Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Based upon the failure of the Defendants to respond, Plaintiff has every
reason to
believe that the party receiving the payments is neither the holder in due
course of
the note nor the owner of any rights under the provisions of the Deed.
161. Further, Plaintiff has every reason to believe that her payments
were/are not being
forwarded to any true holder in due course of the note or to any other
authorized
party, but retained by the servicer for its own account.
162. Accordingly Plaintiff is in jeopardy, to wit: the true holder in due course
and
potentially dozens or even thousands of third parties could come forward
claiming
an unsatisfied interest in the promissory note and may or may not be subject
to
Plaintiff’s various claims.
163. In fact, research has revealed that in various states, such security
interests are
being purchased by speculators who then seek to enforce said liability.
Defendants’ failure to produce the original promissory note prevents the
Plaintiff from claiming the most basic defense, to wit: that payments were
made exactly as required by the terms of the Note. (insert synopsis of
history going back to 1st QWR where plaintiff asked about how her payments
were being dispersed).
1. TILA Rescission is self enforcing. It automatically extinguishes the lien and the
liability. The time for rescission does not run until you actually knew the full scope
of the violation. That is tantamount to it never running out.
2. YOU CAN ASSERT AND SHOULD ASSERT TILA VIOLATIONS IF YOU CAN
BEFORE YOU ARE IN FORECLOSURE OR EVEN IF YOU ARE CURRENT IN
YOUR PAYMENTS.
3. Judge is required to look for authority himself if you are representing yourself
without a lawyer (pro se). This provision in effect makes the Judge your lawyer and
your Judge. Pretty good combination for you.
4. Judge has no discretion to deny damages, refunds etc to Borrower once a violation
of TILA, no matter how small, is discovered.
5. TILA Rescission is NOT barred before during or after other proceedings unless
those other proceedings specifically mention rescission as an issue to be tried.
6. Federal Action for injunction against the players to require them to file documents
canceling the documents of record and providing judgment for damages and
refunds is probably the best action since that is what is contemplated.
7. If in bankruptcy, it should be pled in an adversary proceeding. But if the
bankruptcy is primarily related to the foreclosure the better practice would be to
file in the same Federal Court, Civil Division, a complaint for violation of TILA
rescission.
8. A Quiet TItle Action in State Court would probably also be a good idea before,
during or after the Federal action. It clears up any doubt whatsoever about the
status of title or the lender’s lien or encumbrances.
9. THIS IS INFORMATION YOU NEED BECAUSE THE LATEST LENDER
STRATEGY SEEMS TO BE FOR THE LENDER TO IGNORE THE
RESCISSION NOTICE. THE LENDER IS BETTING YOU WON’T KNOW
WHAT TO DO.
10. Suggestion: If you are in Court and you have opted or are ordered to settlement, try
to get a paragraph in the mediation order that requires all decision-makers to be
present, whether they are parties or not. This would include the holders of securities
who are the ultimate owners of the mortgage. (You may get a pleasant surprise. We
have reports that the lenders sometimes can’t trace them down, in which case, the
foreclosure action or sale is dismissed and you have no mortgage).
Also note, the Courts have recognized the right to seek an injunction against foreclosure where this right
(rescission) is ignored by the lender or assignee. See Horton v. California Credit Corp., 2009 WL 700223
(S.D.Cal.) 2009. Note, that the 9th Circuit Court did not require an initial “tender” obligation from the
borrower in granting the injunction where missing dates on the TILA notice of right to cancel were found.
The Social Security number and birth-date for each Borrower must be run through the Federal
Computer system which searches for Federally-funded delinquencies by SSAN. There are six (6)
governmental agencies that report delinquencies/defaults to this federal computerized tracking
system (Dept. of Ed., FHA, VA Education and GI (mortgage) Loans, Rural Housing Admin.,
Small Business Admin., and the Dept. of Justice (Civil Levies).
Any reported default (i.e., any finding other than “A” for Acceptable) from these 6 agencies will
be listed on the search report. Included in the search results will be an agency phone number
listed for further action and resolution on the part of the Borrower.
The Lender is responsible for obtaining the final resolution of this claim from the Borrower prior
to closing. The Borrower must pay off the delinquency or make satisfactory repayment
arrangement with the agency reporting the default. NOTE: FHA cannot alter or delete the
CAIVRS information from federal agencies other than itself.
This government database holds information concerning parties who have been denied
participation in FHA’s insurance programs OR other government contracts or programs because
of wrongdoing.
Examine/search the list for all parties to the transaction and the loan application (borrower, co-
borrowers, realtor, appraiser, seller, licensed professionals contracted to provide mechanical
certifications, broker, originator, etc.).
If any party who has been “searched” appears on the LDP/GSA lists, the loan application is not
eligible for FHA insurance and the loan must be denied.
A copy of the printouts for all the search information must be retained in the loan file.
*************************************************************
HUD Limited Denial of Participation (LDP) and the U.S. General
Services Administration’s “List of Parties Excluded from Federal
Procurement and Non-Procurement Programs” (GSA List) A person
suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in the
Department’s programs is not eligible to participate in FHA-insured
mortgage transactions. The lender must examine HUD’s LDP list and the
government-wide General Services Administration’s (GSA) “List of
Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Nonprocurement
Programs” and document this review on the HUD 92900-WS/92900-PUR.
If the name of the borrower, seller, listing or selling real estate agents, or
loan officer appears on either list, the application is not eligible for
mortgage insurance. A lender may check HUD’s LDP list by going to
www.hud.gov and the Federal government’s list of excluded parties by
going to http://epls.arnet.gov. (An exception shall be made for a seller on
the GSA list when the property being sold is the seller’s principal
residence.)
The Social Security number and birth-date for each Borrower must be run through the Federal
Computer system which searches for Federally-funded delinquencies by SSAN. There are six (6)
governmental agencies that report delinquencies/defaults to this federal computerized tracking
system (Dept. of Ed., FHA, VA Education and GI (mortgage) Loans, Rural Housing Admin.,
Small Business Admin., and the Dept. of Justice (Civil Levies).
Any reported default (i.e., any finding other than “A” for Acceptable) from these 6 agencies will
be listed on the search report. Included in the search results will be an agency phone number
listed for further action and resolution on the part of the Borrower.
The Lender is responsible for obtaining the final resolution of this claim from the Borrower prior
to closing. The Borrower must pay off the delinquency or make satisfactory repayment
arrangement with the agency reporting the default. NOTE: FHA cannot alter or delete the
CAIVRS information from federal agencies other than itself.
This government database holds information concerning parties who have been denied
participation in FHA’s insurance programs OR other government contracts or programs because
of wrongdoing.
Examine/search the list for all parties to the transaction and the loan application (borrower, co-
borrowers, realtor, appraiser, seller, licensed professionals contracted to provide mechanical
certifications, broker, originator, etc.).
If any party who has been “searched” appears on the LDP/GSA lists, the loan application is not
eligible for FHA insurance and the loan must be denied.
A copy of the printouts for all the search information must be retained in the loan file.
For purchases, if the subject property is located in a community property state OR for refinances,
if the Borrower resides in a community property state, the following requirements apply:
• A credit report for the non-purchasing spouse is required to determine any joint or
individual debts that must be considered in the credit analysis. Any accounts that were
opened by the spouse, but are joint accounts with the purchasing Borrower must be
included in debt ratio to qualify for the loan.
• A Clear CAIVRS on the spouse is required.
• Even if the non-purchasing spouse does not have a social security number, a credit
report is still required.
• All debt of the spouse must be included in the Borrower’s debt ratio (use 5% of the
outstanding balance if not specified on the credit report), unless such inclusion of debt is
specifically prohibited by state law.
• If debts of the non-purchasing spouse are in dispute, they need not be counted provided
the file contains satisfactory documentation to support the fact that the account is in a
current dispute status.
• A poor credit history of a non-purchasing spouse should not be the sole basis for
declining the loan.
If it is required by a state law in order to perfect the valid and enforceable 1st mortgage lien, the
non-purchasing spouse must sign the security instrument (mortgage) OR the spouse must provide
satisfactory written documentation to verify he/she is relinquishing all present and future rights
to ownership of the subject property.
The community property states are: AZ, CA, ID, LA, NV, NM, TX, WA and WI.
subpart b - VIOLATIONS
(a) General. The Mortgagee Review Board may initiate a civil money penalty action against
any mortgagee or lender who knowingly and materially: (1) Violates the provisions listed in 12
U.S.C. 1735f14(b); (2) Fails to comply with the requirements of 201.27(a) of this title regarding
approval and supervision of dealers; (3) Approves a dealer that has been suspended, debarred,
or otherwise denied participation in HUD's programs; (4) Makes a payment that is prohibited
under 202.5(l).
(5) Fails to remit, or timely remit, mortgage insurance premiums, loan insurance charges, or
late charges or interest penalties; (6) Permits loan documents for an FHA insured loan to be
signed in blank by its agents or any other party to the loan transaction unless expressly
approved by the Secretary; (7) Fails to follow the mortgage assignment procedures set forth in
203.650 through 203.664 of this title or in 207.255 through 207.258b of this title.
(8) Fails to timely submit documents that are complete and accurate in connection with a
conveyance of property or a claim for insurance benefits, in accordance with 203.365, 203.366,
or 203.368 of this title; (9) Fails to: (i) Process requests for formal release of liability under an
FHA insured mortgage; (ii) Obtain a credit report, issued not more than 90 days prior to
approval of a person as a borrower, as to the person's creditworthiness to assume an FHA
insured mortgage; (iii) Timely submit proper notification of a change in mortgagor or mortgagee
as required by 203.431 of this title; (iv) Timely submit proper notification of mortgage insurance
termination as required by 203.318 of this title; (v) Timely submit proper notification of a change
in mortgage servicing as required by 203.502 of this title; or (vi) Report all delinquent mortgages
to HUD, as required by 203.332 of this title; (10) Fails to service FHA insured mortgages, in
accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR parts 201, 203, and 235; (11) Fails to fund loans
that it originated, or otherwise misuses loan proceeds; (12) Fails to comply with the conditions
relating to the assignment or pledge of mortgages; (13) Fails to comply with the provisions of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (12 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.), the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq.), or the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq.); (14)
Fails to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement with HUD.
(b) Continuing violation. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute a separate
violation.
(c) Amount of penalty(1) Maximum penalty. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, the maximum penalty is $6,500 for each violation, up to a limit of $1,250,000 for all
violations committed during any one-year period. Each violation shall constitute a separate
violation as to each mortgage or loan application.
(2) Maximum penalty for failing to engage in loss mitigation. The penalty for a violation of
paragraph (a)(15) of this section shall be three times the amount of the total mortgage insurance
benefits claimed by the mortgagee with respect to any mortgage for which the mortgagee failed
to engage in such loss mitigation actions.
[61 FR 50215, Sept. 24, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 9742, Feb. 26, 1998; 68 FR 12788, Mar.
17, 2003; 70 FR 21578, Apr. 26, 2005]
subpart b - VIOLATIONS
(a) General. The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner (or his/her
designee) may initiate a civil money penalty action against any principal, officer, or employee of
a mortgagee or lender, or other participants in either a mortgage insured under the National
Housing Act or any loan that is covered by a contract of insurance under title I of the National
Housing Act, or a provider of assistance to the borrower in connection with any such mortgage
or loan, including: (1) Sellers; (2) Borrowers; (3) Closing agents; (4) Title companies; (5) Real
estate agents; (6) Mortgage brokers; (7) Appraisers; (8) Loan correspondents; (9) Dealers; (10)
Consultants; (11) Contractors; (12) Subcontractors; and (13) Inspectors.
(b) Knowing and material violations. The Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing
Commissioner or his/her designee may impose a civil penalty on any person or entity identified
in paragraph (a) of this section who knowingly and materially: (1) Submits false information to
the Secretary in connection with any mortgage insured under the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), or any loan that is covered by a contract of insurance under title I of the
National Housing Act; (2) Falsely certifies to the Secretary or submits a false certification by
another person or entity to the Secretary in connection with any mortgage insured under the
National Housing Act or any loan that is covered by a contract of insurance under title I of the
National Housing Act; or (3) Is a loan dealer or correspondent and fails to submit to the
Secretary information which is required by regulations or directives in connection with any loan
that is covered by a contract of insurance under title I of the National Housing Act.
(c) Amount of penalty. The maximum penalty is $5,500 for each violation, up to a limit of
$1,100,000 for all violations committed during any one-year period. Each violation shall
constitute a separate violation as to each mortgage or loan application.
(a) Duty to mitigate. Before four full monthly installments due on the mortgage have become
unpaid, the mortgagee shall evaluate on a monthly basis all of the loss mitigation techniques
provided at 203.501 to determine which is appropriate. Based upon such evaluations, the
mortgagee shall take the appropriate loss mitigation action.
Documentation must be maintained for the initial and all subsequent evaluations and resulting
loss mitigation actions. Should a claim for mortgage insurance benefits later be filed, the
mortgagee shall maintain this documentation in the claim review file under the requirements of
203.365(c).
(b) Assessment of mortgagee's loss mitigation performance. (1) HUD will measure and advise
mortgagees of their loss mitigation performance through the Tier Ranking System (TRS). Under
the TRS, HUD will analyze each mortgagee's loss mitigation efforts portfolio-wide on a quarterly
basis, based on 12 months of performance, by computing ratios involving loss mitigation
attempts, defaults, and claims. Based on the ratios, HUD will group mortgagees in four tiers
(Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4), with Tier 1 representing the highest or best ranking mortgagees and Tier 4
representing the lowest or least satisfactory ranking mortgagees. The precise methodology for
calculating the TRS ratios and for determining the tier stratification (or cutoff points) will be
provided through Federal Register notice. Notice of future TRS methodology or stratification
changes will be published in the Federal Register and will provide a 30-day public comment
period.
(2) Before HUD issues each quarterly TRS notice, HUD will review the number of claims paid
to the mortgagee. If HUD determines that the lender's low TRS score is the result of a small
number of defaults or a small number of foreclosure claims, or both, as defined by notice, HUD
may determine not to designate the mortgagee as Tier 3 or Tier 4, and the mortgagee will
remain unranked.
(3) Within 30 calendar days after the date of the TRS notice, a mortgagee that scored in Tier 4
may appeal its ranking to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Single Family or the Deputy
Assistant Secretary's designee and request an informal HUD conference. The only basis for
appeal by the Tier 4 mortgagee is disagreement with the data used by HUD to calculate the
mortgagee's ranking. If HUD determines that the mortgagee's Tier 4 ranking was based on
incorrect or incomplete data, the mortgagee's performance will be recalculated and the
mortgagee will receive a corrected tier ranking score.
(c) Assessment of civil money penalty. A mortgagee that is found to have failed to engage in
loss mitigation as required under paragraph (a) of this section shall be liable for a civil money
penalty as provided in 30.35(c) of this title.
The meeting closed with the following litigation mistakes and related nuggets of advice:
1. Too many exhibits. Focus on what you need to prove your case.
3. Lack of focus. Make judgments about what is truly significant. Be cost effective.
4. Assuming that questions mean the judge doesn't understand. Visit court and observe the judge.
5. Missing the forest for the trees. Look at jury instructions to know what you need to prove to win. Draft jury instructions early.
by Mark VB Partridge.
Mark conveys the advice of three federal court judges: Virginia Kendall, Rebecca Pallmeyer,
and Matthew Kennelly as follows:
1. Too many exhibits. Focus on what you need to prove your case.
3. Lack of focus. Make judgments about what is truly significant. Be cost effective.
4. Assuming that questions mean the judge doesn't understand. Visit court and observe the judge.
5. Missing the forest for the trees. Look at jury instructions to know what you need to prove to
win. Draft jury instructions early.
And while I'm at it, here is a list of items your settlement officer could use to assist him/her in
diminishing your opponent's expectations of victory. After that's done (quickly) everyone can
move into the necessary distributive bargaining session or to brain-storming interest-based
solutions to your IP dispute.
• charts
• graphs
• statistics
• photographs
• drawings
• schematics
• demonstrative exhibits
• and your three to six best killer trial exhibits.
If you need discovery, tell your settlement officer what you need during the pre-mediation
telephone conference and she/he can attempt to get it for you before the session convenes.
Here's the beauty part of settlement conferences -- there are no rules. You can ask the settlement
officer to help you play it anyway you want.
Go for it!
And please.
In a recent issue of Trial Briefs from the Illinois Bar's Section on Civil Practice and Procedure,
Michael J. Marovich reported that confidentiality clauses in personal injury settlements might
trigger tax consequences for the plaintiff.
Here's the rationale. A confidentiality clause is normally something that benefits the defendant--
that is, something the defendant would be willing to pay for in a settlement. Though personal
injury settlements normally aren't taxable, 26 U.S.C. 104(a)(2), this might not be true of income
received as consideration for a confidentiality agreement. See Amos v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, T.C. Memo. 2003-329, 2003 WL 22839795, 86 T.C.M. (CCH) 663, T.C.M. (RIA)
2003-329 (U.S. Tax. Ct. Dec. 01, 2003) (No. 13391-01),
In Amos, the court found that $80,000 of a $200,000 personal injury settlement was taxable as
consideration for a confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement. There was no discussion of
how the court arrived at the $80,000 figure. In his note, Marovich concluded:
It would appear that Plaintiffs have a strong argument for refusing to allow confidentiality
agreements to be present in any settlement. In the alternative, the Amos case may provide a
strong basis that the settlement amount of a case should be increased in order to compensate
Plaintiff for the increased tax liability he or she incurs if a confidentiality agreement is made a
part of the terms of any settlement. In addition, the Amos case seems to require that any
Plaintiff's attorney advise their client of the tax consequences of including a confidentiality
agreement in any settlement agreement. If a confidentiality agreement is made a part of any
settlement, counsel for Plaintiff should, at least, make sure that a specific dollar amount is
indicated in the settlement agreement as representing the worth of the confidentiality clause. This
way the client has a specific dollar amount to claim on their year-end taxes versus having the
IRS magically come up with one like they did in Amos.
In a post earlier this month, I wrote about the tax consequences of confidentiality clauses in
settlement agreements after reading about the issue in Trial Briefs from the Illinois Bar's Section
on Civil Practice and Procedure. Now I see there's another article about the issue, this time in
Trial magazine.
In "Avoiding the confidentiality tax bite," Randall O. Sorrels and Neel Choudhury have a
number of practical tips for dealing with confidentiality agreements in settlement agreements,
including these:
Unfortunately, the article's not available online.* Since it includes explanations of these points
plus lots more, be sure to look it up if you're dealing with the issue.
Pro Se Litigation Strategy II
We will start with the opposing lawyer: his most obvious motivation is to maximize his billings in which we truly wish him every success. If he represents a
corporation and that corporation has been a client of that Law Firm for a period of time and is a significant source of revenue, his far greater priority would
be not to
lose that client. Losing to a Pro Se amateur would most likely mean losing that big client. This means that
when faced with well prepared Pro Se litigant who has a good case they may well try to feed the Client some legal mumbo-jumbo garbage to talk the
Client into settling the lawsuit early on. Initially though, they usually come very cocky and accordingly very unprepared. When they are faced with sharp,
and well prepared Pro Se litigant it may become quite entertaining. Some of them never learn and based on their pre-conceived notions continue to
underestimate the Pro Se litigant allowing themselves liberties against the Rules of Procedure, lying in their filings etc. That may put you into position to
file a Motion for Sanctions wherein you'd usually ask for a fine and disallowance of use of his supporting evidence; all of it or partial depending on
circumstances also this makes them a likely candidate for Complaint to Disciplinary Board(usually it's incorporated into the Appellate Court). If Motion for
Sanctions is granted and use of evidence is denied - they cannot support their case and you can finish them off now thru a Motion for Summary
Judgement. If you are planning to file a disciplinary complaint, it makes sense of course to first let them know that you may be FORCED to do
that(obviously you are NEVER threatening - unfortunately the circumstances/their actions compel/force you to consider doing this), but suggesting that
they try a more constructive way to resolve this dispute, as a settlement of the lawsuit would remove any need for you to pursue a Complaint. As far as
lying in their filings is concerned; "as this was filed by and thru their attorney who is an Officer of the Court and knew or should have known that such and
such
claims are false; thus this amounts to Fraud upon the Court". Fraud upon the Court is when the operation of the Court itself or its Member/Officer is
corrupted and makes all orders/judgements by the court in that matter null and void. Mere perjury by a witness is not Fraud upon the Court unless such
perjury was suborned/specifically requested by their lawyer who is considered an Officer of the Court. (By the way Fraud by either side in the
performance of a Contract makes that Contract void - same logic.) If it is a State or Federal Lawyer they are not normally expected to lose by their
superiors - period. Their salaries are far less then what a good lawyer in private practice may get - that means they are not as good or else they would be
in private practice. It appears that their offices' funding and staffing levels are contingent on the litigation workload, in fact I'm sure they sometimes bill
other governmental agencies for whom they work. That means their behavior is sometimes eerily resembling that of a private lawyer trying to maximize
his billings, but they are not concerned about losing their client. Losing their jobs is a different story. Since most of them evidently are mediocre lawyers
who are nonetheless not expected to lose they need to create at least the appearance of success by whatever means. In my opinion, one of these means
is the incredible pervasive lying even to other governmental agencies. Another feature, in my opinion, is no concern for cost of litigation until you remind
them of the existence of the Office of the Inspector General which among other things investigates reports of wasteful spending by governmental
agencies. So if the litigation was about $25000 and they incurred legal costs approaching or exceeding that amount their position becomes very
questionnable. Offices of the Inspector General may be department specific for State or Federal Departments such as US Dept. of Justice or overall for all
of the State of Federal Govt. They may be findable on the Net(the Federal ones are)Also you can file a Complaint with the Office of Professional
Responsibility of the US Department of Justice IF your complaint is about the alleged actions of a Federal Lawyer, although it would be better to ask your
friendly State/Local Elected Official to file such a complaint on your behalf - they routinely do that. Now, the Judge - their biggest concern is to move the
cases thru the docket thru whatever means. If you start expanding the case by means of filing appeals - you are not endearing yourself to the judge who
will have to now write thorough and lengthy opinions for the superior court. The superior court is not going to like the extra work generated from a case
handled by a particular judge and would expect him to resolve it. A judge does not want to antagonize the superior court on which he likely hopes to sit
one day.
Antagonizing that court won't help it, but will increase the chances of reversal on appeal for decisions by that lower court judge. So the judge has the
incentive to apply pressure to have the case settled: he has no leverage versus a Pro Se litigant, but when it comes to a lawyer who will be facing that
judge again and again in the future it's a different story...If your opposing party is the State Agency/Employee in State Court or Federal Agency/Employee
in Federal Court you can expect the Court to basically side with the opposing party to the point of a judge arguing the case for that opposing
governmental party in his opinions accompanying Orders/Rulings(but not if you sue State Agency/employee in Federal Court or vice versa) [Federal
Agencies/Employees often have immunity against State lawsuits/prosecutions but only when performance of their Federal duties forced them to violate
the State Law. Example: when Federal postal truck drivers tried to claim immunity against local tickets that did not fly - they did not have to violate State
traffic laws in performance of their duties]. But that too has some limits - few judges see themselves as merely rubber stamps for the State or Federal
Government. The Opposing Party(or Adverse Party)- their situation becomes more difficult once you file Appeal(s) - the higher the Court the fewer lawyers
meet the requirements for admission to it and the harder it is for the Opposing Party to even find a lawyer to do the Appellate work and the more they will
likely have to pay such lawyer. Independently of the Appeal you may file a "Motion to Reconsider" with the lower Court based on new evidence or
misrepresentation or fraud upon the Court by the adverse party (see Rules of Procedure usually no later than a year after original verdict/order) and
should that Motion be denied - you can file another Appeal thereby visiting still more feelings of "joy" on the adverse party. Proceeding in Forma Pauperis:
if you are unemployed of otherwise think you might qualify you may Petition the Court to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis - the Clerks usually have forms for it. My impression though is that you may get some cut rate justice for the poor if you do that, while it
will allow you to save on the filing fee and a number of copies. I believe the best use for it is when you face a deadline to file (statute of limitations or 30
days to file appeal, but not sure that you will actually have to proceed(settlement discussions underway) and thus see no reason to pay a filing fee when
filing the initial Notice of Appeal for example. You probably are solid middle class, but the well-paid Judge may often see things differently and actually
Once you are thus officially categorized as a pauper, if you are a Defendant you can for instance write to the Plaintiff(perhaps bypassing their lawyer) and
express puzzlement as to why their lawyer continues to press on with a lawsuit against a pauper while billing them for the all the costs he incurs...I'm sure
if later on you change your mind and insist on leaving the Forma Pauperis status paying the filing fee etc the Court will let you.
A bit more on services available from the Courts: higher Appellate Courts often have Case Managers to guide you thru procedural matters and also Staff
Attorneys for you to consult with mostly about Procedural matters/issues. What Motion can you file in such and such circumstances, would the Court allow
supplemental record to be filed at this stage etc. In case of a Pro Se litigant bringing a Civil Rights Lawsuit(violation of constitutional rights) the Staff
Attorneys for Federal Courts are required to help at no charge. Also the Courts often offer mediation services thru mediation program. If your opposing
party's lawyer is not responding to offer of mediation the issue can be made(with his client) as to whether he is
April/May/June 2004
Many clients and some lawyers assume that damages received in a lawsuit are not taxable. As far as the tax consequences of rescission and debt
cancellation are concerned, these questions have been relegated to the dark corners of the legal world where some say only tax lawyers dare tread. The
purpose of this article is to take some (but not all) of the mystery out of these subjects.
Damages
The starting point is § 61 of the Internal Revenue Code1 which provides that gross income means all income from whatever source derived except
amounts specifically excluded. Section 104(a)(2) is the portion of the law which provides the basic exclusion for some personal injury awards. It states that
gross income does not include "the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump
sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness." Taxpayers must meet two independent requirements before
they can exclude a recovery under § 104(a)(2). First, the taxpayer must demonstrate that the underlying cause of action giving rise to the recovery is
"based upon tort or tort-type rights"; and second, the taxpayer must show that the damages were received "on account of personal injuries or sickness."
See Comm'r v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323 (1995). State law controls whether there is a tort-type injury. See, e.g., Brabson v. United States, 73 F.3d 1040, 1044
Read Tax Issues: Damages, Recission and Debt Cancellations as Client Income [PDF]
*Dennis Brager, Esq., is a State Bar Certified Tax Specialist in Los Angeles. A former IRS senior trial attorney, Mr. Brager now devotes his efforts
exclusively to helping clients resolve their tax problems with the IRS and California State tax agencies. Services include negotiating Tax Debts, Tax Fraud
Representation, Tax Litigation, Tax Audit and Appeals Representation, Tax Preparer Penalty Mitigation, Payroll Tax Audits, and California Sales Tax
http://repository.unm.edu/bitstream/handle/1928/476/Civil_Practice_Manual.pdf?
sequence=1