Bankruptcy filings rose sharply in the U.S. in February of 2012
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: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com
Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com
Video: Stockton California Trying to Avoid Filing For Bankruptcy
Octomom fails to provide necessary paperwork for Chapter 7 filing
As you may recall if you have been reading our blog over the past few weeks, Suleman filed for Chapter 7 just a few weeks ago. But after her bankruptcy filing was reviewed, the court determined that the mother of 14 had failed to provide the court with important documents to support her filing. According to court records, Suleman did not include several financial statements and documents that were needed before her bankruptcy filing could proceed.
Source: bankruptcysandiegoattorney.com
California Bankruptcy Law: Articles by Attorney Heather A. Cutler
There may be other reasons to file a bankruptcy earlier than the deadlines permit, so I still recommend that you seek out bankruptcy advice if you feel that you really do need to file for bankruptcy soon. These deadlines apply only if you are seeking a discharge of your current debts, and received a discharge in your past bankruptcy case.
Source: hcutlerlaw.com
Business Bankruptcy: California Bankruptcy Court Sacramento
With the california bankruptcy court sacramento a settlement program, you will b able to prevent credit card companies in the california bankruptcy court sacramento will also include that debt that is inaccurate dispute that item right away. If you choose this plan, a very big decision. Sometimes with the eastern california bankruptcy court be advised as to the california bankruptcy court central or we simply ignore it. We have constructed an opinion that due to recession, financial companies will not take bankruptcy lightly because filing is yours to keep – no job, no savings, etc., you may have found yourself going through all of your savings and still not being able to regain control over your life once again. While it’s not worth the california bankruptcy court sacramento of going with the california bankruptcy court sacramento be required to take advantage of a few debts so there is pool of resources on the Internet.
Source: blogspot.com
Nothing found for Muniland 2012 05 18 What
Alabama bankruptcy budgets California Citigroup Congress credit ratings defaults education EMMA federal government Federal Reserve Florida fracking Harrisburg Illinois infrastructure Jefferson County jobs JP Morgan Medicaid MSRB muni bond funds muni CDS municipal bonds municipalities muni issuance muni snaps Nevada New Jersey New York Obama Pennsylvania pensions privatization property tax Puerto Rico revenue bonds Rhode Island SEC Standard & Poor’s state budgets tax transparency Whitney
Source: reuters.com
‘Octomom’ Seeks Debt Relief by Filing for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
Public scrutiny. Soon, media outlets began questioning Suleman’s ability to raise 14 children as a single mother. Suleman eventually admitted to ABC News that she was receiving between $4,000 and $5,000 each month in public assistance, but this may not have been enough to provide for her massive family.
Source: clearbankruptcy.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
Bankruptcy Fees: California Bankruptcy Court Eastern District
Obtaining a discharge under chapter 7, the procedure roughly take 4-5 months. In the california bankruptcy court eastern district of each of the limited sales yet your high interest loans or debts will not take your clothes, kitchen utensils, or seldom your car. What the california bankruptcy court eastern district for is often between Chapter 7 works out to around $200 and Chapter 13 bankruptcy makes it possible for a while when you find many items on your case. In the california bankruptcy court eastern district in more trouble than you already are in. You may be very beneficial to discuss your situation with a couple who are taking the california bankruptcy court eastern district of these things.
Source: blogspot.com
‘Octomom’ bankruptcy case tossed out
accident accident attorneys accident lawyers attorney automobile accident automobile accident lawyers aviation accident bus accident california employment california personal injury lawyers construction accident construction worker consumer product safety consumer product safety commission cpsc crash Dallas Dallas injury lawyer defective product employment lawyer fall hazards fatal crash fire hazards health canada industrial accident injured injury lawsuit lawyer New York automobile accident lawyers occupational safety and health administration personal injury lawyers product liability attorneys product liability lawyers product recall recall school bus accident school bus crash semi truck tractor-trailer train accident vehicle crash workplace accident work related accident wrongful death lawyers
Source: americaninjurynews.com
Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed by a California Federal Judge
Even a federal judge is being hit hard by the tough economy these days. U.S. District Judge Otis Wright and his wife have filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy because they cannot pay their existing debts. Mr. Wright and his wife filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy late last year in Los Angeles. A Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding can take anywhere from four to six months.
Source: sanfrancisco-bankruptcy-attorney.com
Developing Easy Systems With California Bankruptcy Law firm : tgrbld
Before it starts, a quality las vegas bankruptcy laywer might assist you in preparing decide which point regarding individual bankruptcy to submit and may supply sensible factors why. If you forget to understand most things in regards to the various sections, a great motive to get started with contacting a law firm. A number of lawyers might provide a no charge Phoenix bankruptcy lawyer discussion where you may just simply claim exhortation and even beging learning maintain your rest of the scenario your body. Usually, although, practitioners charges through explore and / or by simply adventure, just like showing with the courthouse and also filing written documents.
Source: tgrbld.com
Should you file for bankruptcy or divorce first?
Texas, Gonzalez de la Garza Genealogy Collection Vermont, Vital Records, 1760-1954 Washington State County Land Records, 1852-1935 Washington State County Probate Case Files, 1832-1950 Washington State County Records, 1885-1950 Wisconsin, Fond du Lac Public Library Records, 1848-1980 New images have been added to the following databases unless otherwise noted: Australia, Queensland Cemetery Records, 1802-1990 Australia, Tasmania, Miscellaneous Records, 1829-1961 Austria, Seigniorial Records, 1537-1888 Bolivia, Catholic Church Records, 1566-1996 Brazil Civil Registration, 1870-2009 Canada, Ontario Births, 1869-1912 (Index records) Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Canada, Saskatchewan, Judicial District Court Records, 1891-1954 Canada, Saskatchewan, Probate Estate Files, 1887-1931 Canada, Quebec Notarial Records, 1800-1900 Chile, Santiago, Cementerio General, 1821-2010 China, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-1900 Colombia, Catholic Church Records, 1600-2008 Costa Rica, Civil Registration, 1860-1975 Czech Republic, Censuses, 1843-1921 Czech Republic, Church Books, 1552-1935 Czech Republic, Land Records, 1450-1850 Czech Republic, Třeboň, Nobility Seignorial records, 1664-1698 Dominican Republic Civil Registration, 1801-2006 El Salvador, Civil Registration Records, 1836-1910 England and Wales Census, 1871 England, Norfolk Parish Registers, 1538-1900 (Index records and images) Estonia, Church Books 1835-194 Germany Marriages, 1558-1929 (Index records) Germany, Bavaria, Dinkelsbühl Miscellaneous City Records, 1804-1946 Germany, Württemberg, Albstadt, Miscellaneous City Records, 1705-1850 Guatemala, Catholic Church Records, 1581-1977 Hungary Catholic Church Records, 1636-1895 (Index records) Hungary Reformed Church Christenings, 1624-1895 (Index records) Hungary, Civil Registration, 1895-1980 Italy, Bologna, Bologna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Catania, Caltagirone, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1861-1941 Italy, Catania, Catania, Civil Registration (Comune), 1820-1905 Italy, Cuneo, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1795-1915 Italy, Genova, Chiavari, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1941 Italy, Napoli, Civil Registration (State Archive), 1809-1865 Italy, Pistoia, Pistoia, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Ravenna, Ravenna, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1866-1929 Italy, Trieste, Trieste, Civil Registration (Tribunale), 1924-1939 Jamaica, Civil Birth Registration Korea, Collection of Genealogies, 1500-2009 Mexico, Morelos, Civil Registration, 1861-1920 Micronesia, Pohnpei, Land Records, 1971-2007 Nicaragua, Diocese of Managua, Catholic Church Records, 1740-2008 Norway Census, 1875 (Index records) Peru, Civil Registration, 1874-1996 Philippines, Civil Registration (National), 1945-1980 Poland, Roman Catholic Church Books, 1600-1950 Portugal, Aveiro, Catholic Church Records, 1550-1911 Portugal, Aveiro, Passport Registers, 1882-1965 Portugal, Aveiro, Testaments, 1900-1936 Portugal, Braga, Catholic Church Records, 1530-1911 Portugal, Bragança, Catholic Church Records, 1541-1985 Portugal, Coimbra, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Coimbra, Passport Registers and Application Files, 1835-1938 Portugal, Diocese of Lamego, Catholic Church Records, 1532-1911 Portugal, Diocese of Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1575-1975 Portugal, Faro, Catholic Church Records, 1587-1880 Portugal, Guarda, Catholic Church Records, 1459-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Catholic Church Records, 1534-1911 Portugal, Leiria, Passport Registers, 1861-1901 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1535-1949 Portugal, Porto, Catholic Church Records, 1582-1908 Portugal, Setúbal, Catholic Church Records, 1555-1911 Portugal, Viana do Castelo, Catholic Church Records, 1537-1909 Portugal, Vila Real, Catholic Church Records, 1533-1941 South Africa, Orange Free State, Estate Files, 1951-2004 South Africa, Reformed Church Records, 1856-1988 Spain, Cádiz, Testaments, 1550-1920 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Municipal Records Sweden, Älvsborg Church Records, 1642-1897; index 1681-1860 Sweden, Blekinge Church Records, 1612-1916; index 1646-1860 Sweden, Gävleborg Church Records, 1616-1908; index 1671-1860 Sweden, Göteborg och Bohus Church Records, 1577-1932; index 1659-1860 Sweden, Gotland Church Records, 1582-1940; index 1655-1860 Sweden, Halland Church Records, 1615-1904; index 1615-1860 Sweden, Jämtland Church Records, 1582-1928; index 1642-1860 Sweden, Jönköping Church Records, 1581-1935; index 1633-1860 Sweden, Kalmar Church Records, 1577-1907; index 1625-1860 Sweden, Örebro Church Records, 1613-1918; index 1635-1860 Sweden, Skaraborg Church Records, 1612-1921; index 1625-1860 United States: Alabama State Census, 1855 (Index records) Alabama State Census, 1866 (Index records) Alabama, County Estate Records, 1800-1996 Alabama, Sumter County Circuit Court Files, 1840-1950 California, Marriage Index, 1960-1985 (Index records) California, San Francisco Area Funeral Home Records, 1835-1931 California, San Francisco County Records, 1824-1997 California, San Mateo County Records, 1856-1967 Connecticut, Death Index, 1949-2001 (Index records) Delaware, Vital Records, 1680-1962 District of Columbia Marriages, 1811-1950 (Index records and images) Florida Marriages, 1830-1993 (Index and images) Florida, Tampa, Passenger Lists, 1898-1945 Georgia Headright and Bounty Land Records, 1783-1909 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Cassia County Records, 1879-1960 Idaho, Minidoka County Records, 1913-1961 Illinois, Probate Records, 1819-1970 Indiana, Death Index, 1882-1920 (Index records) Indiana, Marriages, 1811-1959 (Jay and Hamilton counties) (Index records) Kentucky, Confederate Pension Applications, 1912-1950 Kentucky, County Marriages, 1797-1954 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Orleans Parish Vital Records, 1910, 1960 Louisiana, Parish Marriages, 1837-1957 (Index records and images) Louisiana, Second Registration Draft Cards, compiled 1948-1959 Maine, State Archive Collections, 1790-1966 Maine, Washington County Courthouse Records, 1785-1950 Maryland, Garrett County Probate Estate and Guardianship Files, Source: blogspot.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: businessbankruptcyco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcyrecordsco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: unitedstatesbankruptcycourtco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: probatecourtco.com Source: medicalbankruptcyco.com Source: medicalbankruptcyco.com
Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
Finding Bankruptcy Truths On The Internet
California (Bay Area) California (Chico) Connecticut Florida (Northeast) Florida (Southwest) Georgia (Atlanta Area) Illinois (Southern) Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts (Boston) Massachusetts (Springfield) Michigan Minnesota Missouri (Kansas City) Missouri (St. Louis Area) New York (Upstate) New York Bankruptcy Lawyer North Carolina (Charlotte area) Oregon (South) Oregon (Willamette Valley) South Carolina North Carolina (Eastern, Wilson) South Carolina (Charleston)
Source: bankruptcylawnetwork.com
For those who cannot afford the fees, pro bono or reduced fee legal services may be available. Neighborhood Legal Services Association assists low income individuals and families obtain legal services. (You can find more information here: NLSA). The Allegheny County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Services Modest Means Panel also refers clients to attorneys who have agreed to provide services at a reduced fee. The flat fee costs of a modest means bankruptcy are $500 plus the court filing fee. (Visit the ACBA site here: ACBA LRS).
The stress of financial problems are exhausting and invariably lead to lack of sleep which compounds the stress and make consumer debtor feel overwhelmed. Persistent stress and lack of sleep can cause even the average person to become despressed; those who suffer from mental health issues are impacted the worst as their conditions worsen. Persistent creditor collection activity can become very scary to these people, especially given that collection agents can be very aggressive and often threaten horrible things to extract funds. It is not uncommon for these problems to lead consumer debtor to have trouble concentrating and remembering fact necessary for proper prepration and administration of their bankruptcy cases.
The Most Popular Observers Ever New subscribers ordering 24 or 40 issues have to let us know what major stories of the past 11 years you are most interested in and we’ll send the issue with the best coverage of that story. We’ve got coverage of every major PPV event and world wide spectacular, every major star switching promotions, histories of companies like FMW, Rings and New Japan, retirement and obit issues of every major star who fits into those descriptions over the past 11 years, as well as our biggest issue every year, the annual awards issue, and our most controversial issue of every year, the Hall of Fame issue. Our most requested issues in our history are: *November 17, 1997 (full details of everything leading to the most famous wrestling match finish of modern times at the Survivor Series plus a history of in-ring double-crosses) *December 21, 1998 (the complete Vince McMahon-Bret Hart conversation right before the Survivor Series match so you’ll know exactly what was said–the conversation played in edited form both on the inaugural broadcast of Confidential as well as in Wrestling with Shadows, but everything that was said between the two about the match that was going to take place that same night) *August 1, 1994 (the most detailed coverage anywhere of the Vince McMahon steroid trial, an issue praised in numerous newspaper article and Sex, Lies and Headlocks) *March 26, 2001 (death of WCW and history of pro wrestling on the Turner networks) *October 22, 2001 (why the adult audience has left pro wrestling in such great numbers and what needed to have been done to save them) *July 8, 1991 (Ric Flair leaves WCW as world champion/Zahorian steroid trial) *February 8, 1993 (the life and times of Andre the Giant) *May 13, 2002 (the life story of the most incredible pro wrestling career ever, a look at Lou Thesz, in one of the largest issues of our history) *January 27, 2003 (part one of the two-part series covering the career and life of The Sheik) *February 3, 2003 (Part two on The Sheik including thoughts from people who worked with him and where he stands historically) *March 24, 2003 (history of the WWWF title, inside behind the Sammartino, Backlund and Backlund era) *April 21, 2003 (history of WWF continues with the expansion nationally, the death of the regional territories and the rise of Hulk Hogan) *May 12, 2003 (The life and death of Elizabeth and the rise of fall of Lex Luger) *June 9, 2003 (Part 1 of history of WWF vs. WCW wars and what many say was the greatest year in U.S. wrestling; plus a look at Fred Blassie) *June 16, 2003 (Freddie Blassie through the eyes of his biggest rivals and friends) *July 28, 2003 (Part 2 of the history of the WWF vs. WCW war and the plans to make new superstars in the early 90s, what happened, and the night where the three biggest wrestling companies in the world combined for a joint show and what happened) *August 25, 2003 (2003 Hall of Fame issue with huge profiles on the controversial career of Shawn Michaels, Chris Benoit as well as historical features on Earl Caddock and Francisco Flores) *September 22, 2003 (Part 3 of the history of the WWF vs WCW war with the seeds that caused the collapse of the industry in the 90s, Zahorian trial, Gulf War controversy, Flair leaves WCW while holding world title and much more) *October 27, 2003 (The fascinating life of Stu Hart plus the story of Road Warrior Hawk) *January 19, 2004 (2003 Awards issue) *February 2, 2004 (History of Toronto wrestling, Jack Tunney life story, Royal Rumble and Battle Royal history) *February 23, 2004 (History of Guerrero family with Eddy’s win over Brock Lesnar) *March 1, 2004 (History of WWF continues with the period that brought the company down in early 1992, the mistakes, the real stories and how the business changed) *March 8, 2004 (History of Wrestlemania, its greatest matches and best and worst shows as voted both by wrestlers and non-wrestlers and Wrestlemania history books) *July 5, 2004 (A look behind the scenes and Ric Flair’s book and his background with Eric Bischoff and Hulk Hogan) *July 12, 2004 (A look at more on Ric Flair’s book and his comments on Bruno Sammartino, Bret Hart and Mick Foley) *August 16, 2004 (History of the Olympians in pro wrestling) *August 23, 2004 (2004 Hall of Fame issue and biggest issue of the year with huge profiles on Kazushi Sakuraba, Undertaker, Bob Backlund, Masahiro Chono, Ultimo Dragon, Kurt Angle and Tarzan Lopez–this counts as one issue if you are asking for a free issue, but ordered separately, due to size, is $6 in North America and $7 overseas) *October 4, 2004 (the life and times of Big Bossman; as well as details of the life and times of one of the most influential men world wide in pro wrestling history, Jim Barnett) *November 15, 2004 (the full story of what happened between Kurt Angle and Daniel Puder, plus coverage of the most important week in the history of TNA) *January 24, 2005 (2004 Awards issue, Rock and WWE part company) *March 14, 2005 (the 50 biggest money players in the history of WWF and a look at their Hall of Fame) *May 9, 2005 (the life and times of Chris Candido) *June 20, 2005 (The full story behind Paul Heyman and the death of ECW, as well as coverage of One Night Stand, Hardcore Homecoming and behind the scenes of both shows) *July 18, 2005 (death of Shinya Hashimoto and his records with a look at the fall of New Japan, the Matt Hardy angle, tons of WWE firings, Cornette firing in detail as well as problems of a WWE developmental territory in our biggest news issue of the year which is a double-sized issue and would be $6 on its own and $7 overseas) *August 24, 2005 (2005 Hall of Fame issue with career profiles of Paul Heyman, HHH and Freebirds plus debut of MMA Hall of Fame) *September 12, 2005 (History of Mid South Wrestling) *October 10, 2005 (Life and Times of the Ultimate Warrior) *November 21, 2005 (Life and Times of Eddy Guerrero and Crusher, double issue $6 on its own and $7 overseas) *December 5, 2005 (The Eddy Guerrero special issue, double issue $6 on its own, $7 overseas) *January 9, 2006 (The life and times of Superstar Billy Graham, plus New Year’s Eve 2005 coverage) *January 16, 2006 (2005 Awards double issue, $6 or $7 overseas) *April 3, 2006 (Story of Ann Calvello and the history of Roller Derby–many called this the best issue of the Observer ever) *April 10, 2006 (Behind the scenes at the 2006 Wrestlemania/Hall of Fame week) *July 24, 2006 (The History of the Von Erichs and World Class Championship Wrestling–the most unreal story ever in wrestling) *September 4, 2006 (The Rise and Fall of Kurt Angle; 2006 Hall of Fame inductions of Eddie Guerrero, Paul Bowser, Masakatsu Funaki, Aja Kong and Hiroshi Hase including tons of wrestling history around the world from the 20s through the 60s, the evolution of working to not working in Japan, and a look at Guerrero in hindsight, double issue $6 or $7 overseas) *October 9, 2006 (A look back nine years later at the life and legacy of Brian Pillman with tons of inside information about what made him tick as his real objectives) *November 15, 2006 (History of WCW part one, Eric Bischoff’s book and how the industry was changed forever) *November 20, 2006 (History of WCW part two, Why Jim Ross left WCW, How Bischoff changed the company, signing of Hulk Hogan, Beginning of Nitro, Jesse Ventura, Brian Pillman, Chris Jericho and signing Wrestlemania planned celebrity away) *November 27, 2006 (History of WCW part three, When Bischoff challenged McMahon to fight; Truth and fiction around Bret Hart signing with WCW and why it didn’t click) *December 6, 2006 (details behind Pride’s offers to sell promotion and Part four of History of WCW part four, Hogan-Goldberg match and why there was no rematch, WCW loses NBC network deal in 1999 and the real reasons the company fell apart) *January 22, 2007 (2006 Awards issue, double issue $7 on its own, $8 overseas) *February 14, 2007 (Life and Times of Bam Bam Bigelow) *March 5, 2007 (WWE begins plans that will change the business) *March 12, 2007 (Life and Times of Mike Awesome) *March 19, 2007 (Life and Times of Ernie Ladd) *April 4, 2007 (Life and Times of Badnews Allen Coage–which many are calling one of the best issues in history) *July 2, 2007 (Part one of the Benoit double murder-suicide) *July 5, 2007 (Part two of the Benoit double murder-suicide) *July 10, 2007 (Part three of the Benoit double murder-suicide) *July 19, 2007 (Part four of the Benoit double murder-suicide) *July 23, 2007 (Part five of Benoit double murder-suicide) *July 25, 2007 (Part six of Benoit double murder-suicide) *August 15, 2007 (The legend of the God of Japanese wrestling and his influence on MMA, Karl Gotch) *October 15 (2007 Hall of Fame double issue, $7 on its own, $8 overseas including inductions of The Rock, Tom Packs and the original Strangler Lewis) *November 12, 2007 (Life and times of Fabulous Moolah and history of U.S. women’s wrestling) . *December 31, 2007 (History of Ric Flair and the heyday of wrestling at the Greensboro Coliseum) *January 21, 2008 (2007 Awards issue, double issue $7 on its own, $8 overseas) *March 17, 2008 (Life and times of Johnny Weaver) *March 24, 2008 (Life and times of Gary Hart) *April 10, 2008 (Farewell to Ric Flair; My thoughts, Shawn Michaels talks of Flair’s meaning to him; Hall of Fame; Wrestlemania double issue, $7 on its own, $8 overseas) *August 11, 2008 (Ric Flair leaves WWE; Updated history of pro wrestlers and MMA fighters who went to the Olympics) * September 8, 2008 (2008 Hall of Fame double issue, $7 on its own, $8 overseas; part one of Killer Kowalski bio) * September 15, 2008 (Life and Times of Evan Tanner) * September 22, 2008 (The amazing career of Killer Kowalski, one of our most in-depth bios) You can also order any of these issues on their own for $4 in North America or $5 overseas. Rates are: For the United States, it is $12 for 4 issues, $29 for 12, $55 for 24, $91 for 40 and $118 for 52. In Canada and Mexico, rates are $13.50 for 4, $33 for 12, $61 for 24, $101 for 40 and $131 or 52. In Europe, you can get the fastest delivery and best rates by sending to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . For the rest of the world, rates are $15.50 for 4, $41 for 12, $78 for 24, $126 for 40 issues and $163 for 52 . If you order by mail with a check, cash or money order (P.O. Box 1228, Campbell, CA 95009-1228), you can get $1 off in every price range. We now have available personally autographed copies of Tributes II, our latest book, as well as a DVD that comes with it talking more about the subjects in the book. The book covers the life stories of Lou Thesz, Wahoo McDaniel, Elizabeth, Fred Blassie, Road Warrior Hawk, Andre the Giant, Curt Hennig, Johnny Valentine, Davey Boy Smith, Terry Gordy, Owen Hart, Stu Hart, Gorilla Monsoon, The Sheik and Tim Woods. To get all of those biographies as back issues of the Observer would be a $60 value today. This is a collection of some of the best Observer articles of the past several years in a hardcover, full-color format that is 239 pages. There is also a foreword by Bret Hart. The book price is $12.95 plus $3.50 for shipping costs in the U.S., $10 for shipping costs to Canada and $12 for shipping costs outside North America. You can order the book the same way you order the newsletter.
Because of some, or all these aspects, some people are encounter with having to file individual bankruptcy so that you can salvage their money hopes. Bankruptcy has this sort of a stigma linked with it that lots of people are reluctant to confess Phoenix bankruptcy attorney have to have the help that only bankruptcy can supply. There is absolutely no shame in benefiting from legal guidelines that were place into place to defend people such as you and also to assist you to reestablish your finances.