While the thought of eating Seabiscuit is probably revolting to you, as evidenced by the general uproar surrounding the Ikea horse meat meatball scare, many people around the world eat horse meat. The U.S. was poised to export horse meat to other countries including China, Russia, and Mexico but now a twist of legal events has put the plan on hold, reports Reuters.
Recently in Property Law Category
The Tenth Circuit didn't have any cases making jurisprudential history this week, though it has managed to stay in the news. One item can have serious repercussions for Oklahoma consumers, while the other seems immune from sequester cuts.
Abby Shadakofsky, d/b/a Personal Collection Services ("Shadakofsky"), hired Cheryl Wadas to represent her in a debt collection action against George James. After many procedural mishaps, the parties ended up in federal court with James claiming that Wadas, as Shadakofsky's agent, violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA").
The question before the court was whether Wadas regularly engaged in the practice of debt collection, to be considered a "debt collector" for purposes of the FDCPA. The Tenth Circuit found that she was not.
Younger generations are going to look back at these mortgage foreclosure cases with nothing but utter confusion. It seems in every case, a mortgage is passed around more than a certain illicit substance at Snoop Lion concert.
In this case, Glen Llewellyn was a bit miffed after a series of mortgage holders and services reported naughty things to the credit agencies regarding his defaulted/not-defaulted loan. (He refinanced while the loan was being sold to someone else, the money got lost for a bit ... it happens).
We'll never know if the Toones' claims were valid. Well, we have a pretty good idea, actually, thanks to the court's dicta on the matter, but we can't help but wonder if they would've had a chance to adduce additional evidence that would've supported their claims had they made it to discovery. Instead, their case becomes another reminder as to the importance of proper pleading and paperwork.
The Toones' mortgage, like many others in this historic recession, went into foreclosure. It was passed around between banks, like children playing "hot potato." They attempted to save their home through a "Home Affordable Modification Program Loan Trial Period (HAMP) Agreement and by suing every bank and lawyer that ever came into contact with the mortgage. The lawsuit was eventually transferred to federal court and dismissed via 12(b)(6).
It's not often that we come across a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals case that is largely dedicated to the elements of a contract instead of precedent. Today's case, Sola Salon Studios v. Heller, is a rare exception.
Sola Salon owns salon studios throughout the country, but its operational structure is rather unusual. Sola does not employ beauticians or stylists, and instead contracts with those kinds of professionals to use space that Sola leases from someone else, and allows the professionals to operate their own independent salon studios.
The Tenth Circuit paraphrased Sola's motto as "the stylists are in business for themselves, but not by themselves."
The old saying, “If at first you don't succeed, try, try again,” does not ring true in the law. While the appellate process provides a certain number of second chances, you can’t relitigate final decisions after you’ve exhausted the appellate process, thanks to double jeopardy and res judicata.
In certain criminal cases, state and federal prosecutors can collaborate on a double jeopardy workaround: criminal defendants can be charged and tried separately for state and federal violations stemming from the same conduct.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reminds us this week that foreclosure appeals do not enjoy a similar state vs. federal backdoor.
We don't fault attorneys for resorting to creative arguments to halt foreclosure; it's an attorney's job to represent her client zealously. But when the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals strikes down a legal theory, we try to clue you in so you don't waste your time making a similar argument in the future.
That brings us to today's now-defunct foreclosure theory: MERS can't foreclose on a home on Utah. According to a multiple Tenth Circuit opinions, that's simply not true.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reminds us today that the Quiet Title Act statute of limitations favors the government. Before you file a Quiet Title claim, you might want to double check when your client — or her predecessor in interest — reasonably should have known of the government’s right in a disputed property.
Anne George lives next to the Gila National Forest in Silver City, New Mexico. She wants to fence her property to corral her horse. The Forest Service has a road running through her land, so George offered to leave a gate across the road unlocked; the Service rejected the idea. The Service, instead, suggested that George pen her horse with a fence running alongside its road; George rejected this alternative.
It’s funny what we consider a victory in court. So many times, victory isn’t a decision on the ultimate issue, it’s a procedural step that enables or delays an action.
Take, for example, last week’s Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Diné Citizens Against Ruining our Environment v. Klein, a case dealing with a mining permit. The Tenth Circuit ruled last week that it did not have jurisdiction to consider an issue that a district court remanded to a federal agency. There hasn’t been a decision on the ultimate issue, yet Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment and San Juan Citizens Alliance (Citizens) are claiming victory.
So what exactly happened to prompt this talk of victory and defeat?