When people are not able to pay their credit cards, the credit card companies will hire collection firms to file lawsuits against debtors to collect. Most debtors do not have the funds to hire an attorney so they end up representing themselves. To prevent a default on the lawsuit, the debtor can file an answer using Judicial Council forms.

In San Francisco Superior Court, the court trials for collections are usually held in Department 206 at 9 am. There are two trial calendars in the morning. The 9 am calendar is for cases below $25,000. The 9:30 am calendar is for cases above $25,000.

Usually to prevent a default for someone showing up late, the judge might pass on a case to give people a chance to show up. When it is the plaintiff that does not show up, the judge might dismiss the case. When both parties are present, the judge will ask if the parties are open to settlement discussions. If they are, they are assigned to a judge pro tem, who has a role similar to a mediator. If the defendant does not show up, the plaintiff may request entry of judgment by doing a damages prove up.

In a damages prove up, the plaintiff usually goes to Department 218 in San Francisco. The plaintiff will summarize the case for the judge. If requesting punitive damages in a default in California, the plaintiff has to have given the defendant notice of the request for punitive damages such as in the serving of the complaint. The plaintiff may have a witness to testify on the facts. The plaintiff should take care to bring a witness that has personal knowledge on the facts. The witness should be present unless the plaintiff has notified the court that the witness will testify by declaration.

In the damages prove up, the plaintiff will detail the amount requested by submitting a proposed order to the judge listing the damages, costs, attorneys fees, and any other items. The plaintiff can also submit a trial brief, with information on the credit card payment history, the credit card application the defendant signed when opening the account, and any transfers between the credit card entity to the plaintiff for collections.

After review of the plaintiff's discussions, the judge decides on the award to give the plaintiff. If the judge sees that the defendant's behavior was oppressive, and there is information by plaintiff on the defendant's assets, such as real property or other ability to pay, the judge may order the punitive damages. The judge then signs the order, and leaves it to the plaintiff to take care of collecting the judgment.

A judgment may be renewed after 10 years if it is not paid. All the while that a judgment is not paid, it accrues interest at 10% in California.

On January 11, 2010, the Eighth Circuit held in Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. v. Lindquist that a bankruptcy court properly awarded summary judgment to the bankruptcy trustee in a lawsuit seeking to avoid as a preferential transfer, the pre-petition transfer of a mortgage from the debtor to the bank.

The case involved a debtor who filed Chapter 7. The debtor granted Wells Fargo a mortgage on May 16, 2005. The debtor filed bankruptcy on October 14, 2005. The mortgage holder had not recorded the mortgage prior to Chapter 7 filing. The debtor erroneously listed mortgage as secured in the bankruptcy petition. The trustee in the bankruptcy case filed an adversary action under 11 U.S.C. § 547 pleading the debt was unsecured and transfer of mortgage was preferential. The bankruptcy court held for trustee and ordered Wells Fargo to pay the estate $190,808 (value of mortgage).

The bank failed to record the home mortgage prior to the borrower's filing of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Section 547(e)(2)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code deemed the transfer of the mortgage to have occurred immediately before the debtor filed his bankruptcy petition.

The Wells Fargo case was similar to Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A. v. Taxel, where the Ninth Circuit addressed on January 28, 2010, the issue of whether a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee had actual notice of an unrecorded refinanced mortgage when the bankruptcy petition was electronically filed at the same time as schedules listing the mortgage as a secured debt.

The Ninth Circuit Court ruled the trustee lacked actual notice because the filing of the petition was a distinct event from the filing of the schedules. The trustee became a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Under state bona fide purchaser law, the trustee could avoid the unrecorded mortgage.

The Court rejected Chase Manhattan Bank's equitable subrogation claim. Subrogation means the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand, or right, so that the person who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies. The Court concluded state law gave priority to bona fide purchasers over those claiming equitable subrogation. The creditor whose debt it paid off had no lien since the bank recorded the deed of reconveyance when it refinanced the mortgage. Equitable subrogation could not apply because the trustee was considered a bona fide purchaser for value without notice.

Different types of cloud computing models include software as a service, platform as a service, infrastructure as a service. Software as a service involves hosted software applications with maintenance and updates included in a monthly fee. The customer subscribes to software rather than paying for perpetual license.

Cloud computing offers no upfront investing like software that requires implementation. There are reduced costs, but there is no control on data security or disaster recovery. The customer cannot expect unlimited liability by the vendor because the customer is getting the benefit of scalability, with access by different devices. Contracts are usually nonnegotiable unless the customer buys in high volume.

Cloud computing raises issues for companies that want to protect their intellectual property. The law is not decided on whether placing trade secrets in the cloud protects confidentiality. Besides intellectual property, losing data in the cloud affects consumers. Data may be transferred around the world without the knowledge of consumers. US laws applicable to cloud computing include: Federal Trade Commission Act, state breach notification laws, state information security laws, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for financial industry, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, Patriot Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The Act will impose executive compensation and corporate governance requirements on public companies and public and some private financial institutions. New powers for public company shareholders include:

• Nonbinding shareholder say-on-pay vote at least once every three years. The Act requires public companies with securities registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to give shareholders a "say-on-pay" by including a separate, non-binding proposal allowing shareholders to vote on the compensation of executive officers.
• Nonbinding shareholder vote on golden parachutes in change of control transactions, separate from a vote approving the transaction. The Act requires every proxy statement seeking a shareholder vote to approve an acquisition, merger, consolidation or proposed sale of assets to include any agreements with any named executive officer of the seller concerning compensation based on or relates to the transaction and the aggregate total compensation.
• Shareholder access to issuer proxy materials for nominating director candidates.
• Prohibition against broker voting of securities without instruction from the beneficial owner in election of directors.

New disclosure requirements for public companies include:

• Relationship of executive compensation to shareholder return in proxy materials. The Act requires the SEC to amend its disclosure rules for proxy statements to require a disclosure of the relationship between compensation actually paid to named executive officers and the financial performance of the issuer.
• Ratio of chief executive officer pay to the median compensation of other employees in securities filings such as prospectuses, annual reports, proxy statements. The Act requires the SEC to amend its regulations to require that any prospectus, proxy statement or annual report filed with the SEC include a disclosure of (a) median of the annual total compensation of all employees of the issuer (other than the chief executive officer), (b) annual total compensation of the chief executive officer, and (c) relationship between the foregoing amounts.
• Issuer's policy on separation of the roles of chairman and chief executive officer.
• Compensation consultants' conflicts of interest.

For example, insurance companies are obligated under policies to pay an insured for property damage or personal injury which the insured sustained. When the damages appear to have been caused by the negligence or fault of third parties, insurance companies pursue claims against the alleged third party tortfeasors to recover insurance payouts to the insured. For instance, a landlord rents a house to a tenant who causes a fire to the house by leaving a pan on the stove with oil in it. The house burns down, and the landlord goes to his fire insurance company for funds to rebuild the house. The insurance company can recover the funds from the tenant if it is able to prove negligence.

In a subrogation lawsuit, the judge at trial will ask the insurance company how negligence will be proved. Sometimes the insurance company thinks that the defendant will default, and will not be prepared to prove negligence, but only damages. In default, the insurance company can prove up damages with photographs of damages and the invoices on construction costs to rebuild or amounts paid to the insured.

To prepare to prove negligence, the insurance company will need to interview witnesses like the defendant on what caused a fire, or the incident. The insurance company should send an adjuster or representative who took part in the interviews or read the claims logs so that statements can be authenticated for admissibility into evidence as business records, or exceptions to hearsay. When a defendant sees a plaintiff that is unprepared, the defendant might offer less in settlement because a plaintiff unable to show liability could end up with nothing at trial.

In a subrogation lawsuit, the insurance company should also send someone to the trial who has settlement authority. A plaintiff is lucky when it comes across a defendant that has a lot of money. While everyone can say he's poor, the plaintiff can be prepared to stay firm on a demand by checking into the assets of the defendant like seeing if he owns any homes, whether he's close to filing bankruptcy, what other debts he has. Most plaintiffs would rather get what they can without having to deal with collections even when they get the big judgment. A defendant can threaten bankruptcy when negotiating settlement by scaring a plaintiff into accepting a low amount because if the defendant filed bankruptcy, the plaintiff might get nothing, or at least there would be a delay in payment.

Once assigned a judge for settlement prior to trial, the judge assists in presenting demands to opposing parties, but when settlement does not result, the case gets set for trial. A party not ready for trial might ask for a continuance, but a judge is not expected to grant a continuance for not being prepared. Prior to trial, the parties can still discuss settlement informally. Sometimes parties end up settling the minute before beginning trial.

The article was based on a 10 year study of people who seem to be lucky in every area of life - marriage, financial stability, children, career - and people who appear to be accident-prone and always at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wiseman concluded that thoughts and behaviors are responsible for much of the events that occur in the lives of people down on luck. Lucky people tend to look fear in the face and say they do not care. They do not look at where they have been but where they are going. Unlucky people miss opportunities because they are too tense with anxiety disrupting their ability to notice the unexpected. Lucky people are less focused so they see more. Wiseman gave the example of searching for a partner. Unlucky people go to parties intent to find the perfect someone and miss good opportunities to make friends. They miss chances because they are less relaxed, too routine, and not open to see things other than what they are looking for.

Wiseman summarized the luck formula: lucky people create and notice chance opportunities, make decisions by listening to intuition, have positive expectations, and adopt resilient attitudes to transform bad into good. Even when things go bad, lucky people imagine how things could be worst. For instance, someone who suffers from balance issues for two months after being hit by a truck might feel lucky because he could have been killed.

A tenant's duty to pay rent is subject to a material breach by the landlord.

If the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the leasehold, the tenant's obligation to pay rent is excused due to constructive eviction only if the tenant gives notice and vacates the property within a reasonable amount of time.

For example, Tenant had a 12 month apartment lease but moved out after 7 months. Tenant repeatedly complained to Landlord about the malfunctioning of the toilet and drain, but Landlord did nothing. Without a functioning toilet and drain, Tenant's use and enjoyment of an apartment was substantially interfered with. Tenant might withhold rent to cover the costs of hiring plumbers. If the plumbers could not repair the malfunctioning, Tenant might move out. In a breach of contract action against Tenant for failure to pay rent, Tenant would have a valid claim for constructive eviction, and might not be liable for the remaining term of the lease or rent withheld.

The landlord must provide property that is reasonably suited for residential use. Most states now require the landlord to repair. If the landlord breaches, the tenant may (1) refuse to pay rent, (2) remedy the defect and offset the cost against the rent, or (3) defend against eviction if the premises are not safe or habitable.

For example, an apartment was arguably not habitable because it did not have a functioning drain and toilet. Tenant withheld rent to offset the costs of plumbers he hired. When the plumbers were not able to repair the malfunctioning, Tenant moved out and stopped paying the rent after seven months. In a breach of contract action against Tenant for failure to pay rent, Tenant would have a valid claim for violation of warranty of habitability, and might not be liable for remaining term of the lease or the rent withheld.

Although an interest in a joint tenancy cannot be devised, joint tenants can convey all or part of their individual interests during their lifetime to a third party, severing the joint tenancy. Once the joint tenancy interest is transferred during the lifetime, the right of survivorship to that interest is destroyed and converted to a tenancy in common.

A joint tenant may grant a mortgage interest in the joint tenancy property to a creditor. In the lien theory jurisdiction (majority view), the mortgage is only a lien on the property and does not sever the joint tenancy absent a default and foreclosure sale.

For example, B and A bought a house with a deed of title that provided they were "joint tenants with rights of survivorship". B borrowed $10,000 from Lender on his own without A knowing, and gave Lender a mortgage on the house as security for the loan. If A died, under the lien theory, at A's death, A's interest would pass to B through the right of survivorship, resulting in B getting a fee simple absolute, subject to Lender's mortgage, and leaving A's estate no interest in the house.

In a title theory jurisdiction (minority view), a mortgage severs the title and the tenancy between the joint tenants and creditor is converted into a tenancy in common.

Adverse possession allows ownership to be granted to a person who exercises exclusive, continuous, actual, open and notorious, hostile, physical possession of property for a certain amount of time. But, it would be difficult for a joint tenant to argue ownership of an entire property after the death of a joint tenant in a title theory jurisdiction even if the person lived at the property alone because the use of the property was not hostile from the unity of possession.

A joint tenant must account to cotenants for rent received from third parties, but can deduct operating expenses when calculating net proceeds.

A joint tenant can collect contribution from cotenants for paying more than his portion of operating expenses (i.e. taxes or mortgage interest), unless he is the only one in physical possession of the property and his use is equal to or outweighs the overpayment.

Even when a big rig truck hits an innocent pedestrian within a crosswalk when the light is green, the truck driver and insurance company will think of numerous ways to delay settlement, not apologize, or payout the least possible to the accident victim. First, the truck driver might claim there was a witness and assess comparative fault on the innocent victim. When this happens, the claimant should ask that the witness be substantiated. The insurance adjuster for the wrongdoer might claim work product on the witness statement, and compel the claimant to file a lawsuit. When the witness happens to coincidentally be affiliated with the wrongdoer, like a door company that receives building suppliers from the trucking company, there is cause for bad faith settlement concerns. The accident victim should not be afraid to invest in getting a filed endorsed copy of a complaint by the court to send to the insurance adjuster to show how serious getting a fair and reasonable settlement is.

As to medical expenses, when a claimant has foresight in having his own health insurance, wrongdoers argue claimants should not be entitled to a double recovery when there are contractual write offs by medical providers from agreements with the claimant's health insurance. The tortfeasor argues the windfall should go to him so that he does not have to pay the damages actually caused. This is in direct opposition to the collateral source rule. When people pay premiums to protect themselves with insurance, they should benefit from the existence of that coverage. It does not represent a double benefit when someone pays premiums for months and years.

In Peri v. Los Angeles Junction Ry.Co. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 111, 131, the court decided that while it is true the plaintiff in the case received compensation while he was unable to work, that sum may not be deducted from his loss of earnings recovery, because it was received from an insurance company under a policy owned and held by him. Damages recoverable from a wrong are not diminished by the fact that the party injured has been wholly or partly indemnified for his loss by insurance effected by him, and to the procurement of which the wrongdoer did not contribute.

In Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970) 2 Cal.3d 1), the court explained that the collateral source rule encouraged citizens to purchase and maintain insurance for personal injuries. The tortfeaser should not garner the benefits of his victim's providence. An injured party's compensation from a source wholly independent of the defendant should not be deducted from damages otherwise collectible from the defendant. The court ruled all evidence of collateral sources inadmissible.

In this recession, riding public transportation in San Francisco is no longer a simple concept of either purchasing a monthly discount fast pass or paying a single ride fare. In the past few years, police patrols have stepped up in making sure people pay their fares by going on rides and ticketing people $75 for expired transfers or no proof of payments. These days, it might take more than $2 to get from one place to another when transfers sometimes expire during a ride that takes over 1 hour.

There has also been the introduction of different types of fast passes. Most recently, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) Board of Directors and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Board of Directors approved a pilot program to allow senior and disabled customers unlimited access to BART in San Francisco and on all Muni transit services with a MUNI Senior/Disabled Pilot Pass.

Fare gates operated by BART within San Francisco will be programmed to accept the Senior/Disabled Pilot Pass and the pass will be accepted on all Muni vehicles. To participate in this pilot program, seniors and persons with disabilities must register for a random lottery by going to www.sfmta.com/pilotpass or calling 311.

Persons with disabilities and seniors must demonstrate eligibility for the Senior/Disabled Pilot Pass with a Regional Transit Connection (RTC) Discount ID Card. A Discount ID Card costs $3.00 for new, renewal, or visitor; $5.00 for replacement. All pilot pass participants must carry their purchased pass and a valid ID at all times to verify age or disability when using MUNI or BART within San Francisco. The pilot passes may only be used by the person for whom they are issued.

People get off insulting others by the how bad things look, and highlight people who live double lives -married lawmaker on family matters committee boasting about lobbyist mistresses, doctor with $150K/month salary overdosing celebrity client, diligent lab technician murdering a co-worker, home run king losing for cheating. It's not education, family upbringing, or affluence that motivates people to cross the lines, but even when people make assumptions from prior conduct, life always brings unpredictability. Everyone is a mystery, changing at every meeting, transforming from kindness to hatred. Memories do not define people in the moment when disassociating from someone causes another to miss out, or listening to someone benefits the adviser more than the counseled.

Fast forward 3 years from Moon's article to 2010. Though Bonds' legal troubles might have took a bite of his savings, there is no news on any bankruptcy filings by him. In June 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that drug-test records prosecutors linked Bonds to steroid use could not be admitted as evidence against him in his trial on perjury charges, unless prosecutors could compel Greg Anderson to confirm the blood and urine samples that tested positive in a confidential 2001 drug screening came from Bonds.

When Greg Anderson refused to testify, the federal appeals court deemed the lab records inadmissible because there was no evidence the blood and urine tested came from Bonds.