Finally, a court stands against the disturbing trend of disenfranchisement of Americans. The Washington Post reports that Judge Tatel, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has denied a request by the State of Texas for a declaration that a voter identification law passes Constitutional muster. In a brief opinion, Judge Tatel concludes that Texas did not demonstrate the absence of a "retrogressive" effect on minority participation.
Read the entire opinion, here.
Judge Tatel is a sharp fellow. And despite being a Clinton appointee (to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg), he has not followed any party line in his notable decisions. Here's hoping the Supremes uphold this decision.
My God, in what bizarro world is it a modern American value to actively suppress voter participation in such a blatantly partisan manner? Especially where the evidence of voter fraud is virtually non-existent? Shame.
The pig has long been a symbol of our basest instincts, including greed and gluttony. The grossest of porcine references is to be called a "hog." This seems to be a universal idiom for the most gluttonous among us, used to brand those who push beyond being sated into the realm of voracious over consumption of limited resources.
We can tolerate a pig, but the true hog among us deserves to be completely eviscerated.
The Times-Tribune, of Scranton, Pennsylvania recently reported the antics of one such hog, Peoples Neighborhood Bank (hereinafter "the Hog"), and a lawsuit filed by it's customer, Sheila Layo.
The Hog loaned money to Ms. Layo to purchase a house. Perfectly normal and expected.
The settlement attorney (a piece of work currently suspended from the practice of law for other transgressions) disbursed the loan, and had Ms. Layo sign all the settlement papers. Perfectly normal and expected.
The settlement attorney failed to record the deed into Ms. Layo, or the deed of trust securing the Hog to the real property. Not normal, and not expected.
The Hog knew it was not secured, and knew that Ms. Layo's deed was not recorded. And the Hog knew this for several years, but continued to accept 42 monthly payments from Ms. Layo. Definitely not normal, and certainly not expected by Ms. Layo.
Ms. Layo tried to refinance, but was denied because she was not the record owner of her house. She also had lost the financial benefit from significant tax breaks, because she did not own her house. When she alerted the Hog, it refused to act, but insisted on receiving her continued monthly payments. It appears from the story that the Hog didn't follow the ordinary course, and make a lender's title insurance claim. The insurer would have then hired outside counsel to record the deed, and the deed of trust. The insurer would have paid the costs to record, even if the money had already been aggregated in the settlement lawyer's accounts before being lost or stolen. As further insult to Ms. Layo, the Hog told Ms. Layo that SHE would have to pay the costs of a second settlement if she wanted a recorded deed evidencing her ownership of the home.
Oink, oink, snort.
Ms. Layo has a long way to travel on her way to a money judgment, but there aren't many who will shed tears if she dines on a pork chop or two when the case resolves.
Visit the Young & Valkenet website.
You've heard the story, and it goes like this-- "I had to back out of a real estate contract to sell my property, and now the broker is demanding that he get paid, what do I do?"
If you can't run to a phone and call us, here's the essential rule--a Maryland real estate broker is entitled to a commission upon his (or her) good faith procurement of a purchaser who becomes bound by a valid contract of sale. So, if the broker brings you a buyer, and the buyer signs, and the contract is now "live" and enforceable...you are on the hook to pay the broker, even if you never settle on that contract!
And as a general rule, especially in a very tight market, this is fair. After all, most of the brokers I have met work pretty hard, and sacrifice quite a bit to make their deals work.
And it is not the broker's "fault" if you or the buyer cancel the deal, or one party defaults and refuses to close the deal. In fact, this fact pattern describes at least six cases we've had in the last year.
You can avoid this result, of course, with the help of a lawyer. You see, the statute is merely a legislative rule of construction. It exists to supply a term of a contract that you and the other party simply forgot to include in the document, "when does the broker earn a fee?"
Our practice is to advise including contract terms that modify the default setting of the statute. You may agree that the broker's commission should only be paid from "proceeds of sale." That means you must settle on the deal before the broker is entitled to a fee. This also provides you with one more person motivated to help the deal along to completion!
Don't get caught by surprise! Read everything, and then have it all reviewed by a lawyer--before you sign!
Visit the Young & Valkenet website.
