Great Fictional Lawyers, Three

Time for some more Saturday fun with the third in my series of Great Fictional Lawyers. Today's is:

Barry Zuckercorn, the family lawyer for the Bluth family in Arrested Development.

Education: Unknown, although according to his ads and Lucille Bluth, "He's very good."



Credentials and Big Cases: In addition to representing the Bluth family in their case (which involved SEC investigations and "a little light treason") Zuckercorn also represented himself in a criminal case of unknown origin, defended a man accused of something involving a woman alleged to be faking her pregnancy, threw a book at a former prosecutor, and was sued for sexual harassment (and lost.) Also, he microwaved a Ding Dong while still in its wrapper.



Notable Quotes:

Barry Zuckerkorn: So basically you're about 2,000 shares short of being the majority stock holders. Now unfortunately it's a private stock so you can not just buy up the shares unless someone is willing to sell

Michael: Are you sure?

Barry Zuckerkorn: That's what it said on 'Ask Jeeves'

_________________________________________________

Barry: I got Michael out of his marriage, didn’t I?

Michael: Actually she died.

Barry: You’re kidding me. I’ve been taking credit for that for years.

Michael: Credit?

__________________________________________________________


Barry: You know what? Don’t get too close to me. ’Cause I’ve got an itch you can’t believe. I think something laid eggs on me.

A hamburger for $200? That better include pickles!

Ever stop to think about all the costs of everything that you do? Consider that cup of coffee you got at the drive-through this morning. What did that coffee REALLY cost, from the cost of producing the dollar you spent on it to the cost of the gas you used to drive there to get it to the cost of the gas the WORKER used to drive there to get it to the electricity used to run the machine to make the coffee...

You get my point, right? That kind of thinking is the subject of "The Value Of Nothing," a thought-provoking great new book from Raj Patel.

Patel expands on Oscar Wilde's famous quote that "nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing," He takes that thought and runs with it, showing the hidden costs in everyday objects -- like how a hamburger ACTUALLY costs as much as $200. From there, Patel goes on to question why we have markets at all, and whether they serve the purpose we think they do. Patel makes a convincing case for the idea that the various crises we've endured are a result of the market and our no-longer-working democractic process.

Patel doesn't just criticize, but offers a way to rethink the economic model we're using by rethinking the political model, focusing on who gets to make the economic choices we face everyday.

The Value of Nothing" is already being called "A deeply though-provoking book about the dramatic changes we must make to save the planet from financial madness." (That's from Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine), and it promises to change the way you look at the world. And for a limited time, you can win a copy by clicking that link and entering the promotional sweepstakes -- they're giving away 50 free copies of the book.

Lawsuit news: Got a credit card? The US Supreme Court may decide what your interest rates should be.

Starting next month, new credit card rules take effect --which is weird, kind of, because the old credit card rules are still being worked out by the Courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court may take up a case brought against JPMOrgan Chase Bank (owners of 99% of the world's capital!) alleging that Chase illegally retroactively raised interest rates after default. Chase says it did warn the cardholder (who had defaulted on his payments and had his interest rates raised back to the beginning of the billing cycle), in part, Chase says, by putting notices into the cardholder agreement about when and how rates could be raised.

It's not all just academic, even with the new laws going into effect. While, starting in February, credit card companies must give 45 days' notice before raising some rates, that law doesn't mean that credit card companies didn't violate the old laws.

Garnishments: They're not just for sandwiches anymore.

Hard times don't just mean that more people can't pay their bills; it also means that debt collectors have to be more aggressive because more people can't pay their bills.

When times are good, debt collectors can be (relatively) lenient: enough debtors will pay up without legal action to keep the money coming in, so they may be less likely to actually file a lawsuit or take action to enforce a judgment they've gotten. But when wallets tighten up and people don't have as much money, debt collectors have to take a harder line, too, not waiting for debtors to pay up but forcing them to.

And often times, that means garnishment: filing a legal action to take money away by force, from your paycheck or your bank account or other reserve of money. And the desperation of some debt collectors or creditors to find money leads them to file garnishments in more and more creative circumstances -- circumstances that don't always work out because sometimes, the creditor jumped the gun and filed too soon.

That's what happened in Hometown Bank v. Acuity Ins., a 2008 Wisconsin case with a complicated background and a straightforward result.

Hometown Bank was owed money by a company called "Westra," and Hometown ended up owning Westra's accounts receivable. One of those accounts receivable was owed by a guy named "Jungwirth" (and his company, but I can just call him Jungwirth because that's what the courts did.) Hometown sued Jungwirth to collect the Westra account -- with me so far? -- and got a default judgment.

I don't know why Jungwirth didn't answer the complaint, but I suspect it's because he wasn't worried about being collected against, and I suspect that based on what happened next: After getting their $11,000 default judgment, Hometown went after Acuity Insurance, trying to garnish money Hometown thought Acuity was going to pay to Jungwirth.

Still with me?

Hometown sued Acuity because Hometown had been told that Acuity was going to pay some money to Jungwirth; Hometown had been told that by Jungwirth. (Jungwirth apparently thought Acuity was trying to collect some money that had been withheld from payment on one of his jobs.)

Acuity defended the garnishment by claiming that it owed no money to Jungwirth, that no claim had been made, and that if a claim were made, Acuity would owe the money to the injured party, not Jungwirth. In other words, Acuity had no money or property of Jungwirth's.

The Court ruled that Hometown had a claim only if Jungwirth at the time of service "had, ... or in the future certainly will have" a claim against Acuity. If he did (or certainly would) have such a claim, Hometown might be able to garnish it. But, the Court said, in the future, Jungwirth's "Liability would arise only if proof of loss is served, if Jungwirth is determined to be liable, and if the claim is covered under the liability policy."

Then, the Court noted: "Even that would not be enough, however. Supposing those uncertainties all came to pass, Acuity still would not owe any money to Jungwirth, but to the injured party."

Case over: The bank didn't get to garnish Acuity, and Acuity was awarded $500 in costs -- which Hometown appealed, amazingly enough (the filing fee for an appeal is nearly half the amount that was awarded), but the appeal didn't work, either.

I tried to apply, but they said door-to-door doughnut test-tasters weren't part of the network.

If you own a small home-contracting type business, you know how hard it is to keep a steady stream of electrical work, plowing, roofing, disaster clean-up or other service jobs coming in. Advertisements can get lost in the clutter, nobody uses the yellow pages anymore, and word-of-mouth is hard to come by when you can't get jobs in the first place.

What you need to do is become part of the Symbiot network. Symbiot is there for small to medium sized businesses who want to increase sales, decrease costs, and get more work.

Symbiot can get you work: Joining Symbiot makes your company a preferred dispatch option for national or regional service contracts around you, so people who call Symbiot will be referred to you and you'll get the work. Get new plowing jobs, landscape work, plumbing and more.

Symbiot can save you money: Your Symbiot membership earns discounts on the equipment you use every day, so your costs will go down and you can buy better tools and supplies.

Symbiot can make you smarter: Their "Knowledge Center" helps you get training and insight into areas that affect your work and your industry.

More work, smarter employees, lower costs: Symbiot does that all for you. It's open to a variety of service businesses, whether you're a landscape contractor or work in pest management or do lot maintenance. Even locksmiths and property inspectors can join up. The odds are your business is welcome, and the odds are that once you join, your business will be doing better sooner rather than later.

So don't spend any more money on cheesy radio ads. Instead, join Symbiot and let them do the work of getting customers to you, so you can do the work the customers want.

Pop Quiz Time! Foreclosures 101.

How much do you really know about the laws that affect your life? Not as much as you think, no matter what you learned from that guy down the street whose brother-in-law once knew a lawyer back in Los Angeles who was really on the ball...

Let's see how much you really know about foreclosures. Here's five quick questions designed to see what you know about how easily (or not) your bank can put you on the street:

1. True or false: If I make all my payments on time, my lender can't foreclose on me.

Answer: False. Your note and mortgage can impose a variety of duties on you, ranging from paying taxes or homeowner's insurance (if you pay those outside of the mortgage) to preserving the property to not allowing other liens to be placed on the property. Some notes and mortgages may allow a lender to declare a default if you file bankruptcy or are insolvent. The note and mortgage you got when you bought your house are long, but it's better to read them anyway and know what you can or can't do.

2. If I miss a payment, it'll take how long before a lender can force me to leave my house?

A. 30 days.
B. 6 months.
C. 12 months.
D. All of the above.
E. None of the above.
F. Trick question! It varies!

The answer, of course, is F. If you miss a payment, in almost every case, a lender must first declare a default, and then accelerate the loan -- meaning the lender has to tell you "You missed a payment, that's a breach, now you owe us all the money at once." That can take any number of lengths of time; some lenders are quick to do that, and some are slow.

After the default/acceleration, a lender (in Wisconsin) must file a foreclosure action and serve you with the papers. You'll get 20 days from whenever your served just to file an answer to the lawsuit; after that, a court would have to enter a judgment of foreclosure, which starts the redemption period. That redemption period is the time from when a judgment of foreclosure is given to the lender until the lender can sell your house at a sheriff's sale. It can be 3, or 6, or 12 months long depending on the circumstances.

After the redemption period runs, the house can be sold at an advertised sheriff's sale, and the sale must then be confirmed by the judge after a hearing. It's only after that that the lender (or new buyer) owns your house, and if you don't leave then, they'll get a court order kicking you out.

3. True Or False: I'm a renter, so I don't have to worry if my property's foreclosed.

False. You may not have to worry too much, because there's a federal law that protects most renters from immediate effects of foreclosure. Under that law, the person who buys your house at a sheriff's sale must honor the terms of a bona fide lease (those terms are pretty strict) and let you finish out the lease, but they don't have to let you keep living there. And if you're living under a month-to-month or oral tenancy, the new buyer may be able to get you out in pretty short order.

In Wisconsin, too, tenants are entitled to notice of the foreclosure proceedings, and under Wisconsin law, a tenant whose tenancy is terminated by foreclosure can legally withhold rent. Plus, if you as a tenant don't get notice as required by law, you can sue the forecloser and get $250 plus your attorney's fees.

4. The only people entitled to a jury trial in a foreclosure action are:

A. The lender.
B. The borrower.
C. Everyone.
D. Nobody.

Answer: Probably D, although it's not always that clear. Foreclosures are "equitable" actions, meaning the rules can be subject to court decisions on what's fair. Equitable actions as a general rule do not get a jury trial, in Wisconsin. But under some circumstances, either party might be able to assert a right to a jury trial if a case involves other claims, such as breach of the contract or counterclaims for violations of the law. However, the point might be moot because most foreclosure cases are decided by summary judgment, a motion that allows the Court to rule without a trial, because in many foreclosure cases, the facts aren't really in dispute.

5. If the lender tries to serve me with the lawsuit, and I don't answer the door, the lender will have to:

A. Dismiss the case and deal with me directly.
B. Mail me the paperwork.
C. Make an appointment with me to drop off the papers.
D. Try again the next day or thereafter.

Answer: B, and a little bit of D, with some provisos. Many people think that not being home to get the papers means they can't be sued; even more people think that if they refuse to take the papers they're being served, they can't be sued. Both are wrong, and badly so.

A lawsuit has to be served, but service doesn't mean you have to actually take the papers in your hand. They can be left in your presence, for one thing, so a process server who can't get you to take the papers can drop them on your porch.

If a process server (or sheriff) tries to serve you and can't, they have to try due diligence to actually serve you. That usually means making a couple of stops at your house, or trying to find out where you might be. It doesn't take all that much effort, generally. After they've used that due diligence and they still can't serve you, they have other options, including leaving the papers at your house with a family member who's 14 or older, or any competent adult living there (family member or not.) And, the lender can publish a summons and complaint -- running an ad in the legal sections of the paper to serve you and (sometimes) mailing you a copy of the paperwork.

There are benefits to not being served, at times, so I'm not issuing a blanket statement that you should always just arrange to get the papers. Instead, you just need to be aware that not taking the papers doesn't mean things go away; it just means you might lose and never know it because you were served via an alternate method and never realized it.

WATCH this. (Hey, you know I like puns.)

I don't know why, but I've always just had one watch at a time. That really doesn't make sense, if you think about it. I don't have one set of clothes, or one pair of shoes, or just one tie. I have different clothing and different shoes depending on what I'm doing and what I'm wearing. I have ties to wear with button-up shirts, for example, and I'd never wear a tie with a sweatshirt. (Not again, anyway. It doesn't go over well at the Supreme Court, even if the sweatshirt IS a UC-Santa Cruz Banana Slugs sweatshirt.)

I have shoes to wear that match outfits, brown and black. I have tennis shoes and sandals depending on where I'm going.

But just the one watch, which I wear or don't wear. If I'm dressed down, my watch doesn't get worn, as it's a fancy-looking, kind of formal deal. Then again, it's a Buffalo Bills' watch, so if something's really formal, I may not wear it, either.

But I always NEED a watch, whether I'm jogging or driving to the mall or in court, and so the solution that I've come up with is this: Have more than one watch. Have a couple of watches and wear them as is appropriate.

I've come up with that solution not just because it makes perfect sense (as everything I say does) but also because I want one of the the Seiko kinetic Men's watches for sale at Blue Dial.com. These are watches that self-wind and look great and have all kinds of gadgets and doohickeys and features, including warranties and scratch-resistance, to name a few.

And I want Sweetie to get me one of them for Valentine's Day, but I'm sure that PRIOR to my theory here, she'd say "You have a watch already," and that'd be it. So instead of deliberately destroying my old watch (in, say, a tragic train accident), I can adjust society's expectations of what is or is not right by saying "Men should own more than one watch, for various occasions," and then go back to Sweetie and get her to get me that watch.

After all, watches like, say, the "Streamline:"


Are watches that have a unique kind of style, futuristic and fun and stylish all at the same time, like a watch Captain Kirk might wear - -and they're gifts that stand the test of time.

Look, the headline warned you. I like puns. And watches. Sweetie, take note. The rest of you guys, go tell your own sweeties about the multiwatch paradigm. (Yes, that's what I'm calling it. It has to sound official.)

As Sweetie says: "Replevins! Fun!" (But I think she's being sarcastic.)

If someone says they're going to replevin your car, your first response would likely be to say "That sounds painful. Or gross. Or both."

Your second response should be to call a lawyer, who will explain to you that replevin is a fancy-lawyer-term for repossession. At which point your third response might be to say "What? No way! Nobody's replevining anything around here."

But you might want to let them go ahead and replevin your car if you live in Wisconsin and if you're lucky enough to have a creditor that doesn't know what they're doing.

Repossessing cars in Wisconsin used to require that creditors go to court, each and every time. Miss a payment or two, and they'd file a suit, take your car, sell it, and sue you for the balance of what was still owed.

Then, a while back, the legislature decided that going to small claims court was a little too tough for giant lenders and car retailers. So they made it easier by modifying the law. The new law, which has been in effect for a couple of years, lets a creditor take your car by writing you a letter and saying that they're going to take your car. Then they come take it... unless you act first.

A creditor who wants to take your car back from you, in Wisconsin, can't do so without first writing you a letter, and that letter must contain certain information. It has to have the name, address, and phone number of the merchant taking the car, and a "brief description" of the car itself. It has to say that the creditor "may have the right to take possession" of your car without further notice or court proceeding.

And then, it has to tell you that if you think they're wrong, if you think you're not in default or if you just want them to go to court to take the car, then you have to demand that they go to court.

You get fifteen days from the letter to make that demand, in writing -- and the creditor has to tell you that, too.

If you don't make that demand, the creditor can come take your car. If you do demand they proceed in court, they have to go to court and prove that you're in default. (If you make them go to court, they can ask for attorney's fees, though, so you'll have to think, with the help of your lawyer, whether you want to make them go to court.)

What's interesting, though, is what happens if the creditor wrongfully takes your car -- if they don't give you that letter, or if the letter doesn't have all the information required by law, then a creditor who takes your car illegally might find themselves in a big hole, because that's a "nonjudicial" replevin, and a "nonjudicial" replevin in Wisconsin, if not done properly, can reward the consumer in a big way.

If a creditor wrongfully takes your car, for example, by not giving you the proper letter notice, then, if you contact a lawyer like me and sue them, you could find yourself getting the car back, getting a court order that you don't owe the creditor any more money, and getting all the money back that you've paid so far.

Plus attorney's fees.

That's a free car -- awarded to you by a court in which you're represented by a free lawyer. And you'd get it all because a creditor didn't bother to replevin your car correctly.

So remember: If someone wants to replevin your car, contact a lawyer and see what they can do. Maybe they can't do anything -- but maybe they can get you a free car.

A new house for Valentine's Day? Wasn't jewelry expensive enough?

This is a Sponsored Post written by me on behalf of Coldwell Banker. All opinions are 100% mine.

Everyone last year heard about the "First Time Home Buyer Tax Credit," an $8000 credit for people who first bought a home in 2009. That credit's been extended, and expanded to include people who aren't buying a home for a first time.

That's right: Even if you own a home now, you can qualify for a version of the tax credit if you buy a new home in 2010. The expansion applies to those homeowners who want to move up, or on, or trade their house and have been living in their house for the past 5 years. If that's you, then you might be able to buy a new house in 2010, getting a newer, more modern house to replace that draft old barn you've been living in, or a bigger house to accommodate those new kids/tax credits you added in 2009, or just a better neighborhood.

So now, in 2010, if you buy your first house, ever, you can get up to $8,000 in tax credits.

Or if you're buying a house and haven't owned one in the past three years, you can qualify, too, for a tax credit.

Or, if you've been living in the same place for 5 years or more, you might be eligible for up to $6,500 in tax credits just for moving.

There are a few conditions on the program: Right now, the credit is only available to people who have a written binding contract to buy signed before April 30, 2010 (and the contract must close the purchase by June 30, 2010). And it's mainly available for singles making up to $125,000 per year (or married people making up to $225,000) (there's a phase-out at higher incomes, so check with a broker or accountant or advisor, if you think you might still qualify.) Check up on the details and find out just which aspect of the program is right for you.

So get going now to take advantage of all the 2010 Homebuyer Tax Credits that are available for you -- you can click that link and begin a new home search right this second. Don't even bother telling your wife about it . Just surprise her for Valentine's Day. Women love that stuff.

Did you get gouged? (Laws You Should Know About, Four)

When that big snowstorm was going to hit Wisconsin, did you rush out to get some supplies? A snow shovel, perhaps, or milk and eggs and bread?

Did you bother to see whether the price you paid was the price you should have paid for that stuff? Or did you not know about price gouging?

In Wisconsin, it's illegal for retailers to price-gouge -- defined as selling a "consumer good or service in an emergency area during an emergency period at a price that is more than 15% above the highest price at which the seller sold like consumer goods or services to like customers in the relevant trade area during the 60-day period immediately preceding the emergency declaration."

In short, if there's been an emergency declaration, then in the emergency area prices cannot be more than 15% above the highest price in the two months' prior to that declaration.

Which meant that Wisconsin's governor Jim Doyle essentially froze prices for all of Wisconsin, just prior to Christmas, when he declared every single county an emergency area on December 8, 2009.

I don't know if anyone did price gouge during that blizzard; and it may be that the law didn't apply then because to be enforced the governor has to also certify a period of abnormal economic disruption, but it's something to keep in mind, given that blizzards hit every year. Why should you pay more for your snow blower than you have to?

Great Fictional Lawyers, Number Two

It's the weekend, so I can have a little fun here, and "fun" means "fictional lawyers," right. It's been a long time since the last Great Fictional Lawyer I mentioned (Lionel Hutz), but I've found one that almost lives up to the standard set by Lionel:

Jackie Chiles.

Jackie is the apparently-solo-practitioner lawyer frequently called on by Kramer in Seinfeld, and ultimately hired to defend the four main characters in the all-too-disappointing series finale.

Education: It's not clear where Jackie got his degree from, but I suspect his undergraduate degree was in English or something similar; Jackie's vocabulary was second to none, and his delivery suggests a theater background, as well:



Credentials: Jackie has sued giant coffee companies, candy-bar heiresses, even Big Tobacco. He was asked to sue Kramer (for murder?) but declined. He specializes, it seems, in large-scale cases against multimillion dollar corporations, but never loses focus on the small details:



Notable Quotes:

On Kramer's chances in the coffee case: " Do we have a chance? You get me one coffee drinker on that jury, you gonna walk outta there a rich man. "

Negotiating on the Kramer suit against Big Tobacco, with Kramer's looks as damages:

Mrs. Wilky: We feel that Mr. Kramer projects a rugged masculinity.

Jackie Chiles: Rugged? The man’s a goblin.

My homeowners' insurance, for example, has a huge deductible for "damage caused by three-year-olds."

You've got to have home insurance.

You've got to have home insurance, first of all, because you're probably required to have it. If you owe money on your home -- if you have a mortgage-- then you in almost all cases are required to have home insurance by your lender, and if you don't get it, they will (and they'll charge you a bundle to do that.)

But even if you don't owe money on your home, you'll want to have insurance on it, not just for the usual reasons, like natural disasters such as fire destroying your home or a sinkhole swallowing your neighborhood, but for things you might not consider when thinking about the need for insurance, like whether you own a dog, or run a business out of your house, or own things that you value.

If your dog bites someone, you can get sued, and many home insurance policies cover that. If you run a small business from your house, you might get in trouble or an accident over that, and home insurance can help cover THAT. If you own TVs or jewelry or other expensive things, home insurance can protect you from burglary and damage to those things.

Most people end up with their home insurance by accident. They call a broker or get the company they saw on the TV while watching the big game. That's not the best way to do it, though -- you want insurance that's tailored to your needs and no more expensive than it has to be. You may want replacement cost, or theft coverage, or an umbrella policy -- so you need to shop around.

There's some sites that can help you find insurance quickly and easily and reliably, like the new york home insurance site run by 01insurance.com. They'll provide you with information on what kind of insurance you might want, how much coverage you might need - -and they'll let you get quotes online or by phone, for free, so you can shop your coverage around and find the best insurance policy for your needs and your finances.

You've got to have insurance -- so make sure the insurance you have is the insurance you need, and the insurance you want.

My wikipedia page says that I don't owe you any money, so take that!

One big issue that arises in debt collection cases is the question of whether the collector has the right to collect the debt at all; if challenged, debt collectors have to prove that they were hired by the creditor, or assigned the debt.

Given the fast-paced nature of the commercial world, and given the number of assignments that may be made of a certain debt, that proof may be tough to come by, leading some creditors to try unique approaches to showing they have the right to sue.

Like citing Wikipedia.

In a New Jersey case, Palisades Collection LLC v. Graubard (decided April 17, 2009), Palisades Collection sued Graubard on a credit card debt. Palisades, challenged on its right to collect, said that it got the debt this way: It claimed that the debt was originated by Chevy Chase Bank, which was then, it said, purchased by First U.S.A., a division of Bank One Corporation, which in turn, Palisades said, had been purchased by J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan then purportedly sold the debt to Palisades.

The proof of all this was not an assignment or letter or contract. Instead, Palisades provided print copies of electronic documents: a printed article from the New York Times and a printed Wikipedia entry. The trial court accepted those as sufficient proof of the various purchases, taking "judicial notice" of those facts, and decided that Palisades had shown how it came by the account sufficient to win.

The New Jersey Appellate Division found otherwise. It held that Wikipedia (which has been cited over 400 times, according to the Yale Journal of Law & Technology)(despite the fact that it's frequently wrong) wasn't subject to "judicial notice" because anyone can change Wikipedia. The appellate courts based that latter determination in part on Wikipedia's own claims about how it is created -- and because anyone can change it, the Court noted, Wikipedia is not a source "whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."

Since "judicial notice" can only be taken of facts that cannot be reasonably questioned, Wikipedia's accessibility took it out of the domain of things judges can just know, and Palisades lost.

The lesson here? Ask the debt collector to prove his or her right to sue -- and never trust Wikipedia.

Courtesy: XKCD.

Get a Move On.

As a lawyer, I'd really have very little to do if people did their homework before hand. Take landlords and tenants, for example. Landlords and tenants give lawyers a lot of work because rarely do they do what they need to do in advance, which is "check things out and make sure you're doing it right."

In particular, I answer a lot of tenant questions in the course of any given week or month, and many of them are questions that would never have come up, let alone risen to the level of needing a lawyer, if people had just put more effort and thought into findint their houses or apartments for rent.

Take a typical example: Someone rents an apartment in a bad part of town, and shortly after renting there, realizes it and wants to get out of the lease. They call me and ask what they can do -- and very frequently the answer is, Sorry, nothing. Or the answer is you're going to incur some legal fees to fix this.

Or someone moves into an apartment and the neighbors are too loud. Or they get transferred and need to move but they have a one-year lease. All things that could have been addressed up front by finding the right lease or landlord or rental.

From landlords, I get the opposite: They took in a tenant because the apartment had been vacant forever, and they just wanted to rent to someone, and now they want this tenant out, because they didn't realize they were renting to an unemployed pit-bull-owning bassist in a death metal band.

Move.com can help people upfront, meaning they won't have to talk to people like me after the fact. Through Move.com, tenants can find the right landlords and apartments, and landlords can find the right tenants. Move.com lets you search for rentals by region, zip code, price, even by the minimum number of bathrooms you want available. (That's more important than you might think, especially if you've got kids, and especially-er if you've got daughters.)

Move.com has rental listing resources, too -- so you landlords can get the word out to a wider selection of tenants than you'll reach with a sign in the window. "Wider selection" means more choice and better choices -- you'll have more applicants to choose from and can avoid Rob The Bassist.

So don't take chances: get the right place up front, and avoid trouble down the line.

reddo vestri , subsisto in carcer (Tales of Pro Se litigants, 2)

Here's the second in the Tales of Pro Se litigants, a case in which a lawyer might not have been able to help much, but could have maybe helped some.

In the just-decided case of Bartz v. Edmonds, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the tough-to-sue standard by ruling against Bartz's appeal in the malpractice case Bartz brought against a lawyer formerly appointed to help him.

Bartz was convicted in 1994 of first-degree intentional homicide after shooting a man in the face at close range with a shotgun. (Sometimes you go to prison after stuff like that, and sometimes you just appear on Fox News as a commentator after stuff like that.) Bartz appealed his conviction, but lost.

Bartz then filed a federal habeas corpus petition, acting pro se. The federal court appointed Edmonds to help him try to get out of prison, but the petition was denied in 2001.

Thereafter, Bartz said he never got notice of the denial, and claimed that a friend of his had been told by Edmonds, in 2004, that the petition was still active. Edmonds, though, said that he marked the order denying the petition "cc: client" and assumed that it had been sent to Bartz.

Bartz sued Edmonds, in this case, for malpractice and misrepresentation, and "breach of fiduciary duty," asserting that Edmonds had denied him the right to appeal the habeas decision, and caused Bartz to incur litigation expenses. (Edmonds denied the allegations and supplied proof that Bartz's friend could not have talked to him when he claimed he did.)

In Wisconsin, a plaintiff suing a criminal defense attorney for malpractice must, in addition to proving negligence, also prove actual innocence. Bartz never claimed actual innocence, something he was forthright about. Instead, Bartz claimed that he was not guilty of intentional homicide, and that he could have proven that instead he should be guilty of, at most, reckless homicide, a lesser charge that might have led to a lesser sentence.

Bartz lost in the circuit court, and lost on appeal, as the Wisconsin Court of Appeals applied the actual innocence rule and held that Bartz, because he wasn't claiming actual innocence (and hadn't proven that he was innocent) couldn't sue Edmonds for malpractice.

Bartz raised an interesting argument in that case, one that I don't believe has ever been explored and one that the Court of Appeals didn't deal with very much, and that argument is this:

Shouldn't a defendant be allowed to sue a lawyer for messing up and getting him convicted of a worse charge?

Wisconsin's actual innocence rule says no -- that a criminal defendant can't sue his criminal defense attorney unless the defendant was actually innocent. But that blanket rule doesn't seem to cover all the myriad ways that a lawyer's negligence could hurt a client who's guilty of a charge, but shouldn't be found guilty.

Consider a couple of hypothetical situations.

Say a defendant is arrested for arguing with his wife, and the wife lies and says she was hit in the face by the defendant. The defendant denies this but is charged with battery (for the hitting) and disorderly conduct (for the fighting.) Then assume that the man's criminal defense lawyer screws up, and doesn't introduce evidence showing the wife is lying about being hit in the face, resulting in the man being convicted of battery and disorderly conduct, and being sentenced to a lengthy jail term.

Under Wisconsin's absolute innocence rule, that man (presumably) couldn't sue the lawyer, even though he was innocent of battery -- because he was guilty of disorderly conduct. The two charges overlap, but aren't the same, and that's essentially what Bartz was trying to argue: that he was guilty of a lesser charge, and should have had the chance to get that lesser charge.

Or consider a defendant who is arrested for bank robbery, and has a confession beaten out of him; that confession is the only evidence against him at trial. Confessions can't be beaten out of people, and the confession should be suppressed from the evidence. But if this defendant's lawyer messes up -- commits malpractice -- and doesn't try to exclude the confession, the defendant will be convicted. Can he sue his lawyer? The actual innocence rule says he can't -- because he's not actually innocent, even though he shouldn't have been convicted.

Bartz went pro se on his appeal against Edmonds, and maybe he shouldn't have, because a lawyer could have raised those issues and forced the Wisconsin Court of Appeals to address them, and the Court should have addressed them, because Bartz's claim was one that's not perfectly covered by the absolute innocence rule. Bartz is claiming he's innocent of one charge, but not another, and the Court didn't explain why the rule covers that situation.

The other two claims -- misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty -- didn't take long for the Court to address, but maybe they should have, too: The misrepresentation claim was dismissed because Bartz "never had a viable legal malpractice claim," but, as I said above, maybe Bartz did, if he could argue that the law shouldn't cover him or should be changed. (The breach of fiduciary duty charge was dismissed because Bartz had no proof that any breach -- if there was one -- was intentional, a required element.)

I'm not saying that Edmonds committed malpractice; I think that he didn't, in fact, mess it up. What I'm saying is that Bartz raised legitimate questions that warranted consideration... but didn't get that, because Bartz went pro se.

Reddo vestri, perdo vestri domus (Tales Of Pro Se Litigants, One)

Almost every single thing I write on here urges anyone who reads this to get a lawyer. Since this blog is pitched at both lawyers and non-lawyers, I should probably urge the lawyers who read this to make sure they're familiar with a given area of law, and, if they're not, they should get a lawyer to help them, too.

To help drive home the point that you need a good lawyer to help you, I'm starting a new periodic feature here today, Tales Of Pro Se Litigants: True-life stories of people who tried to go it alone, and how they fared.

Now, I know that not every pro se litigant fares badly; some do quite well and some do better than that, even.

But going the pro se route appears to me to be like extracting your own tooth when you have a toothache. Sure, it might work out well -- but if it doesn't, the results can be catastrophic. In short, there's a lot to lose and very little to gain by going pro se, and a lot to gain and little to lose by going the hire a lawyer route.

The Case: Clearpointe Capital, Inc. v. Townsend. After Townsend bought a manufactured home from Steenburg Homes and made payments for several years, his missing a couple of payments resulted in the same-day assignee Clearpointe Capital filing a replevin suit in small claims, seeking to take away Townsend's house.

The Pro Se Defense: Townsend moved to dismiss on grounds that the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the value of the home exceeded the small claims court limitation of $5,000; he should not have to pay Clearpointe's costs and disbursements; the complaint was deficient for failing to include an affidavit from the corporate agent who signed it that identified the signer as a full-time employee of Clearpointe; he was entitled to assistance with his defense under the Americans with Disabilities Act; that Clearpointe lacked standing to enforce the installment contract because it had not signed it; and that the contract required arbitration.

Townsend also, after the fact, filed a "writ of mandamus," and then an appeal from the judgment turning his home over to Clearpointe.

Where He Went Wrong: All of his arguments failed, and Townsend never filed a response to Clearpointe's motion for summary judgment, claiming he didn't do so because he "did not understand this affidavit thing." Townsend's claims were, as noted by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, "not well elucidated nor well supported by relevant legal authority."

Also, Townsend didn't appear at the hearing for his writ of mandamus.

The result: Townsend's home was taken away, and he lost his appeal.

How a lawyer might have changed things: Townsend argued that the contract was subject to arbitration. That may or may not have been the case (it's not clear from the Court of Appeals' opinion) but a lawyer might have been able to void the contract, or force arbitration. An attorney could have reviewed his notice of right to cure and notice of default; a failure to comply with the Wisconsin Consumer Act as to those might well have entitled Townsend to a return of all money paid -- plus a ruling that he owes no further money, resulting in a free home. An attorney could, most importantly, have requested a stay of the replevin judgment pending appeal, leaving Townsend a house to live in while his case was fought. An attorney could also have investigated alternative remedies such as a chapter 13 bankruptcy, which might have allowed Townsend to cure the default over a longer period of time than allowed by the creditor.

An attorney also could have examined the complaint to see whether it met all the requirements of the Wisconsin Consumer Act. As an assignee of the contract, Clearpointe now wouldn't be required to comply with section 425.109, Stats. -- but the case which instituted that rule (wrongly)(the Rsidue case) wasn't decided until 2007; Clearpointe sued Townsend in 2002 and so at that time still had to comply with the pleading requirements, including the "figures necessary" requirement the Wisconsin Consumer Act imposes.

(Even if the case was filed today, an attorney could also, I think, argue that a same-day assignment such as this one might not fit into the Rsidue rule that relieved assignees from compliance with section 425.109. In this case, Steenberg sold the house, but the closing documents on the home automatically assign the contract to a third-party at the moment where Steenberg signed the papers. That seems to me to be a different type of 'assignment' than Rsidue was talking about, and allow a good-faith argument for a reversal or limitation of Rsidue's holding.)

Those are complicated arguments -- and not guaranteed to win-- but they're arguments that could have been made, and should have been made by a lawyer.

Also, lawyers know to always show up for your motion hearing.

Bill Me Later, Sue Me Now?

If you shop on the Internet, you may have seen the buttons marked "Bill Me Later." I've seen them, and haven't given them much thought because I don't want to be billed later. (Technically, I want to be billed never, but that's not an option they give me.)

I may have been smart without meaning to be -- something that happens often to lawyers-- as it turns out that "Bill Me Later" might not be exactly what you think it is, according to a lawsuit filed in California.

The lawsuit says that "Bill Me Later," a subsidiary of eBay, is actually a front for a bank. When you hit the "Bill Me Later" button, "Bill Me Later" does an "instant" credit check on you. If you pass the credit check, then CIT Bank makes a loan to you, right on the spot. CIT Bank follows that up by immediately selling the loan to Bill Me Later.

The lawsuit says Bill Me Later does this to avoid consumer protection laws and charge too much interest, allegedly charging up to 100% APR.

The business model, whether it's legal or not, clearly works: Bill Me Later was founded in 2000. In 2003, it earned $613,000. By 2007, it's earnings were up to $86 MILLION.

Since I've never used Bill Me Later, I don't know exactly how it works. If one of you readers has, you should let me know: Do they give you any paperwork on the loan? Do they disclose things like the total cost of credit and other required information? And, if you've been turned down for Bill Me Later, did you get a written explanation as to why?

One big potential problem with this in Wisconsin would be the loan-then-assignment scheme they've worked out: That seems likely to make "Bill Me Later" an assignee, not a creditor, under the Wisconsin Consumer Act, meaning that they avoid at least some legal duties that would be placed on them if they were the originating lender... but the consumer may not know that when they enter into the loan.

If you lose to the Kansas City Chiefs, you shouldn't get paid.

Being a lawyer is a lot like being a professional football player: If you don't win, you don't get paid.

Wait a minute. I should check that out. Hang on while I google something.

I don't believe it. Did you know that if a professional football player loses a game, they STILL get paid? Even if they played really badly? Even if the loss was to the Kansas City Chiefs?

Lawyers, personal injury lawyers at least, are nothing like that. With a good PI lawyer or service, it's always No win no fee. That's always the way it's been. And no it's going even a little further, thanks to the good people at the UK's Accident Consult.

Accident Consult is a PI claims specialist site that will help you analyze and recover your damages... WITH NO FEE. You get 100% of the money that's coming to you, and they get paid not by taking 1/3 of your cash, but by making the insurance company pay their fees. So your $100,000 claim is your $100,000 claim and doesn't have to be shared with the representatives.

Every solicitor working for Accident Consult is a member of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and governed by the Association's code of conduct. The professional team at Accident Consult wants you to have access to the very best, most cost effective representation, and they've made it easy to do so because you can start your claim right online, or call a specialist at the numbers provided on their site.

Someone's in the kitchen with Dinah... but it's not an expert witness.

Cabinets open. Cabinets close. Cabinets hold, in my case, about 13 boxes of macaroni and cheese because when I see it on sale, I almost automatically buy it just to have around, even though in reality our family almost never eats macaroni and cheese.

And, cabinets require expert witnesses to tell the Courts their value. That's the rule of Shoemaker v. KraftMaid Cabinetry, Inc., a 2001 Wisconsin case which saw Susan Shoemaker suing KraftMaid for allegedly defective cabinets. She testified that the cabinets arrived with scratches, chips and no finish. She also said that the installation damaged her hardwood floors and that a KraftMaid employee had given her bad advice on the range hood she purchased. She said then that the cabinets began coming apart and deteriorating. This led her to get replacement parts from another store, and a quote for repairs, and to sue.

She lost.

Not, it seems, because there were no problems, but because Susan didn't "prove her damages." After all that testimony, Susan had a summary of what she'd spent, and an estimate from another store about the cost to fix things up... but neither got into evidence, and Susan's case was dismissed for failing to prove that she'd been damaged.

Anyone can sue anyone at anytime for anything -- but courts, in general, award money to fix things up, which requires that a litigant prove they've lost money or that money would fix what they've lost. Susan testified clearly what she'd lost -- she had, in her opinion, crummy cabinets. But Susan had no evidence of what that had cost her. Or, at least, no competent evidence -- no evidence that could be admitted in court.

Susan's summary of damages and her estimate from another store were hearsay and were beyond her ability to testify to.

The estimate was a statement by someone outside of court; that's hearsay, and it's rarely admissible.

Susan's opinion of the value of cabinets wasn't "hearsay," because she was saying it in court. But it was incompetent, because Susan wasn't an expert in construction, or cost, or estimation of value, of cabinets. When evidence is needed on an area outside the ordinary person's expertise-- like how much it'll cost to fix cabinets -- an expert witness is needed; the party must find someone who has special qualifications in the subject that ordinary people don't, and have that person testify.

Susan probably could have simply had the person who wrote up the estimate come in and testify. The Court of Appeals even suggested as much: "The cost of the repair was an out-of-court statement made by [the estimator] but no representative from [that company] was called to testify.

Susan was allowed to testify as to what she'd actually spent on a new range hood -- but even there she lost, because she had no evidence of the value of the range hood that she'd gotten. Testifying as to the value of a defective or improper range hood requires expert testimony, too, meaning that Susan hadn't shown the difference in value between what she'd gotten and what she should have gotten.

With that failure of proof, all the problems in the world didn't amount to a hill of beans, because Susan had no proveable damages, and without proof of how much money she should be awarded, the Court couldn't award her anything.

Hopefully, though, her cabinets can still hold macaroni.

What's My Case Worth? (Mortgages!)

$6,000 & a couple of letters for breach of contract to assume mortgages.

I'm not sure where this transaction falls on the scale of real estate deals.

That scale stretches from "Absolutely typical with no problems" on one end to "What, exactly, did you think you were doing, here?" on the other, and it's that end, the What, exactly end that keeps lawyers in business and home-sellers in court and (presumably) not sleeping at night.

In Skog v. Larson, St. Croix (WI) County case number 04 CV 98, Eric and Traci Skog sued a real estate agent, Angela Larson, and her company Mana Investments, for misrepresentation and other claimed problems. The suit arose out of Larson's agreement to buy the Skog's property and "assume the payments on the two mortgages encumbering the property."

It's not clear, from the report, what that meant -- whether Larson was going to refinance the mortgages into her name, or simply PAY the mortgages but leave them in the Skogs' name.

As might be expected (given that I'm writing about this), Larson missed payments and the Skogs, upset, sued for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and various misrepresentations.

The case then settled very quickly. Larson and her company appear to have not even answered the complaint, but did agree that Larson would sign letters written on her letterhead claiming responsibility for the default in payments on the mortgages in the Skogs' name, to pay $6,000 to a mortgage holder for a release of lien, and to sell the property.

As I said, it's not clear what this transaction was supposed to be, and that's part of the problem. If you're doing something unusual, unusual things can result from it.

"Dish here's the tale for all the fellas." (It's a pun!)

Have you been hearing about the cable wars? I have -- and I've been laughing.

The Food Network taken off a cable system? Don't care.

Fox threatening to pull their shows off a cable system? Don't care.

I, you see, have a dish. I unplugged the cable about 4 years ago and have been as happy as a clam ever since. I not only get the same TV shows and premium channels that cable had, but I get DVRs on two TVs, the ability to record two shows at the same time, and... wait, what were the last two things again?

Oh yeah: better service and lower costs. I get THOSE because dish providers like Dish Network don't have a monopoly. Cable companies have a monopoly: Wherever you live, you probably get only ONE cable provider. So that cable company doesn't have to care about YOU. You're stuck with them. They can charge you sky-high rates, refuse to carry some channels, never provide decent customer service, and you'll just have to take it.

Unless you switch to a Dish, that is. Companies like the Dish Network have to compete in the open market and that means they have to provide value or you'll switch. So they do provide value. Check out the phenomenal dish network promotions that are running right now: Free previews of the NFL Network. Free HBO and Showtime for three months. The specials keep on coming, with new ones added all the time.

The choice is yours -- finally. You can stick with cable, and hope that they don't just keep dropping your channels while charging you more. Or you can stick a dish on your house and relax while saving money.

Reader questions/Blogger Answers.

Two recent posts prompted good questions from readers.

In response to my post Have A HAMPY Holiday, reader Cathy asks:

Question on rule two? "MUST perform a value analysis"? Does this mean the same thing as a market value, and how would this affect a loan that is upside down by more than double the amount of the market value?

(Net Present Value is a complicated concept, but it basically means "What's this income stream worth today?" If you have an income stream -- payments coming over time, say, from a mortgage loan you've made, or lottery winnings, or trust -- there are two values for that income stream: The value of all payments received, ever, over time, and the "Net Present Value," which is essentially what someone would pay to receive that income stream from you.)

The "Net Present Value" test under HAMP is a complicated one, but it seeks to determine whether there will be sufficient value to the lender to modify the loan. A whole overview of the test is available here, but in general, the lender or servicer must compute the "net present value" of the mortgage as it exists, and as it would be modified under HAMP by (1) determining the likelihood the borrower will default under the present terms, and then under the modified terms, and (2) determining the cash flows the mortgage will bring in a default, as is or as modified (this presumably includes payments until default and the value of the house after foreclosure). After that, the lender compares the two and determines which has a higher "Net Present Value."

Those tests obviously involve some degree of speculation -- the probability of default -- but not too much, because the higher a payment in relation to the payor's income, the more likely a default is.

"Fair market value" of the home would come in primarily, it seems, in accounting for the value in the event of a default. A home that's worth more would bring more on the market and cover more of the lender's losses. A home that's "under water" would have a lesser net present value because it's fair market value isn't enough to cover what's owed -- meaning the lender would take a loss in a sale even absent commissions and closing costs.


TrueQ then asked, about my post "The real question is what would CHUCK NORRIS do to debtors,"
So the court said it stated a claim for relief by denying the dismissal. But the collection agency is still using it? So this begs the question, would a plaintiff, who is not a competing collection agency owner, be able to forward this more effectively?


Those are good points.

First, "stating a claim for relief" means simply that all the facts, if proven, could win a case -- so that's something, at least. Another debtor would likely be protected in bringing a suit because no court (to my knowledge) has ever held that putting "WWJD" on a debt collection letter does, or does not, violate the FDCPA, but one court has held that it could violate the FDCPA.

As for whether a non-collector plaintiff might fare better, that's debatable and would depend on the nature of the plaintiff; one thing seems clear, though: The non-collector plaintiff wouldn't face a claim that this is really just an interference with business by a competitor, and the more you can avoid counterclaims, the better you're doing as a litigant.

Thanks for commenting, and keep 'em coming. (Commenters to any of my blogs have a bimonthly chance to win some stuff; see Thinking The Lions for details.)

I once tried to get "Superfine" to be my nickname. (It didn't take.)

This is a Sponsored Post written by me on behalf of Ramblers Way. All opinions are 100% mine.

All I really knew about wool until recently is that it grew on sheep in some way, and that it was itchy.

The "itchy" quality of wool is what always stuck out in my mind from when I was a kid, and Mom would get us fancy sweaters, and we'd have to wear them, and they itched like they were made of dry leaves held together by biting ants.

Yeah. Let that image sink in.

But then I came across Ramblers Way, a farm/clothing website that sells clothes made of 100% wool -- but it's not the wool I remember. It's instead "real superfine Rambouillet wool," (their words), and the way the wool is spun and put together, it's not itchy. NOT ITCHY, and also it's breathable and smooth -- while still being strong.

Ramblers Way has all these great wool shirts that can be worn on their own or under other stuff, and I found them looking for something to get me through Wisconsin's annual 13 1/2 months of winter. I wasn't convinced to get wool stuff at first, but I read about the wool Ramblers Way uses and learned that wool is wrinkle resistant, and the way it's prepared by Ramblers Way makes it shrink-resistant, too.

I also read up on the superfine thing. That means that Ramblers Way wool is made of thinner, smoother fibers. Here's a regular wool fiber:


Here's Ramblers Way's fiber:



Smaller, thinner -- superfine -- equals more comfort and less itchy. That convinced me to give Ramblers Way a shot and see if they can't keep me warm for what remains of winter (12 3/4 months.)

This is why I make all my employees begin every conversation with the phrase "I am not authorized to make decisions."

Like most of these posts, and most things in my life, I begin today with questions. They are:

Who's authorized to speak for you or your business? And how would I know that?

That's a more important topic than you might think, unless you know about the "doctrine of apparent authority."

The "doctrine of apparent authority," to quote the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, "binds a principal to the acts of another who reasonably appears to a third person to be authorized to act as the principal's agent, because of acts of the principal or agent, if the principal had knowledge of the acts and acquiesced to them."

Whew. That's a mouthful. No wonder nobody likes lawyers.

Here's a better way of looking at it. That quote is from the case of Custom Steel, Inc. v. John Wanta Builders, Inc., 2009 AP 526 (Wisconsin Court of Appeals.) Here's what happened in Custom Steel:

John Wanta, personally, on behalf of his company, talked with a representative of Custom Builders about getting some supplies. After some back and forth, Custom faxed a quote letter. Someone from Wanta's business then called and said that John himself was out of town but that the Wanta employee would try to get in touch witih John.

Custom then later that day got a fax from Wanta's company. The fax accepted the quote, and had an illegeble signature on it as well as a note that said "per J gave verbal OK."

Wanta then got the stuff but didn't pay Custom, so Custom sued. Wanta's defense was that his coimpany was never "validly" accepted.

That's where the Court of Appeals' quote comes in. The Court of Appeals, after all that lawyerese, said this:

"Because the quote letter was faxed to [Wanta's company] attn: John Wanta, and it was returned with a signature indicating "J gave verbal OK", Custom reasonably believed the agreement was accepted by an authorized person."

That's a better way to say it than the legal mumbo-jumbo: The way this contract unfolded, the seller thought that the person accepting it had authority to do so.

And that's the lesson for you and your business, today: Figure out who, in your company, has authority to bind your company to something, and figure out how to let everyone know that -- or you might be sucked into deals you never anticipated.

Thanks to this law, nobody will ever know about that painful and embarrasing toenail disease you had.

Who's your doctor talking to? And who are your health care providers releasing your information to? Do you know? Do you care?

The answers to those questions are, most likely, no, and no, but I can probably change those answers for you with a quick bit of information:

You could make as much as $25,000 just by knowing who your medical information was released to.

Now, are you interested? I thought so. Let's talk about sections 146.82 and 146.84 of the Wisconsin Statutes.

I didn't know about these statutes before yesterday morning, when I read in my local newspaper that expert lawyer/friend of mine/all around good guy Michael Watton had filed some class action lawsuits against Aurora Health Care.

(Michael Watton is a guy I once hired as an expert witness in a lawsuit; that's how I got to know him, and I've kept in touch with him since that time a couple years ago.)

Michael Watton, a bankruptcy and class action lawyer, noticed that in bankruptcy cases, Aurora Health Care (allegedly) was filing court documents which included (allegedly) confidential health information.

Patient health care records are confidential under Wisconsin law. (Weirdly enough, the law that makes patient health care records confidential is found in the same chapter of the Wisconsin statutes where you can find a law that makes it illegal for the owner of a public building to charge an admission fee for the toilet.) And it's not just illegal to disclose patient health care records in some circumstances; it can cost a lot of money, too.

That's because another section of Wisconsin law allows "any person injured" by an unauthorized disclosure to sue and collect "actual damages," plus the person can collect up to $25,000 in "exemplary" damages. (That's punitive damages to you and me.)

Plus, the winning "person injured" can get costs and reasonable attorney's fees awarded to them.

There's a lot of limits on such a suit; not only do the records have to be "patient health care records," (not every record is) but the disclosures have to be one not authorized by law, and the violation has to be in bad faith, and knowing and willful. Those are a lot of hurdles to get over before getting to the damages part.

But the law is there, and it's a reason for you to make sure that your health care records aren't being disclosed improperly. Those disclosures can occur in a variety of places, but the most likely places are first, those identified by expert lawyer/all around good guy Michael Watton -- bankruptcy court, where health care providers submit bills that (arguably, allegedly) have confidential information in them. And in other litigation -- like if a health care provider sues you in court to collect their bill, or brings them up in another dispute.

So what can you do? Keep track of what your health care provider (and insurance company) are sending out, especially the billing statements. Pay particular attention to what those statements say on them: do they make a reference to a health condition of yours, or treatment? If so, who were they given to?

And, if you're concerned at all (and you should be), call a lawyer and ask them to look into it.

It almost makes me want to move to New Jersey, but first they'd have to move New Jersey someplace warmer.

You learn something new every day. Like today: I learned that RE/MAX stands for "Real Estate Maximums," a phrase that has special resonance when you're talking about RE/MAX's real estate nj practices.

RE/MAX has been working in New Jersey for over 20 years now, since 1985, and in that time it's grown to 205 offices employing 3,400 people. That's 3400 people dedicated to helping keep RE/MAX the number one real estate company in New Jersey, -- $11.6 billion dollars in real estate sales.

$11.6 BILLION. Is your home one of those? Could it be? Sure. And you should want them to be working with you. RE/MAX of New Jersey has been given award after award: The 2002 Region of the Year award. The 2005 Distinguished Service Award. They just keep winning, and more importantly, they just keep selling.

It's a tough real estate market, everywhere. But RE/MAX New Jersey makes it a little less tough for you. Their website lists open houses, and lets you (or the buyer you want to get into your house) search their listings easily and quickly, by area, or searching only foreclosures, or even by city or street address.

The foreclosure listings, especially, might be helpful: Banks need to get those properties off their books and into a buyer's hands, and if you're looking to buy, RE/MAX of New Jersey will help you locate and check out foreclosed properties that might be available at less-than-market prices if you act fast.

Real Estate Maximums: The maximum number of sales, maximum best prices, maximum best practices.