Even for those married couples with a longstanding history of conflict, a mediation may be the best option for a cost-efficient and less adversarial divorce outside from the courtroom.
According to a study of marital conflict conducted by the University of Michigan, divorce disputes typically reflect "fight styles", displaying lashing and sometimes aggressive behaviors. Such actions during the relationship can result in more complications during divorce proceeding.
“A couple that fights constantly during a marriage will struggle find agreements through a heated divorce. This only makes for a long, highly contested battle in the courtroom,” said one attorney who practices family law in Raleigh.
“However, disputes in court accumulate legal fees very quickly." the attorney added “One of the best approaches to avoid the courtroom and the subsequent fees is to pursue mediation. Mediation can be a more sound and peaceful method to marital separation.”
The study conducted by the University of Michigan analyzed how varying patterns of conflict in a relationship can affect a marriage over time. One example correlates higher rate of divorce among couples in which one spouse engaged in “constructive” behavior while the other spouse “withdrew.”
On the other end of the spectrum, constructive strategies introduced by both spouses of a couple had lower divorce rates.
"It is couples of the latter who would experience a smoother divorce process,” the Raleigh family lawyer said. “Not to say that other types of couples face more rigid separations, however we witness the correlation day in and day out. Mediation provides the optimal solution for all types of marriages."
In short, the process of mediation involves a neutral third-party who helps facilitate agreements - like equitable distribution of marital assets, child support, and child custody - among both spouses and their attorneys. The objective is to seek a common ground for agreement and to reach a fair settlement based on the sum of those agreements.
“Mediation helps to diminish tension throughout the process as both sides work together to resolve their issues." said one of the top lawyers at the Raleigh firm.
Absolute divorce can be a stressful event for all parties involved. “That is why it is so critical seek the legal help of an experienced Raleigh lawyer who can discover solutions through methods like mediation." said the family law expert.
The attorney concluded by saying "Married couples are splitting up, and much more often that old days. It seems like much of our practice today has been dedicated to family and domestic law issues."
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Immigration should be supported in Michigan
After the enactment of Arizona's immigration law last year, overwhelming anti-immigration sentiment penetrated the nation. Michigan, along with many other states, brought about a similar idea in the state's last legislative session.
Officials held discussions regarding immigration reform, often focusing on issues about the services provided to and public costs associated with unauthorized immigrants. However, key points not mentioned in the discussions involve the many ways in which immigrants aid the economy, not to mention the potential cost tied to a new Michigan immigration law, similar to that of Arizona.
Providing optimism for a strong counter argument during his recent State of the State address, Gov. Rick Snyder emphasized the importance of welcoming immigrants to Michigan. He noted that is a critical first phase in extending an invitation to our state.
Immigrants are able contribute to Michigan's troubled economy in many ways, from becoming some of the state's top lawyers to pioneering profitable business ventures. Although immigrants in Michigan make up less than 6 percent of the population, they are responsible for over 32 percent of all high-tech startups, helping the state achieve a the number 3 rank among states in the U.S. providing new, tech-related business opportunities. In fact, 22 percent of the international patent applications from the state in 2006 involved a foreign-born resident as one of their key inventors.
Additional support comes from valuable evidence that claims immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs. Between 1996 and 2007, immigrants represented 15.8 percent of new-business owners in Michigan, which rendered them three times more likely than non-immigrants to form a business.
In addition, Michigan's education system attracts the a wide range of foreign students, which feeds over $600 million per year to the state's economy. Immigrants of Michigan are also more likely to attain four-year college and Michigan MBA degrees than are native-born residents
Immigrants also contribute to tax revenues for the state via payroll taxes, sales taxes and/or property taxes. Unauthorized immigrants also help fund the Social Security system however may be ineligible to collect such benefits and are not able to receive any sort of public assistance.
The future economy of Michigan may be negatively affected by the passage of an immigration law. Border control and immigration enforcement can be a heavy financial drain, in addition to a being a diversion from public safety resources. Arizona is one example of how a state suffers from economic boycotts due to the anti-immigration efforts. Such legislation could also hinder Michigan's attractiveness as a destination for individuals and families looking to reside in America.
Officials held discussions regarding immigration reform, often focusing on issues about the services provided to and public costs associated with unauthorized immigrants. However, key points not mentioned in the discussions involve the many ways in which immigrants aid the economy, not to mention the potential cost tied to a new Michigan immigration law, similar to that of Arizona.
Providing optimism for a strong counter argument during his recent State of the State address, Gov. Rick Snyder emphasized the importance of welcoming immigrants to Michigan. He noted that is a critical first phase in extending an invitation to our state.
Immigrants are able contribute to Michigan's troubled economy in many ways, from becoming some of the state's top lawyers to pioneering profitable business ventures. Although immigrants in Michigan make up less than 6 percent of the population, they are responsible for over 32 percent of all high-tech startups, helping the state achieve a the number 3 rank among states in the U.S. providing new, tech-related business opportunities. In fact, 22 percent of the international patent applications from the state in 2006 involved a foreign-born resident as one of their key inventors.
Additional support comes from valuable evidence that claims immigrants are job creators and entrepreneurs. Between 1996 and 2007, immigrants represented 15.8 percent of new-business owners in Michigan, which rendered them three times more likely than non-immigrants to form a business.
In addition, Michigan's education system attracts the a wide range of foreign students, which feeds over $600 million per year to the state's economy. Immigrants of Michigan are also more likely to attain four-year college and Michigan MBA degrees than are native-born residents
Immigrants also contribute to tax revenues for the state via payroll taxes, sales taxes and/or property taxes. Unauthorized immigrants also help fund the Social Security system however may be ineligible to collect such benefits and are not able to receive any sort of public assistance.
The future economy of Michigan may be negatively affected by the passage of an immigration law. Border control and immigration enforcement can be a heavy financial drain, in addition to a being a diversion from public safety resources. Arizona is one example of how a state suffers from economic boycotts due to the anti-immigration efforts. Such legislation could also hinder Michigan's attractiveness as a destination for individuals and families looking to reside in America.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
One in Five Divorces in U.S. Driven by Social Media
Social media websites, like Facebook and Twitter, serve as great ways communicate to friends and family both near and far. However, these sites can also lead to marriage difficulties.
Divorce-Online's managing partner Mark Keenan claims that Facebook-related antics contribute to one in five divorces, as posted on Telegraph.com.
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers also added that 80 percent of the top attorneys it surveyed claimed the amount of individuals using Facebook and other social media channels to engage in extramarital activity is "burgeoning."
"If I'm talking to one person five times a week vs. another person one time a week, you don't need a fancy psychological degree to conclude I'm more likely to fall in love with the person I talk to five times a week," Steven Kimmons, a clinical psychologist Ph.D., told ScienceBlog.
Alan Edmunds, a former Judge Pro Tem in family courts, could not agree more. Edmunds, who has over 30 years of experience in family law, says the growing number of Facebook-fueled breakups has nothing surprising.
"I'm not surprised... It's symptomatic of the society we live in. It breaks down traditional marriage." the mobile divorce lawyer said. "Opportunity and temptation are an age-old problem in relationships. It (Facebook) makes it easier to have anonymous relationships that people think aren't real, but they turn into real relationships."
The trend leading to the Facebook-induced break-up sounds like this: with little to do, husband or wife attempts to track down that one crush he or she had back in middle school.
Once their special someone is sought, a secret exchange of e-mails and text messages happens which often leads to meeting up somewhere and later, an affair. Soon enough, the opposing husband or wife discovers an alarming Facebook post that reveals the devious relationship.
"I have seen relationships started on Facebook," said Edmunds. "People have revisited old relationships and they're rekindled. It's when some marriages aren't as strong as they should be (when it becomes a matter of concern)."
An alternative route to divorce court is one side of the couple begins taking a deeper looking into his or her significant other's social media contacts. Such curiosity can spawn a dispute that typically hinders the quality of the relationship.
"People will vent on Facebook instead of talking to their spouse or boyfriend (about an issue)," Edmunds said.
Communication via Facebook, even after the divorce proceedings have been initiated, can be of great interest in family law courts - especially if the messages are verbal backlashes at an ex.
Vice-president elect of the AAML, Linda Lea Viken, tells her clients "I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff, so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear," She adds that "it's all pretty good evidence ... the judges don't really have any problems letting it in. It's very common in my new cases... I've had some fun ones."
Divorce-Online's managing partner Mark Keenan claims that Facebook-related antics contribute to one in five divorces, as posted on Telegraph.com.
The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers also added that 80 percent of the top attorneys it surveyed claimed the amount of individuals using Facebook and other social media channels to engage in extramarital activity is "burgeoning."
"If I'm talking to one person five times a week vs. another person one time a week, you don't need a fancy psychological degree to conclude I'm more likely to fall in love with the person I talk to five times a week," Steven Kimmons, a clinical psychologist Ph.D., told ScienceBlog.
Alan Edmunds, a former Judge Pro Tem in family courts, could not agree more. Edmunds, who has over 30 years of experience in family law, says the growing number of Facebook-fueled breakups has nothing surprising.
"I'm not surprised... It's symptomatic of the society we live in. It breaks down traditional marriage." the mobile divorce lawyer said. "Opportunity and temptation are an age-old problem in relationships. It (Facebook) makes it easier to have anonymous relationships that people think aren't real, but they turn into real relationships."
The trend leading to the Facebook-induced break-up sounds like this: with little to do, husband or wife attempts to track down that one crush he or she had back in middle school.
Once their special someone is sought, a secret exchange of e-mails and text messages happens which often leads to meeting up somewhere and later, an affair. Soon enough, the opposing husband or wife discovers an alarming Facebook post that reveals the devious relationship.
"I have seen relationships started on Facebook," said Edmunds. "People have revisited old relationships and they're rekindled. It's when some marriages aren't as strong as they should be (when it becomes a matter of concern)."
An alternative route to divorce court is one side of the couple begins taking a deeper looking into his or her significant other's social media contacts. Such curiosity can spawn a dispute that typically hinders the quality of the relationship.
"People will vent on Facebook instead of talking to their spouse or boyfriend (about an issue)," Edmunds said.
Communication via Facebook, even after the divorce proceedings have been initiated, can be of great interest in family law courts - especially if the messages are verbal backlashes at an ex.
Vice-president elect of the AAML, Linda Lea Viken, tells her clients "I want to see your Facebook page. I want you to remember that the judge can read that stuff, so never write anything you don't want the judge to hear," She adds that "it's all pretty good evidence ... the judges don't really have any problems letting it in. It's very common in my new cases... I've had some fun ones."
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Primerus Member Attorney Named Hawaii’s Attorney General
David M. Louie, formerly of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, appointed Attorney General for Hawaii.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH's top attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH's top attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
Primerus Member Attorney Named Hawaii’s Attorney General
David M. Louie, formerly of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, appointed Attorney General for Hawaii.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
The law firm of Roeca Luria Hiraoka announced that former partner, David M. Louie, was appointed Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. David Louie is an experienced trial lawyer who has been practicing law for over 30 years. Mr. Louie's areas of practice include personal injury defense, construction defect litigation and commercial litigation. While a part of Roeca Louie & Hiraoka, he was named a Hawaii Super Lawyer from 2008 to the present and selected for inclusion in the 2011 Best Lawyers in America.
“I couldn’t be happier that Mr. Louie’s accepted this critical position of State Attorney General,” said the Governor of Hawaii. “He is well versed in many areas of law and will be a tireless advocate for the interests of the people of Hawaii. He is the kind of person we need on our team as we address the challenges facing our communities.”
In addition to Mr. Louie's past legal career, he has also served as the President, Vice-President and Director of the Hawaii State Bar Association (1995-2001), a Lawyer Representative for the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (2005-2008), and the Northwest Regional Governor for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (2008-2010). He is the current Vice Chair of the Hawaii Supreme Court Special Committee on Judicial Performance (1999-Present) and was Chairman of the State of Hawaii Aloha Tower Development Corporation (1999-2005). David Louie attended Occidental College and Boalt Hall School of Law, and he is a frequent lecturer for numerous continuing legal education seminars.
About Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP (formerly named Roeca Louie & Hiraoka)
Roeca Luria Hiraoka LLP(RLH) is one of the top law firms in Hawaii for civil trial, providing experienced trial and litigation services to its clients. The firm's core areas of practice are in civil litigation, including: personal injury, construction litigation, products liability, medical, legal and other professional malpractice, toxic torts, insurance coverage/claim disputes, employment and labor law, commercial litigation, contract disputes, aviation law, premises liability, prison litigation, directors and officers liability, and other areas.
The top lawyers of RLH are highly experienced in trial work and litigation. They are skilled at persuasively presenting a case to a jury, judge or arbitrator. RLH attorneys are highly rated and have distinguished themselves in their fields. Roeca Luria Hiraoka and many of the firm's attorneys are listed in Martindale-Hubbell’s Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, Best’s Directory of Recommended Insurance Attorneys, Best Lawyers in America, Hawaii Super Lawyers and Outstanding Lawyers of America. RLH partners all have the highest AV ratings with Martindale-Hubbell and several are active members of nationally recognized organizations, such as the American Bar Association, the Federal Bar Association, the Defense Research Institute and the International Society of Primerus Law Firms.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Chevron Battles Record Ruling In Ecuador Environmental Law Case
In what may be considered to be the largest environmental law judgment of all time, an Ecuadorian judge ordered Chevron Corp. to pay $8.6 billion to clean up oil pollution in the country's rain forest.
The judge added an additional claim that if Chevron fails to publicly apologize within the next two weeks, the U.S. oil company must payout twice that amount.
The recent decision marks a significant point in a twenty year legal dilemma between Ecuador and the U.S.
The oil suit has been a hard fought battle by both sides, with each country accusing the other of improprieties. In recent months, Chevron discovered a memo disposing of the plaintiffs' strategy for enforcing any environmental law or regulation in the world that favors an Ecuadorian victory. That implies that the oil giant could be forced to defend itself in virtually any of the countries where it conducts business.
Chevron Corp, which claims to have no assets in Ecuador, denies responsibility for the pollution and put up a stand against any efforts of the courts to seize its property overseas.
The plaintiffs of the case are the current Ecuador residents living in the oil-rich Amazon rain forest. They are seeking to hold Chevron responsible for damages they say was caused by Texaco Inc., a company that operated in the region from 1965 to 1992. After Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001, they company inherited the accountability.
For more over a year, Chevron has said that it expected to lose the battle against Ecuador. The company said that the collusion between the government and the plaintiffs in the country created grounds for an unfair judgment. On Monday, Chevron confirmed its plans to appeal the ruling, adding that it won't pay the fine or apologize for the mess.
The ruling is "illegitimate and unenforceable," said a Chevron spokesman. "It's the product of fraud, and it's contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence."
Ecuadorian plaintiffs disagree by arguing that scientific evidence backs up their claims of environmental damage. Such a ruling was uplifting news for the plaintiffs who experienced many setbacks in U.S. courts that left them strapped for financial support.
However the win for Ecuador could be short-lived. A panel of international arbitrators last week granted Chevron a preliminary injunction that could put a hold on the plaintiffs' ability to enforce the ruling.
The judgment raising many questions of international interests, said an Augusta business lawyer following the case. This only marks a new beginning in this long dispute.
"We believe today's judgment affirms what the plaintiffs have contended for the past 18 years about Chevron's intentional and unlawful contamination of Ecuador's rain forest," said the lawyer who led the plaintiffs' side of the case for years until Chevron's attacks influenced him to step down.
Under Ecuadorian law, Chevron is not responsible for paying any fines until after an attempted appeal, which could take months.
Meanwhile, the oil company is using the power behind U.S. courts in an effort to eliminate all payments due. The company sued the plaintiffs and their top lawyers in the U.S., where a federal judge recently issued a temporary stay blocking the plaintiffs' American lawyers from seeking to enforce any judgment.
Chevron has also sued Ecuador for a sketch trade agreement between the country and the U.S. The panel of arbitrators in The Hague ruled Ecuador to take "all measures at its disposal" to prevent any ruling until the panel contributes to the case's final judgment. That could bottleneck the plaintiff's attempts to convince a foreign court to seize Chevron's assets.
The country of Ecuador has asked a U.S. court to put a hold on a Chevron's trade suit, challenging the panel's legal jurisdiction.
Even if the oil provider never has to pay, the ruling could make matters worse publicly for Chevron as all oil companies are already under scrutiny from last year's major oil spill in the Gulf.
As for the fines due to Chevron, the judge determined it must pay $5.4 billion to restore polluted soil and $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, in addition to many other penalties. The court also ruled that Chevron owes the Amazon Defense Front an extra 10% in damage fines, factoring to be about $860 million. That could bring the total judgment to $9.5 billion.
During the judgment, the Ecuadorian judge claimed that Texaco had the awareness and ability to prevent such a mess and that the damages were also foreseeable.
The plaintiffs first sued Texaco back in 1993. Texaco, and later Chevron, successfully countered the claim, arguing that it should instead be heard in Ecuador, which at the time was run by a government viewed as friendly to American commercial interests.
However, Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has publicly supported the plaintiffs' cause. The oil giant accuses the country's government of interference of the case.
The plaintiffs in the case have made an effort to better prepare themselves for the next stage of the trial by securing millions of dollars, some of it from a London-based hedge fund that focuses on supporting class-action suits. In addition, they have considered hired new Boise business lawyers to improve their legal approach.
The judge added an additional claim that if Chevron fails to publicly apologize within the next two weeks, the U.S. oil company must payout twice that amount.
The recent decision marks a significant point in a twenty year legal dilemma between Ecuador and the U.S.
The oil suit has been a hard fought battle by both sides, with each country accusing the other of improprieties. In recent months, Chevron discovered a memo disposing of the plaintiffs' strategy for enforcing any environmental law or regulation in the world that favors an Ecuadorian victory. That implies that the oil giant could be forced to defend itself in virtually any of the countries where it conducts business.
Chevron Corp, which claims to have no assets in Ecuador, denies responsibility for the pollution and put up a stand against any efforts of the courts to seize its property overseas.
The plaintiffs of the case are the current Ecuador residents living in the oil-rich Amazon rain forest. They are seeking to hold Chevron responsible for damages they say was caused by Texaco Inc., a company that operated in the region from 1965 to 1992. After Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001, they company inherited the accountability.
For more over a year, Chevron has said that it expected to lose the battle against Ecuador. The company said that the collusion between the government and the plaintiffs in the country created grounds for an unfair judgment. On Monday, Chevron confirmed its plans to appeal the ruling, adding that it won't pay the fine or apologize for the mess.
The ruling is "illegitimate and unenforceable," said a Chevron spokesman. "It's the product of fraud, and it's contrary to the legitimate scientific evidence."
Ecuadorian plaintiffs disagree by arguing that scientific evidence backs up their claims of environmental damage. Such a ruling was uplifting news for the plaintiffs who experienced many setbacks in U.S. courts that left them strapped for financial support.
However the win for Ecuador could be short-lived. A panel of international arbitrators last week granted Chevron a preliminary injunction that could put a hold on the plaintiffs' ability to enforce the ruling.
The judgment raising many questions of international interests, said an Augusta business lawyer following the case. This only marks a new beginning in this long dispute.
"We believe today's judgment affirms what the plaintiffs have contended for the past 18 years about Chevron's intentional and unlawful contamination of Ecuador's rain forest," said the lawyer who led the plaintiffs' side of the case for years until Chevron's attacks influenced him to step down.
Under Ecuadorian law, Chevron is not responsible for paying any fines until after an attempted appeal, which could take months.
Meanwhile, the oil company is using the power behind U.S. courts in an effort to eliminate all payments due. The company sued the plaintiffs and their top lawyers in the U.S., where a federal judge recently issued a temporary stay blocking the plaintiffs' American lawyers from seeking to enforce any judgment.
Chevron has also sued Ecuador for a sketch trade agreement between the country and the U.S. The panel of arbitrators in The Hague ruled Ecuador to take "all measures at its disposal" to prevent any ruling until the panel contributes to the case's final judgment. That could bottleneck the plaintiff's attempts to convince a foreign court to seize Chevron's assets.
The country of Ecuador has asked a U.S. court to put a hold on a Chevron's trade suit, challenging the panel's legal jurisdiction.
Even if the oil provider never has to pay, the ruling could make matters worse publicly for Chevron as all oil companies are already under scrutiny from last year's major oil spill in the Gulf.
As for the fines due to Chevron, the judge determined it must pay $5.4 billion to restore polluted soil and $1.4 billion to create a health system for the community, in addition to many other penalties. The court also ruled that Chevron owes the Amazon Defense Front an extra 10% in damage fines, factoring to be about $860 million. That could bring the total judgment to $9.5 billion.
During the judgment, the Ecuadorian judge claimed that Texaco had the awareness and ability to prevent such a mess and that the damages were also foreseeable.
The plaintiffs first sued Texaco back in 1993. Texaco, and later Chevron, successfully countered the claim, arguing that it should instead be heard in Ecuador, which at the time was run by a government viewed as friendly to American commercial interests.
However, Ecuador's president Rafael Correa has publicly supported the plaintiffs' cause. The oil giant accuses the country's government of interference of the case.
The plaintiffs in the case have made an effort to better prepare themselves for the next stage of the trial by securing millions of dollars, some of it from a London-based hedge fund that focuses on supporting class-action suits. In addition, they have considered hired new Boise business lawyers to improve their legal approach.
Friday, February 11, 2011
Feds face countersuit from Arizona's governor
Arizona Governor filed a lawsuit against the federal government for its poor enforcement of immigration laws and failure to adequately control the U.S.-Mexico border. She also sued the fed for requiring such high costs associated with jailing illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
The claims emphasizes the federal government's failure to protect Arizona from an invasion of illegal immigrants crossing the border. In addition, the claim seeks to acquire more funds and increased protection measures like better fencing on the Mexican border.
The governor's claim is a countersuit to the fed's legal challenge regarding Arizona's immigration law enforcement. The Justice Department is taking action to invalidate the law.
Because they (federal government) have failed to fully protect Arizona citizens, we are left with no other alternatives, said the Governor.
The spokesperson for the Justice Department elected not to comment on the countersuit. A representative for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the organization responsible for border regulation, labeled the Arizona Governor's claim meritless and argued that the border's enforcement staff is the highest that it has ever been.
"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," said the Homeland Security spokesperson. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."
The Governor's lawsuit seeks that the feds take additional steps to better enforce the Mexico-Arizona border. The claim also asks for more border agents, fencing and technology along the border.
There is a desperate need to step up security around the Arizona-Mexico border, claimed a Tucson medical malpractice lawyer. "I've been hearing a lot of issues regarding illegal immigration control, and something needs to be done about it." he added.
Arizona is not looking to acquire an award from the suit, but rather demands much needed changes in the way the government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.
Arizona's enforcement law was put into law during a time of many complaints that the fed has failed to lessen the state's responsibility in enforcing the nation's busiest illegal entry point. The law's passage prompted protests over whether the law would lead to a large influx racial profiling.
The result of the Governor's claim could set an interesting precedent over border control as well as an allocation of the federal spending money, said a Tuscon personal injury lawyer who is tracking the case.
The enforcement law would have required agents, while busy regulating other matters of law, to question an individual's immigration status if officials had reasonable suspicion the person crossed the border illegally. That requirement was put on hold by a U.S. District Judge, coupled with a mandate that immigrants carry immigration registration papers.
However, the judge allowed other components of the law to take effect. One key part of the law bans individuals from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
Arizona's Governor challenged the decision made by the U.S. District Judge in an appeals court. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law could potential burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. The appeal is still pending.
Arizona Attorney General, one of the top lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, claimed Arizona is faced with inconsistent costs from illegal immigration enforcement, yet the feds claim the state is relieved from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
The state's Attorney General noted that the Federal Government has done a poor job in protecting the state against a invasive illegal immigrants.
The Governor's lawsuit drills on the problem concerning Arizona's unreimbursed costs for imprisoned illegal immigrants. The Governor's predecessor, who is currently the secretary of Homeland Security, consistently submitted invoices to the Justice Department seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.
The claim does not outline exactly how much in reimbursement funds the state desires, but rather, seeks that the court reviews the criteria on which reimbursements are based upon.
In the filing, the Governor noted latest annual reimbursement from the federal government, which totaled almost $10 million. The state had dish out an additional $125 million to cover the illegal immigration costs.
The claims emphasizes the federal government's failure to protect Arizona from an invasion of illegal immigrants crossing the border. In addition, the claim seeks to acquire more funds and increased protection measures like better fencing on the Mexican border.
The governor's claim is a countersuit to the fed's legal challenge regarding Arizona's immigration law enforcement. The Justice Department is taking action to invalidate the law.
Because they (federal government) have failed to fully protect Arizona citizens, we are left with no other alternatives, said the Governor.
The spokesperson for the Justice Department elected not to comment on the countersuit. A representative for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the organization responsible for border regulation, labeled the Arizona Governor's claim meritless and argued that the border's enforcement staff is the highest that it has ever been.
"Not only do actions like this ignore all of the statistical evidence, they also belittle the significant progress that our men and women in uniform have made to protect this border and the people who live alongside it," said the Homeland Security spokesperson. "We welcome any state and local government or law enforcement agency to join with us to address the remaining challenges."
The Governor's lawsuit seeks that the feds take additional steps to better enforce the Mexico-Arizona border. The claim also asks for more border agents, fencing and technology along the border.
There is a desperate need to step up security around the Arizona-Mexico border, claimed a Tucson medical malpractice lawyer. "I've been hearing a lot of issues regarding illegal immigration control, and something needs to be done about it." he added.
Arizona is not looking to acquire an award from the suit, but rather demands much needed changes in the way the government reimburses states for the costs of jailing illegal immigrants.
Arizona's enforcement law was put into law during a time of many complaints that the fed has failed to lessen the state's responsibility in enforcing the nation's busiest illegal entry point. The law's passage prompted protests over whether the law would lead to a large influx racial profiling.
The result of the Governor's claim could set an interesting precedent over border control as well as an allocation of the federal spending money, said a Tuscon personal injury lawyer who is tracking the case.
The enforcement law would have required agents, while busy regulating other matters of law, to question an individual's immigration status if officials had reasonable suspicion the person crossed the border illegally. That requirement was put on hold by a U.S. District Judge, coupled with a mandate that immigrants carry immigration registration papers.
However, the judge allowed other components of the law to take effect. One key part of the law bans individuals from blocking traffic while seeking or offering day-labor services on streets.
Arizona's Governor challenged the decision made by the U.S. District Judge in an appeals court. She argued the judge erred by accepting speculation by the federal government that the law could potential burden legal immigrants, and by concluding the federal government likely would prevail. The appeal is still pending.
Arizona Attorney General, one of the top lawyers defending the law on behalf of the state, claimed Arizona is faced with inconsistent costs from illegal immigration enforcement, yet the feds claim the state is relieved from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law.
The state's Attorney General noted that the Federal Government has done a poor job in protecting the state against a invasive illegal immigrants.
The Governor's lawsuit drills on the problem concerning Arizona's unreimbursed costs for imprisoned illegal immigrants. The Governor's predecessor, who is currently the secretary of Homeland Security, consistently submitted invoices to the Justice Department seeking such reimbursement when she was governor.
The claim does not outline exactly how much in reimbursement funds the state desires, but rather, seeks that the court reviews the criteria on which reimbursements are based upon.
In the filing, the Governor noted latest annual reimbursement from the federal government, which totaled almost $10 million. The state had dish out an additional $125 million to cover the illegal immigration costs.
Companies requesting zip codes may be fined under new CA Supreme Court ruling
On Thursday the Supreme Court of California ruled that merchandising companies are no longer able to ask for customer ZIP codes who buy with credit cards. The ruling was set because the courts determined such requests are a violation of state consumer-protection law.
The decision made by the courts, which claims that an individual's ZIP code is considered "personal identification information," overturned two decisions made by lower courts that scrapped suit. The result setback California retailers and a lawyer for one national chain said the decision would likely lead to more lawsuits.
Thursday's ruling derived from a lawsuit established against Williams-Sonoma Inc. A clerk working for the company had asked a women for her ZIP code and she sued the retailer in arguing that the request violated not only her privacy, but also the credit card law.
"It's a terrible decision," said the president of the California Retailers Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on William-Sonoma's side.
The president of the Association said it is too early to realize how disruptive the ruling will be to businesses that routinely require consumers to provide a ZIP code to authorize a transaction.
The defending retailer, William-Sonoma as well as several other retailers, claimed they ask for ZIP codes as a security precaution - an argument leveraged by many of the company's top lawyers.
Carlos Moreno, California Supreme Court Justice, claimed that the ZIP code is considered part of a consumer's address, which California law sees as off-limits to merchandisers.
"First, a ZIP code is readily understood to be part of an address; when one addresses a letter to another person, a ZIP code is always included," said Justice Moreno. "Otherwise, a business could ask not just for a cardholder's ZIP code, but also for the cardholder's street and city in addition to the ZIP code, so long as it did not also ask for the house number. Such a construction would render the statute's protections hollow."
During the trail, the Supreme Court showed evidence that Williams-Sonoma recorded the women's ZIP code in a digital cash register, which was submitted into the retailer's main customer database. The company then used software to align the customer's name and ZIP code with her undisclosed address, key data that can be used to market products and can be shared or sold to other companies. For that reason, the California Supreme Court determined that asking for a customer's ZIP code was in violation of California state law.
The result of this case supports and protects the privacy of California consumers, said a Boise business lawyer following the case.
The attorney added that gas stations that require ZIP codes be entered at the pump are exempt because such companies do not record the transaction.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the appeals court for further action, which could include an evaluation of the damages. Retailers who fail to adhere to the new legal standards can be fined up to $250 for the first violation and as much as $1,000 for additional infractions.
A representative of Michaels Stores, a craft supplies retailer, said that several lawsuits regarding the ZIP code issue are pending throughout the state. He foresees more suits will be submitted because of the Supreme Court ruling.
The court's ruling is going to have a tremendous impact on California retailers, said a St. Louis business lawyer tracking the case. He added that the decision still leaves the question open over whether retailers can request similar customer information when buyers are using cash or gift cards to purchase their goods.
The decision made by the courts, which claims that an individual's ZIP code is considered "personal identification information," overturned two decisions made by lower courts that scrapped suit. The result setback California retailers and a lawyer for one national chain said the decision would likely lead to more lawsuits.
Thursday's ruling derived from a lawsuit established against Williams-Sonoma Inc. A clerk working for the company had asked a women for her ZIP code and she sued the retailer in arguing that the request violated not only her privacy, but also the credit card law.
"It's a terrible decision," said the president of the California Retailers Association, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on William-Sonoma's side.
The president of the Association said it is too early to realize how disruptive the ruling will be to businesses that routinely require consumers to provide a ZIP code to authorize a transaction.
The defending retailer, William-Sonoma as well as several other retailers, claimed they ask for ZIP codes as a security precaution - an argument leveraged by many of the company's top lawyers.
Carlos Moreno, California Supreme Court Justice, claimed that the ZIP code is considered part of a consumer's address, which California law sees as off-limits to merchandisers.
"First, a ZIP code is readily understood to be part of an address; when one addresses a letter to another person, a ZIP code is always included," said Justice Moreno. "Otherwise, a business could ask not just for a cardholder's ZIP code, but also for the cardholder's street and city in addition to the ZIP code, so long as it did not also ask for the house number. Such a construction would render the statute's protections hollow."
During the trail, the Supreme Court showed evidence that Williams-Sonoma recorded the women's ZIP code in a digital cash register, which was submitted into the retailer's main customer database. The company then used software to align the customer's name and ZIP code with her undisclosed address, key data that can be used to market products and can be shared or sold to other companies. For that reason, the California Supreme Court determined that asking for a customer's ZIP code was in violation of California state law.
The result of this case supports and protects the privacy of California consumers, said a Boise business lawyer following the case.
The attorney added that gas stations that require ZIP codes be entered at the pump are exempt because such companies do not record the transaction.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the appeals court for further action, which could include an evaluation of the damages. Retailers who fail to adhere to the new legal standards can be fined up to $250 for the first violation and as much as $1,000 for additional infractions.
A representative of Michaels Stores, a craft supplies retailer, said that several lawsuits regarding the ZIP code issue are pending throughout the state. He foresees more suits will be submitted because of the Supreme Court ruling.
The court's ruling is going to have a tremendous impact on California retailers, said a St. Louis business lawyer tracking the case. He added that the decision still leaves the question open over whether retailers can request similar customer information when buyers are using cash or gift cards to purchase their goods.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
NFL official berates attorneys involved in Super Bowl seating dispute
One of the top officials of the National Football legal spoke out against the mass of legal activity targeting the spectator seating controversy of Super Bowl XLV.
Earlier this week, a lawsuit seeking $5 million in damages was filed on behalf of some of the 1,250 fans who were removed from their seats at the big game. The claims came about due to breach of contract, fraud and deceptive sales practices .
Executive VP of the NFL's business operations berated the top lawyers involved in the cases to reduce the legal battle on the league.
"I wish they'd go off and work on something like world peace because I think we have to keep this in perspective," the VP told ProFootballTalk Live.
"We didn't provide a great experience to 100% of the fans. But keeping a little perspective is probably what I wish the lawyers would do."
He also said the NFL - which has extended an offer of "compensation packages" to many of ticket-holders who were effected by the incident -- wants "a second chance" with spectators.
After just one day the Super Bowl was played, the website SuperBowlSuit.com launched stories from affected ticket-holders interested in joining a potential suit.
Earlier this week, a lawsuit seeking $5 million in damages was filed on behalf of some of the 1,250 fans who were removed from their seats at the big game. The claims came about due to breach of contract, fraud and deceptive sales practices .
Executive VP of the NFL's business operations berated the top lawyers involved in the cases to reduce the legal battle on the league.
"I wish they'd go off and work on something like world peace because I think we have to keep this in perspective," the VP told ProFootballTalk Live.
"We didn't provide a great experience to 100% of the fans. But keeping a little perspective is probably what I wish the lawyers would do."
He also said the NFL - which has extended an offer of "compensation packages" to many of ticket-holders who were effected by the incident -- wants "a second chance" with spectators.
After just one day the Super Bowl was played, the website SuperBowlSuit.com launched stories from affected ticket-holders interested in joining a potential suit.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
CitiGroup foreclosure assignments raise eyebrows
After being accused by borrowers of filing fraudulent mortgage documents, Citigroup Inc., the third-largest bank in the U.S., settled or lost at least five of the latter claims in 2010.
In the company's most recent December of 2010 settlement, a bankrupt homeowner in New York challenged against the bank’s use of a mortgage “assignment,” which displays the transfer of ownership of a mortgage. The transfer was signed by Orion Financial Group employee. The Texas firm specializes in document services to lenders.
"(The document was) of fraudulent nature and questionable origin,” the borrower’s attorney wrote in objection to Citigroup’s claim at U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The attorney continued to say the disputed lending company established and submitted the assignment after proceedings began because it otherwise would not have been able to prove its right to collect the debt. Citigroup denied the allegations and failed to acknowledge liability in the settlement.
Top attorneys general in 50 states are investigating the financial industry’s application of mortgage assignments as part of a broader concern into faulty foreclosure methods, according to a spokesman for Iowa's attorney general. A Massachusetts court ruled last month that two foreclosures by other financial institutes were invalid because assignments presented in those cases did not to prove the chain of ownership of the mortgage, sending financial stocks down.
Judges in bankruptcy court are skeptical as to when mortgage servicers claim to have assignments, said a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in an interview. They have been inundated with concerns from a Wilmington bankruptcy lawyer, and potentially a few other attorneys.
“They’ve got to show me more than their swearing that they have the right,” he said. “They’re going to have to connect up the dots back to the note and the security agreement, which would be the mortgage.”
The executive with the CitiMortgage subsidiary explained to Congress that the company reorganized foreclosure operations last year, in an effort to avoid the faulty affidavit-signing practices that required industry peers to temporarily put a hold on home seizures.
Citigroup dished out nearly $82,000 in opponents’ legal costs when settling challenges to four bankruptcy claims that used Orion letters in 2010, according to agreements filed with New York and Arkansas federal bankruptcy courts. The filings show that Citigroup reduced interest rates on the remaining debt by an average of 49 percent, while slashing outstanding mortgage balance in three cases by a combined $55,000.
“It doesn’t strike me as something that lenders do every day of the week,” said a bankruptcy law professor at UNC in Chapel Hill. “It does raise some questions about the practices.”
A spokesman for Citigroup said it does not comment on individual claims. The company continues to use Orion for assignment letters, he said. While borrowers continue to dispute the bank’s use of assignments, they have not accused Orion of doing wrong.
“We don’t create fraudulent documents,” said Orion CEO. Orion's documents reveal which company may hold the note and can be based on information from the bank, he added.
Citigroup declined to comment on how often the bank relies on Orion or other document providers for assignments. Documented records can not be searched electronically in most of the counties across the U.S. In Dallas County, where documents are available online, Orion prepared at least 14 assignments transferring mortgages to Citigroup since the start of 2009.
In the case pertaining to Wappingers Falls, Citigroup claimed it was owed about $390,000 from a property mortgage. The company filed an assignment prepared by Orion to support the claim. This questionable document had said another lender had assigned the loan to CitiMortgage more than three weeks after the bankruptcy began.
While settling the borrower’s objections, Citigroup failed to admit any wrongdoing. The bank paid the defendant's $35,000 in legal fees, dropped the mortgage principal by $29,000 and lowered its interest rate by almost 50%.
Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld a voiding of two 2007 foreclosures carried out by financial institutions because the companies failed to show that they possessed the mortgages at the time of the seizures. The banks had backed claims with so- called blank assignments completed after foreclosure sales.
A lender such as Citigroup may elect to avoid scrutiny of its foreclosure practices during litigation, said one of the top lawyers with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, who instructs attorneys on representing consumers in foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.
Orion is a “mortgage assignment, lien release and document retrieval services” to the mortgage industry, according to its website. Citigroup also partners with Orion for assignments in foreclosures, the bank's CEO said.
Citigroup is still dealing with claims connected to assignment prepared by Orion regarding a case at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Mississippi. In that case, the judge disallowed the bank’s initial claim to a property in a city about 20 miles south of Memphis, Tennessee. The borrower later asked the court to force the bank to prove whether it has rights to the loan. Citigroup filed a response last month, disputing the demands of the borrower. The company expects to hear a response from the defendant's Salt Lake City real estate lawyer.
In the company's most recent December of 2010 settlement, a bankrupt homeowner in New York challenged against the bank’s use of a mortgage “assignment,” which displays the transfer of ownership of a mortgage. The transfer was signed by Orion Financial Group employee. The Texas firm specializes in document services to lenders.
"(The document was) of fraudulent nature and questionable origin,” the borrower’s attorney wrote in objection to Citigroup’s claim at U.S. Bankruptcy Court. The attorney continued to say the disputed lending company established and submitted the assignment after proceedings began because it otherwise would not have been able to prove its right to collect the debt. Citigroup denied the allegations and failed to acknowledge liability in the settlement.
Top attorneys general in 50 states are investigating the financial industry’s application of mortgage assignments as part of a broader concern into faulty foreclosure methods, according to a spokesman for Iowa's attorney general. A Massachusetts court ruled last month that two foreclosures by other financial institutes were invalid because assignments presented in those cases did not to prove the chain of ownership of the mortgage, sending financial stocks down.
Judges in bankruptcy court are skeptical as to when mortgage servicers claim to have assignments, said a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in an interview. They have been inundated with concerns from a Wilmington bankruptcy lawyer, and potentially a few other attorneys.
“They’ve got to show me more than their swearing that they have the right,” he said. “They’re going to have to connect up the dots back to the note and the security agreement, which would be the mortgage.”
The executive with the CitiMortgage subsidiary explained to Congress that the company reorganized foreclosure operations last year, in an effort to avoid the faulty affidavit-signing practices that required industry peers to temporarily put a hold on home seizures.
Citigroup dished out nearly $82,000 in opponents’ legal costs when settling challenges to four bankruptcy claims that used Orion letters in 2010, according to agreements filed with New York and Arkansas federal bankruptcy courts. The filings show that Citigroup reduced interest rates on the remaining debt by an average of 49 percent, while slashing outstanding mortgage balance in three cases by a combined $55,000.
“It doesn’t strike me as something that lenders do every day of the week,” said a bankruptcy law professor at UNC in Chapel Hill. “It does raise some questions about the practices.”
A spokesman for Citigroup said it does not comment on individual claims. The company continues to use Orion for assignment letters, he said. While borrowers continue to dispute the bank’s use of assignments, they have not accused Orion of doing wrong.
“We don’t create fraudulent documents,” said Orion CEO. Orion's documents reveal which company may hold the note and can be based on information from the bank, he added.
Citigroup declined to comment on how often the bank relies on Orion or other document providers for assignments. Documented records can not be searched electronically in most of the counties across the U.S. In Dallas County, where documents are available online, Orion prepared at least 14 assignments transferring mortgages to Citigroup since the start of 2009.
In the case pertaining to Wappingers Falls, Citigroup claimed it was owed about $390,000 from a property mortgage. The company filed an assignment prepared by Orion to support the claim. This questionable document had said another lender had assigned the loan to CitiMortgage more than three weeks after the bankruptcy began.
While settling the borrower’s objections, Citigroup failed to admit any wrongdoing. The bank paid the defendant's $35,000 in legal fees, dropped the mortgage principal by $29,000 and lowered its interest rate by almost 50%.
Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld a voiding of two 2007 foreclosures carried out by financial institutions because the companies failed to show that they possessed the mortgages at the time of the seizures. The banks had backed claims with so- called blank assignments completed after foreclosure sales.
A lender such as Citigroup may elect to avoid scrutiny of its foreclosure practices during litigation, said one of the top lawyers with Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, who instructs attorneys on representing consumers in foreclosure and bankruptcy cases.
Orion is a “mortgage assignment, lien release and document retrieval services” to the mortgage industry, according to its website. Citigroup also partners with Orion for assignments in foreclosures, the bank's CEO said.
Citigroup is still dealing with claims connected to assignment prepared by Orion regarding a case at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Mississippi. In that case, the judge disallowed the bank’s initial claim to a property in a city about 20 miles south of Memphis, Tennessee. The borrower later asked the court to force the bank to prove whether it has rights to the loan. Citigroup filed a response last month, disputing the demands of the borrower. The company expects to hear a response from the defendant's Salt Lake City real estate lawyer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
