• Archives

  • Blog Stats

    • 661,666 hits
  • Categories

  • FREE weekly legal newsletter

  • Testimonials

DEBT COLLECTOR GETS WHACKED WITH $700K FINE!

Clouded Titles Blog

gc-services-judgment-feb-14-2017

BREAKING NEWS —

Texas-based GC Services Limited Partnership (Houston) got a Valentine’s Day card it really didn’t want from the FTC!

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that GC Services entered into a Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction and Civil Penalty of $700,000 (see above link for Judgment) in using unlawful tactics to collect on federal student loans and other debts.

According to the complaint, filed by the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of the FTC in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas, agents working for GC Services left messages that illegally disclosed purported debts to individuals other than the debtors without permission to do so and contacted consumers multiple times despite being told they had the wrong number or that the person answering did not owe the debt.

You can’t lie to regulators either …

GC Services was also alleged to have falsely reported to federal…

View original post 112 more words

Fannie and Freddie Launch Flex Modification Program: No Paperwork Required in Some Cases

Livinglies's Weblog

By the Lending Lies Team

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have launched a new loan modification program for troubled mortgages known as “Flex Modification.”  The GSE’s have an issue with rising defaults and questionable paperwork and the Flex Modification allows them to modify the underlying defective “loan” and gloss over the false endorsements, assignments and chain of title issues.  Brilliant!

The new flexible loss mitigation tool is a combination of the impotent HAMP,  the Standard Modification, and the Streamlined Modification, and will replace the trio as early as March 2017.

Loan servicers are beginning to implement the Flex Modification at that time, but will be required to participate starting October 1st, 2017.

The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) expired at the end of December.

How the Flex Modification Works

It is obvious that Fannie and Freddie are attempting to lure as many homeowners in or near default inot the Flex…

View original post 832 more words

Opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake

Opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake is the topic of this blog post.

Opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake is the topic of this blog post.

Deadline for opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake.

The deadline for opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake in California is at least nine (9) Court days before the hearing unless the court has ordered otherwise. The opposition should be served by personal service, overnight mail or a courier service that provides overnight delivery pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

If you have been served with a motion to vacate a judgment in California on the grounds of  extrinsic fraud or mistake the first thing you should do is to carefully review the motion and supporting documents to determine if the moving party has any valid grounds for vacating the judgment on the grounds of extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Grounds for opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake.

Common grounds for opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake in California are that:

The moving party has failed to meet their burden of showing extrinsic fraud or mistake.

The moving party has failed to meet their burden of showing a meritorious defense to the complaint.

The moving party has failed to show a satisfactory excuse for their failure to timely answer the complaint.

The moving party has not shown reasonable diligence in seeking to set aside the default judgment once it was discovered.

Published decisions of the California Supreme Court and the California Courts of Appeal have stated that relief will be denied if a party has been given notice of an action and has not been prevented from participating therein. In those cases he has had an opportunity to present his case to the court and to protect himself from mistake or from any fraud attempted by his adversary.

And relief will be denied when the fraud or mistake is “intrinsic”; that is, when it “goes to the merits of the prior proceedings, which should have been guarded against by the plaintiff at that time.”

Relief will also be denied when the complaining party has contributed to the fraud or mistake giving rise to the judgment thus obtained.

The law is well settled in California that a defendant seeking relief from a default judgment based on extrinsic fraud or mistake bears the burden of showing: 1) a meritorious defense; 2) a satisfactory excuse for failing to timely answer the complaint; and 3) reasonable diligence in seeking to set aside the default judgment once it was discovered.

Sample document for opposing a request to set aside a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a 13 page sample opposition to a motion to set aside a judgment in California for extrinsic fraud or mistake containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.

 

Sample California law and motion document package containing over 90 sample documents for sale.

http://www.legaldocspro.net/california-law-and-motion-litigation-document-package/

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

For licensed attorneys and law firms that need assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr.  Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

Demanding expert witness information in California

Demanding expert witness information in California is the topic of this blog post.

Demanding expert witness information in California can be done after the initial trial date has been set.

Demanding expert witness information in California is an excellent way for a party to demand that the other party disclose all expert witnesses that they intend to call as witnesses at the trial as well as permit inspection and copying of all discoverable reports and writings, if any, made by any expert designated by the other party in the course of preparing that expert’s opinion.

Law that authorizes demanding expert witness information in California.

Demanding expert witness information in California is authorized by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.210 which states that,

“After the setting of the initial trial date for the action, any party may obtain discovery by demanding that all parties simultaneously exchange information concerning each other’s expert trial witnesses to the following extent:

(a) Any party may demand a mutual and simultaneous exchange by all parties of a list containing the name and address of any natural person, including one who is a party, whose oral or deposition testimony in the form of an expert opinion any party expects to offer in evidence at the trial.

(b) If any expert designated by a party under subdivision (a) is a party or an employee of a party, or has been retained by a party for the purpose of forming and expressing an opinion in anticipation of the litigation or in preparation for the trial of the action, the designation of that witness shall include or be accompanied by an expert witness declaration under Section 2034.260.

(c) Any party may also include a demand for the mutual and simultaneous production for inspection and copying of all discoverable reports and writings, if any, made by any expert described in subdivision (b) in the course of preparing that expert’s opinion.”

Timeframe for demanding expert witness information in California.

Demanding expert witness information in California must be done within a certain timeframe as specified in California law.

Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.220 states that,

“Any party may make a demand for an exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses without leave of court. A party shall make this demand no later than the 10th day after the initial trial date has been set, or 70 days before that trial date, whichever is closer to the trial date.”

If the demand for expert witness information in California is served by mail an additional five (5) calendar days must be added pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(a) which applies to all discovery methods and states that the time for performing any act is extended by five days when the demand or notice is served by mail within the state.

A demand for expert witness information in California must also contain certain information required by Code of Civil Procedure § 2034.230 which states that,

“(a) A demand for an exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses shall be in writing and shall identify, below the title of the case, the party making the demand. The demand shall state that it is being made under this chapter.

(b) The demand shall specify the date for the exchange of lists of expert trial witnesses, expert witness declarations, and any demanded production of writings. The specified date of exchange shall be 50 days before the initial trial date, or 20 days after service of the demand, whichever is closer to the trial date, unless the court, on motion and a showing of good cause, orders an earlier or later date of exchange.”

A demand for expert witness information in California must be served on all other parties who have made a general appearance in the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §  2034.240 which states that, “The party demanding an exchange of information concerning expert trial witnesses shall serve the demand on all parties who have appeared in the action.”

Sample document demanding expert witness information in California for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a 5 page sample demand for expert witness information in California containing brief instructions and a proof of service by mail sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

For licensed attorneys and law firms that need assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr.  Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

 

A corporation cannot represent itself in Court in California

nathanmubasher

Why a corporation cannot represent itself in Court in California is the topic of this blog post.

There is no actual statutory law in California stating that corporations must be represented by an attorney in Court but the rule that a corporation cannot represent itself in Court is a long-standing common law rule that is very well established in the case law.

A limited liability company (LLC) is also required to be represented by an attorney in the California Courts as well as all other fictitious entities.

An individual is considered a natural person and can of course represent themselves in court.  However a corporation or LLC is considered an artificial person in the eyes of the law.  As this article will clearly show, any corporation or LLC that wants to file a response to a complaint or cross-complaint filed in a limited or unlimited civil proceeding in a California…

View original post 1,059 more words

Limited-scope representation in California

nathanmubasher

Limited-scope representation in California is the topic of this blog post.

Limited-scope representation in California is also known as “unbundling”, “unbundled legal services”, or “discrete task representation.

The term limited-scope representation refers to a situation where you and an attorney agree that they will handle some parts of your case and you will handle the other parts.

This is very different from the more traditional arrangements between attorneys and their clients where an attorney is retained to provide legal services on each and every aspect of a case from start to finish.

EXAMPLES OF LIMITED-SCOPE ARRRANGMENTS

You can just consult an attorney and get legal information and advice about your situation when you need it.

You can hire the attorney lawyer to represent you only for certain issues in your case (like representing you at a hearing) while you do the rest yourself.

You can hire the attorney to prepare…

View original post 1,237 more words

Special demurrer for uncertainty in California

A special demurrer for uncertainty in California is the topic of this blog post.

A special demurrer for uncertainty in California is filed on the grounds that the complaint is uncertain because it is vague and ambiguous.

Statutory authorization for a special demurrer for uncertainty in California.

A special demurrer for uncertainty in California is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10 which states, in pertinent part: “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed may object, by demurrer or answer as provided in section 430.30, to the pleading on any one or more of the following grounds… (f) The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, “uncertain” includes ambiguous and unintelligible.”

Before filing any special demurer for uncertainty in California the moving party must comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41.

Code of Civil Procedure § 430.41 states in pertinent part that,

“(a) Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.

(1) As part of the meet and confer process, the demurring party shall identify all of the specific causes of action that it believes are subject to demurrer and identify with legal support the basis of the deficiencies. The party who filed the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer shall provide legal support for its position that the pleading is legally sufficient or, in the alternative, how the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer could be amended to cure any legal insufficiency.

(2)  The parties shall meet and confer at least five days before the date the responsive pleading is due. If the parties are not able to meet and confer at least five days prior to the date the responsive pleading is due, the demurring party shall be granted an automatic 30-day extension of time within which to file a responsive pleading, by filing and serving, on or before the date on which a demurrer would be due, a declaration stating under penalty of perjury that a good faith attempt to meet and confer was made and explaining the reasons why the parties could not meet and confer. The 30-day extension shall commence from the date the responsive pleading was previously due, and the demurring party shall not be subject to default during the period of the extension. Any further extensions shall be obtained by court order upon a showing of good cause.

(3) The demurring party shall file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either of the following:

(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer.

(B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.

(4) Any determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.

(c) If a court sustains a demurrer to one or more causes of action and grants leave to amend, the court may order a conference of the parties before an amended complaint or cross-complaint or a demurrer to an amended complaint or cross-complaint, may be filed. If a conference is held, the court shall not preclude a party from filing a demurrer and the time to file a demurrer shall not begin until after the conference has concluded. Nothing in this section prohibits the court from ordering a conference on its own motion at any time or prevents a party from requesting that the court order a conference to be held.

(d) This section does not apply to the following civil actions:

(1) An action in which a party not represented by counsel is incarcerated in a local, state, or federal correctional institution.

 (2) A proceeding in forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer.

(e) (1) In response to a demurrer and prior to the case being at issue, a complaint or cross-complaint shall not be amended more than three times, absent an offer to the trial court as to such additional facts to be pleaded that there is a reasonable possibility the defect can be cured to state a cause of action. The three-amendment limit shall not include an amendment made without leave of the court pursuant to Section 472, provided the amendment is made before a demurrer to the original complaint or cross-complaint is filed.”

Grounds for a special demurer for uncertainty in California.

A special demurer for uncertainty in California is a disfavored ground for demurer.  However a California Court of Appeal has stated in a published decision that a demurrer for uncertainty should be sustained if the complaint is so poorly written that the defendant cannot reasonably respond as they cannot determine what issues must be admitted or denied or what causes of action are directed against them.

Any party filing a special demurrer for uncertainty in California should be sure to specify exactly where the alleged uncertain allegations are located by referring to the page and line numbers of the complaint as well as specifying how or why certain allegations are uncertain.

Sample special demurrer for uncertainty in California for sale.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 14 page special demurer for uncertainty in California containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample meet and confer declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41 and proof of service sold by the author can see below.

 

 

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for sale.

For licensed attorneys and law firms that need assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr.  Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at:

https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

DISCLAIMER:

Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.

The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: