Service of documents by email in California

Service of documents by email in California is the topic of this blog post. Email service in California is also known as electronic service and is authorized by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rule of Court 2.251. A growing number of attorneys and law firms in California are entering into stipulations for service by email or other electronic means

Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(2) states in pertinent part that, “If a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or facsimile transmission, electronic service of the document is authorized when a party has agreed to accept service electronically in that action.”

California Rule of Court 2.251(a) states that “When a document may be served by mail, express mail, overnight delivery, or fax transmission, the document may be served electronically under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and the rules in this chapter.”

Note that any party served with any document by email or another form of electronic transmission has an additional two court days to respond unless otherwise specified as specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rule of Court 2.251

Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6(a)(4) states that “(4)Electronic service of a document is complete at the time of the electronic transmission of the document or at the time that the electronic notification of service of the document is sent. However, any period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days, but the extension shall not apply to extend the time for filing any of the following:

(A) A notice of intention to move for new trial.

(B) A notice of intention to move to vacate judgment under Section
663a.

(C) A notice of appeal.

This extension applies in the absence of a specific exception provided by any other statute or rule of court.”

A careful reading of both Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and California Rule of Court 2.251 is essential as both are quite detailed.

To view the complete text of any California Code click the link below

Read any California Code

To view the complete text of California Rule of Court 2.251 click the link below.

View text of California Rule of Court 2.251

Attorneys or parties that would like to view or download a free sample proof of service by e-mail in California created by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

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

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

Posted in California civil litigation, california dissolution, California Dissolution of Marriage, california divorce, California freelance paralegal, California legal topics | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Bank of America v. Caulkett case

The Bank of America v. Caulkett case currently before the United States Supreme Court is the topic of this blog post. This case could have very important ramifications for many homeowners as it will decide whether or not a homeowner can erase a second mortgage that is underwater through a bankruptcy. The case is interesting as it is now turning into a debate over whether the Supreme Court should overturn the precedent that raised the issue to begin with.

Oral arguments in Bank of America vs. Caulkett was mainly focused on whether the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals should have allowed David Caulkett and a second plaintiff to dispose of their second mortgages in bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy courts had let them off the hook after determining there was no way the lenders could collect because the properties were worth less than even the first mortgage standing in front of them in them. Caulkett, for example, borrowed $183,000 through a first mortgage and another $47,855 with a second but his house at the time of foreclosure was only worth $98,000.

Thousands of homeowners were left in similar situations due to the financial crisis, and financial relief advocates are arguing that second-lien holders can hold a blocking position preventing borrowers from using bankruptcy to negotiate a reduction in principal balances to stay in their homes instead of losing them to foreclosure.

In a a business bankruptcy, for instance, the situation as different as creditors are ranked by priority and holdouts who refuse to negotiate can be forced to accept a loss under a judicial order known as a cramdown.

However the Supreme Court ordered in the case of Dewsnup v. Timm that mortgage lenders were entitled to different treatment in the decision which was issued in 1992. In that case the Supreme Court ruled that Section 506 of the Bankruptcy Code did not authorize a court to “strip down” a mortgage lien to the current value of the property, eliminating the portion of the debt the lender wouldn’t get even if it seized the land and sold it at foreclosure. The question in Bank of America v. Caulkett boils down to whether that same reasoning applies to a second lien that was completely underwater, with no hope of collecting anything in a foreclosure sale.

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented in Dewsnup and called it a “terrible decision” as he asked the attorney for Bank of America why shouldn’t the court use a familiar tool and narrow the precedent in Dewsnup down to the exact facts in that case? Bank of America’s attorney said that would leave an illogical distinction between semi-underwater and fully underwater liens and it was better to expand Dewsnup to include lenders in the position of her client.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy both expressed concern that second-mortgage holders with no hope of collecting anything in a foreclosure could nevertheless unfairly block a negotiated settlement in bankruptcy that would benefit borrowers and first-mortgage lenders.  Sotomayor stated that bankruptcy is supposed to give debtors a fresh start, and “if you’re able to hold up that fresh start, that is the concern.”

However Bank of America’s attorney while acknowledging that bankruptcy does in fact give borrowers a fresh start, that doesn’t mean they should be entitled to erase a debt secured by their home and keep all the potential appreciation in the property if markets recover. The key question in this case and similar cases is what the worth of a lien really is. Is it worth the current value of the property, or the value of a claim against the property if it recovers closer to the amount that was lent against the property?

Hopefully the Supreme Court will decide in favor of David Caulkett and the second plaintiff.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

To view over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by Stan Burman visit:http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro

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

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in foreclosure, foreclosure defense, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Concealment of community property in California

Concealment of community property in California and the remedies available are the topic of this blog post. Family Code section 721 imposes a fiduciary duty on spouses of the highest good faith and fair dealing.

Family Code section 1101 provides that any spouse that conceals community property in California can be ordered to pay to the other spouses fifty percent (50%) of the value of the concealed community property and the attorney fees and costs of the other party. If the court determines that malice, fraud or oppression have been shown the court can order the non-disclosing party to pay the other party one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the concealed community property and also has the discretion to order them to pay the attorney fees and costs of the other party.

Any party to a divorce, legal separation or nullity in California can request damages and sanctions on the grounds that the other party breached their fiduciary duty by intentionally concealing valuable community property.

A motion filed under Family Code section 1101 is very effective due to the powerful remedies that the law provides. The request is commenced by the filing of a notice of motion or request for order. The motion is filed under the provisions of Family Code sections 721 and 1101 athough other code sections such as Family Code sections 271 and 2100 may also be applicable.

I do want to stress that there is a three year statute of limitations which begins to run as of the date the petitioning spouse had actual knowledge that the transaction or event for which the remedy is being sought occurred unless the other spouse is deceased.

Family Code § 721 outlines the fiduciary duties of spouses in California and states that,

(a) Subject to subdivision (b), either spouse may enter into any transaction with the other, or with any other person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried.

(b) Except as provided in Sections 143, 144, 146, 16040, and 16047 of the Probate Code, in transactions between themselves, spouses are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships that control the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other. This confidential relationship imposes a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing on each spouse, and neither shall take any unfair advantage of the other. This confidential relationship is a fiduciary relationship subject to the same rights and duties of nonmarital business partners, as provided in Sections 16403, 16404, and 16503 of the Corporations Code, including, but not limited to, the following:

(1) Providing each spouse access at all times to any books kept regarding a transaction for the purposes of inspection and copying.

(2) Rendering upon request, true and full information of all things affecting any transaction that concerns the community property. Nothing in this section is intended to impose a duty for either spouse to keep detailed books and records of community property transactions.

(3) Accounting to the spouse, and holding as a trustee, any benefit or profit derived from any transaction by one spouse without the consent of the other spouse that concerns the community property.”

Family Code § 1101 states in pertinent part that,

“(a) A spouse has a claim against the other spouse for any breach of the fiduciary duty that results in impairment to the claimant spouse’s present undivided one-half interest in the community estate, including, but not limited to, a single transaction or a pattern or series of transactions, which transaction or transactions have caused or will cause a detrimental impact to the claimant spouse’s undivided one-half interest in the community estate.

(b) A court may order an accounting of the property and obligations of the parties to a marriage and may determine the rights of ownership in, the beneficial enjoyment of, or access to, community property, and the classification of all property of the parties to a marriage.

(c) A court may order that the name of a spouse shall be added to community property held in the name of the other spouse alone or that the title of community property held in some other title form shall be reformed to reflect its community character, except with respect to any of the following:

(1) A partnership interest held by the other spouse as a general partner.

(2) An interest in a professional corporation or professional association.

(3) An asset of an unincorporated business if the other spouse is the only spouse involved in operating and managing the business.

(4) Any other property, if the revision would adversely affect the rights of a third person.

(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), any action under subdivision (a) shall be commenced within three years of the date a petitioning spouse had actual knowledge that the transaction or event for which the remedy is being sought occurred.

(2) An action may be commenced under this section upon the death of a spouse or in conjunction with an action for legal separation, dissolution of marriage, or nullity without regard to the time limitations set forth in paragraph (1).

(3) The defense of laches may be raised in any action brought under this section.

(4) Except as to actions authorized by paragraph (2), remedies under subdivision (a) apply only to transactions or events occurring on or after July 1, 1987.

(e) In any transaction affecting community property in which the consent of both spouses is required, the court may, upon the motion of a spouse, dispense with the requirement of the other spouse’s consent if both of the following requirements are met:

(1) The proposed transaction is in the best interest of the community.

(2) Consent has been arbitrarily refused or cannot be obtained due to the physical incapacity, mental incapacity, or prolonged absence of the nonconsenting spouse.

(f) Any action may be brought under this section without filing an action for dissolution of marriage, legal separation, or nullity, or may be brought in conjunction with the action or upon the death of a spouse.

(g) Remedies for breach of the fiduciary duty by one spouse, including those set out in Sections 721 and 1100, shall include, but not be limited to, an award to the other spouse of 50 percent, or an amount equal to 50 percent, of any asset undisclosed or transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty plus attorney’s fees and court costs. The value of the asset shall be determined to be its highest value at the date of the breach of the fiduciary duty, the date of the sale or disposition of the asset, or the date of the award by the court.

(h) Remedies for the breach of the fiduciary duty by one spouse, as set forth in Sections 721 and 1100, when the breach falls within the ambit of Section 3294 of the Civil Code shall include, but not be limited to, an award to the other spouse of 100 percent, or an amount equal to 100 percent, of any asset undisclosed or transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty.”

The award of 100 percent of the asset for a fraudulent, oppressive or malicious breach of fiduciary duty is a civil sanction or penalty as stated by at least one California Court of Appeal in a published case. Other cases from the California Courts of Appeal have upheld an award of 100 percent of the asset for a fraudulent, oppressive or malicious breach of fiduciary duty.

At least two published decisions from the California Courts of Appeal have stated that when a breach of fiduciary duty is found the court cannot deny a request for attorney fees and costs by the prevailing party. In other words an award of attorney fees and costs is mandatory for a breach of fiduciary duty.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 17 page motion for damages and sanctions under Family Code sections 271, 721, 1101 and 2100 containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with a table of contents and table of authorities along with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration sold by the author of this blog post can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

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

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in california dissolution, California Dissolution of Marriage, california divorce, California freelance paralegal, California legal topics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Procedure to disqualify a judge in California

The procedure to disqualify a judge in California is the topic of this blog post. A party can invoke the procedure to disqualify a judge in specific situations. Examples of these situations which are common include cases where the judge has a financial interest in a party to the legal action such as a judge that owns stock in a big bank or corporation, or cases where a judge has exhibited a clear bias or prejudice against an attorney, party or witness. Note that a party can also disqualify a court commissioner as well as a referee using the same procedure. I want to emphasize that just because a judge has repeatedly ruled against a party does not constitute sufficient evidence by itself to prove bias or prejudice.

Any attorney or party that wishes to disqualify a judge should act at the earliest opportunity after they discover the facts that constitute grounds to disqualify the judge. They must also serve copies of the verified statement and all attachments on each party or their attorney who have appeared in the case and also personally serve copies of this statement and all attachments on the judge, or on his or her clerk, provided that the judge is present in the courthouse or in chambers. See Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 for more details.   Click here to read the statutes http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml

Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 lists numerous situations where a judge is considered disqualified but to keep this blog post as brief as possible I will only discuss the two most common examples I have come across.

Code of Civil Procedure section § 170.1 states in pertinent part that a judge is disqualified where, for any reason:

“The judge has a financial interest in the subject matter in a proceeding or in a party to the proceeding”. See Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1(a)(3)(A)

“Other persons aware of the facts might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial”. See Code of Civil Procedure § 170.1(a)(6)(A)(iii).

Code of Civil Procedure §170.5 states in pertinent part that, “For the purposes of Sections 170 to 170.5, inclusive, the following definitions apply:

(a) “Judge” means judges of the superior courts, and court commissioners and referees.

(b) “Financial interest” means ownership of more than a 1 percent legal or equitable interest in a party, or a legal or equitable interest in a party of a fair market value in excess of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), or a relationship as director, advisor or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except as follows:

(1) Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in those securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund.”

The fact that a judge has a financial interest in a party to a legal action in which they are presiding is grounds for disqualification not to mention the fact that other persons aware of this fact might reasonably entertain a doubt that the judge would be able to be impartial.

A California Court of Appeal has stated that the test is objective in that “The situation must be viewed through the eyes of the … average person on the street” as of the time the motion is brought. United Farm Workers of America v. Sup.Ct. (Maggio, Inc). (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 97, 104 (emphasis added).

“The word ‘might’ in the statute was intended to indicate that disqualification should follow if the reasonable man, were he to know all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge’s impartiality.” United Farm Workers of America v. Sup.Ct. (Maggio, Inc.), supra, 170 Cal.App. 3d at p. 104 (emphasis added).

Published cases from the California Courts of Appeal have stated that bias exists when there is evidence showing that a judge is clearly predisposed to a case or a particular issue in a certain way or exhibits bias toward a party. This means prejudging a case or issue before all of the facts and evidence have been presented.

The United States Supreme Court has stated that when a judge exhibits bias and prejudice towards an attorney, party or witness that deprives a party of their right to a fair and impartial adjudicator and also deprives them of the right to a fair trial in a fair tribunal which is a basic requirement of due process.

The Canons of Judicial Ethics also prohibit exhibiting bias or prejudice as well.

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a sample 12 page verified statement to disqualify a judge in California containing brief instructions, a sample declaration and memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and verification sold by the author of this blog post can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

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

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

Posted in California civil litigation, california dissolution, California Dissolution of Marriage, california divorce, California evictions, California freelance paralegal, California legal topics, California unlawful detainer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) is the topic of this blog post. This post will mainly discuss the Federal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act found in Title 15 of the United States Code, section 1692, et seq. although many states, including California have their own version.

One critical difference between the Federal version of the FDCPA and the California version is that the federal version ONLY applies to third-party debt collectors such as collection agencies and their employees and does NOT apply to an original creditor which basically means any company that is collecting their own debts. The California version however applies to anyone who regularly engages in debt collection in the ordinary course of business on behalf of himself or herself or others.

Debtors have certain rights and if they do not know what their rights are they cannot stand up for their rights. I believe in empowering people with legal information that gives them at least a basic knowledge of their rights.

The Federal FDCPA states that third-party debt collectors may not:

Contact a debtor before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m., unless that debtor has asked them to;

Contact a debtor at work once they have been told not to;

Use threats of violence or harm against a debtor;

Publish a list of names of people who refuse to pay their debts although this information can be legally provided to credit bureaus;

Use obscene or profane language;

Repeatedly use the phone to annoy someone;

Falsely claim that they are attorneys or government representatives;

Falsely claim that the debtor has committed a crime;

Falsely represent that they operate or work for a credit reporting company;

Misrepresent the amount that the debtor owes;

Indicate that papers they send to the debtor are legal forms if they aren’t, or indicate that papers they send to the debtor aren’t legal forms if they are.

Claim that the debtor can be arrested if they don’t pay the debt;

Threaten to seize, garnish, attach, or sell property or wages of the debtor unless they are permitted by law to take the action and intend to do so;

Threaten legal action in cases where doing so would be illegal or if they don’t intend to take the action;

Provide false credit information about a debtor to anyone, including a credit reporting company;

Send anything to a debtor that looks like an official document from a court or government agency if it isn’t;

Use a false company name;

Try to collect any interest, fee, or other charge on top of the amount owed unless the contract that created the debt or state law where the debtor resides allows the charge;

Deposit a post-dated check early;

Take or threaten to take property of the debtor unless it can be done legally;

Contact a debtor by postcard.

Contact a debtor after they have received a letter from the debtor stating that they do not wish to be contacted any further about the debt. The collector can still contact the debtor to confirm there will be no further contact or to advise the debtor of additional actions being taken against the debtor, such as a lawsuit.

Years ago I briefly worked in the Southern California office of a major nationwide debt collection agency and I have personally seen several of their employees cursing and swearing at debtor’s using very obscene and profane language, repeatedly calling debtor’s, threatening to seize personal property of the debtor such as “their precious household goods” as well as calling the debtor at work even though they had been requested not to.

In fact I recently “Googled” the name of that company and discovered that shortly after I resigned the company entered into a settlement and consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission over charges that they repeatedly violated the FDCPA. However I have also dealt with collection agencies that did not violate the FDCPA so I fully realize that not all debt collectors are abusive. As with any other business there are always a few “bad apples.”

Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample complaint for violations of both the California and Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act including brief instructions sold by the author can see below.

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. If you are in need of assistance with any California or Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr. Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most credit or debit cards.

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

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.net

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in debt collection abuses, debt collections, debtor's rights, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FDCPA | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment