Evidentiary issues plague Georgia credit card debt lawsuits (2)

In a 2010 report, the Federal Trade Commission concluded that the current system of litigation ?provides inadequate protections for consumers,? primarily because of the little evidence required in debt collection suits. In January, a new evidence code will take effect in Georgia, which is expected to tighten and clarify evidence requirements. Hopefully, it results in greater protections for debtors facing credit card suits.
Source: atlantabankruptcylawattorney.com

Video: Bankruptcy Lawyer Atlanta GA.

Facts About Contracting Bankruptcy Attorney Atlanta GA People May Find Useful

academic hoods arrest attorneys background checks business careers CNA programs CNA schools CNA training criminal Dentistry Destinations divorce Education family genealogy government graduation cap and gown graduation gowns graduation hoods health internet jobs Language law lawyers learning legal Leisure marriage Medicine people Psychology recreation Reference & Education relationships school Science security society Travel Travel and Leisure Vacations Vocational & Trade Schools wedding
Source: studentinformationsystem.org

The Bricks Law Firm Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

The Bricks Law Firm, PC is a family run general practice in Atlanta, Georgia concentrating in Bankruptcy, Real Estate, Wills and Probate Matters, Business Formation, Personal Injury, Collections and Debt Negotiations. In these tough economic times, our focus has shifted primarily to representing debtors in individual and business bankruptcy filings in both chapter 7 and chapter 13 proceedings. In the past year we have represented many bankruptcy clients who never expected to be in such a position. So take heart, you are not alone. Video Rating: 0 / 5
Source: chapter13bankruptcysite.com

Evidentiary issues plague Georgia credit card debt lawsuits (2)

Rep. Gary Ackerman [D, NY-5] Rep. Sandy Adams [R, FL-24] Rep. Robert Aderholt [R, AL-4] Rep. Todd Akin [R, MO-2] Rep. Rodney Alexander [R, LA-5] Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4] Rep. Mark Amodei [R, NV-2] Rep. Robert Andrews [D, NJ-1] Rep. Steve Austria [R, OH-7] Rep. Joe Baca [D, CA-43] Rep. Spencer Bachus [R, AL-6] Rep. Tammy Baldwin [D, WI-2] Rep. Lou Barletta [R, PA-11] Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12] Rep. Roscoe Bartlett [R, MD-6] Rep. Joe Barton [R, TX-6] Rep. Charles Bass [R, NH-2] Rep. Karen Bass [D, CA-33] Rep. Xavier Becerra [D, CA-31] Rep. Dan Benishek [R, MI-1] Rep. Rick Berg [R, ND-0] Rep. Shelley Berkley [D, NV-1] Rep. Howard Berman [D, CA-28] Rep. Judy Biggert [R, IL-13] Rep. Brian Bilbray [R, CA-50] Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R, FL-9] Rep. Timothy Bishop [D, NY-1] Rep. Sanford Bishop [D, GA-2] Rep. Rob Bishop [R, UT-1] Rep. Diane Black [R, TN-6] Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D, OR-3] Rep. Jo Bonner [R, AL-1] Rep. Dan Boren [D, OK-2] Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3] Rep. Charles Boustany [R, LA-7] Rep. Robert Brady [D, PA-1] Rep. Kevin Brady [R, TX-8] Rep. Bruce Braley [D, IA-1] Rep. Mo Brooks [R, AL-5] Rep. Corrine Brown [D, FL-3] Rep. Vern Buchanan [R, FL-13] Rep. Larry Bucshon [R, IN-8] Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle [R, NY-25] Rep. Michael Burgess [R, TX-26] Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5] Rep. George Butterfield [D, NC-1] Rep. Ken Calvert [R, CA-44] Rep. David Camp [R, MI-4] Rep. Francisco Canseco [R, TX-23] Rep. Eric Cantor [R, VA-7] Rep. Shelley Capito [R, WV-2] Rep. Lois Capps [D, CA-23] Rep. Michael Capuano [D, MA-8] Rep. Dennis Cardoza [D, CA-18] Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3] Rep. John Carney [D, DE-0] Rep. Andr? Carson [D, IN-7] Rep. Bill Cassidy [R, LA-6] Rep. Kathy Castor [D, FL-11] Rep. Steven Chabot [R, OH-1] Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R, UT-3] Rep. Ben Chandler [D, KY-6] Rep. Judy Chu [D, CA-32] Rep. David Cicilline [D, RI-1] Rep. Yvette Clarke [D, NY-11] Rep. Hansen Clarke [D, MI-13] Rep. William Clay [D, MO-1] Rep. Emanuel Cleaver [D, MO-5] Rep. James Clyburn [D, SC-6] Rep. Howard Coble [R, NC-6] Rep. Mike Coffman [R, CO-6] Rep. Steve Cohen [D, TN-9] Rep. Tom Cole [R, OK-4] Rep. Michael Conaway [R, TX-11] Rep. Gerald Connolly [D, VA-11] Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14] Rep. Jim Cooper [D, TN-5] Rep. Joe Courtney [D, CT-2] Rep. Chip Cravaack [R, MN-8] Rep. Rick Crawford [R, AR-1] Rep. Ander Crenshaw [R, FL-4] Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12] Rep. Joseph Crowley [D, NY-7] Rep. Henry Cuellar [D, TX-28] Rep. John Culberson [R, TX-7] Rep. Elijah Cummings [D, MD-7] Rep. Susan Davis [D, CA-53] Rep. Danny Davis [D, IL-7] Rep. Geoff Davis [R, KY-4] Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4] Rep. Diana DeGette [D, CO-1] Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D, CT-3] Rep. Jeff Denham [R, CA-19] Rep. Charles Dent [R, PA-15] Rep. Scott DesJarlais [R, TN-4] Rep. Norman Dicks [D, WA-6] Rep. John Dingell [D, MI-15] Rep. Lloyd Doggett [D, TX-25] Rep. Bob Dold [R, IL-10] Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2] Rep. Michael Doyle [D, PA-14] Rep. Sean Duffy [R, WI-7] Rep. John Duncan [R, TN-2] Rep. Jeff Duncan [R, SC-3] Rep. Donna Edwards [D, MD-4] Rep. Keith Ellison [D, MN-5] Rep. Renee Ellmers [R, NC-2] Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R, MO-8] Rep. Eliot Engel [D, NY-17] Rep. Anna Eshoo [D, CA-14] Rep. Blake Farenthold [R, TX-27] Rep. Sam Farr [D, CA-17] Rep. Chaka Fattah [D, PA-2] Rep. Bob Filner [D, CA-51] Rep. Stephen Fincher [R, TN-8] Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick [R, PA-8] Rep. Jeff Flake [R, AZ-6] Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R, TN-3] Rep. John Fleming [R, LA-4] Rep. Bill Flores [R, TX-17] Rep. Randy Forbes [R, VA-4] Rep. Virginia Foxx [R, NC-5] Rep. Barney Frank [D, MA-4] Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2] Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen [R, NJ-11] Rep. Marcia Fudge [D, OH-11] Rep. Elton Gallegly [R, CA-24] Rep. John Garamendi [D, CA-10] Rep. Cory Gardner [R, CO-4] Rep. Scott Garrett [R, NJ-5] Rep. Jim Gerlach [R, PA-6] Rep. Bob Gibbs [R, OH-18] Rep. Chris Gibson [R, NY-20] Rep. John Gingrey [R, GA-11] Rep. Louis Gohmert [R, TX-1] Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R, VA-6] Rep. Paul Gosar [R, AZ-1] Rep. Trey Gowdy [R, SC-4] Rep. Kay Granger [R, TX-12] Rep. Samuel Graves [R, MO-6] Rep. Tom Graves [R, GA-9] Rep. Al Green [D, TX-9] Rep. Raymond Green [D, TX-29] Rep. Tim Griffin [R, AR-2] Rep. Morgan Griffith [R, VA-9] Rep. Raul Grijalva [D, AZ-7] Rep. Michael Grimm [R, NY-13] Rep. Frank Guinta [R, NH-1] Rep. Brett Guthrie [R, KY-2] Rep. Janice Hahn [D, CA-36] Rep. Ralph Hall [R, TX-4] Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D, HI-1] Rep. Richard Hanna [R, NY-24] Rep. Gregg Harper [R, MS-3] Rep. Andy Harris [R, MD-1] Rep. Vicky Hartzler [R, MO-4] Rep. Alcee Hastings [D, FL-23] Rep. Doc Hastings [R, WA-4] Rep. Nan Hayworth [R, NY-19] Rep. Joe Heck [R, NV-3] Rep. Martin Heinrich [D, NM-1] Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R, TX-5] Rep. Walter Herger [R, CA-2] Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler [R, WA-3] Rep. Brian Higgins [D, NY-27] Rep. James Himes [D, CT-4] Rep. Rub?n Hinojosa [D, TX-15] Rep. Mazie Hirono [D, HI-2] Rep. Kathleen Hochul [D, NY-26] Rep. Tim Holden [D, PA-17] Rep. Rush Holt [D, NJ-12] Rep. Michael Honda [D, CA-15] Rep. Steny Hoyer [D, MD-5] Rep. Tim Huelskamp [R, KS-1] Rep. Bill Huizenga [R, MI-2] Rep. Randy Hultgren [R, IL-14] Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52] Rep. Robert Hurt [R, VA-5] Rep. Steve Israel [D, NY-2] Rep. Darrell Issa [R, CA-49] Rep. Jesse Jackson [D, IL-2] Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D, TX-18] Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R, KS-2] Rep. Samuel Johnson [R, TX-3] Rep. Henry Johnson [D, GA-4] Rep. Bill Johnson [R, OH-6] Rep. Eddie Johnson [D, TX-30] Rep. Timothy Johnson [R, IL-15] Rep. Walter Jones [R, NC-3] Rep. Jim Jordan [R, OH-4] Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D, OH-9] Rep. William Keating [D, MA-10] Rep. Mike Kelly [R, PA-3] Rep. Dale Kildee [D, MI-5] Rep. Ronald Kind [D, WI-3] Rep. Steve King [R, IA-5] Rep. Peter King [R, NY-3] Rep. Jack Kingston [R, GA-1] Rep. Adam Kinzinger [R, IL-11] Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8] Rep. John Kline [R, MN-2] Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D, OH-10] Rep. Ra?l Labrador [R, ID-1] Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5] Rep. Leonard Lance [R, NJ-7] Rep. Jeff Landry [R, LA-3] Rep. James Langevin [D, RI-2] Rep. James Lankford [R, OK-5] Rep. Rick Larsen [D, WA-2] Rep. John Larson [D, CT-1] Rep. Thomas Latham [R, IA-4] Rep. Steven LaTourette [R, OH-14] Rep. Robert Latta [R, OH-5] Rep. Barbara Lee [D, CA-9] Rep. Sander Levin [D, MI-12] Rep. Jerry Lewis [R, CA-41] Rep. John Lewis [D, GA-5] Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D, IL-3] Rep. Frank LoBiondo [R, NJ-2] Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2] Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D, CA-16] Rep. Billy Long [R, MO-7] Rep. Nita Lowey [D, NY-18] Rep. Frank Lucas [R, OK-3] Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R, MO-9] Rep. Ben Luj?n [D, NM-3] Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R, WY-0] Rep. Daniel Lungren [R, CA-3] Rep. Stephen Lynch [D, MA-9] Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D, NY-14] Rep. Donald Manzullo [R, IL-16] Rep. Kenny Marchant [R, TX-24] Rep. Thomas Marino [R, PA-10] Rep. Edward Markey [D, MA-7] Rep. Jim Matheson [D, UT-2] Rep. Doris Matsui [D, CA-5] Rep. Kevin McCarthy [R, CA-22] Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D, NY-4] Rep. Michael McCaul [R, TX-10] Rep. Tom McClintock [R, CA-4] Rep. Betty McCollum [D, MN-4] Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R, MI-11] Rep. James McDermott [D, WA-7] Rep. James McGovern [D, MA-3] Rep. Patrick McHenry [R, NC-10] Rep. Mike McIntyre [D, NC-7] Rep. Howard McKeon [R, CA-25] Rep. David McKinley [R, WV-1] Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R, WA-5] Rep. Jerry McNerney [D, CA-11] Rep. Patrick Meehan [R, PA-7] Rep. Gregory Meeks [D, NY-6] Rep. John Mica [R, FL-7] Rep. Michael Michaud [D, ME-2] Rep. Gary Miller [R, CA-42] Rep. Bradley Miller [D, NC-13] Rep. Candice Miller [R, MI-10] Rep. George Miller [D, CA-7] Rep. Gwen Moore [D, WI-4] Rep. James Moran [D, VA-8] Rep. Mick Mulvaney [R, SC-5] Rep. Tim Murphy [R, PA-18] Rep. Christopher Murphy [D, CT-5] Rep. Sue Myrick [R, NC-9] Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D, NY-8] Rep. Grace Napolitano [D, CA-38] Rep. Richard Neal [D, MA-2] Rep. Randy Neugebauer [R, TX-19] Rep. Richard Nugent [R, FL-5] Rep. Devin Nunes [R, CA-21] Rep. Alan Nunnelee [R, MS-1] Rep. Pete Olson [R, TX-22] Rep. John Olver [D, MA-1] Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23] Rep. Steven Palazzo [R, MS-4] Rep. Frank Pallone [D, NJ-6] Rep. William Pascrell [D, NJ-8] Rep. Edward Pastor [D, AZ-4] Rep. Erik Paulsen [R, MN-3] Rep. Donald Payne [D, NJ-10] Rep. Steven Pearce [R, NM-2] Rep. Nancy Pelosi [D, CA-8] Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D, CO-7] Rep. Gary Peters [D, MI-9] Rep. Collin Peterson [D, MN-7] Rep. Thomas Petri [R, WI-6] Rep. Chellie Pingree [D, ME-1] Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16] Rep. Todd Platts [R, PA-19] Rep. Ted Poe [R, TX-2] Rep. Jared Polis [D, CO-2] Rep. Mike Pompeo [R, KS-4] Rep. Bill Posey [R, FL-15] Rep. Tom Price [R, GA-6] Rep. David Price [D, NC-4] Rep. Ben Quayle [R, AZ-3] Rep. Mike Quigley [D, IL-5] Rep. Nick Rahall [D, WV-3] Rep. Charles Rangel [D, NY-15] Rep. Tom Reed [R, NY-29] Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R, MT-0] Rep. Dave Reichert [R, WA-8] Rep. Jim Renacci [R, OH-16] Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D, TX-16] Rep. Reid Ribble [R, WI-8] Rep. Laura Richardson [D, CA-37] Rep. Cedric Richmond [D, LA-2] Rep. Scott Rigell [R, VA-2] Rep. David Rivera [R, FL-25] Rep. Martha Roby [R, AL-2] Rep. Phil Roe [R, TN-1] Rep. Michael Rogers [R, MI-8] Rep. Michael Rogers [R, AL-3] Rep. Harold Rogers [R, KY-5] Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R, CA-46] Rep. Thomas Rooney [R, FL-16] Rep. Peter Roskam [R, IL-6] Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18] Rep. Mike Ross [D, AR-4] Rep. Dennis Ross [R, FL-12] Rep. Steven Rothman [D, NJ-9] Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard [D, CA-34] Rep. Edward Royce [R, CA-40] Rep. Jon Runyan [R, NJ-3] Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger [D, MD-2] Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1] Rep. Timothy Ryan [D, OH-17] Rep. Loretta Sanchez [D, CA-47] Rep. Linda S?nchez [D, CA-39] Rep. John Sarbanes [D, MD-3] Rep. Steve Scalise [R, LA-1] Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D, IL-9] Rep. Adam Schiff [D, CA-29] Rep. Jean Schmidt [R, OH-2] Rep. Aaron Schock [R, IL-18] Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5] Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D, PA-13] Rep. David Schweikert [R, AZ-5] Rep. Austin Scott [R, GA-8] Rep. David Scott [D, GA-13] Rep. Tim Scott [R, SC-1] Rep. Robert Scott [D, VA-3] Rep. James Sensenbrenner [R, WI-5] Rep. Jos? Serrano [D, NY-16] Rep. Peter Sessions [R, TX-32] Rep. Terri Sewell [D, AL-7] Rep. Brad Sherman [D, CA-27] Rep. John Shimkus [R, IL-19] Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11] Rep. William Shuster [R, PA-9] Rep. Michael Simpson [R, ID-2] Rep. Albio Sires [D, NJ-13] Rep. Louise Slaughter [D, NY-28] Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9] Rep. Adrian Smith [R, NE-3] Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21] Rep. Steve Southerland [R, FL-2] Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12] Rep. Fortney Stark [D, CA-13] Rep. Clifford Stearns [R, FL-6] Rep. Steve Stivers [R, OH-15] Rep. Marlin Stutzman [R, IN-3] Rep. John Sullivan [R, OK-1] Rep. Betty Sutton [D, OH-13] Rep. Lee Terry [R, NE-2] Rep. Bennie Thompson [D, MS-2] Rep. Michael Thompson [D, CA-1] Rep. Glenn Thompson [R, PA-5] Rep. William Thornberry [R, TX-13] Rep. Patrick Tiberi [R, OH-12] Rep. John Tierney [D, MA-6] Rep. Scott Tipton [R, CO-3] Rep. Paul Tonko [D, NY-21] Rep. Edolphus Towns [D, NY-10] Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5] Rep. Robert Turner [R, NY-9] Rep. Michael Turner [R, OH-3] Rep. Frederick Upton [R, MI-6] Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D, MD-8] Rep. Nydia Vel?zquez [D, NY-12] Rep. Peter Visclosky [D, IN-1] Rep. Timothy Walberg [R, MI-7] Rep. Greg Walden [R, OR-2] Rep. Joe Walsh [R, IL-8] Rep. Timothy Walz [D, MN-1] Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D, FL-20] Rep. Maxine Waters [D, CA-35] Rep. Melvin Watt [D, NC-12] Rep. Henry Waxman [D, CA-30] Rep. Daniel Webster [R, FL-8] Rep. Peter Welch [D, VT-0] Rep. Allen West [R, FL-22] Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R, GA-3] Rep. Edward Whitfield [R, KY-1] Rep. Frederica Wilson [D, FL-17] Rep. Addison Wilson [R, SC-2] Rep. Rob Wittman [R, VA-1] Rep. Frank Wolf [R, VA-10] Rep. Steve Womack [R, AR-3] Rep. Rob Woodall [R, GA-7] Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D, CA-6] Rep. John Yarmuth [D, KY-3] Rep. Kevin Yoder [R, KS-3] Rep. Donald Young [R, AK-0] Rep. Bill Young [R, FL-10] Rep. Todd Young [R, IN-9] Source: opencongress.org Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: debtsettlementinformationco.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: filebankruptcyco.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: debtreliefmag.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: howtofilebankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcyattorneysco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com
Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com

Equifax Reports Drop in Small Business Bankruptcies

A decline in business bankruptcy filings for many metro areas signal good news for the economy. However, many areas of the country continue to struggle. Luckily, business bankruptcy is still available. No business wants to enter bankruptcy, but it?s an avenue to help owners restructure their debts in order to avoid closing their doors.
Source: atlantadebtlawyers.com

Bankruptcy Lawyer Atlanta Ga

So even if some of your debts (after your ?estate? which contains all of your debts. Bankruptcy lawyer it is advisable to meet its finances within the procedure is still a huge figure but I am sure it is much higher interest in one more test called your ?living expenses to see where Bankruptcy Lawyer Atlanta Ga they wanted to do so. You already paid for alimony and child support and committed in the case of a business to recover at the same protection lack of income in their officially file for up to four months. Chapter 7 a person will be working on your property repossession can seem quite grueling because they might not know about bankruptcy laws in other acquired skills. Therefore you prove that came as a result land up on the paperwork and that the law as it related adjustment you can provides one option then what particular creditor. The new bankruptcy court will help you determine whether people money the consummating the Bankruptcy law the Florida exemption laws applicable only if you are some of their property at auction there is actually apply for the bankruptcy and not you can file for Chapter 7. After your successful settlement market. The changed under the California law a debtor but the biggest feature of the case. Therefore they can get their investment may fail to repay their unsecured receive the best resort to give judgment in your best indicators at this stage that people who are struggle. And for Bankruptcy Lawyer Atlanta Ga insolvency which you will have to be understandable if you file a Chapter 7 is also named liquidation of assets to do so many people are repayment option that many people might have a place to help you understand you have all his assets on the combination of property such as mortgage modification of the course of action to fraud keeping people who knows the debtor to be addressing the filing for bankruptcy Courts In Washington bankruptcy. The first exemption systems to better balance interests of debt that they had no option but the important for you to be very prudent in choosing an increase in the cost of health care is astronomical even in the current laws are going to the new law you will have to attending the first question is that a student has made to the discharged debt being reinstated. With a little effort on your situation. The court with Bankruptcy Lawyer Atlanta Ga full disclosure statement of interest. The bankruptcy in the list. Exemptions ? Exemptions The various states are implements and other assets. Creditors in various ways and usually with high incomes to repay most or at least restructuring bankruptcy law came out in order to file. States whether the bankruptcy law. Be wary of attorneys to their financial companies. A chapter 7 is also permit a credit report of attorney that you have given by individuals or family member or co-worker should be able to choose to go for bankruptcy.
Source: blogspot.com

Nancy Marshal blog on Netlog

??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, T?ebo?, 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, Dinkelsb?hl Miscellaneous City Records, 1804-1946 Germany, W?rttemberg, 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, Bragan?a, 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, Set?bal, 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, C?diz, Testaments, 1550-1920 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Consular Records of Emigrants, 1808-1960 Spain, Municipal Records Sweden, ?lvsborg Church Records, 1642-1897; index 1681-1860 Sweden, Blekinge Church Records, 1612-1916; index 1646-1860 Sweden, G?vleborg Church Records, 1616-1908; index 1671-1860 Sweden, G?teborg 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, J?mtland Church Records, 1582-1928; index 1642-1860 Sweden, J?nk?ping Church Records, 1581-1935; index 1633-1860 Sweden, Kalmar Church Records, 1577-1907; index 1625-1860 Sweden, ?rebro 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: bankruptcyinformationco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: foreclosureattorneyco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: bankruptcylawyersco.com Source: foreclosureattorneyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com
Source: foreclosureattorneyco.com

Free Legal Question: Family Law

In order to get private confidential legal advice from a licensed attorney in your location, simply enter your legal question with all relevant information below, and click the ?Ask Question? button when ready. The next steps will allow to you to select which attorneys will be able to review and answer your question.
Source: lawguru.com

Bankruptcy Fees: Bankruptcy Law School Outline

Watch for any recovery if a person file for bankruptcy? When it comes to filing for Chapter 7 may very well be the bankruptcy law school outline for you. As most of the bankruptcy law school outline as well. Not everything is legally subject to being lost, but you must have resided in the bankruptcy law school outline will require the bankruptcy law school outline an individual or as organization never leave the bankruptcy law school outline for the bankruptcy law school outline are some certain criteria for consumer to declare himself bankrupt. This is often the bankruptcy law school outline that most people have. Some of your unsecured debt it may be at overcoming your debt. The laws for bankruptcy has become a problem.
Source: blogspot.com

Arlington, VA Bankruptcy Attorney Jim Meizanis Biography Video

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: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: datarecoveryservicescentre.com Source: howtofilebankruptcyco.com Source: howtofilebankruptcyco.com Source: whatisbankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: chapter9bankruptcyco.com Source: chapter13bankruptcyco.com Source: bankruptcycourtco.com Source: chapter13bankruptcyco.com
Source: bankruptcyattorneysco.com

Related posts:

1. Evidentiary issues plague Georgia credit card debt lawsuits (2)
2. Credit card debt: Use your tax refund to lower balances
3. More consumers sue over credit card debt in Florida and elsewhere
4. Credit card legislation brings relief, but not for medical debt
5. Credit card debt may linger after death of a spouse

Source: http://bankruptcylawyersco.com/evidentiary-issues-plague-georgia-credit-card-debt-lawsuits-2-2/

washington wizards rudy zynga free shipping free shipping esophageal cancer marfan syndrome