Essay about arzu v. arzu case brief

Facts: Reed the newly homebuyer purchased a home from Mr. King under false pretenses and decided to dispute the order of the Superior Court of Nevada County (California), which dismissed Reed’s complaint about misrepresented in the purchase of a home without having full insight from the defendants and his real estate agents. The plaintiff is suing for rescission of the real estate contract. She believes she was involved in a breach of duty because all the information did not disclose about the home.

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

In Perry v. Central Bank & Trust, 812 S.W.2d 166 (Ky. Ct. App. 1991) it was reasoned as to whether the parties exercised due diligence concerning the suit and answering the summons. It also stated that carelessness by a party or his attorney is not reason enough to set an entry aside. Ky. Civ. R. 55.02. With that said, It can be argued, that Dr. Furlow fully intended to answer the complaint within the twenty 20 days; but was prevented from doing so, because of the trauma his family suffered at the hand of robbers the day before meeting with us. We can also argue that he had reason of an extraordinary nature justifying relief as contained in ground (f) Ky. Civ. R.60.02.

In paragraphs 35, 36, 37, and 42, plaintiffs provide an exhaustive list of demands that Lauren and Rifkin feel are owed to them from Daniel’s assets. These self-serving—and frankly, quite concerning—assertions fundamentally misapprehend the nature of the fiduciary relationship at issue here. In this matter, Martin owes no duties to Lauren or Rifkin. Rather, pursuant to the power of attorney, Martin only owes fiduciary obligations to Daniel to provide for his best interest, as Daniel—and no one else—is the principal. Indeed, plaintiffs’ complaint is full of allegations

Mark J. Mcburney (Respondent) V. Nathaniel L Young, 569 US, 12–17. (2013) Argued February 20, 2013—Decided April 29, 2013 in United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Facts: Parties: Mitchell (M), Neff (N), Pennoyer (P). Land was sold at an auction to allow M to collect on a judgment he won by default. The judgment arose because N did not pay attorney fees owed to M. M won by default because N did not appear in court. However, M, who lived in Oregon, published notice of the matter in an Oregon newspaper, not in California. N lived in California. The Oregon court placed the judgment against land N owned in Oregon, which was sold to a buyer called P. M was paid from the sale of the property, but years later N sued the buyer to get his land back.

Defendant is ordered to forfeit half of the court findings immediately, and submit Plaintiffs suggested income withholding until paid in full.

An attachment is an emotional bond between two people. It is a two-way process that endures over time. An evolutionary perspective of attachment was researched by the famous John Bowlby in 1969.

1. The Creditor-assignee is holder of a September 2, 2008 Supreme Court of New York County of Queens Judgmet, recorded in Queens County, New York as; Susan H. Schuster v. Lilo Fink and Richard Fink case number: 19478/2005, and March 23, 2009 registered as Foreign Judgment and recorded in Collier County Records case number 09-02493-CA. The Debtors place of residents. (ex. 1)

Caldwell challenges the separate convictions and sentences he received for the crimes of conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company and conspiracy to commit burglary of Bella Furniture. The State agrees that it was improper for Caldwell to receive two sentences for conspiracy when the State did not argue that Caldwell committed two separate conspiracies. The parties, however, disagree as to how to resolve this issue. The State maintains that while the cumulative sentence must fall, the underlying convictions should nevertheless remain and that we should remand the case for re-sentencing. Caldwell, however, contends that we should simply vacate the conviction and sentence for the charge that we determine is least supported

An attachment is defined as an emotional connection to another individual that develops between an individual who is able to provide protection, comfort, and support in times

Mellon Bank N.A. This case was created over the validity of an old negotiable instrument, and whether or not Kim Griffith was a holder in due course or not. Mr. Griffith had stumbled upon a certificate of deposit issued by Mellon Bank for the amount of $530,000. In addition to discovering the certificate, it was entitled “Negotiable Certificate of Deposit, No.1-48346.” Griffith found the negotiable instrument inside an old book he had purchased while he and his wife cleaned out there storage unit in Largo, Florida. Griffith was unable to verify the price he paid for the book, or the name of the seller. Griffith proceeded to take the instrument to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to claim the money as a holder in due course. When Griffith presented the instrument to the Mellon Bank, they denied the repayment of the instrument. As a result, charges were brought against Mellon Bank for the repayment of the certificate of deposit in the amount of $2.5 million after

Facts: Averill (Plaintiff) brought action again Gleaner (defendant) for alleged breach of contract regarding retirement benefits. Gleaner allegedly breached Article 4 of the contract by making modifications to and terminating the Gleaner Supplemental Savings Program (GSSP), negatively impacting Averill’s benefits.

Plaintiff intend to conduct discovery procedure in this case under Level II of New York Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4 because she seek monetary relief aggregating more than $50,000, and request that the Court enter a Discovery Control Plan and place this case on Level II because the issues in dispute are complex and the claim will be better resolved in accordance with a discovery plan specifically tailored by the Court for the disposition of this case.

Although I had arrived after the case had begun, I had a little bit of background knowledge and could easily follow what was going on. The case was between Joseph B. McCarthy and his ex-wife, Annie J. Ashment McCarthy. Joseph was the defendant, and Annie was the plaintiff. Annie had a lawyer by her side, and Joseph stood alone. Annie’s lawyer was Brad E. Macdonald. The defendant had failed to pay child support and owed his ex-wife an arrearage of thirty-thousand dollars.