Bankruptcy Case: Debtors V. US

On April 14, 2015, Brian F. Guillot, Esq., of Metairie Louisiana, submitted a complaint to Office of the Bar Counsel regarding Ernest A. Solomon. Guillot asserts that Solomon failed to comply with Guillot’s request for accounting in reference to the estate of Elmore C. Desvigne, Sr. Solomon has allegedly violated Mass.R.Prof.C 1.15(c) and (d).

On October 29th, 2015, I made the trip to small claims court at the Superior Court North County Division in Vista, California. The case I observed was a contract dispute between Michael Mendell and Ediga Narashima. The plaintiff (Mendell) was sueing the defendant (Narashima) for $4,000 over a breach of contract. Narashima had given Mendell the opportunity to build theatre system and a bookshelf for his home. They both came to an agreement that the total cost of this procedure would be $4,100. Mr. Mendell is a professor at APT College where he teaches telecommunications. Mendell claims that the full $4,100 was never paid to him. During the whole process of the build there was many setbacks and problems that arose. Mendell claimed that while he was working on this home theatre project, he missed out on work and money he could have obtained from his other job as a professor. That is the reason why he is sueing Narashima as well as the fact that Mendell claims Narashima did not pay him his final installment of $300 for the job. Ediga Narashima claims that the final installment was paid through a friend or third party named Mario Diaz. Mario was a friend of both the plaintiff and defendant. He had referred Mendell to Narashima for the job. Mendell counterclaims that he had never received the final installment from Mario. The big question is to whether Mario had payed the final installment to Mendell as they agreed in

The goal is of this complaint is for your institution to help prevent major financial downfall for all homeowners (families) who bought into this community, to enforce laws and regulations and order those who are responsible to pay for this debt (serious accounting issues). Hopefully, develop and implement measures it does not happen again.

Kitson (In re Kitson), 341 Fed. Appx. 234 (7th Cir. Ill. 2009) explains that a “bankruptcy filing [can] contain several misstatements and omissions, but [the court] concluded that they did not run afoul of Section 727(a) because none of them were material to the bankruptcy petition.” Alleman is a former employer of Mr. Kitson that has brought an appeal with a bankruptcy court for discharging Mr. Kitson’s debts to ultimately include two debts Alleman claims Mr. Kitson still owes to him. During this process Alleman has alleged Mr. Kitson had failed to provide records in regards to Kitson Enterprises, however, the court decided this was “immaterial” and “unrelated to Mr. Kitson’s personal bankruptcy.” It was further expressed by the court that Alleman had failed to prove his allegations against Mr. Kitson “how he, any other creditor, or the court was hindered in any material way by the misrepresentation.” Due to the failure of Alleman to prove Mr. Kitson had provided false or misstatements within the bankruptcy filing, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois affirmed the bankruptcy court’s

We called the bursar's office to discuss the matter and were referred to T R Daley, the financial aid director but she referred me to Sam Wong who referred me to the director of the bursar's office, Tony Carson. After reviewing the facts of the case, Mr. Carson lifted the hold on my son's account but told me he did not have the jurisdiction to waive the charges. He said he would refer the facts to Ms. Daley and organize a conference call with her and me but soon after he stopped answering my calls. Instead, I spoke to Sam Wong who referred me back to Ms. Daley who then referred me back to Mr. Carson's office. So I was forced to contact Ms. Daley again and finally a conference call was set up. However, during the conference call, instead of resolving the situation at hand, Ms. Daley chose to question my son as if to criminalize him about the refund disbursed to him and then abruptly exited the conference shortly thereafter. There was absolutely zero responsibility taken for the mistake that had occurred. Mr. Carson then referred the case to the ombudsman who also provided no solution.

CASE CITATION: Kurt HOME and Brenda Home, husband and wife, Appellants, v. NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.NORTH KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. JOHN GRAHAM ASSOCIATES, Third-Party Defendants. No. 21696-5-II. (1998)

On September26, 2013, Sokoll hired Feuer to handle a discrimination case involving her former employer, Luminosity Behavorial Healh, Inc. The fee agreement states that the following legal services will be performed: “Prosecution of disability discrimination case against Luminosity Behavioral Health, Inc. in Stouhgton, Massachusetts. Send demand letter, file and prosecute claim with Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.” Sokoll alleges that she had called several times looking for an update on her case and never received a response; she spoke once with Feuer in the winter of 2013, Due to the lack of response, Sokoll asserts that she requested her file back, as well as the retainer check for $2500.00.

and the Advanced Placement are registered trademarks of the College Entrance Examination Board; their use does not constitute endorsement of this material by the College Board.

Jacquelyn Young hired the law firm of Becker & Poliakoff to represent her in her federal employment discrimination lawsuit against her employer. The firm associate that filed the action made a mistake by attaching the wrong U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) right-to-sue letter. The court dismissed the claims. The law firm did not try to re-file using the correct attachment, or try to dismiss the motion. Thirteen months later, the law firm informed Young that the claims had been dismissed, and that the firm was withdrawing from representing her further with the case.

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

The case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al. began in 2010, when female financial analysts (FAs) filed charges in in several states and with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that the Bank of America (BoA) used discriminatory pay practices against them in violation of state laws and the U.S. Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (DiMarco, 2014; Calibuso, 2012). These laws forbid inequalities in pay (Schrimsher & Fretwell, 2012) and discriminating employment practices based on gender and other protected classes (42 U.S.C.A in Webber, 2015). The case was settled in favor of the plaintiffs (DiMarco, 2014). However, legal and scholarly advice suggests that these kinds of cases can be avoided through organizational efforts in training in diversity (Bendick, Egan & Lofhjelm, 2001) and legal understanding along with professional validation of practices, and managerial accountability (Arthur & Doverspike in Malos, 2015). This writer agrees; the case of Calibuso et al. v. Bank of America Corp. et al, which involved discriminatory practices related to compensation and other employment-related acts may have been avoided by observing the advice aimed at organizational efforts in anti-discrimination in the workplace.

On June 25, 2002, the BMH Foundation (the Foundation) offered, and Campbell accepted, a “Tuition Scholarship” in the form of a Forgivable Loan Agreement (the loan). Under the terms of the loan, the Foundation gave Campbell $6,800.00 to pay the tuition for her nursing degree in exchange for Campbell’s promise to continue her employment with BMH for a specified number of years. The loan further provided that if Campbell failed to comply with the loan’s terms, she would be required to repay to the Foundation the full amount of the loan plus interest. In spring 2003 people associated with parkway contacted Campbell and asked her if she would be interested in joining the nursing staff there. Campbell expressed her interest and parkway agreed to pay the loan from the foundation. Around May 1st 2003 at a board meeting the board of directors Campbell expressed her concern about the loan and they told her not to worry the general terms would be taken care of with no further conditions or restrictions relating to the payment. So, Campbell accepted the employment offer under those conditions. In February 2005 Campbell learned that Parkway did not pay off her loan as they promised, and Campbell was asked to repay the loan since she was in default. She contacted Parkway and demanded they pay off the loan and they refused to do so. Which made Campbell file a suit

The opinion in Bank of New York Mellon Corp. v. C.I.R. affirmed two separate lower court decisions that relied on the economic substance doctrine to reject corporate taxpayers’ attempts to claim foreign tax credits based on a series of complex transactions, including a STARS transaction case.

Some consumers fear filing for bankruptcy because of what they think the will have to give up. We all work hard for what we have. Even if what we have isn’t much, we still don’t want to have to give it up and start over. It makes bankruptcy seem like less of an option and more of a punishment. But if you file for bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court isn’t going to view every last item you own as an asset. Assets as defined by the bankruptcy court may be very different than “asset” as defined to you, the individual in need of a bankruptcy discharge.

McClain, P. J. A., Sheehan, B. F., & Butler, L. L. (1998). Substantive rights retained by