California Simplifies Criminal Jury Instructions

One of the most frustrating experiences for a juror can be the complexly worded jury instructions given by the judge right before jury deliberations. California has made significant progress in developing simplified instructions for civil cases. California has now adopted new criminal jury instructions (CALCRIM) that will be used in all criminal jury trials beginning January 2006.

Many of the current criminal jury instructions were initially drafted in the 1930s and often contained confusing legal terminology. The new instructions emphasize plain, straightforward language, and are a welcome change to some of the archaic language of the old instructions. Here is one example of how an instruction has been improved:

Old: "Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon."
New: "People sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember."

A 29-member task consisting of judges, lawyers and other experts spent thousands of hours over an 8-year period to draft the new instructions. The new instructions will be mandatory in all criminal bases beginning in January 2006 and are expected to lessen confusion jurors may have about the instructions. Click here to learn about the new jury instructions.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Bankruptcy Deadline Approaches

Beginning October 17, 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 will make it more difficult for consumers to file for bankruptcy. In recent weeks, I have noticed a surge of inquiries regarding bankruptcy services as the effective date of the reform law approaches.

Some of the key changes include:

• Stricter financial requirements that will place more debtors in a Chapter 13 repayment plan instead of a Chapter 7 liquidation;
• Increased legal fees caused by stricter "due diligence" requirements placed on attorneys prepaing bankruptcy petitions; and
• Mandatory credit counselling for debtors before filing for bankruptcy.

As October 17 2005 approaches, bankruptcy attorneys will become busy and my not have the time to take on new clients at the last minute. Debtors considering filing for bankruptcy should see a qualified attorney now rather than wait any longer. We are a bankruptcy and debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Starrett Construction Prevails In Lawsuit

On July 15, 2005, Judge Lillian Y. Lim of the El Cajon Superior Court entered a judgment in favor of Starrett Construction, Inc. in the amount of $26,852.64 in the matter of Starrett Construction, Inc. v. Gary L. Franks dba G&S Concrete Construction, El Cajon Superior Court Case No. GIC847050. The judgment concluded 4 months of litigation.

Starrett Construction was the general contractor on a project known as the Stowe Plaza Shopping Center located at the Northwest corner of Scripps Poway Parkway and Stowe Drive in Poway, CA. Starrett Construction entered into a written subcontract with Gary L. Franks dba G&S Concrete Construction ("G&S") for site contract and masonry (i.e. sidewalks and other flatwork). Although, Starrett Construction paid G&S in full for the services rendered under the subcontract, G&S failed to pay for the concrete used on the project. As a result, the concrete supplier filed a mechanic’s lien against the project and a lawsuit to foreclose on the mechanic’s lien.

Starrett Construction reached a settlement with the concrete supplier on behalf of the project owner. Starrettt Contruction then sued G&S to recover the amount of the settlement. The Court's judgment includes the entire amount owed plus prejudgment interest. Starrett Construction was represented by Carl H. Starrett II.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Wedding Photographer Scams Brides

10News.com - 10 News Investigations - Wedding Photographer Scams Brides

Channel 10 News in San Diego uncovered a wedding photographer took $3,300 from a bride and groom to for wedding photos and a video. The photographer is not returning phone calls and has not given the couple any of the photos or video. The husband is a marine serving in Iraq.

I am trying to contact the couple through Channel 10 to volunteer my assistance. If we can track down photographer, we can serve him with a lawsuit for possession of the photos and video and perhaps make something good come of this situation.

PARADE Magazine | How To Guard Your Identity--July 31, 2005

I came across this article in PARADE Magazine on preventing identity theft. Some of the tips include the following safety measures:

Stolen wallets and checkbooks remain the most frequent sources of ID theft.

• Avoid carrying your checkbook or your Social Security card. Photocopy your card and cut out all but the last four digits. Government agencies and companies should be required to X out all but the last four numbers too.
• Never give out your Social Security number without first asking, “What happens if I don't give it?” Most of the time, the answer is, “Nothing.”
• Don’t use your mother’s real maiden name or your real city of birth as identifiers. Use made-up names. (City of birth: Atlantis.) But never make up a Social Security number! That creates a problem for someone else.
• Try to add passwords to online and offline accounts, so that anyone who calls your bank or mutual fund needs more than your name, address and Social Security number to impersonate you.
• Make sure your mail is delivered to a locked box.
• Buy a cross-cut shredder and destroy all unsolicited pre-approved credit offers and blank “courtesy” checks.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Stopping Collection of a Disputed Debt

Question: How do I stop a collection company from pursuing the collection of a ficticious debt? When requested to verification of the debt but they did not and cannot provide support for the claim amount, but are still threatening to report it on my credit reports if I do not pay. The Creditor is in California, the collection agency is in Philadelphia.

Answer: If this is a consumer debt, you are protecting by the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The FDCPA that debt collectors treat you fairly and prohibits certain methods of debt collection. The FDCPA covers perrsonal, family, and household debts. This includes money owed for the purchase of an automobile, for medical care, or for charge accounts. In some areas of the country, the FDCPA can even apply to the collection of deliquent homeowner's association dues.

You can stop a debt collector from contacting you by writing a letter to the collector telling them to stop. Once the collector receives your letter, they may not contact you again except to say there will be no further contact or to notify you that the debt collector or the creditor intends to take some specific action. Please note, however, that sending such a letter to a collector does not make the debt go away if you actually owe it. You could still be sued by the debt collector or your original creditor.

Within five days after you are first contacted, the collector must send you a written notice telling you the amount of money you owe; the name of the creditor to whom you owe the money; and what action to take if you believe you do not owe the money. A collector may not contact you if, within 30 days after you receive the written notice, you send the collection agency a letter stating you do not owe money. However, a collector can renew collection activities if you are sent proof of the debt, such as a copy of a bill for the amount owed.

You have the right to sue a collector in a state or federal court within one year from the date the law was violated. If you win, you may recover money for the damages you suffered plus an additional amount up to $1,000. Court costs and attorney' s fees also can be recovered. A group of people also may sue a debt collector and recover money for damages up to $500,000, or one percent of the collector' s net worth, whichever is less.

The information provided in this article is general information only and is not intended as legal advice. DO NOT use this information as a substitute for obtaining qualified legal advice or other professional help.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

Notice of Involuntary Lien in California

Question: I reside with my mother in California (house is in her and my brothers name). One of my creditors has sent me a Notice of Involuntary Lien. When I contacted the law office working on this case, I was informed that a lien as been placed on the house I reside in. I didn't know it was legally possible to have a lien placed on something that isn't in my name. Is this right or is this a scare tactic?

Answer: Although you did not specify if the the creditor had actually filed a lawsuit against you, it is mostly likely a scare tactic. Subject to a very limited except, it is generally illegal to record an involuntary lien on another person's property without first filing lawsuit and obtaining a judgment or court order.

If the law office did send you a Notice of Involuntary Lien as a scare tactic, this is most likely a violation of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The law firm might be liable for damages, including emotional distress and attorney's fees.

If the law firm did obtain a judgment against you, they may have recorded an Abstract of Judgment. Recording an Abstract of Judgment does put a lien on real property in your name. Unless you are also on title to your mother's house, she should have nothing to worry about.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II, has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.

New Bankruptcy Rules on Discharge of Debts

The bankruptcy reform legislation passed earlier this year will change how long someone must wait to file bankruptcy if they have previously received a discharge. Under the current law, a debtor can file Chapter 7 again if it has been more than 6 years since he or she was discharged from the previous Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Under the new bankruptcy laws taking effect on October 17, 2005, a debtor cannot file another Chapter 7 unless the debtor was discharged from the previous Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 bankruptcy more than eight years ago. In one recent case, I consulted with a client who needs to file another Chapter 7 because of excessive medical bills. This person previously filed a Chapter 7 that was discharged in May 1999. Athough currently eligible for Chapter 7 under the old 6-year rule, the new laws would require him to wait until May 2007 if he delays filing a new Chapter 7 much longer.

Under the new laws, a debtor cannot file a Chapter 13 unless: (1) the debtor received a discharge under Chapter 7, 11 or 12 more than four years ago; or (2) the debtor received a discharge under Chapter 13 more than two years ago.

As the saying goes, timing is everything. The new law contains potential traps for the unwary debtor and persons considering bankrutptcy should file well in advance of the effective date of the new legislation.

About the Author: Carl H. Starrett II has been a licensed attorney since 1993 and is a member in good standing with the California State Bar and the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Starrett practices in the areas of bankruptcy, business litigation, construction, corporate planning and debt collection.