From our friends at Thordsen Law Offices:
- Employers in Los Angeles city are not allowed to ask about criminal convictions of potential employees. If you have a question you may call me at no cost to discuss .
- California residence in a revocable trust can still be homesteaded for protection of the family.
- Father is denied reduction in child support where he is paying $17,500. Read to find out why.
- Ford recalls more than 600,000 midsize sedans. Is yours one of them? Should it be?
- Would you like to make $9 million. Read on about becoming a whistle blower.
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TO STOP POTENTIAL EMPLOYERS FROM ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
The ordinance passed with one dissent. Because of this the council must vote on the matter again since the initial vote was not unanimous. It is expected to pass since subsequent votes require a mere majority.
If given final approval, employers with 10 or more workers and city contractors will be prohibited from asking about criminal history until a conditional job offer has been made.
An employer who ultimately decides against hiring a person after learning about his or her criminal record would need to provide a justification for why the job offer is being rescinded.
City officials point to statistics from the National Institute of Justice that show the likelihood of a job offer goes down 50 percent if an applicant has a criminal record.
Remember. The employer has to justify the nonhiring. This has the potential for numerous employee lawsuits. Is the employer insured against this potential liability?
CALIFORNIA HOME DEEDED TO A REVOCABLE TRUST CAN STILL BE PROTECTED BY THE HOMESTEAD LAW
The defendants in this case had transferred title to a revocable living trust. Later as trustees of the trust they filed a homestead exemption. The court ultimately upheld the exemption when a creditor tried collect on a judgment even though title was in the name of a trust. (10calapp4th1810-1992)
It is still safer to file the homestead before putting it into a revocable trust. Note that it is revocable. Maybe the clients of mortgage brokers should be informed about the advantages of a homestead?
ONE WAY A FATHER DOES NOT GET HIS CHILD SUPPORT REDUCED
Respondent father a successful director and producer requested the trial court to reduce his monthly child support payment to $9,842, from the original amount entered into at the time of dissolution of $17,500, The mother-appellant claimed that respondent’s reduced income did not constitute a material change in circumstances in light of his extreme wealth. Appellant further contends that the trial court imputed an unreasonably low rate of return to respondent’s substantial assets, valued at over $67 million. The court concluded that substantial evidence did not support the trial court’s finding of a material change in respondent’s circumstances for purposes of meeting his child support obligation; in light of respondent’s overall wealth, the reduction in his employment income did not materially impair his ability to pay the agreed upon child support; and the trial court imputed an unreasonably low rate of return to respondent’s tens of millions of dollars in assets. Go to http://j.s to read the case.
With high wage earners the normal guidelines do not apply. If you pay or are receiving child support you may wish to review the guidelines currently to see if you may be entitled to a decrease (if paying) or an increase (if receiving) child support.
FORD RECALLS MORE THAN 680,000 MIDSIZE SEDANS BECAUSE THE FRONT SEAT BELTS MAN NOT HOLD PEOPLE IN A CRASH
This covers certain 2014-2016 Ford Fusion, 2013-2015 Lincoln MKZ and 2015-2016 Ford Mondeo cars. Heat generated when the seat belt pre-tensioners deploy can cause cables to break. When that happens the seat belts may not hold people as for example in sudden stops or rear end crashes. At least two injuries have occurred over this issue. (ocrnsw1712316)
If this has occurred to anyone that has been injured in a crash you may contact us for a free consultation.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE $9 MILLION OR MORE? READ ON
TEXAS JURY FINDS NEW YORK MORTGAGE COMPANY AND CEO JIM C. HODGE LIABLE FOR CIVIL MORTGAGE FRAUD TO THE TUNE OF $92 MILLION MOSTLY INVOLVING FHA LOANS-WHISTLEBLOWER MAY WIND UP WITH $9 MILLION OR MORE DEPENDING ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY COLLECTED.
On November 29, 2016 a civil jury found Allied Home Mortgage Entities a Direct Endorsement Lender (DEL) and it’s CEO Jim C. Hodge Liable for Civil Mortgage Fraud, Awards The United States Over $92 Million In Damages
NOW Allied Home Mortgage and CEO Face Statutory Trebling of Damages and Penalties for Fraudulent Conduct.
The entities formerly known as ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION (“ALLIED CAPITAL”) and ALLIED HOME MORTGAGE CORPORATION (“ALLIED CORPORATION”) (collectively, “ALLIED”), as well as ALLIED’s president and chief executive officer JIM C. HODGE (“HODGE”), liable for violating the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) in connection with over a decade of fraudulent misconduct related to ALLIED’s participation in the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”) mortgage insurance program.
The jury awarded the United States a total of $92,982,775 in damages, including $7,370,132 against HODGE. Pursuant to the FCA, damages in this case are subject to mandatory trebling. In addition, the FCA provides for a penalty of $5,500 to $11,000 for each violation. Separately, FIRREA provides for a penalty for each statutory violation. The Court will determine the amount of the penalties at a later date.
As a HUD-approved loan correspondent, ALLIED CAPITAL originated FHA-insured mortgage loans. ALLIED CAPITAL was required to seek HUD approval for each branch office from which it originated FHA loans. Instead of complying with this requirement, however, ALLIED CAPITAL, with HODGE’s knowledge and approval, operated over one hundred “shadow” branch offices that originated FHA loans without HUD authorization. As part of its scheme to deceive HUD, ALLIED CAPITAL submitted loans originated by those branches to HUD using the ID numbers of approved branches. ALLIED CAPITAL’s undisclosed shadow branches were not subject to HUD oversight and their default rates were disguised by the default rates of branches whose IDs they were using. This fraudulent misconduct resulted in $7,370,132 in losses to HUD when certain of those loans defaulted.
ALLIED CORPORATION recklessly underwrote and certified at least 1,192 loans for FHA insurance that were ineligible for insurance under HUD’s guidelines. This fraudulent misconduct resulted in losses to HUD of $85,612,643 when those loans defaulted.
ALLIED and HODGE operated a dysfunctional quality control program and lied to HUD about it. HUD requires lenders participating in its programs to timely perform quality control audits of their FHA loans to identify and correct systemic problems, including underwriting problems. ALLIED employed only a handful of quality control employees to review loans from as many as 600 branch offices. Many of those employees were unqualified to audit FHA-insured loans. In addition, HODGE personally directed his employees to falsify quality control reports to give the impression that required reviews had been performed, when in fact they had not. When HUD auditors later asked for those quality control reports, ALLIED provided the falsified reports. ALLIED and HODGE also falsely certified to HUD on an annual basis that ALLIED was in compliance with HUD’s quality control requirements.
The United States filed a complaint-in-intervention in this lawsuit in November 2011. At that time, the action was pending as a qui tam whistleblower lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In September 2012, the action was transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. (usattsdny113016)
If qui tam when started the “whistleblower” is going to get a lot of money. Usually ten percent of what is collected. Even of $92,000,000 that comes to $9 million dollar award. Do you know anyone cheating the government?
HE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE.
THORDSEN LAW OFFICES
Herman Thordsen, Esq.
(Licensed in California State and Federal Courts)
(888) 667-8529 / (310) 277-4254