Filing Bankruptcy

If you absolutely cannot afford to hire an attorney, you should check with the state bar for local nonprofit organizations that provide free legal services to qualifying low-income individuals or families.  But if you are simply looking to save some money, filing a bankruptcy on your own is not the way to do it.  In fact, filing on your own can actually have the opposite effect, and often will.  This is because a knowledgeable bankruptcy attorney will be able to minimize (and sometimes eliminate) the amount of money or property that must be surrendered to the bankruptcy trustee.  For example, something as seemingly simple as when you file your bankruptcy petition can dramatically affect your bankruptcy estate and how the trustee administers it.  Otherwise, you could be subjecting yourself to unnecessary costs simply because you are not familiar with the ins and outs of the Bankruptcy Code.
Source: mpslawoffices.com

Video: Can You Represent Yourself In Bankruptcy

Filing Bankruptcy Because You’re Living like a Rock Star

Most Americans have pushed themselves to the brink of financial ruin to live like the rich and famous. They believe that as long as they have available credit, they must be able to afford it. There used to be an old joke going around about the dumb blonde that kept writing checks because there are more checks in her checkbook. The jest of it is, she didn’t even consider making sure there is enough money in the bank account. This is kind of the way that the young adults of today run their finances. Right out of college they need to wear designer clothes, lease a yuppie automobile, like a Beamer and own a home. The house can’t be just a regular tract home either, it will need hardwood floors, granite countertops and a pool to boot. This brings to mind when my grandparents used to use the old phrase “keeping up with the Jones’.” Creditors want consumers to believe that it’s better to buy it now and pay for it later, then it is to save up for anything. With this rationale, the only career college students should be looking into is that of a bankruptcy attorney. Our society is heading south and spending ourselves into oblivion.
Source: ezinemark.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

Helpful Tips If You Are Considering Filing For Bankruptcy

Remember to spend some quality time with your loved ones. Bankruptcy proceedings can be extremely harsh. It is long, hard and sometimes leaves people feeling guilty or ashamed. Lots of people decide they should hide from everyone else until it is all over. This is not recommended because you will only feel bad and this may cause you to feel depressed. Therefore, it is important that you continue to spend quality time with your loved ones despite, in spite of your current financial situation.
Source: credit-deal.com

Tips To Help You File For Bankruptcy

Many people find that they must file for bankruptcy protection because they have more debt than they can afford to repay. When you get into this situation yourself, your first step is to familiarize yourself with your local bankruptcy regulations. Different states use different laws when it comes to bankruptcy. For example, the personal home is exempt from being touched in some states, but not in others. See to it that you understand the bankruptcy laws in the area that you live prior to filing.
Source: onlineincomepro.com

Find Out If Bankruptcy Is Right For You

If ever you are lucky enough to qualify for any of these types of bankruptcy, you must consider all your debts and property, regardless of where they maybe located whether it be in Santa Maria, Ca. or New York you have to disclose your assets. You might wonder where your home, car or retirement plan will go. Since every state differs in specification when it comes to this, you must make sure that you fully understand what will happen to your property. It is a good idea to make a list of all your assets and debts. Child support payments and some debts cannot be wiped out.
Source: unsecured-loans-for-people-with-bad-credit.com

How Does a Bankruptcy Affect a Divorce?

Many of the same ideas from above apply if you file bankruptcy yourself. You will still be able to file, collect, and/or owe spousal support, child support, and visitation. You may have the opportunity to discharge marital debts, but the bankruptcy court may distribute marital assets to your creditors. As mentioned previously, these distributions may or may not count against you in state court equitable distribution proceedings. Additionally, Virginia courts have held that a discharge of debt in bankruptcy is a “material change in circumstances” warranting a change in spousal support. In other words if you owe spousal support and receive a discharge, your former spouse may be able to request an increase in spousal support because you now have a lower income to debt ratio. Conversely if you collect spousal support, you may receive less after a discharge of debt in bankruptcy because you no longer have as many liabilities.
Source: fredericksburgfamilylaw.com

Bankruptcy compared to credit negotiation

The other type of company takes a monthly payment from you and saves it.  They notify your creditors that they are working to get them paid.  Then, once they have 50% or more of the balance owed a credit card company; they negotiate to pay off the card in full for that percentage.  This usually works although it’s nothing you can’t do yourself; and you are paying a monthly fee to allow the company to do this for you.  Since it can take several years to raise enough money to do this and the negotiating company is being paid monthly this can be quite costly.  And, of course, if you miss a payment or two, you’ll still be liable for the credit card balances.
Source: bankruptcylawnetwork.com

Can I File Bankruptcy Without a Lawyer?

One of the most popular questions debtors have for Seattle bankruptcy lawyers when considering filing for bankruptcy is whether they can file themselves. The answer to this question is yes, of course you can file for bankruptcy yourself, however it is not advisable as the bankruptcy code can be complicated and the procedures a debtor must go through go a lot smoother if you have a bankruptcy lawyer on your side. Pro se bankruptcy representation can be dangerous, and some pro se bankruptcy cases can end up devastating a debtor because of mistakes made trying to understand the complex bankruptcy law and the failure to properly apply the correct bankruptcy exemptions. Filing bankruptcy can be a demanding process and you would make it a lot easier on yourself to handle your financial affairs. If you are somebody who does not think you can afford an attorney, you should know that most attorneys have payment plans available so that you can pay in installments. With that said, a bankruptcy attorney cannot file your case until all fees are paid or else they risk not being able to collect on the remainder of the debt as attorney fees can be discharged in bankruptcy.
Source: budgetcents.net

And before any Republican readers of this blog (yes, there are a few ) whine about “class warfare” or some such claptrap, I would remind you of observations of one Newt Gingrich, hardly a champion of the middle class -
Source: blogspot.com

Video: Romney Economics: Bankruptcy and Bailouts at GST Steel

Ally Financial Mortgage Unit’s Bankruptcy and Its Impact to Ally Bank

Once Ally repays all of the bailout money, Ally Bank should finally be free of any FDIC restrictions. Ally has never acknowledged these restrictions, but the WSJ reported in 2009 that “The FDIC asked GMAC officials to keep the rates on deposits low enough so the bank wasn’t one of the nation’s top five rate payers, as measured by Bankrate.com, an interest-rate information service, people familiar with the matter say.” This came after the American Bankers Association complained to the FDIC about Ally Bank (formerly GMAC Bank) being allowed to “pay rates well above the market” after Ally was provided bailout money.
Source: depositaccounts.com

Bankruptcy: Japan Personal Bankruptcy

For those who see their situation as a fake option and state that the japan personal bankruptcy and let you start off fresh. If you are able to settle your debts. In return, you may think. It is the japan personal bankruptcy for you. Try to take care of a payment plans. What are the japan personal bankruptcy for the japan personal bankruptcy as well if they can be used for vengeance. If you plan to continue this way, your credit scores. However, if your nosy neighbor wants to see if this is the japan personal bankruptcy that will help assist you to eliminate 60% of their names. Having a savings account that will compare debt settlement negotiations. As this is what is known as the japan personal bankruptcy, you must have resided in the japan personal bankruptcy of the japan personal bankruptcy that you get the japan personal bankruptcy are articles about the japan personal bankruptcy to get rid of their property or material possessions because of long illness, being jobless, divorce or your spouse lose their job. The odds of all your bank account statements.
Source: blogspot.com

Romney Economics: Bankruptcy and Bailouts at GST Steel (Video)

Kansas City’s GST Steel had been making steel rods for 105 years when Romney and his partners took control in 1993. They cut corners and extracted profit from the business at every turn, placing it deeply in debt. When the company eventually declared bankruptcy, workers not only lost their jobs but were denied their full pensions and health insurance, and the government was forced to step in and provide a bailout.
Source: enewspf.com

Bankruptcy and Student Loans

There is no statutory definition for “undue hardship.” Courts have had to define the term themselves, and different jurisdictions have developed different hardship standards. Generally, courts look at factors such as the finances available to the debtor as they are filing bankruptcy, the debtors’ likely future earnings, and the financial needs of the debtor’s family, among other things. In New York, courts follow the test set out in Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp., 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987). In this case the court asked three questions. First, would requiring the debtor to repay the student loan debts put the debtor, or the debtor’s dependents, below a minimal standard of living? Second, is this financial situation likely persist for the rest of the loan repayment period? Third, has the debtor made good faith efforts to repay the loans? A New York court is only likely to discharge a student loan debt if these questions are answered in the affirmative.
Source: vaughnweberlaw.com

How Will Filing Bankruptcy Affect My Credit 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

Bankruptcy and Bloomberg’s Third Term

Cannes, Day Deux: Marion Cotillard’s Whale of a MovieDetails about Condé Nast’s NowManifest Acquisition (and the Brants’ Pants) at Jitrois Pop-Up PartyQuestion of the Week: Thoughts on Obama’s Barnard Commencement Speech from Partygoers Hugh Dancy, Patrick Wilson, Gavin McInnes and More
Source: observer.com

The costs of bankruptcy, the investment of debt relief

Recent media attention has shed light on the reality that bankruptcy can be costly.For many, the price of bankruptcy may seem too high, considering that filing is intended to help alleviate debt. Before making any decisions about bankruptcy, it is important to have a clear understanding of how it works, how it will affect your finances, your credit, and whether it is right for you. Despite upfront costs, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may remain the solution you need to achieve debt relief.
Source: losangelescountybankruptcyattorneys.com

Things That You Must Do To Avoid Bankruptcy

Accept the fact that you cannot spend what you don’t have. Many individuals have multiple credit cards and spend the money that they don’t actually have with interests. Paying off credit cards with another credit card will not help you. It will just make your financial situation worse. Keep in mind that you must spend only what you can afford. Another important thing is that you must have money for emergencies which can be at least $2,000. Make sure that you are able to watch your bank account and don’t allow yourself to overdraw.
Source: classacthomestagingandredesign.com

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 and Security Clearances

A question I have come across more regularly is whether or not someone will lose their security clearance if they file bankruptcy. People employed by the federal government, the military, or government contractors often have security clearances based on their access to confidential government information. The United States Air Force Legal Academy states that while the status of one’s security clearance can be affected by a bankruptcy, it does not result in an automatic revocation of the security clearance.
Source: cflbankruptcy.com

Some would say the intent of the 2005 bankruptcy amendments did not accomplish what was intended. For instance, while Chapter 7 and other filings did fall after the new law went into effect, the change in the rate of bankruptcies was minimal, from 1.4 percent in 2004 to 1.3 percent last year. The result is that the new regulations require more work, with a greater chance for dismissal of a petition if the requirements are not met. Nevertheless, it remains an important safeguard to those in Alabama and elsewhere who have seen their financial stability vanish and are searching for an orderly means to conquer debt and lay the groundwork for a new beginning.
Source: ericwilsonlaw.com

Video: How much does a bankruptcy cost to file? – Logan Bankruptcy Lawyers

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

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

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

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: lawyers.com

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

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

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

Affordable Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyers

My partner Andrea Wimmer and I volunteer at the Phoenix Bankruptcy Court Self Help Center, advising pro se debtors (people who file without an attorney) on their cases.  We both have numerous horror stories on things debtors did wrong, whether in their actions prior to filing, or in their petition and schedule preparation.  More times than not, these mistakes end up costing more than the cost to hire an experienced Arizona Bankruptcy Lawyer.  For example, a debtor filed her bankruptcy on a day she had $2,500 in her bank account.  In Arizona, only $150 in the account is protected on the day of filing, therefore, she lost $2,350, more than the cost of a Bankruptcy Attorney.
Source: drbankruptcyaz.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

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

One Million Americans Are “Too Poor” To Go Bankrupt

The study also revealed that paperwork filing typically only costs $300 while the rest of the fee needed for a bankruptcy goes to the law firm representing a client. Other fees also add to the cost including mandatory pre-bankruptcy credit counseling and a pre-discharge debtor education course. Lawyers for their part claim higher fees are now necessary because they are being forced to jump through more hoops now than they have been required to jump through in the past, causing longer work hours to be claimed in order to complete the average bankruptcy.
Source: inquisitr.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

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

Attorney Craig J. Rosenstein of Rosenstein Law Group, PLLC was just honored as a Southwest Super Lawyers "Rising Star".  In fact, Mr. Rosenstein was one of only three Southwest attorneys named as a Super Lawyers "Rising Star" in the "Criminal…
Source: bankruptcy-arizona.com

Video: File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Online

The costs of bankruptcy, the investment of debt relief

Recent media attention has shed light on the reality that bankruptcy can be costly.For many, the price of bankruptcy may seem too high, considering that filing is intended to help alleviate debt. Before making any decisions about bankruptcy, it is important to have a clear understanding of how it works, how it will affect your finances, your credit, and whether it is right for you. Despite upfront costs, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may remain the solution you need to achieve debt relief.
Source: losangelescountybankruptcyattorneys.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

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

Starting Over by Filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

Filing for bankruptcy is not a fun thing to do, but for some people it is vital to get that fresh start. There are several different types of bankruptcy, but this article will discuss the Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This means that nearly all debts are completely wiped clean. However, the person who files suffers more significant dings to their credit file. However, in certain cases, this can be a great way to get a fresh start and enable you to get out of debt and lessen your stress.
Source: three-fires.com

The Benefits of Having Legal Advice

The number one reason for obtaining legal advice is protection; protection for yourself, your rights, and your investments. Think of all the different situations that might require a lawyer, and then picture what could happen if you did not seek an attorney’s advice. Can you imagine writing your own bankruptcy case, filing it in court, and then representing yourself at the hearing? There are not too many people who would know what to do, where to start or what the difference is between filing Chapter 7 or Chapter 13.
Source: nysbs.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

Although the bankruptcy process might appear confusing on the surface, it is actually quite transparent once you understand how the process works. Filing for bankruptcy is as easy as completing the paperwork, paying the court fees and completing a credit counseling course. From there, the court handles the details and grants the debtor a discharge of their debt. An experienced bankruptcy attorney can guide anyone through the process to a smooth resolution.
Source: leebankruptcy.com

Video: The Truth About Bankruptcy

The costs of bankruptcy, the investment of debt relief

Recent media attention has shed light on the reality that bankruptcy can be costly.For many, the price of bankruptcy may seem too high, considering that filing is intended to help alleviate debt. Before making any decisions about bankruptcy, it is important to have a clear understanding of how it works, how it will affect your finances, your credit, and whether it is right for you. Despite upfront costs, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may remain the solution you need to achieve debt relief.
Source: losangelescountybankruptcyattorneys.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

Some common misperceptions about bankruptcy!

On number 2) that a bankruptcy will discharge all past debts. Certain debts are not dischargeale in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy or a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing which include student loan debt, money owed to the government in most cases, debts owed for child support or alimony, debts owed due to personal injury of another party driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Source: practicinglaw4u.com

Clearing up misconceptions about bankruptcy

Not everyone qualifies for bankruptcy. Chapter 7 provides relief to qualifying individuals with a large amount of unsecured debt including credit card debt or medical bills. For those who meet the criteria, Chapter 7 can provide a fresh start. Chapter 13 allows qualifying individuals struggling to keep up with monthly bills to make reasonable payments over a three to five year period.
Source: hackensackbankruptcylawyerblog.com

Bankruptcy Lawyer Milwaukee, WI

You will likely be able to keep your assets after bankruptcy, but each state has unique laws regarding what property can and cannot be taken. Under the Wisconsin exemptions, you may keep a home with equity up to $75,000 (or $150,000 for a married couple), up to $5000 in your bank accounts (or $10,000 for a married couple), up to $12,000 in household goods ($24,000 for a married couple), and possibly all of the money in your kids’ college savings accounts. If you own your own business, you may also be able to protect as much as $15,000 ($30,000 if married). Other assets that may be shielded from liquidation include pensions, IRA accounts, social security disability benefits, vehicles, and personal injury awards.  Wisconsin residents may be eligible to use Federal exemptions instead of the Wisconsin exemptions.  The Federal exemptions do not allow you to protect as much equity in a home; however, a “Wildcard Exemption” of up to $23,950 for married couples may be available.  Always consult with an attorney who can help you determine whether the Federal scheme or Wisconsin scheme is best for you. 
Source: bankruptcylawmilwaukee.com

For more: – see this WSJ article (sub. req.) – see this Washington Post article – see this Bloomberg article – see this Reuters article – see this The Hill article – see this CNET article Related Articles: LiqhtSquared may veer into bankruptcy today, Dish’s role a question mark Dish’s Ergen: We have enough spectrum for wireless biz LightSquared: Icahn sells holdings, company keeps battling default Report: Creditors want to push Falcone out as face of LightSquared LightSquared to pay Inmarsat $56.3M, delays further payments until 2014 Lawmakers press FCC to give LightSquared new spectrum Rumor Mill: LightSquared nearing bankruptcy
Source: fiercewireless.com

Video: Friendly’s is Filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy And Closes 63 Stores

Lightsquared Files For Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection

The Reston, Virginia, company filed for Chapter 11 Monday, as predicted, after failing to reach a deal with its creditors, and in the wake of federal regulators nixing its plan in February, saying the satellite signals that would be used by the network could interfere with global positioning systems used by airplanes and consumers. As of February 29, the company said it had about $4.5 billion in assets and $2.3 billion in liabilities
Source: portfolio.com

NewsDaily: Dewey to consider bankruptcy filing: source

Bienenstock did not respond to a request for comment late on Friday. He was one of four members of Dewey’s top management team, the office of the chairman, to decamp to other firms in recent days, joining Proskauer Rose. The last member of that office, Washington, D.C., lobbyist L. Charles Landgraf, said he had joined Arnold & Porter on Wednesday.
Source: newsdaily.com

LightSquared files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The past several months have been pretty tough on LightSquared, as the company had its application to build an LTE network shot down by the FCC over GPS interference concerns and then saw its LTE deal with Sprint get killed. Today the LightSquared saga has hit another low note, as Bloomberg is reporting that the company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filing lists LightSquared as having over $1 billion in both debts and assets. The company is said to have received a couple of extensions from creditors to attempt to avoid this situation, but ultimately it looks like LightSquared had to file with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. This news isn’t a total surprise given how many roadblocks LightSquared has hit in its efforts to get its LTE network up and running. Exactly where LightSquared goes from here remains to be seen, but like the rest of the saga that’s already unfolded, it’ll definitely be interesting to see what happens. Stay tuned. Via Bloomberg
Source: phonedog.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

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

Report: LightSquared Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Filing Looms After Failed Debt Talks (Updated)

After the FCC rejection, wholesale customers began to pull away as quickly as possible while scrambling to find alternatives and its network hosting agreement with Sprint collapsed after it could not gain approval from the FCC to rollout without extensive and costly modification to its original plans. With the rejection of the network and no way to earn any revenue from it, LightSquared has essentially been frozen since then and undertook desperate cash-saving measures, such as firing almost half of its staff and operating with as few unnecessary positions as possible before losing executives in droves.
Source: phonenews.com

Residential Capital seeks Chapter 11 protection

“; // All the postings var allPostings = new Array(“placeholder” , Array(‘Elementary School Principal’, ‘Mesa Public Schools’, ‘Mesa Public Schools is a K-12 district of…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G00H65CMMVC5949G6&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CLIENT SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Client Service Representative Phoenix, AZ…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G0CF6V4RD4CC168NY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Vet Receptionist’, ‘Arcadia Animal Clinic’, ‘Vet Receptionist Phoenix, AZ Part Time, …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1436PMGM3ZRXKKZV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Assistant Computer Systems Administrator’, ‘Federal Public Defender-Phoenix’, ‘Assistant Computer Systems Administrator…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G164786T28N91HG1P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COORDINATOR’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Construction Project Coordinator Needed …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1JF6KFVF9GKQJVPX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘TELEMARKETERS – TELEMARKETING’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Calling all Telemarketers! Tired of not …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1QQ714LK76QFKVH8&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Banquet Manager, Restaurant Manager and Chef de Cuisine’, ‘Reynolds Plantation’, ‘Now accepting applications for the following…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1QR604289K51NNPT&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Chef de Cuisine’, ‘Four Peaks Grill & Tap’, ‘Four Peaks, Arizona’s number one brewery…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1ZL6WWK30GFXZ40P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Concrete Paver Operator’, ‘Northern Improvement Co.’, ‘Concrete Paver Operator Phoenix, AZ 928-…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2617393X2QPFXM7P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘PHYSICIAN’, ‘HELEN FOUNDATION’, ‘Physician Mesa, AZ Physician, Part-time,…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G29K65467V1DJ084Y&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Drywall – Framers / Hangers / Tapers’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Drywall – Top Pay and benefits for Top hands…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2BM6JHS8WS4C0LBS&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Warehouse Manager’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Warehouse Manager Lakeside, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2TS6NJ6WS1NPDJK4&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Mechanic & Equipment Assembler’, ‘Fimco Industries’, ‘Fimco Industries is currently looking for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G3FV6TGC09YRHW9LP&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Drivers – Company Drivers and Owner Operators’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Drivers Company Drivers & Owners Operators…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G3ZF5X20QN4QNPZ8J&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘OTR DRIVERS’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘OTR Drivers United States 804-798′, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4H46GZY6RQT21X85&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’2nd Shift SMT Technician’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’2ND shift SMT Technician Responsible for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4N95WZTQTXZL6632&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Electrical Journeyman’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Electrical journeyman needed with 5 years…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4SP67M8TB2RGC4FX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Accountant / Bookkeeper / Tax Preparer’, ‘Another Great Company!’, ‘ACCOUNTANT/BOOKKEEPER/TAX PREPARER URGENTLY…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6546Q97VQ3TQ6T3H&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Pool Cleaner’, ‘Complete Pool Care’, ‘Pool Cleaner Phoenix, AZ 602-92′, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6HH6KGH02DZHL12D&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FIELD MANAGERS’, ‘The Arizona Students Association’, ‘FIELD Manager Help win real improvements…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6KP6GDH2MFMBBLTC&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Diesel Mechanics’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Diesel Mechanics West Valley Minimum 3 years…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6TW6G16Q59CVB2WF&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Owner Ops and Drivers’, ‘KKW Trucking Inc’, ‘KKW Trucking is now hiring Owner Op’s &amp…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G818697JL0NJT4DXY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘RNs, PTs, OTs, STs, CNAs,’, ‘BEECH HOME CARE & MEDICAL INC.’, ‘RNs, PTs, OTs, STs, CNAs E. Valley’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G84D6B98KNSP5N5PV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Oncologist’, ‘Arizona Oncolgy’, ‘Arizona Oncology 1329 N. Beaver St. Ste …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G8DY6T1PSV9T2NC2Y&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Structural Engineer’, ‘PK Associates LLC’, ‘Scottsdale, Arizona structural engineering…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G8H35WWZ9PNJZ3LHN&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’1st / 2nd Shift PCBA Solderer’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’1st and 2nd PCBA Shift Solderer Experience…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H0SY68PV0N3C46TZL&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FINANCE DIRECTOR / MANAGER’, ‘EDDY COUNTY’, ‘FINANCE DIRECTOR/MANAGER Starting $74,995…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H1V36JB6VXMN6DHCY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FRONT DESK & HOUSEKEEPING’, ‘HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS DOWNTOWN’, ‘Front Desk & Housekeeping Phoenix, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H3J55Z9TT72LM807J&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘HEAVY DUTY WRECKER DRIVER’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Heavy Duty Wrecker Driver Williams, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H4C272S5SDN3P86FV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CNC MACHINIST’, ‘JPS MANUFACTURING’, ‘CNC Machinist Scottsdale Airpark Email 3…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H5NK75W2NDS75WR70&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘APPOINTMENT SETTING’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Appointment Setting 19th Ave & Glendale…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H6YH6P7183W3S0GL7&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘RV Service Technicians’, ‘A & M RV CENTER’, ‘Busy Anchorage, AK RV dealership needs two…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H8BJ6NMN78X7LK0KP&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Landscape Positions’, ‘Valley Rain Construction Corp’, ‘Landscape Landscape/Irri’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J0CN69QDL11P7DR99&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘DELIVERY – PARTS RUNNER’, ‘LAYNE CHRISTENSEN’, ‘Delivery – Parts Runner Chandler, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J3CV6085G6WFKWPQW&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’1st Shift QA Inspector’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’1ST SHIFT QA INSPECTOR. QA Inspector for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J3W871T17BRLHGK8N&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) ); //
Source: azcentral.com

Ding Dong! Hostess Files Chapter 11

Brian J. Driscoll, Hostess Brands CEO, hopes that the company can “reach an agreement that will allow us to amend our labor contracts so that [Hostess] can emerge from Chapter 11 as a highly competitive company that provides secure jobs for our employees.” For Hostess to emerge from bankruptcy as a competitive force in the food industry it must “achieve dramatic change to [its] labor agreements.” Driscoll says Hostess needs to extricate itself completely from multi-employer pension plans in an effort to regain control of the worker benefits that are crippling the company’s competitiveness. (Hostess Brands’ largest unsecured creditor is the Bakery & Confectionary Union & Industry International Pension Fund, owed $944 million.)
Source: pewlaw.com

April 5 that the specter of bankruptcy loomed for LightSquared after its investors, who suffered big losses in 2011, took another hit in February when the Federal Communications Commission revoked LightSquared’s conditional approval to proceed with building the network. The FCC’s decision was based on an expert panel’s evaluation of tests showing that the network’s adverse impact on GPS could not be resolved with existing technology–nor was a future solution seen emerging.
Source: aopa.org

Video: Hot Topics – Octomom Files Bankruptcy – The View

Lola files for bankruptcy

Lola may not be a name recognized by the average consumer, but racing fans will know it well. The British concern has built and continues to build race cars that have spanned an enormous variety of series and disciplines since its founding in 1958, including (but not limited to) Formula One, Le Mans, CART and just about every formula feeder series you could think of, including Formula Two, Formula 3, Formula 3000, Formula 5000 and A1GP. Now, unfortunately, the company is filing for bankruptcy protection. The reasons are pretty simple: too many expenses and not enough revenue, although tax credits it was due from the British government are also said to be partially to blame. As a result, the outfit responsible for – among numerous other accolades – five LMP2 titles at Le Mans since 2000 alone is entering financial administration as it seeks new investors. Along with it, Lola Cars is taking Lola Composites, however the effect this might have on its concerns in defense and aerospace (among other areas) remains to be seen. As is the future of the SP/300.R track car which Lola builds for Caterham, or the countless racing teams that continue to count on Lola to build and support their sports prototypes. But with so many racing programs at stake, we can hardly imagine the company’s considerable capabilities and expertise will go unclaimed for long. Scroll down for the official announcement.
Source: autoblog.com

LightSquared Files for Bankruptcy

The filing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York comes nearly a year-and-a-half after the FCC granted the company a waiver to begin building the network in the L-band frequency, setting off a storm of protest from the aviation industry and other users of GPS concerned about the threat of interference with navigation receivers operating in the same band. The FCC withdrew the waiver in February after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration had concluded that there was no practical way to mitigate potential interference with GPS.
Source: ainonline.com

Wireless venture LightSquared files for bankruptcy

Ultimately, LightSquared couldn’t overcome the concerns that its planned wireless network would interfere with critical global-positioning-system equipment, despite the numerous steps the company had taken to assuage the GPS industry. When the Federal Communications Commission suspended its waiver to use the spectrum for a terrestrial network, rather than a satellite service, the company was largely written off for dead.
Source: cnet.com

LightSquared goes dark, files for bankruptcy

Those problems began in February, after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rejected LightSquared’s plans to launch its LTE network due to concerns that it would interfere with both commercial and military GPS technology. Because of this development, Leap Wireless has decided to buy future LTE connectivity for its Cricket prepaid service from Clearwire, another troubled wireless company (of which Sprint is the largest stakeholder). Earlier this year, LightSquared client FreedomPop also decided to go with Clearwire. But by far the biggest setback for LightSquared came in March after its $9 billion 15-year agreement with Sprint-Nextel to build and host its LTE network fell through.
Source: venturebeat.com

Wireless startup LightSquared files for bankruptcy

“; // All the postings var allPostings = new Array(“placeholder” , Array(‘Elementary School Principal’, ‘Mesa Public Schools’, ‘Mesa Public Schools is a K-12 district of…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G00H65CMMVC5949G6&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CLIENT SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Client Service Representative Phoenix, AZ…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G0CF6V4RD4CC168NY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Vet Receptionist’, ‘Arcadia Animal Clinic’, ‘Vet Receptionist Phoenix, AZ Part Time, …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1436PMGM3ZRXKKZV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Assistant Computer Systems Administrator’, ‘Federal Public Defender-Phoenix’, ‘Assistant Computer Systems Administrator…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G164786T28N91HG1P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CONSTRUCTION PROJECT COORDINATOR’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Construction Project Coordinator Needed …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1JF6KFVF9GKQJVPX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘TELEMARKETERS – TELEMARKETING’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Calling all Telemarketers! Tired of not …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1QQ714LK76QFKVH8&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Banquet Manager, Restaurant Manager and Chef de Cuisine’, ‘Reynolds Plantation’, ‘Now accepting applications for the following…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1QR604289K51NNPT&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Chef de Cuisine’, ‘Four Peaks Grill & Tap’, ‘Four Peaks, Arizona’s number one brewery…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G1ZL6WWK30GFXZ40P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Concrete Paver Operator’, ‘Northern Improvement Co.’, ‘Concrete Paver Operator Phoenix, AZ 928-…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2617393X2QPFXM7P&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘PHYSICIAN’, ‘HELEN FOUNDATION’, ‘Physician Mesa, AZ Physician, Part-time,…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G29K65467V1DJ084Y&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Drywall – Framers / Hangers / Tapers’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Drywall – Top Pay and benefits for Top hands…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2BM6JHS8WS4C0LBS&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Warehouse Manager’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Warehouse Manager Lakeside, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G2TS6NJ6WS1NPDJK4&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Mechanic & Equipment Assembler’, ‘Fimco Industries’, ‘Fimco Industries is currently looking for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G3FV6TGC09YRHW9LP&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Drivers – Company Drivers and Owner Operators’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Drivers Company Drivers & Owners Operators…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G3ZF5X20QN4QNPZ8J&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘OTR DRIVERS’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘OTR Drivers United States 804-798′, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4H46GZY6RQT21X85&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’2nd Shift SMT Technician’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’2ND shift SMT Technician Responsible for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4N95WZTQTXZL6632&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Electrical Journeyman’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Electrical journeyman needed with 5 years…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G4SP67M8TB2RGC4FX&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Accountant / Bookkeeper / Tax Preparer’, ‘Another Great Company!’, ‘ACCOUNTANT/BOOKKEEPER/TAX PREPARER URGENTLY…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6546Q97VQ3TQ6T3H&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Pool Cleaner’, ‘Complete Pool Care’, ‘Pool Cleaner Phoenix, AZ 602-92′, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6HH6KGH02DZHL12D&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FIELD MANAGERS’, ‘The Arizona Students Association’, ‘FIELD Manager Help win real improvements…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6KP6GDH2MFMBBLTC&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Diesel Mechanics’, ‘Confidential’, ‘Diesel Mechanics West Valley Minimum 3 years…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G6TW6G16Q59CVB2WF&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Owner Ops and Drivers’, ‘KKW Trucking Inc’, ‘KKW Trucking is now hiring Owner Op’s &amp…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G818697JL0NJT4DXY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘RNs, PTs, OTs, STs, CNAs,’, ‘BEECH HOME CARE & MEDICAL INC.’, ‘RNs, PTs, OTs, STs, CNAs E. Valley’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G84D6B98KNSP5N5PV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Oncologist’, ‘Arizona Oncolgy’, ‘Arizona Oncology 1329 N. Beaver St. Ste …’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G8DY6T1PSV9T2NC2Y&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Structural Engineer’, ‘PK Associates LLC’, ‘Scottsdale, Arizona structural engineering…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3G8H35WWZ9PNJZ3LHN&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’1st / 2nd Shift PCBA Solderer’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’1st and 2nd PCBA Shift Solderer Experience…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H0SY68PV0N3C46TZL&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FINANCE DIRECTOR / MANAGER’, ‘EDDY COUNTY’, ‘FINANCE DIRECTOR/MANAGER Starting $74,995…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H1V36JB6VXMN6DHCY&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘FRONT DESK & HOUSEKEEPING’, ‘HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS DOWNTOWN’, ‘Front Desk & Housekeeping Phoenix, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H3J55Z9TT72LM807J&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘HEAVY DUTY WRECKER DRIVER’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Heavy Duty Wrecker Driver Williams, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H4C272S5SDN3P86FV&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘CNC MACHINIST’, ‘JPS MANUFACTURING’, ‘CNC Machinist Scottsdale Airpark Email 3…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H5NK75W2NDS75WR70&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘APPOINTMENT SETTING’, ‘ANOTHER GREAT COMPANY’, ‘Appointment Setting 19th Ave & Glendale…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H6YH6P7183W3S0GL7&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘RV Service Technicians’, ‘A & M RV CENTER’, ‘Busy Anchorage, AK RV dealership needs two…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3H8BJ6NMN78X7LK0KP&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘Landscape Positions’, ‘Valley Rain Construction Corp’, ‘Landscape Landscape/Irri’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J0CN69QDL11P7DR99&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(‘DELIVERY – PARTS RUNNER’, ‘LAYNE CHRISTENSEN’, ‘Delivery – Parts Runner Chandler, AZ’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J3CV6085G6WFKWPQW&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) , Array(’1st Shift QA Inspector’, ‘MJS Designs, Inc.’, ’1ST SHIFT QA INSPECTOR. QA Inspector for…’, ‘http://www.careerbuilder.com/jobseeker/jobs/RedirectAOL.aspx?Job_DID=J3J3W871T17BRLHGK8N&show=yes&lr=cbga_tap&siteid=cbga_tap060&show=yes’) ); //
Source: azcentral.com

LightSquared files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection

For more: – see this WSJ article (sub. req.) – see this Washington Post article – see this Bloomberg article – see this Reuters article – see this The Hill article – see this CNET article Related Articles: LiqhtSquared may veer into bankruptcy today, Dish’s role a question mark Dish’s Ergen: We have enough spectrum for wireless biz LightSquared: Icahn sells holdings, company keeps battling default Report: Creditors want to push Falcone out as face of LightSquared LightSquared to pay Inmarsat $56.3M, delays further payments until 2014 Lawmakers press FCC to give LightSquared new spectrum Rumor Mill: LightSquared nearing bankruptcy
Source: fiercewireless.com

LightSquared files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

The past several months have been pretty tough on LightSquared, as the company had its application to build an LTE network shot down by the FCC over GPS interference concerns and then saw its LTE deal with Sprint get killed. Today the LightSquared saga has hit another low note, as Bloomberg is reporting that the company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The filing lists LightSquared as having over $1 billion in both debts and assets. The company is said to have received a couple of extensions from creditors to attempt to avoid this situation, but ultimately it looks like LightSquared had to file with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. This news isn’t a total surprise given how many roadblocks LightSquared has hit in its efforts to get its LTE network up and running. Exactly where LightSquared goes from here remains to be seen, but like the rest of the saga that’s already unfolded, it’ll definitely be interesting to see what happens. Stay tuned. Via Bloomberg
Source: phonedog.com

LightSquared files bankruptcy after FCC block

LightSquared, based in Reston, Virginia, listed assets of $4.48 billion and debt of $2.29 billion as of Feb. 29 in a Chapter 11 filing yesterday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan. The filing followed intense negotiations with creditors, who had requested that the company’s backer, Philip Falcone, step aside. Falcone and the current management team will remain with the company, Terry Neal, a LightSquared spokesman, said yesterday.
Source: westernfarmpress.com

Remember not all cases are the same. Some chapter 7 cases are indeed considered simple cases by most capable practitioners. Other chapter 7 cases can be very complex. There are chapter 7 cases where no capable attorney would take the case without informing the client that the case is complex and problematic from the start just to clue in the potential client on what to expect. For those attorneys who usually offer rock bottom pricing, they are often only jumping in on the practice of bankruptcy law due to our sluggish economy, and it is far from clear what level of preparation they undertook before holding themselves out as bankruptcy practitioners.
Source: jchfirm.com

Video: Can Your Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case Be Reopened After Your Debt Is Discharged?

Chapter 7 filing fees a stretch for many who need debt relief

Some would say the intent of the 2005 bankruptcy amendments did not accomplish what was intended. For instance, while Chapter 7 and other filings did fall after the new law went into effect, the change in the rate of bankruptcies was minimal, from 1.4 percent in 2004 to 1.3 percent last year. The result is that the new regulations require more work, with a greater chance for dismissal of a petition if the requirements are not met. Nevertheless, it remains an important safeguard to those in Alabama and elsewhere who have seen their financial stability vanish and are searching for an orderly means to conquer debt and lay the groundwork for a new beginning.
Source: ericwilsonlaw.com

eliminate unsecured credit card debt eliminate cre

Does your savings account hold close to nothing? 7. Do you pay the minimum amount due and see your debts increasing by the month? 8. Do you feel like your life is now revolving around credit? If you can answer yes to two ro more of these questions then you should start considering how to change course so that turn of events will not overtake you and get help to eliminate unsecured credit card debt quickly. This could mean you finally defaulting on your debt payments and collection agents starting to hound you for payment. Worse is if you already find yourself not just swimming but drowning in debt. This situation would require that you take drastic action and fast. What actions could you take? You could go for bankruptcy. The problem is bankruptcy will destroy you more than save you in the long run. This is because the final outcome is you will be declared a subprime borrower who can only borrow with the highest interest rates, and that 10 years into the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings you cannot get any loan or credit at all because there will be a big fat stamp on your credit record saying bankruptcy. For the average person, filing for bankruptcy is almost synonymous with going bankrupt for life. Nobody wants that and the best solution is to get help to eliminate unsecured credit card debt for good. The best course to take is to seek debt settlement. Debt settlement is a process whereby your debts can be greatly reduced after successful negotiation. After the period of negotiation you will be free of collection agents and your monthly payments will be much lower. There will be an impact to your credit score, but it will be temporary and will be reset once you have completed your new commitments. The catch in debt settlement is in successfully negotiating the reduction of your debt, new terms of payments and resetting your credit score. Get the services of a professional debt settlement company to negotiate for you now. Stop living on credit and get out of debt for good amd eliminate your unsecured credit card debt forever. Source: ezinemark.com
Source: creditcarddebthq.com

Will My Tax debt Become Discharged inside Bankruptcy?

As a new typical type of credit card debt relief, bankruptcy can end up being a legal method in which enables a debtor for you to liquidate their particular credit card debt or even consolidate and repay their particular debt. Unfortunately, this phenomenon actually is not uncommon, particularly provided the existing state associated with our economy. The elimination associated with tax credit card debt within bankruptcy may be any little tricky, and also I often prefer to meet together with customers to go more than the particular required documents with every other prior to I make the assessment of whether or perhaps not really this financial debt may be discharged. However, this indicates that just about all non exempt property is vulnerable to inclusion in the bankruptcy estate. To their particular personal detriment, I think which a amount of even postponed filing simply because of this anxiety.
Source: papermoney-maastricht.org

Converting Bankruptcy Cases

Consult your bankruptcy trustee or bankruptcy attorney and discuss what to do. Converting from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 is possible but it depends on whether you qualify. To qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, you have to pass a means test which gives an idea of what disposable income you have left after taking care of pertinent expenses. To find out how much disposable income you have after essential expenses, an evaluation of your annual income is done to see if it exceeds the mean income level per household in your state. If you exceed it, then you may not qualify for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Source: tampabankruptcy.pro

‘Octomom’ bankruptcy case thrown out of court

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: bankruptcyforumco.com Source: medicalbankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcyforumco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.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 helps you to get rid of your debts but it also hits your credit score badly. When you file bankruptcy, it gets listed on your credit report and is supposed to stay there for 7-10 years. If you had filed chapter 7 bankruptcy, it will stay on your credit report for 10 years. However, if you had filed bankruptcy chapter 13, it will stay on your credit report for 7 years. As your credit score lowers, it becomes problematic for you to get any new credit after this. Thus, it is important for you to

Source: ning.com

Video: Best Credit Cards after Bankruptcy Discharge

Rebuilding your credit after bankruptcy

That being said, the goal of applying for credit cards right after bankruptcy should not be to get back into debt. You should be very deliberate about how you sign up for and use new credit cards. For example, Wells Fargo offers a secured Visa card which allows users to track their expenses and protect their checking accounts from overdrafts. The card requires a $300 minimum security deposit and a $25 annual fee, but you may be able to convert to an unsecured credit card (and get your deposit back) if you have success with the secured option.
Source: atlantabankruptcylawattorney.com

Bankruptcy Questions and Answers

I found out lately that a credit card company that was part of my bankruptcy is constantly reporting me to the credit bureau even though they were part of my bankruptcy 8 The debt to Goldman would not be subject to discharge anyway. Bgrainger 20:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment
Source: bankruptcy–court.net

How soon after Ch.7 Bankruptcy discharge can I apply for a home equity loan and get approved?

Generally it is recommended that you wait approximately 2 years from the date of discharge to apply for a home loan. This does not mean that you cannot get approved before this time, but they may require a larger down payment to compensate to the risk that you will default. Of course your ability to obtain a home equity loan depends significantly on your income and whether you can afford the monthly mortgage payments on the loan. Below is a good article that outlines some of this information.
Source: interestonmortgage.com

The costs of bankruptcy, the investment of debt relief

Recent media attention has shed light on the reality that bankruptcy can be costly.For many, the price of bankruptcy may seem too high, considering that filing is intended to help alleviate debt. Before making any decisions about bankruptcy, it is important to have a clear understanding of how it works, how it will affect your finances, your credit, and whether it is right for you. Despite upfront costs, Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy may remain the solution you need to achieve debt relief.
Source: losangelescountybankruptcyattorneys.com

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

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

Understanding What A Personal Bankruptcy Means For You

After your bankruptcy goes through, avoid taking on new debt. There are lenders out there who will try to tempt you with high interest loans and credit cards which are directed towards people who have gone through the bankruptcy process. There are normally the strings attached of high interest rates. You need to maintain tight control over your finances following bankruptcy; using unfavorable credit offers can land you in serious debt trouble all over again.
Source: jameshouts2010.com

The waiting periods are from filing to filing.  For example, if you filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy on March 1, 2004 you would be eligible to file again on March 2, 2012.  The discharge date isimmaterial here.  Further, the waiting periods are only applicable if you actually received a discharge.  If you Chapter 7 was not discharged you would be eligible as if you had not filed.  If your Chapter 13 was dismissed prior to completion you would not need to worry about the waiting period.  However, if you are filing for a second case and there are any unpaid court fees from a prior case they will need to be paid in full and you may not be eligible to pay your current court costs in installments.  Further, depending on when you filed, the stay in bankruptcy may not be automatic, or may be for a limited time period.  However, your attorney can file a motion to extend the automatic stay to protect your assets. If you have questions, or would like to schedule a consultation, contact a St. Louis Bankruptcy Attorney today!
Source: lickerlawfirm.com

Video: Legal Help : How Long After Filing Bankruptcy Can You File Again?

Is it possible to file personal bankruptcy more than once?

The types of debts that can be discharged vary from the two types of bankruptcy and certain types of debt cannot be discharged in either bankruptcy. These include debts owed to the government, such as local, state and federal taxes, debts owed to an ex-spouse such as child support and alimony, among other types of debt. Both types of bankruptcies invoke an automatic stay, meaning creditors can no longer request payment on debts once you file for bankruptcy protection.
Source: wrobertmontgomery.com

When Can I File Bankruptcy Again if I Filed in the Past?

In some cases, the timeline to when you can file again may vary depending on the dismissal of your previous bankruptcy.  Some cases get dismissed before debt is discharged which can happen for a number of reasons such as failing to appear in court, incomplete paperwork or defaulting on a Chapter 13 payment arrangement.  If your case was dismissed for such reasons you may only have to wait 6 months to begin the process again.  Consult with a qualified bankruptcy attorney with questions or concerns.
Source: allmandlaw.com

If i cosign for a friend filling bankruptcy can she refinance it into her name

NO INFORMATION OR MATERIALS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE AND IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ANY SPECIFIC SET OF FACTS ESPECIALLY AS TO ANY INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL SITUATION. THIS MATERIAL IS PROVIDED AS INFORMATIONAL INSTRUCTION AS TO GENERAL LEGAL INFORMATION OPINIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT POSSIBLE LEGAL RIGHTS REMEDIES DEFENSES PROCEDURES OPTIONS OR STRATEGIES BUT NOT SPECIFIC ADVICE RELATED TO ANOTHER PERSONS FACTS AS SET FORTH IN UT 14802C2 Bankruptcy Lawyers Provo Utah.
Source: lintasbusiness.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

Who should not File Bankruptcy?

There are many people who abuse filing bankruptcy, but you can’t let a few ruin it for the many. There are people all the time saying why they didn’t file bankruptcy sooner. One faces such situations in life when any banks won’t agree to work with them and tired of tiring all other options are compelled to file bankruptcy. And they are right, as filing bankruptcy is not really the end of life. But make sure before filing bankruptcy you know about the negatives and positives. But there are people who can’t file bankruptcy. Here are some of them- 1. If you with a strong salary and with enough money is looking to file bankruptcy, it seems as though you are just trying to get out of paying your bills. Before filing bankruptcy you need to go through the “means test”. This method will calculate how much income is left, after deducting your expenses to repay your debts. Not passing the test will not allow you to file chapter 7 bankruptcy. 2. If you have filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the last 7 years or a Chapter 13 in the last 6 years, you are not permitted to file bankruptcy again. 3. Your case of bankruptcy may be dismissed, if the court finds that you are trying to defraud creditors or have lied about your income. Or if you are proved engaging in any fake and deceitful activity then you may also be prosecuted for fraud. 4. You may not file bankruptcy if your debt type is mostly non-dischargeable. 5. If you had previously recline on a loan application or ran up a substantial amount of debt in the last few months. 6. You cannot file bankruptcy, if for any reason your previous bankruptcy was dismissed in the last 180 days. 7. There are certain businesses like the insurance companies, banks and estates that cannot ever file bankruptcy. The debtor and his family must take some important steps before filing Bankruptcy. Excessive debts loads lead one to file bankruptcy before the court at an ease and without any effort. Bankruptcy law is a federal legal process which helps people who can no longer pay the debts they owe and gets a fresh start by liquidating assets to pay their debts or by creating a repayment plan.
Source: selfgrowth.com

Additional Bankruptcy Filing May Not Allow A Discharge.

Regardless of whether you receive a discharge, every time you file for bankruptcy relief the filing is reported to credit bureau.  In turn each filing reflects initially in a negative way for your FICO score.  These are strange and confusing times where everyone is looking to save any pennies they can.  However filing bankruptcy without the advise of legal counsel may have dire consequences.  Use the chart above to do a preliminary check of whether you might be eligible for an additional bankruptcy but do not end your inquiry there.  Contact a qualified bankruptcy attorney so that you may take advantage of all the opportunities that might be available to you under the Bankruptcy Code.
Source: bankruptcylawnetwork.com

When Can I File For Bankruptcy Again?

It can happen to the best of us. Despite your best intentions, circumstances beyond your control can lead to bankruptcy a second time. The same reasons that bring people to bankruptcy in the first place: divorce, unemployment, and unexpected medical expenses, are things that we have little control over and, unfortunately, can cause financial circumstances to spiral out of control. While the bankruptcy laws discourage people from filing multiple times, they allow individuals to file more than once. The same rules that allowed you a fresh financial start the first time will give you a second chance to get back on your feet.
Source: coloradobankruptcyguide.com

Some General Benefits of Bankruptcy

[...] How often are you entitled to bankruptcy relief? Filed bankruptcy before and wondering whether it is possible to file again? There basic rules that apply to repeat bankruptcy filers. You can file bankruptcy again within certain limitations. If you have filed a chapter 7, there is a waiting period from the first date of filing to the second date of filing of eight years. If you have filed a chapter 7, you have to wait four years from the first date until you can file a chapter 13 again. There are some exceptions to these general rules of thumb and you should consult an experienced bankruptcy attorney to see if they apply to you. If you are interested in the general benefits of bankruptcy, please see this article. [...]
Source: trezzalaw.com