Stigler 10 Commandments monument may come down

March 2nd, 2010

By Craig Day, The News On 6

HASKELL COUNTY — A Ten Commandments monument outside the Haskell County Courthouse will have to be moved soon.

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to get involved in a dispute over the monument. That affirms a lower court ruling that the statue must go, but there are still plenty of opinions on both sides of the debate.

Stigler is home to about 3,000 people. Fifty churches are in the Haskell County phone book. And it’s a town at the center of the debate over religious monuments on public property. A place where just about everyone has an opinion about the Ten Commandments controversy.

“I’m a Christian. I come from a religious background, and I think that it is beautiful there,” said Beth Bray, a Whitefield resident.

For six years, the stone Ten Commandments monument has stood outside the Haskell County Courthouse. For nearly as long, it’s been challenged in federal court and argued by supporters and opponents.

“It’s something the people wanted,” said Andy Mannon, a Haskell County resident.

“You’re just not supposed to mix the two, that’s part of our constitution,” said Sharon Nichols, an ACLU Member.

A federal court ruled the display unconstitutionally endorses religion. The Supreme Court refused to take up the issue, meaning the monument must go. It’s not what most in Haskell County want to hear.

“I think it should stay,” said Mannon.

“I can’t imagine anybody thinking that that is causing a problem being here,” said Bray.

But then, there is Sharon Nichols. While certainly in the minority, she’s pleased.

“To me, if you don’t uphold the constitution’s separation of church and state, nobody’s religion or religious beliefs are safe,” said Nichols.

The monument is expected to be removed in a week. While there are still opinions, both sides agree, they’re glad the issue is settled and they can put the controversy and the spotlight behind them.

There’s some talk in Haskell County that the monument could be placed in a vacant lot across the street from the courthouse, or at a nearby business. The News On 6 also heard one option was to put it on private property just off Highway 9 where drivers would see it as they head into Stigler.

  • Share/Bookmark

Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 – A Summary

February 20th, 2010

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 111–22) provides a 90-day notice requirement and additional protections for tenants in foreclosed properties.  Below you will find the major provisions outlined under Title VII, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.

- During the term of the lease, the tenant has a right to remain in the unit and cannot be evicted, except for actions that constitute good cause.

- If the lease ends in less than 90 days, the new owner may not evict the tenant without giving the tenant at a minimum 90 days notice.

- At the end of the term of the lease, the new owner may terminate the tenancy if the new owner provides a 90-day notice.

- The new owner may terminate the tenancy if the owner will occupy the unit as a primary residence, and has provided the tenant a notice to vacate at least 90 days before the effective date of such notice. This is the only exception to the rule that the tenant may not be evicted during the term of the lease.

These provisions expire on December 31, 2012.

Click here to read Title VII, Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.

  • Share/Bookmark

Courts to jurors: Stop tweeting

February 10th, 2010

By David Kravets, Wired

(Wired) — A federal court policy-making body is belatedly entering the internet age by proposing that judges clearly inform jurors they must not electronically discuss cases they are hearing.

It’s standard procedure to inform jurors to remain mum and not conduct any research about the case until a verdict. But recent gadget use by jurors has forced the hand of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body of the federal courts.

The model jury instructions the Judicial Conference released to the federal judiciary in late January specify:

“You may not communicate with anyone about the case on your cellphone, through e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and YouTube.”

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson of Kansas, the chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, told the nation’s judges in a Jan. 28 memo that the new jury instructions “address the increasing incidence of juror use, of such devices as cellular telephones or computers, to conduct research on the internet or communicate with others about cases.”

Robinson told fellow judges that “more explicit mention in jury instructions of the various methods and modes of electronic communication and research would help jurors better understand and adhere to the scope of the prohibition against the use of these devices.”

A federal drug trial in Florida ended in a mistrial last year when eight jurors admitted they were doing internet research on the case they were hearing.

Among other examples, there was a call, although unheeded, for a mistrial when a juror was discovered tweeting and publishing trial updates on Facebook in the prosecution of Vincent Fumo, a former Pennsylvania state senator convicted of graft.

There are no nationwide instructions for the state courts, because each state adopts its own set of jury instructions. Florida, for instance, is recommending that its judges instruct jurors multiple times “that they cannot perform outside research using the internet, or use electronic devices to communicate about the case.”

  • Share/Bookmark

MY TENANT JUST FILED BANKRUPTCY, NOW WHAT?

January 9th, 2010

Landlords have limited forms of recourse against their residential tenants in bankruptcy. bankruptcy sign

Personal bankruptcy filings are up everywhere, and they are impacting residential property owners more than ever.  While the United States Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) is complicated and has its faults, and may be interpreted and imposed inconsistently across the US, the Code offers residential landlords some limited protections.

Under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 “BAPCPA”, if a residential landlord already has a judgment for possession by the time the tenant files for bankruptcy, the automatic stay does not prevent the landlord from continuing to evict the tenant after 30 days after the petition was filed [unless the debtor cures any deficiency in rent and deposits with the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court the rent coming due during that 30 day period]. Specifically, the Code provides, in Section 362(b)(22), that the automatic stay shall automatically cease 30 days following the bankruptcy filing date to permit landlords to continue any eviction, forcible entry and detainer “FED”, or similar proceeding against a debtor-tenant where the landlord has obtained a judgment for possession against the debtor-tenant prior to the bankruptcy filing.

If the landlord has not already filed an FED and obtained a judgment prior to the bankruptcy filing, and if the tenant rejects the lease, the tenant is liable for breaking the lease early. If the tenant-debtor rejects the lease, the landlord can give the tenant notice to quit. After that, the landlord can begin eviction proceedings if the tenant doesn’t leave.  The tenant is liable for a portion of the rent that would have been due, but this debt is like any other unsecured debt in the bankruptcy, and is dischargeable.

Upon filing the petition (the original bankruptcy filing), the Code requires the tenant or the trustee in Chapter 7 cases to timely perform all obligations of the lease from that date until the lease is assumed or rejected. If the debtor or trustee fails in that duty, the landlord may seek relief from the automatic stay and proceed with an eviction or FED. It is important for landlords to not overlook this rule.

In a Chapter 7 case, the Code provides that a lease of residential real property is automatically rejected if the trustee does not assume or reject the lease within 60 days after the bankruptcy is filed. If the lease is rejected, the lease automatically is deemed to have been breached as of the day before the bankruptcy filing and the landlord is entitled to repossess the premises in accordance with state law. As a result, any damages that the landlord might suffer are treated as pre-petition general unsecured claims. The code limits “rejection damages” to either 15 percent of the balance of the rent reserved in the lease or the rent reserved for one year from the filing date or the date the premises were surrendered, whichever is earlier. In addition, the claim can include any pre-petition rent due at the time of the filing.

In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy the landlord must be more vigilant because the debtor may assume or reject an unexpired lease of residential property at any time before the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. The court, however, at the request of a party to the lease, may order another specified period of time to assume or reject. Debtors often put off assuming or rejecting a lease until the Chapter 13 plan confirmation. The date for confirmation of a debtor’s plan varies from court to court. In jurisdictions where the scheduled confirmation date is far off, it is prudent for the landlord to request an earlier deadline, especially where the debtor is unable to timely make post-petition payments.

A landlord should closely scrutinize the Chapter 13 plan because it will likely affect the landlord’s rights. Assumption of the lease is something that would usually be included in the Plan. An assumed lease becomes a debtor’s post-petition obligation, making any claim from a subsequent default an expense of administration in the Chapter 13 proceeding. That claim then becomes a high priority in the distribution of funds in the event the Chapter 13 case is converted to Chapter 7.

Assuming a lease requires the debtor to prove various elements. In order to assume a lease a debtor must provide adequate assurances that it (or another tenant, if it intends to sublease) will promptly cure any defaults, compensate the landlord for any financial loss resulting from a default and provide adequate assurance of future performance.

The requirement of adequate assurance protects the landlord if the debtor wants to either assume the lease, or assume and assign it. The requirements provide defenses for the landlord against the attempted assumption. If the debtor cannot provide evidence that it can meet these requirements, then the lease cannot be assumed.

An obvious indicator of the debtor’s ability to provide adequate assurance is whether the debtor can cure the defaults by immediate payment of all past due rent and expenses incurred by the landlord. Debtors who cannot immediately cure, may propose to cure defaults by paying pre-bankruptcy rent as a general unsecured claim. Their inability to pay in full may be used as a defense by an objecting landlord.

Section 362(b)(23) of the Code provides that the automatic stay does not apply to eviction actions based on endangerment of the property or the illegal use of controlled substances on the property. In this case, the landlord must file a certification with the Court stating that the eviction action has been filed or that, within 30 days prior to the petition date, the debtor has endangered the property or used illegal drugs on the property. Relief from stay will be granted to the landlord within 15 days of the filing of the certification unless the debtor timely files a response to the certification and then proves a subsequent hearing that the situation that gave rise to the eviction complaint has been remedied. See, 11 U.S.C. Section 362(m).

The strategy a landlord employs when a residential tenant files bankruptcy varies depending upon which Chapter the case is filed under and the facts of each case. Chapter 13 cases tend to present a landlord with more issues because the debtor may want to assume the lease.

When the landlord learns of the bankruptcy of its tenant, he must act promptly to protect his rights. Sitting on those rights may prejudice the landlord forever.

  • Share/Bookmark

Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Update issued.

December 4th, 2009

BY: BRITTANY DUNN

DSNews.com reported earlier this week, the U.S. Treasury Department announced new guidelines to the short sale process on Monday in hopes of speeding up the recovery of the housingshort-sale market. Occurring when a lender accepts the sale of a home at a price below the actual amount owed, short sales have become a growing part of the real estate business as troubled homeowners seek out alternatives to foreclosure.

Under the Making Home Affordable program, this new plan will aim to assist struggling homeowners by offering easier aid and financial compensation. The short sale process will be streamlined, making it less difficult for companies to complete these transactions. This new legislation will help decrease the amount of unnecessary paperwork while still requiring essential information.

RE/MAX, who claims to have the most versed associates in short sales and foreclosures, fully supports these reforms and said its executives have been promoting this initiative for the past year. David Liniger, chairman and co-founder of RE/MAX, started pushing for a streamlined short sale process shortly after foreclosures began to flood the market and presented specific proposals to government officials in Washington D.C. He believes these new reforms will help many families avoid the trauma of foreclosure and help the housing market stay on the road to recovery.

“Short Sales are absolutely critical as more and more people continue to face foreclosure and as our housing market struggles to recover,” said Liniger. “While not all of our recommended changes were implemented, the Treasury’s new guidelines go a long way in incentivizing both lenders and homeowners to work together to keep homes from falling into foreclosure.”

Through these reforms, the short sale process will be enhanced. Mortgage servicers will have 10 days to accept or reject a short sale request, and after the transaction is complete, it is possible that the borrower could be completely released from debt. Financial incentives will be provided to borrowers selling their home through a short sale and to mortgage-servicing companies completing short sale transactions. The program also facilitates the transfer of ownership by a borrower through a “deed in lieu of foreclosure.” Through this enhanced process, short sale transactions are projected to dramatically increase, resulting in less vacant and vandalized properties around the nation.

As almost one quarter of American homeowners are underwater in their mortgages, Scottsdale, Arizona-based Loan Resolution Corporation said it believes the government’s new legislation will encourage short sales in order to reduce foreclosures and prop up the nation’s ailing real estate market, but the company isn’t convinced the program will be accepted by subordinate lien holders. As part of the reform, subordinate lien holders will be paid up to $3,000 of the short sale proceeds, pending agreement by the investor to share the earnings. The Treasury said second lien holders who want more than this will have to pursue a short sale outside of the federal program.

“While we are excited about the new measures that the Treasury announced, we believe that subordinate lien holders will have a limited adoption rate of the program,” said Travis Hamel Olsen, COO of Loan Resolution Corporation. “It is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be more incentive to subordinate lien holders.”

————-

Click on Hamp Update if you want to read it for yourself.  If you want to read the entire Supplemental Directive, you can find that at Directive.  Brian

  • Share/Bookmark

Google Offers Legal Research for the Average Citizen—and Lawyers, Too

November 30th, 2009

As many of us recall from our civics lessons in school, the United States is a common law country. That means when judges issue opinions in legal cases, they often establish precedents that will guide the rulings of other judges in similar cases and jurisdictions. Over time, these legal opinions build, refine and clarify the laws that govern our land. For average citizens, however, it can be difficult to find or even read these landmark opinions.

  • Share/Bookmark

Breaking News: Congress Extends, Expands Housing Tax Credit

November 5th, 2009

House approves extension by vote of 402-12; buyers now have until June 30, 2010 to close on a home.

By: Alison Rice

Lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted 402-12 to approve an extension and expansion of the popular housing tax credit and, they hope, supporting the fragile housing market until the economy improves. The Senate passed the measure 98-0 Wednesday; the bill will now go to the White House, where President Obama is expected to sign it.

Builders, who say the tax credit has revived their buyer traffic and sales in a very difficult year, promptly celebrated.

“We commend lawmakers for acting in a bipartisan manner to extend the first-time home buyer tax credit beyond its Nov. 30 deadline and expand it to a wider group of home buyers,” said Joe Robson, who is chairman of the National Association of Home Builders and a builder in Tulsa, Okla. “The tax credit has proven to be a powerful economic incentive. Today’s action by Congress will further stabilize housing and the economy by creating new jobs, stimulating home sales, reducing foreclosures, cutting excess inventories and stabilizing home prices.”

Mortgage bankers agreed. “At a time when we are finally starting to see some signs of life in the housing and mortgage markets, extending and expanding the home buyer tax credit is a critical step to keeping the momentum,” said Robert E. Story, Jr., who chairs the Washington, D.C.-based Mortgage Bankers Association.

The tax credit approved today will take the housing market into the critical spring selling season. To receive the credit, buyers must sign a purchase agreement by April 30, 2010, and close on the home by June 30, 2010.  As was the case with the credit that has been in use for most of this year, the extended credit will provide first-time home buyers up to $8,000, depending on the price of the home and their household income.

But there are several important differences, too. The newly approved tax credit also covers people who have lived in their homes for at least five years; they can claim a credit of up to $6,500 if they purchase a new home. Finally, Congress raised the income limits on the program, which will now allow singles who make up to $125,000 and married couples with a household income of $225,000 to be eligible for the credit.

The new version of the credit has a price tag for the government of $10.8 billion in lost taxes.

Alison Rice is senior editor, online, at BUILDER magazine.

  • Share/Bookmark

Suit Claims That Redbox Charges Late Fees Despite Promise Not to

November 2nd, 2009

Amanda Bronstad

11-02-2009

A class action has been filed against Redbox Automated Retail LLC on behalf of consumers who claim they were charged late fees on DVD rentals, even though the kiosk retailer advertises that it does not charge late fees.

The suit comes as Redbox, a subsidiary of Coinstar Inc., has filed suits against three Hollywood studios asserting antitrust violations.

Redbox, which was founded in 2002, rents DVDs through 17,000 kiosks nationwide via venues including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and McDonald’s Corp.

Laurie Piechur, a resident of St. Clair, Ill., who claims to have rented numerous DVDs from Redbox during the past year, said she was charged “excessive and illegal late fees,” along with a “maximum charge” of $25 after she did not return two videos, “Fool’s Gold” and “27 Dresses,” on time. She filed the suit against Redbox on Oct. 21 in St. Clair County, Ill., Circuit Court.

“While it boasts ‘easy $1 a night DVD Rentals’ ‘[w]ith no late fees … ever’ that is not the truth,” the suit says. “Instead, Redbox charges its customers who return a movie even one minute late a late fee in the form of an illegal penalty.”

Specifically, she said, if a customer does not return a video by 9 p.m. on the day following the rental, Redbox charges that customer another $1 for renting the video the second day. Under this scenario, she said, “Redbox can effectively double, if not triple, its revenue on a single DVD, with virtually no increase in its costs, thus in fact closely matching the point of sales price of its competitors, meaning Redbox is not a lower-cost alternative at all.”

After 24 days, the customer can keep the DVD, but Redbox issues a maximum charge of $25 — a price that is “much higher than compared to retail prices for the same disc, which would not be previously viewed or used,” the suit says.

Since Jan. 1, 2002, the fees have amounted to $100 million dollars, according to the complaint.

The suit seeks damages for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Rental-Purchase Agreement Act and the Automatic Contract Renewal Act, as well as for unlawful penalties and unjust enrichment. The suit was filed on behalf of two sets of nationwide classes: Those who paid $1 to rent a DVD for one night but were charged a $1 fee after returning the disc after 9 p.m. the following day, and those who were charged $25 for failing to return a DVD.

Thomas Maag, a lawyer at Wendler Law in Edwardsville, Ill., who represents Piechur, and Chris Goodrich, a spokesman for Redbox, which is based in Oakbrook Terrace, Ill., declined to comment.

Redbox has filed suits against Universal Studios Home Entertainment, Warner Home Video and 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, alleging that the studios have established an illegal monopoly over the DVD market and are violating §1 of the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust law. The studios have disputed those claims in court.

Copyright 2009. ALM Media Properties, LLC. All rights reserved.

Page printed from: http://www.law.com

  • Share/Bookmark

10th Circuit Court of Appeals: Haskell County 10 Commandments Monument must go

August 22nd, 2009

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent

Published: 8/22/2009  2:26 AM

Last Modified: 8/22/2009  3:44 AM

DENVER — Haskell County commissioners lost another battle Friday in their ongoing court fight to have a Ten Commandments monument remain on the courthouse lawn in Stigler.

A federal appeals court denied a request that the commissioners said was intended to avoid the unnecessary cost of prematurely removing the monument, which the court declared unconstitutional in June.

The officials had wanted the court to delay implementing its decision so that the county wouldn’t have to remove the monument before the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether it will accept the county’s appeal.

Judges of the Denver-based 10th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 against staying the ruling. The commissioners asked for the stay Tuesday, a day after U.S. District Judge Ronald White in Muskogee ordered them to remove the 8-foot-tall monument. White’s order did not give a deadline for the monument’s removal. He was required to issue a judgment in accord with the appeals court’s June 8 decision because the lawsuit challenging the monument is in his court.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and a Haskell County resident sued to have the monument removed shortly after it was erected in 2004. The appellate judges agreed 3-0 in June with the ACLU and resident James W. Green that the monument violates the U.S. Constitution because its primary effect is to endorse religion.

The commissioners on Tuesday told the judges that a “recall and stay of the mandate is appropriate to preserve the status quo until the case has run its final course.” It is expected to be months before the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the county’s appeal. The judges of the appeals court split 6-6 on July 30, denying the commissioners’ request for the full court to reconsider the June decision of a three-judge panel.

The Supreme Court accepts appeals in only about 2 percent of the cases it is asked to review. Attorneys for the commissioners contend that the Stigler case has a strong chance of being accepted by the high court.

The commissioners argued in Tuesday’s request that the tie vote and the “spirited” position of judges who favored rehearing the case “illustrate that this case is a good candidate for Supreme Court review.” But attorney Daniel Mach of the ACLU said previously that “the Court of Appeals got it right. There’s no reason for the Supreme Court to take this case.”

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent

via Tulsa World: Court: Monument must go .

  • Share/Bookmark

Black & Decker Coffeemakers Recalled By Applica Consumer Products Due to Burn Hazard

August 18th, 2009

NEWS from CPSC

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Office of Information and Public Affairs Washington, DC 20207



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 18, 2009
Release # 09-309
Firm’s Recall Hotline: (866) 699-4595
CPSC Recall Hotline: (800) 638-2772
CPSC Media Contact: (301) 504-7908

Black & Decker Coffeemakers Recalled By Applica Consumer Products Due to Burn Hazard

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, today announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.Name of Product: Black & Decker® Thermal Coffeemakers

Units: About 9,800

Distributor: Applica Consumer Products Inc., of Miramar, Fla.

Hazard: The coffeemakers can overheat and melt, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

Incidents/Injuries: The firm has received one report of a coffeemaker melting. No injuries reported.

Description: This recall involves Black & Decker 8-cup programmable thermal coffeemakers. Model number TCM1000IKT is printed on the rating plate on the bottom of the coffeemaker.

Sold at: Walmart and small retail stores nationwide from April 2008 through July 2009 for between $50 and $65.

Manufactured in: China

Remedy: Consumer should immediately stop using the coffeemakers and contact Applica to receive a free replacement household product.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact Applica at (866) 699-4595 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.acprecall.com

Picture of Recalled Thermal Coffeemaker

CPSC is still interested in receiving incident or injury reports that are either directly related to this product recall or involve a different hazard with the same product. Please tell us about it by visiting https://www.cpsc.gov/cgibin/incident.aspx

Send the link for this page to a friend! The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard. The CPSC’s work to ensure the safety of consumer products – such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals – contributed significantly to the decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.

To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury, call CPSC’s Hotline at (800) 638-2772 or CPSC’s teletypewriter at (800) 638-8270. To join a CPSC e-mail subscription list, please go tohttps://www.cpsc.gov/cpsclist.aspx. Consumers can obtain recall and general safety information by logging on to CPSC’s Web site at www.cpsc.gov.

  • Share/Bookmark
  • Visit Brian on LinkedIn

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Enter your email address here for updates:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

© 2009 Huddleston Law Offices