Mr. Rambin refuted the claims by stating he did not guarantee marriage and he did not process background checks on the members as declared on his website. Moreover, he concluded by declaring his website listed a thirty day money back guarantee for clients who were not satisfied. My Verdict
Since the 1970’s people have been going to court to ask the government to legalize gay marriage. From the cases in 1970’s like Loving v. Virginia and the more recent cases like United States v. Edith Windsor. In this case, Windsor and Thea were a same sex couple who were married in Canada, but they lived in New York which recognized their marriage. After Thea passed away, the estate was left with Windsor. Under federal law their marriage was not recognized, so Windsor was asked to pay taxes on the estate.
We have a home equity loan that was reviewed as part of the SAFE act audit with a missing note. We have a credit application and the mortgage; however, we can’t locate the note in Mortgage Flex. Besides not being able to foreclose on the property in an event of a delinquency is there any violations in regulations that we need to be
The Court 's ruling in Stern v. Marshall (2011) barred bankruptcy courts from issuing judgments like the one Smith had been awarded by the Californian bankruptcy court. In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that "the Bankruptcy Court...lacked the constitutional authority" to enter judgment on her counterclaim against E. Pierce. More recently, a decision by U.S. District Judge David O. Carter may have ended the chances of Anna Nicole 's only heir, her daughter, to collect from E. Pierce 's estate. The judge dismissed an attempt to collect sanctions from the Marshall family over the tactics they and their lawyers had employed during the lengthy litigation over the estate. Dannielynn Birkhead, who once stood to inherit millions, could end up inheriting nothing despite her mother 's attempts to contest Marshall 's will, as well as her attempts to sue his son, and then his son 's estate, for
On 01/26/2016 client Akia Thomas came to the SSO to meet with DOE to obtain weekly metro cards. HS De La Torre approached to the client and kindly asked Ms. Thomas if she is able to stay in order to complete a Housing Plan. Ms. Thomas stayed and the following was discussed during meeting. Ms. Thomas informed HS that last permanent address was located at 155-17 116 St. Jamaica Ave. Queens, NY from Jan, 2012 to 07/10/2014. Client left the apartment because grandfather passed away and ACS was called and they found the apartment no suitable for the family.
In Arizona, the decision of the court to modify parenting time will often result in a modification of child support. In the case of Heidbreder v. Heidbreder, the Arizona Court of Appeals must determine whether the trial court erred in modifying child support without a modification request from either party, as well as other relevant legal factors pertaining to this particular case: adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard. On June 29, 2010, Jodi and Gregg Heidbreder dissolved their marriage by consent decree. Both agreed to share joint legal custody of the two minor children with Jodi (Mother) being the primary residential parent. Both also agreed that Gregg (Father) would pay $1,000/month in child support to Mother.
Jonathan, I agree with you completely that the only oral contract she needs to honor is the one with the attorney. The oral contracts with Hermes and the builder fall under the statue of frauds and would not be legally enforceable. Suzy does have to honor her oral contract with the attorney because the attorney performs the service of investigating the title and records associated with the land within the one year limit and informs Suzy of the information that has been found about the land. The oral contract with the attorney would be legally enforceable.
The day before John Adams left office, he signed documents to appoint the Midnight Judges, who were Federalists. William Marbury was one of the judges in which he was appointed for Justice of the Peace. James Madison didn’t deliver them, at the request of Thomas Jefferson. Marbury petitioned Madison over the failure of the delivery. Based on a 4-0 vote by the justices, Chief Justice John Marshall announced that although Marbury had a right to his notice, the Supreme Court couldn’t force Madison to deliver them.
This office represents Plaintiff, Eric Avogardo, in the above-captioned case. Please accept this letter-brief in lieu of a more formal reply and opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order pending for April 28, 2017 for the deposition and materials of Nancy Holden, Senior Claims Examiner of Lancer Insurance Company. The New Jersey Supreme Court Rules governing discovery in civil cases are designed to eliminate as far as possible concealment and surprise at trial, so that cases are decided upon their merits rather than the skill and maneuvering of counsel. Abtrax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 512 (1995). R. 4:14-7 permits parties to subpoena the attendance of witnesses in order to prepare and present
Gardner (2014), writing for The Hollywood Reporter, states that one of Disney’s earlier attempts to end the lawsuit was by referencing to a past copyright infringement lawsuit case between Funky Film’s The Funk Parlor and HBO’s Six Feet Under. This old lawsuit describes how “both works began with the same premise of a family-run funeral home confronting the unexpected death of the father”. But in the end, the court concluded that both works were not considerably similar to one another. Disney believes Wilson’s lawsuit is equally the same. However, Gardner’s (2014) article reveals that this attempt by Disney failed to have the lawsuit dismissed as California federal judge Vince Chhabria notes that: "The sequence of events in both works, from start to finish, is too parallel to conclude that no reasonable juror could find the works substantially
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
MHP took the member home once his prescription was filed. The member states he forget to make follow up appointment with the doctor for next month. MHP told the member she will schedule follow up appointment and will let him know the date and time. The member report that he still want to find a senior citizen apartment. MHP told the member that he will be responsible for paying for the first month rent and security deposit.
In the federal courts judgment as a matter of law is governed under Rule 50(a) also commonly known as JMOL. In a JMOL the judge not the jury will find for or against one of the parties in a trial. JMOL is available before the jury begins to deliberate but only after one or both parties have finished presenting their case. After the plaintiff has finished presenting his case including all supporting evidence the defendant has the opportunity to argue that no jury would be in favor of the plaintiff based on such evidence or lack thereof, therefore the court should rule in favor of the defendant. In a motion for JMOL a party is saying that all the evidence and the law supports in the opposing side, if the judge agrees stating that all facts and the law in facts lie with the defendant and the judge grands the motion than the judge will decide on the issue not the jury.
. I believe the two situations are different because the arbitration clause in the insurance policy, that was sold by Sphere Drake Ins. Co., was well known by Rosalie & Matteo Corporation, the party that bought the policy. In the Brower vs. Gateway case, the arbitration clause was stuck in paperwork, that was stuck in the box that the computer came in. Brower had no idea about the clause until it was time to file the lawsuit.
The other two customers that come to mind when thinking of why loan officers should receive credit for FCE loans are not current members of the ACA, but were being prospected. These customers actually contained me prior to going through FCE and asked what kind of rate we could do on the equipment, as they had been quoted an FCE rate, and wanted to give me a shot at matching that rate before going through FCE at the dealership level. AgSouth could not match the rate and the prospects ended up going through FCE. These are 4 customers that come to mind regarding why loan officers should get credit for Farm Credit Express loan. The four customers mentioned above could have been four additional loans with two being new BE’s.