For most Americans, their home is their most valuable asset.  One of the biggest questions that any person who is considering bankruptcy or is facing mounting debts with aggressive creditors will ask is, “Will I lose my house?”

Filing a homestead exemption may provide protections from certain creditors and keep the equity in your home from being taken.  A homestead exemption can protect your property’s equity from certain creditors if you file for bankruptcy or are anticipating eventual judgments in favor of those creditors.  This is all within certain exemption limits and, also, with limitations of application.  The limits are higher for seniors and disabled homeowners. 

The home being protected must be the homeowner’s primary residence for all purposes.

As of April 1, 2019, California allows for the following pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 704.710, 704.720, and 704.730:

• If the homeowner is single and not disabled, then the homeowner may be legally exempt up to $75,000 of equity accrued in the home.  This amount increases to $100,000 if the homeowner is married.
• If the homeowner is 65 years old or older, then the homeowner may be exempt up to $175,000.  Or, this exemption amount may apply if the homeowner is at least 55 years old and has low income and creditors are forcing the sale of the home.

As it relates to bankruptcy law, the exemption applies to Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 bankruptcies.  Depending on how much equity may exist beyond the applicable exemption amount, a trustee may still decide to sell your property.  Talk to an attorney for details.

An important caveat with homestead exemptions is the following:

• If your home is being foreclosed upon by a mortgage lender or bank, a homestead exemption will not protect your equity.
• If the homeowner has a judgment against him/her for marital support, child support or if the property has a mechanic’s liens, then a homestead exemption will not offer protection.

In short, homestead exemptions offer protections from certain creditors or can protect equity in the case of an eventual bankruptcy. 

A homeowner should consult with his or her attorney and tax planning professional to discuss the filing of a homestead exemption.

By: Steven E. Alfieris, Esq.

For the general public: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm publisher, Dias Law Firm, Inc., for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law, but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

For attorneys: This Blog/Web Site is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research or a consultation on specific matters pertaining to your clients. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, the contents of this blog must not be relied upon as a basis for arguments to a court or for your advice to clients without, again, further research or a consultation with our professionals.

Photo 34881726 © Luckydoor – Dreamstime.com

How has the pandemic, COVID-19, affected a person’s ability to file a lawsuit?  Governor, Gavin Newsom issued shelter-in-place orders on March 19, 2020.  And from those orders, some counties shut down their courthouses, and some did not.  Our local court, Kings County Superior Court, remained open throughout the spring and summer.  But since, some courthouses closed, the California Judicial Council imposed Emergency Rule 9,which suspended the statute of limitations for civil actions from March 6, 2020, until ninety (90) days after the governor lifted the state of emergency.  Emergency Rule 9 was subsequently amended and clarified that cases that have a statute of limitations less than six (6) months or one hundred eighty (180) days, the statute of limitations is tolled (or on hold) until August 3, 2020.  For cases that have a statute of limitations that is more than six (6) months or one hundred eighty (180) days, then the statute of limitations is tolled (or on hold) until October 1, 2020. 

This emergency rule is intended to apply broadly to any civil action – including family law, probate law, employment law and any special proceedings.  For a plaintiff who missed a statute of limitations deadline after April 6, 2020, he or she may have an extended opportunity to file a lawsuit.  For a defendant, it may mean that he or she may have to fight a lawsuit that would have otherwise been time barred.

Let the knowledgeable attorneys at Dias Law Firm, Inc. assist you with your legal matter.  Call us for a consultation today!

By: Sarah M. Hacker, Esq.

For the general public: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm publisher, Dias Law Firm, Inc., for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law, but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

For attorneys: This Blog/Web Site is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research or a consultation on specific matters pertaining to your clients. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, the contents of this blog must not be relied upon as a basis for arguments to a court or for your advice to clients without, again, further research or a consultation with our professionals.

Photo 103768433 © Designer491 – Dreamstime.com

On August 31, 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom and the California legislature enacted the Tenant, Homeowner, and Small Landlord Relief and Stabilization Act of 2020.  This legislation has been touted to protect millions of tenants from eviction and property owners from foreclosure due to the economic impacts of COVID-19.  It is important to note that these protections apply to those tenants who declare an inability to pay all or part of their rent due to a COVID-related reason; however, landlords can immediately pursue any case that does not involve a tenant who has been unable to pay because of a financial hardship related to the pandemic. 

Under the legislation, no residential tenant who provides a declaration of hardship under penalty of perjury can be evicted before February 1, 2021, as a result of rent owed due to a COVID-19 related hardship accrued between March 4, 2020, through August 31, 2020.  Further, no residential tenant can be evicted for a COVID-19 related hardship that accrues between September 1, 2020, through January 31, 2021, if the tenant returns a declaration of hardship under penalty of perjury and pays at least 25% of the rent due.  All higher income tenants who make more than 130% of the median income in their area, if it is above $100,000, must provide documentation to support their declaration upon a landlord’s request.  

Tenants are still responsible for paying all unpaid amounts to landlords for any unpaid rent due between March 4, 2020, through January 31, 2021, which landlords may begin to recover this debt in Small Claims court on March 1, 2021.  The jurisdiction for small claims court has been temporarily expanded to allow landlords to recover those amounts and will sunset on February 1, 2025.  Landlords who do not follow the court eviction process, i.e. locking the tenant out, throwing property out onto the curb, shutting off utilities, etc., will receive increased penalties under the Act.

The legislation further provides additional legal and financial protections for tenants as follows:

            1.         Extends notice period for nonpayment of rent from 3 to 15 days for tenants to respond to landlord’s notice to pay rent or quit;

            2.         Requires landlords to provide hardship declaration forms in a different language if rental agreement was negotiated in a different language;

            3.         Provides tenants a backstop if they have a good reason for failing to return hardship declaration within 15 days;

            4.         Requires landlords to provide tenants a notice detailing their rights under the Act;

            5.         Limits public disclosure of eviction cases involving nonpayment of rent between March 4, 2020, through January 31, 2021; and

            6.         Protects tenants against being evicted for “just cause” if the landlord is shown to be evicting the tenant for COVID-19 related nonpayment of rent.

The legislation also extends anti-foreclosure protections in the Homeowner Bill of Rights to small landlords with 1 to 4 non-owner occupied units, provides new accountability and transparency provisions to protect small landlord borrowers who request CARES-compliant forbearance, and provides the borrower who is harmed by a material violation with a cause of action.  Lastly, the existing local ordinances can generally remain in place until they expire, and future local action cannot undermine this Act’s framework.

The knowledgeable attorneys at Dias Law Firm, Inc. are here to help with your eviction or foreclosure issues.  Contact us today for a consultation.

By: Jonette M. Montgomery, Esq.

For the general public: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm publisher, Dias Law Firm, Inc., for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law, but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

For attorneys: This Blog/Web Site is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research or a consultation on specific matters pertaining to your clients. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, the contents of this blog must not be relied upon as a basis for arguments to a court or for your advice to clients without, again, further research or a consultation with our professionals.

Illustration 184938555 © Tang90246 – Dreamstime.com

The Judicial Council of California voted on August 13, 2020, to end two (2) temporary emergency rules governing evictions and judicial foreclosures at midnight on Sept. 1, 2020.  Emergency Rule 1 has made it nearly impossible to evict tenants during the current COVID-19 pandemic, which was originally set to remain in effect until 90 days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until amended or repealed by the Judicial Council.  More specifically, Emergency Rule 1(b) and (c) prohibit the issuance of a summons on a complaint and the court’s entry of default or a default judgment for restitution in an unlawful detainer action unless the court finds, in its discretion and on the record, that the action is necessary to protect public health and safety.  In the event that a defendant appears in the action, Emergency Rule 1(d) provides that the court may not set a trial date earlier than sixty (60) days after a request for trial is made unless the court finds that an earlier trial date is necessary to protect public health and safety.  Emergency Rule 2 stayed all judicial foreclosure actions on a mortgage or deed of trust unless the court finds that action is required to further the public health and safety until ninety (90) days after the Governor declares that the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic is lifted, or until this rule is amended or repealed by the Judicial Council.  Emergency Rule 2 further tolled any statute of limitations for filing a judicial foreclosure action and extended any right of redemption from a foreclosure sale or petitioning the court in relation to such a right.

California is still under a State of Emergency proclaimed by Governor Newsom on March 4, 2020, and there are numerous executive orders still in force.  In one of those executive orders, the Governor provided the chair of the Judicial Council with unprecedented temporary authority to take action to protect the health and safety of all who have business in the courts and work there, and to maintain the safe and orderly operations of California’s courts in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  This was during the time that the Legislature was not in session.  Emergency Rules 1 and 2 were originally approved by the Judicial Council at a special remote meeting on April 6, 2020, which were never intended to be in effect on a long-term basis.  Then, the vote by the members of the Judicial Council originally scheduled on June 10, 2020, was suspended by Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye to provide the executive and legislative branches with more time to develop appropriate policy proposals and solutions to deal with the potential impacts of evictions and foreclosures during the COVID-19 pandemic.  The Judicial Council’s decision to end Emergency Rules 1 and 2 on September 1, 2020, was by a 19-1 vote by circulating order on August 13, 2020.  After the vote, Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye made several comments wherein he urged Governor Newsom and the legislature leaders to act before the expiration of the current moratorium and the massive wave of evictions that is expected to occur in California.  At this point, it is unknown what is going to happen, and we must wait and see what our legislature and Governor do in the next few days.  Unless there is an alternative solution to halt evictions by our legislature and Governor, the current moratorium will expire on September 1, 2020, and all evictions and judicial foreclosures will proceed throughout the State of California.

Contact Dias Law Firm, Inc. today for a consultation with our knowledgeable attorneys regarding your eviction or foreclosure issues.  Our firm is here to help.

By: Jonette M. Montgomery, Esq.

For the general public: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm publisher, Dias Law Firm, Inc., for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law, but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

For attorneys: This Blog/Web Site is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research or a consultation on specific matters pertaining to your clients. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, the contents of this blog must not be relied upon as a basis for arguments to a court or for your advice to clients without, again, further research or a consultation with our professionals.

Photo 190654884 © LakshmiPrasad Lucky – Dreamstime.com

Eminent Domain is the power of the government to acquire private property for public use under the theory that this power is an attribute of the sovereignty of the government.

The private landowner, however, is protected by the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  The California Constitution provides the same protection.  This means that whenever the Federal or State government takes property through eminent domain, it has a constitutional responsibility to justly compensate the property owner for the fair market value of the property. 

Eminent domain can be exercised to acquire privately-owned land for public use, such as Kings County is currently experiencing with the High-Speed Rail.  Land has also been acquired for courthouses, forts, highways, and other public spaces such as parks.

In order to obtain the land, it has to be privately held and the owner is unwilling to sell it outright to the government.  The government may take all or some of a landowner’s property, which is usually called a taking.  The landowner, however, must receive “just compensation.”  But what is just compensation?  Because the government (Federal or State) has the right to take the land, the majority of the litigation surrounding eminent domain involves determining what is just compensation.  Just compensation means the fair market value of the property on the date it is appropriated. 

The State will present the landowner with an offer to purchase the land, along with its appraisal of the fair market value of the property.  Oftentimes, the State’s appraisal will differ greatly from the landowner’s perception of value, usually because the landowner has a more detailed understanding of how much his or her property is worth.  For example, a farmer is more likely to know the value of his or her orchard’s infrastructure and production than the State.  As such, the landowner often will obtain an independent appraisal.  This may be much higher than the State’s, depending upon factors such as crop production over time, age of the trees, installation of new irrigation, etc.

The theory behind just compensation is that the landowner should not bear the full cost of the public benefit, but that the entire public (because they are receiving the benefit of the taking, such as using a highway) must also shoulder the compensation to the landowner.  The courts have long supported this theory, finding that “The right of eminent domain…cannot be exercised except upon condition that just compensation shall be made to the owner;…it is the duty of the state…to see that it is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public which is to pay for it.”  Searl v. School Dist., 133 U.S. 553, 562 (1890).

As the parties (landowner and government actor) negotiate their way through the eminent domain process, they can arrive at a value, or compensation, that is acceptable to the landowner.  As with many government functions, this process can be long and complicated.  Dias Law Firm, Inc. has represented many local landowners in this type of litigation.  Call our office today for a consultation with our experienced attorneys.

By: Paula C. Clark, Esq.

For the general public: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm publisher, Dias Law Firm, Inc., for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law, but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

For attorneys: This Blog/Web Site is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research or a consultation on specific matters pertaining to your clients. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, the contents of this blog must not be relied upon as a basis for arguments to a court or for your advice to clients without, again, further research or a consultation with our professionals.

Photo credit: ID 122511589 © Larry Metayer | Dreamstime.com

Have you been thinking about bankruptcy?

You are not alone.  While employment statistics reported in June of 2020 were slightly better than May, California’s unemployment rate was still at 16.3% and over 3 million fewer Californians are currently employed compared to last year (source: California’s Employment Development Department press release, June 12, 2020).  In economically troubling times, bankruptcy could be the best option for more and more Californians.

Many people wonder about keeping their property, especially their home and vehicles, when they file for bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy is a complicated subject, and there are usually at least 2 different types of bankruptcy that people can choose to file.  One of those, called “Chapter 7” after the name of the chapter of the federal Bankruptcy Code, can result in a complete discharge of most or sometimes all unsecured debt without repaying anything to creditors.  However, there are some limitations to how this works.  Sometimes debtors who do not understand bankruptcy laws make assumptions that simply are not true.  This can result in disastrous results if their home, car, or even business assets are seized and sold.

When debtors (this is what the Bankruptcy Code calls individuals or married couples) petition the court to resolve their debt, they submit their financial situation to an administrative review by a trustee who must determine whether their unsecured assets meet the standards for exemption from being seized and sold to pay their creditors. A complicating factor is that California has 2 different systems for exempting certain property from being sold in chapter 7 bankruptcy.  One of those systems is more generous to debtors with equity in a home, while the other is more generous to persons with equity in personal property like vehicles.

One of the most important things a bankruptcy attorney can do for debtors is to properly classify their assets and choose the exemption system that allows them to keep the most, or the most important assets.  A bankruptcy attorney can also help debtors determine whether chapter 7 (discharging all debts) or chapter 13 (a court-managed repayment plan) makes the most sense.

Don’t try to navigate this complicated subject alone.  The experienced bankruptcy attorneys at Dias Law Firm, Inc. in Hanford offer a free 30-minute consultation to debtors who are considering filing for bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy probably is not as expensive as you think, and we offer payment plans for your legal fees if you decide to proceed.  Give us a call today!

By: David M. Lange, Esq.

For the general public: This Blog/Web Site is made available by the law firm publisher, Dias Law Firm, Inc., for educational purposes. It provides general information and a general understanding of the law, but does not provide specific legal advice. By using this site, commenting on posts, or sending inquiries through the site or contact email, you confirm that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Blog/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.

For attorneys: This Blog/Web Site is informational in nature and is not a substitute for legal research or a consultation on specific matters pertaining to your clients. Due to the dynamic nature of legal doctrines, what might be accurate one day may be inaccurate the next. As such, the contents of this blog must not be relied upon as a basis for arguments to a court or for your advice to clients without, again, further research or a consultation with our professionals.

ID 179633655 © Inna Dodor | Dreamstime.com

The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, was signed into legislation on March 27, 2020, and was intended to redress some of the economic pain our nation is suffering as a result of COVID-19.  This article will address three sections of the CARES Act aimed at helping small businesses during these difficult times:  (1) Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loans, (2) forgiveness of PPP Loans, and (3) the Emergency Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program and Grant.

(more…)

In response to the escalating spread of the COVID-19 virus, and to reduce the impact of the virus on families and the economy, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.  Known as the Families First Act, the law creates expanded employee benefits and protections related to COVID-19, including a new federal paid sick leave law, an emergency expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and expanded unemployment insurance provisions.

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)

(more…)

The new year is fast-approaching and employers should be aware that several new labor and employment laws will become effective when the clock strikes midnight and the last of the confetti falls.  In fact, the California legislature and Governor Newsom passed several significant laws this year that will go into effect on January 1, 2020. (more…)

An ignition interlock device is a blood alcohol testing device similar to a breathalyzer that is wired into a vehicle’s ignition system. The device requires a breath sample from the driver in order to start the engine. (more…)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Over the past decade, social media and its numerous platforms have grown exponentially.  While social media, undoubtedly, has its perks, it has proven to have a number of pitfalls. (more…)

The Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA) is a federal law (50 U.S.C. §§ 3901-4043) that provides a wide range of benefits and protections to those in military service.  The SCRA also provides certain benefits and protections to dependents and, in certain instances, to those who co-signed a loan for, or took out a loan with, a servicemember.  (more…)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Generally, an irrevocable trust, by its terms, is one that cannot be modified.  However, the Probate Code identifies limited circumstances in which modification is allowed, (more…)

When one thinks of sexual harassment at work, the visual that comes to mind is a boss or co-worker being the offender.  However, a customer or client may be the person treating the worker improperly. Depending on the situation, reporting such issues to management may be even more difficult than reporting on a supervisor or co-worker. (more…)

When parents divorce or partners separate and children are involved, custody often becomes an issue.  As such, the court’s main concern is the best interest of the child.  Many factors can be considered by the courts, including substance and alcohol abuse. (more…)

 

 

 

 

 

In California, when a landlord wants a tenant to vacate their leased premises, a landlord may have to have court involvement and file an unlawful detainer (“UD”) action to have the tenant removed.  A UD action can be initiated for a variety of things, but the most common actions stem from the tenant failing to follow a provision of their lease. (more…)

There’s a commonly held belief among both employers and employees that salaried employees are not entitled to be paid overtime, however, this isn’t always true. In fact, the amount you have to pay an overtime exempt employee from year-to-year has probably changed a lot since the last time you thought about making your valued employee a salary man (or woman!). (more…)

Going through a divorce can be a difficult process. No one enjoys dividing their property and it is especially emotional discussing custody plans for your children, but what about your family pet(s)? Because California is a community property state, the courts recognize pets as personal property and when a couple divorce, each spouse is entitled to half the value of the animal. (more…)

Everyone makes mistakes…but they don’t have to stay on your record forever. Many criminal defendants who are charged with crimes spend a lot of time and effort to fight the case. However, the fight does not end when the criminal defendant is convicted. (more…)

As an employer, state and federal laws establish how much an employee can work and how an employee must be compensated for those hours worked. Failing to follow these laws allows an employee to sue the employer, and in some instances, the employer could be subjected to civil and/or criminal penalties. (more…)