Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Demanding release of mechanic's lien in California
Demanding the release of a mechanic’s lien in California is the topic of this blog post.
A California
demand for release of mechanic’s lien is sent pursuant to the provisions of
Civil Code section 8102. The demand letter must be served on the party that recorded
the lien at least 10 days before any petition for release of mechanic’s lien is
filed.
The party demanding the release of the mechanic’s lien
should wait until at least 90 days have passed since the date that the mechanic’s
lien was recorded with the county recorder. The demand letter should only be sent once at least 90 days have passed since the date that the mechanic’s lien
in situations where the person or entity that recorded the lien has not filed any complaint
to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien. The
reason for waiting at least 90 days is that Civil Code § 8460(a) states that the
mechanics lien expires and is unenforceable after 90 days unless the recording
party has filed a complaint to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien.
The demand letter should list the date that the mechanic’s lien
was recorded along with the complete document number and the county where the mechanic’s
lien was recorded. It should also list the complete street address and the full
legal description of the real property including the assessor’s parcel number.
The demand should be served by personal delivery, certified
or registered mail with return receipt requested, express mail or overnight
delivery using Federal Express or other overnight delivery company pursuant to
Civil Code § 8110.
The letter should demand that the lien be released within ten
(10) calendar days from the date that the notice is served or the demanding
party will file a petition with the Court for an order releasing the mechanics
lien and ordering them to pay reasonable attorney’s fees and costs involved in
filing the petition.
I need to emphasize that if the demand letter does not
contain the required information or is not served correctly that can result in
the court denying any petition for release of the mechanic’s lien and ordering
the party that filed the petition to pay for the attorney’s fees and costs of
the prevailing party.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a
sample demand letter for release of mechanic’s lien created by the author available
for free download can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit Subscribe to FREE weekly legal newsletter for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.net
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
Modifying child custody and visitation orders in California
Modifying child custody and visitation orders in California is the topic of this blog post.
There are several statutes and cases that outline the
standards used and the burden of proof that must be met by the party moving for
modification.
California law states that child custody and visitation
orders generally are modifiable throughout the child's minority whenever the
court finds a modification is "necessary or proper" in the child's
best interests. See Family Code § 3022.
And at least one California Court of Appeal has stated that
a family law court has continuing jurisdiction over child custody and
visitation matters such that they remain pending even after entry of a dissolution
or legal separation or nullity judgment in California.
Although the statutes governing custody adjudications only
require courts to ascertain the child's best interest, the best interest
standard takes on a new meaning once a "final" judicial custody
determination is in place: A party seeking to modify a "permanent"
custody order can do so only it they make a sufficient showing of a significant change of
circumstances that affect the child to such a degree that modification is essential to the
child's welfare.
For instance the changed circumstances rule is triggered
only after a "final" or "permanent" custody adjudication. If
a custody order is only an interim or temporary order than the ordinary best
interest standard applies.
In order to encourage parties to enter into custody
stipulations, any doubts about whether the parties intended a stipulated
custody order to be a "final" or "permanent" custody
adjudication will be resolved against finality and against application of the
changed circumstances rule in any subsequent proceedings to modify the
stipulated order.
Any stipulated order will be considered to be temporary or
interim in nature unless the stipulated order clearly states that it is a final
judgment as to the issue of custody.
As to physical custody, the changed circumstances rule
applies when the modification request seeks to remove custody from one parent
and give it to the other. By contrast, no change of circumstances need be shown
as a prerequisite to altering only the co-parenting schedule (the amount of
time the child spends in each parent's household) under a joint custody order.
Proposed changes in parenting time are "not on a par with a request to
change physical custody from sole to joint custody, or vice versa"; the
only standard the moving parent must meet in such cases is the child's best
interest.
So long as the joint custody award itself is not being
changed, the court has very broad discretion to revise the "coparenting
residential arrangement" where the parents are unable to agree and call
upon the court to intervene.
And the changed circumstances rule does not apply when a
parent requests only a modification of the visitation arrangement (whether in a
joint custody or sole custody situation). Because such a modification does not
change "custody," the trial court considers a visitation modification
solely under the child's best interests standard.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a sample 13 page motion for modification of child custody and visitation containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority and sample declaration sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
If you are in need of assistance with any California or
Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr.
Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information.
He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most
credit or debit cards.
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit Subscribe to FREE weekly legal newsletter for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.net
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Opposing a motion for order taxing costs in California
Opposing a motion for an order taxing costs in California
Opposing a motion for an order taxing costs in California is the topic of this blog post. Any parties that wish to oppose a motion for an order taxing costs should file and serve their opposition to the motion at least nine (9) court days before the hearing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) and should serve their opposition by overnight delivery, personal service or other means authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(c).
Any party served with a motion for an order taxing costs or striking costs should carefully review the motion and supporting documents to determine the grounds for the opposition.
The first possible ground for opposition would be that the
motion was untimely as California Rule of
Court 3.1700(b)(1) states in pertinent part that,
“Any notice of motion to strike or to tax costs must be
served and filed 15 days after service of the cost memorandum. If the cost
memorandum was served by mail, the period is extended as provided in Code of
Civil Procedure section 1013.”
Thus any motion for an order striking or taxing costs in
California must be served no later than 15 days after service of the memorandum
of costs although that deadline is extended to 20 days if the memorandum of
costs was served by mail.
Another possible ground for opposition would be that the
motion does not comply with the provisions of California Rule of Court 3.1700(b)(2) which states that,
“Unless objection is made to the entire cost memorandum, the
motion to strike or tax costs must refer to each item objected to by the same
number and appear in the same order as the corresponding cost item claimed on
the memorandum of costs and must state why the item is objectionable.”
Therefore unless the party seeking to strike or tax costs is
objecting to the entire memorandum of costs their objections must be made by
the same number and appear in the same order as the cost items appear on the memorandum
of costs. They must also state why that particular item is objectionable. This
is a common ground for opposition as many motions to strike or tax costs do not
state sufficient facts to demonstrate that the cost item that is objected to
was not properly claimed.
Several decisions of the California Courts of Appeal have stated that a properly verified memorandum of costs is prima facie evidence that the items listed are properly claimed and the party objecting to those costs must make a sufficient showing that the items listed were neither reasonable nor necessary in that particular case and that mere allegations or contentions without more is not a sufficient showing.
A California Court of Appeal has stated that copies of bills, invoices or similar documents substantiating the claimed costs are not required to be attached to the memorandum of costs.
At least two California Court of Appeals have stated that the issue of whether any particular item on a cost memorandum was reasonable or necessary is a question of fact.
Attorneys or parties in California that would like to view a portion of a 14 page sample opposition to motion to tax or strike costs containing brief instructions, a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority, sample declaration and proof of service sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
If you are in need of assistance with any California or
Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr.
Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information.
He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most
credit or debit cards.
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit Subscribe to FREE weekly legal newsletter for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Objections to proof of claim in United States Bankruptcy Court
Objections to a proof of claim filed in United States Bankruptcy
Court are the topic of this blog post. The
United States Bankruptcy law states that any party in interest may file an
objection to any proof of claim filed in a Bankruptcy case. All debtors in Chapter 13 cases are considered
a party in interest and have the right to file an objection to any proof of
claim filed in their case. Debtors in
other cases such as Chapter 7 may or may not be considered as a party in
interest depending on their case.
It is vitally important to properly object to any claims
filed in a Bankruptcy case that is not timely filed, is defective for failure
to comply with Bankruptcy law requirements or is defective in any other way or
relates to any debt the amount or existence of which is disputed. The reason
for this is that Bankruptcy law states that unless a party in interest objects
any claim filed is deemed allowed.
It is therefore critical that all proofs of claim be
carefully reviewed to determine if there are valid grounds for filing an
objection. The pertinent law is 11 U.S.C. § 502(a) which states in pertinent
part that, any claim filed “is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest . . .
objects.” The burden is on the party filing the objection to prove to the Court
that the claim is not valid and should not be paid.
In
particular a debtor or their attorney should carefully review any proof of
claim filed to determine if the claim was timely filed as Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002(c) requires most proofs
of claim to be filed no later than 90 days after the first date set for the
meeting of creditors called under § 341(a) of the Code.
It
should be noted that Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 3001 contains numerous detailed requirements for each
specific type of proof of claim and the proof of claim should be carefully
reviewed to determine if it meets the strict requirements of Rule 3001.
Any
objection to a proof of claim should be filed and served as soon as it has been
determined that there are valid grounds for filing an objection.
Some of the more common grounds for objecting to a proof of
claim are:
The creditor failed to attach sufficient documentation to
prove that a debt is owed;
The amount of the claim is incorrect;
The same claim was filed more than once;
The claim was not filed in a timely manner;
The classification of the claim as secured or priority is
incorrect, and
The claim states improper interest amounts or fees.
Anyone who wishes to file and serve an objection to a proof
of claim should consult the local rules for their particular Bankruptcy Court
and/or call the clerk of the Court as most of them have their own specific
rules and procedures for objections to a proof of claim.
Attorneys or parties that would like to view a portion of a
sample objection to a proof of claim created and sold by the author of this
blog post can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal that has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
If you are in need of assistance with any California or
Federal litigation matters, Mr. Burman is available on a freelance basis. Mr.
Burman may be contacted by e-mail at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information.
He accepts payments through PayPal which means that you can pay using most
credit or debit cards.
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit Subscribe to FREE weekly legal newsletter for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
You can view sample legal document packages for sale by visiting http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this blog post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this blog post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this blog post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this blog post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Most important reasons for hiring a virtual paralegal
The most important reasons for hiring a virtual paralegal are the topic of this blog post.
A virtual paralegal is generally defined as an individual that maintains a virtual office and provides legal research and document preparation services.Retaining the services of a virtual paralegal allows attorneys and law firms the best of both worlds in that they can obtain the services of someone experienced in both legal research and document preparation including answers, complaints and more.
There are also other major benefits which I have listed below.
NO training costs!
NO unemployment taxes!
NO Social Security taxes!
NO Worker's Compensation Insurance!
NO sick time or vacation pay!
NO retirement or health plans!
NO more paying for idle time!
NO workspace issues as virtual paralegals work from home or an office!
NO overtime!
The challenges of the modern economy have resulted in the legal profession becoming a constantly evolving practice the result of which is increased work requiring more and more of an attorney's time. Virtual and freelance paralegal jobs are one resource that more and more attorneys and law firms are utilizing particularly with the current economic situation that is resulting in downsizing at many law firms. Paralegals working as virtual or freelance contractors are available for short or long-term projects depending on the needs of a particular client.
Most virtual or freelance paralegals have a wide range of experience allowing them to assist attorneys on a variety of projects. For instance I have worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 in many diverse areas of the law and have collected unpaid California Court judgments since 1992.
Because a virtual paralegal career covers a variety of different assignments, they aren't necessarily
restricted to specific work environments. Solo attorneys’ who work on their own, maintain a virtual office or that have started new law offices find the extra support offered by virtual paralegal employment quite helpful. It can be expensive to hire paralegal work through traditional methods such as temporary legal staffing agencies especially if there isn't enough work to keep the paralegal busy all the time. With the use of modern technology a freelance paralegal does not even need to travel to a lawyer’s office as documents can be scanned and e-mailed to them, or can be uploaded to a file storage site or the increasingly popular “cloud” sites. This frees up billable time, makes good use of an attorney's time and adds value to their practice.
Even in a fully staffed office, there are times when unplanned employee absences result in a backlog of work. A virtual paralegal can provide the necessary coverage without a large commitment. The great thing about virtual paralegals is that they often have years of experience and can be a valuable asset to any law office.
The author of this post, Stan Burman, has collected unpaid California judgments since 1992 and has also worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 as a freelance paralegal. Anyone with an unpaid judgment of at least $20,000.00 entered in the State of California or that is involved in California or Federal litigation that is interested in retaining the services of Mr. Burman can contact him at DivParalgl@yahoo.com for more information. Visit his blog at http://www.legaldocspro.net/blog
You can view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation at http://www.scribd.com/LegalDocsPro
*Do you want to use this article on your website, blog or e-zine? You can, as long as you include this blurb with it: “Stan Burman is the author of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation and is the author of a free weekly legal newsletter. You can receive 10 free gifts just for subscribing. Just visit http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.
Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro
View sample legal document packages for sale at: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that the author of this post, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this post is NOT intended to constitute legal advice.
The materials and information contained in this post have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this post is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the author and any readers. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)