More Woes for ACORN
By Tony Snyder | May 24, 2010
The organization that, arguably, made Barack Obama relevant has been dealt another blow — this time by the Supreme Court. The Supremes rejected a request by ACORN to help in their lawsuit alleging Congress was wrong to shut off the extreme activist group’s federal funding.
ACORN, as you may have heard, was an organization working with former community agitator…er, activist Barack Hussein Obama. They billed themselves as an organization that will assist low-income and minority home buyers and residents. Recently, however, some ACORN leaders decided to make a foray into the child prostitution realm when an undercover college student dressed up as a pimp and was joined by his faux-hooker girlfriend. They sought ACORN’s assistance to establish a brothel for children they were going to import from Third World countries. The specific advice offered by ACORN was how to lie about their profession and launder their earnings.
Upon discovery of this “advice” ACORN was providing, Congress quickly defunded the organization, an allegation ACORN contends was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court correctly deduced the actions, as taken by Congress, were thoroughly constitutional when they rejected an appeal submitted to them by ACORN.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
UPDATE! – Mojave Cross Case
By Tony Snyder | May 20, 2010
As faithful readers will recall, this blog discussed an important Supreme Court case (Salazar v. Buono) which dealt directly with a religious symbol on government land and what, if any, Establishment Clause issues might have arisen because of this cross. As a refresher from the previous post:
The background on the Salazar case is as follow: A 7-foot tall crucifix was placed on plot of land in the Sunrise Rock area of the Mojave National Preserve in 1934. The interesting twist comes from the fact that the government never approved the placement of the crucifix in the first place when it was donated by the Veterans of Foreign Affairs (VFW). Buddhists were denied an opportunity to place their own memorial on the land and the issue has been fought out in both Congress and the federal court system since 2000.
After the crucifix was slated to be removed by the U.S. National Park Service (NPS), Congress passed a law which would have prohibited the use of public funds to remove the cross, essentially preventing the NPS from taking any action. In 2002 Congress declared the cross to be a National Memorial and gave the small plot of land to the VFW in 2003. Hence, no public land, no violation of the Establishment Clause—after all, the VFW can do whatever they want with its private land.
The Supremes remanded the case back to a federal judge to re-examine the Congressional plan to transfer the patch of U.S. land beneath the 7-foot-tall cross made of metal pipe to private ownership.
“The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society,” stated Justice Anthony Kennedy, who drafted the majority opinion. “Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.” This comes as a blow to the American Civil Liberties Union as Kennedy is usually a center-left jurist when it comes to church-state separation cases.
This decision should not, however, come as surprise as the Supremes have repeatedly stated that religious displays must be evaluated as a whole, not as a separate entity. This cross was never intended to be a religious affectation, and for that matter, never erected by an act of Congress. The VFW donated the crucifix as a memorial for the fallen soldiers of our country and it was an angry Buddhist who missed the intent of the memorial. The Buddhist had no desire to commemorate the death of our soldiers by placing their own tribute; to the contrary, they merely wanted to make a point—or at least attempt to make a point.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Growing Old Stinks!
By Tony Snyder | May 10, 2010
As our Baby Boomer generation grows into true “senior citizen” age, we must cast a watchful eye upon a few major concerns. As you might imagine, Alzheimer’s is a very serious, and rapidly growing, disease which impacts cognitive activity. As the elderly lose their thinking, reasoning and memory skills, certain problems arise. Below are just a few aspects that might, if left unaddressed, lead you into probate court.
Cognitive Impairment
What’s the difference between the normal aging process (and all its woes) and someone with the onset of dementia? Your answer has led many parent-adult child debates into probate court. If “mother” forgets her weekly bingo game from time to time, no big deal—right? But what happens when she forgets to take her daily medication? Or lock the front door before going to bed? Is it still just harmless forgetfulness? Is it time for “adult child” to step in and petition the court for guardianship over mother? There is no easy (or right/wrong) answer to these questions. These are the same issues a judge must make decisions on every day.
The key is open and honest communication between mother, adult-child and mother’s primary doctor. Pretending it’s merely “old-timers” and not the onset of Alzheimer’s is a head-in-sand approach. A specialty trained doctor has the ability to test for both common and uncommon diagnoses which will give you a better understanding of what mother might be suffering from, how to slow it, and how to handle long-term problems.
Chicken-Little Approach
On the other hand, don’t be so quick to throw momma into a nursing home. The aging process takes its toll on the mind. As middle age approaches, everything begins to lag behind, as it were. As parents grow older it’s understandable that they will become more forgetful, will be slower to comprehend complex issues, etc. If you take the approach that your parent is showing signs of dementia, when in reality it’s merely old age, you face alienating the parent when true signs of dementia kick in.
Nobody wants to grow old, but accepting the inevitable is just another part of life. If your parent was a person who held positions of authority or influence, don’t be surprised that their willingness to acknowledge dementia will be less than enthusiastic. All their life they were the person in control, they were the one who made things happen—they got things done which needed to be done. There is a fine line between concern for age and concern for their dementia. If you scream that the sky is falling too soon, later attempts when real discussions are needed might fall on deaf ears.
At Risk (Elderly?)
We pump millions of dollars into “at risk youth” programs—but frequently ignore the elderly. Forget the statistics for crimes against the elderly, we hear about credit card scams all the time. I want you to focus in on some legal risks you may not have heard about.
We’ll start with “Annuity Mills”. There are a lot of financial institutions out there whose sole purpose is to talk seniors into annuities and out of thousands of dollars. It’s typically done under the guise of “Medicaid eligibility” and being able to save your estate for your family. Once the seller gets the senior worked up about losing their home and entire life savings to the government for Medicaid reimbursement, the senior quickly turns over thousands (many times, tens of thousands) to invest in annuities, being told the money will be saved as protected against government reimbursement. Now, let’s be clear. This is a legitimate way to invest your money to help avoid Medicaid reimbursement to the state upon your death. However, are you aware through proper Medicare/Medicaid planning, in addition to many exemptions (and your house is one of those) you can avoid reimbursement?
How about this new strategy, as schilled by has-been actors, called reverse mortgages? Again, this is a legitimate option for some seniors, but it’s not necessary for everyone. While a reverse mortgage is legal, big commissions checks make this a prime vessel for financial advisors to earn a “boat load” of money off an unsuspecting person.
New Loves
Once Grandpa passed away, Grandma never thought she’d fall in love again. Why would she? She and Grandpa spent 55 wonderful years together, and Grandma’s not a spring chicken any longer. Then along comes her May-December mate! A gentleman caller who’s the ripe age of 62 (a good two decades between May and December) makes Grandma all smitten.
Grandma feels for him in a way she’d forgotten about. She starts to think about how nice it would be to have someone to read the newspaper with, have dinner with, maybe even go out once and a while. Are her beau’s motives pure? What happens if she marries this fellow after such a brief courtship? She’s not getting any younger. The likelihood of Grandma insisting upon (and even knowing about) a pre-nuptial is slim and what happens if she doesn’t update her estate planning before her death? Was it her intent to leave her kids and grandkids with nothing? What if she had no power of attorney in place? Will the new hubby be making life and death decisions for his elderly wife?
I give you those rhetorical questions primarily to get you to starting thinking about what kinds of conversations you may need to have with your mother/father/grandmother/grandfather in the event he or she meets someone new.
The most lucrative attitude one can make for an attorney, particularly regarding these aforementioned scenario, is “That won’t happen to me/my parent/my family.” The reason: Attorneys make a lot more money being hired to litigate these issues in the courtroom than they do with preparations ahead of time.
How many times must I say this: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
Topics: Estate Planning | No Comments »
Keep Your Hand Out Of The Cookie Jar
By Tony Snyder | May 5, 2010
As we spend more time working and less time socializing outside of work, it is inevitable that romances will bloom within the workplace. This can make for a thorny legal issue for employers, particularly when they engage in the romance. Romances between supervisor-subordinate couples can potentially lead to sexual harassment/hostile work environment lawsuits.
Quid Pro Quo
Latin for “Something-For-Something,” quid pro quo harassment typically occurs when one must submit to some type of sexual conduct as a pretext to employment, or conversely, failing to engage in sexual conduct to maintain employment. Such action is expressly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (at the federal level) and by the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (at the state level).
But what does it mean if the supervisor and subordinate are merely dating, with no quid pro quo necessary? The answer is … it depends! If the supervisor chooses to promote his or her paramour over other equally qualified employees, no harassment or sex discrimination exists. While this may be a poor business decision, and not one I would recommend to any client, technically there is no discrimination as it was not based on anyone’s status as a man or woman. Those not selected were merely rejected out of hand because they were not favored by the decision maker, which is not unlawful. You might even liken it to nepotism whereby the owner of the company promotes his slacker nephew.
If, on the other hand, the employer is coercing employees for sexual favors for the job promotion, then that clearly is an example of quid pro quo and that does open the employer up for a sexual harassment lawsuit.
Hostile Work Environment Harassment
As prohibited by the Elliott-Larsen Act, employers may not create a “hostile work environment.” But to know if it’s occurring, it’s important to know exactly what it is. This is conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating at intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.
There is a two-prong approach the employee must prove: 1) that the conduct is unwelcome and because of the Plaintiff’s sex, and 2) the conduct must be sufficiently severe/pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of a victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.
But again, just like quid pro quo, showing favoritism to a paramour typically will not constitute a hostile work environment—particularly for the paramour’s co-workers. However, where there is widespread favoritism toward a paramour, this might constitute hostile work environment harassment for the paramour’s co-workers. The key factors here look to see whether there has been widespread affairs, little attempt to cover up the trysts and more qualified employees being passed over because they were not a part of the employer’s trysts.
Claims Related to Termination of the Relationship
What about after the relationship between employer/employee goes south? This can be tricky because this is when the employee is most likely to allege there was coercion. Surely if the employer presses the employee to continue the sexual relationship, and the employer takes adverse job action against employee, this leaves the employer to great liability. However, what if the employer takes adverse job action toward the former paramour because of animosity? The courts have ruled that this is quid pro quo harassment. The rationale by the courts is that the employer is taking this action not because of the paramour’s sex, but because of anger about the end of the relationship.
Practically speaking, stay away from employer/employee relationships as much as possible. Even if you don’t run into any legal problems, you certainly face the growing strain of inter-office gossip, loss of morale, reduced productivity, and loss of respect for employer or employee. We have only touched on a few of the legal consequences within the posting, so please don’t think this is all encompassing. It’s not. It’s just the tip of the iceberg that is sexual harassment.
Topics: Business Law | No Comments »
More Miranda Than Ya Can Handa
By Tony Snyder | April 15, 2010
Miranda rights seem to be the topic du jour for the Supreme Court this year. As you know, the Court recently decided how long after the release of a suspect the police must wait before re-questioning said subject without the previously requested lawyer present.
Now the Supremes have ruled that the wording of Miranda rights, as given in Florida, are sufficient—even if it’s not expressly stated to the suspect they have a right to an attorney before police interrogation. The Court ruled 7-2 on this decision. All four of the “conservative wing” of the Court joined with ultra-liberal Sotomayor to sign über-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s decision.
“Nothing in the words used indicated that counsel’s presence would be restricted after the questioning commence. Instead, the warning communicated that the right to counsel carried forward and though the interrogation,” Ginsburg wrote.
This facts behind this case involved a Florida man, Kevin Dwayne Powell, and his confession that he bought an illegal gun “off the street” for $150, for his protection. Prior to making this statement, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the words, “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”
The other case worth noting is Berghuis v. Thompkins, which again deals with Miranda. Specifically, this case addresses understanding the right to remain silent, but not expressly invoking those rights.
The facts of this case are as such: Mr. Thompkins was told he had the right to remain silent, and silent he remained—for the most part. At no time during the three hours of interrogation did Mr. Thompkins ever say “I don’t want to be questioned”. Because he said nothing to them at all, the police continued to interrogate him. However, Mr. Thompkins was not always silent. There were time, the police noted, that he occasionally answered “yes,” “no,” ”I don’t know” or would give non-verbal answers by nodding his head and making eye contact as his response.
After two and half hours, however, Mr. Thompkins answered three questions, all in the affirmative. 1) Do you believe in God? 2) Do you pray to God? 3) Have you asked God for forgiveness for shooting the boy? (Emphasis added by scribner).
This answer is what got Mr. Thompkins convicted for the murder. The issue becomes, was answering these three questions, without previously stating “I don’t want to be questioned,” sufficient to allow the police to interrogate him and waive his right to remain silent?
One could logically argue that once the suspect answers the first question, that would be sufficient enough to use any other answers, provided the suspect fails to utter those magic words, “I don’t want to be questioned.” Once that phrase is used, the police should immediate refrain from any further questioning. The police can’t guess that a suspect refuses to remain silent and the Supreme Court would be placing the burden upon the police to make that deduction if they rule in favor of Thompkins. The only person who truly knows if he wishes to remain silent is the suspect himself. There are many reasons why suspects are willing to forego their Miranda right, be it a reduced prison sentence, reduce criminal charge, or a myriad other personal motivations. This attorney has seen it a dozen times. The best decision the Court can make on this would be to deem the Miranda right waived and that the police logically relied upon the responses given from Thompkins as an affirmation of waiving his right.
Topics: Law News & Comments | No Comments »
Shatzer — UPDATE!!
By Tony Snyder | April 5, 2010
As you may remember, I posted a few months ago a potential landmark decision regarding our Miranda rights and asking for a lawyer during police interrogations. I have an update to share with you. The Supreme Court has made a ruling in Maryland v. Shatzer.
The background on this case involves Michael Shatzer, a father suspected of sexually abusing his then 3-year-old child. As a part of his Miranda rights, he was informed that he had the right to an attorney and consequently refused to answer any further questions without his attorney present. The police officer questioning Shatzer never followed up with any further questioning regarding the alleged abuse. It wasn’t until three years later that another officer questioned Shatzer regarding the abuse, and Shatzer admitted to the abuse. Upon charges brought against Shatzer based upon his own confession, Shatzer’s attorney argues that, despite the new officer having no knowledge of Shatzer’s request for an attorney to be present, the confession was illegally gained. The argument being: He asked for an attorney three years ago, that request still stands three years later—the confession should be deemed inadmissible.
The Supremes have ruled that a suspect’s request for an attorney is good for only 14 days after the person is released from police custody. Police can now attempt to question a suspect who previously asked for an attorney, provided the suspect has been out of police custody for a minimum of two weeks. If they proffer any statements after the 14 days, there will be no violations of the suspect’s constitutional rights and the police need not have re-Marandize the suspect.
“In our judgment, 14 days will provide plenty of time for the suspect to get re-acclimated to his normal life, consult with friends and counsel and to shake off any residual coercive effects of this prior custody. Without minimizing the harsh realities of incarceration, we think lawful imprisonment imposed upon conviction does not create the coercive pressures identified in Miranda.“ Scalia wrote.
This is an important point Scalia made, as Mr. Shatzer was incarcerated at the time he gave his confession. The argument the defense attorney tried to make was that Mr. Shatzer was still “in police custody” simply by being in prison. The Court rejected this notion.
This is both a good and logical decision by the Supreme Court. Equally, for anyone who looks to the High Court as being above partisan bickering will appreciate that this court ruling had the two most ideologically diverse justices on the same side. Both Clarence Thomas and retiring justice John Paul Stevens signed on to Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion.
Topics: Law News & Comments | No Comments »
Defending Your Drunk Driving Charge
By Tony Snyder | March 3, 2010
As the legal limit for drinking and driving gets lower and lower, more and more drivers are being hit with Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) misdemeanors. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has become a force to be reckoned with—and one that political leaders refuse to go up against. Therefore, if you get arrested for drinking and driving, it’s imperative you know what to expect from your attorney and how he will defend your case.
Expect to be Questioned
Your lawyer is going to ask you a lot of questions. It’s important to not become defensive and be absolutely truthful—this is the only way your attorney can vigorously defend your case. You’re going to be asked questions like: Why were you stopped? Was there a crime, civil infraction or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? Where were you stopped? This is important because a police officer outside of their jurisdiction can only arrest you if they see you commit a felony in their presence. Were there any witness? What the police report states happened and what ACTUALLY happens are frequently at odds and your attorney will want to question those witnesses to get their version of the facts.
Get Your Driving Record
You can easily access that from the Secretary of State’s website (www.michigan.gov/sos). The relevance here is to know what sort of points you may have accumulated in the past. Civil infractions such as Speeding, No Turn Signal, and the like could push you over the magic mark resulting in permanent loss of your license. Likewise, prior Driving While Impaired or a Reckless Driving convictions can result in loss of license for 30, 60, 90 or 365 days.
Get Your Ducks In A Row
There are a few things you need to bring with you that your attorney will wish to review. First, your paper driving permit. There is crucial information on that document that might mean nothing to you, but for your lawyer, it’s a wealth of information. Second, bring along your breath-test result sheet. This is going to give observation time and potential error codes. If you refused the breath test we’ll need to confirm you refused it, not because of a technical or operator refusal.
The Scene of the Crime
Be prepared to go with your attorney to the scene where you were stopped by the police. The attorney may want to take pictures so any insight you can give as to when, how, why the police believed you were intoxicated will be helpful. This all comes together like a puzzle to help build your defense and get you the best results possible.
Did Your Refuse To Blow?
Under Michigan law, it’s referred to as an “Implied Consent” violation. Even if the underlying drunk driving charge is dismissed, if you refused to give a preliminary breath test on the scene, you could still lose your license. Part of why your attorney needs the aforementioned documentation is because this will clue him into your refusal to participate in a chemical test. As such a hearing will be held and there are four elements the police must prove at this hearing: 1) that the police had reasonable grounds to believe that you committed a drunk driving offense per the statute MCL 257.625c, 2) that you were arrested for one of those crimes listed in the statute, 3) you were advised of the implied consent or chemical test rights and 4) you unreasonably refused the chemical test. If one of these four elements can’t be proven by the police, you win and the implied consent charge gets dismissed. Same hold true of the police officer does not show on the day/time set for the hearing.
Trial May Be The Only Recourse
If the prosecutor is unwilling to offer an acceptable settlement to your charge, or if you’ve built up such a history whereby no offer is a practical one (i.e. permanent loss of driving ability) please understand your attorney will likely take the case to trial. Trials are expensive so don’t think that your attorney is trying to fleece you — to the contrary, how expensive is a lifetime of bus tokens and taxi rides?
Be Reasonable
Approximately 98% of all drunk-driving offenses result is some type of conviction. For that reason your attorney is going to do the best he can to get you the best offer available. If this is your first offense it is HIGHLY unlikely you will do any more jail time than the night you spent in the “drunk tank.” Find out from your lawyer what sort of license restrictions you will face and the implications they impose. You will be pleased to know that, for the most part, your driving restrictions are minimal for the first offense and that you will still be able to drive to/from work or school.
Conclusion
While you should never drink and drive, as the legal limits gets lower and lower, there will come a time when legalized drinking will take place only in homes where the “fun police” can’t find you. For now, drink responsibly and defend your rights against an overzealous judicial system looking to legally “shake you down” for the hefty fines the county makes off you.
Topics: Criminal Law | No Comments »
Succeeding with Succession
By Tony Snyder | February 12, 2010
Many people often wonder if their estate plan isn’t simply a “one size fits all” document. To the contrary, I attempt to explain: There are a fair number of factors one must consider when putting together a Michigan Revocable Living Trust.
First: Beneficiaries. What age are the beneficiaries? Are they minors? If so, they will need a trust of their own established if a Revocable Living Trust is created by Mom & Dad. If the children are adults, it becomes much easier to provide an inheritance to them. What sort of lifestyle has the spouse or children grown accustomed to? The lifestyle of Paris Hilton is significantly different than the lifestyle of most children. Nonetheless, there are certain expenses (food, clothing, shelter) that must be addressed.
Second: Successor Trustee. Once Mom & Dad have died, who will handle the Trust and the assets within? How well do you know this person and will they do what you request of them? It’s vital to name not just one, but two people that you trust enough to handle your estate. In the event one passes away or becomes unable to serve as Successor Trustee, it’s helpful to have a back-up to avoid court costs of naming a Successor Trustee through the court system.
Third: Sufficient Planning. As hard as it is to imagine, it’s important to work your way though the family tree further than just your children or grandchildren. Sure, the likelihood of Mom & Dad, the children and any grandchildren all going down in the same plane is significantly remote, yet we still need to plan for the unexpected. What about brothers and sisters? Aunts and uncles? Do you want them to inherit? The state has a plan, but will it serve your goals? It is crucial that a distribution scheme be in place for all circumstances.
Fourth: Know Thy Powers. When naming a Successor Trustee, be aware of the powers dealing with real property (house, cabin, condo), personal property (jewelry, silverware, clothing), stocks and bonds, and the like. This person is figuratively stepping into your shoes and will have the same legal rights to your “things” as you would have if you were alive to deal with them.
Fifth: Duties. The Successor Trustee has certain duties and obligations and must be up to the task. It might seem paperwork intensive, but this is your life we’re talking about. They need to publish and register the trust after your death. They will also have to provide notice and accounting to the beneficiaries and abide by a prudent investor rule. Essentially, they will be required to put money into logical, sound investments—as if it were their own money.
Lastly: Be You. Estate planning is not merely a “fill in the blank” document. You are unique and you have certain goals. Your beneficiaries will be different and you will want to accommodate to their needs. Make sure your attorney understands what your goals are and why you’re doing what you’re doing.
Topics: Estate Planning | No Comments »
Don’t Fall Short On Your Short Sale
By Tony Snyder | January 21, 2010
In this down economy, more and more homeowners are trying to find ways to get out from underneath their ballooning mortgage payment. One option is a “short sale” which allows the homeowner to sell the home for less than the outstanding loan. For this is to work, however, the loan holder (typically a bank of some sort) must agree to take less than is owed (hence the term: “short”).
In a short sale, the bank will typically accept less than the outstanding balance, and in return, discharge the deficiency between what is owed and what is collected. This can end up being a good deal for everyone involved. The sellers eliminate (or limit) their liability on the mortgage, the buyer gets a home for a great price, and the bank is able to collect something for a home which might otherwise sit unoccupied. Banks are in the business of making money, not owning real estate.
But despite avoiding the costs associated with foreclosures (fees, inventory upkeep, collection fees from an uncollectable seller), the banks need to be convinced a short sale makes prudent financial sense.
- Talk To Your Lender—if you think you will be unable to maintain your mortgage payment, talk to your lender about short sale options. In this economy, most lenders have some sort of policy in place and will be happy to share with you what their requirements are, what sort of parameters they are willing to accommodate and what type of documentation you will need to provide. Furthermore, if the bank understands how and why you have fallen into financial arrears, coupled with your continued inability to pay any deficiency, the lender will likely wish to “cut their loses.” Look, here’s the deal: You’re going to have to provide financial documentation to the bank, so be prepared to provide copies of bank/savings account statements, stocks and bonds, approximately two years worth of tax returns, two months worth of pay stubs, and don’t be surprised if you have to update this every 90 days during the short-sale process.
- Get An Evaluation—if you find someone interested in purchasing your home, you will need to convince the bank the offer price is a reasonable one. The best way to do this is with an appraisal from a licensed appraiser. If you really want to impress the bank, obtain a comparative market analysis by a real estate broker. This document will provide analysis of sale prices of your home, compared to other like houses. It takes into account square footage, number of rooms (i.e. bed, bath) and compares that to like houses within the past 6-12 months.
- Protect Yourself AND The Buyer—if you are the seller in a short sale, there are a few provisions you should require, and expect the buyer to require a few themselves. As a seller, consider including a provision which makes the sale contingent upon the bank’s approval of the short sale. If the bank backs out at the last minute, you don’t want to be left on the hook for selling your home at a fraction of the price to the buyer. Equally, you may consider including language that dictates a short sale will only be achieved if the lender forgives any deficiency between the sale price and the outstanding loan price. On the other side of the table, understand that a buyer may limit the amount of time you have to get the bank’s approval for the short sale. If the lender drags the process out, the buyer will likely move on to another piece of property. That leads to another requirement the buyer may require, other pieces of real estate for purchase. If the buyer is looking for homes eligible for a short sale, and in the event another offer is accepted, the buyer has the right to cancel the offer on your property.
- Get Your Ducks In A Row—as soon as you have a potential buyer, order up the necessary title work for quicker transfer. Title companies won’t insure a piece of property if they are concerned about the legitimacy of a neutral, disinterested buyer. If they suspect that your wealthy Aunt Agatha is trying to buy your home for pennies on the dollar, just so that she can “gift” it back to you, the title company will run for the hills. Listen, in this economy, people try less than ethical practices. Additionally, prepare the proper documentation necessary if the bank agrees to forgive the deficiency. This part is crucial, so let me repeat: Make sure you have the documentation ready for the lender to sign if they agree to forgive the deficiency.
In this down economy, it only makes sense to save yourself and your bank the headache that is a home foreclosure. If it has been said once, it bears repeating a million times: Banks are not in the business of owning real estate. The longer they have ownership of homes, the less money they have in their proverbial bank accounts. It behooves a lender to work with you, provided you work with them. Before “walking away” from your home and mortgage, consider speaking with your lender and a real estate attorney regarding the option of a short sale.
Topics: Real Estate | No Comments »
Upcoming Supreme Court Case, Part III (Fin)
By Tony Snyder | December 12, 2009
The last case serves as a reward for those of you that dutifully followed these posts. Enjoy…
American Needle v. National Football League
For the sports fan out there, listen up! The Supreme Court is going to determine whether the sports leagues should (hold on to your hats) be exempt from antitrust regulations. Wait, wait, wait! Please don’t surf over to some other website, keep reading!
Prior to 2000 the American Needle Company had contracted with NFL teams to produce hats and headgear with the official team logos imprinted/embroidered. But the decision by the NFL to give an exclusive league-wide license to Reebok in 2000 led American Needle to sue, alleging the NFL’s actions had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by limiting the market on who could and could not produce team-branded merchandise.
The issue for the court to decide is whether the NFL is a single entity or a collection of 32 individual businesses. Why is that important, you ask? If the NFL is deemed to be a single entity, it would give the league the ability to make grandiose decisions on a league-wide basis. This would include, but is not limited to, the production of licensed merchandise, ticket prices and player salaries—as opposed to the individual teams that currently exercise those decision-making privileges. Lastly, the bargaining power of the NFL Players Union is based on antitrust legislation that the league would largely be immune to if it receives a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court.
Topics: Business Law | No Comments »
« Previous Entries