Filing for Bankruptcy Grande Prairie
As the economy worsens, more and more people are filing for bankruptcy Grande Prairie. But what does it mean to file for bankruptcy? It happens when people or companies are unable to pay their debts or bank loans on time. If you make a bank loan, you have to pay the total loan amount with additional interests within a time frame. Typically, banks let debtors pay their dues through EMI or the Equated Monthly Installment scheme. EMI allows people to repay their bank loans in a specific period of time. If you fail to pay your debt because of poor financial conditions, you can then file for bankruptcy Grande Prairie. However, you have to prove the legitimacy of your claim to a court. If you are able to convince the court that you are indeed bankrupt, your creditors will not be able to confiscate your properties.If you need to file for bankruptcy Grande Prairie, get the best bankruptcy lawyer to help you through this ordeal.
Source: williamdibello.com
Video: Debt Management Tips : How to File Bankruptcy
Wireless startup LightSquared files for bankruptcy
Bankruptcy can be a choice for people who have have had the IRS repossess some of their valuables. While bankruptcy is a big hit to your credit history, it can be the only option. Read this guide in order to know more when it comes to filing bankruptcy as well as the consequences of doing so. The same goes for people using a Trust Deed.Tired of always having collection agencies call you? Debt that you can no longer control can be overwhelming. Have the safety of bankruptcy around you while you get your finances back under control, can give some measure of relief.No matter how messed up things are as you file for bankruptcy, it is important that you stay honest. It is never a good idea to lie about debt or assets. And it is illegal. If you lie when it comes to your assets and debts, you might end up going to prison.If you are facing financial difficulty, it may not be wise to go through with a divorce. When many people divorce, they have to pursue a bankruptcy when the realities of the costs comes to light. Reconsidering divorce can be a very smart option.Do your homework so you thoroughly understand the laws pertaining to bankruptcy before you file. For instance, you may not be aware that a filer is forbidden from transferring assets from his or her name for one full year before the petition is filed. It is also illegal for someone who files for bankruptcy to drastically increase their debts on credit cards immediately before filing.This article has made it known that bankruptcy is something you may be able to turn to. Of course, it may not be best for all situations and can even make your credit matters worse. Staying informed on how to manage this situation could prevent you from experiencing headaches and it can also help you keep your valuables. Source: marsill.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Protect Your Family And Your Assets With These Bankruptcy Top Tips
A great tip for filers of personal chapter 7 bankruptcy is to totally get ready for the original meeting with the bankruptcy solicitor. By assembling every piece of important money documentation, including mortgage documents, auto finance agreements, card statements, tax records and bank records, you can be certain that your bankruptcy petition and supporting documentation includes all info needed for a comprehensive filing.
Source: american-financial-care.com
Judgment Blog: Judgment Bankruptcy
A judgment debtor filing for bankruptcy protection is about the worst judgment recovery roadblock a judgment owner can face. As soon as you find out that your judgment debtor has filed for bankruptcy protection, you must cease all judgment and debt collection activities. My articles are my opinions, and not legal advice. I am a Judgment Broker, and am not a lawyer. If you ever need any legal advice or a strategy to use, please contact a lawyer. When a person or entity files for bankruptcy, their automatic bankruptcy protection stay starts. The automatic stay applies to any of the debtor’s known (and sometimes even their unknown) debts, including all lawsuits or judgments that originated prior to their bankruptcy filing. The automatic stay prohibits all collection actions against the debtor or their assets. After a bankruptcy filing, it is a violation to even make a telephone call, asking your debtor about payment about any of their judgment-related or other debts. The automatic bankruptcy stay is completely automatic. It starts at the date and time of the bankruptcy filing. The automatic stay does not depend on a written order from a judge, for the bankruptcy stay to take immediate effect. If anyone, including a judgment creditor, willfully violates a debtor’s automatic stay, they can be found to be liable for damages, attorney’s fees, and sometimes also punitive damages. In community property states, the automatic stay also usually prohibits a judgment owner from pursuing the enforcement of their judgment against the community property assets of the judgment debtor’s spouse. When a creditor suspects that their debtor has filed for bankruptcy protection; they should halt any judgment enforcement or debt collection activities, until they can verify that a bankruptcy filing has not taken place. The automatic stay starts at the time of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing, whether it is a chapter 7, 9, 11, 12, or a chapter 13 bankruptcy case. The stay remains in effect until the bankruptcy case is closed, denied, dismissed, or until the discharge of the debtor’s debts is granted. If your judgment or debt gets discharged in the debtor’s bankruptcy, it is game over, your judgment or debt is dead. While there are some judgment debts that may ultimately survive their judgment debtor’s filing for bankruptcy protection, you must still honor the automatic stay for as long as it lasts. Automatic stays usually last as long as the bankruptcy court case is open. If a creditor files an adversarial motion, and the bankruptcy judge signs an order, the creditor may get a leave of the automatic stay, and be allowed to recover the debt or judgment, while other creditors will not be allowed to recover from that debtor. Bankruptcy is usually fatal to the enforceability of judgments, so it is the number one enemy of any judgment recovery. If you suspect your judgment debtor has or will file for bankruptcy protection, it is a good idea to verify their bankruptcy status before each step, using PACER; the government’s Federal Court web site. PACER is very cheap, and almost mandatory for everyone that recovers judgments or debts. Bankruptcy is so serious, it can be abused by debtors to fool creditors. For every three debtors that threaten to file for bankruptcy protection immediately, one actually does. Bankruptcy is so serious that many creditors do not verify the bankruptcy filing, they just walk away. Another trick certain debtors try, is to file for bankruptcy protection, however they never follow through on their bankruptcy case. They only file so that they can get the automatic stay. Many creditors assume the bankruptcy filing means that their money judgment is automatically discharged, however that only happens after the debtor’s bankruptcy successfully concludes and the court orders that. That is one more reason to get and use a PACER account. Judgment owners should stay informed about their judgment debtor’s bankruptcy court status. If their debtor’s bankruptcy case gets dropped, dismissed, or denied, the judgment creditor is then free to crank up the judgment recovery machinery once again. ——- http://www.JudgmentBuy.com – Judgment Enforcement. The free, easiest, fastest, and best way to recover your judgment money. Mark Shapiro – Do you have a judgment? Do you have leads for people with judgments that want them bought or recovered? Do you buy or recover judgments? If so, JudgmentBuy.com is for you!
Source: blogspot.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
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
When to File for Bankruptcy
As a credit consultant, my clients always ask me when to file for bankruptcy. As a result, I advise them to file only when you have exhausted all of your available avenues such as talking with your credit card company, car, and mortgage lenders and your student loan representative about the various options you have to explore. You should also look into Consumer credit counseling organizations, debt consolidation, balance transfers and taping your savings and investments. If none of these options worked, and your debt exceeds your annual salary, then it’s time to talk with a bankruptcy lawyer. Moreover, you must look at your advantages and disadvantages to filing.
Source: ezinemark.com
The Daily Docket: Publisher Houghton Mifflin to File for Bankruptcy
From Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review, exclusive coverage of corporate bankruptcies, companies headed for trouble and the latest trends in bankruptcy law, distressed investing and corporate restructuring. Lead writer Marie Beaudette and Daily Bankruptcy Review reporters in Washington, New York and Wilmington, Del., provide insight into the big cases, who’s next to fall and what’s making news across the bankruptcy market.
Source: wsj.com
Can I File Bankruptcy Without an Attorney?
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
Americans Too Broke to File For Bankruptcy
Though tempting, preparation services are not a great idea — they can’t give you sound legal advice. Going at it alone is also not the best of options, even though 8% of Chapter 7 filings are done without an attorney. A poorly filed petition is bound to be dismissed. However, it’s possible to hire an attorney to look over your paperwork.
Source: findlaw.com
phil has no original talent, he’s just a DAVE MATTHEWS wanna-be! The only people who are against Jessica (and her AMAZING VOICE) are haters 
plain and simple. Tweens are the ones who push their parents to BUY BUY BUY, so if they hate on Jessica’s amazing talent, then they will all vote for that lame phillips phillips guy. He sucks. Just because Jessica is young, attractive and highly talented doesn’t mean she will win. Idol is rigged because young girls that make up the most viewers will vote for who they think is cute. Young girls who are INSECURE, IMMATURE and don’t really care about the voice of the winner will be the determining factor. So Jessica may not win, but she will have a great career, with her talent. Anyone who hates on Jessica is just jealous. Go ahead, vote for that loser phil phillips, and then tell me, where is kris allen? taylor hicks? and any other idol that doesn’t have a hot career… he will go no where if he wins 
so it doesn’t even matter. I hope my fav J
Ohio bankruptcy is a federal process and takes place in a federal court. In the state of Ohio, you file for Ohio bankruptcy in either the Northern Ohio Bankruptcy District or the Southern Ohio Bankruptcy District, depending on where you live. In addition, federal law requires that you attend a course in credit counseling at least six months prior to filing for Ohio bankruptcy to determine if bankruptcy should even be something you need to be considering.
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: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcyattorneysco.com
Although few want to make the decision of filing for bankruptcy, there will come a point where it has to be done. Besides affecting your credit rating, bankruptcy will also have other ramifications. When all other options failed you, only then should you file for bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy could be your option if you’re taking cash advances of more than $500 to pay for living expenses or when you’re constantly borrowing money from one credit source to pay another. Bankruptcy is the only option if you borrow to meet regular expenses like utility bills, and food and the only calls you get are from creditors. Bankruptcy is a way for you to get out of your hard financial times and it is something that you have to do when you can no longer afford to pay your existing debts. When it comes to bankruptcy, the most commonly filed form is chapter 7 and 13. Chapter 7 is the most common for the individual. The complete erasing of quality debt is what this is. From all repayment obligations, the debtor is then released. Keep in mind that chapter 7 bankruptcies are very serious and should not be taken lightly. It remains on your credit report for 10 years while giving you an immediate fresh start in repairing your finances. You will be seen as a high risk and you will also be noted as a person who is financially irresponsible. Chapter 13 is less harmful to your credit. Though there are still marks against you, because you will be working to repay your debts on a payment plan, you do not look like you are financially irresponsible, though you are still considered a slight credit risk. With a chapter 13 you will be able to keep your home and they will not start selling your assets to pay back your creditors like you would in chapter 7. When you’ve gone through all other available options, only then should you consider filing for bankruptcy. With the help of consolidation loans, debt counseling, etc., you can reduce your debt and avoid bankruptcy. This can help save your credit record and improve your chances of getting credit sooner than if you file for bankruptcy. Consult a bankruptcy lawyer if there are no other options and ask for advice before you take action.
Phil Leadbetter, affectionately known as “Uncle Phil” is Bluegrass Music’s favorite dobro uncle. Phil has been battling cancer for a while now and benefits, concerts and other events are taking place to help him with his enormous medical expenses. In March of last year, he was diagnosed with the disease and he and his medical team have been fighting to find the right mix of chemo to get control. Thursday, Phil reported that the team has found a new chemo treatment and that the cancer is responding to it.
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
Many people think that a cheaper health insurance plan will save them money. In most cases, these types of plans will only save you money if you don’t actually use them. Cheaper plans have high deductibles, and often don’t cover basic services. There’s nothing more important than your health, so if you can afford the better plan, get it. While this isn’t always true, a co-pay plan is usually a better deal than a deductible plan, because you won’t have to pay as many out-of-pocket expenses.
It is also important that you be told the total amount that will be billed after the whole process is over. Normally, it costs thirty dollars when you are having your first sessions with any attorney. However, the total cost is usually around two thousand five hundred dollars. You should not be blinded to go for an attorney charging the least fee some of them may not give your case the attention it deserves.
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)