Linear Title and Amerisave Ripoff Report

It is important to be extra careful when dealing with title companies and mortgage companies these days. There is little regulation protecting consumers, and there are many companies that provide questionable services.

Just recently Linear Title and Amerisave received a ripoff report for an incident. The report documents the trials of a couple using these two companies in the purchase of a new home.

This couple had save up for a home and when the time was right, they applied for a loan through Amerisave. It took two months to approve the loan after all the appropriate documents were submitted.

Once the loan was approved, a notary was sent by the company to sign off on the final paperwork. The wife describes how the notary showed up in an intoxicated state. While notaries might be contracted out, it is a sign of quality control as far as the procedure and screening process of the companies. Nonetheless, the couple proceeded with signing off on the loan documents and waiting on final approval for their home purchase.

However, at this point, they were informed that the paperwork was filled out incorrectly, but Amerisave indicated to them that Linear Title, the title company made the error. When the couple attempted to discuss the issue with Linear Title, they were informed that Amerisave was at fault.

In the end, Linear Title offered to cut their fee in half although they claim they were not at fault.

While this is a compromise that ultimately saved the couple some money in the end, it's still a bad experience. It was important to know where the issue arose. Even though they were able to resolve their errors, no one ever admitted responsibility for the mistake.

This is the type of experience many consumers may want to avoid in the future. Make sure you carefully screen your mortgage and title companies before you contract with them. It may save you some incoveniences and even some money.

Considering personal bankrupcty: Is Chapter 13 Right for You?

There are two ways that a person can file for personal bankruptcy:  Chapter 7 and Chapter 13.  Most people have heard of Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but Chapter 13 is often more rare.  However there are situations when Chapter 13 is appropriate.

There are many differences between Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, but the main difference between Chapter 13 and Chapter 7 is Chapter 13 often allows the person filing for bankruptcy to keep certain assets that would otherwise be lost under the Chapter 7 rules. You can often keep your home and your car under either plan as long as your equity does not exceed certain limits. However, many of the discretionary items are treated differently.  For example, you may be allowed to retain rental properties, antique collections and other discretionary assets under Chapter 13 which you might otherwise lose under Chapter 7.

Generally, Chapter 13 is commonly used when one has significant equity in a home or other property they want to keep.  It's best for individuals with regular income and can pay their living expenses, but have some trouble with keeping up with payments on other debts.  Chapter 13 protects individuals from the collection efforts of creditors and permits those who are filing to retain their real estate and personal property. It also provides means so that the person can pay his or her debts through reduced payments.

A trustee works for both parties and will usually come up with a three to five year payment plan which offers to pay off all or part of the debts owed. The trustee will also calculate how much the debtor can afford to pay each month which is that amount above necessary living expenses. Debtors must have a regular income and have at least some disposable income in order to make this work. It is the disposable income that is used to pay back the debts.

Two major problems with Chapter 13 is that the person filing must have a steady income and some disposable cash. For many people, they simply do not have that. If they had it, they might not be in bankruptcy in the first place. The second issue is that the person filing Chapter 13 will have to pay back more of the debt owed than those seeking protection under Chapter 7.

But there are also major advantages to Chapter 13 as well.  A person filing under Chapter 13 can keep most of their property while spreading out past due payments over time.  Generally one will have an extra 3-5 years to catch up with their debt according to the schedule you've worked out with your trustee.  During that time, you will only be working with your bankruptcy trustee and never have to have direct contact with the creditors.

Chapter 13 will go on your credit report but it usually stays on for less time than a Chapter 7.

Filing for bankruptcy is a serious move and should not be done without first exploring every other option. In the old days people often believed that filing for bankruptcy was not that big a deal. Much of that has changed now, and it can be a very big deal in terms of you getting future credit or loans.

The bankruptcy laws have changed recently and anyone considering filing should first seek out the advice of a competent and qualified bankruptcy attorney. These specialized attorneys will be able to best guide you toward the correct option that will best suit your needs.

Always research the law and the specialized attorneys in your area to ensure that you are getting the best assistance.  For instance, you can research about filing bankruptcy in Nebraska by visiting their local state bar page to look specifically for a Nebraska bankruptcy attorney.

One note of caution when using a qualified bankruptcy attorney, remember to ask for previous cases that the attorney has worked on and ensure you have a clear indication on their fees before proceeding

Time for Estate Planning

It's not common for most people to go out of their way to avoid discussing planning for the elderly.  The reality is that as people get older, it's time to think about the future and prepare to lay the groundwork for passing on your estate.  With the proper planning and a good estate lawyer barrie, you can avoid many headaches and frustration for your loved ones.

What Documents do you need for Estate Planning


There are a couple of important documents you'll want to review when you are planning for the future.
First off, you want to have a will.  A will can lay out important decisions about your assets.  You can describe how your estate will be managed, the custody and care of your children, as well as your property. These are important decisions that are better to put into writing rather than to leave to chance.

You may also want to investigate getting medical care documents drafter.  A document such as a living will to give your doctors instructions regarding medical and life support procedures.  It's better to make these decisions yourself than to place the responsibility on your loved ones.

How to Start Estate Planning


First off, you will need to have all your important information handy.  You want to have your financial information, medical and life insurance policies, contact information for doctors, etc...  This is information that your lawyer will need when helping draft your estate documents.  Get all of these documents together and look into getting the right professional to help you draft your estate plan.  Also, after you have your documents drafted, you want to tell your loved ones where to find the information.  Let them know your lawyer's contact information as well as any other important contacts.

Checking on Your Estate Plan


Equally important is checking on your estate plan periodically.  Your financial situation as well as your family and medical needs change over time.  You need to account for those changes in your estate plan.  If you have a new baby, you want to make sure that your new child is included in your will.

All of these factors are important to making sure that there is a smooth transition for your legacy in the future.  Plan ahead now to ease the process later.

When Do You Need a Lawyer

Some problems in life can be simple, however there are times when you need some extra help.  The times have passed when one can complete a deal with a handshake or settle and injury with a simple conversation.  We see more and more criminal laws being passed.  Times are changing.

While something as simple as a dispute between friends might be easily resolved with a simple conversation, there are sometimes situations that need a more in depth look.

Here are some questions to ask yourself on whether you need a lawyer to assist you with some advice:

Does your situation involve money?
Even a simple monetary transaction can sometimes require the assistance of a lawyer.  This is especially true when you are talking about an exchange of money at some future time.  Memories can fade or people can change their minds.  Perhaps you need the details written down.  When you have a situation where you are discussing money, you may want to consult with an objective third party.  This not only protects you, but also the other person as well.

Does your situation involve possible criminal liability?
If you look at your situation and you have misgivings about whether it's morally or legally correct.  This is the best time to ask someone who is familiar with the legal system.  Get the answer to your question before you do something that might get you involved with the authorities.  The best thing to do is to be proactive and make sure that you are doing things right before you are in trouble.

Does your situation involve a business deal?
Business is a situation that involves not only money, but a complex relationship.  You want to hammer out all the finer points of your relationship before you complete the transaction.  This ensures that your financial interests are protected.  It also preserves the relationship between the two parties so that disputes in the future don't become personal.

Was there some kind of injury?
If you or someone else was injured, this is the time to ensure that everyone is protected in the future from legal liability.  Even if the injury appears to be minor, there could be long lasting and future consequences.  You can often speak to an attorney and get some free advice on how to make sure everyone is protected in this situation.

What should I look for in a Lawyer?
There are all kinds of specialties in the legal profession.  Much of your selection will be based on the type of problem that you are facing.  But beyond that, you want to look at the qualifications of the attorneys that you retain.  Many law firms such as Business Lawyer Barrie employs attorneys with different areas of expertise so they can assist people with a variety of problems.  You want to look at their reputation in the community.  Go to your state's bar website and look up the attorneys at the law firm.  Take a look at their experience and expertise in your issue.  You can also ask others in the profession for their opinion and recommendation.

There are a variety of resources to assist you in choosing the right lawyers for your problem.  The most important thing is to do your research, stay informed and make sure that your interests are protected.

Gay marriages Put on Hold

The 9th circuit ruled on Monday to stay the recent ruling permitting gay marriage. The stay is effective at least until December when the court will hear arguments on the issue.

Father can Sue Mother of a Stillborn Fetus for Negligence

The father of a stillborn fetus can sue for negligence on a mother's part.  This is a case out of Wisconsin involving a car accident.  The mother of the fetus was involved in an auto accident with a third party.  The father initially sued the other party, however the lawsuit was rejected on summary judgement on a finding that the other party could not be liable for the mother's negligence.

On appeal, the court ruled that there is a causal link between a recent car accident and the subsequent death of a fetus.  The court further found that the pregnant woman, at least in Wisconsin, does owe a duty to the unborn child and thus could be civilly liable for negligence.

Interesting trend

Recently, there has been some discussion about whether children of non-citizen parents should get citizenship at birth in the U.S.  This debate has been renewed with the recent court ruling in Arizona banning significant portions of the Arizona immigration law.  While it may seem like an unusual step to take to deny children born on U.S. soil the right to be citizens, this is actually not an unusual trend around the world.  Take a look at some of the other modern countries around the world that have recently changed their laws to end birthright citizenship:

*Canada repealed in 2009.

*New Zealand repealed in 2006.

*Ireland repealed in 2005

*France repealed in 1993

*India repealed in 1987

*United Kingdom repealed in 1983

*Portugal repealed in 1981

Please Participate in our Poll

In light of the recent legal ruling out regarding the California ban on gay marriage, I've put up a poll to see what the reader sentiment was on the issue.

Please participate in our poll.

Thank you!

Home

Home

Support to end citizenship for children of illegal immigrants grows

Here's an interesting story.  It's traditionally been the right for anyone born in the United States to get citizenship automatically.  However, a number of lawmakers are suggesting a constitutional amendment to change this right:

Frustrated by Congress' failure to do anything to curb illegal immigration, a number of prominent lawmakers are suggesting the time has come to consider repealing or rewriting the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Read more…

Do you need a lawyer?

When do you need a lawyer?

Sometimes, it's obvious when you need the professional advice of a lawyer such as when you are being sued or charged with a crime.  But even in the most common situations a lawyer's advice, the advice of a professional can be an asset.

One of the first questions you need to ask yourself is "What is at risk?"  When you are faced with going to jail or losing a sum of money, you should always consult with a professional, no matter how straightforward the case.  The law and the courtroom is filled with pitfalls where the inexperienced could stumble, even in a simple case.  Remember the saying, "One who represents himself has a fool for a client."

With the complexities in the government and the law, the advice of an expert is important in a number of areas:  business, estate planning, drafting wills and trusts, family matter, adopting children, real estate and rent issues.  Good preparation is necessary when taking on these tough legal challenges.

Things to consider before you hire a lawyer?

If you have a legal matter where you believe you may need the advice of a lawyer, you can often arrange a consultation with a few phone calls.  Most lawyers can arrange a free consultation, they know that if they give good preliminary advice about a case, you are more likely to consider hiring them for your cause.  Remember, it never hurts to talk to a lawyer.

If you are concerned about the cost of consulting an attorney, often times, you can turn to local community or civil rights groups that offer free legal help and information.

Alternatively, some disputes may be settled by mediation or arbitration, rather than taking court action.  Nonetheless, a lawyer may be able to give you advice in how to negotiate a favorable outcome even in those settings.

How soon should you consult a lawyer?

The sooner the better.  In some cases, it's obvious that you need to act fast.  However, many times, it may appear that you have time to weigh your options, but preparation is always the key in any complex situation.  And the sooner you begin to prepare, the better your outcome.

A couple of things to keep in mind:  In many legal situations, there is a statute of limitations, meaning a deadline for you to take action before you loose the right forever.  These deadlines can be as short as weeks or months.  If you miss the deadline, you will forever lose your right to bring a claim.

What is your goal?

While this questions may seem simple, sometimes your objectives may not be clear. If you are in a situation where you area unlawfully charged with a crime, or someone is suing you for a large sum of money, your goal is clear. 

However, what if the situation is that you feel you were unlawfully let go from your job?  Do you want to sue for your job back, or try for some punitive damages without going back to a potentially hostile work environment.

Also, your lawyer can also tell you whether you have a viable claim, and how realistic your chances are of winning your case.  If you are unsure about your rights, a lawyer is a good investment which may ultimately save you time and money.

Questions for Your Attorney

• How much experience do you have?
• How much will a lawsuit cost me?
• How long will the entire legal process take? Do I have a good chance of winning?

Judge Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban

The Federal Judge in San Francisco strikes down the ban on gay marriage today, ruling that the law violates the US Constitution.

California: Ruling On Gay Marriage Expected Today

Demonstrators on both sides of the issue are preparing for a ruling that is anticipated to come out this afternoon on the legality of gay marriage.

US District Chief Judge Walker presided over the trial about the constitutionality of the gay marriage ban in California. This afternoon, Judge Walker will issue a ruling on whether the law violates equal protection and due process under the US Constitution.

Arizona Sheriff given deadline to comply in Civil Rights Investigation

This is an interesting story. Since March, 2009, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Joe Arpaio, has been under investigation for civil rights violations. The primary focus of those investigations have been for alleged discrimination and unconstitutional searches and seizures.

You may recall Joe Arpaio in recent news. He has virtually served as a spokesperson for local law enforcement in support of the Immigration Law. Of course, he was also the sheriff who urged demonstrators to follow the law during the protests, and then promptly began leading immigration sweeps in Immigrant neighborhoods immediately after a Judge banned key provisions of the Immigration Law. One of the main provisions dealt with the controversial portion requiring law enforcement to check immigrants for their papers. How does one sweep immigrant neighborhoods, while following the Judge's ruling?

Apaio states that the current investigation is primarily focused on alleged wrongdoings in his immigration efforts. Arpaio, along with his attorneys, have already indicated that they have no intention of cooperating with the inquiry. The Justice Department has now given a deadline of August 17, 2010 to turn over documents that were first requested last year.

Should the Government legalized Gay marriage?

This is an interesting debate question.
Currently, this is a debate that is ongoing in several states. Opponents of gay marriage argue that there is a strong government interest in preserving the traditional family. The extension of this argument is that gay marriage would degrade family values and break down the importance of the traditional family.
Supporters of gay marriage argue that this is a myth.
In fact, the traditional family has evolved over the years. It's hard to define the traditional family in modern times. Are we talking about mom and dad and the kids, or is it mom, dad, step-mom, step-dad, and the half brothers and sisters. It's arguable that if allowed to marry, gay couples may cherish their hard won rights, resulting in a lower divorce rate amongst gay couples.
Opponents of gay marriage also point out that gay couples can avail themselves to a civil union which carries all the same rights as marriage. This is an interesting argument that certainly cuts both ways. If marriage and civil union are the same thing, then the same argument can be used to argue on behalf of legalizing marriage for gay couples. What's the difference, if it truly is the same thing. Consider the flip side for heterosexual couples. Calling my wife a civil partner just doesn't have the same ring.
Philosophy aside, what is a state's interest in marriage? Traditional marriage was invented in religion, however the government also has a legitimate interest in recognizing marriage in the law. The government interest in marriage is fundamentally in recognizing the property interest between a married couple. Without the legal recognition of marriage, the succession of property becomes problematic when someone passes away. Consider a non-married couple with a child born out of wedlock. If the father of the child passes away, the mother of the child would not be entitled to any property from the father. The minor child would likely inherit. However, if the couple were married, then the wife would have a property interest.
The government should have a strong interest in legitimizing these property rights amongst all couples who wish to tie the proverbial knot.
Lastly, consider the equal protection arguments. If there's no argument against allowing a legal civil union, which supposedly carries all the same rights as marriage, then why single out a single group of people to say that they can't use the word marriage to describe their union?

Protestors arrested in Arizona

So far about 80 protestors have been arrested in Arizona while demonstrating against the immigration law. Some of the protestors are prominent activists. Meanwhile law enforcement officials maintain that there is no profiling or targeting involved in these arrests.

Ninth Circuit denies Arizona's request for expedite immigration law appeal

The news is that the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Arizona's request for an expedited appeal. This isn't a rejection of the appeal itself. The court has scheduled an opening brief for August 26 and a hearing sometime in the first week of November.

 Be prepared for continued heated debate on the immigration issue.

Lawsuit filed in Hawaii for recognition of same-sex civil unions

This is an interesting story. Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit yesterday to for Hawaii to recognize same sex civil unions. If successful, the lawsuit would grant the same rights as marriage to same sex civil unions.

The lawsuit bases its claims on violations of equal protection, due process and privacy of same sex couples.

Same sex civil unions are already recognized in Washington, New Jersey, Oregon and Nevada. Same sex Marriage is recognized in DC, Vermone, New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut and Massachusetts.

What happened to the Fourth Amendment?

Several rulings came out of the Wisconsin Supreme court dealing a blow to the Fourth Amendment.  As we go over these decisions keep in mind the importance of knowing your rights as we face the erosion of our right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

There were a total of six cases, we'll discuss the two with arguably the largest impact for the citizens of Wisconsin.

In State v. Pinkard, No. 2008AP1204-CR, Police Officers received an anonymous tip regarding two persons sleeping in their home with cocaine, scales, and cash inside.  When officers arrived at the home they knocked and announced their presence.  When there was no answer, the Officers decided to enter the home without a warrant.  Sound like an illegal entry?  The court ruled that the officers could have been "concerned" about the occupants overdosing on drugs and found the search to be legal.

The second case we'll discuss also deals with a search of a house.  When you read these two cases together, you'll notice an interesting dynamic as pointed out in the dissenting opinion.  State v. Robinson, No. 2008AP266-CR, deals with a case where officers knock and announce their presence at a home.  When they heard running footsteps they decided to break into the house without a warrant.  Most would think this to be an unlawful entry.  The court ruled that the warrantless entry was justified under exigent circumstances to prevent the destruction of evidence.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Bradley points out a fundamental problem with these rulings:  "If the suspect opens the door, that suspect may be found have voluntarily consented to the search [Artic]. If the suspect refuses to open the door and officers hear movement inside, there may be exigent circumstances due to the possibility of the destruction of evidence [Robinson]. If no one answers the door, concern for the well-being of the occupants of what sounds like a drug house may justify entry under the community caretaker exception [Pinkard] (emphases in original)."

Basically, Officers in Wisconsin can enter your home without a warrant virtually anytime.  Sorry Wisconsonians, What happened to the Fourth Amendment?

Where is Immigration Reform Headed?

Now that portions of the Arizona law was blocked, where is the law headed next?  

The blocking of the law doesn't appear to be dampening the spirits of local law enforcement in Arizona at all.  Of course, before yesterdays ruling, the Sheriff of Maricopa County was encouraging demonstrators to follow the law and work within the spirit of the law to make changes if they disagree with the legislation.

Today, despite a Judge's ruling striking key provisions of the law, the Sheriff is still planning a sweep of immigrant neighborhoods.  It begs the question of what they are looking for is presumably they shouldn't be asking immigrants for their papers?  I suppose only the protesters are encouraged to follow the law, local law enforcement doesn't need any such reminders to do so.

In light of the ferocious debate on both sides of the issue, it's interesting to consider the path that Arizona is headed:

So, let's just require a sector of our population to carry papers because we have some suspicion that certain ethnic groups enter the country illegally.

Of course, we must require that local law enforcement have some reasonable suspicion other than race to detain people and request to see their papers. This is a quandary that is not easily solved. How does one suspect that a person is an undocumented immigrant without taking into account their race?

The answer is obvious. We should have all persons of a particular ethnic group wear some kind of symbol which is easily visible on their outer clothing to indicate that they are lawful immigrants. Of course, it would be a serious felony for an undocumented immigrant to forge such a symbol. It would also be a crime for a legal immigrant to give assistance to an undocumented immigrant.

This would make it simplicity itself to spot the undocumented immigrants easily and move them into the local immigration detention facilities. It would also discourage any lawful immigrants from giving help to their undocumented friends or relatives.

In addition, the lawful immigrants who assist their undocumented brethren could similarly be detained and sent to prison or perhaps housed in a detention facility for aiding and abetting.

In order to enforce these laws, we could make it a crime for all the lawful immigrants to go into public without wearing their immigration symbol boldly where law enforcement can easily view. If it is obscured in any manner, the local law enforcement can detain the person for attempting to hide their immigration status.

And so on...

Of course, this is a hypothetical situation that wouldn't ever really happen, could it?  Any history buffs in the audience?