Sonoma County Lawyer Blog

Payday loan companies, or as they used to be called "loan sharks", are creating a real problem for consumers who are in dire need of a quick buck for an unexpected expense.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is an independent agency of the United States government. Its principal mission is the promotion of consumer protection and the elimination and prevention of what regulators perceive to be harmfully anti-competitive business practices.

On April 11, the FTC announced a temporary restraining order against Broadway Global Master, Inc. a debtor collector enjoining them from conducting business or withdrawing any funds from their bank accounts. Broadway obtained detailed information about payday borrowers from an unknown source and engaged in intimidation to collect over $4 million from them.

According to the FTC, representatives from Broadway would contact debtors and pretend to be law enforcement officers, use a FBI caller ID, threaten arrest, a state placement of the debtor's children, or to call the debtor's employer, and use obscene language.

Continue reading "FTC Enjoins Fake, Harassing, Payday Loan Debt Collector's Business" »

In HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. v. Aguilar, the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court held that a bank was not required to present any proof in order to obtain a default judgment against a holder of a credit card.

HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., sued Lizet Aguilar for money damages based on Aguilar's alleged default on a credit-card agreement. Aguilar did not respond. HSBC requested entry of default and a clerk's judgment.

The clerk entered Aguilar's default, but refused to enter judgment. The clerk instructed HSBC to submit either an original promissory note or contract or, if necessary, a declaration of a lost original. HSBC did not comply with those instructions. The trial court ordered a show-cause hearing.

Continue reading "Banks Are Not Required To Present Any Proof In Order To Obtain Default Judgment" »

In response to the recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by ResCap, the mortgage arm of Ally Financial, formerly known as GMAC Mortgage, NACBA will be seeking global relief from the automatic stay to allow consumers in bankruptcy cases of their own to bring actions in those cases related to ResCap/Ally/GMAC claims. NACBA is committed to quickly obtaining the broadest and most efficient relief from the stay as possible, so that consumers and their attorneys can continue to bring lien-strip actions, objections to claim, and other actions in bankruptcy cases, without having to individually seek permission from the bankruptcy court in New York. NACBA is both working with the U.S. Trustee and retaining counsel to bring appropriate motions.

This will benefit any debtor who is in bankruptcy and has a mortgage from Ally Financial or GMAC Mortgage. This way debtors will still be able to obtain all the benefits of bankruptcy without any additional work or attorney fees.

The Law Offices of James V. Sansone assists individuals file for bankruptcy protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code and assists creditors to protect their rights when a bankruptcy is filed. We are located in Santa Rosa, California and serve clients throughout Sonoma County, Mendocino County, and Lake County, including Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Healdsburg, Sonoma, Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Windsor, Bodega Bay, Ukiah, Willits, Clearlake, Lakeport, and Kelseyville.

While yesterday in court the judge disagreed with me, in my opinion California law does not make this a prerequisite.

One component of the uniform guideline formula is the "H" factor, which represents the "approximate percentage of time that the high earner has or will have primary physical responsibility for the children compared to the other parent." Thus, the only relevant argument for the higher wage earner to make is that he, or she, has primary responsibility during the time at issue

The courts have considered cases of disabled adult children in a care home, children in school or daycare, and even a child in boarding school held in each that it is proper to credit the custodial parent with the parenting time. The courts focus on "primary physical responsibility" not actual physical custody or presence - adult disabled child in care home (In re Marriage of Drake (1997) 53 Cal. App. 4th 1139, 1160).

Daycare-"It is the custodial spouse who, after all, has the burden of finding, arranging and fronting the money for appropriate day care, who must deliver and pick up the child, and whose workday will be interrupted if there are any medical or other emergencies" (In re Marriage of Whealon, 53 Cal. App. 4th 132.)

In summary, according to In re Marriage of DaSilva, (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 1030, if a parent desires credit for time the child is not physically with him or her, then the parent has the burden of producing admissible evidence demonstrating he or she is primarily responsible for that child during those challenged times. Relevant factors include: (1) who pays for transportation or who transports the child; (2) who is designated to respond to medical or other emergencies; (3) who is responsible for paying tuition (if any) or incidental school expenses; and (4) who participates in school activities, fundraisers, or other school-related functions.

In short, just because your child does not live with you does not necessarily mean you can't get child support. However, I may need to file a Writ to get this point across.

The Law Offices of James V. Sansone assists individuals in child custody disputes and other family law issues throughout the North Bay area of California, including Sonoma County, Mendocino County, Lake County, Santa Rosa, Napa, Petaluma, Cotati, Rohnert Park, Sebastopol, Healdsburg, Sonoma, Kenwood, Glen Ellen, Windsor, Bodega Bay, Ukiah, Willits, Clearlake, Lakeport and Kelseyville.