Recent Blog Posts

Immigrants And The Law

Nicholas Tepper — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:15:00 GMT

If you ever want to see what a melting pot Los Angeles is just go the the local poker casino and sit down at any table. You will instanteously be playing with people born in Mexico, Iran, the US, various European countries, various South American countries, and Armenians who I discovered were born all over. Usually a table is comprised of at least six people born in countries other than the United States.

I believe this is what makes America great. I believe diversity of background is what has made America great in the past. The very first Euro visitors here were immigrants seeking a better life. That's what this country is all about. But tough times, as we have now, always engender tough feelings toward immigrants. The history of every American century contains very poignant and pointed examples of anti-immigrant trends by the "natives". Today is no different.

Arizona has passed some very tough laws about "illegals". A recent LA Times article addressed the fact the US Supreme Court is going to consider reviving their hardhanded illegal alien law, which had been found to be unconstitutional.

A couple of thoughts: one, contrary to what many people think, immigrants who are here in the US illegally do have Constitutional rights. They are more limited but, nevertheless, they are entitled to Due Process of the law.

But these laws also effect citizens. People who are either here legally or are full fledged citizens should not have to suffer being stopped and asked to prove their status simply becaus they look a certain way or speak with an accent. One of the most fundamental concepts of American liberty is to be free from the burdensome entanglements of government so that citizens may enjoy their freedom unfettered by official intrusions. Can you imagine having to show your citizenship papers every week, every day, just to live in the US. That concept is something out of 1930's Germany, not the United States. The US authorities should have some reason other than just the way a person looks or speaks to form the basis for their stopping that person and inquiring.

But a lot of people have never heard of the US Supreme Court decision called Korematsu v. United States. This case is still on the books, it's still good law today. What is says is this: a United States citizen may be deprived of liberty and property (and maybe even life) without Due Process based solely on that citizen's race, religion or ethnicity.

If, for example, your family has lived in the US for 100 years but is Japanese then, in certain extrememe situations, that person can have all of their property seized by the government and be put in jail just because they are Japanese and the circumstances are just right. That's what happened after Pearl Harbor. It does not take too much imagination to come up with modern scenarious whereby US citizens could be subject to the same summary fate.

Again, this is the law of the land today. Scary, right? So when you think about laws effecting alien's rights understand those laws effect everyone, not just non-citizens. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, including your justice, your rights. Our government was set up to ensure personal freedoms and being left alone by the government.

Remember this famous saying:

First they came for X and I said nothing because I was not X;

Then they came for Y and I said nothing because I was not Y;

Then they came for me and there was no one left to say anything for me.

Thursday Thoughts

Nicholas Tepper — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:32:00 GMT

FROM THE THINGS NEED TO CHANGE DEPARTMENT

Right now I'm driving my first car with a backup camera. Have been for about six months. About two months ago I was backing out of our garage when flash across the video monitor I saw clear as day my neighbor's five year old son zooming by on his bike. I never would have seen him but for the camera and quite possibly would have hit him. I was totally shocked. I slammed on my breaks and disaster was averted. The system works.

I read today about yet another parent running over yet another child. It appears this case involves a car moving forward. And even more unfortunate is the predictable fact these types of tragedies too ofen involve a parent accidently killing their own child, as in this case. Can you even imagine the horror?

There should be laws in place requiring all new cars to have, at the very least, backup cameras. Soon enough cars will be equipped with cameras that will show the blind spots of all four bumpers. The technology is there and stories like this just make me literally sick. If we can ensure parents never accidently kill their own kids by backing over them then we, as a society, should simply make the decision that we are going to eliminate this from existence. Take a look at these faces and these stories and tell me you disagree.

IF YOU WEAR A COSTUME DON'T MAKE WAVES

Here is some free legal advice: if you are going to wear a cosume in the middle of a week day on Hollywood Boulevard then don't pick a fight with a couple of chicks from Des Moines. And while you are at it don't get into an argument, urinate in public, get roudy, spit, curse or any other damn fool thing. If you are going to dress like a fool then don't act it, stay stay cool. But if you insist on getting into a fight while dressed for Holloween in August do so in something a l ittle more intimidating than a Sponge Bob Square Pants outfit. Look at that picture. Police cars surrounding a sadly abandoned Sponge Bob costume with a man trying to explain everything to the cops. I guess he did a pretty good job because he did not get arrested. Infamy on the streets of Los Angeles comes daily, mostly sadly, but sometimes ridiculously funnily. Hey dude! This is your fifteen minutes. Way to go.

CASEY ANTHONY HAS TO PAY

Many people are unaware of the fact that if you are convicted of a crime there can be a separate hearing concerning the issue of "restitution". For while you have to pay for your crime with time in jail, probation and or community service, the system also recognizes the fact that third parties effected by your bad acts need to be compensated. People forget Casey Anthony was convicted of lying to authorities concerning their investigation into the disappearance of her then missing now known to be deceased daughter. As a result thejudge ruled today Antthony must pay back the State of Florida more than $97,000 . This case reminds me why I always tell my clients to try in very good faith to always settle the case instead of going to trial. That's becuas no matter how good a case you think you have (see Florida DA in this case) the results at the end of the day may be very, very shocking and disappointing.

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT BE PERMITTED TO TRACK YOUR MOVEMENTS WITHOUT A WARRANT?

I think the answer is a clear and obvious "no". But this exact issue is going to be decided by the US Supreme Court this next term. The general concept is that citizens are to be free from illegal searches and seizures unless the government can present propable cause ratified by the judiciary in the form of a warrant issued by a judge. In other words, the government/police have to have a good reason to invade your privacy, like they think you are engaged in criminal activity.

But apparently some police officers think the US Constitution does not apply to 24-7 GPS tracking of a person's car. The cops implanted a GPS device on a guy's car without a warrant and tracked his movements by tracking his car. The courts up until this point have ruled such warrantless tracking is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. I predict the US Supreme Court will rule this way as well.

Remember this basic fact at the heart of illegal search and seizure issues: the Founding Fathers, our Constitution and the interpretation of the Constitution all stand for the most basic proposition that it is far worse for an innocent person to go to jail for a crime they did not commit than it is for a guilty person to go free for a crime they did commit. The exact opposite is the case in a totalitarian regime. The other side of the coin, though, is that the famously oft quoted "right to privacy" is not even mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. But let's just use your common sense: do you want the police to be able to secretely decide to put GPS tracking devices on anyone's car they want for any reason they want? Of course not.

FORECLOSURE TSUNAMI IS COMING

I noticed over the past two years that banks have moved very slowly in enforcing their rights to foreclose on single family homes. There are a multitude of reasons for this. Foremost is the fact that there are just so many damn houses in default that there are not enough hours in the day or people on the front lines to jump through all of the hopes required to take the properties back. The other reason is that homeowners have become increasing aggresive in defending their rights in challenging a bank's right to foreclose. Current reports indicate that while record numbers of houses are being foreclosed, the average time until they are actually taken back is a year and more. My feel is that the banks are gearing up and getting it down, meaning they are finally getting their act together and figuring out how to get these properties off their books or REO efficiently and legally. I predict more and more record numbers of foreclosures in the coming months. A title wave (pun intended) of foreclosures is coming and it's starting now. Buy buy buy if you can.

Your Fist And My Nose

Nicholas Tepper — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 01:56:00 GMT

There is an old saying in the law: your right to extend your fist ends at the tip of my nose. In other words, the law recognizes that rights of the individual must be balanced against those of society as a whole. A recent court decision called into mind this idea. In short, you can believe whatever you want to believe so long as whatever you believe does not impinge on my right to believe whatever I want to believe, especially when working together.

The Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit (Federal Court) recently ruled a teacher had to take down three banners he placed in his classroom proclaiming things like "One Nation Under God", "God Bless America", "In God We Trust" etc. You can read the LA Times article about it here.

On first blush you might think the court ruled the offending banners had to come down on a Constitutional separation of church and state grounds. But no no no. Rather, the court ruled an employer (in this case the school district) could set reasonable speech limits on it employees. In other words, your right to free speech can be restricted by your employer while at work. This is known as reasonable workplace speech restrictions.

Imagine another teacher putting up banners saying things like: "God Is Dead", "Religion Is The Opiate of The Masses" or "Antitheism Is The Answer". Might stir things up, right? So the best policy, as the court notes and reason dictates, is to leave such opinions at the workplace door. My father told me that while he was in the Navy there was a rule at the officer's mess: no talk about politics, religion, or sex. That way they could eat in peace. For while our society and our Constitution does permit for a very broad and vibrant marketplace of divergent ideas, it is not necessarily good business to permit a free for all during the workday. In this way the court recognized a balancing of the teacher's right to believe in god with the broader society's right to have a peaceful, safe and nonconfontational work place/school.

--Nick Tepper, Esq.

Poscast Interview: Internet Security & TLF Lawsuit

Nicholas Tepper — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 02:41:00 GMT

I had the distinct pleasure of talking with Samanth Stone this past Friday. She is the co-host of the widely distributed and well regarded webcast called The Cyber Jungle. She was interested in discussing some of the aspects of TLF"s recent victory in the Court of Appeal against Toyota and Saatchi in Amber Duick's lawsuit against them. Listen to our interview with The Cyber Jungle here.

Other commentaries about our recent Court of Appeal victory in this terror marketing case can be found at:

Wired

Forbes

Ad Week

American Bar Association

The CMO Site

The Business Insider

MediaPost

Japanese Site About Toyota

--Nick Tepper, Esq.

Making Law, The Press and Litigation

Nicholas Tepper — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:38:00 GMT

I was driving to work today when I received a phone call from a reporter from Law360, an internet publication widely known throughout the legal profession. She was calling to find out my reaction to the Court of Appeal's decision in the Toyota terror marketing case, which I most recently wrote about in this blog late last week.

I have had to deal with the press many times throughout my career. Most of the time it really serves no purpose for the client, which ultimately is the only consideration an attonrey has when contemplating how or if to deal with the press. "No comment" usually suffices. The only questions we answer are those posed in the courtroom.

In other cases, though, interaction with the press is helpful and desired. The Toyota/Saachi Terror Marketing lawsuit is one of those cases. You can Google this case and see some of the articles written over the months about this case. I was even contacted by a professor at Syracuse University who is going to be teaching this case to her students for the second year running.

Everything you do in the law requires preparation. Talking to the press is no different. So being caught unaware this morning was not anything I enjoyed. I asked the reporter what the court decided and she told me. I gave her my reaction and we said goodbye. Later she wrote this article which pretty much outlines the court's decision and some basic facts about this case.

When I got back to the office I pulled the opinion off the net and read it with pride and satisfaction. A lot of hard work went into this victory and many people contributed. It was the definative team effort. The defendants had wanted to pull the case out of the public court and litigate privately, behind closed doors, with limited discovery, no jury and no punative damages. Now my client is going to be able to have her day in open court and get to the bottom of this demented advertising campaign.

After reading the opinion I then prepared a press release (which includes the Court of Appeal's opinion) and sent it out to various media outlets. We will field calls for the next few days and that will be that. After all, this is just the end of the beginning of the case. This decision only gives our client the right to fight this case in open court.

Oral argument in this case was heard last Friday. The Court's decision came down the next Wednesday. The court has 90 days to file its opinion after the case stands submitted. It is not unusual to wait weeks or even months before the case is finally decided. To receive a decison three days after oral argument is highly unusual. This quick trigger along with the unanimity of the court means this was not even a close call. And when you read the opinion and the lawsuit you can understand why.

At the conclusion of my oral argument before the court last week I urged them to consider publishing this case. The law consists of two basic areas where courts look to guide them in making decisions. The first, most obviously, are the statutes the state legislature passes and ordinances cities pass. These are all "laws". The court has to follow the written laws and decide cases, when applicable, based on these laws.

The second body of law courts look to is called "case law". When a case goes to appeal all cases are decided by written opinion. Almost all of those written opinions are unpublished. This means other parties in other cases cannot use these unpublished cases to help other courts decide their own cases.

But a very few court of appeal decisions are published. These are the lucky ones. These are the cases that "make law" and in so doing, literally make history. For a better understanding of why this is no overstatement, check out this link regarding the concept of stare decisis. Yesterday's decision was one of those published cases. This means this case can be cited in all California cases, both at the trial level and on appeal. This appeal made law and now can be cited to guide courts in both arbitration cases in particular and contracts cases in general. There are not too many "fraud in the inception" cases and no such case having to do with internet click-through agreements. That's why the court decided to publish this case.

We live in a world increasingly dependent upon internet transactions involving contracting parties. These internet agreements are going to wind their way through the courts. A new world with new technology is going to require new law. This case is is but one rung in the ladder. Stay tuned and TLF will keep you posted, both literally and figuratively.

--Nick Tepper, Esq.

Toyota, "Your Other You" and The Appellate Process

Nicholas Tepper — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 02:10:00 GMT

Imagine one day you receive an email from someone you have never known, never met, never heard of before. They say they can't wait to see you again. They tell you they are on the way to your home and they state your exact address. They let you know they are on the run from the police and need to "lay low" for a few days at your house. This would be strange at best and, most likely, frightening.

You then run a Google search of the name of the guy who sent you the email. Turns out he has a Facebook page with all sorts of pictures and videos and other personal information. You look at everything and cannot find any connection to your life. The more you look the more you beleive this person is real, is a criminal, and is dangerous.

Over the next five days you receive more emails from the stranger. He trashes a hotel room and you receive an email from the hotel manager saying he used you as a reference. There are pictures and even a video of this guy trashing the room. The hotel sends you a bill for your "friend's" damages and asks you to pay. All the while this guy keeps sending you emails stating he can't wait to see you and hopes the law doesn't catch up to him before he makes it to your exact address, which he again reiterates in each email. Five more days of emails. Five more days of increasing terror.

Turns out this was all part of an elaborate marketing campaign by Toyota designed to sell a car known as the Matrix. Before you ask, the person receiving the emails wasn't their target. Rather, Toyota was trying to sell cars to the person who set up the victim. The merry prankster could pick from a number of "maniacs" (Toyota's own words) to virtually "freak out" (again Toyota's own words) the victim through a series of emails, phone calls and videos. And the kicker: Toyota had designed the campaign to be virtually "Google-proof" (a term invented by Toyota for this project) meaning that the more you looked on the internet the more you would be convinced their maniac was an actual person.

As you might imagine, this resulted in a lawsuit against Toyota seeking damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress. This post is not about the merits of this case. Rather, it's about the litigation process and the appeal process and how long things can take to get satisfaction.

Here is what happened: after the lawsuit was filed Toyota brought a motion to compel arbitration saying our client "agreed" to participate in prank. Read the documents and you be the judge. Toyota does not want this case to be decided in front of a jury and that, most of all, is they reason they are pushing so hard to have this case removed from the public court and decided in a private court, i.e. by arbitration.

TLF opposed the motion and we won at the trial level. Toyota filed an appeal. TLF filed their opposition to Toyota's appeal detailing the reasons why we thought the trial court got it exactly right. The Court of Appeal asked us to file supplemental briefs on a particular issue. You can read TLF's supplemental letter brief here. You can read Toyota's supplemental letter brief here.

This lawsuit was filed in March of 2010. The Cout of Appeal just heard oral argument on the appeal this past Friday. The first words spoken at the oral argument was not from Toyota's attorney, as one might suspect. Rather, it was from the one of the justices: "Counsel: can you in any way justify this marketing campaign from your client? Can you in any way explain to me how it is they expected to sell cars from doing these things?"

It is very hard to judge what is going to happen based on what the judges ask or say at oral argument. But I thought it went well. I clerked at the Court of Appeal during the summer going into my third year of law school and I know what the process is. The justices always are very, very informed about all details of the case and usually have a very good idea how they are going to decide each case. But I have never waived oral argument just in case the justices have any questions, which they usually do. When I got up to speak my first words were: "Toyota's actions in this case were fueled by fraud and driven by deceipt." Ok, kinda dramatic, but it's a dramatic case and I thought it made the point, especially in light of the court's inquiries after both sides had briefed everything.

The point of this post beyond all of the interesting facts of this case is this: litigation can take a very long time. Check out TLF's Lawsuit Roadmap to get a feel for the process. You have to be dedicated to your own cause and not give up. This Toyota case has been going on for a year and a half. Either way the Court of Appeal decides means the case is only going to be ready to begin after their decision comes down any time in the next 90 days. Justice can take years, especially when you are taking on a multi-national corporation like Toyota.

TLF will keep you posted on this case from time to time. Google the lawsuit and you will see there are a number of publications who picked up this story. I was even contacted by a Syracuse law professor who put together a PowerPoint presentation of this lawsuit fact pattern to teach to her First Amendment law students. We will see what happens but one thing is sure: Toyota is no longer doing this sort of marketing. This prank, called "Your Other You", was a bust and never should have happened in the first place. So on that score, at least, this case has been a success already.

--Nick Tepper, Esq.

Trial: Fraud and The Directed Verdict

Nicholas Tepper — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:35:00 GMT

Today I finished the second day of trial in a fraud case. I represented the three defendants accused by the plainitffs of defruading them out of money in a real esate deal. For two days the plaintiffs presented witnesses and entered dozens of documents into evidence. Then the Plaintiffs rested their case. They were done presenting their case for fraud against my clients.

Unlike other types of causes of action, a fraud claim requires you to convince the court of the defendants' bad intent. When you sue for breach of contract, for example, all you have to prove is someone had a contractual obligation they breached and that you were damaged because of that breach. To win your case as a plaintiff where intent is not in play, you have to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence. That in effect means 50.1% of the evidence versus 49.1% of the evidence.

By contracst, in a fraud case you do have to prove intent. In other words, unlike the breach of contract example, not only do you have to prove the money was owed, but you also have to prove the defendants intended to steal money they were not entitled to have.

And the standard of proof is much higher in a fraud case. Not only do you have to prove what was inside the heads of the defendants (i.e. their intent), you have to do it by "clear and convincing evidence". Generally this means the evidence must show a "high probability of truth of the fact for which it is offered as proof." (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 919 [171 Cal.Rptr. 637, 623 P.2d 198) 50.1% is not very "high probability".

California law defines fraud as an "intentional misrepresentation, deciet, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury." (Civil Code Sect. 3294) This is what you have to prove by clear and convincing evidence. Not an easy task.

After the plaintiffs' case was done today I rose to my feet and made a motion for a directed verdict in favor of two of my three clients accused of fraud. A directed verdict is a motion to have the court dismiss the case at the end of the plaintiffs' case because they have not presented enough evidence to even require a defense.

"What evidence is there, counsel, that these two defendants intended to defraud your clients?" , the judge asked the Plaintiffs' attorney after I made my oral motion for a directed verdict to dismiss the case.

"Your honor, you heard the testimony from all the plaintiffs that all three defendants told them they were having their names removed from the title for the sole purpose of refinancing the property" the plaintiffs' attorney argued. "They all also testified all three defendants told them they would be put back on title and would then be paid the proceeds of the sale of that property."

It was a classic "we said / they said" situation. There was no documentary proof of the fraud or my clients' intent. It was only the plaintiffs' word versus the defendants' word. But the plaintiffs have the burden to prove intent by a high probability. They simply had not done it and the judge granted the motion. Those two defendants won their case today without having to even present their defense.

All of this goes to show just how tough it is to win a fraud case. And you better be careful because if you make fraud claims and lose, especially by a directed verdict, you may expose yourself to being sued by the prevailing defendant for malicious prosecution. That issue will have to wait for another day and another post. Have to prep for tomorrow's next day of trial.

-Nick Tepper

Divorce: Everything Is Going To Be Alright!

Nicholas Tepper — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 02:35:00 GMT

TLF has seen literally hundreds of people get through divorces. One sure thing is that, in the end, and over time, everything usually turns out alright. Of course, both marriage and divorce have their ups and downs, as this article from the LA Times about weight gain/loss associated with both discusses.

There are a few helpful hints you should think about when it comes to divorce. First, you need to understand California is a "no fault" state. This means you do not need to have any reason for getting divorced. This also means evidence about infidelity or bad behavior is usually totally irrelevant. Only one person needs to want to get divorced for it to happen. One spouse's objection is, again, irrelevant. No counseling is required. All one party has to do is check the box, sign the form and pay the fee.

A divorce is a civil lawsuit. You cannot get a divorce unless a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed with the court and a judge enters a judgement of dissolution. Then your marriage will be done, you will be divorced and you will be a single person again. The process will take, at a minimum, six months to complete. If the case is contested, then it proceeds just like any other civil case. Check out TLF's helpful Lawsuit Roadmap to get a better idea of what that entails.

Divorce really boils down to a lawsuit about assets and debts. Since California is a community property state, the general rule is add it up and divide by two. Assets acquired during the marriage usually are community property that have to be split between the parties. Debts incured during marriage are also usually community property. Those, two, are split between the parties. Assets are not divided in kind. Rather, the entire property and debts of the marriage (called the "community estate") are divided so that each party receives their equal share. If one party end up getting bit more than the other the court will order a equalization payment in the form of a money judgment owed by one spouse to the other. The point to remember, as with any lawsuit, is settlement is almost always the best option.

People thinking about getting divorced usually ask about support. The two main factors to be decided when talking about support is how much and how long. If you were married more than 10 years it is considered a marriage of long duration. This means support could be awarded for an undetermined length of time, or even for the rest of the life of the supported spouse. This dreary reality is tempered by the fact California also has a public policy to encourage all supported spouses to become self-supporting, i.e. "get a job".

If you were married less than 10 years then usually the length of time for support is half the lenght of the marriage. For example, if you were married for eight years then support will usually be paid for four years.

How much support is paid depends upon the payor's ability to pay and the payee's needs. The court will usually take the numbers from financial documents filed by the parties, called Income and Expense Declarations, and enter those numbers into a computer which spits out the support based on formulas prescribed by the State. Child support uses the same formula. However, it also takes into account how much time you spend with the kid(s). Check out this link to help you calculate what your child support may be.

People also usually ask about child custody as well. The basics are this: legal custody involves making the decisions about the kids' health, education and general welfare. Should they have that operation? Should they go to this church, school, etc. The presumption is that both parents share legal custody of the kids. Sometimes the court can order that the partents take classes to provide them the skills they will need to deal with each other where their kids are concerned. Because when you have kids you may be divorced but you will always have a relationship with that former spouse through your children. The better that relationship is after you get divorced the better it is for your kids.

The other part of custody involves physical custody. Boiled down this means who the kids are going to live with most of the time. 50/50 can be ordered by the court. However, as the kids grow older most judges want them to have a more stable and predictable home environment. This means they probably will be at one parent's house most of the time during the week so they can concentrate on school and foster social relationships. The parent who has the kids most of the time in this kind of situation is said to have "primary physical custody" and is said to be the "custodial parent".

The typical kind of schedule for kids going to school is that the non-custodial parent will get the kids after school on Friday until school begins again on Monday on every other weekend. The non-custodial parent usually will be given a mid-week visit (usually dinner) on the weeks when they have no weekend visitation. The non-custodial parent usually gets a couple of weeks with the kids during the summer as well. Holidays are split and a schedule is set.

The court will retain jurisdiction over you and your children and the issues of custody, visitation and support, until your kids are adults. That means your divorce case, at least where these issues are concerned, can go on and on for years. As long as support is being paid, each spouse has the right to obtain the financial information of the other parent until support is terminated. Each spouse has the right to go to court to seek modificaton of any of the order concering custody, visitation and support until your children are emancipated.

A word of caution: the State of California takes very seriously the notion that a parent ordered to pay child support should actually pays that support. In fact, California has an entire department, called Child Support Services, dedicated to getting people to pay their past due child support. Find an application for DCSS help in collecting past due child support owing right here.

A word of caution: Every decision a family law judge makes about child support, custody and visitation must be determined in the light of what is in the children's best interests. The very quickest way you can irritate the court is to give the judge the impression you are doing things for the wrong reason when it comes to your children. Recognize the fact that in most cases it is in your kids' best interest to have a healthy, happy relationship with your ex-spouse and you should try to foster that as much as possible.

These are just a very few of the most basic issues which tend to be involved in most divorces. There are many other issues and nuances that only a skilled attorney should ever handle. If you have no children and no assets and no debts then you might be able to do it yourself. Most of the time, even that proves challenging for the novice. Otherwise, you should consider an attorney. TLF has been practicing in the area of family law since 1993. Call us and Nick Tepper would be pleased to discuss your case and your concerns. And do not ever forget: everything is going to be alright!

--Nick Tepper

Don't Pee On The Plane: Air Travel And Bad Behavior

Nicholas Tepper, Esq. — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 08:00:00 GMT

French actor Gerard Depardieu recently got kicked off a flight for peeing in the isle after the attendants told him he had to wait 15 minutes to use the facilities. While this sounds hilareous, and it is, there are serious repercussions you will have to deal with if you get in trouble on a flight.

TLF has successfully defended people facing criminal charges for their behavior in flight. Here are some things you should remember and consider before boarding that next jet:

Listen to the people in the uniforms. If they tell you to sit then sit. If they tell you to stop then stop. These people have the power to accuse you of just about whatever they want. The laws are so broad that just annoying a flight attendent could lead you to a handcuffed welcome when you land.

Think about not drinking. As with all crimes, problems on planes almost always involve alcohol. You may think downing drinks a mile high is risk free but it's not. Think of it like this: drinking on a plane is like drinking in a cop bar and you are not a cop. Better to just order the Diet Coke and wait until you get there to party.

You simply do not want to ofend or anger a flight attendant. In this post-911 age their word is gold and the athorities are going to arrest first and ask questions second. TLF's last case involved a person charged with an array of offenses caused, in fact, by the telling of offensive jokes. The attendants did not like his sense of humor so they simply got him back by lying about what he did up in first class. The FBI was waiting upon arrival at LAX.

There are many different charges that can be leveled against a flight passenger who fails to cooperate, threatens or touches a flight crew attendant. In TLF's most recent case, the charges were the most minimal misdemeanor offense that could have resulted in a small fine and unsupervised probation. Nevertheless, the FBI agent was sitting in court for every single pre-trial hearing. They would not drop the case and so we had to prepare for trial. And remember: no one really knows what the criteria are and how one gets put on or taken off the dreaded "No Fly List". Simply getting arrested might be enough. A week before trial the charges were dropped in their entirety, a combination of TLF's rediness and the probable fact the flight crew could not make it to testify. It was another case of just being prepared to take it to trial was enough to win.

Just stay in your seat when the fasten seatbelt sign is lit, listen to those in charge and, if the worst does happen, call us and we can help.

--Nick Tepper

Foreclosure Questions And Answers For Owners and Renters

Nicholas Tepper, Esq. — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 16:00:00 GMT

Every day TLF gets calls about foreclosures. The past few years has seen an unprecedented flood of foreclosures as propertly values sharply declined. The LA Times recently ran a piece about reforms related to foreclosures. That is well and good, but waiting for things to change really does not provide any help for the millions of people facing the loss of their homes and the millions of people facing the foreclosure of the places they are renting. Here are some very basic facts you need to know about foreclosures in California and the issues we are routinely asked about.

Foreclosure is the process by which a lender (usually a bank) takes back collateral (usually a single family home) which has been pledged to secure a loan. In the most simplified terms, this means that before the foreclosure you were the owner and after the foreclosure you are not the owner anymore. The most common type of foreclosure involves a bank lending a homeowner money secured by their real estate they used the loan to purchase. This is called a purchase money mortgage. If the borrower cannot pay back the mortgage then the lender can "take back" the property, which is the foreclosure process.

There are many, many hoops a lender has to jump through to foreclose. Way too many, in fact, to detail here. But there are some basic things you need to know. California has both judicial foreclosure and private foreclosure. Many states only have judicial foreclosure, which entails the filing of a lawsuit and judicial oversight as the case winds its way through the courts. This option to rarely used in California because it takes just as long as a regular lawsuit (a year or more) and involves attorney fees and court costs.

One reason lenders might file a judicial foreclosure is to obtain a "deficiency judgement" against the borrower. That is to say if the propery is only worth $300,000 and the remaining loan balance on the first trust deed is $500,000, the lender can get both the property and a deficiency judgment (in this example for $200,000) against the borrower personally. This hypothetical assumes the bank actually sells the property for market value of $300

California law also permits private foreclosure. These have nothing to do with the courts. There is no lawsuit required. As a result, there is no judicial oversight. The people (the bank) with the vested economic interest are the very ones in charge of ensuring they forclose in a legal way. This system, as you might imagine, has led to a number of abuses, oversights and straight up violations of the law. That is why reforms are, indeed, needed. The vast majority of foeclosures are done by private foreclosure. Still, there are many legal requirements before a house can be auctioned off on the courthouse steps. If the borrower (usually the bank) forecloses using this private, trustee sale method then there usually is no deficiency judgment against the borrower.

Some basics about private foreclosure: there has to be a notice of default and an opportunity for the borrower to cure, i.e. to pay the past due amounts, including penalties and interest. Then, after more notices, there is a public auction of the property, which is usually conducted on the courthouse steps. The lender of the first trust deed is in "first position" and will "credit bid" at the acution. This means, using our example above, that when the auction begins the bank will have a credit of $500,000. Anyone else who wants that house will have to bid over and above the amount of the bank's credit bid of $500,000. Still using the example above, if that house being auctioned off is only worth $300,000 you can see why so many banks end up "taking back" the properties which secured their loans. These properties are referred to as "REO", or real estate owned by the banks.

The banking crisis of the past couple of years has to do in large part with the fact banks had way too many REO's where they lent out more money than they ended up getting back from the houses they foreclosed. In fact, so many houses were repossesed by the lenders that they could not sell them at all. This meant the banks' return on their loans was not just a loss, it was a total loss. A consequence of so many bank owned properties which could not be sold was the creation of tremendous pressure on market valuation. In other words, foreclosures are very bad for property values, prices slide and, in effect, a viscious cycle is created. Foreclosures cause house values to deflate, thus leading to more foreclosures and even greater decrease in home values and on and on. Good luck with that!

TLF does not get involved in trying to help people refinance, renegotiate or short sell their distressed homes. If the home you own and live in has been foreclosed you are subject to being evicted by the owner. All the new owner is going to have to do is serve you with a three day notice for you to leave. If you do not leave then the new owner can initiate an eviction action, which is called an unlawful detainer. The process usually takes about four to six weeks before you have to leave, even if you do not file any sort of response to the eviction lawsuit. TFL does represent parties involved in post-foreclosure eviction litigation.

Many homeowners faced with a Three Day Notice To Quit (quit=leave) after a foreclosure often ask about the possibility of filing a bankruptcy to gain more time in their house before they have to leave. This is because the filing of a federal bankruptcy case results in an "automatic stay" of all lawsuits, including evictions, against the person who files the bankruptcy. TLF does not help people file for bankruptcy. But what we do do is file motions for relief from stay in the bankruptcy court so that we can evict people who do file BK. While it is relatively easy to file BK, it is also relatively easy to obtain a relief from the automatic stay. The person who files might buy a week or two, but BK does not effectively stop any eviction.

The short of it is this: if you owned a home that was foreclosed the odds are very, very good ]you failed to make the payments due and, in fact, really did default on your loan. Under these circumstances the law is designed to pemit the lender to take the property back and to get you out. Once the foreclosure sale has actually happened there is very little you can do to reverse the process. You will not be able to unring that bell. You are going to have to leave.

TLF represents both people who buy properties at foreclosure sales and people who have lost their properties to foreclosure. As for the new owners, sometimes they want the old homeowners to stay, take care of the property and pay rent. More time than not, though, they want the old homeowners to leave as soon as possible. Sometimes this involves "keys for cash" whereby the new owner will actually pay the old homeowner to leave. Usually the quicker the old owner is willilng to leave the more money they can get.

If you rent a home going through foreclosure you are in a much, much better position than a homeowner who lost his home. First of all, if you are in the middle of a signed lease the new owner must honor the terms of that lease. Often times a homeowner who is facing foreclosure may rent their house to an innocent third party to generate some desperately needed cash. The renter moves in and two months into their year lease they discover the house was lost to foreclosure. That renter, by law, is entitled to stay in that house until the end of their year lease. The person who bought the place at the foreclosure auction must honor your lease.

If a renter of a foreclosed property is living at the property on a month to month basis after having stayed there at least a year then they are entitled to usually 90 days notice from the new owner before they are forced to leave. If they do not leave after 90 days then they can be evicted.

TLF's skill set is advocacy. In the olden days lawyers represented either landlords or tenants exclusively. They believed there was some sort of ethical delemma in representing parties from both sides of the fence. That is a dying trend. TLF represents both new owners who purchase property at foreclosure as well as renters innocently caught up in a foreclosure dramma for which they are not to blame and, often time, victimizes them. For owners, we can ensure you do not violate the law and get the results you want, such as having the tenants sign a new lease or having them evicted. For tenants, we can optimize your "cash for keys" options as well as create the most beneficial conditions for your continued tenancy. There have been cases where, because the new owner did not know what they were doing, we have had tenants who lived in a foreclosed house for months and months without paying any rent. Of course each case is different. That is why you should always call a professional who has been through these situations time and time again.

-Nick Tepper

Welcome to Tepper Law Firm's new and improved website

Nicholas Tepper, Esq. — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 19:30:00 GMT

It's really been a long time coming and we are very excited. The idea is to provide information to allow prospective clients to make an informed decision about their case and their representation. Additionally, TLF's new site is designed to be a resource for people to find the answers they are looking for without even having to pick up the phone. Our Lawsuit Library and FAQ pages will be tremendous assets for people to find out things like court filing fees, court forms and other very handy information. We hope TLF's new website will become a useful self-help destination that will grow as time passes.

This blog is going to be focused on the funny, the informative, the unusual and the helpful in all areas of the law with an emphasis on litigation. It is my sincere hope people will navigate to tepplaw.com to read my legal views so that they might both laugh and learn, question and answer. Please enjoy.