Written demand to cease and desist to collection agency

A written demand to cease and desist to a collection agency is the topic of this blog post.

Consumers have the right to send a written demand to a third-party debt collector such as a collection agency to demand that they cease all communications if so desired, or that all telephone communications be ceased.  

Demands to cease and desist to a collection agency are authorized by the provisions of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) found in Title 15 United States Code sections 1692c and 1692k. The FDCPA states in pertinent part that any consumer may send a written demand to any third-party debt collector such as a collection agency. The State of California has a law which is much broader in scope and is known as the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act which has a provision found in California Civil Code Section 1788.17. This provision authorizes the use of a cease and desist letter to any debt collector regardless of whether they are the original creditor or not.

A collection agency cease and desist demand should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested so that the consumer has documentary evidence that could be used in court if the collection agency does not comply as continuing collection efforts after being notified in writing to cease and desist is a violation of both the California and Federal versions of the FDCPA.

Copies of all written communications as well as all documents and receipts that relate to the mailing such as the signed return receipt for the certified mail should be made by the consumer.

Additional ways in which debtors can deal with any debt collectors including collection agencies will be discussed in future blog posts.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view or download a sample collection agency cease and desist letter created by the author of this blog post and available for FREE download in Word format can use the link shown below.

Sample cease and desist demand to collection agency

 

Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

View over 300 sample legal documents for sale

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who 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 http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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.

Basic California restraining order defense strategy

Basic California restraining order defense strategy is the topic of this blog post.   Utilizing an effective restraining order defense strategy is extremely important due to the fact that having a restraining order entered against you can have very serious consequences that can negatively impact your life, both in the present and in the future. For instance many permanent restraining orders have a typical duration of 3 years and in some cases even longer, and if anyone violates a restraining order, or even are alleged to have violated a restraining order, they are subject to arrest. 

Another negative impact of having a restraining order entered against you is that the restraining order can limit or even temporarily eliminate your rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to own or possesses any guns, firearms or even ammunition. It can   also negatively impact your employment and sometimes your reputation in the community as well.

There can be challenges involved in utilizing an effective restraining order defense strategy if all that you have are the word of the victim against your own word in situations where there are no pictures or witnesses to support your side of the story.  The importance of proper preparation is important as that can enable someone to properly challenge the issuance of a restraining order and in appropriate situations possibly convince the court that one is not necessary.   Due to the serious consequences of a restraining order parties are advised to seek an experienced attorney who has knowledge with these types of legal issues.

The first essential element for any restraining order defense strategy should be to carefully review and study the law in order to understand the elements required for the particular type of restraining order that is being sought.  In the State of California for example, there are several different types of restraining orders such as civil harassment, domestic violence restraining orders, restraining orders involving elder abuse, workplace violence, emergency protective orders, and criminal protective orders.  Proper research of the law regarding the particular type of restraining order that is being sought will allow you to determine who has the authority to issue them, the burden of proof required in order to obtain the restraining order, the duration of the restraining order, and most important of all, what elements are required in order to obtain them.

The second essential element for any restraining order defense strategy is to carefully review the allegations made in order to determine if those allegations do or not apply to each element required for the particular order of protection being requested.

One example that is fairly common would be the issuance of a temporary restraining order in California based on an allegation of domestic violence in that case the burden of proof is very low a reasonableness of abuse or possible abuse will be enough.  Meeting that lower burden of proof however will entitle the requesting party to a restraining order that will last only until an evidentiary hearing can be held to determine if a longer protective order such as a permanent order should be issued. In order to obtain an order with a longer duration will require a higher burden of proof known as a finding of a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means that the party that has the most evidence supporting their position will prevail. Many judges would agree that where it can be shown “it is more likely than not” that the elements necessitating a restraining order are met, that a restraining order must be issued by law.

In order to obtain any long-term restraining order based on domestic violence the protected party will need to show both a relationship and abuse.  The elements of abuse for domestic violence are detailed in California Family Law Code § 6300 et seq.

The third essential element for any restraining order defense strategy is for the defending party or their attorney to persuade the court that the allegations asserted by the other party do not fit the definition of abuse.  

In some cases a declaration will be filed by the protected party that is exaggerated or consists mostly of vague generalizations with no specific facts provided.  In these situations a good argument can be made that the other party has failed to provide any specific details of circumstances and is therefore not credible because of the lack of details. For instance if the declaration alleges that the petitioner has been harassed numerous times a defense strategy would be to request that the petitioner identify each and every instance of harassment and whether the communication was not proper meaning a communication that served no legitimate interest.  The burden of proof is on the petitioner requesting the restraining order to prove each and every element required under the law. The duty of the defending party is to attack the credibility of the petitioner.

Parties involved in restraining order proceedings in California who wish to consult or retain the services of a competent, aggressive and experienced attorney can visit the website of attorney Nathan Mubasher by clicking the link shown below. Mention this blog post and receive a FREE consultation and exclusive discount.

Law Offices of Nathan Mubasher

Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

Over 300 sample legal documents for sale

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who 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 http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to 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.

The effect of the Credit Report and Credit Score on Spousal Support Requirements

The effect of the Credit Report and Credit Score on Spousal Support Requirements is the topic of this blog post. 

Any attorney or mediator who is working with a client involved in divorce proceedings needs to understand the impact that the valuable information contained in a true and accurate credit report has on efficiently reaching the terms of an equitable settlement.  The lack of a true credit report with a credit score puts different but equal pressure on any settlement negotiations if both reports are not available and may change the ‘starting point’ parameters and expectations of the negotiations.

Because of the revelations and informative detail that it contains, the subscriber credit report with a credit score, is the most relied upon information source for all commercial lenders, employers and many insurance companies.   

By obtaining a subscriber credit report (with a credit score), the level of social and financial reliability of each party, and several crucial economic factors that are clearly relevant to the ultimate terms of the agreement can be more accurately confirmed as well as the true credit identity of each party.

If the lower wage earner has a good credit history and can most likely get a job, the requirement for transitional support in a financially realistic agreement, may be a lower support payment and/or a shorter period of time.

If one of the partners has been a stay-at-home spouse instead of a wage earner, it's quite likely that there are going to be higher cost needs in order for that parent to generate enough income to be self-supporting.

Consider the case of a stay-at-home spouse that has no job skills, no personal credit to use during the transition period, and no personal credit identity confirmed by the credit report. As a result of these factors, there is also no credit score. The credit score is very important for many kinds of jobs.

Almost every employment application includes a request that the applicant grant permission to obtain a credit report or check the applicant’s credit score. This is done so that the employer has a basis to evaluate the desirability of the applicant for potential employment.  If that background check comes back “no credit report” or “no credit score,” it's going to be very, very difficult to get anything other than a menial job, if that.  As with a stay-at-home spouse, the higher earner will typically have to pay out more during the transition period.

Organizing and decoding credit related documents can be outsourced to a specialist if your office staff isn’t trained/experienced in dealing with credit related foundational issues.

If you are an attorney or mediator with questions about credit reputation and how it can affect your clients, click here: www.creditdamageexpert.com     

Copyright 2014 Georg Finder, all rights reserved. Posted with the express permission of the author.

Georg Finder, an Orange County, CA, Credit Damage Evaluator (CDE), is an expert on credit reporting violations and credit damage measurement. He has more than 15 years experience evaluating credit reports and appearing for both plaintiff and defense.  Mr. Finder has authored numerous articles, including his upcoming book, Divorce credit smarter, not credit out-smarted. He is a. MCLE provider on credit report issues and credit reputation damage compensation. Learn more about Georg Finder and his services at www.creditdamageexpert.com  

The creator and owner of this blog, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. .

To view over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation created by Stan Burman visit View over 300 sample legal documents for sale


Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: 
http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

Credit damages can be recoverable as a special injury

The issue of credit damages and whether they are speculative is the topic of this blog post.  As will be shown in this blog post losses from credit damage are not speculative.  This blog post is a guest blog post written by Georg Finder and is one of a series of guest blog posts on credit damages.

Losses resulting from credit damage are in fact a measurable form of special injury that lawyers are capable of recovering for their clients in appropriate situations.  In the past, the argument has been made that credit damage losses were too speculative and should therefore not be recoverable as a special injury.   The fact is that for over one hundred years courts all over the United States have recognized that damage to credit is a cognizable injury for which victims can and should recover.  For one of many examples see the case of Bell v. May Dept Stores Co., 6 S.W. 3d 871, 876 (Mo. 1999).  It is extremely important that all lawyers recognize damaged credit as an important part of their client’s injury.

Speculative damages are generally defined as those that are contingent on a future event or those deemed highly improbable.  Any reasonable attorney will understand that they cannot recover speculative damages.   As a result, to recover for loss of credit reputation lawyers must prove that some credit damage actually occurred. It must be further shown that the loss can be quantified into an actual dollar amount with reasonable certainty.

 The good news is that tools and experts exist in the field of credit damage to clearly explain to the trier of fact such as a judge or jury whether any credit damage has actually occurred and how much loss was likely suffered.  A sophisticated credit damage analysis uses quantifiable measurements to show compensable damage for loss of credit reputation.  The effective presentation of a thorough investigation of an individual’s credit situation before and after their injury provides a strong argument for recovery for credit reputation damage making it an important tool in preparation for trial and settlement negotiations.  

When a lawyer’s client has suffered credit damage it may be helpful to get in touch with an economic damage expert to conduct the necessary measurement. The nation’s pioneer in this area is Georg Finder.     Mr. Finder is the author of numerous books and has developed an easy to use credit Damage Measurement Report to help lawyers identify when credit damage may be at issue.  In addition, he has developed the California State Bar’s first MCLE seminar on credit damage.  Mr. Finder is available for consulting and expert witness services for lawyers.  Consider contacting George Finder through his website: Credit damage expert website.

Copyright Georg Finder 2014, all rights reserved.  Posted with the express permission of the author.

Georg Finder, an Orange County, CA, Credit Damage Evaluator (CDE), is an expert on credit reporting violations and credit damage measurement. He has more than 15 years experience evaluating credit reports and appearing for both plaintiff and defense.  Mr. Finder has authored numerous articles, including his upcoming book, Divorce credit smarter, not credit out-smarted. He is an MCLE provider on credit report issues and credit reputation damage compensation. Learn more about Georg Finder and his services at Credit damage expert website  

The creator and owner of this blog, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.

To view over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation created by Stan Burman visit View over 300 sample legal documents for sale



Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: 
http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

Responding to a request for a statement of witnesses and evidence in California

Responding to a request for a statement of witnesses and evidence in California is the topic of this blog post.    

The party responding to a request for statement of witnesses and evidence must serve the response on the requesting party within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the request pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 96(c), however if the request was served by mail than the responding party has 25 calendar days to serve the response pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 96(g) which states that, “The time for performing acts required under this section shall be computed as provided by law, including Section 1013.”

Code of Civil Procedure § 96(a) requires the response to contain the following information:

The names and addresses of all witnesses other than a party to the action that the responding party intends to call at the trial;

A description of the physical evidence that the responding party intends to offer at the trial;

A description and copies if available of documentary evidence that the responding party intends to offer at the trial;

However evidence and witnesses and that will be used only for impeachment do NOT have to be included in the response.

Parties responding to a request for statement of witnesses and evidence should make every effort to include all of the information required as they will not be allowed to call any witness, or introduce any evidence that was not included in the response except as otherwise provided by law pursuant to the last sentence of Code of Civil Procedure § 96(a).

It should be noted however that there are exceptions to that rule as Code of Civil Procedure § 97(b)(5) permits the responding party to request the court for permission to call witnesses and/or introduce evidence at trial on the grounds that the responding party made a reasonable good faith effort to comply with Code of Civil Procedure § 96(c) or on the grounds that the failure to comply was the result of mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect as provided in Code of Civil Procedure § 473.

Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a sample response to a request for statement of witnesses and evidence in California sold by the author can use the link shown below.

Sample Response to Request for Statement of Witnesses and Evidence in California

 

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 http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: Follow the author on Twitter

You can view sample legal document packages for sale by going to View samp[le legal document packages for sale

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.

Abuses by debt collection companies and damage to credit reputation

Abuses by by debt collection companies and damage to credit reputation are the topic of this blog post.  This blog post was written by Georg Finder, an Orange County, CA, Credit Damage Evaluator (CDE).

The issue of abuses by debt collection companies is a very important one.  The law recognizes that legitimate debts should be collected to ensure the efficient functioning of the economic system. The law also recognizes however that abuses by debt collectors are a reality.  And some of those abuses, whether negligent or malicious, can give rise to claims for damage to credit reputation.

Some debt collectors and collection agencies are just doing a difficult job as best as they can. Others however have little or no regard for any abuses that they may inflict/impose on a consumer while collecting on a debt. Still others have little or no regard for adhering to ethical practices, as defined by state or federal laws. 

Common debt collection abuses that could give rise to a claim for damage to credit reputation include but are not necessarily limited to:

-           Reporting of information known to be inaccurate such as an inflated balance due or where the debt has already been paid in full or otherwise satisfied.

-           Balance Collections – common in medical billing.  The medical treatment provider accepts what the insurance company has paid settled-in-full, and then turns what it considers the unpaid amount by the insurance company as a balance due.   Sometimes they do not even bill the patient, and when the unsent bill is not paid, send it over to the collection agency,

-           False or negligent reporting of late payments when no late payments were made.

-           The sale or other transfer of an alleged debt between various debt collectors that results in multiple derogatory items appearing on a credit report for a single account.

-           The intentional and fraudulent practice of “re-aging” a delinquent account that is more than seven years old so it can continue to be reported in credit reports.

-           The negligent reporting of a derogatory item that is more than seven years old on credit reports.

-           Intentional or negligent reporting of a debt that is in fact owed by another person or is the result of identity theft.

Serving a consumer with legal process at an address where they have never lived, or where they have moved from several years before the alleged service in order to obtain a default judgment that is void for lack of valid service.

The knowing or unknowing use of unethical process servers who fraudulently claim that a consumer has been served with legal process when in fact the consumer was never served in order to obtain a default judgment that is void for lack of valid service. 

The law generally provides that consumers are generally barred from bringing certain actions for defamation against consumer reporting agencies, credit report users and informants. An action may be maintained, however, as to false information furnished with malice or willful intent to injure the consumer.  See California Civil Code §§ 1785.31, 1785.32; see also 15 USC § 1681h(e).

Section 1681m of the Fair Credit Reporting Act regulates the use of consumer reports. It prohibits a creditor from selling, transferring for consideration or placing for collection a debt where a consumer reporting agency has notified the creditor that the debt has resulted from identity theft. 15 USC § 1681m(f).

Section 1681m of the Fair Credit Reporting Act also states that if a debt collector acting on behalf of a third party is notified that information relating to a debt to be collected may be fraudulent or the result of identity theft, the debt collector must (1) notify the third party that the information may be fraudulent or the result of identity theft; and (2) upon request by the consumer, provide the consumer with all information to which he or she would otherwise be entitled if the consumer were not a victim of identity theft but wished to dispute the debt. 15 USC § 1681m(g).

This blog post is an excerpt from the book, 5 Steps to Successfully Recover Credit Reputation  Damage. 

If you would like to receive more information on credit damage measurement click here: www.creditdamageexpert.com  

Copyright Georg Finder, all rights reserved. Posted with the express permission of the author.

Georg Finder, an Orange County, CA, Credit Damage Evaluator (CDE), is an expert on credit reporting violations and credit damage measurement. He has more than 15 years experience evaluating credit reports and appearing for both plaintiff and defense.  Mr. Finder has authored numerous articles, including his upcoming book, Divorce credit smarter, not credit out-smarted. He is an MCLE provider on credit report issues and credit reputation damage compensation. Learn more about Georg Finder and his services at www.creditdamageexpert.com  

The creator and owner of this blog, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who 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.



Follow Stan Burman on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view other sample legal document packages for sale by visiting: 
http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx

California limited civil litigation cases

California limited civil litigation cases are the topic of this blog post. The statutes in California that govern limited civil litigation are found in Sections 85 through 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Code of Civil Procedure section 86 lists several different types of cases which are considered limited civil cases in California. However except for a few exceptions, a limited civil case is a civil case in which the principal demand does not exceed $25,000.00, NOT including attorney’s fees, interest and costs.

In limited civil cases in California the pleadings that are allowed are complaints, answers, cross-complaints, answers to cross-complaints and general demurrers. Special demurrers are not allowed. Motions to strike are only allowed on the ground that the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint. See Code of Civil Procedure § 92.

The law in California severely limits the number of discovery requests allowed in limited civil litigation. 

Code of Civil Procedure § 94 states that, "Discovery is permitted only to the extent provided by this section and Section 95. This discovery shall comply with the notice and format requirements of the particular method of discovery, as provided in Title 4 (commencing with Section 2016.010) of Part 4.

As to each adverse party, a party may use the following forms of discovery: (a) Any combination of 35 of the following:

(1) Interrogatories (with no subparts) under Chapter 13 (commencing with Section 2030.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

(2) Demands to produce documents or things under Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 2031.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

(3) Requests for admission (with no subparts) under Chapter 16 (commencing with Section 2033.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

(b) One oral or written deposition under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2025.010), Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2026.010), or Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 2028.010) of Title 4 of Part 4. For purposes of this subdivision, a deposition of an organization shall be treated as a single deposition even though more than one person may be designated or required to testify pursuant to Section 2025.230.

(c) Any party may serve on any person a deposition subpoena duces tecum requiring the person served to mail copies of documents, books, or records to the party's counsel at a specified address, along with an affidavit complying with Section 1561 of the Evidence Code. The party who issued the deposition subpoena shall mail a copy of the response to any other party who tenders the reasonable cost of copying it.

(d) Physical and mental examinations under Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 2032.010) of Title 4 of Part 4.

(e) The identity of expert witnesses under Chapter 18 (commencing with Section 2034.010) of Title 4 of Part 4."

Note that form interrogatories do count towards the limit of 35, and that Judicial Council Form DISC-004, titled form interrogatories-limited civil cases must be used as they do not contain subparts.  A fillable PDF version of Judicial Council Form DISC-004 can be viewed or downloaded by using the link shown below.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/disc004.pdf

It should also be noted that the limit of 35 applies to each adverse party so a defendant who is being sued by several plaintiffs may propound a total of 35 discovery requests to each plaintiff and vice versa.

Supplemental interrogatories and supplemental demands to produce documents may still be utilized as I have not found any code section that states that they cannot be used in limited civil litigation.

Any party involved in limited civil litigation in California should carefully review Sections 85 through 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that both they and the opposing party are complying with the requirements that are specific to limited civil litigation.

Attorneys or parties who would like to view portions of over 300 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author of this blog post can use the link shown below.

Over 300 sample legal documents for sale

 

The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is an entrepreneur and freelance paralegal who 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 http://freeweeklylegalnewsletter.gr8.com/ for more information.

Follow the author on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LegalDocsPro

You can view other 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.