Identity Theft
The Law Practice Management blog has a post on preventing identity theft. Some good points even though I wonder about how many pizza delivery boys will take a check without an address. Worth reading in detail.
The Law Practice Management blog has a post on preventing identity theft. Some good points even though I wonder about how many pizza delivery boys will take a check without an address. Worth reading in detail.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
9:57 PM
0
comments
Labels: Identity theft
While e-commerce is not an area I specifically focus on, no one should ignore it in these days of the Internet. Here is the E-Commerce Law Blog and I suggest if you have an interest in e-commerce that you keep an eye on this blog.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
12:22 PM
0
comments
Labels: e-commerce, law blogs
The American Bar Association's GP Solo e-zine has an article on estate planning for same-sex partners. I want to point out only two issues I have with this article:
• Funeral arrangements is an area fraught with problems for same-sex couples. Many states limit the right to make these arrangements to the decedent’s immediate family. Others, such as Ohio, have enacted legislation removing that restriction and allowing every person to name someone to make these decisions. For same-sex couples, these laws permit each partner to name the other as the person authorized to carry out the arrangements.Indiana is one of those states which allows only family members to make funeral arrangements. However, that obstacle can be overcome in two ways.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:37 AM
0
comments
Labels: estate planning, same-sex couples
This report from the Noblesville Ledger shows the problems that can come from bad real estate deeds.
Regardless of who owned the land originally, county attorney Mike Howard said the trustee's lawyer had the wrong land description when the township's title was entered, so the commission's title was accepted last summer. He said the commission now has the right to the land, and asked Demaree if he wanted to evict the township.
When Demaree did not answer, Commissioner Steve Holt told Howard to void the township's title.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:25 AM
0
comments
Labels: Real estate
That is Voice Over Internet Protocol. I am a bit sensitive to this as I use Vonage for my office telephone and I think more of us are going to VOIP telephone service. (Insight has jumped into this with a bevy of commercials touting their telephone service.) So should we be surprised that there are scams?
Vishing is really just a new take on an old scam -- phishing. You know the drill: you get an e-mail that claims to be from your bank or credit card company asking you to update your account information and passwords (perhaps, it says cleverly, because of fraudulent activity) by clicking on a link to what appears to be a legit Web site. Don't do it, of course. It's just a ruse, nothing more than an illegal identity theft collection system.
Vishing schemes are slightly different, with a couple of variations:Vishing has some advantages over traditional phishing tricks. First, VoIP service is fairly inexpensive, especially for long distance, making it cheap to make fake calls. Second, because it's Web-based, criminals can use software programs to create phony automated customer service lines.
- In one version, you get the typical e-mail, like a traditional phishing scam. But instead of being directed to an Internet site, you're asked to provide the information over the phone and given a number to call. Those who call the "customer service" number (a VoIP account, not a real financial institution) are led through a series of voice-prompted menus that ask for account numbers, passwords, and other critical information.
- In another version you're contacted over the phone instead of by e-mail. The call could either be a "live" person or a recorded message directing you to take action to protect your account. Often, the criminal already has some personal information on you, including your account or credit card numbers. That can create a false sense of security. The call came from a VoIP account as well.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:55 AM
0
comments
Somewhat of a follow up to this post here. Seems that on top of E.coli outbreaks, a New York Taco Bell has rats.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:20 AM
0
comments
Labels: franchising
I find no one likes estate planning. I have nightmares about some of my business clients but we do muddle through. I think this will be the big issue coming up locally in the next few years as many of the local business owners get old.
Then I find this article in Toronto Star which seems so very familiar. The same problems between generations just a different country. Okay, there is some reassurance in that the resistance to estate planning meets the same obstacles as here.
I do suggest that anyone reading this blog and has a business take a look at the article With the exception of one small detail, there is good information there for us Hoosiers.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:07 AM
0
comments
Labels: business law, business succession planning, estate planning
From the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette an article on the perils for business people doing their own taxes:
The expression “Don’t try this at home, kids” can easily apply to small-business owners who try to compile income tax returns without the help of a tax preparer or tax prep software.The Kokomo Tribune published an article on Congressman Donnelly's work on the Small Business Tax Relief bill. This might be a bit of a puff piece for the freshman Congressman, bu still the bill does sound interesting:
The bill will increase the deduction small businesses can take from their taxes from $112,000 to $125,000 and increase the number of businesses that will be eligible.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
9:45 AM
0
comments
Labels: General business news, taxes
From the Washington Post:
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a financially troubled businessman lost an important right under the federal bankruptcy code because he failed to disclose all of his assets as the law requires.
In a 5-to-4 decision in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, the court said Robert Marrama of Gloucester, Mass., could not convert his bankruptcy case from one chapter of the code to another, as the law ordinarily allows.
The reason, the court said, stemmed from his failure to disclose a Maine vacation home placed in a trust. Marrama, who operated a flooring company, listed the value of his interest in the property as zero, according to papers in the case
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:12 AM
0
comments
Labels: bankruptcy, small businesses
From yesterday's Indianapolis Business Journal:
Marion Superior Court Judge Thomas J. Carroll yesterday issued a preliminary injunction ordering an Indianapolis company controlled by high-profile businessman Alan G. Symons to return computer files and other information allegedly taken from a Fishers competitor. The competitor, Product Action International LLC, claimed in a lawsuit filed in May that Symons' company--Fast Tek Group LLC--used Product Action's business blueprint to build a similar company. Both firms sort defects out of parts lots for manufacturers. Symons filed an appeal shortly after Carroll issued the injunction. "This is two competitors beating each other up," he said, denying wrongdoing.This story bears some resemblance to other similar cases that I have posted about here and here and here and here.
I hate basing anything on a newspaper report and so this may just be two competitors fighting things out in out. However, the bit about the two taking the 5th does make me skeptical about any pleas of innocence.Carroll's injunction said the former employees, Anthony Roark and Chan Chanthaphone, admitted taking the information, then took the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination and refused to testify.
Roark allegedly transferred operating methods, process flow charts, a quality manual and other trade secrets from Product Action computers to a zip drive, and then gave the information to other Fast Tek workers and used the information in Fast Tek operations.
Roark, who started working at a Fast Tek office in Saginaw, Mich., in 2004, climbed to vice president a year later. He resigned in December 2006.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:26 AM
1 comments
Labels: non-competition agreements, non-disclosure agreements, Trade Secrets
From the Noblesville Ledger:
A later report from the same paper shows the importance of legal research:
The Cicero Town Council violated Indiana's Open Door Law by interviewing engineering firms in closed-door sessions, according to town attorney John Culp.Steve Key, legal counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association, agreed. "That should not have been done in an executive session. They were wrong."
The Open Door Law, he explained, was written so the public's business is conducted in the open, allowing anyone interested to see what decision is made and for what reasons it was made.
The five-member town council held closed-door sessions, also called executive sessions, on Jan. 24 and Feb. 6 to interview firms interested in handling engineer- ing projects on a contractual basis.
The Open Door Law does allow a governing body to receive information about and interview prospective employees in closed-door sessions. However, the attorney general said in 1997 that contractors are not employees so interviews and information-gathering sessions about them must be done at a public session.
actually, i am quite impressed by this Steve Culp's willingness to take responsibility for Cicero's actions.
Town attorney John Culp is blaming himself for Cicero Town Council violating Indiana's Open Door Law by interviewing engineering firms in two closed-door sessions."I thought it was alright to go ahead and interview in executive sessions," Culp told the board at its meeting Tuesday night.
The five-member council held closed-door sessions, also called executive sessions, on Jan. 24 and Feb. 6 to interview firms interested in handling engineering projects on a contractual basis. Indiana's Open Door law allows executive sessions to interview prospective employees. Contractors, however, are not considered employees.
Culp said the council asked in advance if executive sessions would be legal, but when the attorney became ill he was unable to research the answer.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:19 AM
0
comments
Labels: hiring employees, Open Door Law
From the New York Small Business Law blog comes this information on a new Internet resource for small businesses, startupping:Startupping is a one-of-a-kind community resource created for Internet entrepreneurs by Internet entrepreneurs. It is a place to share information, ask questions, and tap into the experience of others who have built and are building web businesses. Read blog posts about startup issues, participate in our discussion forums, and view our wiki resources, including sample term sheets and a glossary. For more information about the Startupping site, see our about page.
The site has a lot of information and I have not had time to plumb it fully. However, it does seem useful for a person starting a small online business.
If you are thinking of starting a small business would do well to take a look at other posts on the New York Small Business blog. She has several links to blogs and resources for the small business.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:10 AM
0
comments
Labels: small businesses, start ups
I no longer practice consumer bankruptcy law but I still get questions on it. Some from former clients about why their discharged debts still appear on their credit reports. Today I found this post on the New York Bankruptcy Litigation Blog. The writer succinctly states the problem and the solution. I cannot write any better than this fellow and I suggest anyone having the problem of discharged debts appearing on credit reports read this post now.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
9:13 AM
0
comments
Anyone owning a food franchise or thinking of buying one ought to read this article from the New York Times: Left Holding the Bag in the Land of Fast Food. Other franchise owners may still fidn the article helpful. The writer uses the outbreak of e. coli cases at fast food restaurants as the starting point for discussing the riskiness of a franchise business.
After such a crisis, being a franchise owner is both a blessing and a curse. While the franchise has the marketing clout and financial strength of the parent company to back it up, it is also largely dependent on the parent company’s public relations and advertising to lure customers back.From this lawyer's viewpoint, the question is - to steal a phrase from Capital One - what is in your franchise agreement?
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:59 AM
0
comments
Labels: franchising
Thanks to the Tennessee Business Litigation Law Blog and Day on Torts for the lead to this case on third party interference with contractual rights. I am unaware of any similar reported case in Indiana. However, I think think the reasoning ought to be persuasive here.
First, the Tennessee court established that a difference existed between a parent corporation and a subsidiary:
In a tortious interference claim, a parent corporation and its subsidiary will usually not share an identity of interests when the subsidiary is not wholly-owned because the interests of the majority shareholder are often different from and antagonistic to the interests of the minority shareholders. Because of the competing nature of their interests, Tennessee law protects minority shareholders from majority shareholders. Under Tennessee law, a majority shareholder owes a fiduciary duty to minority shareholders.Second, the Tennessee court noted that one cannot be liable for interfering with one's own contract.
But when the parent is not the sole shareholder, the interests of the parent and the subsidiary will not always be identical. This distinction is crucial because the whole issue of extending the qualified privilege depends on a complete identity of interest, such that two separate entities are treated as one. When the interests of a parent and subsidiary are not identical, the reason for treating them as the same entity disappears. In that case, the parent should not be considered a
party to the contract so as to protect it from liability for interference with contract.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
7:47 AM
0
comments
Labels: business torts, contracts
I missed this post from The Trade Secrets Blog. I report my embarrassment at this because I recognize the behavior described in the post. Web-based e-mail includes Yahoo and G-Mail and Netscape Mail (if that still exists) and MSN (or whatever Microsoft calls MSN nowadays).
From the New York Times (registration req'd), a story about the heartburn employers feel when employees transfer their confidential company email to web-accessible free personal email accounts offered by companies such as Google and Yahoo.The New York Times has a free subscription policy but in case you do not want to take the time, here are some excerpts directly from the article:
As the Times puts it, "employers, who envision corporate secrets leaking through the back door of otherwise well-protected computer networks, are not pleased."
Rest easily (for now) though, "[s]o far, no major corporate disasters caused by this kind of e-mail forwarding have come to light."
But, for the paranoid among us: "Lawyers in particular wring their hands over employees using outside e-mail services. They encourage companies to keep messages for as long as necessary and then erase them to keep them out of the reach of legal foes. Companies have no control over the life span of e-mail messages in employees’ Web accounts."
Hospitals have an added legal obligation to protect patient records. But when DeKalb Medical Center in Atlanta started monitoring its staff use of Web-based e-mail, it found that doctors and nurses routinely forwarded confidential medical records to their personal Web mail accounts — not for nefarious purposes, but so they could continue to work from home.
In the months after the hospital began monitoring traffic to Web e-mail services, it identified “a couple hundred incidents,” said Sharon Finney, DeKalb’s information security administrator. “I was surprised about the lack of literacy about the technology we depend on every day,” she said.
DeKalb now forbids the practice, and uses several software systems that monitor the hospital’s outbound e-mail and Web traffic. Ms Finney said she still catches four to five perpetrators a month trying to forward hospital e-mail.
The Web mail services may also be prone to glitches. Last month, Google fixed a bug that caused the disappearance of “some or all” of the stored mail of around 60 users. A week later, it acknowledged a security hole that could have exposed its users’ address books to Internet attackers.
Paul Kocher, president of the security firm Cryptography Research, said the real issue for companies was trust. “If you can’t trust employees enough to use services like Gmail, they probably shouldn’t be working for you,” he said.
Many companies apparently do not have that level of trust. In a survey conducted last year, the e-mail security firm Proofpoint found that 37 percent of companies in the United States used software to monitor office use of Web mail.
With trade secrets does it not always come down to trust? I do not see any means of a business with employee trust issues to protect itself other than installing monitoring software. Do read this earlier post which widens the focus beyond only e-mail.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
6:20 AM
0
comments
From thee Tax & Business Law Commentary Blog comes this post about Dominatrix seeking a contract. Mr. Levine thinks:
Of course, the question that first occurred to me is: Is the "Dominatrix" an independent contractor or an employee? This has obvious income tax and FICA/SECA implications.
My first thought was this: might the contract be void as being for an illegal purpose? The commentator to Mr. Levin's blog answers the independent contractor/employee question correctly (well, correctly for Indiana). I had to some looking for my answer. The short answer is that it is not void for being a contract for an illegal act.
The longer answer requires looking at the prostitution statute (IC 35-45-4-2):
ProstitutionThen just to be on the safe side checking the definition of "Deviate sexual conduct" at IC 35-41-1-9:
35-45-4-2 Sec. 2. A person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) performs, or offers or agrees to perform, sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct; or
(2) fondles, or offers or agrees to fondle, the genitals of another person;
for money or other property commits prostitution, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if the person has two (2) prior convictions under this section.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.5. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.77; Acts 1979, P.L.301, SEC.1; P.L.310-1983, SEC.3.
"Deviate sexual conduct" definedAnd, that is legal reasoning in 60 seconds. It does beg the question of why we lawyers think of such things when faced with has other more generally interesting features.
35-41-1-9 Sec. 9. "Deviate sexual conduct" means an act involving:
(1) a sex organ of one person and the mouth or anus of another person; or
(2) the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.10. Amended by P.L.183-1984, SEC.1.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:10 PM
0
comments
Labels: contracts, legal reasoning, legal research, public policy voiding contracts
The HR Lawyer posted a reference to an article on Rule 68 settlements to offer. I seem to recall reading an article on this subject years ago but I cannot recall where. I understand the mechanics and the rule does have potential for defense counsel. However, I cannot think of a time I thought of using the Rule when defending a client who could make the necessary offer. Unfortunately, the article is a SSRN article and might be difficult to download.
Remember that Indiana's Trial Rules has a Rule 68 which follows the federal rule. You can find that rule here. The procedure ought to work as well under our state rule but, again, having the defendant willing and able to pay will be the deciding factor on its use.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:25 PM
0
comments
Labels: civil procedure, offers in judgment
From Wiggin & Dana's Franchise Law Blog:
IHOP tells investors “Oops”
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:16 PM
0
comments
Labels: intellectual property, trademarks
With apologies to The Beatles, here is a story via The Trade Secrets Blog:
Big companies may be able to hide these losses because of their size. Small and medium sized businesses do not have the luxury of padding found in the big companies. Can your company afford to lose any of the trade secrets which give you the edge over your competition?Biggest Threat to Corporate Information: Ignorance
Feb 14 2007By Andrea James --The Seattle Post-IntelligencerCorporate executives listen up: Valuable company information is getting into the wrong hands. Sensitive documents are walking out in briefcases, bytes of data are zooming away over the Internet, and those internal files you thought were history are probably lying, unshredded, in some Dumpster.
"You are losing tons of information on a daily basis and don't know it," Dan Verton, executive editor of Homeland Defense Journal, said Tuesday. "A lot of companies ... they want to bury their heads in the sand, they want to ignore it. Shareholder value is the rule of the day."
Making new hires sign acceptable use policies won't cut it, panelists said. People don't read them, or they don't care because rules usually are not enforced.If you have read my prior posts on trade secrets, I really suggest that you do so.
New college graduates are savvy enough to find ways around controls and Web mail blockers, the panelists said. That's why it's important to train employees to be careful.
"These are people you are going to be hiring," Verton said. "They don't have the same understanding of acceptable use."
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
9:20 PM
0
comments
From the Elder Law Prof Blog:
Vermont agency establishes advance directives registry
Vermonters can now file an advance directive that will ensure that a person's critical health care decisions will be honored during a time of incapacitating illness, coma, or end-of-life care. The advance directive will be maintained in a registry called the "Vermont Advance Directive Registry" established by the Vermont Department of Health. Locating the documents and finding the proper designated "agent" to make health decisions is often a stumbling block to following patient wishes when the patient is unconscious or unable to communicate. "This new registry marks a significant innovation and added protection for Vermonters," said John Campbell, executive director of the Vermont Ethics Network. "It provides the peace of mind and security of knowing that their wishes, exactly as expressed in the advance directive, can be available immediately in a medical emergency or critical care situation.Publish
Source: Emax Health News, http://www.emaxhealth.com/24/9447.html
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
7:55 PM
0
comments
From Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog:
Mrs. Svajada of Corpus Christi, Texas left instructions to be buried wearing her ringAs the ring was worth $7,000, her daughter and friend decided that it was a "waste" to bury the ring and thus attempted to pry the ring off the Mrs. Svajada's body during the funeral. The daughter was charged with felony theft.
See AP, Woman charged in theft from mom's coffin, Feb. 16, 2007.
Charming. Sounds like Springer Show material.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
6:30 PM
0
comments
Labels: estate planning, funeral homes
More news on non-compete agreements. This time out of Milwaukee:
A bitter fight between investment firm Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc. and a rival company started by two of its former portfolio managers has been resolved, both firms announced Friday.
Baird and Red Granite Advisors LLC, a company that Joel D. Vrabel and David W. Bowman formed after they left Baird, said they had resolved their differences and that lawsuits pending in county circuit and federal courts would be dismissed.
Baird did not have much luck in court:I found another article and this factoid seeming highly interesting:Shortly after the first lawsuit was filed, Circuit Judge Patricia D. McMahon denied Baird's request for a temporary restraining order stopping Red Granite from doing business while the litigation was pending.
At a pretrial hearing in November, McMahon dealt Baird another blow, rejecting its request that Red Granite return documents. There wasn't sufficient evidence that the firm's founders took them, McMahon said.
Vrabel, Bowman and Bosworth left Baird Investment Management, a division of Milwaukee-based Baird, at the end of April 2006 to form Red Granite, Milwaukee. Eight Baird employees also resigned and joined Red Granite. Red Granite, in Milwaukee, now has 14 employees.I do not practice law in Wisconsin. I have no idea what Wisconsin's standards are for non-competition agreements or preliminary injunctions. I cannot believe that Wisconsin is any more conservative on non-competition agreements than Indiana. So my following comments are purely speculative about Wisconsin:
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:50 AM
0
comments
The Canadian blog Thoughts from a Management Lawyer noticed a few news reports that I did not. His conclusion is the same as mine:
I've never seen this type of suit before, but I find it a practical and proactive way of bringing the issue to a head quickly. This is definitely something to watch.The Boston Globe has a longish piece here. Seems that TJX is a Massachusetts company. Well, it is a bad day when you do not learn something new. Interesting point here which seems to support some of what I have been seeing out here in Indiana:
Paul Holtzman of Boston firm Krokidas & Bluestein LLP said he's seen a growing number of lawsuits involving companies trying to enforce non compete agreements.
"It just reflects the competitive nature of the industries and the economic investment in senior managers," he said.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:35 AM
0
comments
Labels: Non-compete agreements
An interesting story from the International Herald Tribune's business page caught my eye:
This scenario seems odder when one considers that non-compete agreements are a way of protecting trade secrets. See my post here about combining non-disclosure agreements with a non-competition agreement. So I have to wonder just what trade secrets belonging to TJX would benefit Pier One?BOSTON: An odd legal fight has emerged between TJX and Pier 1 Imports, both of them U.S. home furnishing chains, over what defines a competitor.
At issue is Alex Smith, a 54-year-old TJX executive whom Pier 1 hired last month. Days after resigning, Smith received a letter from TJX threatening to sue him over a noncompete clause. TJX also informed Smith that it would not pay him millions of dollars owed in incentive and retirement plans for taking the job.
Pier 1 got a restraining order Tuesday against TJX to prevent it from suing Smith. Even though Pier 1 and TJX both sell home goods, Pier 1 says TJX is not a competitor.
Why? Because Pier 1 sells full-price merchandise, mostly its own brands, and TJX sells discounted products, usually overruns, off-season or discontinued items, at its T.J. Maxx, Marshalls, and HomeGoods stores.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
10:06 PM
0
comments
Labels: Non-compete agreements, non-competition agreements, Trade Secrets
Following some very good advice, I started Sam Hasler's Indiana Family Law Blog. I have moved all my family law posts there. Take a look and let me know what you think.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
11:38 AM
0
comments
I give the following checklist to my business clients who need collections work. A good collections case means the client having this information before they send me the file. Too often a debtor is not just a debtor but a true deadbeat. A true deadbeat has no qualms about skipping out on a job or a residence to avoid paying their debts.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
8:59 PM
0
comments
Labels: business law, collections, small businesses
I found the following article somewhat by accident as it happens when searching on the Internet. Seeing the headline, I knew the tale without looking. I looked all the same. I offer it here for anyone who has a business and wonders what the fuss is about trade secrets.
Sometimes I think I bemuse my business clients when I start talking about trade secrets. There are two categories of client reactions to my trade secret questions. The first category does not always see the trade secrets. The other category see trade secrets but think they have no worries about protecting them. They see more pressing legal matters need discussing where I see threats to the core business. I keep telling them that a successful trade secrets case is about what we did long before the case gets to court.
I suggest you read this article written by a businessman and not an overly protective lawyer. By not consulting with an attorney on how to protect his trade secrets (and remember that trade secrets make the business), he almost lost his business.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
5:34 PM
0
comments
Labels: Trade Secrets
This question came up last week and I got to admit that I always thought the answer was obvious. After being a lawyer for over nineteen years, I got to keep in mind that what I know as an attorney may not be so obvious to the general public.
The simple answer is that the person liable for a judgment is the person or persons who has a
judgment against them.
Luckily, I asked the person asking the question when they had been sued and whose names were on the the court documents. Her answer was that they had not been sued - yet.
So now I have a different problem, a completely different question. The woman on the other end of the telephone could tell the difference between a pleading and a letter. Knowing that difference was completely unimportant in helping her with her problem.
So I got her talking about what the problem was and I shut up and listened. She was concerned about a bill her new husband owed and whether she could be held liable for it. The real question came out now and I could give her an answer unweighted with a lot of legalese.
She did raise what has been a persistent question for me over the years: where do people get some of their ideas about the law? This lady was under the impression that since she was married she was now liable along with her husband for his debts. I wish I could say that first time I had ever heard that one. I do not know exactly when the law changed so that a wife was not liable for her husband's debts. I always assumed that the law changed before the twentieth century started and long before I was became an attorney.
I explained to her that she was no even liable for any current debts of her husband - unless she signed a contract along with husband. I got to admit that I glossed over the doctrine of necessities. Considering what the Indiana Supreme Court did with that doctrine, I do not think I was shortchanging her.
She was relieved and it took me about five minutes of conversation. It might have taken a bit less if I had been listening like an attorney rather talking like an attorney.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
4:53 PM
0
comments
Labels: collections, debtor-creditor law, family law, Indiana law, office management
I would like to keep the purely political off of this blog. However, Matt Tully wrote a column in the February 7 Indianapolis Star where politics and landlord-tenant law meet. The occasion was a bill requiring landlord's to give notice before they enter the premises.
Indiana's landlord-tenant law starts with statutes. Thus, why the legislators had a hearing on this bill.
The bill reads as follows:
(e) A tenant may not unreasonably withhold consent to the tenant's landlord to enter the tenant's dwelling unit in order to:I cannot see anything in this bill which any of my landlord or tenant clients would find objectionable.
(1) inspect the dwelling unit;
(2) make necessary or agreed to:
(A) repairs;
(B) decorations;
(C) alterations; or
(D) improvements;
(3) supply necessary or agreed to services; or
(4) exhibit the dwelling unit to prospective or actual:
(A) purchasers;
(B) mortgagees;
(C) tenants;
(D) workers; or
(E) contractors.
(f) A landlord may enter the dwelling unit:
(1) without notice to the tenant in the case of an emergency that threatens the safety of the occupants or the landlord's property; and
(2) without the consent of the tenant:
(A) under a court order;
(B) if the tenant has abandoned or surrendered the dwelling unit; or
(C) for the reasons listed in subsection (e).
(g) A landlord:
(1) shall not abuse the right of entry or use a right of entry to harass a tenant;
(2) shall give a tenant reasonable written or oral notice of the landlord's intent to enter the dwelling unit; and
(3) may enter a tenant's dwelling unit only at reasonable times.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
4:23 PM
2
comments
Labels: landlord tenant, leases, new legislation 2007
Yes, it is a press release but getting statistics on litigation is a bit tricky. It does seem to agree with what I am seeing of increased opinions from the Indiana Court of Appeals on trade secrets and third party interference with contracts. With those caveats, here is the news:
Intellectual Property Litigation Threatens a Growing Array of Companies
PRINCETON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--According to research conducted by IncreMental Advantage, companies in a growing array of industries face potentially ruinous litigation relating to intellectual property. David Wanetick, Managing Director of IncreMental Advantage and Chief Intellectual Property Officer, said, "Sources of Intellectual Property litigation include attacks by patent trolls, disputes over licensing issues, business methods patent violations, counterfeiting and disclosures of trade secrets."
Friday February 9, 10:19 am ETTrends in Intellectual Property litigation include:
- The number of intellectual property lawsuits soared almost three-fold from the beginning of the 1980s to the end of the 1990s.
- From 1984 to 1999, the median loss absorbed by companies faced with IP litigation was $2.9 million and the mean loss was $28.7 million in total losses.
These issues will be more fully discussed at IncreMental Advantage's Intellectual Property Litigation Conference which will be held in New York City on February 28.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
3:44 PM
0
comments
Labels: Trade Secrets
A recent case brought close to home the importance of having a power of attorney. An adult has a stroke and the wife cannot pay the bills because all of his income is in a bank account in his name only. Having had a stroke, I had to file for guardianship. I charge $150.00 for a power of attorney with a health care provision and a living will, but a guardianship starts at about eight times that much. So much money and stress could have been avoided if the husband had had the proper documents!
Why did he not have the proper documents? Because he never thought that he would need them. A power of attorney appoints a person to act for you as if they were you to take care of your business. A healthcare power of attorney appoints a person to act for you in taking care of your health issues. A living will tells a healthcare provider (your doctor and/or hospital) that you do or do not want to receive life support.
I have a Top Three Reasons of Why You Do Not Need a Power of Attorney. I can tell you that if you answer "NO" to any two of the following, you need a power of attorney and a living will:
3. You have a power of attorney and living will.
2. You will never be incapable of making decisions about your business or health care.
1. You want to receive medical treatment if you are incapacitated regardless of the costs.
Posted by
Sam Hasler
at
9:59 PM
0
comments
Labels: advance directives, estate planning, Power fo attorney
Bob Ambrogi reviews the Opera Browser. Opera always intrigued and I almost tried it out when Netscape Communicator started to die. Right now I am content with Firefox but I am tempted by this part of Ambrogi's review:
Like the latest versions of IE and Firefox, Opera comes with a built-in RSS feed reader. Unlike the other two, it comes with a highly functional e-mail program and newsgroup reader that, once again, is simply more clever than others. Rather than organize messages in files, Opera's e-mail program organizes them in "views." These views can have familiar names such as "received" and "unread" or can be customized, but they are actually hyperlinks embedded in messages. This means that you can assign a single message to multiple views without having to move or copy the message.I use Yahoo Mail and I really do not like it. I used Eudora from when I first went online till I left for Indianapolis. I miss Eudora. When I did not use Eudora, I used Netscape's integrated e-mail client. Firefox does not do e-mail but there is a sister product which is an e-mail clien