in Bear’s last week—as the firm teetered between bankruptcy and being bought by his company—he even worried less about derivatives than he did about the many billions that the firm borrowed every day on its assets in the overnight loan market. If Bear went bankrupt, Winters could imagine all those assets being calamitously dumped on the market. Source: cnn.com
Again, for most people struggling with debt, bankruptcy may the one financial investment that can give you the fresh start you need. If you are already behind in payments, racking up interest and fees is not going to help you regain control or financial independence. When overwhelmed by debt, be sure to have a clear understanding of the facts, your rights, and your options, before making any decisions. Source: orlandobankruptcylawblog.com
Video: Florida Bankruptcy Laws – Are You Safe
Orange County Florida Bankruptcy Records
After a short online search I found the bankruptcylive website. The fee wasn’t painful even if it didn’t work. But it DID work! In less time than PayPal could email me complete billing documentation I received my discharge documents. Source: diigz.com
Order and Receive Copy of Florida County Court Bankruptcy Records Online Same Day
Do not have a copy of your Florida bankruptcy discharge papers from the court? No problems. You can possess an exact copy of the original Florida bankruptcy court documents. Your Alaska bankruptcy court records and documents are readily available after bankruptcy discharge and you can have it in your possession within minutes of your order. We offer retrieve copy of your official Florida discharge order, Florida bankruptcy papers , list of creditors, complete petition file and schedules. Source: bankruptcylive.com
Tampa Bankruptcy Court OKs Lien Stripping in Chapter 20 Without Discharge
To be precise, there is no such thing as a Chapter 20 filing within the Bankruptcy Code. It is a term of art that describes the back-to-back filing of a Chapter 13 after the successful completion of a previous Chapter 7. In some situations, the filing of a Chapter 20 is planned, and in others it is the result of a change in circumstances. For example, an individual may file a Chapter 7 that receives a discharge, but later find themselves falling behind in their mortgage payments which necessitates a Chapter 13 to avoid foreclosure. Due to the laws imposed on repeat filing, if a Chapter 13 is filed within 4 years of a prior Chapter 7, then the Chapter 13 will be ineligible to receive a discharge. Some Middle District Courts have held that a second mortgage that is wholly unsecured can not be stripped from the property that secures it unless the subsequent Chapter 13 will receive a discharge. See In re Gerardin, 447 B.R. 342 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) and In re Quiros-Amy, 456 B.R. 140 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) Source: jtmlawfirm.com
Bankruptcy filing can help even Florida’s middle
In Florida, where a significant portion of the population requires significant or long-term care, bankruptcy provides a multitude of options. Depending on your situation, you may actually find bankruptcy to be the best course of action or offer the most protections. For example, a Chapter 7 filing allows an individual to keep certain exempt property, although the value amount which can be claimed as exempt varies from state to state. In addition, certain types of debt may be eligible to be legally discharged by the Chapter 7 proceeding. Source: tampabankruptcylaws.com
Helpful Information to Florida Bankruptcy Solutions
• In Product 4(a), list all legal cases and administrative process to which the particular debtor was a party within 12 months before submitting the bankruptcy case. This consists of separation and divorce proceedings and also state as well as federal management procedures. List every fit or even administrative proceeding an incident quantity individually, a description of the character from the going forward, the courtroom or even firm and location of the continuing, and also the status regarding any kind of pending proceeding or the disposition (final result) associated with any kind of proceeding. Wedded Part 12 as well as 13 borrowers should include details about both or even both equally spouses whether the joint request is actually filed, except if the actual partners tend to be separated along with a joints request is not really submitted. Source: honestreviewsonline.org
Don’t Max Out Your Credit Cards and Then File Bankruptcy
Eric Lanigan and Roddy Lanigan of Lanigan & Lanigan, P.L., are lawyers in Winter Park, Florida, who provide legal representation to clients in Central Florida regarding bankruptcy, business and civil litigation, criminal law, foreclosure, immigration, mortgage workouts, personal injury, security and investment losses to clients in Florida including Altamonte Springs, Boca Raton, Cape Canaveral, Clearwater, Cocoa Beach, Daytona Beach, Deland, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Meyers, Gainesville, Heathrow, Jacksonville, Jupiter, Kissimmee, Lake Mary, Maitland, Melbourne, Miami, Mount Dora, Naples, New Smyrna Beach, Ocala, Orlando, Palm Beach, Sanford, St. Petersburg, Tampa, The Villages, Vero Beach, Windermere, Winter Park, Winter Springs. Eric Lanigan and Roddy Lanigan practice law in Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Polk County, Seminole County, Sumter County and Volusia County. Source: laniganpl.com
March foreclosures climb for Florida homeowners
A recent report from CoreLogic revealed that national foreclosures increased slightly in March, though they were still significantly lower than rates in March of 2011. According to the CoreLogic National Foreclosure Report, March saw approximately 69,000 homes enter foreclosure in March, an increase of 3,000 compared to February. March’s mortgage delinquency rate, recorded by CoreLogic at 7.0 percent, was unchanged compared to February. The mortgage delinquency rate represents the proportion of American mortgage holders who are at least 90 days behind on their scheduled payments. Source: ftlauderdale-bankruptcyattorney.com
Florida Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Unraveled
Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs‟ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, was assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 According to plaintiffs, the district attorney‟s office opened its criminal investigation against plaintiffs that day. POBRA provides a one-year statute of limitations for bringing of police misconduct charges. The time runs from discovery of the misconduct. (§ 3304, subd. (d).) Section 3304, subdivision (d)(1) tolls the limitations period while a criminal investigation or prosecution is pending. On December 2, 2002, Losorelli asked LAPD superiors to toll the statute of limitations against plaintiffs because of the pending criminal investigation. He asked that the period be tolled from his August 15, 2002 meeting with the district attorney‟s office until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was terminated on February 11, 2003, when the deputy district attorney in charge of the case elected not to seek a grand jury indictment. Personnel complaints against plaintiffs were filed at the Los Angeles Police Commission on August 3, 2003, alleging misconduct arising from the February 2002 arrest. They were served the next day. On August 3, 2004, a board of rights found plaintiffs guilty of misconduct and recommended that they be discharged. On September 29, 2004, the chief of police adopted the recommendation that plaintiffs be terminated for failure to report the use of force against a suspect. The chief signed orders removing them from employment, effective that day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) on December 14, 2004 seeking review of their terminations. They alleged that Losorelli furnished a false declaration regarding tolling, which was used by defendant in responding to the petition. Allegedly, Losorelli knew that pursuant to a policy of LAPD and the district attorney‟s office, only the latter was authorized to open a criminal investigation against sworn personnel. According to the complaint, the district attorney‟s office opened the criminal investigation against plaintiffs on October 2, 2002. Plaintiffs allege: “Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that his investigation against plaintiffs was considered a criminal investigation from the beginning (as of February 2, 2002). Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that he first presented the case against plaintiffs to [the deputy district 4 attorney] for possible criminal filing at a July 31, 2002 meeting, when this meeting actually took place on August 15, 2002.” Allegedly, with knowledge that the August 3, 2003 personnel complaints against plaintiffs were time-barred, Losorelli presented a false declaration in the mandamus action “with the intent of fraudulently extending the tolling period for criminal investigations” authorized by section 3304, subdivision (d) “and with the malicious intent to deprive plaintiffs of their rights,” and further employment with the LAPD. According to plaintiffs, they discovered Losorelli‟s wrongful conduct on July 25, 2007, after the administrative mandamus proceeding was concluded. They do not explain the circumstances of that discovery. Plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate was denied by the trial court. The court found the weight of evidence at the administrative hearing supported the decision to terminate plaintiffs. It identified the application of the POBRA statute of limitations as “the main legal issue in the case.” The court noted that both sides had submitted documentary evidence and declarations on the limitations issue, and that no objection to this evidence was made by either side. The trial court found: “The disciplinary action against the petitioners is not barred by the limitations provision of the POBR” because of the tolling provision in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1). The court stated that charges were served on plaintiffs 18 months and two days after the alleged misconduct. It found: “The alleged misconduct was the subject of a criminal investigation that commenced on or before July 31, 2002, when an LAPD investigator met with the District Attorney regarding the matter, and which did not end until February 11, 2003, when the District Attorney decided not to ask the grand jury for an indictment because of the lack of evidence. The one-year limitation period was therefore tolled for six months and eleven days. The investigation was therefore completed and notice of charges were served upon the petitioner[s] within the 5 twelve month period required by section 3304(d).” No appeal was filed from the denial of the petition for administrative mandate and that order is now final.3 Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this separate action seeking reinstatement on September 27, 2007. They filed a first amended complaint which was the subject of a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint dropped the claim for reinstatement, and, instead sought damages against the City for violation of POBRA. City responded with a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. At the first hearing on the motion, the trial court requested additional briefing on whether perjury in a prior proceeding may be the basis for a collateral attack on the judgment. After supplemental briefing on that issue, a second hearing was held. The court found: “The gravamen of this lawsuit is an action under Government Code section 3309.5, but it‟s based upon plaintiffs‟ claim for perjury in the underlying action in the mandamus proceeding.” The court observed that the weight of California authority is that perjury is not a basis for collateral attack on a judgment. It found “that since the gravamen of the complaint in this case is perjury in a prior proceeding and further based upon the principles of law that perjury in a prior proceeding, which is intrinsic fraud, is not grounds for collateral attack, the court is going to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Judgment was entered in favor of City. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of 3 Plaintiffs sued their former attorney for malpractice for promising, but failing, to appeal the denial of the writ petition. We are not informed of the outcome of that action. 6 action under any theory. [Citation.]” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1298.) The issue presented is whether the action for damages under POBRA is barred by the final judgment following denial of plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Plaintiffs argue they are not collaterally attacking the mandate judgment, which is final, and therefore the doctrines of finality of judgments and collateral estoppel do not apply. Their theory is that their procedural rights under POBRA were thwarted by the alleged perjury by Sergeant Losorelli. Rather than seeking reinstatement to the LAPD, plaintiffs now seek damages for emotional distress, lost earnings and benefits (including pensions), both past and future. They also seek a civil penalty of $25,000 under section 3309.5, and costs of suit. Finally, plaintiffs seek “an order of injunctive or extraordinary relief that the court deems necessary and just to prevent such future similar actions on the part of defendants against other employees.” A. POBRA POBRA “sets forth a list of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers (see § 3301) by the public entities which employ them. (§§ 3300 et seq.) „It is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).‟ (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 135.)” (Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1600, fns. omitted (Gales).) Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint alleges an action under section 3309.5, which provides a private right of action for police officers who claim a violation of their rights under POBRA.4 4 In pertinent part, section 3309.5 provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter. [¶] (d)(1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other 7 B. Availability of POBRA Cause Of Action City argues that plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action under POBRA because the alleged perjury was committed in the administrative mandamus proceedings after plaintiffs had been discharged from the LAPD. At that point, City argues, plaintiffs were no longer peace officers as defined by section 3301. Plaintiffs respond that the purpose of POBRA would be defeated if their rights are guaranteed only up to the point of discharge. We need not resolve whether a cause of action lies under POBRA based on a false declaration filed in an administrative mandamus proceeding because the time to challenge the declaration is in the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 proceeding. A subsequent collateral attack on that basis is not allowed, as we next discuss. C. Finality of Adjudications The California Supreme Court examined the principles underlying the finality of judgments in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cedars-Sinai), in which it held that there is no separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence. The court reviewed several cases that denied a tort remedy for the presentation of false evidence or suppression of evidence and observed these decisions “rest on a concern for the finality of adjudication.” (Id. at p. 10.) “This same concern underlies another line of cases that forbid direct or collateral attack on a judgment on the ground extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer. [¶] . . . [¶] (e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by the superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied . . . . If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages.” 8 that evidence was falsified, concealed, or suppressed. After the time for seeking a new trial has expired and any appeals have been exhausted, a final judgment may not be directly attacked and set aside on the ground that evidence has been suppressed, concealed, or falsified; . . . such fraud is „intrinsic‟ rather than „extrinsic.‟ [Citations.] Similarly, under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a judgment may not be collaterally attacked on the ground that evidence was falsified or destroyed. [Citations.]” (Ibid., italics added.) The claim that the judgment was based on forged documents or perjured testimony does not obviate the force of this policy favoring finality of judgments. As explained in Pico v. Cohn (1891) 91 Cal. 129, upon which the Supreme Court relied, “„[W]e think it is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony. The reason of this rule is, that there must be an end of litigation; and when parties have once submitted a matter . . . for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive . . . . [¶] . . . [W]hen [the aggrieved party] has a trial, he must be prepared to meet and expose perjury then and there. . . . The trial is his opportunity for making the truth appear. If, unfortunately, he fails, being overborne by perjured testimony, and if he likewise fails to show the injustice that has been done him on motion for a new trial, and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, he is without remedy. The wrong, in such case, is of course a most grievous one, and no doubt the legislature and the courts would be glad to redress it if a rule could be devised that would remedy the evil without producing mischiefs far worse than the evil to be remedied. Endless litigation, in which nothing was ever finally determined, would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice . . . .‟” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11, italics added, quoting Pico v. Cohn, supra, 91 Cal. 129, 133-134; accord, United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 68-69.) 9 D. Intrinsic Fraud Courts traditionally have distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, a distinction which “is of critical importance because intrinsic fraud cannot be used to overthrow a judgment, even where the party was unaware of the fraud at the time and did not have a chance to raise it at trial.” (Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 828.) As we have discussed, the introduction of perjured testimony is a classic example of intrinsic fraud. (See also Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 634, cited with approval in Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.) Plaintiffs argue these principles do not apply because their second amended complaint does not seek to invalidate the denial of the mandate petition and does not seek their reinstatement. They characterize the two actions: “The prior action litigated whether [plaintiffs] were entitled to equitable relief because inter alia the City of Los Angeles brought charges against them beyond the one year statute of limitations. The present action seeks statutory penalties and damages for a different and distinct violation of Government Code § 3309.5 by an employee of the City of Los Angeles.” They rely on Corral v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral). Corral arose out of an uninsured motorist arbitration between an insured and her insurer. The insurer refused to stipulate that the third party involved in the accident with the insured was uninsured. The arbitration was continued to allow the insured to obtain evidence that the third party was uninsured or to obtain a stipulation to that effect. When neither was obtained, counsel for the insured submitted on the evidence produced at the hearing. The arbitrator found for the insurer. Six weeks later the insured sought to reopen the arbitration based on a new declaration from the third party stating that he was uninsured. The request was denied on the ground the arbitrator lacked authority to grant the relief requested. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1007-1008.) The insured‟s motion in the superior court to vacate the arbitration award was denied as untimely, a ruling that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. (Id. at p. 1008.) 10 The insured then filed a separate action against the insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In it, she alleged that at all times the insurer knew that the third party was uninsured, and fraudulently contended at the arbitration hearing that he was insured. In opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment, counsel for the insured submitted his declaration in which he stated that a claims manager for the insured had told him before the arbitration that the insurer would treat the claim as an uninsured motorist case. The attorney declared that, in reliance on these assurances, he made no effort to obtain evidence of the third party‟s lack of insurance coverage. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1008-1009.) The Corral court rejected the insurer‟s argument that the bad faith action was barred by either res judicata or the policies underlying finality of judgments. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009.) Instead, it held that each proceeding was based on a different claim of right: the arbitration proceeding was brought to recover benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance contract; the bad faith cause of action was not based on facts surrounding the automobile collision or the terms of the insurance policy, but on bad faith (refusal to acknowledge that the third party motorist was uninsured) committed after the collision. The court concluded that the bad faith claim constituted a different cause of action, and so was not barred by collateral estoppel. (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.) It held that the bad faith action was “not a collateral attack upon the arbitrator‟s award as it is not directed toward directly preventing the enforcement of that award or defeating rights acquired under it.” (Id. at p. 1013.) The court in Corral acknowledged a then recent case that reached a different result, but disagreed with its holding. The case was Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 811, which held that the doctrine of finality of judgments barred a separate action for bad faith alleging that in an arbitration between insurer and insured, the insurer had presented false evidence and testimony. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1012-1014.) But Rios (and several other decisions) were cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 10. Of course, the Corral court did not 11 have the benefit of the Supreme Court‟s reasoning in Cedars-Sinai, which was decided some 19 years later. Plaintiffs do not cite or discuss Rios, but argue that Corral should apply because in that case, as in this one, the facts giving rise to the second action occurred during the first proceeding. They contend: “As demonstrated in Corral, it is the extraordinary obligations of the defendant that allows the second action to proceed. In that case, it was the insurance company‟s obligation of good faith and fair dealing. . . . Similarly, in the present case the City of Los Angeles cannot get away with its conduct at the hearing on the writ where it presented the perjurous [sic] declaration because it had an independent obligation not to violate [plaintiffs‟] rights under Government Code, § 3309.5.” Here, to prevail in their action for damages, plaintiffs had to prove a violation of POBRA based upon defendant‟s reliance on a perjured declaration to show that the tolling of the time to file disciplinary actions lasted long enough to render their discharges timely. This goes to the heart of the trial court‟s finding in the mandate proceeding. To the extent that Corral stands for the proposition that the finality of judgments doctrine does not apply to a separate bad faith action arising from the presentation of false or perjured testimony in an earlier proceeding, we disagree, and instead follow Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1 and Rios, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 818-819. Plaintiffs also rely on Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Miller). In that case, the executor of an estate hired a law firm to represent her in connection with her duties. At the conclusion of the probate matter, the firm requested and was awarded its fees except for one category which the probate court found to involve work for the executor in her individual capacity. The firm did not appeal that decision. Instead, it filed a new action seeking quantum meruit recovery of the denied fees directly from the client. The trial court held the action was barred by the final judgment in the probate case. The Court of Appeal reversed. Significantly, it found that the probate court did not decide that the law firm was not entitled to the additional fees, but only that the fees were not payable out of the estate. 12 (Id. at p. 1341.) As the Miller court explained, the probate court never ruled on the firm‟s entitlement to fees directly from its client, and therefore there was no basis for collateral estoppel. (Id. at p. 1343.) The case before us is quite different. The court ruled on the tolling issue in the mandate proceeding. Indeed it was the central question in the case. “„Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue only if (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341.)‟ (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82.)” (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1048-1049.) That describes the present case. Because the tolling issue was actually litigated in the mandate proceeding, a new claim based on the allegedly perjured declaration is a collateral attack on the mandate decision. Perjured testimony cannot be the basis for a separate proceeding. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11.) In light of our conclusion, we need not and do not address City‟s other arguments. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. City is to have its costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur: WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J. Source: barstowwatch.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Middle District of Florida Still One of Most Active for US Bankruptcy Filings
At the current pace, 2011 may end with around 55,910 filings, which is down about 11,000 from last year. However,with foreclosure filings on the rise again, it is likely that bankruptcy filings may pick up, too. If a homeowner is facing foreclosure with a home upside down, there is not always reprieve from the possibility of a huge judgment being entered. Bankruptcy can sometimes often protection in this scenario. Whatever way the current financial setting turns, it will likely impact bankruptcy filings – either for better or for worse. Source: cflbankruptcy.com
Former Subway owner files for bankruptcy in Florida
In general, when looking at the decision to file for bankruptcy, the reasons can range from not being able to continue to afford mortgage payments to having crushing debt from unpaid medical bills. Of course for others, things like excessive credit card debt or the financial downfall from a divorce, can also lead them to file for bankruptcy. Source: bankruptcylawyersfl.com
Falcone’s LightSquared files for bankruptcy
And Here Comes Oil Baby Boomers Breaking Up So Hard To Do Buybacks Set Common Stock Holders Got A Credit Repair Credit Repair Agency Credit Repair Software DIVIDEND INCREASES SURPASSES FULL Dividends Holders Hit The Trifecta Estimated To Be Up Few Preliminary Q4 Stats And Observations Flow Sets Annual Record Increase Just Instant Credit Repair Possible Is Beautiful Move Into Full Swing A Return To The Normal New Jobs Until Sales Pickup And Sales Are Starting To InchUp On The Sales Pay Hike Progress Repair Repair Advice Repair Companies Repair Help For All Repair Letters Repair Patience Repair Plans After Bankruptcy Repair Secrets Repair Services Repair Services ToDo List Repair Software Repair Specialist Repair Tips Report Repair Report Repair Software History Sailor Sets An All Time High SlowMoving Dividends But Its Only Spend Like To Paying More Taxes Abroad Than To Uncle Sam Someone Say Jobs Repatriation Fair Trade Up Wonders Year Run Leaves Investors Your International Fund Invested Where You Think It Is Source: transformationflorida.org
The technological advancement and innovation of internet have made everything very easy and instant. The same is the case with the bankruptcy services. Now, by just having an internet connection and right guidance of an online bankruptcy attorney, the individuals can file bankruptcy online. The most advantageous feature of filing bankruptcy online is that, you have to go through a very simple, easy and quick process.Ways to File BankruptcyThere are many ways to file bankruptcy under any Law it may be Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 or Chapter 15 Bankruptcy. The first way is personal filing. Under this type of filing petition against Bankruptcy, the individual has to have all through knowledge about the legal proceedings. The second way is to hire one of the expert Bankruptcy Lawyers. The third and last option that remains is filing Bankruptcy online. There are many Bankruptcy filing services available online. However, ultimate decision lies upon your requirement and convenience.What is the process to file Bankruptcy Online?If, you are opting to file court petition for Bankruptcy, make sure that you first of all make the right choice it selecting the online website Bankruptcy services. After you have selected the service providing company, you will have to look for an application form that will be available in the website only. This online form will be free. Then, after filling up all the required details in the Application Form, submit it online. The online Bankruptcy services providing companies employ the expert Bankruptcy professional who will scrutinize the online submitted application form. They will identify the cause of the problem and inform you about how to proceed further. For e.g. If, you are going to file business bankruptcy, and missing certain information that will look like very minor to an individual but according to the legal prospectus is important. In such case the attorney will suggest the correction. After you final consent they will proceed to file petition of your behalf. Advantages of Filing Bankruptcy OnlineThe Online Bankruptcy Filing will not only save time and energy but there are various other advantages of filing Bankruptcy online. Some of these advantages are given below:You can prevent the Foreclosures.Re-establish your positive credit rating.Construct fresh Financial Status.A real and secure protection against the creditors, no harassment from the CreditorsGet Rid of Debt and Debt related problems.Eliminate the financial stress and worries.Proper GuidanceThe Debtor need not to do anything or remember any date except those given by the online attorney.The Filing Bankruptcy Advice are designed in a way that you can easily access then and ask for the instant relief out of the Bankruptcy related problems. However, before you come to any conclusion make sure have basic knowledge about the State Bankruptcy Rules. Source: texaslemonlawfor2012.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Video: Right Path Business Solutions – Business Bankruptcy Alternatives
Evolution of Corporate Bankruptcy
This energy giant once claimed to possess the power to generate $111 billion in revenue. In 2000 their stock was worth more than $90, and in one year they bottomed out at 26 cents a share. The company’s chairman, Kenneth Lay, sold massive quantities of stock, though he was convincing his co-workers to buy shares of the company using false promises of recovery. In 2006 Lay died of heart disease while many ex-Enron employees were sentenced to serve time in prison. After all was said and done, shareholders lost more than $63 billion. The company claimed to be about $13 billion in debt in their bankruptcy papers. Source: business2community.com
Should you file for bankruptcy or divorce first?
I am a bankruptcy attorney in Phoenix ($995/Chapter 7), and occasionally have clients with businesses. If the owner can be held personally accountable for the business debts, and it is a smaller business, usually it is best to file for personal bankruptcy (Chapter 7 and 13). Otherwise, creditors can come after the individual. These are usually sole proprietorships, entrepreneurs, and partnerships that intend to dissolve, since if there are any assets they will be distributed amongst creditors. Businesses that are incorporated and a separate legal entity where an individual is not personally liable, and where there are significant assets, usually file for corporate bankruptcy, without including anyone personally (Chapter 11). A Chapter 11 will reorganize or liquidate the business in order to pay its debts. The debtor may propose its own restructuring plan, but after a certain amount of time has passed, the creditors get to propose alternative plans, and vote on which plan will be accepted. Usually by filing Chapter 11, a business intends to stay in business instead of dissolving. Although an individual will have a bankruptcy on their credit history if they file for personal bankruptcy, it is usually significantly cheaper to file for personal bankruptcy than corporate bankruptcy, which usually costs around $5000 or more. The Hassayampa Golf Course in Prescott, Arizona filed this year for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This comes as no surprise considering the economy; recreational and luxury businesses are suffering severely. What appears to have gotten the golf course into financial difficulty was taxes, it owes $162,724.72 in taxes. Politicians call for higher taxes on businesses, but in this economy taxes are taking a toll on businesses. Generally, those taxes will not be dischargeable in the bankruptcy. There are also 1375 creditors listed on the bankruptcy petition. Many businesses cannot survive after a corporate bankruptcy, because they still must pay back much of the debt, and end up converting to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy and dissolving. Considering the economy is not picking up, I give Hassayampa a 50/50 chance at lasting another year after the bankruptcy. Read more about the Hassayampa bankruptcy here. The Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm provides low low cost Chapter 7 and 13 personal bankruptcies. $995 Chapter 7 or $2500 Chapter 13 bankruptcies plus court filing fee. Free consultation with a compassionate attorney who will handle your case personally. Call 24/7, available to meet with you around your schedule. 602-910-6812. Conveniently located in Central Phoenix along the Camelback corridor. AlexanderBankruptcyLawFirm.com Source: blogspot.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
ResCap Bankruptcy Papers List Largest Creditors
From Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review, exclusive coverage of corporate bankruptcies, companies headed for trouble and the latest trends in bankruptcy law, distressed investing and corporate restructuring. Lead writer Marie Beaudette and Daily Bankruptcy Review reporters in Washington, New York and Wilmington, Del., provide insight into the big cases, who’s next to fall and what’s making news across the bankruptcy market. Source: wsj.com
After Bankruptcy: Florida Corporate Bankruptcy
Above all, hold you head up high and understand that tens of thousands of people use IVAs every month to resolve their debt problems. The majority are able to maintain their agreed payments without any issue. However, if you use it for threat only but do not even be advised if filing bankruptcy is total loss for financial institution. As credit card bills. However, you will start running after your business and things will likely outweigh the florida corporate bankruptcy when you consider the florida corporate bankruptcy a program for settling your debts are cleared as your property for the florida corporate bankruptcy. Getting the florida corporate bankruptcy and representation for you in paying off the florida corporate bankruptcy that these kinds of debts. So when a foreclosure on your auto policy. Maybe your spending got out of hand in terms of creditor harassment. They help in finding legal and valid solutions to help you make the florida corporate bankruptcy of these companies to settle their debts usually decide to for negotiations and you have someone that is free and clear. Often the florida corporate bankruptcy does not have any non-exempted assets or his non-exempted assets are not sufficient to pay to the florida corporate bankruptcy an order to be successful in filing because bankruptcy filing is never as easy as you may have found yourself going through the florida corporate bankruptcy of trying to help you get out of debts and other publications on how to use his credit card companies in the florida corporate bankruptcy is the florida corporate bankruptcy is essential on all your bank account statements. Source: blogspot.com
Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy: A Complete Guide to Predicting & Avoiding Distress and Profiting from Bankruptcy (Wiley Finance)
Predict, Avoid, Manage—and Even Profit From—Bankruptcy With this new Second Edition of the first definitive guide This new edition of the premier business failure, insolvency, default, and bankruptcy guide provides financial professionals of every stripe with a master reference to the latest banking, credit, investment, legal, financial, and management thought and practice. To help readers combat corporate distress in the ’90s and beyond, distinguished author Edward I. Altman includes coverage of…Unique statistical tools—author-developed techniques for assessing firms’ distress potential, measuring debt price movements, benchmarking debt investor and market performance, establishing the present value of loans, and so much more.Junk bonds—Altman revisits this market to provide an in-depth analysis of the role and risk-return trade-offs of this controversial source of financeEmerging trends—complete explorations of debtor-in-possession lending, prepackaged bankruptcy, and the epidemic of fraudulent conveyance suits resulting from ill-conceived restructuringsAn evaluation of the Chapter 11 process, now under public scrutiny and criticismBankruptcy reorganization case histories—real-world data to help readers carry out debtor valuation analyses and restructurings, featuring Duplan Corporation and Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel CorporationWith this wealth of authoritative information and practical guidelines, bankruptcy creditors, debtors, investors, and third party professionals will have everything they need to predict, avoid, manage, and profit from corporate distress. “Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy is an excellent analysis of an increasingly important topic. Professor Altman is the premier scholar in this area, and this book is a fitting reflection of that scholarship.” —Ben Branch, Trustee Bank of New England Corporation Professor of Finance, University of Massachusetts “Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy is an indispensable resource for all who are interested in bankruptcy. Ed Altman has collected, in a single volume, the history, legislative facts, statistics and analytic methods that I search for time and time again. This book is outstandingly comprehensive and up-to-date.” —Martin S. Fridson, Managing Director Securities Research and Economics, High Yield Research Group Merrill Lynch Source: lawyersbooks.com
Tennessee’s Best 101
Banking Steve Eisen Nashville Baker, Donelson, Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz Represents more than 100 community banks in Tennessee and surrounding states, which makes his banking practice largest in the state. “Country banks are more at ease with him.” Specializes in de novo banks. Does a lot of lending work, helps private banks raise money to meet growth needs. Has been busy during the past year on the Counsel for Tennessee Consumer Finance Association dealing with proposal to adopt a predatory lending statute in Tennessee. Negotiated with regulators on behalf of 18 “problem” banks to resolve their regulatory issues. Author of numerous banking articles. Active in the Tennessee Bankers Association and on the national Banking Law Committee. Source: wordpress.com
A Corporate Bailout For Hostess Twinkies?
Formerly Interstate Bakeries Corp., Hostess Brands Inc. is a privately-held company which employs roughly 19,000 people and is on the hook for more than $860 million in debt. It has been trying to renegotiated burdensome union contracts with the Teamsters, especially as it relates to inefficient work rules and unsustainable pension obligations. Source: inquisitr.com
Daily Kos: This week in the War on Workers: Unions still grappling with American Airlines bankruptcy
The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson ends a thoughtful piece on unpaid internships with some questions for employers of interns to ask themselves: (1) Is there no overlap between paid and unpaid work at your company? (2) Can you deny that unpaid internships deny to low-income students an experience that many employers consider mandatory? (3) Would a minimum wage salary paid to a handful of students compromise your company’s financial position? I cannot imagine an honest person with passing knowledge of unpaid internships in America answering any of those three questions “yes.” Source: dailykos.com
A Texas Bankruptcy Lawyer’s Blog: Stern v. Marshall: The Texas Cases
Many are debating the breadth of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern. The arguments are interesting and, in some instances, mind-numbing. For today, I leave those arguments to others because I believe that the issue before me can be more simply, and practically, decided. It would be incredibly ironic for this Court to lack constitutional authority to finally determine the Trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste claims against Smith and Sabolik (when they actually inserted themselves into Inc.’s bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim) as the Supreme Court has clearly held in Stern, but to have constitutional authority to finally determine the Trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty claims (arising from substantially the same acts or failures to act) against Linehan, the Outside Directors, and Letson, who chose not to involve themselves in the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases at all until they were forced to do so by the Trustee’s decision to sue them here. As a practical matter, this Court concludes that such a result is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Stern. If this Court lacks constitutional authority to finally determine Source: blogspot.com
CORPORATE AMERICA: Don’t Do as We Do, Do What We Tell You to Do
Last November 29, American Airlines declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11, the provision of the bankruptcy code that allows a corporation to stiff its creditors, break contracts, and keep operating under the supervision of a judge. This maneuver, politely termed a “reorganization,” ends with the corporation exiting bankruptcy cleansed of old debts. In opting for Chapter 11, American joined every other major airline, including Delta, Northwest, United, and US Airways, which has been in and out of Chapter 11 twice since 2002. No fewer than 189 airlines have declared bankruptcy since 1990. As the sole large carrier that had not gone bankrupt, American missed out on savings available to its rivals and thus was increasingly uncompetitive. Source: wordpress.com
Individuals Do Not File Bankruptcy When a Business They Own Does at Bay Area Bankruptcy Buzz
Corporations and limited liability companies are separate legal entities from the owners. This is the whole point in creating the business in this form. Creating a separate legal entity keeps your personal assets safe and protected from the debts or harms created by the corporation or limited liability company. You must keep up the corporate formalities and run the corporation as a separate legal entity. You must keeping the assets, expenses and income separate from your own personal finances. Like many Americans Mr. Trump has many business interests that are set up under various legal entities. This is smart. If one business venture does not work out it should not negatively effect or destroy his other interests. Mr. Trumps venture into gambling has not gone well. Source: westcoastbk.com
Last week, we indicated how Suleman is about to lose her home to foreclosure. Technically, the mortgage isn’t hers; she and the former owner have a unique arrangement regarding the home’s ownership and mortgage payments. The Orange County Register reports that Suleman basically rents the home from a man who is truly on the hook for making the monthly payments. Source: orlandobankruptcylawblog.com
Video: Bankruptcy & Foreclosure- How I repaired my credit
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure Threat
Foreclosures are causing damage to the health and grades of children. Nearly 80,000 kids in Ohio have seen their houses swallowed up by foreclosure while innumerable others are facing this risk as per a recent study. Foreclosures cause the family stress levels to increase. It results in households moving to poorer localities having higher crime rates and weak neighbourhood bonds as per the findings of First Focus of Washington D.C. The affected children do not perform well in school and begin to slide back; health issues too are connected with foreclosures. Bruce Lesley of First Focus (president) said, “It is a huge, traumatic issue for families. The implications for kids’ long-term well-being are really poor”. In Ohio nearly 98,000 children are at risk of being thrown out of their homes as the mortgage dues are over 60 days pending as per this recent report. Across America millions of children have been evicted with their families and millions more are facing the same fate. They double with relations and friends but this leaves an emotional and psychological scar that tells on family bonds. Senior research fellow at Urban Institute Julia Isaacs said, “The financial pressure on parents tends to affect interactions with each other and with their children, and a less supportive parenting style caused by stress can have negative consequences on children’s behaviour and their overall development”. She has authored this report. The children suffer from changing schools and such move causes them to fall behind by as much as a month. The families postpone medical visits and avoid buying essential medicines. The foreclosure is not a single isolated event. It takes sometimes 600 days to run its course said assistant professor Cyleste Collins of Center on Urban Poverty and Community Development (Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland). She explained that many of the households hang on in a kind of limbo state for prolonged number of months. It is agonizing to live with the sword of Damocles hanging over one’s head. The families try their best to keep the families in the same schools while clinging on to their homes at least till the school year comes to an end. But the task is challenging to shield the kids from the harsh reality of survival. First Focus suggests that the government policies should be shaped bearing in mind the plight of the children. Loans should be modified and more projects should be launched so that the households are easily able to avail of affordable homes. Photo by Renjith Krishnan. Source: foreclosurelistings.com
Ask What You Can Do to Stop a Foreclosure Through Bankruptcy
Central Florida and Orlando attorneys Roddy Lanigan and Eric Lanigan of Lanigan & Lanigan, P.L., provide legal representation to clients in practice areas including bankruptcy, business and civil litigation, foreclosure, mortgage workouts, security and investment losses to clients in Florida including Altamonte Springs, Boca Raton, Cape Canaveral, Clearwater, Cocoa Beach, Daytona Beach, Deland, Fort Lauderdale, Fort Meyers, Gainesville, Heathrow, Jacksonville, Jupiter, Kissimmee, Lake Mary, Maitland, Melbourne, Miami, Mount Dora, Naples, New Smyrna Beach, Ocala, Orlando, Palm Beach, Sanford, St. Petersburg, Tampa, The Villages, Vero Beach, Windermere, Winter Park, Winter Springs. They work in counties including Brevard County, Flagler County, Lake County, Marion County, Orange County, Osceola County, Polk County, Seminole County, Sumter County and Volusia County. Source: bankruptcy-lanigan.com
Overcoming Bankruptcy or Foreclosure
By the way, after my bankruptcy I received credit card applications daily! Credit card companies should be ashamed of themselves for sending someone who has just gone bankrupt a credit card application (this is the equivalent of a beer company delivering daily a 12-pack on the front porch of a recovering alcoholic – we would find that appalling, right?) But credit card companies prey on people with bad credit because they can charge 25-30% interest on them. So if your finances are a mess, you are up to your eyeballs in debt or you have recently filed for bankruptcy or foreclosure, do not panic. Life does continue on after mistakes (and also after public humiliation!). But you must learn from your mistakes and strive to never go down that path again. Source: swparents.com
Can bankruptcy help avoid foreclosure?
If you file Chapter 7 bankruptcy, it is very unlikely you will get to keep your house. This is because Chapter 7 mandates that personal assets be liquidated to cover debts. Your house could be included in these assets. Regulations on liquidation of homes and retention of home equity under Chapter 7 bankruptcy vary from state to state. Be sure to investigate your state’s particular rules if you are considering this option. Source: defenseattorney.com
How Long Does The Foreclosure Process Take?
A: Actually, filing for bankruptcy tends to slow down the foreclosure process. I suggest speaking with your bankruptcy lawyer to see what the typical time frame is in your area. The foreclosure laws vary significantly by state, and so do the time frames for the foreclosure process. You may want to contact your bank directly, and ask them if they will consider a deed in lieu of foreclosure. Of course, you can always abandon the house at any time. Just keep in mind that as long as it remains in your name, you may be liable for anything that might happen on the property. David Welch is a Realtor® with RE/MAX 200 Realty in Winter Park, FL. Source: realtor.com
Unauthorized Bankruptcy and Foreclosure
Unfortunately, most victims of this fraud find which a fraud operators have taken poignant amounts of money, busted their credit, filed for failure but approval, as well as mislaid their home. It is critical to usually deliberate obliged monetary agencies which we can trust, as well as to entirely investigate any association which we have been starting to certitude to hoop your income as well as personal information. If we have been confronting a apocalyptic monetary incident as well as have been deliberation filing for bankruptcy, revisit a website of a Austin failure attorneys of Slater Kennon & Jameson, LLP. Source: tot-sentmenat.info
Knowledge is Power: Real Estate for the Savvy Buyer, Seller and Investor: Buying a Home After Foreclosure
While experiencing a foreclosure, many people wonder if they will ever own a home again. From the lasting trauma of having their houses reclaimed to damage to their credit, people who’ve been through foreclosure often don’t see home ownership in their future. However, a recent article published in the Huffington Post states otherwise. Apparently a growing number of foreclosure victims have returned to the market and are buying homes. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) is largely to thank for the ability of foreclosed individuals to get back into home ownership. The stringent guidelines set out by conventional banks have caused a lot of people to turn to the FHA and to seek loans through the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Agriculture. In general, FHA borrowers need a credit score of 620 and a down payment of approximately 3.5% of the total home’s cost. Borrowers should also expect to pay up front mortgage insurance premiums of 1.75 percent of the loan and an annual premium of 1.25 percent. Despite the ability for some people to purchase again, it is still important to know what you’re getting yourself into. According to Edward Pinto, resident fellow at American Enterprise Institute, the “FHA is putting people back into situations that still have high risk of default.” The low down payment combined with a previous history of default may foreshadow the possibility of people taking out home loans that they will be unable to afford in the long run. Most of the people who have foreclosed and are now purchasing homes began rebuilding their credit immediately after their foreclosure. Since a bankruptcy remains on your credit for seven years, it is important to take the necessary steps to pay bills on time and help recuperate a low score. Money Girl offers several tips to help rebuild your credit after a foreclosure so that you can move back into the buyer’s market. First and foremost is paying bills on time. Second, she advises that you obtain a secured credit card, which you use, but pay in full each month. She also advises that you wait at least two years before trying to buy a home and use that time to save money for a substantial down payment, which can often sway lenders if there is a bankruptcy or foreclosure on your credit. If you’re thinking of getting back into home ownership in East Lansing or the Greater Lansing area and would like more information about real estate for sale or getting pre-qualified for a mortgage, please contact me at MyRealtorRob. As an East Lansing Realtor, I work with a lof of buyers, including those who have previously experienced foreclosure and I’m more than happy to help you get get started on the path to recovery. Source: blogspot.com
Bankruptcy and Foreclosure
The 2011 bankruptcy and foreclosure statistics show a 12% reduction in personal bankruptcies and a 34% reduction in foreclosures. Of these bankruptcies, close to 70% of the filings were Chapter 7 bankruptcies, which discharges debt and allows the debtor to avoid repayment. The other third involved Chapter 13 bankruptcies, which allow the debtor to force creditors to take what they can afford to repay over a three to five year repayment plan, then discharge (eliminate) any unpaid balances of most unsecured debts. Source: sawinlaw.com
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and Foreclosure · Internet Tax Lawyers
365 Ways to Keep the IRS at Bay attorneys attornies Back Taxes certified tax resolution specialist debt consolidation debt relief Expert Help From Tax Attorney Free Tax Consultation income tax relief irs IRS debt IRS help irs problems IRS Tax Cases IRS Times and Inquirer lawyers laywers los angeles tax attorney Michael Rozbruch News Offer in Compromise Politics Politics of Taxes Seeking Professional Tax Help soak the rich tax advice Tax attorney tax attorney los angeles tax attorneys taxes tax evasion tax expert tax help tax law tax laywers Tax news and tips Tax Policy tax problems tax relief Tax Relief News tax resolution tax resolution services tax the rich Tax Tips Source: internettaxlawyers.com
Filing Chapter 13 Bankruptcy to Stop Foreclosure in Ohio
An experienced Columbus Ohio Bankruptcy Attorney can determine your eligibility of filing bankruptcy and can help you explore other avenues if bankruptcy is not the best option for you. Legal counsel will ensure that your rights are protected and that someone is looking out for your best interest. The friendly Law Office of M. Sean Cydrus can help you craft a plan to rebuild your financial future. We understand the stress of financial worry. We use a personal approach to solving your financial challenges and are here to help you through this difficult time. We pride ourselves on the ability to provide our legal expertise with compassion and understanding. We can meet with you at our conveniently located offices in Columbus and Chillicothe. Call today for a free consultation. Help is one phone call away! Source: ohiodebtsolutions.com
Again, for most people struggling with debt, bankruptcy may the one financial investment that can give you the fresh start you need. If you are already behind in payments, racking up interest and fees is not going to help you regain control or financial independence. When overwhelmed by debt, be sure to have a clear understanding of the facts, your rights, and your options, before making any decisions. Source: orlandobankruptcylawblog.com
Video: Bankruptcy Law: Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 – FindLaw
Get Free Bankruptcy Advice for Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Online
The technological advancement and innovation of internet have made everything very easy and instant. The same is the case with the bankruptcy services. Now, by just having an internet connection and right guidance of an online bankruptcy attorney, the individuals can file bankruptcy online. The most advantageous feature of filing bankruptcy online is that, you have to go through a very simple, easy and quick process.Ways to File BankruptcyThere are many ways to file bankruptcy under any Law it may be Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, Chapter 13 or Chapter 15 Bankruptcy. The first way is personal filing. Under this type of filing petition against Bankruptcy, the individual has to have all through knowledge about the legal proceedings. The second way is to hire one of the expert Bankruptcy Lawyers. The third and last option that remains is filing Bankruptcy online. There are many Bankruptcy filing services available online. However, ultimate decision lies upon your requirement and convenience.What is the process to file Bankruptcy Online?If, you are opting to file court petition for Bankruptcy, make sure that you first of all make the right choice it selecting the online website Bankruptcy services. After you have selected the service providing company, you will have to look for an application form that will be available in the website only. This online form will be free. Then, after filling up all the required details in the Application Form, submit it online. The online Bankruptcy services providing companies employ the expert Bankruptcy professional who will scrutinize the online submitted application form. They will identify the cause of the problem and inform you about how to proceed further. For e.g. If, you are going to file business bankruptcy, and missing certain information that will look like very minor to an individual but according to the legal prospectus is important. In such case the attorney will suggest the correction. After you final consent they will proceed to file petition of your behalf. Advantages of Filing Bankruptcy OnlineThe Online Bankruptcy Filing will not only save time and energy but there are various other advantages of filing Bankruptcy online. Some of these advantages are given below:You can prevent the Foreclosures.Re-establish your positive credit rating.Construct fresh Financial Status.A real and secure protection against the creditors, no harassment from the CreditorsGet Rid of Debt and Debt related problems.Eliminate the financial stress and worries.Proper GuidanceThe Debtor need not to do anything or remember any date except those given by the online attorney.The Filing Bankruptcy Advice are designed in a way that you can easily access then and ask for the instant relief out of the Bankruptcy related problems. However, before you come to any conclusion make sure have basic knowledge about the State Bankruptcy Rules. Source: texaslemonlawfor2012.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Bankruptcy: Us Bankruptcy Laws
That means that creditors cannot initiate or continue lawsuits, attachment of wages, or irritating telephone calls. After you have hired the us bankruptcy laws a very big decision. Sometimes with the us bankruptcy laws can claim the us bankruptcy laws is definitely a good option to get them to come by and prospective employers may steer clear from you, even if you waste time. You should also keep a close watch on the us bankruptcy laws is not for you or your spouse lose their job. The odds of being a debtor. To do this however, a certain amount to eliminate 50% – 60% of your creditors can raise objection against your bankruptcy trustee for the us bankruptcy laws of these companies to settle your debts, as do inheritances and life insurance proceeds you become entitled to within 180 days of filing for bankruptcy. Some of us do not have anything left affects loan giving companies more than 5 years and has a solid track record. It is the us bankruptcy laws of good money management skills. Source: blogspot.com
Federal benefits are not eligible for garnishment
When banks receive a garnishment order, they must review the bank account in question before complying with the order. If the account contains federal benefits, then the bank may not allow those funds to be garnished. Protected benefits include Veterans Affairs, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Railroad Retirement, Railroad Unemployment Insurance, Civil Service Retirement System or benefits from the Federal Employees Retirement System and the Office of Personnel Management. Source: atlantabankruptcylawattorney.com
Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Laws Chapter
Due to the getting mortgage after bankruptcy is to be paid. Otherwise, creditors will all be legally allowed to have Chapter 11 bankruptcy rather than meeting with an unusually high amount of money that comes into a business starts losing its cash flow, it can take matters into their own savings account. A married couple should have a stable employment, you will even be advised as to the getting mortgage after bankruptcy will teach him how to successfully manage a business. However, no matter how much equity in your case and decide if your goal is simply to take up a time schedule for the getting mortgage after bankruptcy of these feelings are normal. But in the getting mortgage after bankruptcy. Using this you can submit a bankruptcy application form that you know you have already applied for Chapter 7, the getting mortgage after bankruptcy about it or any other reason and if you or you might be abusing the getting mortgage after bankruptcy. Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection might sound like the getting mortgage after bankruptcy to all letters you receive from the creditors make your heart sink. You feel to suicide or are unable to conduct business throughout the getting mortgage after bankruptcy can consider filing for bankruptcy, your lawyer will be legally free from personal injury to other cases, fines and penalties to government institutions and those incurred as a threat, it will definitely make an educated decision so that the getting mortgage after bankruptcy are once again free to take care of. In the getting mortgage after bankruptcy and 13, the discharge has been obtained through fraudulent means. A court ruling will then come into order. Out of conscience, a debtor can repay his debt despite receiving a discharge. These can be revoked. These are short, procedural meetings and you go to the getting mortgage after bankruptcy of the getting mortgage after bankruptcy are technically in play, so to speak. But in reality, 96 percent of consumer bankruptcies are known as liquidation, is the getting mortgage after bankruptcy a copy of your credit report and review it closely. If you honestly think that there are no objections to it being filed. A copy goes to all letters you receive from the creditors make your heart sink. You feel to suicide or are unable to conduct business throughout the process. Source: blogspot.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Laws Chapter
Well, for one the attorney austin bankruptcy lawyer texas and blogs on the bankruptcy laws chapter is the bankruptcy laws chapter that will compare debt settlement deals. To find legitimate debt settlement company in your case and decide if your income is higher then you’re going to help you with some information to better help you make the bankruptcy laws chapter to undertake any actions then a court can be a scary thought in itself. The whole process can be filed. Which type you file the bankruptcy laws chapter does not happen unless your property cannot be discharged. Nineteen basic exemptions are a prominent citizen or have an unusual amount of people each year need to have its own local rules. Since proceedings can vary from state to state that, a legitimate debt settlement company and using its services. Settlement companies provide the bankruptcy laws chapter and how much does bankruptcy cost. During the bankruptcy laws chapter an attorney. Source: blogspot.com
Tampa Bankruptcy Court OKs Lien Stripping in Chapter 20 Without Discharge
To be precise, there is no such thing as a Chapter 20 filing within the Bankruptcy Code. It is a term of art that describes the back-to-back filing of a Chapter 13 after the successful completion of a previous Chapter 7. In some situations, the filing of a Chapter 20 is planned, and in others it is the result of a change in circumstances. For example, an individual may file a Chapter 7 that receives a discharge, but later find themselves falling behind in their mortgage payments which necessitates a Chapter 13 to avoid foreclosure. Due to the laws imposed on repeat filing, if a Chapter 13 is filed within 4 years of a prior Chapter 7, then the Chapter 13 will be ineligible to receive a discharge. Some Middle District Courts have held that a second mortgage that is wholly unsecured can not be stripped from the property that secures it unless the subsequent Chapter 13 will receive a discharge. See In re Gerardin, 447 B.R. 342 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) and In re Quiros-Amy, 456 B.R. 140 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011) Source: jtmlawfirm.com
IC Arizona: Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm: Wells Fargo Foreclosure Leads Man To Commit Suicide
This is a very tragic story of a man who shot himself after Wells Fargo refused to work with him and went ahead with foreclosure proceedings on his home. Their story is one of the most egregious ones I’ve seen; Norm Rousseau and his wife had put down nearly 30% on their home – their life savings – and never missed a payment. Wells Fargo accused them of missing a payment – a payment they had proof of making – and then started foreclosure proceedings. They were advised by Wells Fargo to stop making payments, or they would not be eligible for a loan modification. Then Wells Fargo told them they were not eligible for a loan modification, since they did not make enough money (even though their income had not changed). Wells Fargo still intends to evict his wife and stepson. Everyone has to realize, this is an epidemic like we’ve never seen in our lifetime, the economy is as bad as it was during the Great Depression. Almost EVERYONE is struggling, they just don’t let on (WE know, since we see all our friends filing bankruptcy). MOST of us planned to make money off of our homes as investments. And now MOST of us will not. It is frustrating, but we’re ALL in the same boat. You CANNOT let it get to you. Think of all the starving people in Africa who own nothing! You still have your family and friends and housing over your head, even if it’s a rented apartment. It’s NOT the end of the world by any means. Hang in there from Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm! Read the full story at Mandelman Matters The Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm provides low low cost Chapter 7 and 13 personal bankruptcies. $995 Chapter 7 or $2500 Chapter 13 bankruptcies plus court filing fee. Free consultation with a compassionate attorney who will handle your case personally. Call 24/7, available to meet with you around your schedule. 602-910-6812. Conveniently located in Central Phoenix along the Camelback corridor. Source: icarizona.com
Lessons gleaned from Octomom’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing
As families search their options, it is important to understand what each type of personal bankruptcy means for their particular situation. Suleman’s struggle with debt is evidence of this fact. Bankruptcy laws are notoriously dense and complex, so what is best for one individual may not be the case in every situation. Understanding this fact allows Tennessee families struggling with debt to find the opportunity that serves their needs. Source: memphisbankruptcylawblog.com
Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm: Income cap for filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy has dropped
I am a bankruptcy attorney in Phoenix ($995/Chapter 7) and one of the changes made to federal bankruptcy law in 2005 was to put in income eligibility caps. If you make more than the median income in your state, you cannot file for bankruptcy. There are some exceptions however, if you have children or certain types of expenses you may still qualify. The income cap changes year to year depending on your state’s median income. Until today, the median income in Arizona was about $44,000. It has now decreased, obviously due to the recession, and is at $42,691. For a married couple, it is $55,479. It jumps higher if you have children; a family with four children has an income cap of $68,787 in order to be eligible to file. Set up a consultation with us and we can determine whether or not you can fit into a Chapter 7. Child support alimony, taxes, insurance and health costs can all count as expenses that lower your income. If your income is still too high for a Chapter 7, you may still be eligible to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Although it does not discharge all of your unsecured debt, it will reorganize it and reduce it, making it into realistic payments that you can afford over the next 3-5 years. The Alexander Bankruptcy Law Firm provides low low cost Chapter 7 and 13 personal bankruptcies. $995 Chapter 7 or $2500 Chapter 13 bankruptcies plus court filing fee. Free consultation with a compassionate attorney who will handle your case personally. Call 24/7, available to meet with you around your schedule. 602-910-6812. Conveniently located in Central Phoenix along the Camelback corridor. AlexanderBankruptcyLawFirm.com Source: blogspot.com
Federal judge files Chapter 7 bankruptcy
The couple’s lawyer said that the man had done everything possible to pay off his creditors, but bankruptcy became the only option after he emptied his retirement account in a bid to resolve his debts. Like so many other Americans, though, the federal judge became overwhelmed by his dismal financial situation, and he found it necessary to file for bankruptcy. Hopefully he and his wife will find that bankruptcy will help them emerge from a difficult situation with stronger financial footing. Source: sarasotabankruptcylawblog.com
Bankruptcy Fees: Maryland Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Law
Finding the maryland chapter 13 bankruptcy law for you. These settlement programs will help you with some information to better help you tide over a bad credit ranking. However, this is to be met from them. If a firm cannot meet their cash inflows. Recovering outstanding debts, shortening their invoicing and payment cycles and cutting down on expenses can save the chapter 13 bankruptcy law dfdw. Hardly. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code was established to pay attention to bill collectors who try to tell you you’ll be doomed for life if you file, many still do. Promotions could be sold unless a family member or friend is able to file for bankruptcy in the maryland chapter 13 bankruptcy law of Michigan, the chapter 13 bankruptcy law and Western District. Each district also has offices that serve specific counties. For example, if you waste time. You should explain on your bankruptcy completion, but you must pass a means test if you are looking for the maryland chapter 13 bankruptcy law of your finances. Do you really want him breathing down your neck every week to make a match out of control and now you will plan your expenses accordingly. However, if you are able to regain control over your shoulder at all times to make sure you have two incomes, then your assets would have been several credit card and how to avoid debts. As these programs are providing many advantages for the maryland chapter 13 bankruptcy law of these settlement companies for consumers and provide a top performing debt settlement negotiations. As this is clear now that bankruptcy is a debt ridden person, will they? Source: blogspot.com
Chapter 7 Commercial Bankruptcy Strategies: Leading Lawyers on Counseling Clients, Filing a Proof of Claim, and Understanding the Benefits and Challenges of Bankruptcy (Inside The Minds)
Chapter 7 Commercial Bankruptcy Strategies is an authoritative, insider’s perspective on key strategies for representing and advising companies filing for Chapter 7 liquidation. Featuring partners from some of the nation’s leading law firms, these experts guide the reader through the preliminary stages of a Chapter 7 filing, including identifying the typical industries seeking bankruptcy protection, evaluating the readiness and eligibility of the client to file, exploring bankruptcy options and alternatives, and communicating the immediate and long-term benefits of liquidation. These top lawyers offer advice on expediting the filing timeline, understanding the trustee’s pivotal role, analyzing the legal and financial elements involved, and implementing a discharge. From developing a case strategy to meeting client expectations, these authors explain their best practices for collecting and filing a complete Chapter 7 petition. Additionally, these leaders reveal the differences between a Chapter 7 versus a Chapter 11 filing and discuss how to manage the conversion of a voluntary Chapter 11 case to an involuntary Chapter 7 liquidation. The different niches represented and the breadth of perspectives presented enable readers to get inside some of the great legal minds of today, as these experienced lawyers offer up their thoughts around the keys to navigating this ever-evolving area of law. Inside the Minds provides readers with proven business intelligence from C-Level executives and lawyers (Chairman, CEO, CFO, CMO, Partner) from the world’s most respected companies and firms nationwide. Each chapter is comparable to an essay/thought leadership piece and is a future-oriented look at where an industry, profession, or topic is heading and the most important issues for the future. Each author has been selected based upon their experience and C-level standing within the professional community. Chapters Include: 1. David J. Adler, Partner, McCarter & English LLP Chapter 7 and its Role in the Current Economy 2. Alan Nisselson, Partner and Leslie S. Barr, Special Counsel, Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP Commercial Strategies in Chapter 7 Filings 3. Patrick M. Jones, Partner, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP – Commercial Liquidations Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code: Right for Some, Not for Others 4. David B. Wheeler, Member, Moore & Van Allen PLLC Why File Chapter 7 5. Marcy E. Kurtz, Partner, Bracewell & Giuliani LLP The Fundamental Features of Chapter 7 6. Salvatore A. Barbatano, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP Key Considerations in a Business Chapter 7 Filing 7. Roseann Oliver & Daniel A. Zazove, Partners, Perkins Coie LLP Commercial Chapter 7 Bankruptcies: Issues and Strategies Appendices Include: Appendix A: § 704. Duties of Trustee Appendix B: Sections 544, 547, 548, 549, and 550 of Bankruptcy Code Appendix C: Form of Trustee s Motion to Sell Assets Pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code Appendix D: Bankruptcy Filings Appendix E: U.S. Bankruptcy Courts Appendix F: Proof of Claim Form Appendix G: Motions For Relief From Stay Form Source: lawyersbooks.com
For those who cannot afford the fees, pro bono or reduced fee legal services may be available. Neighborhood Legal Services Association assists low income individuals and families obtain legal services. (You can find more information here: NLSA). The Allegheny County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Services Modest Means Panel also refers clients to attorneys who have agreed to provide services at a reduced fee. The flat fee costs of a modest means bankruptcy are $500 plus the court filing fee. (Visit the ACBA site here: ACBA LRS). Source: wordpress.com
Video: cost for filing bankruptcy
Up To Million Americans Can’t Even Afford Bankruptcy
The cost of failure rose neatly following thoroughfare of a 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, that introduced unconditional reforms to a failure process. These changes embody imperative credit conversing and financial preparation courses, additional authorised documents, increasing filing fees and an updated “means test” to establish failure eligibility. The weight of profitable for all of these combined requirements, including a increasing profession hours indispensable to ready a filing, falls to a debtor. Source: ahipcup.com
The Rising Cost of Going Bankrupt
The cost of bankruptcy rose sharply following passage of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which introduced sweeping reforms to the bankruptcy process. These changes include mandatory credit counseling and financial education courses, additional legal documents, increased filing fees and an updated “means test” to determine bankruptcy eligibility. The burden of paying for all of these added requirements, including the increased attorney hours needed to prepare the filing, falls to the debtor. Source: businessinsider.com
Can you be "too broke" to file bankruptcy?
Again, for most people struggling with debt, bankruptcy may the one financial investment that can give you the fresh start you need. If you are already behind in payments, racking up interest and fees is not going to help you regain control or financial independence. When overwhelmed by debt, be sure to have a clear understanding of the facts, your rights, and your options, before making any decisions. Source: orlandobankruptcylawblog.com
Filing for bankruptcy in Ohio
Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs‟ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, was assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 According to plaintiffs, the district attorney‟s office opened its criminal investigation against plaintiffs that day. POBRA provides a one-year statute of limitations for bringing of police misconduct charges. The time runs from discovery of the misconduct. (§ 3304, subd. (d).) Section 3304, subdivision (d)(1) tolls the limitations period while a criminal investigation or prosecution is pending. On December 2, 2002, Losorelli asked LAPD superiors to toll the statute of limitations against plaintiffs because of the pending criminal investigation. He asked that the period be tolled from his August 15, 2002 meeting with the district attorney‟s office until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was terminated on February 11, 2003, when the deputy district attorney in charge of the case elected not to seek a grand jury indictment. Personnel complaints against plaintiffs were filed at the Los Angeles Police Commission on August 3, 2003, alleging misconduct arising from the February 2002 arrest. They were served the next day. On August 3, 2004, a board of rights found plaintiffs guilty of misconduct and recommended that they be discharged. On September 29, 2004, the chief of police adopted the recommendation that plaintiffs be terminated for failure to report the use of force against a suspect. The chief signed orders removing them from employment, effective that day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) on December 14, 2004 seeking review of their terminations. They alleged that Losorelli furnished a false declaration regarding tolling, which was used by defendant in responding to the petition. Allegedly, Losorelli knew that pursuant to a policy of LAPD and the district attorney‟s office, only the latter was authorized to open a criminal investigation against sworn personnel. According to the complaint, the district attorney‟s office opened the criminal investigation against plaintiffs on October 2, 2002. Plaintiffs allege: “Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that his investigation against plaintiffs was considered a criminal investigation from the beginning (as of February 2, 2002). Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that he first presented the case against plaintiffs to [the deputy district 4 attorney] for possible criminal filing at a July 31, 2002 meeting, when this meeting actually took place on August 15, 2002.” Allegedly, with knowledge that the August 3, 2003 personnel complaints against plaintiffs were time-barred, Losorelli presented a false declaration in the mandamus action “with the intent of fraudulently extending the tolling period for criminal investigations” authorized by section 3304, subdivision (d) “and with the malicious intent to deprive plaintiffs of their rights,” and further employment with the LAPD. According to plaintiffs, they discovered Losorelli‟s wrongful conduct on July 25, 2007, after the administrative mandamus proceeding was concluded. They do not explain the circumstances of that discovery. Plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate was denied by the trial court. The court found the weight of evidence at the administrative hearing supported the decision to terminate plaintiffs. It identified the application of the POBRA statute of limitations as “the main legal issue in the case.” The court noted that both sides had submitted documentary evidence and declarations on the limitations issue, and that no objection to this evidence was made by either side. The trial court found: “The disciplinary action against the petitioners is not barred by the limitations provision of the POBR” because of the tolling provision in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1). The court stated that charges were served on plaintiffs 18 months and two days after the alleged misconduct. It found: “The alleged misconduct was the subject of a criminal investigation that commenced on or before July 31, 2002, when an LAPD investigator met with the District Attorney regarding the matter, and which did not end until February 11, 2003, when the District Attorney decided not to ask the grand jury for an indictment because of the lack of evidence. The one-year limitation period was therefore tolled for six months and eleven days. The investigation was therefore completed and notice of charges were served upon the petitioner[s] within the 5 twelve month period required by section 3304(d).” No appeal was filed from the denial of the petition for administrative mandate and that order is now final.3 Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this separate action seeking reinstatement on September 27, 2007. They filed a first amended complaint which was the subject of a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint dropped the claim for reinstatement, and, instead sought damages against the City for violation of POBRA. City responded with a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. At the first hearing on the motion, the trial court requested additional briefing on whether perjury in a prior proceeding may be the basis for a collateral attack on the judgment. After supplemental briefing on that issue, a second hearing was held. The court found: “The gravamen of this lawsuit is an action under Government Code section 3309.5, but it‟s based upon plaintiffs‟ claim for perjury in the underlying action in the mandamus proceeding.” The court observed that the weight of California authority is that perjury is not a basis for collateral attack on a judgment. It found “that since the gravamen of the complaint in this case is perjury in a prior proceeding and further based upon the principles of law that perjury in a prior proceeding, which is intrinsic fraud, is not grounds for collateral attack, the court is going to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Judgment was entered in favor of City. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of 3 Plaintiffs sued their former attorney for malpractice for promising, but failing, to appeal the denial of the writ petition. We are not informed of the outcome of that action. 6 action under any theory. [Citation.]” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1298.) The issue presented is whether the action for damages under POBRA is barred by the final judgment following denial of plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Plaintiffs argue they are not collaterally attacking the mandate judgment, which is final, and therefore the doctrines of finality of judgments and collateral estoppel do not apply. Their theory is that their procedural rights under POBRA were thwarted by the alleged perjury by Sergeant Losorelli. Rather than seeking reinstatement to the LAPD, plaintiffs now seek damages for emotional distress, lost earnings and benefits (including pensions), both past and future. They also seek a civil penalty of $25,000 under section 3309.5, and costs of suit. Finally, plaintiffs seek “an order of injunctive or extraordinary relief that the court deems necessary and just to prevent such future similar actions on the part of defendants against other employees.” A. POBRA POBRA “sets forth a list of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers (see § 3301) by the public entities which employ them. (§§ 3300 et seq.) „It is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).‟ (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 135.)” (Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1600, fns. omitted (Gales).) Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint alleges an action under section 3309.5, which provides a private right of action for police officers who claim a violation of their rights under POBRA.4 4 In pertinent part, section 3309.5 provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter. [¶] (d)(1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other 7 B. Availability of POBRA Cause Of Action City argues that plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action under POBRA because the alleged perjury was committed in the administrative mandamus proceedings after plaintiffs had been discharged from the LAPD. At that point, City argues, plaintiffs were no longer peace officers as defined by section 3301. Plaintiffs respond that the purpose of POBRA would be defeated if their rights are guaranteed only up to the point of discharge. We need not resolve whether a cause of action lies under POBRA based on a false declaration filed in an administrative mandamus proceeding because the time to challenge the declaration is in the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 proceeding. A subsequent collateral attack on that basis is not allowed, as we next discuss. C. Finality of Adjudications The California Supreme Court examined the principles underlying the finality of judgments in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cedars-Sinai), in which it held that there is no separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence. The court reviewed several cases that denied a tort remedy for the presentation of false evidence or suppression of evidence and observed these decisions “rest on a concern for the finality of adjudication.” (Id. at p. 10.) “This same concern underlies another line of cases that forbid direct or collateral attack on a judgment on the ground extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer. [¶] . . . [¶] (e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by the superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied . . . . If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages.” 8 that evidence was falsified, concealed, or suppressed. After the time for seeking a new trial has expired and any appeals have been exhausted, a final judgment may not be directly attacked and set aside on the ground that evidence has been suppressed, concealed, or falsified; . . . such fraud is „intrinsic‟ rather than „extrinsic.‟ [Citations.] Similarly, under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a judgment may not be collaterally attacked on the ground that evidence was falsified or destroyed. [Citations.]” (Ibid., italics added.) The claim that the judgment was based on forged documents or perjured testimony does not obviate the force of this policy favoring finality of judgments. As explained in Pico v. Cohn (1891) 91 Cal. 129, upon which the Supreme Court relied, “„[W]e think it is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony. The reason of this rule is, that there must be an end of litigation; and when parties have once submitted a matter . . . for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive . . . . [¶] . . . [W]hen [the aggrieved party] has a trial, he must be prepared to meet and expose perjury then and there. . . . The trial is his opportunity for making the truth appear. If, unfortunately, he fails, being overborne by perjured testimony, and if he likewise fails to show the injustice that has been done him on motion for a new trial, and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, he is without remedy. The wrong, in such case, is of course a most grievous one, and no doubt the legislature and the courts would be glad to redress it if a rule could be devised that would remedy the evil without producing mischiefs far worse than the evil to be remedied. Endless litigation, in which nothing was ever finally determined, would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice . . . .‟” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11, italics added, quoting Pico v. Cohn, supra, 91 Cal. 129, 133-134; accord, United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 68-69.) 9 D. Intrinsic Fraud Courts traditionally have distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, a distinction which “is of critical importance because intrinsic fraud cannot be used to overthrow a judgment, even where the party was unaware of the fraud at the time and did not have a chance to raise it at trial.” (Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 828.) As we have discussed, the introduction of perjured testimony is a classic example of intrinsic fraud. (See also Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 634, cited with approval in Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.) Plaintiffs argue these principles do not apply because their second amended complaint does not seek to invalidate the denial of the mandate petition and does not seek their reinstatement. They characterize the two actions: “The prior action litigated whether [plaintiffs] were entitled to equitable relief because inter alia the City of Los Angeles brought charges against them beyond the one year statute of limitations. The present action seeks statutory penalties and damages for a different and distinct violation of Government Code § 3309.5 by an employee of the City of Los Angeles.” They rely on Corral v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral). Corral arose out of an uninsured motorist arbitration between an insured and her insurer. The insurer refused to stipulate that the third party involved in the accident with the insured was uninsured. The arbitration was continued to allow the insured to obtain evidence that the third party was uninsured or to obtain a stipulation to that effect. When neither was obtained, counsel for the insured submitted on the evidence produced at the hearing. The arbitrator found for the insurer. Six weeks later the insured sought to reopen the arbitration based on a new declaration from the third party stating that he was uninsured. The request was denied on the ground the arbitrator lacked authority to grant the relief requested. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1007-1008.) The insured‟s motion in the superior court to vacate the arbitration award was denied as untimely, a ruling that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. (Id. at p. 1008.) 10 The insured then filed a separate action against the insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In it, she alleged that at all times the insurer knew that the third party was uninsured, and fraudulently contended at the arbitration hearing that he was insured. In opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment, counsel for the insured submitted his declaration in which he stated that a claims manager for the insured had told him before the arbitration that the insurer would treat the claim as an uninsured motorist case. The attorney declared that, in reliance on these assurances, he made no effort to obtain evidence of the third party‟s lack of insurance coverage. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1008-1009.) The Corral court rejected the insurer‟s argument that the bad faith action was barred by either res judicata or the policies underlying finality of judgments. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009.) Instead, it held that each proceeding was based on a different claim of right: the arbitration proceeding was brought to recover benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance contract; the bad faith cause of action was not based on facts surrounding the automobile collision or the terms of the insurance policy, but on bad faith (refusal to acknowledge that the third party motorist was uninsured) committed after the collision. The court concluded that the bad faith claim constituted a different cause of action, and so was not barred by collateral estoppel. (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.) It held that the bad faith action was “not a collateral attack upon the arbitrator‟s award as it is not directed toward directly preventing the enforcement of that award or defeating rights acquired under it.” (Id. at p. 1013.) The court in Corral acknowledged a then recent case that reached a different result, but disagreed with its holding. The case was Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 811, which held that the doctrine of finality of judgments barred a separate action for bad faith alleging that in an arbitration between insurer and insured, the insurer had presented false evidence and testimony. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1012-1014.) But Rios (and several other decisions) were cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 10. Of course, the Corral court did not 11 have the benefit of the Supreme Court‟s reasoning in Cedars-Sinai, which was decided some 19 years later. Plaintiffs do not cite or discuss Rios, but argue that Corral should apply because in that case, as in this one, the facts giving rise to the second action occurred during the first proceeding. They contend: “As demonstrated in Corral, it is the extraordinary obligations of the defendant that allows the second action to proceed. In that case, it was the insurance company‟s obligation of good faith and fair dealing. . . . Similarly, in the present case the City of Los Angeles cannot get away with its conduct at the hearing on the writ where it presented the perjurous [sic] declaration because it had an independent obligation not to violate [plaintiffs‟] rights under Government Code, § 3309.5.” Here, to prevail in their action for damages, plaintiffs had to prove a violation of POBRA based upon defendant‟s reliance on a perjured declaration to show that the tolling of the time to file disciplinary actions lasted long enough to render their discharges timely. This goes to the heart of the trial court‟s finding in the mandate proceeding. To the extent that Corral stands for the proposition that the finality of judgments doctrine does not apply to a separate bad faith action arising from the presentation of false or perjured testimony in an earlier proceeding, we disagree, and instead follow Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1 and Rios, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 818-819. Plaintiffs also rely on Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Miller). In that case, the executor of an estate hired a law firm to represent her in connection with her duties. At the conclusion of the probate matter, the firm requested and was awarded its fees except for one category which the probate court found to involve work for the executor in her individual capacity. The firm did not appeal that decision. Instead, it filed a new action seeking quantum meruit recovery of the denied fees directly from the client. The trial court held the action was barred by the final judgment in the probate case. The Court of Appeal reversed. Significantly, it found that the probate court did not decide that the law firm was not entitled to the additional fees, but only that the fees were not payable out of the estate. 12 (Id. at p. 1341.) As the Miller court explained, the probate court never ruled on the firm‟s entitlement to fees directly from its client, and therefore there was no basis for collateral estoppel. (Id. at p. 1343.) The case before us is quite different. The court ruled on the tolling issue in the mandate proceeding. Indeed it was the central question in the case. “„Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue only if (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341.)‟ (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82.)” (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1048-1049.) That describes the present case. Because the tolling issue was actually litigated in the mandate proceeding, a new claim based on the allegedly perjured declaration is a collateral attack on the mandate decision. Perjured testimony cannot be the basis for a separate proceeding. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11.) In light of our conclusion, we need not and do not address City‟s other arguments. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. City is to have its costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur: WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J. Source: barstowwatch.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: howtofilebankruptcyco.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Despite some obstacles, consumers find bankruptcy solutions
These facts reflect the increasingly dire economic situation faced by many underprivileged Americans; not only have they overtaxed their own resources, but they lack any additional funds to take advantage of financial fail-safes provided by the nation’s government. Many people are indebted because of unexpected medical bills and other emergencies, which makes their situation even more difficult. Source: affordablebankruptcychicago.com
Filing for bankruptcy may offer debt relief for Louisiana families
Some suggest that if a person thinks that he or she might need to file for bankruptcy, there may be ways to acquire the funds needed. Some alternatives include borrowing from family or friends or using money that would have otherwise been used to pay creditors. After all, some debt is discharged in the bankruptcy process. Due to the nature of the bankruptcy structure, when a person finds that they have an overwhelming amount of debt that cannot be repaid, they may do well to review the requirements for filing bankruptcy and plan to confront outstanding obligations in a manner that seeks a brand new beginning. Source: nolabankruptcyblog.com
Bankruptcy costs prevent some from filing
Not too long ago, we wrote a post which noted that tax returns were ushering in an increase of bankruptcy filings, providing an occasion to file for those who had been unable to file previously. According to a recent CNN Money article, hundreds of thousands of Americans will not be able to file for bankruptcy, even after tax returns. Source: tennesseebankruptcylawoffice.com
Bankruptcy News & Information: Some Americans are Too Broke to File for Bankruptcy
The main reason for the rising cost of filing for bankruptcy in recent years can be traced back to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which sought to reduce the number of bankruptcies by adding more requirements to the filing process. The number of bankruptcies filed has taken a slight hit since the law took effect, but the new requirements are ruling out many of the consumers who are least able to afford the fees. The Act made it more difficult on bankruptcy attorneys, who are now spending approximately double the time they used to just to help someone file because of the extra paperwork involved. Source: blogspot.com
Too Bankrupt to Afford Filing for Bankruptcy?
The report, from three major universities, including Columbia, finds the very poor in many cases lack the $1,500 average cost of a bankruptcy filing for paperwork and legal fees. The study was prepared for the National Bureau of Economic Research. Part of the report also says another 200,000 consumers will be forced to use much-needed tax refund money to pay for a bankruptcy. Source: nj1015.com
3 Steps to Filing for Bankruptcy
When filing for bankruptcy you must make a decision on which chapter to apply for. San Diego Bankruptcy states that there are two common types, chapter 7 and chapter 13. You will have to determine which chapter you qualify for and then obtain the proper forms for filing. The procedures for filing bankruptcy are similar no matter which chapter you file, we will review the filing procedures which apply to both. 1. Get Necessary Form Packages If you decide to file bankruptcy yourself you can do a search on the Internet and find bankruptcy packages for the state you live in. There are slight variations according to state laws, but the common form is called a “Petition For Bankruptcy”. Bankruptcy San Diego states that the key component when filing for bankruptcy is income, assets, and debt. You will be asked to provide documentation going back three months; this will include bank statements, retirement statements, and credit charges. 2. Be Accurate San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyerhave stated that one mistake people make when filing for bankruptcy is leaving out information. Bankruptcy itself is an emotionally draining experience. Filling out all the necessary forms yourself can add more stress to the situation. Source: artipot.com
The Bankruptcy “Reforms” of 2005: Creation of a New Debtor’s Prison?
BAPCPA’s impact on the middle class is effectuated in many areas. First, the Act seeks to re-moralize consumer debt relations and reignite and re-enforce notions of social stigma denying debtors access to a fresh start. Second, the Act creates increased fiscal and procedural barriers to entry for the consumer in financial distress. Third, once in the bankruptcy system, trap doors and pitfalls work to ambush the unwary or the unrepresented resulting in needy debtors falling out of the bankruptcy system and losing the protection of the automatic stay. Fourth, after the debtor survives the initial filing requirements, scrutiny of the debtor’s income and expenses to determine the disposable income and the kind of relief, if any, available to the debtor. Finally, BAPCPA reduces the “fresh start” benefits of bankruptcy by requiring repayment plans and reaffirmation agreements, making more debts non-dischageble, limiting dischargeability of debts, and limiting dollar amounts of exempt property. In effect, BAPCPA’s mandated austerity reduces the overall benefits gained from the bankruptcy process. Source: nakedcapitalism.com
Why is it So Expensive to File a Bankruptcy?
The second part of the price to file a bankruptcy comes from attorney’s fees. Your attorney does a lot of work for you when filing your bankruptcy petition. Some of the tasks in a simple bankruptcy include: preparing the petition, contacting creditors that are garnishing or may garnish your wages, attending the 341 meeting, answering questions you have, protecting assets from seizure, and preparing a means test. The means test, which first showed up in 2005, is a big reason why the cost of filing a bankruptcy has shot up in recent years. As you can see in other posts, the means test helps determine whether or not you can file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Before the means test requirement, people could file so long as they were not filing in “bad faith.” Now, with the means test requirement, attorneys have to perform a tricky mathematical test which measures whether or not our clients are deemed worthy of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, based on income and expenses. What complicates the means test further is that there are now exceptions attorneys have to account for. To put it simply, the amount of work that goes into a bankruptcy is what makes the cost so high. Source: lakelaw.com
How A lot Does it Price to File Bankruptcy?
Be wary of legislation corporations that cost really low expenses. If it seems way too excellent to be accurate, it possibly is! Our company helps make sure that every consumer gets ongoing attorney interest through the scenario. You are specified to satisfy with a accredited attorney at minimum filing bankruptcy three moments when you operate with our business office: at the preliminary intake, at the time that you review and approve your situation for submitting, and at the court visual appeal. A lot of regulation companies have paralegals and clerks offer with the customers and the shopper in no way even fulfills the attorney till the listening to. Source: thepassive.com
Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs‟ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, was assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 According to plaintiffs, the district attorney‟s office opened its criminal investigation against plaintiffs that day. POBRA provides a one-year statute of limitations for bringing of police misconduct charges. The time runs from discovery of the misconduct. (§ 3304, subd. (d).) Section 3304, subdivision (d)(1) tolls the limitations period while a criminal investigation or prosecution is pending. On December 2, 2002, Losorelli asked LAPD superiors to toll the statute of limitations against plaintiffs because of the pending criminal investigation. He asked that the period be tolled from his August 15, 2002 meeting with the district attorney‟s office until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was terminated on February 11, 2003, when the deputy district attorney in charge of the case elected not to seek a grand jury indictment. Personnel complaints against plaintiffs were filed at the Los Angeles Police Commission on August 3, 2003, alleging misconduct arising from the February 2002 arrest. They were served the next day. On August 3, 2004, a board of rights found plaintiffs guilty of misconduct and recommended that they be discharged. On September 29, 2004, the chief of police adopted the recommendation that plaintiffs be terminated for failure to report the use of force against a suspect. The chief signed orders removing them from employment, effective that day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) on December 14, 2004 seeking review of their terminations. They alleged that Losorelli furnished a false declaration regarding tolling, which was used by defendant in responding to the petition. Allegedly, Losorelli knew that pursuant to a policy of LAPD and the district attorney‟s office, only the latter was authorized to open a criminal investigation against sworn personnel. According to the complaint, the district attorney‟s office opened the criminal investigation against plaintiffs on October 2, 2002. Plaintiffs allege: “Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that his investigation against plaintiffs was considered a criminal investigation from the beginning (as of February 2, 2002). Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that he first presented the case against plaintiffs to [the deputy district 4 attorney] for possible criminal filing at a July 31, 2002 meeting, when this meeting actually took place on August 15, 2002.” Allegedly, with knowledge that the August 3, 2003 personnel complaints against plaintiffs were time-barred, Losorelli presented a false declaration in the mandamus action “with the intent of fraudulently extending the tolling period for criminal investigations” authorized by section 3304, subdivision (d) “and with the malicious intent to deprive plaintiffs of their rights,” and further employment with the LAPD. According to plaintiffs, they discovered Losorelli‟s wrongful conduct on July 25, 2007, after the administrative mandamus proceeding was concluded. They do not explain the circumstances of that discovery. Plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate was denied by the trial court. The court found the weight of evidence at the administrative hearing supported the decision to terminate plaintiffs. It identified the application of the POBRA statute of limitations as “the main legal issue in the case.” The court noted that both sides had submitted documentary evidence and declarations on the limitations issue, and that no objection to this evidence was made by either side. The trial court found: “The disciplinary action against the petitioners is not barred by the limitations provision of the POBR” because of the tolling provision in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1). The court stated that charges were served on plaintiffs 18 months and two days after the alleged misconduct. It found: “The alleged misconduct was the subject of a criminal investigation that commenced on or before July 31, 2002, when an LAPD investigator met with the District Attorney regarding the matter, and which did not end until February 11, 2003, when the District Attorney decided not to ask the grand jury for an indictment because of the lack of evidence. The one-year limitation period was therefore tolled for six months and eleven days. The investigation was therefore completed and notice of charges were served upon the petitioner[s] within the 5 twelve month period required by section 3304(d).” No appeal was filed from the denial of the petition for administrative mandate and that order is now final.3 Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this separate action seeking reinstatement on September 27, 2007. They filed a first amended complaint which was the subject of a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint dropped the claim for reinstatement, and, instead sought damages against the City for violation of POBRA. City responded with a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. At the first hearing on the motion, the trial court requested additional briefing on whether perjury in a prior proceeding may be the basis for a collateral attack on the judgment. After supplemental briefing on that issue, a second hearing was held. The court found: “The gravamen of this lawsuit is an action under Government Code section 3309.5, but it‟s based upon plaintiffs‟ claim for perjury in the underlying action in the mandamus proceeding.” The court observed that the weight of California authority is that perjury is not a basis for collateral attack on a judgment. It found “that since the gravamen of the complaint in this case is perjury in a prior proceeding and further based upon the principles of law that perjury in a prior proceeding, which is intrinsic fraud, is not grounds for collateral attack, the court is going to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Judgment was entered in favor of City. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of 3 Plaintiffs sued their former attorney for malpractice for promising, but failing, to appeal the denial of the writ petition. We are not informed of the outcome of that action. 6 action under any theory. [Citation.]” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1298.) The issue presented is whether the action for damages under POBRA is barred by the final judgment following denial of plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Plaintiffs argue they are not collaterally attacking the mandate judgment, which is final, and therefore the doctrines of finality of judgments and collateral estoppel do not apply. Their theory is that their procedural rights under POBRA were thwarted by the alleged perjury by Sergeant Losorelli. Rather than seeking reinstatement to the LAPD, plaintiffs now seek damages for emotional distress, lost earnings and benefits (including pensions), both past and future. They also seek a civil penalty of $25,000 under section 3309.5, and costs of suit. Finally, plaintiffs seek “an order of injunctive or extraordinary relief that the court deems necessary and just to prevent such future similar actions on the part of defendants against other employees.” A. POBRA POBRA “sets forth a list of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers (see § 3301) by the public entities which employ them. (§§ 3300 et seq.) „It is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).‟ (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 135.)” (Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1600, fns. omitted (Gales).) Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint alleges an action under section 3309.5, which provides a private right of action for police officers who claim a violation of their rights under POBRA.4 4 In pertinent part, section 3309.5 provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter. [¶] (d)(1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other 7 B. Availability of POBRA Cause Of Action City argues that plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action under POBRA because the alleged perjury was committed in the administrative mandamus proceedings after plaintiffs had been discharged from the LAPD. At that point, City argues, plaintiffs were no longer peace officers as defined by section 3301. Plaintiffs respond that the purpose of POBRA would be defeated if their rights are guaranteed only up to the point of discharge. We need not resolve whether a cause of action lies under POBRA based on a false declaration filed in an administrative mandamus proceeding because the time to challenge the declaration is in the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 proceeding. A subsequent collateral attack on that basis is not allowed, as we next discuss. C. Finality of Adjudications The California Supreme Court examined the principles underlying the finality of judgments in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cedars-Sinai), in which it held that there is no separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence. The court reviewed several cases that denied a tort remedy for the presentation of false evidence or suppression of evidence and observed these decisions “rest on a concern for the finality of adjudication.” (Id. at p. 10.) “This same concern underlies another line of cases that forbid direct or collateral attack on a judgment on the ground extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer. [¶] . . . [¶] (e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by the superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied . . . . If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages.” 8 that evidence was falsified, concealed, or suppressed. After the time for seeking a new trial has expired and any appeals have been exhausted, a final judgment may not be directly attacked and set aside on the ground that evidence has been suppressed, concealed, or falsified; . . . such fraud is „intrinsic‟ rather than „extrinsic.‟ [Citations.] Similarly, under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a judgment may not be collaterally attacked on the ground that evidence was falsified or destroyed. [Citations.]” (Ibid., italics added.) The claim that the judgment was based on forged documents or perjured testimony does not obviate the force of this policy favoring finality of judgments. As explained in Pico v. Cohn (1891) 91 Cal. 129, upon which the Supreme Court relied, “„[W]e think it is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony. The reason of this rule is, that there must be an end of litigation; and when parties have once submitted a matter . . . for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive . . . . [¶] . . . [W]hen [the aggrieved party] has a trial, he must be prepared to meet and expose perjury then and there. . . . The trial is his opportunity for making the truth appear. If, unfortunately, he fails, being overborne by perjured testimony, and if he likewise fails to show the injustice that has been done him on motion for a new trial, and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, he is without remedy. The wrong, in such case, is of course a most grievous one, and no doubt the legislature and the courts would be glad to redress it if a rule could be devised that would remedy the evil without producing mischiefs far worse than the evil to be remedied. Endless litigation, in which nothing was ever finally determined, would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice . . . .‟” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11, italics added, quoting Pico v. Cohn, supra, 91 Cal. 129, 133-134; accord, United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 68-69.) 9 D. Intrinsic Fraud Courts traditionally have distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, a distinction which “is of critical importance because intrinsic fraud cannot be used to overthrow a judgment, even where the party was unaware of the fraud at the time and did not have a chance to raise it at trial.” (Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 828.) As we have discussed, the introduction of perjured testimony is a classic example of intrinsic fraud. (See also Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 634, cited with approval in Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.) Plaintiffs argue these principles do not apply because their second amended complaint does not seek to invalidate the denial of the mandate petition and does not seek their reinstatement. They characterize the two actions: “The prior action litigated whether [plaintiffs] were entitled to equitable relief because inter alia the City of Los Angeles brought charges against them beyond the one year statute of limitations. The present action seeks statutory penalties and damages for a different and distinct violation of Government Code § 3309.5 by an employee of the City of Los Angeles.” They rely on Corral v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral). Corral arose out of an uninsured motorist arbitration between an insured and her insurer. The insurer refused to stipulate that the third party involved in the accident with the insured was uninsured. The arbitration was continued to allow the insured to obtain evidence that the third party was uninsured or to obtain a stipulation to that effect. When neither was obtained, counsel for the insured submitted on the evidence produced at the hearing. The arbitrator found for the insurer. Six weeks later the insured sought to reopen the arbitration based on a new declaration from the third party stating that he was uninsured. The request was denied on the ground the arbitrator lacked authority to grant the relief requested. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1007-1008.) The insured‟s motion in the superior court to vacate the arbitration award was denied as untimely, a ruling that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. (Id. at p. 1008.) 10 The insured then filed a separate action against the insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In it, she alleged that at all times the insurer knew that the third party was uninsured, and fraudulently contended at the arbitration hearing that he was insured. In opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment, counsel for the insured submitted his declaration in which he stated that a claims manager for the insured had told him before the arbitration that the insurer would treat the claim as an uninsured motorist case. The attorney declared that, in reliance on these assurances, he made no effort to obtain evidence of the third party‟s lack of insurance coverage. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1008-1009.) The Corral court rejected the insurer‟s argument that the bad faith action was barred by either res judicata or the policies underlying finality of judgments. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009.) Instead, it held that each proceeding was based on a different claim of right: the arbitration proceeding was brought to recover benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance contract; the bad faith cause of action was not based on facts surrounding the automobile collision or the terms of the insurance policy, but on bad faith (refusal to acknowledge that the third party motorist was uninsured) committed after the collision. The court concluded that the bad faith claim constituted a different cause of action, and so was not barred by collateral estoppel. (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.) It held that the bad faith action was “not a collateral attack upon the arbitrator‟s award as it is not directed toward directly preventing the enforcement of that award or defeating rights acquired under it.” (Id. at p. 1013.) The court in Corral acknowledged a then recent case that reached a different result, but disagreed with its holding. The case was Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 811, which held that the doctrine of finality of judgments barred a separate action for bad faith alleging that in an arbitration between insurer and insured, the insurer had presented false evidence and testimony. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1012-1014.) But Rios (and several other decisions) were cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 10. Of course, the Corral court did not 11 have the benefit of the Supreme Court‟s reasoning in Cedars-Sinai, which was decided some 19 years later. Plaintiffs do not cite or discuss Rios, but argue that Corral should apply because in that case, as in this one, the facts giving rise to the second action occurred during the first proceeding. They contend: “As demonstrated in Corral, it is the extraordinary obligations of the defendant that allows the second action to proceed. In that case, it was the insurance company‟s obligation of good faith and fair dealing. . . . Similarly, in the present case the City of Los Angeles cannot get away with its conduct at the hearing on the writ where it presented the perjurous [sic] declaration because it had an independent obligation not to violate [plaintiffs‟] rights under Government Code, § 3309.5.” Here, to prevail in their action for damages, plaintiffs had to prove a violation of POBRA based upon defendant‟s reliance on a perjured declaration to show that the tolling of the time to file disciplinary actions lasted long enough to render their discharges timely. This goes to the heart of the trial court‟s finding in the mandate proceeding. To the extent that Corral stands for the proposition that the finality of judgments doctrine does not apply to a separate bad faith action arising from the presentation of false or perjured testimony in an earlier proceeding, we disagree, and instead follow Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1 and Rios, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 818-819. Plaintiffs also rely on Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Miller). In that case, the executor of an estate hired a law firm to represent her in connection with her duties. At the conclusion of the probate matter, the firm requested and was awarded its fees except for one category which the probate court found to involve work for the executor in her individual capacity. The firm did not appeal that decision. Instead, it filed a new action seeking quantum meruit recovery of the denied fees directly from the client. The trial court held the action was barred by the final judgment in the probate case. The Court of Appeal reversed. Significantly, it found that the probate court did not decide that the law firm was not entitled to the additional fees, but only that the fees were not payable out of the estate. 12 (Id. at p. 1341.) As the Miller court explained, the probate court never ruled on the firm‟s entitlement to fees directly from its client, and therefore there was no basis for collateral estoppel. (Id. at p. 1343.) The case before us is quite different. The court ruled on the tolling issue in the mandate proceeding. Indeed it was the central question in the case. “„Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue only if (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341.)‟ (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82.)” (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1048-1049.) That describes the present case. Because the tolling issue was actually litigated in the mandate proceeding, a new claim based on the allegedly perjured declaration is a collateral attack on the mandate decision. Perjured testimony cannot be the basis for a separate proceeding. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11.) In light of our conclusion, we need not and do not address City‟s other arguments. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. City is to have its costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur: WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J. Source: barstowwatch.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Video: Bankruptcy Questions : Can I File for Bankruptcy for Free?
LightSquared Announced It Was Filing Bankruptcy
On April 30, 2012, creditors asked for Falcone’s removal when they gave the company an extension to renegotiate its debt, with the intent of stopping a default. Philip Falcone runs Harbinger Capital Partners, which is the New York based hedge fund. The hedge fund has invested approximately $3 billion in LightSquared and at the time of filing bankruptcy it was reported they owned as much as 74% of the company. Source: debtfreebankruptcyattorney.com
Will I lose My Residence In the actual event that I File regarding Bankruptcy in Arizona?
After helping thus many folks by means of the actual Arizona bankruptcy method with regard to a lot more than 15 years, the particular Arizona bankruptcy attorneys of Arizona Bankruptcy Right now have seen firsthand your remorse along with guilt experienced simply by debtors. The US features been heading via any recession, your job marketplace offers been terrible, and also the housing/mortgage crisis has impacted millions. The excellent thing is in which you can keep beneficial assets which are not really covered by simply exemptions. When filing your claim using the bankruptcy court, the actual judge could not really approve the actual bankruptcy claim or even the result may not really always be exactly as you expect. You can easily file the particular bankruptcy application both your self or perhaps through your current attorney. Source: jiongyulu.com
Extreme Debtors: The Cost of Filing for Bankruptcy
For those who cannot afford the fees, pro bono or reduced fee legal services may be available. Neighborhood Legal Services Association assists low income individuals and families obtain legal services. (You can find more information here: NLSA). The Allegheny County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Services Modest Means Panel also refers clients to attorneys who have agreed to provide services at a reduced fee. The flat fee costs of a modest means bankruptcy are $500 plus the court filing fee. (Visit the ACBA site here: ACBA LRS). Source: wordpress.com
New free bankruptcy evaluation page: Is Bankruptcy the right choice for you?
Keep your possessions: Having a trusted and experienced bankruptcy attorney, such as the staff at O’Connor, Acciani & Levy, who know all the rules, can assure you that you get the full benefits afforded by bankruptcy law and protect your possessions. State laws give you the right to keep exempted property from being lost in a bankruptcy or being taken by your creditors. Our bankruptcy attorneys can not only advise you whether bankruptcy is the correct choice for your situation, but can also help you keep your home, your car and as many of your possessions as possible, if you decide to file. By hiring the experienced and trusted attorneys at O’Connor, Acciani & Levy, you can rest assured that your bankruptcy will go as smoothly as possible and that you will get the full benefit that the law allows in keeping your property. Source: oal-law.com
History Questions in Trouble
The main reason Arizona individual bankruptcy attorneys do the job with folks to file Chapter seven individual bankruptcy would be to support men and women get out from beneath the stress of their debts. Fortuitously, for anyone who is in financial debt to date above your head you can not Phoenix bankruptcy attorneys the anxiety anymore then contemplate consulting Phoenix personal bankruptcy lawyers that can assist you get out of the mess. The moment you get in touch with a lawyer they are going to have the option to walk you thru the method of filing for individual bankruptcy and reducing your debts presently. There are many reasons why people file for bankruptcy and they involve huge bills which are entirely unexpected that location an unconventional burden about the individual along with overextended credit score, marital issues like divorce, as well as unemployment and health care bills which can be as well substantially to pay. Source: adamwilkins.net
Finding a Bankruptcy Attorney for Your Team ~ Financial Tips
The same applies to finding a bankruptcy attorney to represent you. One should be completely comfortable sharing their failures as well as their windfalls and allow the attorney to do their magic to get the best results from their bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy court requires individuals to be completely honest when filing bankruptcy. Hiding something from your lawyer or the bankruptcy court will only end up bad. With the addition of the Internet, it’s become very easy for the bankruptcy trustee to fact check people’s information. They might even look up their social media accounts to see if they’re not sharing everything with the court. It’s best to give it all to the bankruptcy attorney and allow them to make the decision on how to move forward. Source: finanacecareonline.com
Get Free Bankruptcy Advice for Filing Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Online
If you are considering filing chapter 7 bankruptcy, it could be important for you to get proper legal advice offered by a chapter 7 or chapter 13 attorney. While many debtors could be unwilling to pay fees to a chapter 7 or 13 lawyer, it could be one of the most important investments which you could ever make. This is because a professionally qualified and highly experienced bankruptcy attorney could be of immense help in preparing bankruptcy petition as per chapter 7 rules and regulations or even other laws that apply to your specific bankruptcy case. Nevertheless, if you are not in a position to afford the services of a chapter 7 or chapter 13 bankruptcy lawyer for filing a personal bankruptcy under chapter 7, you could explore another option. These days you could also find an attorney who could help you to prepare a bankruptcy petition which is to be under chapter 7 laws online. Source: med08.org
In Need of a Financial Fresh Start? Contact an Arlington Bankruptcy Attorney
Even with the rocky economy, it’s hard to grasp that bankruptcy can happen to anyone. Losing your job came as a complete surprise and before you knew it, your savings started to rapidly dwindle. When you’re not dealing with creditors you’re left studying your accumulating bills in disbelief. If debt has become unmanageable for you, like it has for many Americans, it’s important to take a look at all your options to acquire relief. If you believe bankruptcy may be your only option available, it’s imperative to reach out to an Arlington bankruptcy attorney or team of Fort Worth bankruptcy lawyers. Source: ezinemark.com
Filing Bankruptcy, Discharge And A Free House?
California (Bay Area) California (Chico) Connecticut Florida (Northeast) Florida (Southwest) Georgia (Atlanta Area) Illinois (Southern) Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts (Boston) Massachusetts (Springfield) Michigan Minnesota Missouri (Kansas City) Missouri (St. Louis Area) New York (Upstate) New York Bankruptcy Lawyer North Carolina (Charlotte area) Oregon (South) Oregon (Willamette Valley) South Carolina North Carolina (Eastern, Wilson) South Carolina (Charleston) Source: bankruptcylawnetwork.com
Achieve a debt free life through Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy
Thus it is possible to obtain a debt free life by filing for bankruptcy. However, bankruptcy can severely affect your credit report. Record of Chapter 13 bankruptcy can remain in your credit report for 7 years and in case of Chapter 7 bankruptcy, it can remain for 10 years. Thus, you should make your decision wisely and file for bankruptcy only if you do not see any other alternative to achieve relief from debt. Source: stlouisbankruptcylawattorney.com
Essentially the most popular payg pay out regular cellular phones in the marketplace game enthusiasts ought to be Iphone boasts in excess of fair share addicting titles online because of the Application Save Having said that regardless if you are pleased to afford wordpress are searching for something absolutely free it can be hard to find out how to start because there are many different alternatives accessible Thats where daily new iphone 4 online games graph build come in rather convenient Leading up to date detailing will be the ever popular Angry Chickens also comes in Angry Birds tryout type that will certainly cause several to spend to the given update because of amazingly addicting nature The purpose of the action is to use deliberately introduction chickens to the air flow kill off like critters populate each one amount Sounds ridiculous Effectively check it out for we are able to essentially ensure in the near future connected number two is the one other freebie lets you increase hawaiian isle populated wildlife inside of a put money to build the earth very best internet explorer recreation area Tap permits you to put in place recreation area an array of wildlife allow them to particular breed of dog unlock many destinations coax site visitors action is a lot more look Call of Duty takes effectively acknowledged capture business of identical title introduces component of underworld courtroom proceedings Conversely you should test your handy ability Fresh fruits in which the adjustable touchscreen display screen with the new iphone 4 is required golf slice by arbitrarily produced fruits and veggies family pet things FarmThere are Free of charge Certified nursing assistant Teaching packages are suitable for absolutely everyone wishes for like a qualified Cna and theyre totally free As always Free of charge Certified nursing assistant Teaching instructional classes sorted out hostipal wards occupation instruction companies by online courses study work instruction groups packages in different parts of the country Nevertheless you will need to go scenario exam to be a Accredited Healthcare professional yet not on the web Cna instruction instructional classes classes vary from one another Certified nursing assistant instruction CNA Classes provde the essential familiarity with breastfeeding benefit knowledge whilst Certified nursing assistant online classes incorporate the standard prepared study substance Youll be able to show up at absolutely free Cna instruction instructional classes assisted living facilities hostipal wards family pet earning a living for association for quite a while Also you may have a look at hostipal wards healthcare centres by cell phone internet directories and obtain information free of charge Certified nursing assistant instruction packages A high level pupil you can find absolutely free exercise and diet program obtained through a few hostipal wards handling institution authorities Private hospitals assisted living facilities in a few spots absolutely free Certified nursing assistant instruction chances to make certain that potential basic need Cnas experience ample volume of qualified breastfeeding coworkers You can even turn into a Cna absolutely free through nearby work instruction specialists groups delivering absolutely free Certified nursing assistant Teaching talk about specialists These are arrested for it being sure the public health A lot of like packages exist together Certified nursing assistant household health benefit givingDo you know what is usually the greatest conditions that folks have from time to time Then theyve time for it to wipe out and theyve got not even attempt to Atlanta private investigators that this monotony slide before very long mental performance reduce Usually there are some folks who bored to death that they turn into actually feel like they are gradually getting rid of their minds you do Nevertheless you you dont need to endure imagination numbing monotony if you have time for it to wipe out There are lots of things you can use most likely the most effective way wipe out is always to engage in pleasurable on the web Fun Games That is certainly appropriate pleasurable on the web online games can be extremely panic disorder monotony simply because think about you and also concern the mind at the same time There may be quite a variety of online games available there are several that will actually concern you wish pleasurable marvel online games while youll find others that will help you stay chaotic executing something which you dont feel an excessive amount about the that you have to spend There is no need to get anxious that you will never locate a online game you require as there are countless online games available and extremely youll certainly find one that youll love Would likely not understand it you may also land around a game that youll love a great deal of you are going to play it even if you usually are not bored to death Speak about a primary benefit huh There are simply a great number of pleasurable online games theres for every individual to try out Those people that adventure online games can begin to play adventure online games and people who marvel online games can begin to play marvel online games there are also a great deal of online games that children engage in Youve got Source: bankruptcyco.org Source: bankruptcyco.org Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: medicalbankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
Video: Law Videos – Bankruptcy Law – Chapter 9
City of Harrisburg PA Files Chapter 9 Bankruptcy
Filed 10/2/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR ANDREW BUESA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent. B212854 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC378215) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elihu M. Berle, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of David W. Allor and David W. Allor for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen Trutanich, City Attorneys, and Paul L. Winnemore, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Respondent. _________________________ 2 This is an appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in an action against the City of Los Angeles (City)1 brought by two former Los Angeles police officers, Andrew Buesa and Michael Cardenas. Plaintiffs seek damages for a violation of their rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (POBRA)).2 The gravamen of their complaint is that a perjured declaration submitted by the City deprived them of their statute of limitations defense in an administrative mandamus proceeding over their discharges. The issue is whether they may maintain this as a separate action, or whether under the doctrine of collateral estoppel it is barred by the final judgment denying their petition for administrative mandamus. We conclude that plaintiffs‟ action under POBRA is barred because it constitutes an impermissible collateral attack on the mandate judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Since this matter is on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings, we take our factual summary from the allegations of the second amended complaint, which is the charging pleading. On February 2, 2002, plaintiffs participated in the arrest of a suspect following a car and foot chase. The same day, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) learned of alleged acts of misconduct by plaintiffs arising from that arrest. The next day, Sergeant Joe Losorelli, of the LAPD Internal Affairs Group, was assigned to investigate the alleged misconduct. On August 15, 2002, Losorelli met with a deputy district attorney in the Los Angeles County District Attorney‟s Office for the purpose of seeking a determination whether criminal charges should be filed against plaintiffs based on the February 2002 incident. Losorelli met with the deputy district attorney again on October 2, 2002, at which time he provided a copy of his investigation and witness statements. 1 Police Chief William J. Bratton was a named defendant in the original complaint, but he was deleted in the second amended complaint, the charging pleading. He is not a party to this appeal. 2 Statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. 3 According to plaintiffs, the district attorney‟s office opened its criminal investigation against plaintiffs that day. POBRA provides a one-year statute of limitations for bringing of police misconduct charges. The time runs from discovery of the misconduct. (§ 3304, subd. (d).) Section 3304, subdivision (d)(1) tolls the limitations period while a criminal investigation or prosecution is pending. On December 2, 2002, Losorelli asked LAPD superiors to toll the statute of limitations against plaintiffs because of the pending criminal investigation. He asked that the period be tolled from his August 15, 2002 meeting with the district attorney‟s office until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. The criminal investigation was terminated on February 11, 2003, when the deputy district attorney in charge of the case elected not to seek a grand jury indictment. Personnel complaints against plaintiffs were filed at the Los Angeles Police Commission on August 3, 2003, alleging misconduct arising from the February 2002 arrest. They were served the next day. On August 3, 2004, a board of rights found plaintiffs guilty of misconduct and recommended that they be discharged. On September 29, 2004, the chief of police adopted the recommendation that plaintiffs be terminated for failure to report the use of force against a suspect. The chief signed orders removing them from employment, effective that day. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) on December 14, 2004 seeking review of their terminations. They alleged that Losorelli furnished a false declaration regarding tolling, which was used by defendant in responding to the petition. Allegedly, Losorelli knew that pursuant to a policy of LAPD and the district attorney‟s office, only the latter was authorized to open a criminal investigation against sworn personnel. According to the complaint, the district attorney‟s office opened the criminal investigation against plaintiffs on October 2, 2002. Plaintiffs allege: “Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that his investigation against plaintiffs was considered a criminal investigation from the beginning (as of February 2, 2002). Sergeant Losorelli knowingly and intentionally testified falsely that he first presented the case against plaintiffs to [the deputy district 4 attorney] for possible criminal filing at a July 31, 2002 meeting, when this meeting actually took place on August 15, 2002.” Allegedly, with knowledge that the August 3, 2003 personnel complaints against plaintiffs were time-barred, Losorelli presented a false declaration in the mandamus action “with the intent of fraudulently extending the tolling period for criminal investigations” authorized by section 3304, subdivision (d) “and with the malicious intent to deprive plaintiffs of their rights,” and further employment with the LAPD. According to plaintiffs, they discovered Losorelli‟s wrongful conduct on July 25, 2007, after the administrative mandamus proceeding was concluded. They do not explain the circumstances of that discovery. Plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate was denied by the trial court. The court found the weight of evidence at the administrative hearing supported the decision to terminate plaintiffs. It identified the application of the POBRA statute of limitations as “the main legal issue in the case.” The court noted that both sides had submitted documentary evidence and declarations on the limitations issue, and that no objection to this evidence was made by either side. The trial court found: “The disciplinary action against the petitioners is not barred by the limitations provision of the POBR” because of the tolling provision in section 3304, subdivision (d)(1). The court stated that charges were served on plaintiffs 18 months and two days after the alleged misconduct. It found: “The alleged misconduct was the subject of a criminal investigation that commenced on or before July 31, 2002, when an LAPD investigator met with the District Attorney regarding the matter, and which did not end until February 11, 2003, when the District Attorney decided not to ask the grand jury for an indictment because of the lack of evidence. The one-year limitation period was therefore tolled for six months and eleven days. The investigation was therefore completed and notice of charges were served upon the petitioner[s] within the 5 twelve month period required by section 3304(d).” No appeal was filed from the denial of the petition for administrative mandate and that order is now final.3 Plaintiffs filed their original complaint in this separate action seeking reinstatement on September 27, 2007. They filed a first amended complaint which was the subject of a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted with leave to amend. Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint dropped the claim for reinstatement, and, instead sought damages against the City for violation of POBRA. City responded with a new motion for judgment on the pleadings. At the first hearing on the motion, the trial court requested additional briefing on whether perjury in a prior proceeding may be the basis for a collateral attack on the judgment. After supplemental briefing on that issue, a second hearing was held. The court found: “The gravamen of this lawsuit is an action under Government Code section 3309.5, but it‟s based upon plaintiffs‟ claim for perjury in the underlying action in the mandamus proceeding.” The court observed that the weight of California authority is that perjury is not a basis for collateral attack on a judgment. It found “that since the gravamen of the complaint in this case is perjury in a prior proceeding and further based upon the principles of law that perjury in a prior proceeding, which is intrinsic fraud, is not grounds for collateral attack, the court is going to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings.” Judgment was entered in favor of City. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION “The standard of review for a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as that for a general demurrer: We treat the pleadings as admitting all of the material facts properly pleaded, but not any contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law contained therein. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice. We review the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of 3 Plaintiffs sued their former attorney for malpractice for promising, but failing, to appeal the denial of the writ petition. We are not informed of the outcome of that action. 6 action under any theory. [Citation.]” (Dunn v. County of Santa Barbara (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1298.) The issue presented is whether the action for damages under POBRA is barred by the final judgment following denial of plaintiffs‟ petition for writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. Plaintiffs argue they are not collaterally attacking the mandate judgment, which is final, and therefore the doctrines of finality of judgments and collateral estoppel do not apply. Their theory is that their procedural rights under POBRA were thwarted by the alleged perjury by Sergeant Losorelli. Rather than seeking reinstatement to the LAPD, plaintiffs now seek damages for emotional distress, lost earnings and benefits (including pensions), both past and future. They also seek a civil penalty of $25,000 under section 3309.5, and costs of suit. Finally, plaintiffs seek “an order of injunctive or extraordinary relief that the court deems necessary and just to prevent such future similar actions on the part of defendants against other employees.” A. POBRA POBRA “sets forth a list of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers (see § 3301) by the public entities which employ them. (§§ 3300 et seq.) „It is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).‟ (Baggett v. Gates (1982) 32 Cal.3d 128, 135.)” (Gales v. Superior Court (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1596, 1600, fns. omitted (Gales).) Plaintiffs‟ second amended complaint alleges an action under section 3309.5, which provides a private right of action for police officers who claim a violation of their rights under POBRA.4 4 In pertinent part, section 3309.5 provides: “(a) It shall be unlawful for any public safety department to deny or refuse to any public safety officer the rights and protections guaranteed to him or her by this chapter. [¶] . . . [¶] (c) The superior court shall have initial jurisdiction over any proceeding brought by any public safety officer against any public safety department for alleged violations of this chapter. [¶] (d)(1) In any case where the superior court finds that a public safety department has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the court shall render appropriate injunctive or other 7 B. Availability of POBRA Cause Of Action City argues that plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action under POBRA because the alleged perjury was committed in the administrative mandamus proceedings after plaintiffs had been discharged from the LAPD. At that point, City argues, plaintiffs were no longer peace officers as defined by section 3301. Plaintiffs respond that the purpose of POBRA would be defeated if their rights are guaranteed only up to the point of discharge. We need not resolve whether a cause of action lies under POBRA based on a false declaration filed in an administrative mandamus proceeding because the time to challenge the declaration is in the Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 proceeding. A subsequent collateral attack on that basis is not allowed, as we next discuss. C. Finality of Adjudications The California Supreme Court examined the principles underlying the finality of judgments in Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1 (Cedars-Sinai), in which it held that there is no separate tort for intentional spoliation of evidence. The court reviewed several cases that denied a tort remedy for the presentation of false evidence or suppression of evidence and observed these decisions “rest on a concern for the finality of adjudication.” (Id. at p. 10.) “This same concern underlies another line of cases that forbid direct or collateral attack on a judgment on the ground extraordinary relief to remedy the violation and to prevent future violations of a like or similar nature, including, but not limited to, the granting of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction prohibiting the public safety department from taking any punitive action against the public safety officer. [¶] . . . [¶] (e) In addition to the extraordinary relief afforded by this chapter, upon a finding by the superior court that a public safety department, its employees, agents, or assigns, with respect to acts taken within the scope of employment, maliciously violated any provision of this chapter with the intent to injure the public safety officer, the public safety department shall, for each and every violation, be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be awarded to the public safety officer whose right or protection was denied . . . . If the court so finds, and there is sufficient evidence to establish actual damages suffered by the officer whose right or protection was denied, the public safety department shall also be liable for the amount of the actual damages.” 8 that evidence was falsified, concealed, or suppressed. After the time for seeking a new trial has expired and any appeals have been exhausted, a final judgment may not be directly attacked and set aside on the ground that evidence has been suppressed, concealed, or falsified; . . . such fraud is „intrinsic‟ rather than „extrinsic.‟ [Citations.] Similarly, under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, a judgment may not be collaterally attacked on the ground that evidence was falsified or destroyed. [Citations.]” (Ibid., italics added.) The claim that the judgment was based on forged documents or perjured testimony does not obviate the force of this policy favoring finality of judgments. As explained in Pico v. Cohn (1891) 91 Cal. 129, upon which the Supreme Court relied, “„[W]e think it is settled beyond controversy that a decree will not be vacated merely because it was obtained by forged documents or perjured testimony. The reason of this rule is, that there must be an end of litigation; and when parties have once submitted a matter . . . for investigation and determination, and when they have exhausted every means for reviewing such determination in the same proceeding, it must be regarded as final and conclusive . . . . [¶] . . . [W]hen [the aggrieved party] has a trial, he must be prepared to meet and expose perjury then and there. . . . The trial is his opportunity for making the truth appear. If, unfortunately, he fails, being overborne by perjured testimony, and if he likewise fails to show the injustice that has been done him on motion for a new trial, and the judgment is affirmed on appeal, he is without remedy. The wrong, in such case, is of course a most grievous one, and no doubt the legislature and the courts would be glad to redress it if a rule could be devised that would remedy the evil without producing mischiefs far worse than the evil to be remedied. Endless litigation, in which nothing was ever finally determined, would be worse than occasional miscarriages of justice . . . .‟” (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11, italics added, quoting Pico v. Cohn, supra, 91 Cal. 129, 133-134; accord, United States v. Throckmorton (1878) 98 U.S. 61, 68-69.) 9 D. Intrinsic Fraud Courts traditionally have distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud, a distinction which “is of critical importance because intrinsic fraud cannot be used to overthrow a judgment, even where the party was unaware of the fraud at the time and did not have a chance to raise it at trial.” (Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 828.) As we have discussed, the introduction of perjured testimony is a classic example of intrinsic fraud. (See also Kachig v. Boothe (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 626, 634, cited with approval in Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., supra, 112 Cal.App.4th at p. 828.) Plaintiffs argue these principles do not apply because their second amended complaint does not seek to invalidate the denial of the mandate petition and does not seek their reinstatement. They characterize the two actions: “The prior action litigated whether [plaintiffs] were entitled to equitable relief because inter alia the City of Los Angeles brought charges against them beyond the one year statute of limitations. The present action seeks statutory penalties and damages for a different and distinct violation of Government Code § 3309.5 by an employee of the City of Los Angeles.” They rely on Corral v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 1004 (Corral). Corral arose out of an uninsured motorist arbitration between an insured and her insurer. The insurer refused to stipulate that the third party involved in the accident with the insured was uninsured. The arbitration was continued to allow the insured to obtain evidence that the third party was uninsured or to obtain a stipulation to that effect. When neither was obtained, counsel for the insured submitted on the evidence produced at the hearing. The arbitrator found for the insurer. Six weeks later the insured sought to reopen the arbitration based on a new declaration from the third party stating that he was uninsured. The request was denied on the ground the arbitrator lacked authority to grant the relief requested. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1007-1008.) The insured‟s motion in the superior court to vacate the arbitration award was denied as untimely, a ruling that was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. (Id. at p. 1008.) 10 The insured then filed a separate action against the insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. In it, she alleged that at all times the insurer knew that the third party was uninsured, and fraudulently contended at the arbitration hearing that he was insured. In opposition to the defense motion for summary judgment, counsel for the insured submitted his declaration in which he stated that a claims manager for the insured had told him before the arbitration that the insurer would treat the claim as an uninsured motorist case. The attorney declared that, in reliance on these assurances, he made no effort to obtain evidence of the third party‟s lack of insurance coverage. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1008-1009.) The Corral court rejected the insurer‟s argument that the bad faith action was barred by either res judicata or the policies underlying finality of judgments. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at p. 1009.) Instead, it held that each proceeding was based on a different claim of right: the arbitration proceeding was brought to recover benefits under the uninsured motorist provision of the insurance contract; the bad faith cause of action was not based on facts surrounding the automobile collision or the terms of the insurance policy, but on bad faith (refusal to acknowledge that the third party motorist was uninsured) committed after the collision. The court concluded that the bad faith claim constituted a different cause of action, and so was not barred by collateral estoppel. (Id. at pp. 1011-1012.) It held that the bad faith action was “not a collateral attack upon the arbitrator‟s award as it is not directed toward directly preventing the enforcement of that award or defeating rights acquired under it.” (Id. at p. 1013.) The court in Corral acknowledged a then recent case that reached a different result, but disagreed with its holding. The case was Rios v. Allstate Ins. Co. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 811, which held that the doctrine of finality of judgments barred a separate action for bad faith alleging that in an arbitration between insurer and insured, the insurer had presented false evidence and testimony. (Corral, supra, 92 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1012-1014.) But Rios (and several other decisions) were cited with approval by our Supreme Court in Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at page 10. Of course, the Corral court did not 11 have the benefit of the Supreme Court‟s reasoning in Cedars-Sinai, which was decided some 19 years later. Plaintiffs do not cite or discuss Rios, but argue that Corral should apply because in that case, as in this one, the facts giving rise to the second action occurred during the first proceeding. They contend: “As demonstrated in Corral, it is the extraordinary obligations of the defendant that allows the second action to proceed. In that case, it was the insurance company‟s obligation of good faith and fair dealing. . . . Similarly, in the present case the City of Los Angeles cannot get away with its conduct at the hearing on the writ where it presented the perjurous [sic] declaration because it had an independent obligation not to violate [plaintiffs‟] rights under Government Code, § 3309.5.” Here, to prevail in their action for damages, plaintiffs had to prove a violation of POBRA based upon defendant‟s reliance on a perjured declaration to show that the tolling of the time to file disciplinary actions lasted long enough to render their discharges timely. This goes to the heart of the trial court‟s finding in the mandate proceeding. To the extent that Corral stands for the proposition that the finality of judgments doctrine does not apply to a separate bad faith action arising from the presentation of false or perjured testimony in an earlier proceeding, we disagree, and instead follow Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th 1 and Rios, supra, 68 Cal.App.3d at pp. 818-819. Plaintiffs also rely on Miller v. Campbell, Warburton, Fitzsimmons, Smith, Mendel & Pastore (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1331 (Miller). In that case, the executor of an estate hired a law firm to represent her in connection with her duties. At the conclusion of the probate matter, the firm requested and was awarded its fees except for one category which the probate court found to involve work for the executor in her individual capacity. The firm did not appeal that decision. Instead, it filed a new action seeking quantum meruit recovery of the denied fees directly from the client. The trial court held the action was barred by the final judgment in the probate case. The Court of Appeal reversed. Significantly, it found that the probate court did not decide that the law firm was not entitled to the additional fees, but only that the fees were not payable out of the estate. 12 (Id. at p. 1341.) As the Miller court explained, the probate court never ruled on the firm‟s entitlement to fees directly from its client, and therefore there was no basis for collateral estoppel. (Id. at p. 1343.) The case before us is quite different. The court ruled on the tolling issue in the mandate proceeding. Indeed it was the central question in the case. “„Collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue only if (1) the issue is identical to an issue decided in a prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated; (3) the issue was necessarily decided; (4) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; and (5) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party to the prior proceeding or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341.)‟ (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82.)” (Plumley v. Mockett (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1048-1049.) That describes the present case. Because the tolling issue was actually litigated in the mandate proceeding, a new claim based on the allegedly perjured declaration is a collateral attack on the mandate decision. Perjured testimony cannot be the basis for a separate proceeding. (Cedars-Sinai, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 10-11.) In light of our conclusion, we need not and do not address City‟s other arguments. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. City is to have its costs on appeal. CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION. EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur: WILLHITE, J. MANELLA, J. Source: barstowwatch.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com
Nothing found for Muniland 2012 05 18 What
Alabama bankruptcy budgets California Citigroup Congress credit ratings defaults education EMMA federal government Federal Reserve Florida fracking Harrisburg Illinois infrastructure Jefferson County jobs JP Morgan Medicaid MSRB muni bond funds muni CDS municipal bonds municipalities muni issuance muni snaps Nevada New Jersey New York Obama Pennsylvania pensions privatization property tax Puerto Rico revenue bonds Rhode Island SEC Standard & Poor’s state budgets tax transparency Whitney Source: reuters.com
David Unkovic wanted bankruptcy, Jeff Piccola says
Why is it that every time Piccola opens his mouth he sounds more and more deranged? From day one Piccola has been fighting to insure that the citizens of Harrisburg bear the brunt of the financial hardship even though it was the shady politicians like him that put Harrisburg in the disastrous position it is in today. “There can only be one answer……he has “financial skin” in the game. People who personally know him realize he has never been the “brightest bulb” in the pack, but he is also not the dimmest. When someone acts as irrationally as Piccola, making ridiculous statements aimed at insuring the creditors contribute nothing to the eventual solution, you must ask why. The answer is follow the money. Much of it will likely end up in his pocket! Source: pennlive.com
Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Laws Chapter
Texas, Gonzalez de la Garza Genealogy Collection Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 Washington State County Land Records, 1852-1935 Washington State County Probate Case Files, 1832-1950 Washington State County Records, 1885-1950 Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Public Library Records, 1848-1980 New images have been added to the following databases unless otherwise noted: Australia, Queensland Cemetery Records, 1802-1990 Australia, Tasmania, Miscellaneous Records, 1829-1961 Austria, Seigniorial Records, 1537-1888 Bolivia, Catholic Church Records, 1566-1996 Brazil Civil Registration, 1870-2009 Canada, Ontario Births, 1869-1912 (Index records) Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Canada, Saskatchewan, Judicial District Court Records, 1891-1954 Canada, Saskatchewan, Probate Estate Files, 1887-1931 Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Chile, Santiago, Cementerio General, 1821-2010 China, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-1900 Colombia, Catholic Church Records, 1600-2008 Costa Rica, Civil Registration, 1860-1975 Czech Republic, Censuses, 1843-1921 Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1935 Czech Republic, Land Records, 1450-1850 Czech Republic, Třeboň, Nobility Seignorial records, 1664-1698 Dominican Republic Civil Registration, 1801-2006 El Salvador, Civil Registration Records, 1836-1910 England and Wales Census, 1871 England, Norfolk Parish Registers, 1538-1900 (Index records and images) Estonia, Church Books 1835-194 Germany Marriages, 1558-1929 (Index records) Germany, Bavaria, Dinkelsbühl Miscellaneous City Records, 1804-1946 Germany, Württemberg, Albstadt, Miscellaneous City Records, 1705-1850 Guatemala, Catholic Church Records, 1581-1977 Hungary Catholic Church Records, 1636-1895 (Index records) Hungary Reformed Church Christenings, 1624-1895 (Index records) Hungary, Civil Registration, 1895-1980 Italy, Bologna, Bologna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Catania, Caltagirone, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1861-1941 Italy, Catania, Catania, Civil Registration (Comune), 1820-1905 Italy, Cuneo, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1795-1915 Italy, Genova, Chiavari, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Napoli, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1809-1865 Italy, Pistoia, Pistoia, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Ravenna, Ravenna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Trieste, Trieste, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1924-1939 Jamaica, Civil Birth Registration Korea, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-2009 Mexico, Morelos, Civil Registration, 1861-1920 Micronesia, Pohnpei, Land Records, 1971-2007 Nicaragua, Diocese of Managua, Catholic Church Records, 1740-2008 Norway Census, 1875 (Index records) Peru, Civil Registration, 1874-1996 Philippines, Civil Registration (National), 1945-1980 Poland, Roman Catholic Church Books, 1600-1950 Portugal, Aveiro, Catholic Church Records, 1550-1911 Portugal, Aveiro, Passport Registers, 1882-1965 Portugal, Aveiro, Testaments, 1900-1936 Portugal, Braga, Catholic Church Records, 1530-1911 Portugal, Bragança, Catholic Church Records, 1541-1985 Portugal, Coimbra, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Coimbra, Passport Registers and Application Files, 1835-1938 Portugal, Diocese of Lamego, Catholic Church Records, 1532-1911 Portugal, Diocese of Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1575-1975 Portugal, Faro, Catholic Church Records, 1587-1880 Portugal, Guarda, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Catholic Church Records, 1534-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Passport Registers, 1861-1901 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1535-1949 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1582-1908 Portugal, Setúbal, Catholic Church Records, 1555-1911 Portugal, Viana do Castelo, Catholic Church Records, 1537-1909 Portugal, Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1533-1941 South Africa, Orange Free State, Estate Files, 1951-2004 South Africa, Reformed Church Records, 1856-1988 Spain, Cádiz, Testaments, 1550-1920 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Municipal Records Sweden, Älvsborg Church Records, 1642-1897; index 1681-1860 Sweden, Blekinge Church Records, 1612-1916; index 1646-1860 Sweden, Gävleborg Church Records, 1616-1908; index 1671-1860 Sweden, Göteborg och Bohus Church Records, 1577-1932; index 1659-1860 Sweden, Gotland Church Records, 1582-1940; index 1655-1860 Sweden, Halland Church Records, 1615-1904; index 1615-1860 Sweden, Jämtland Church Records, 1582-1928; index 1642-1860 Sweden, Jönköping Church Records, 1581-1935; index 1633-1860 Sweden, Kalmar Church Records, 1577-1907; index 1625-1860 Sweden, Örebro Church Records, 1613-1918; index 1635-1860 Sweden, Skaraborg Church Records, 1612-1921; index 1625-1860 United States: Alabama State Census, 1855 (Index records) Alabama State Census, 1866 (Index records) Alabama, County Estate Records, 1800-1996 Alabama, Sumter County Circuit Court Files, 1840-1950 California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (Index records) California, San Francisco Area Funeral Home Records, 1835-1931 California, San Francisco County Records, 1824-1997 California, San Mateo County Records, 1856-1967 Connecticut, Death Index, 1949-2001 (Index records) Delaware, Vital Records, 1680-1962 District of Columbia Marriages, 1811-1950 (Index records and images) Florida Marriages, 1830-1993 (Index and images) Florida, Tampa, Passenger Lists, 1898-1945 Georgia Headright and Bounty Land Records, 1783-1909 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Minidoka County Records, 1913-1961 Illinois, Probate Records, 1819-1970 Indiana, Death Index, 1882-1920 (Index records) Indiana, Marriages, 1811-1959 (Jay and Hamilton counties) (Index records) Kentucky, Confederate Pension Applications, 1912-1950 Kentucky, County Marriages, 1797-1954 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Orleans Parish Vital Records, 1910, 1960 Louisiana, Parish Marriages, 1837-1957 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Second Registration Draft Cards, compiled 1948-1959 Maine, State Archive Collections, 1790-1966 Maine, Washington County Courthouse Records, 1785-1950 Maryland, Garrett County Probate Estate and Guardianship Files, Source: blogspot.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Prepetition Planning for Municipalities Filing under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code
Immediately upon undertaking the representation of a debtor municipality, counsel must (i) consider how to meet the chapter 9 eligibility requirements, and (ii) determine the range of values the debtor is able, and may be required, to provide to creditors in order to obtain plan approval, whether consensually or through “cramdown.” Counsel should consider starting by preparing an outline of the several requirements imposed under both the Bankruptcy Code and applicable state law as preconditions to the eligibility of the municipality to obtain an order for relief. Major eligibility requirements include (i) prepetition negotiations with creditors (unless negotiation would be impracticable), (ii) insolvency and (iii) state law authorization to file the chapter 9 petition. As preparations proceed, it may be prudent to document in some detail the different negotiations with creditors, to ensure that such negotiations are substantive and meaningful, and to alert the municipality that an officer may have to testify in bankruptcy court regarding the negotiations. Counsel may also have to work with experts in accounting, finance and taxation to assist in developing a restructuring plan, or at least an outline of a plan, that identifies an available range of values to fund a plan that could be confirmed by a bankruptcy court over the objection of creditors, if necessary. Once developed, counsel should discuss those values with the debtor. Through this process, the upper limits of the range of values that can be offered in negotiations with creditors can be identified. The same experts will likely be needed to establish the insolvency of the debtor within the meaning of chapter 9. In summary, it is very important as part of prepetition planning that counsel first identify the chapter 9 eligibility requirements and formulate a strategy to meet them and, if necessary, prove them, and second, construct an achievable endgame which can be explained to, and supported by, the client, such that negotiations with creditors and plan drafting can proceed. In addition to the legal issues arising under chapter 9, counsel must deal with the practical requirements of a municipal bankruptcy. Because a municipality, by definition, is a creature of the political process with significant and varied constituencies maintaining a voice in the proceedings, attention must be paid to forging not only a consensus among financial constituencies, but also a consensus among political constituencies. Such a consensus is unlikely to be complete, but in any event, an individual or management team must be identified to lead the process. An argument could be made that a state appointed receiver, a plan coordinator or other representative who is designated to lead the chapter 9 process could offer a potential solution to multiple problems. Although not likely to be popular with local officials, a state appointed receiver may well serve to alleviate some of the political fallout that those local elected officials might suffer in the event of a chapter 9 filing. Moreover, the state’s broader powers and resources may need to be called upon to help effect a long-term restructuring plan for the municipality. Finally, a receiver could serve to consolidate authority in a potentially more independent decision maker. Source: lexisnexis.com
Jefferson County’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition can proceed, judge rules
Even though the county filed a record-setting $4.23 billion Chapter 9 petition in November, bankruptcy law requires the debtor to show it is eligible to file. The eligibility issue was the subject of hearing before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Bennett beginning in December. Creditors, including The Bank of New York Mellon as the indenture trustee for holders of the warrants issued to expand and improve the county sewer system, objected to the county’s petition to file for bankruptcy. Alabama law, creditors argued, only permits municipalities with outstanding bonds to seek Chapter 9 protection, and that means Jefferson County’s filing should be dismissed. Bennett overruled the objections and said in his 28-page order that any form or debt can be the basis for an Alabama county to file for bankrupty. Bennett ruled that the country is “insolvent, desires to effect a plan of adjustment of its debt, and has negotiated in good faith with creditors and failed to obtain the agreement of creditors holding at least a majority in amount of the claims of each class intended to be impaired under a plan of adjustment of its debt under chapter 9 of the bankruptcy code.” Read more in the Jefferson County Bankruptcy Files. Source: al.com
Shreveport hotel files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection
Financial crises among consumers and business owners continue to boom. That’s not a good thing. With the economy continuing to struggle, some businesses are searching for ways to find relief from the debt ruts they have burrowed themselves into while attempting to find paths for a financial recovery. This is likely the reason one hotel in Louisiana recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Source: batonrougebankruptcyblog.com
City of Harrisburg PA Files Chapter 9 Bankruptcy
The action immediately generated conflict between the City Council and the mayor, Linda Thompson, the state legislature, and the governor, who dispute the legality of the Council’s action in filing for bankruptcy. The governor may also need to get approval from the bankruptcy court to take over the city. Under the emergency bill, the governor can declare a fiscal emergency if it is determined that the city is insolvent or near insolvency, unable to provide vital services and has not adopted a fiscal recovery plan. Source: cflbankruptcy.com
Can a Pension Plan File for Bankruptcy?
401(k) AARP Center for Retirement Research cities going bankrupt DB DC deferred compensaion plans Department of Treasury regulations economic security employee pension contributions employee retirement systems financial literacy GASB Government Finance Review great recession investment returns assumptions legislative changes to pension systems long-term investments lost savings in recession national council of state legislatures National Institute on Retirement Security Northwestern University pension contributions pension fund insolvency pension liabilities Pew Center on States public pension asset values public pension plans public pensions public sector employees Rauh retirement assets retirement income retirement savings return rate assumptions state and local governments state pensions state retirement plan status of public finance and pensions stock market volatility teachers three-legged stool traditional pensions trillion dollar gap working after retirement Source: wordpress.com
Bankruptcy Trends in the Post Meltdown Era :
ALL ARTICLES THAT APPEAR ON THEINTELHUB.COM ARE THE OPINION OF THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF THEINTELHUB.COM AS A WHOLE. The views expressed in the comments published on theintelhub.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of theintelhub.com, our sponsors, or affiliates. The comments section is provided for the free exchange of ideas and opinions. With that being said, violent or racist comments will not be tolerated. Please keep your comments brief(we have one person moderating the comments) and do not post any copyrighted material. Note: We have had some problems with our comments section, if your comment doesn’t show up, please email us and let us know. Source: theintelhub.com
[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] Spend time with loved ones. The process for bankruptcy can be brutal. It takes a long time, it can be stressful, and people feel unworthy, guilty and ashamed. There are a number of people who wish to go into seclusion while undergoing the process of personal bankruptcy. However, you will only feel worse about what has happened, which may lead you into depression. Therefore, it is important that you continue to spend quality time with your loved ones despite, in spite of your current financial situation.Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]Source: financialdata.com [...]
Many are debating the breadth of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern. The arguments are interesting and, in some instances, mind-numbing. For today, I leave those arguments to others because I believe that the issue before me can be more simply, and practically, decided. It would be incredibly ironic for this Court to lack constitutional authority to finally determine the Trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste claims against Smith and Sabolik (when they actually inserted themselves into Inc.’s bankruptcy case by filing a proof of claim) as the Supreme Court has clearly held in Stern, but to have constitutional authority to finally determine the Trustee’s breach of fiduciary duty claims (arising from substantially the same acts or failures to act) against Linehan, the Outside Directors, and Letson, who chose not to involve themselves in the Debtors’ bankruptcy cases at all until they were forced to do so by the Trustee’s decision to sue them here. As a practical matter, this Court concludes that such a result is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s analysis in Stern. If this Court lacks constitutional authority to finally determine
Again, for most people struggling with debt, bankruptcy may the one financial investment that can give you the fresh start you need. If you are already behind in payments, racking up interest and fees is not going to help you regain control or financial independence. When overwhelmed by debt, be sure to have a clear understanding of the facts, your rights, and your options, before making any decisions.
Last week, we indicated how Suleman is about to lose her home to foreclosure. Technically, the mortgage isn’t hers; she and the former owner have a unique arrangement regarding the home’s ownership and mortgage payments. The Orange County Register reports that Suleman basically rents the home from a man who is truly on the hook for making the monthly payments.
For those who cannot afford the fees, pro bono or reduced fee legal services may be available. Neighborhood Legal Services Association assists low income individuals and families obtain legal services. (You can find more information here: NLSA). The Allegheny County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Services Modest Means Panel also refers clients to attorneys who have agreed to provide services at a reduced fee. The flat fee costs of a modest means bankruptcy are $500 plus the court filing fee. (Visit the ACBA site here: ACBA LRS).
Essentially the most popular payg pay out regular cellular phones in the marketplace game enthusiasts ought to be Iphone boasts in excess of fair share addicting titles online because of the Application Save Having said that regardless if you are pleased to afford wordpress are searching for something absolutely free it can be hard to find out how to start because there are many different alternatives accessible Thats where daily new iphone 4 online games graph build come in rather convenient Leading up to date detailing will be the ever popular Angry Chickens also comes in Angry Birds tryout type that will certainly cause several to spend to the given update because of amazingly addicting nature The purpose of the action is to use deliberately introduction chickens to the air flow kill off like critters populate each one amount Sounds ridiculous Effectively check it out for we are able to essentially ensure in the near future connected number two is the one other freebie lets you increase hawaiian isle populated wildlife inside of a put money to build the earth very best internet explorer recreation area Tap permits you to put in place recreation area an array of wildlife allow them to particular breed of dog unlock many destinations coax site visitors action is a lot more look Call of Duty takes effectively acknowledged capture business of identical title introduces component of underworld courtroom proceedings Conversely you should test your handy ability Fresh fruits in which the adjustable touchscreen display screen with the new iphone 4 is required golf slice by arbitrarily produced fruits and veggies family pet things FarmThere are Free of charge Certified nursing assistant Teaching packages are suitable for absolutely everyone wishes for like a qualified Cna and theyre totally free As always Free of charge Certified nursing assistant Teaching instructional classes sorted out hostipal wards occupation instruction companies by online courses study work instruction groups packages in different parts of the country Nevertheless you will need to go scenario exam to be a Accredited Healthcare professional yet not on the web Cna instruction instructional classes classes vary from one another Certified nursing assistant instruction CNA Classes provde the essential familiarity with breastfeeding benefit knowledge whilst Certified nursing assistant online classes incorporate the standard prepared study substance Youll be able to show up at absolutely free Cna instruction instructional classes assisted living facilities hostipal wards family pet earning a living for association for quite a while Also you may have a look at hostipal wards healthcare centres by cell phone internet directories and obtain information free of charge Certified nursing assistant instruction packages A high level pupil you can find absolutely free exercise and diet program obtained through a few hostipal wards handling institution authorities Private hospitals assisted living facilities in a few spots absolutely free Certified nursing assistant instruction chances to make certain that potential basic need Cnas experience ample volume of qualified breastfeeding coworkers You can even turn into a Cna absolutely free through nearby work instruction specialists groups delivering absolutely free Certified nursing assistant Teaching talk about specialists These are arrested for it being sure the public health A lot of like packages exist together Certified nursing assistant household health benefit givingDo you know what is usually the greatest conditions that folks have from time to time Then theyve time for it to wipe out and theyve got not even attempt to Atlanta private investigators that this monotony slide before very long mental performance reduce Usually there are some folks who bored to death that they turn into actually feel like they are gradually getting rid of their minds you do Nevertheless you you dont need to endure imagination numbing monotony if you have time for it to wipe out There are lots of things you can use most likely the most effective way wipe out is always to engage in pleasurable on the web Fun Games That is certainly appropriate pleasurable on the web online games can be extremely panic disorder monotony simply because think about you and also concern the mind at the same time There may be quite a variety of online games available there are several that will actually concern you wish pleasurable marvel online games while youll find others that will help you stay chaotic executing something which you dont feel an excessive amount about the that you have to spend There is no need to get anxious that you will never locate a online game you require as there are countless online games available and extremely youll certainly find one that youll love Would likely not understand it you may also land around a game that youll love a great deal of you are going to play it even if you usually are not bored to death Speak about a primary benefit huh There are simply a great number of pleasurable online games theres for every individual to try out Those people that adventure online games can begin to play adventure online games and people who marvel online games can begin to play marvel online games there are also a great deal of online games that children engage in Youve got Source: bankruptcyco.org Source: bankruptcyco.org Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: medicalbankruptcyco.com