Lead Paint Injury Lawyer

Lead paint can be a major health risk particularly for children. Lead paint was banned nationwide, for residential use, in 1978. Unfortunately, there are many houses which were built prior to 1978, which still contain lead paint.

One particular risk with lead based paint relates to chipping. Another risk is of dust from lead based paint. Anyone living in a older residence should have the paint tested for lead.

The law requires a landlord of a pre-1978 property to inform a tenant of known lead-based paint hazards. However, a landlord may not adequately test a potential rental unit for lead-based paint.

Prior to 1950, many residential units had been painted with paint having a high concentration of lead. Therefore, these units pose a particularly high risk of lead poisoning to tenants.

If you suspect that your housing unit has lead paint, it is very important to have the paint professionally tested. Lead paint removal can be very expensive, as special equipment is needed by construction workers during the removal process.

Lead poisoning can cause a variety of medical conditions including

*change in behavior

*headaches

*irritability

*low IQ

*constipation

It is important to avoid exposure to lead based paints, including chips and dust. If you or someone you know has been exposed to lead, go to get medical care as soon as possible.

If you have any questions, or would like assistance, please feel free to contact

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Foreclosure Mediation Extended in Connecticut

Connecticut recently amended the law with regard to the foreclosure mediation program. Under the changes to Connecticut General Statutes 49-31l(a), the foreclosure mediation program will apply to any action for the foreclosure of a mortgage with a return date from July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2023.

In effect, the law extended the foreclosure mediation program for another 4 years. (Connecticut General Assembly Raised Bill 6996).

If you have question about the foreclosure mediation program, please feel free to contact;

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

All Terrain Vehicle Claims in Connecticut

An All Terrain Vehicle is a motorized vehicle with 4 (or sometimes more) wheels that is manufactured to go on different types of terrain. An ATV is manufactured to travel over rough surfaces.

The engine size of the ATV can vary greatly from 49 cc to 1000 cc. Therefore, an All Terrain Vehicle can be a powerful as a larger motorcycle.

Interestingly, there is a federal ban in the U.S. on the sale of three-wheel ATVs, because of safety concerns. In 1987, The Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to confirm an agreement, made by the Justice Department with manufacturers, which banned the sale of three-wheel all-terrain vehicles.

At the time of the ban in 1987, there were approximately 2.5 million ATVs in use. Half of the ATVs had three wheels. According to a Washington Post article in 1987, there were about 880 deaths and 300,000 injuries from 1982 to 1989, related to ATVs.

Updated Statistics on ATV ownership, for 2018, shows the following

  1. For age group 18 – 29 : 8.11% own an all-terrain vehicle
  2. For age group 30-49: 11.85% own an all-terrain vehicle
  3. For age group 50-69: 5.5% own an all-terrain vehicle

The Consumer Product Safety Commission stated in 2005 there were approximately 137,000 emergency room visits due to injuries associated with ATV usage. (This statistic would not, by definition, include injuries which were not treated in an emergency hospital setting. )

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recommended that no person under 16 be allowed to drive an all-terrain vehicle.

Using an All-Terrain Vehicle is high risk. The ATV can be as powerful as a motorcycle, with a large engine. In addition, off road conditions can add unknown risks to driving an All-Terrain Vehicle. Anyone thinking about using an ATV should wear all of the safety gear of a motorcycle rider, including a helmet and appropriate clothing.

If you have been involved in an accident from an off-road vehicle, please feel free to contact:

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Airbag Failure Attorney in Connecticut

The situation happens as follows:

A person is driving his or her car down the road. The roads are slippery. The car slides off the road, and hits a tree, nearly head-on. The person is seriously injured. The airbag fails to activate.

Unfortunately, this is not an uncommon situation. Due to manufacturer’s defects, an airbag system may fail.

There are several reasons for an airbag not activating:

1.A sensor fails to detect the accident. For example, on a side impact accident, there may be no sensor at the point of impact.

2. A sensor is faulty. In the above example, if a sensor is in place at the point of impact, the sensor should detect the impact to activate the airbag. A faulty sensor will not detect the impact of an accident.

3. A poorly designed airbag system. For example, the manufacturer has failed to place enough sensors, to detect a crash. The vehicle may strike a spot which does not have a sensor in place. Also, there may be a defective clock spring which maintains the consistency between the airbag and the electrical wiring by continually interweaving in and out against the steering wheel.

4. Electrical failure. The airbag system doesn’t properly light up, sending an electrical signal though the system to activate the airbag(s). Almost everyone has seen a situation where there is a short circuit, in an electrical line. In an airbag system, there can be a short, or similar failure.

5. Faulty airbag module. This is often called the control module or computer module. During a collision, the airbag control module receives information from an impact sensor, which then relays a signal to deploy the airbags. If there is no relay of the signal., the air bag system fails.

If you have been in an accident in which an airbag failed to activate, you may have a claim against the motor vehicle manufacturer. Please feel free to contact.

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Roudup Lawsuits and Chemical Exposure

Roundup is a weed killer produced by Monsanto. Roundup contains “glyphosate.” Presently, there are over 13,400 cases against Monsanto. The plaintiffs claim that the use of Roundup caused them to get cancer. Typically, the claim is that the plaintiffs developed blood cancer, Lymphoma, and that the exposure to roundup caused the cancer.

Interestingly, the International Agency for Research on Cancer found that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans.

Likewise, the Environmental Protection Agency originally indicated in 1985 that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen (cancer causing agent). However, the Environmental Protection Agency is still doing studies to determine if glyphosate is in fact a cancer causing agent. Due to the Trump administrations hostility to regulation, many people are skeptical of the results of any EPA studies.

Recently, a San Francisco jury found in favor of a plaintiff, in the amount of $289 Million, finding Monsanto liable. In another case, a jury found that glyphosate was a substantial factor in causing cancer to a plaintiff.

Because of the amounts involved, we can expect Monsanto to appeal these jury verdicts. The interesting issues with these cases, is whether or not Glyphosate caused the particular type of cancer which the plaintiffs are suffering.

What the plaintiffs are relying on to prove their cases is the study and findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The study was done with mice, not humans. In the case of tobacco and smoking, there were numerous studies over years which proved a link between tobacco and smoking. I could find not find such further studies proving a causal connection between Roundup and lymphoma (which is not to say that the connection does not exist.).

If you think you have been injured because of chemical exposure, please feel free to contact.

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Student Loan Tax Refund Offset

If you owe money on a student loan, the Department of Education can request that the IRS transfer the amount of a tax refund, to be used to offset against student loan debt.

An Example

You owe the Department of Education $40,000 in past due student loans. You are owed a refund of $3,200 from the IRS. The Department of Education can send notice to the IRS to demand the tax refund of $3,200 to the Department of Education, to be applied to the past due loan balance of $40,000.

You can appeal the offset to the Department of Education. Typical reasons for an appeal are

a. you repaid the loan

b. you have a repayment agreement in place

c. the borrower is dead

d. the borrower is disabled.

e. you are entitled to a loan discharge as the school which you attended has closed.

Unfortunately, I have seen numerous instances of tax refund offsets, and little success in preventing or stopping or recovering funds from an offset.

However, there are several things which debtors should do to avoid or minimize the tax refund offset. First of all, try to avoid a large tax refund at the end of the year; often, this is done by reducing the amount of withholding from wages by an employer. For taxpayers filing a joint tax return with a spouse, the full refund is subject to offset regardless of which taxpayer has provided the income and amount withheld; therefore, in certain cases, it may be best to file “separately” to minimize the amount subject to offset (although the total tax due may be higher).

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Satisfaction of Judgment

The Connecticut Appellate Court in 2018 had the opportunity to consider when a judgment is satisfied. COYLE CRETE, LLC v. KATHLEEN NEVINS (AC 33332) Gruendel, Beach and Sheldon, Js. Argued April 25—officially released August 21, 2012

A ‘‘court may, on motion and satisfactory proof that a judgment has been paid and satisfied in whole or in part by the act of the parties thereto, order it discharged and canceled of record, to the extent of the payment or satisfaction’’); 47 Am. Jur. 2d 382, Judgments § 804 (2006)

Practice Book § 6-5 provides in relevant part that ‘‘[w]hen the judgment is satisfied in a civil action, the party recovering the judgment shall file written notice thereof with the clerk, who shall endorse judgment satisfied on the judgment file . . . . The judicial authority may, upon motion, make a determination that the judgment has been satisfied.’’

‘‘A satisfaction of judgment is the discharge of an obligation under a judgment by payment of the amount due.’’ 47 Am. Jur. 2d, supra, § 804, p. 382. ‘‘The satisfaction of a judgment refers to compliance with or fulfillment of the mandate thereof. . . . There is realistically no substantial difference between the words paid and satisfied in the judgment context.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co., 240 Conn. 799, 807, 695 A.2d 1010 (1997). A determination that a judgment has been satisfied ‘‘operates to extinguish [the judgment] for all purposes . . . . It is absolutely determinative of the rights of the parties . . . . Further proceedings may not commence upon a judgment which has been satisfied . . . .’’ 50 C.J.S. supra, § 909, p. 225. ‘‘Where a judgment creditor has received actual payment of the judgment or any equivalent therefor . . . but [the judgment creditor] refuses to acknowledge or enter satisfaction, the court having control of the judgment may . . . order satisfaction to be entered officially.’’ (Emphasis added.) Id., § 911, p. 228

In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the following issues are prerequisites to the rendering of a determination by the court that a money judgment has been satisfied. First, the judgment creditor must have obtained a valid money judgment against the judgment debtor. Second, the judgment debtor must have paid the amount of that judgment. In so doing, the court must find that the judgment debtor either made actual payment to the judgment creditor or a payment equivalent thereto.

Several Items to take from this decision

  1. A motion can be filed by a defendant to have the court determine that a judgment is satisfied.
  2. The judgment has to be for “money.”
  3. The judgment debtor has to make the payment.
  4. The court talks about actual payment or an equivalent therefor.

If Attorney Singer can be of assistance, please feel free to contact him at

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Negligent Security

In a negligent security case, a person is injured as a result of a violent act. For example, a person is attacked in a car lot, by an unknown assailant.

An owner or someone in possession of land has a duty of reasonable care, to prevent a foreseeable act of violence against someone on its property.

The injury may happen in a variety of places, including outside a bar, restaurant or commercial business. Similarly, the attack may occur inside a business, or in a parking lot.

In a common situation, a business owner is aware of a history of assaults at or near the business, but fails to use reasonable measures to protect people coming into or leaving the business.

For example, if there was a history of assaults outside of a store, in a parking lot, and the store owner fails to have adequate lighting, the owner may be held responsible for an assault of a person in the parking lot.

Similarly, in an area which has a high incidence of crime, a property owner would normally be expected to have adequate locks on all doors, to prevent intruders from entering a building.

Please feel free to call Attorney Singer to discuss your case.

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com

Lost Promissory Notes in Foreclosure in Connecticut

Connecticut has Statute 42a-3-309 with regard to lost Promissory Notes (the “Instrument”).

  Connecticut General Statutes 42a-3-309 – Enforcement of lost, destroyed or stolen instrument

(a) A person not in possession of an instrument is entitled to enforce the instrument if (i) the person was in possession of the instrument and entitled to enforce it when loss of possession occurred, (ii) the loss of possession was not the result of a transfer by the person or a lawful seizure, and (iii) the person cannot reasonably obtain possession of the instrument because the instrument was destroyed, its whereabouts cannot be determined, or it is in the wrongful possession of an unknown person or a person that cannot be found or is not amenable to service of process.

(b) A person seeking enforcement of an instrument under subsection (a) must prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. If that proof is made, section 42a-3-308 applies to the case as if the person seeking enforcement had produced the instrument. The court may not enter judgment in favor of the person seeking enforcement unless it finds that the person required to pay the instrument is adequately protected against loss that might occur by reason of a claim by another person to enforce the instrument. Adequate protection may be provided by any reasonable means.

Under Paragraph (b) the person seeking enforcement of the Note needs to prove the terms of the instrument and the person’s right to enforce the instrument. Typically, the person can prove the terms of the Promissory Note by providing a swor Affidavit with a copy of the Promissory Note.

In addition, the party seeking enforcement needs to show that it is entitled to enforce the Note. In many cases, the person will have a Promissory Note endorsed (signed over) to itself, the person enforcing the Note.

With regard to Paragraph (a)(i), the party foreclosing needs to prove that it was in possession of the Note and entitled to enforce the Note when loss of possession occurred. In many cases, the party will be able to have someone testify as to a date in which the Note was allegedly lost. There can be an issue as to when a Note was lost, particularly if there is more than one transfer of the Note, without an endorsement.

Concerning Paragraph (a)(ii), there cannot be a loss due to transfer or lawful seizure. In either of these cases, there is doubt as to whether the party foreclosing is entitled to collect under the terms of the Note.

With regard to Paragraph (a)(iii), the concept is that the party foreclosing has no reasonable way to obtain possession of the Note. The Appellate Court held that if a promissory note is inadvertently surrendered to the maker (primary party responsible to pay), the Promissory Note is treated as a lost instrument. Guaranty Bank and Trust Co. v. Dowling, 4 Conn. App. 376 (1985).

A mortgage assignee is the party to whom a mortgage is transferred. A mortgage assignee can still foreclose, even if it was never in possession of the Promissory Note. Foreclosure is an equitable action, which is different from a legal action on a Note. See New England Savings Bank v. Bedford Realty Corp. 238 Conn. 745 (1996).

If you have any foreclosure questions, please feel free to contact.

Attorney Robert M. Singer

2572 Whitney Avenue

Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo.com