1. Make sure you understand your contract.

2. Consult an attorney and/or your broker if you have any questions or concerns regarding your contract

3. Make sure you get the very best title insurance to best protect you and your purchase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe6GiN8-O8

Companies must allow employees time off that is equal to one and one-half hours for each hour of work that is considered overtime.

Employees are limited to 240 hours of comp time per year, with exception to employees working in public safety, which can accrue up to 480 hours of comp time.

The employer must be willing to offer the comp time in exchange and the employee must willingly accept this exchange.

If an employee has unused comp time at the time of termination of employement, the employee must be paid for the unused time.

If you have further questions, regarding fair pay, please contact us and we would love to help you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKWTTmzvEX8

Closely related to a previous post, I noticed an article on Bloomberg  about something else lenders do that forces borrowers into foreclosure.

All mortgages require homeowners to maintain insurance on their property. Most mortgages also allow the lender to purchase insurance for the home and “force-place” it if a policy lapses or is deemed insufficient. These standard provisions are meant to protect the lender’s collateral — the property — if a calamity occurs.

Here’s how it generally works: Banks and their mortgage servicers strike arrangements — often exclusive — with insurance companies in which the banks agree to buy high-priced policies on behalf of homeowners whose coverage has lapsed. The bank advances the premium to the insurer, and the insurer pays the bank a commission, which is priced into the premium. (Insurers say the commissions compensate banks for expenses like “advancing premiums, billing and collections.”) The homeowner is then billed for the premium, commissions and all.

It’s a sweet deal for the banks, who can get large amounts of money – over $5.5 billion in 2010, according to the Center for Economic Justice.  In New York, nearly 15 percent of the premiums go back to the banks.

By adding these expenses to borrowers (often 5-10 times the previous insurance premiums), some lenders force borrowers into foreclosure.  The banks get their 15% kickback from the insurance companies, the borrower goes into default, the bank forecloses on the property at a loss, and then the government (who often insures such loans for the lender) compensates the bank for the shortfall.  This means that the insurance companies will be paid, the banks will be paid, the government pays the bill, and the only person who is out anything is the borrower – also known as “the former homeowner.”

Looking back at the 2011 “Honesty and Ethics” Gallup Poll for different professions, it is striking how things change over time.  Bankers are down 10% from where they were at the start of the housing crash in 2007.

Frankly, I think they should be a lot further down.

A recent news story gives an example of what banks can drive people to do.

The quick version of this terrible story is that Norman and Oriane Rousseau of Newbury Park, California were scammed into a predatory mortgage. But they made their payments anyway, always paying with a cashier’s check in person at the same branch. Then one day the bank misapplied their payment and said they still owed the money. This started a long, nasty process that led to the bank evicting the Rousseaus from their home.

Here’s the shocker: right at the start the Rousseaus came up with proof that the bank had received the payment and had cashed the check. But the bank continued to claim it had missed the payment, gave the Rousseaus the runaround, started applying fees, and used it as an excuse to foreclose on the house anyway.

The Rousseaus fought back, the bank dragged it out for so long and pulled so many tricks, getting its way every step of the process, until this last Sunday Norman Rousseau finally gave up and shot himself in despair – two days before the scheduled eviction, Tuesday, May 15.

My heart goes out to Oriane Rousseau and everyone else who was closely involved.

I want to be clear:  I don’t know everything that went into Norman’s decision, and I certainly don’t agree with what he decided to do.  Yes, Wells Fargo acted horribly, but there is a better way to deal with this problem.

Don’t give up.  Help is out there.  If you need someone to fight on your side, go find someone.  Even if the foreclosure goes forward and the bank evicts you, things aren’t bad enough that you can’t keep going.

If you are feeling despair and frustration about mortgage and foreclosure difficulties, PLEASE don’t do what Norman did.  Call someone to help.  I’ve helped people in worse situations, and plenty of people can help you, too.

By now, I hope we all know about the bankster settlement – $25 billion from five huge banks over mortgage and foreclosure abuse.  Of that money, several $2.5 billion is supposed to go to the states and intended to help homeowners and reduce the negative impacts of the foreclosures.  As it happens, though, there were no strings attached, so many states are diverting some or all of the money to other budget items.

Don’t misunderstand me – most (27) states are actually devoting all of the money to housing programs.  But about 15 have already said they will use most or all of the money for other purposes.

What does this mean?  It means that the government doesn’t have homeowners’ backs on this, and it is up to homeowners to stand up to the banks, not the government.  If we want to keep our homes, we need to fight for ourselves.

So let’s take the fight to the banksters.  Let’s show them that we have the courage, the will, and the guts to keep our homes in the face of their predatory lending and blatantly unfair and dishonest foreclosure practices.  In the end, if we don’t do it, nobody will.

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

–Ronald Reagan

So why on earth would the President of the United States speak against government help?

I don’t know his thoughts, but I know why I agree with him.  It’s a concern with people who are trying to help, but don’t necessarily see the unintended consequences of their actions.  People see a problem and think that “there oughtta be a law” without considering why there isn’t one.  They just want to fix the problem.  On a fundamental level, this demonstrates why the road to hell (or, if you are a fan of Friedrich Hayek, the road to serfdom) is paved with good intentions.

Here’s an example of how someone tried to make a good law and ended outlawing something that, perhaps, shouldn’t be outlawed.

The Utah State legislature was concerned about people using electronic devices to get around paying for legitimate bills.  They were specifically concerned about people cloning cell phones to avoid paying their phone bill.  Somebody said, “There oughtta be a law,” somebody else put it into action, and we found ourselves with Utah Code 76-6-409.6. Use of telecommunication device to avoid lawful charge for service – Penalty.

     (1) Any person who uses a telecommunication device with the intent to avoid the payment of any lawful charge for telecommunication service or with the knowledge that it was to avoid the payment of any lawful charge for telecommunication service is guilty of:
(a) a class B misdemeanor, if the value of the telecommunication service is less than $300 or cannot be ascertained;
(b) a class A misdemeanor, if the value of the telecommunication service charge is or exceeds $300 but is not more than $1,000;
(c) a third degree felony, if the value of the telecommunication service is or exceeds $1,000 but is not more than $5,000;
(d) a second degree felony, if:
(i) the value of the telecommunication service is or exceeds $5,000; or
(ii) the cloned cellular telephone was used to facilitate the commission of a felony.
(2) Any person who has been convicted previously of an offense under this section is guilty of a second degree felony upon a second conviction and any subsequent conviction.

So what does this law actually criminalize?  The title is a little misleading; it talks about using a telecommunication device to avoid lawful charge for services, but it does not specify the services.  The code section itself, however, limits it to using telecommunication devices to avoid paying lawful charges for telecommunication services.  But how does this work?

Remember, the intention was for cloned cell phones.  The legislature doesn’t like to limit itself, though; if someone else came up with a closely related method that didn’t involve cloning cell phones, they wanted to be sure that the law covered that, too.  As a result, they prohibited a broad spectrum of devices and behaviors.

The problem is that they prohibited too broad a spectrum.  Let’s make one of our checklists.

• Any person who
• uses a telecommunication device
• with either the intent to avoid the payment of a lawful charge for telecommunication service
• or with the knowledge that it was to avoid the payment of any lawful charge for telecommunication service

So if you call up your phone service provider to dispute a lawful 35 cent rate increase, you are a (1) person who (2) uses a telecommunication device (3) with the intent to avoid the payment of a lawful charge for telecommunication service.  Congratulations, you’ve just committed a Class B Misdemeanor.

Whatever you do, DON’T be a repeat offender on this one; you would face felony charges.

“But Mark,” you ask, “what about prosecutor discretion?  The prosecutor wouldn’t charge someone based on that, would they?”

The unfortunate flip side to prosecutorial discretion is that prosecutors don’t have to exercise it, and many of them add as many charges as they can to an indictment.  This gives them more room to negotiate later on.  It’s easy to drop one class B misdemeanor to get the defendant to plea to two more serious counts.  Many prosecutors will use their discretion as a bargaining chip instead of a way to disregard unjust laws and their application.

“So isn’t there something we can do to fix this?  Can’t we just be really careful in drafting laws?”

People have been saying that for centuries.  Unfortunately, legislators aren’t as careful in drafting laws as they could be.  They have more important things to do, like getting reelected or finding other causes to champion.

One more thing: this is the sort of law that they used to get Al Capone.  I do not condone his kind of behavior at all.  I do, however, condemn the use of overly broad criminal statutes to put anyone in jail, especially if the police don’t have the evidence to do it right the first time.

Let’s take a look at a hypothetical: Your neighbor raises cows.  One of the calves, which the neighbor named Larry, has been getting on your nerves, eating (or doing other things to) your lawn.  It’s an ugly little sucker, and it will never be worth much compared to the rest of the herd.

What should we do about this problem?  Well, you don’t want to kill the cow, you just want it away from you.  You open your neighbor’s gate, lead that calf out, and close it so the rest of the herd won’t trample you on its way out.

76-6-413.   Release of fur-bearing animals — Penalty — Finding.
(1) In any case not amounting to a felony of the second degree, any person who intentionally and without permission of the owner releases any fur-bearing animal raised for commercial purposes is guilty of a felony of the third degree.
(2) The Legislature finds that the release of fur-bearing animals raised for commercial purposes subjects the animals to unnecessary suffering through deprivation of food and shelter and compromises their genetic integrity, thereby permanently depriving the owner of substantial value.

Let’s go down the checklist.  You are a person (I presume; you may be a spambot and I just don’t know it).  Well, the calf has fur on it (arguably, but just go with it) and was raised for commercial purposes, even if it is worth very little.  You intentionally released it.  Congratulations, you just committed a third degree felony and can be imprisoned for up to five years.

What if, instead of setting the calf free, you just smashed its head with a baseball bat?  (Sorry, just typing that made me shudder a little.  Weak stomach.  I’m a soft touch; ask anyone.)

  76-6-111.   Wanton destruction of livestock — Penalties — Seizure and disposition of property.
(1) As used in this section:
(b) “Livestock” means a domestic animal or fur bearer raised or kept for profit, including:
(i) cattle;
(2) Unless authorized by Section 4-25-4, 4-25-5, 4-25-14, 4-39-401, or 18-1-3, a person is guilty of wanton destruction of livestock if that person:
(a) injures, physically alters, releases, or causes the death of livestock; and
(b) does so:
(i) intentionally or knowingly; and
(ii) without the permission of the owner of the livestock.
(3) Wanton destruction of livestock is punishable as a:
(a) class B misdemeanor if the aggregate value of the livestock is $500 or less;

Once again we have a checklist.  You are still a person, you caused the death of livestock (cattle) valued at $500 or less, and you did so intentionally or knowingly and without the owner’s permission.  You’re facing a class B misdemeanor for wanton destruction of livestock.  Looks like you could be in the county lockup for up to 180 days.

This is one of those strange and absurd situations that give reason for a couple of rules.  First (I actually typed “Furst” the first time through): Prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutors don’t always charge people with the worst crime possible.  Does this mean that they’re not tough on crime?  No, it means that they are intelligent and thoughtful, and many of them are not just looking for convictions or collecting taxes for the city.

Second: De minimus non curat lex,  the law does not concern itself with trifles.  There was a technical violation of the law, but it is a longstanding tradition in our legal system not to punish people for minor misconduct.

These seemingly insignificant principles are what make sense out of the strange contradictory laws that we sometimes see.

No!  It doesn’t help.  Whatever your situation or circumstance, having a lawyer will actually hurt your situation, with only one exception:

When your lawyer actually knows how to deal with your situation.

Most lawyers don’t have any experience in criminal law beyond a few classes in law school.  There is nothing wrong with this – until you are facing criminal charges and go to them for help.  By contrast, a criminal defense attorney may not know a thing about patent law, and a patent attorney may know nothing about handling your personal injury case.

Think of it like hiring someone to do construction for you.  Someone might have experience building skyscrapers, but you wouldn’t hire them to design and build a patio for your house.  Even though their experience is related, and they often have similar training, experience is the thing that differentiates between them.

Whatever your situation, find an attorney who knows what the problems are and can tell you what they are up front.  Ask about their experience in different areas of the law.  I may have experience in criminal defense work, contracts, collection situations, and real estate foreclosures, while another attorney may be more experienced in international relations law and facilitating multi-million-dollar deals between countries.  If I needed to make a foreign relations deal, I’d go to the other attorney.  The other attorney would come to me for help when their son or daughter is facing criminal charges.  We do this because we respect each others’ experience.

So next time you are thinking about hiring an attorney, don’t – unless they really know how to help you.

In today’s loan market, legitimate borrowers who deserve a loan modification are finding it harder and harder to get modifications approved.  Let’s take a moment to explore why.

Banks are a lot like the government.  They have a lot of regulations and a lot of rules in place.  The vast majority of bankers have never even read the rules about what they can or can’t do.

In such situations, the banker’s decisions usually come down to money and job security.  What will make the banker the most money?  What will keep the banker in the same position making money for the longest?

In the past (“Before the Bubble,” or B.B.), this was done by extending as many loans as possible to as many people as possible.  The banker received a percentage of each loan (either for the banker directly or for the bank).  As a result, lenders did not screen all of their potential buyers, and some borrowers would just refinance every few years to keep their loan going in perpetuity.  Bankers would modify loans very quickly just to get their percentage, and were not careful about separating the legitimate loan modifications from those who improperly used the equity in their home as a debit card, a/k/a borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

Now (“After the Crash,” or A.C.), bankers are much more limited in what they can do.  Many people who sought loan modifications in the past are defaulting on their loans now.  There are more regulations and new policies in place now than ever before.  Not only do they no longer get bonuses for making as many loans as they can, they are at risk of losing their jobs if the loans default.

This makes life very difficult for all of you who legitimately deserve a loan modification.  Bankers are afraid of losing the bank’s money, and they know they will face severe consequences if they do.  For this reason, it is often safer for them to just deny a loan than to make one with a risk of default, however slight.  Even if they have nine successful loans, the tenth one that fails is the one that will get the attention of the shareholders.

There is a silver lining to this cloud, however.  Bankers will sometimes wait before moving to foreclose on property.  If they foreclose and the bank loses lots of money, the banker has to report to the shareholders.  The shareholders may respond by getting a new banker.  For this reason, there may be more time to work with the bank than you might expect.