Qualified Written Request Letter under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act

2 Replies
The use of a Qualified Written Request Letter (QWR) under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) is the topic of this blog post. Title 12, Chapter 27, Sections 2601 through 2617 of the United States Code are the relevant statutes for RESPA.
RESPA states that homeowners have a legal right to send to their servicer or lender a Qualified Written Request in which they can dispute information contained in an account, request information from the servicer or lender, and have their issues answered by the company in a reasonable amount of time. Many times, services or lenders will not enjoy disclosing such information to the homeowners as there may be a significant problem answering the questions.
Some servicers or lenders do not keep adequate records, make material mistakes, and engage in practices that include fraudulent servicing. In the right situations the use of a QWR can be very helpful in shedding light on these activities that can jeopardize the foreclosure case and allow the homeowners to modify their loan, or obtain other concessions from the servicer or lender.
RESPA states that for a violation of Section 2605 relating to a failure to respond or correct erroneous information outlined in a QWR, the statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of the occurrence of the violation.
The servicer or lender must acknowledge the receipt of the QWR in writing within five (5) business days from receipt unless the actions requested in the QWR are taken within that time period.
The QWR should be in the form of a letter sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and should include the name and account number of the borrower, and should include a statement of the reasons for the belief of the borrower, to the extent applicable, that the account is in error or provide sufficient detail to the servicer regarding other information sought by the borrower.
Within thirty (30) business days from receipt of the QWR, the servicer or lender must do the following:
A. Make appropriate corrections in the account of the borrower, including the crediting of any late charges or penalties, and transmit to the borrower a written notification of such correction which shall include the name and telephone number of a representative of the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower
(B) After conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes—
(i) to the extent applicable, a statement of the reasons for which the servicer believes the account of the borrower is correct as determined by the servicer; and
(ii) the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower; or
(C) After conducting an investigation, provide the borrower with a written explanation or clarification that includes—
(i) information requested by the borrower or an explanation of why the information requested is unavailable or cannot be obtained by the servicer; and
(ii) the name and telephone number of an individual employed by, or the office or department of, the servicer who can provide assistance to the borrower.
The thirty (30) business day period to respond may be extended for not more than 15 business days if, before the end of the 30-day period, the servicer notifies the borrower of the extension and the reasons for the delay in responding.
If the servicer or lender fails to comply with any provision of RESPA they can be liable to the borrower for any actual damages to the borrower as a result of the failure, and any additional damages, as the court may allow, in the case of a pattern or practice of noncompliance with the requirements of this section, in an amount not to exceed $2,000. They may also be liable for the costs of any successful action, together with any attorneys fees incurred in connection with such action as the court may determine to be reasonable under the circumstances.
Attorneys or parties who wish to view or download a FREE sample Qualified Written Request letter created by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Request a beneficiary statement pursuant to California Civil Code section 2943

Leave a reply
A request for a beneficiary statement pursuant to California Civil Code section 2943 is the topic of this blog post. California Civil Code section 2943 authorizes the request to be sent at any time before, or within two months after, the recording of a notice of default under a mortgage or deed of trust. The request MUST be sent before any notice of sale has been recorded.
The request can be sent to the address listed on any billing statements. Although not specifically required, sending the notice by Certified Mail, Return Receipt requested with another copy to the Trustee is a good idea.
Any homeowner who is presently in default, or close to default on the loan securing their home should seriously consider requesting a beneficiary statement request to their lender to request that all of the information listed in, and documents described in, this blog post be provided to them. In particular, reviewing the copy of the promissory note along with all endorsements, modifications or other attachments can be very useful as this may assist the homeowner in finding discrepancies or errors in the documents or information received from the lender.
Civil Code section 2943 states in pertinent part that the lender must provide the following information within 21 calendar days in the beneficiary statement:
1. The amount of the unpaid balance of the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of trust and the interest rate, together with the total amounts, if any, of all overdue installments of either principal or interest, or both.
2. The amounts of periodic payments, if any.
3. The date on which the obligation is due in whole or in part.
4. The date to which real estate taxes and special assessments have been paid to the extent the information is known to the beneficiary.
5. The amount of hazard insurance in effect and the term and premium of that insurance to the extent the information is known to the beneficiary.
6. The amount in an account, if any, maintained for the accumulation of funds with which to pay taxes and insurance premiums.
7. The nature and, if known, the amount of any additional charges, costs, or expenses paid or incurred by the beneficiary which have become a lien on the real property involved.
8. Whether the obligation secured by the mortgage or deed of trust can or may be transferred to a new borrower.
9. A true, correct, and complete copy of the note or other evidence of indebtedness with any modification thereto.
A copy of the deed of trust or mortgage may also be requested at the same time as the beneficiary statement.
If the lender willfully fails to prepare and deliver the beneficiary statement they are liable to the person requesting the statement for all damages which they may sustain by reason of the refusal or the sum of $300.00 if no actual damages are sustained.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a sample request for a beneficiary statement created by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Opposition to Rule 56 motion for summary judgment in United States District Court

Leave a reply
Opposing a motion for summary judgment under rule 56 in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post. Rule 56 refers to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 which states in pertinent part that, (a) “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Note that Summary Judgment can only be granted when no triable issues of material fact exist.
Any party served with a Rule 56 motion should carefully review everything that the moving party served on them along with the motion in an attempt to find discrepancies or errors in the documents that might allow them to prepare an effective opposition to the Rule 56 motion.
The United States Supreme Court has stated that when reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court must look at the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and that the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.
And the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has stated that the gist of a summary judgment motion is to require the adverse party to show that it has a claim or defense, and has evidence sufficient to allow a jury to find in its favor on that claim or defense. Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2001).
“The purpose of Rule 56 is to enable a party who believes there is no genuine dispute as to a specific fact essential to the other side’s case to demand at least one sworn averment of that fact before the lengthy process of litigation continues.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888-89 (1990).
The party opposing a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment needs to make a strong showing of at least one triable issue of material fact that supports their claim or defense that is supported by credible evidence. If the opposing party can show that they have served outstanding discovery requests on the moving party who has not responded that will increase their chances of successfully opposing the Rule 56 motion as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that, “Summary judgment is especially inappropriate where the material sought is also the subject of outstanding discovery requests.” Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1986).
Attorneys or parties who wish to view a sample opposition to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment that includes a memorandum of points and authorities, a separate statement of undisputed material facts, a sample declaration and proof of service by mail that is sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Now you can get NO payments and NO interest for 6 months on my super package deal!

Leave a reply
Getting NO payments and NO interest for 6 months on my super package deal is the topic of this blog post.
My best deal ever just got better! A LOT better in fact! For a limited time only, I have reduced the price from $349.99 down to $299.99 on my best deal.
This deal is what I call my super package deal of over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation. This collection has EVERY sample document that I sell.
It currently has over 200 documents which have a list price of well over $2,500.00 if purchased separately. But you can purchase the entire collection for only $299.99, which is a huge discount of OVER 80% off! And the best part is that if you purchase the collection directly from me, and pay using PayPal you can get NO payments and NO interest if the balance is paid in full within six months. The offer is subject to credit approval. Note that you MUST purchase using the Buy Now button shown at the bottom of this page, and choose the Bill Me Later option when you checkout using PayPal.
About these ads

Opposition to motion to strike portions of a complaint in United States District Court

Leave a reply
Opposing a motion to strike portions of a complaint in United States District Court is the topic of this blog post. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(f) authorizes the court to strike from any pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.”
Any party served with a Rule 12(f) motion to strike portions of a complaint should carefully review the motion as it is considered settled that motions to strike are disfavored.
Motions to strike are disfavored because they are often used as delaying tactics, and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice. Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450, 1478 (C.D. Cal. 1996).  And Federal courts view motions under Rule 12(f) with disfavor and infrequently grant them. 5C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1380 (3d ed. 1998).
The United States Supreme Court stated when ruling on a motion to strike, the Court takes the plaintiff’s allegations as true and must liberally construe the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969); see also Argabright v. United States, 35 F.3d 472, 474 (9th
Cir. 1994).
And two published decisions from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California state that a motion to strike should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken could have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation.
For motions to strike, courts often require a showing of prejudice by the moving party.
Attorneys or parties in who would like to view a portion of a sample opposition to a Rule 12(f) motion to strike portions of a complaint sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Produce the note foreclosure defense in California

Leave a reply
Does demanding that a lender or loan servicer produce the original note as a foreclosure defense strategy work is the topic of this blog post. The answer so far is mostly NO, although some people claim otherwise, the California Courts, and most Federal Courts in California have not accepted that defense. A major problem with the produce the note foreclosure defense is that all a lender or loan servicer needs do is post a bond in the amount of the fair market value of the property, or any other amount that a Court may order, and the defense is moot.
While this blog post is not intended as legal advice the main reason that production of the original note is not required is that California is a non-judicial foreclosure state.
Non-judicial foreclosure under a deed of trust is governed by California Civil Code Section 2924 which states in relevant part that a “trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents” may conduct the foreclosure process.”
California courts have held that the Civil Code provisions “cover every aspect” of the foreclosure process, and are “intended to be exhaustive,”
Any person who is under the impression that the “show me the note” defense will work in California is sadly mistaken. You can debate all you want. The cold hard fact is that the Courts do NOT agree with the show me the note defense.
In California, the lender is not required to produce a Promissory Note to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure which is also known as a Trustee’s Sale. This is due to the fact that the power of sale comes from the Deed of Trust, NOT the Promissory Note.
Anyone using the show me that note defense runs the risk of not only losing in Court, but also blowing their chance to actually show some kind of valid defense to the Judge that might convince them to at least delay the foreclosure sale.
Several recent cases have stated that there is NO requirement under California law to produce the original note to proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure.
Putkkuri v. ReconTrust Co., 2009 WL 32567, *2 (S.D.Cal. Jan.5, 2009) (“Production of the original note is not required to proceed with a non-judicial foreclosure.”); see also Phillips v. MERS Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 2009 WL 3233865, 9 (E.D.Cal.2009); Vargas v. Reconstruction Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100115, at *8-9 (E.D.Cal. Dec. 1, 2008).
Later blog posts will cover some valid claims that may convince a Judge to grant a request for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the trustee foreclosure sale.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 22 page sample complaint to stop a trustee foreclosure sale that includes a verified complaint, ex-parte application for temporary restraining order with points and authorities, sample declarations, and a proposed order sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

California Commercial Code section 3-309 and the show me the note defense

2 Replies
California Commercial Code section 3-309 and the show me the note foreclosure defense strategy is the topic of this blog post.
Uniform Commercial Code Article 3, section 3-309, which has been adopted in California as Commercial Code section 3-309 states that, “ (a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (1) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (2) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (3) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.
(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subdivision (a) shall prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, Section 3308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.”
So the law in California supports a lender or loan servicer not needing to have the original note to conduct a trustee’s sale. They can simply bond around a lost note.
Most Judges are not inclined to show much sympathy for technical challenges to a foreclosure, particularly when it is clear from the complaint and other documents filed with the Court that the borrower is in default under the loan.
Anyone using the show me the note defense is blowing their chances of actually showing some kind of valid defense to the Judge that might convince them to at least delay the foreclosure sale.
In later blog posts I will cover some valid claims that if used in the right situations should convince a Judge to grant a request for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the trustee foreclosure sale. These claims will be based on legal research, in particular my review of published decisions from the California Courts of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 22 page sample complaint to stop a trustee foreclosure sale that includes a verified complaint, ex-parte application for temporary restraining order with points and authorities, sample declarations, and a proposed order sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Does MERS have standing to foreclose in California

Leave a reply
The defense that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) does not have standing to commence a foreclosure in California is the topic of this blog post. The so called “MERS defense” does not work as a foreclosure defense strategy in California as will be shown by this blog post.
The fact is that some loan documents state right in the document that the borrower consents to MERS having authority to initiate foreclosure. Talk about a mistake! Anyone contemplating using the defense that MERS has no authority to initiate a foreclosure needs to read this blog post and then read their Deed of Trust.
In at least one case, the plaintiff actually attached a copy of the Deed of Trust to the complaint in which they argued that MERS had no standing to initiate the foreclosure. The big problem was that the Deed of Trust mentioned MERS by name! Keep reading to find out what happened.
The trial Court sustained a demurrer to the complaint and all causes of action therein without leave to amend, a California Court of Appeal affirmed that order in Gomes v. Countrywide (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149, 1157 where the Court stated that, “As an independent ground for affirming the order sustaining the demurrer, we conclude that even if there was a legal basis for an action to determine whether MERS has authority to initiate a foreclosure proceeding, the deed of trust — which Gomes has attached to his complaint — establishes as a factual matter that his claims lack merit. As stated in the deed of trust, Gomes agreed by executing that document that MERS has the authority to initiate a foreclosure. Specifically, Gomes agreed that “MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns) has . . . the right to foreclose and sell the Property.” (Emphasis added.)
It should be noted that in other parts of the country, and in some bankruptcy courts, borrowers have had some success with the argument that since MERS is a “nominee” and “nominee” is not defined in the loan documents, that it does not have standing to initiate foreclosure.
That argument has not been particularly successful in California, mainly because of these reasons:
1. Non-judicial foreclosures only require that the trustee on the deed of trust conduct the foreclosure.
2. The deed of trust is recorded and so are any substitutions and assignments. In other states MERS had tried to circumvent the recording statutes by not recording these transfers with the County recorder.
3. The borrower (Trustor) has signed the Deed of Trust and voluntarily consented to a 3rd party conducting the Trustee’s sale, regardless of who the beneficiary is.
Despite several recent Court decisions rejecting the MERS defense many people are still under the mistaken impression that the defense is valid. The fact is that the MERS defense has been rejected by the California Courts.
Note that the author has NO sympathy for major lenders or loan servicers who like most large corporations want to privatize their profits, but socialize their losses.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a portion of a 22 page sample complaint to stop a trustee foreclosure sale that includes a verified complaint, ex-parte application for temporary restraining order with points and authorities, sample declarations, and a proposed order sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
To view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author of this blog post visit http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Consumers Legal Remedies Act in California

Leave a reply
The Consumers Legal Remedies Act found in California Civil Code sections 1750 through 1784 is the topic of this blog post. This act is also known as the CLRA and is a very potent weapon that may be used by a California consumer against a business or service provider who is using unfair or deceptive trade practices. The CLRA provides remedies for unfair or deceptive trade practices and is very detailed. In fact there are more than 20 separate categories of illegal practices listed in Civil Code § 1770. These include passing off goods or services as those of another, using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services, and representing as original or new goods that have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand
The CLRA does have some very specific requirements that must be followed. Before a lawsuit can be filed, the plaintiff must first give the defendant a chance to make things right.
At least 30 days before filing suit under the CLRA, the plaintiff must give the potential defendant notice of the alleged violation and demand that he or she “correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify” the prohibited practices. The notice must be in writing and sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the place where the transaction occurred, or to the potential defendant’s principal place of business within California pursuant to Civil Code
§ 1782(a)(2).
Plaintiff must allege in the complaint that proper notice was given. If a plaintiff files an action without first sending the required notice, the claim can be dismissed. This defect cannot be cured by amendment. Failure to provide notice after litigation has started will not be effective, notice must be given in order to state a claim, failure to give notice before filing any complaint will result in a Court dismissing the case with prejudice.
Messages sent by email, fax, or standard mail do are not sufficient, and the notice must also be sent to the place where the transaction occurred, or to the potential defendant’s principal place of business within California pursuant to pursuant to Civil Code § 1782 (a)(2).
The notice is intended to give the manufacturer or vendor sufficient notice of alleged defects to permit appropriate corrections or replacements, and to facilitate settlements of consumer actions wherever possible before a complaint is filed.
A defendant may establish good faith by introducing evidence of their attempts to comply with a consumer’s demand pursuant to Civil Code section 1782(3).
A defendant may avoid liability under the CLRA they can prove that any alleged violation was not intentional; it resulted from a bona fide error; and they made an appropriate correction, repair, or replacement, or provided another remedy pursuant to Civil Code section 1784.
Future blog posts will discuss the CLRA in more detail. It is a very potent weapon that can be used by a California consumer against a business or service provider who is using unfair or deceptive trade practices.
Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view and download a sample demand letter to a business under the CLRA can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author’s website at: http://www.legaldocspro.com and Facebook page at http://www.Facebook.com/LegalDocsPro
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Mortgages and deeds of trust compared

Leave a reply
Mortgages and deeds of trust compared are the topic of this blog post. Some people are under the impression that the only difference is in the name. That is not correct! California is one of more than 12 states, in addition to the District of Columbia in which most, if not all, home loans are secured with a deed of trust also known as a trust deed. California law allows the use of either a trust deed or a mortgage, but in reality most lenders use trust deeds because they have more power under a trust deed as compared to a mortgage.
Confusion likely stems from the fact that loans securing real property are often referred to as mortgages by many people, but in reality only loans backed by mortgage notes are truly mortgage loans. Home loans backed by a deed of trust are trusts.
When a borrower takes out a home loan, they are required to sign a promissory note which is a document pledging to repay the loan. Depending on which state the transaction takes place will determine whether the document is a mortgage note or a deed of trust. The main difference between them is in who holds the title to the house while the borrower is paying off the loan.
In a real estate transaction involving a mortgage note, the note serves as a lien on the property. This means the borrower cannot sell the house until the debt is repaid and the lien is satisfied. With a mortgage note, either the lender or the borrower can hold the actual title to the house, depending on which state the house is located in. In states known as “title theory” states the lender keeps the title and owns the house until the borrower pays off the loan. In other states known as “lien theory” states the borrower holds the title and owns the house, but the mortgage note gives the lender the right to seize and sell the house for non-payment.
For home loans backed by a deed of trust, neither the borrower nor the lender holds the title to the property. The deed of trust brings in a third party to hold the title. This party is the trustee. The trustee might be a bank, a lawyer or some other entity, but the law requires that it must be a neutral party. When the borrower has repaid the loan, the lender will instruct the trustee to release the title to the borrower, who now owns the house free and clear.
The difference between a mortgage and a deed of trust becomes crystal clear if the borrower defaults on the loan and the lender then forecloses on the house. With a mortgage, regardless of who is holding the title, the lender usually has to get a court order allowing it to seize the home and sell it. This is called “judicial foreclosure.” With a deed of trust, the trustee already has the power to sell the home. All the lender has to do is furnish proof to the trustee that the borrower has defaulted. This is called “non-judicial foreclosure,” and because it doesn’t need to go through the court system, it’s usually quicker and easier for the lender. California is a non-judicial foreclosure state which means that in most cases no court order is required.
To view over 200 sample legal documents created by Stan Burman visit:http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author’s website at: http://www.legaldocspro.net and Facebook page at http://www.Facebook.com/LegalDocsPro
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Doctrine of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in California

Leave a reply
Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations in the State of California is the topic of this blog post. Under certain circumstances the statute of limitations may be equitably tolled which essentially suspends the time limitation for filing a particular action that would otherwise be time barred. Equitable tolling is a doctrine that has been created by the courts that recognizes some implicit exceptions where a purely technical application of procedural rules would result in a manifest injustice.
For example in one case decided by a California Court of Appeal the Plaintiff’s lawyer was hit by a car and seriously injured. While he was incapacitated, the statute of limitations ran on one of his cases. The statute of limitations was equitably tolled pursuant to Civil Code § 3531 which states: “The law never requires impossibilities.” Lewis v. Superior Court (1985) 175 Cal. App. 3d 366, 380. And the same court also stated that a catastrophic fire or earthquake could also invoke the impossibility grounds, see Lewis supra, 175 Cal. App. 3d at page 378.
Other cases have involved interference. In one case the defendant’s conduct contributed to the plaintiff’s delay in filing his lawsuit. Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 Cal. 2d 399, 411.
And the limitations period is also extended when a person has several legal remedies and, “reasonably and in good faith,” “timely” meaning within the statute of limitations pursues one of them but believing the second “similar” claim is unnecessary or can’t be filed until the first remedy is pursued; and the defendant is not prejudiced because the first claim alerts the defendant to begin investigating the facts which form the basis for the second factually similar claim. Collier v. City of Pasadena (1983) 142 Cal. App. 3d 917, 924-926; see also Myers v. County of Orange (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 626, 634.
This blog post contains some very valuable information that just might revive a case where the statute of limitations may be seemingly blown. Future blog posts will discuss other examples of tolling of the statute of limitations in California.
Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view portions of over 200 sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author can use the link shown here: http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 200 sample legal documents as the owner and creator of LegalDocsPro.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Judicial Council forms for California

Leave a reply
Official Judicial Council forms for California are the topic of this blog post. These forms are adopted as mandatory or approved as optional by the Judicial Council of California pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code section 68511. Mandatory forms must be used while optional forms may be used although some counties may require their use. An example of a mandatory form is Form FL-100 which is the Petition form used to request a dissolution, legal separation or nullity in California. An example of an optional form is form FL-145 which is the Form Interrogatories that may be used for Family Law cases.
Certain types of California litigation such as family law and probate require the use of numerous mandatory Judicial Council forms.
To determine whether a particular form is mandatory or optional, look at the lower left corner of the first page of each form. This will state whether the form was adopted as mandatory or was approved as optional by the Judicial Council of California. Any attorney or party involved in California litigation should carefully review their local court rules as the local rules of some courts make the use of some or all optional Judicial Council forms mandatory in the courts located in that county.
Optional forms must be accepted by all courts pursuant to California Rule of Court 1.35 so long as they are applicable to the case in which they are used.
A fact that few people that work in the legal profession are aware of is that the lower right corner of the first page of many Judicial Council forms cites the California code sections that are applicable to that form. For example form FL-145 mentioned previously cites Code of Civil Procedure sections 2030.10 through 2030.410 as well as Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.710 all of which are applicable to that form. Anyone served with a form may want to carefully review the lower right corner of the first page, and then review all code sections cited. This may prove to be useful in certain cases.
For more information on California Judicial Council forms visit the California Courts official website for forms at the following link: http://www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm
Attorneys or parties in California who wish to view all of the sample legal documents for use in California and Federal Courts sold by the author can use the link shown below.http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995 and has created over 200 sample legal documents as the owner and creator of LegalDocsPro. Visit the facebook page for LegalDocsPro at the following link:http://www.Facebook.com/LegalDocsPro
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California and Federal legal newsletter by visiting the following link:http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Opposing a Heggstad Petition in California

Leave a reply
Opposing a Heggstad Petition in California and some possible grounds to support that opposition is the topic of this blog post. The author recently worked on a case where an opposition was filed to a Heggstad Petition (Petition) so this blog post will discuss some of the objections to the Petition that were stated.
The objections in support of the opposition were:
1. The Petition was barred by the Statute of Frauds contained in California Civil Code § 1624 as any agreement could not be performed within one year and the agreement involved an interest in real property, but no note or memorandum regarding the agreement exists.
2. The Petition was barred by the conclusive presumption of fraud contained in subdivision c of California Probate Code § 21380 which rendered the Trust null and void ab initio. The second objection also alleged the rebuttable presumption of fraud contained in paragraphs 1 through 5 of California Probate Code § 21380(a) which rendered the Trust null and void ab initio.
3. The Petition was barred by the fact that the Trust was procured by the use of fraud which rendered the Trust null and void ab initio.
4. The Petition was barred by the fact that the Trust was procured by the use of undue influence which rendered the Trust null and void ab initio.
5. The Petition was barred by the doctrine of estoppel as the Petitioner was barred by the doctrine of estoppel from claiming any interest in any real or personal property pursuant to the Trust due to their fraudulent acts.
6. The Petition was barred by the fact that the Trust failed as a trust instrument to create any irrevocable right or claim to any property real or personal.
Depending on the facts of a particular situation other objections could also be stated to support an opposition to a Heggstad Petition. Note that any objections should be in writing and the objection should be filed and served on all interested parties as soon as possible, although some Judges may allow an appearance to be made at the hearing to request a continuance to allow ample time to prepare objections to the Petition. Reviewing the local rules may be helpful, as would contacting the Courtroom clerk where the hearing will be held.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view a sample objection to a Heggstad Petition sold by the author can see below.
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author’s Facebook page athttp://www.Facebook.com/LegalDocsPro.
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Code of Civil Procedure section 351 and statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California

Leave a reply
California Code of Civil Procedure section 351 and statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California is the topic of this blog post which is the first in a series that will discuss statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California.
Also discussed with be some of the situations in which section 351 does not apply. The laws in the State of California impose time limitations or deadlines to take legal action which are known as the “statute of limitations” (SOL). If someone fails to fully settle their claim or file a lawsuit within a certain time period, they will forever lose their right to any recovery or other legal remedy against the other person, business or entity if the SOL defense is asserted and proven as a defense to their lawsuit.
The statute of limitations laws in California are fixed and very strict in their application unless a particular exception applies. Knowledge of the exceptions can mean all the difference in the world in certain situations.
Some of the more common statutory exceptions are found in sections 351 through 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This blog post discusses only section 351.
Code of Civil Procedure § 351 states that, “If, when the cause of action accrues against a person, he is out of the State, the action may be commenced within the term herein limited, after his return to the State, and if, after the cause of action accrues, he departs from the State, the time of his absence is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action.”
What that means is that the absence of a defendant from the state of California between the starting date and ending date of the SOL will generally lengthen the SOL by the amount of the length of the absence of a defendant from the state of California.
However California and Federal Courts have ruled that this exception does not apply in some circumstances including:
1. Defendants engaging in interstate commerce. See Abramson v Brownstein 897 F2d 389, 392 (9th Cir. 1990);
2. Corporations and limited partnerships. See Epstein v. Frank (1981) 125 Cal. App. 3d 111, 119 n.4 and 120;
3. Nonresident motorists. See Bigelow v. Smik (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 10, 15, and
4. Resident motorists in some circumstances. See Vehicle Code Section 17460; see also Dovie v. Hibler (1967) 254 Cal.App 2d 673, 675.
Listed above are the most common circumstances in which section 351 does not apply.
To view over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation created and sold by the author of this blog post visit:http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author’s Facebook page athttp://www.Facebook.com/LegalDocsPro
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

Code of Civil Procedure section 352 and statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California

Leave a reply
California Code of Civil Procedure section 352 and statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California is the topic of this blog post which is part of a series that discusses statutory tolling of the statute of limitations in California. Also discussed are some of the situations in which section 352 does not apply.
The laws in the State of California impose time limitations or deadlines to take legal action which are known as the “statute of limitations” (SOL). Therefore someone who fails to fully settle their claim or file a lawsuit within a certain time period forever loses lose their right to any recovery or other legal remedy against the other person, business or entity if the SOL defense is asserted and proven as a defense to their lawsuit.
The statute of limitations laws in California are fixed and very strict in their application unless a particular exception applies. Knowledge of the exceptions can mean all the difference in the world in certain situations.
Some of the more common statutory exceptions are found in sections 351 through 356 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This blog post discusses only section 352.
Code of Civil Procedure § 352 states that “(a) If a person entitled to bring an action, mentioned in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 335) is, at the time the cause of action accrued either under the age of majority or insane, the time of the disability is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action. (b) This section does not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971.”
The first statutory exception in section 352 is that of a plaintiff or claimant who is under the age of 18, meaning under the age of majority. Family Code section 6500 specifies the age of majority, and section 7050(e)(4) may also be applicable depending on the particular case. Under section 352 the statute of limitations does not start running until the plaintiff or claimant turns eighteen years old, or is emancipated by court order
However this exception does not apply to a minor child injured before birth or in the course of birth, in those cases the SOL is six years after the date of birth pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 340.4.
The minority exception and the unborn exceptions do not apply to:
1. Medical malpractice cases in general which are instead regulated by Code of Civil Procedure §340.5; see also Photias v. Doerfler (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 1014, 1018-1020;
2. Uninsured motorist cases which are governed by Insurance Code §11580.1(i)(1); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Orlando (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 858, 865;
3. Sexual abuse cases which are now regulated by the tolling provisions specified in Code of Civil Procedure §340.1, and
4. Government meaning public entity claims generally, but there can be exceptions which are not discussed in this blog post.
The second exception in section 352 is the mental disability or incompetence of a plaintiff.
If plaintiff was “insane” also known as mentally incompetent at the time of or because of the tortuous wrongdoing, the statute of limitations is suspended for as long as the mental incompetence continues, even if a guardian ad litem has been appointed. See Tzolov v. International Jet Leasing, Inc. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 117, 120.
In the case of Feeley v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 949, 953 the plaintiff was in a coma for twelve days after being knocked unconscious while on the defendant’s premises. His suit, filed one year and one day after the attack, was timely because the statute was tolled while he was unconscious.
These SOL exceptions generally do not apply to Government or public entity claims, but there are times when they may apply which are not discussed in this blog post.
Attorneys or parties in California who would like to view portions of over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation sold by the author can use the following link: http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro/documents
The author of this blog post, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. Visit the author’s Facebook page athttp://www.Facebook.com/LegalDocsPro
If you enjoy this blog post, tell others about it. They can subscribe to the author’s weekly California legal newsletter by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm
Copyright 2013 Stan Burman. All rights reserved.
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.
These 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.
About these ads

NO payments and NO interest for 6 months on all purchases over $99.00!

Leave a reply
Over 200 sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation are for sale at over 80% off! This means you pay less than $1.30 per document! These same documents sell on scribd.com and other online sites for $15.99 each. And for a limited time if you qualify and pay using PayPal you will have NO payments and NO interest for 6 months.*
The sample legal documents for California and Federal litigation that are included in this package are listed below. All motions and similar documents include a memorandum of points and authorities with citations to case law and statutory authority.
SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FOR CALIFORNIA CASES:
Sample Adult Adoption Kit for California
Sample Affidavit of Identity for California
Sample Agreement for Sale of Business
Sample Answer for California Credit Card Litigation
Sample Answer to Alter Ego Complaint for California
Sample Answer to Personal Injury Complaint in California
Sample Answer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint for California
Sample Answer to Unverified Complaint for California
Sample Answer to Verified Complaint for California
Sample Arbitration Brief for California
Sample Bill of Sale
Sample Bill of Sale of Business
Sample California Complaint for Dissolution of Partnership and Accounting
Sample California Complaint for Nuisance and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Sample California complaint for Quiet Title and Partition
Sample California Complaint for Theft of Trade Secrets
Sample California Complaint for unpaid wages, failure to pay overtime or provide meal or rest breaks
Sample California Confidentiality Agreement
Sample California demand for copies of pleadings
Sample California Demand for Exchange of Expert Witness Information
Sample California Durable Power of Attorney for Financial Affairs
Sample California Family Limited Partnership Agreement
Sample California Limited Liability Company Operating Agreement
Sample California Notice of Trustee Resignation
Sample California Notice to Appear at Trial or Hearing and produce documents Sample Beneficiary Statement Request under California Civil Code Section 2943
Sample California reply to opposition to motion
Sample California Settlement Offer Letter
Sample California trustee notification pursuant to Probate Code Section 16061.7
Sample Cohabitation Agreement
Sample Complaint for Assault and Battery in California
Sample Complaint for Breach of Contract for California
Sample Complaint for California with Alter Ego Allegations
Sample Complaint for Fraudulent Transfer in California
Sample Complaint for Specific Performance
Sample Complaint for Unfair Business Practices in California
Sample Complaint for Violations of Fair Debt Collections Practices Act.
Sample Complaint to Renew Judgment under CCP Section 337.5(b)
Sample Corporate Articles and Bylaws for California
Sample Cross-Complaint by Identity Theft Victim in California
Sample Cross-Complaint for Indemnity for California
Sample Custody Stipulation and Order for California
Sample Declaration for California
Sample declaration under Section 377.32 of the California Code of Civil Procedure
Sample Default Judgment Package for California
Sample Demand for Bill of Particulars for California
Sample Demand for Jury Trial for California
Sample Demand Letter for Bill of Particulars in California
Sample Demurrer to Answer for California
Sample Demurrer to Complaint for Breach of Contract
Sample Demurrer to Complaint for Lack of Standing in California
Sample Demurrer to Fraud Complaint for California
Sample Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) Complaint for California
Sample Deposition Notice for California individual
Sample Durable Health Care Power of Attorney for California
Sample Evidentiary Objections for California
Sample Exhibit List for California
Sample Exhibit List for California
Sample Ex-Parte Application for Stay of Execution in California
Sample Ex-Parte Application for TRO
Sample Ex-Parte Application to Vacate Judgment for California
Sample Ex-Parte Motion for California
Sample Ex-Parte Motion to Shorten Time
Sample Fraud Complaint for California
Sample Heggstad Petition for California
Sample Independent Contractor Agreement
Sample Joint Pre-Trial Statement for California
Sample Joint Venture Agreement
Sample Last Will and Testament for California
Sample letter to creditor by California victim of identity theft
Sample Lis Pendens for California
Sample Loan Guaranty
Sample Marital Settlement Agreement for California
Sample Meet and Confer Letter for California
Sample Motion for Assignment Order for California
Sample Motion for Attorney Fees in Divorce Case for California
Sample Motion for Change of Venue for California
Sample Motion for Further Bill of Particulars
Sample Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Defendant
Sample Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings for Plaintiff
Sample Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint in California
Sample Motion for Order Taxing Costs in California
Sample Motion for Set-Aside of Inter-spousal Quitclaim Deed in California Sample Designation of Trade Secrets for California
Sample Motion for Terminating Sanctions
Sample Motion for Withdrawal of Admissions in California
Sample Motion to Amend Judgment for California
Sample Motion to Compel further responses to Requests for Production of Documents
Sample Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories
Sample Motion to Compel Production of Documents
Sample Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
Sample Motion to Compel Responses to Special Interrogatories
Sample Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement for California
Sample Motion to Have Matters Deemed Admitted
Sample Motion to Quash Service for California
Sample Motion to Quash Service for California Unlawful Detainer
Sample Motion to Quash Service for Lack of Jurisdiction
Sample Motion to Strike Answer to a Complaint for California
Sample Motion to Strike for California
Sample Motion to Strike for Unlawful Detainer in California
Sample Motion to Strike Unlawful Detainer Complaint in California
Sample Motion to Vacate California Default Judgment with Attorney Affidavit of Fault
Sample Motion to Vacate Default Judgment for Extrinsic Fraud or Mistake in California
Sample Motion to Vacate Judgment under CCP Section 473 for California
Sample Motion to Vacate Judgment under CCP Section 473.5 for California
Sample Notice of Deposition for Person Most Knowledgeable in California
Sample Notice of Non-Appearance at Hearing for California
Sample Notice of Ruling for California
Sample Notice to Appear at Trial for California
Sample Objection to California Deposition Notice
Sample Offer to Compromise for California pursuant to Section 998 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Sample Opposition to Application for Right to Attach Order
Sample Opposition to Demurrer for California
Sample Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Sample Opposition to Motion for Relief From Stay
Sample Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment in California
Sample Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Inconvenient Forum
Sample Opposition to Motion to Strike for California
Sample opposition to motion to vacate default judgment under Section 473 in California
Sample opposition to motion to vacate default under section 473.5 in California
Sample Partnership Agreement for California
Sample Peremptory Challenge for California
Sample Petition to Compel Arbitration for California
Sample Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award for California
Sample Points and Authorities in Support of Application for a Right to Attach Order
Sample Promissory Note
Sample Proof of Service by Mail for California
Sample Qualified Domestic Relations Order for California
Sample Rental Agreement for California
Sample Request for Judicial Notice for California
Sample Request for Production of Documents for California
Sample Request for Production of Documents for California Divorce
Sample Request for Production of Documents to Defendant for employment law case in California
Sample Request for Statement of Damages for California
Sample Request for Statement of Decision for California
Sample Request for Trial de Novo in California
Sample Responses to Interrogatories for California
Sample Responses to Requests for Admission
Sample Responses to Requests for Production of Documents
Sample Revocable Living Trust for California with Spendthrift Clause
Sample Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release
Sample Slander Complaint for California
Sample Special Interrogatories for California
Sample Stipulation and Order for California
Sample Supplemental Discovery Request for California
Sample Trial Brief for California Litigation
Sample Trial Brief for Divorce case
Sample Verification for California Probate of Estate
Sample Witness List for California
Tenant’s Rights in California
SAMPLE DOCUMENTS FOR FEDERAL CASES INCLUDING UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY AND DISTRICT COURTS:
Sample Adversary Complaint for Fraud
Sample Adversary Complaint for Willful and Malicious Injury
Sample Adversary Complaint to Determine Validity of Liens
Sample Answer to Adversary Complaint
Sample Answer to Civil Complaint in United States District Court
Sample Complaint for Copyright Infringement
Sample Motion for Leave to Amend Adversary Complaint
Sample Motion for Leave to Amend Civil Complaint in United States District Court
Sample Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint for Fraud
Sample Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaint Objecting to Discharge
Sample Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(5) in United States District Court
Sample Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses in Answer for United States District Court
Sample Motion to Vacate Default Judgment under Rule 60(b)(1)
Sample Opposition to Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)6)
Sample Opposition to Rule 4(m) Motion to Dismiss for United States District Court
Sample Opposition to Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment in United States District Court
Sample Request for Documents under Rule 34
Sample Requests for Admission under Rule 36
Sample Written Interrogatories under Rule 33
HOW TO PURCHASE THIS PACKAGE:
To purchase ALL of the documents listed here for only $249.99, and get NO payments and NO interest for 6 months if you qualify* and pay using PayPal use the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.com/downloads.aspx
*Terms and conditions apply.  Be sure to select the Bill Me Later option at checkout.
DISCLAIMER:
All documents were created by a freelance paralegal and entrepreneur who has worked in California and Federal litigation since 1995. The author is NOT an attorney and no warranty, express or implied is included. 

About these ads