I have a feeling the Judge was not really sympathetic to the Arkansas based Wal-Mart corporate party defendant. Go Texas Longhorns!!! Click here for the actual Court Order: Federal Judge Ruling on TexArkana Depositioni
I love Federal Court Judges. Attached are actual court orders including an order striking “dreck”, and an Oklahoma District Court Judge lamenting that to attorneys acted as “schmucks” and the Court stated “This case makes me lament the demise of dueling.” (Note the Court misspelled the word dueling, but I wouldn’t mention that to the Judge! Click here: Yiddish in the Law for Web
What comes out of mouths of babes and lawyers sometimes is special!
It’s sad but this is common. Frivolous lawsuits do not help the legal system.
I love Chicago Title (even if it and many other title companies are all owned by the same conglomerate Fidelity Title!). Here is a link for many basic real property related forms. http://www.chicagotitlela.com/blank_documents.html
Don’t forget, its not the form, but what you put in the form that counts. So hire a lawyer! And if you want the best Chicago Title Escrow officer, call Cheryl Yanez (213) 488-4315
This provides a simple way to transfer California real estate at death without having to go through California probate. (Probate Code §5600, et seq.) The way to look at this is it is a “Transfer-On-Death Deed ” NOT a transfer during life deed. It only applies to residential properties and must be promptly recorded after it is notarized. This document is exempt from documentary transfer tax under Rev. & Tax. Code §11930. This document is exempt from preliminary change of ownership report under Rev. & Tax. Code §480.3.
For the specific requirements, click here: Continue Reading Revocable Transfer-On-Death Deeds (aka Lady Bird Deed) New Since 2016! (Probate Code §5642)
The Department of Business Oversight maintains a handy list of names of banks in California and where to serve them. Go to http://www.dbo.ca.gov/Laws_&_Regs/legislation/service_of_legal_process/
Beneficiaries of a trust lost a challenge to the sale of trust property by the trustee. The trial court ordered them to pay the trust’s attorney fees and costs, making the beneficiaries personally liable. The Court of Appeal affirmed the award of attorney fees, but reversed the order insofar as it made the beneficiaries personally liable for them, stating: “We conclude that the attorney fees and costs were properly and lawfully imposed under the trial court’s equitable power over the trust, except to the extent the trial court made [the beneficiaries] personally liable for attorney fees and costs, rather than liable solely from their shares of the trust assets.” (Pizarro v. Reynoso (Cal. App. 3rd Dist., Jan. 18, 2017) 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 33.) http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C077594.DOCX
A homeowner who is an attorney accused a bank of violating Civil Code § 2923.6, subdivision (c) by foreclosing while his loan modification application was pending. The attorney did not pay his mortgage for eight years. The attorney sued the bank, and the bank’s demurrer was sustained without leave to amend. The Court of Appeal affirmed and stated: “A person who borrows money from a bank to purchase or refinance a home has a reasonable expectation that the bank will fund the loan. The bank has a reasonable expectation that monthly mortgage payments will be made. Here, appellant’s reasonable expectations were met. The bank’s were not. Nonpayment of the mortgage for approximately eight years while the borrower remains in possession is an egregious abuse. Respondent argued, and the trial court agreed, that appellant is ‘gaming the system.’ The game is over.” (Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Cal. App. 2nd Dist., Div. 6, Jan. 24, 2017) 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 47.) http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B272427.DOC
While Code of Civil Procedure § 1717a bars attorneys fees if the cause of action is on a contract, look to Santisas v. Goodin (1998) 17 Cal.4th 599. In Santisas, attorney fees were awarded on a tort claim because the home purchase agreement attorney fee provision stated it covered claims “ ‘arising out of the execution of this agreement or the sale’ ” which was interpreted as being broad enough to cover tort claims and contract claims. These attorneys fees, would then be claimed as an element of costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§1032(a)(4) and §1033.5, subd. (a)(10)(A).)
A summary of how some prior courts have interpreted other provisions click here: Continue Reading Attorneys Fees Awarded on Tort Claims due to an overbroad attorney fee clause even on a dismissed case