Nowadays, if you fall behind on your credit card payments, you can expect to hear from someone about it. When credit card accounts fall too far behind, the debt is often sold by the credit card company to a debt collection agency for a fraction of the total amount. The debt collection agency then typically comes after you in an effort to reclaim the debt, but they may only lawfully do so using certain methods.
What is a whistleblower? A whistleblower is an employee who does the right thing, stands up and in good faith lets management, a government agency or the press know that something unethical or illegal may be going on. Hopefully in most instances good things happen as a result. Perhaps the person didn't know the whole picture, misunderstood something or management changed its course to be more ethical or comply with the law.
Managing credit card debt is a fact of life for most Americans. As a nation, our credit card debt is only exceeded by our student loan debt. During uncertain economic times, these resources can be a lifesaver. The hard part happens when things begin t o swing back upward and it comes time to pay them off. Luckily, there are some proven strategies that can help you get that debt under control and on its way to paid off.
In the world of employment law, few topics arouse as much controversy and debate as non-compete agreements. Non-competes are ubiquitous in employment contracts, with even low-level employees sometimes being asked to sign contracts that limit what they can do after they leave the company. What may surprise many employers and employees is that many non-competes are almost completely unenforceable. Here's a brief look at who needs a non-compete agreement and when a non-compete clause has the best chance of being considered legally enforceable.
Canteen Corp. v. Pennsylvania, 814 A.2d 805, (Pa. Commonwealth) is an employment discrimination suit. Here, the employer violated the Human Relations Act because the employer failed to accommodate an employee's disability. The Defendant appealed the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission's decision; however, the decision was affirmed by the court.
In Husak v. Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau, 61 A.3d 302 (Pa Commw.) the trial court was correct in setting aside the tax sale. In this case, the Plaintiffs' property was foreclosed in February 2006; Fannie Mae purchased the property at a sheriff's sale and recorded the sheriff's deed. However, the plaintiffs', while still residing on the property, repurchased it from Fannie Mae. At the time of repurchase, Fannie Mae executed a quitclaim deed. A quit claim deed is when the grantor transfers all of his/her interest to the grantee. Any defects associated with the property, such as taxes, now become the grantee's problem. However, the Plaintiffs' never recorded the deed because the Plaintiffs' counsel wanted a notarized deed. Frannie Mae did not send a notarized deed to the Plaintiffs until March 2011, at which time the deed was promptly recorded.
Knoster v. Ford Motor Company 2006 WL 2561234 (C.A.3 (N.J.)) is case where the Plaintiff filed claims under both the New Jersey Product Liability Act ("PLA") and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Specifically under the PLA, the plaintiff filed a failure to warn and a design-defect claim. The District Court dismissed the consumer fraud claim and entered judgment in favor of the Defendant based on the jury's verdict. The Plaintiff appealed on a variety of claims.
In Thompson v. North American Stainless, the Court held that third-party retaliation claims are permitted under Title VII of the Civil Rights act. In this action, Thompson's fiancé filed a sex discrimination charge against North American Stainless (NAS). After Thompson's fiancé filed the charge, NAS promptly fired Thompson.
In MARX v. GENERAL REVENUE CORP., 668 F. 3d 1174 (2013), the United States Supreme Court affirmed a decision that was upheld by the Tenth Circuit. The District Court had ordered the losing plaintiff, Marx (who had defaulted on her student loans) to pay the defendant's partial court and attorneys fees. In this case Marx had claimed that her creditor, General Revenue Corporation (GRC) was harassing her via phone calls and letters to her employer, and falsely claiming to garnish half of her wages. The decision, which was a matter of statutory interpretation, will help to provide other circuits with guidance, however, it has sparked an interesting policy concern.
Giannini v. Rosenberg, No. 11-3542 (June 8, 2012 D.N.J.) is a case which examines the process of bringing a malpractice suit while an ethics charge is still pending. This case is being presented to show the various levels of complaints which are available to Plaintiffs as well as how the systems work in harmony when discussing Constitutional claims.