Author: rober269_wp

In a foreclosure action, a judgment can enter which will provide that ownership (title) transfers to a mortgagee as of a particular date. (a homeowner loses ownership of his or her property)

In this situation, a defendant can file a Motion to Stay an execution of ejectment.   The court has equitable powers to grant a stay, in appropriate circumstances.   Washington Mutual Bank v. Turner.  Case No. CV98 0263975.

A court will need to balance the hardships between the parties.   Fellows v. Martin, 217 Conn 57 at 63, note 9 (1991).

However, in a situation in which title has vested in the mortgagee, it is vital to file the Motion and have it heard prior to an execution of the Ejection (having the Marshall come to the house and remove the defendant and the defendant’s belongings. )

A Judge will have broad discretion to determine if a Stay should be granted, and the extent of the Stay, the time period in which the Stay will apply.

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

Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2572 Whtiney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518

203-248-8278, rsingerct@yahoo.com

 

The law with regard to Non-Compete clauses has changed in Connecticut, for physicians, as of 2016.   The new law is below.

Sec. 20-14p. Covenants not to compete involving physician. (a) For purposes of this section: (1) “Covenant not to compete” means any provision of an employment or other contract or agreement that creates or establishes a professional relationship with a physician and restricts the right of a physician to practice medicine in any geographic area of the state for any period of time after the termination or cessation of such partnership, employment or other professional relationship; (2) “physician” means an individual licensed to practice medicine under this chapter; and (3) “primary site where such physician practices” means (A) the office, facility or location where a majority of the revenue derived from such physician’s services is generated, or (B) any other office, facility or location where such physician practices and mutually agreed to by the parties and identified in the covenant not to compete.

(b) (1) A covenant not to compete is valid and enforceable only if it is: (A) Necessary to protect a legitimate business interest; (B) reasonably limited in time, geographic scope and practice restrictions as necessary to protect such business interest; and (C) otherwise consistent with the law and public policy. The party seeking to enforce a covenant not to compete shall have the burden of proof in any proceeding.

(2) A covenant not to compete that is entered into, amended, extended or renewed on or after July 1, 2016, shall not: (A) Restrict the physician’s competitive activities (i) for a period of more than one year, and (ii) in a geographic region of more than fifteen miles from the primary site where such physician practices; or (B) be enforceable against a physician if (i) such employment contract or agreement was not made in anticipation of, or as part of, a partnership or ownership agreement and such contract or agreement expires and is not renewed, unless, prior to such expiration, the employer makes a bona fide offer to renew the contract on the same or similar terms and conditions, or (ii) the employment or contractual relationship is terminated by the employer, unless such employment or contractual relationship is terminated for cause.

(3) Each covenant not to compete entered into, amended or renewed on and after July 1, 2016, shall be separately and individually signed by the physician.

(c) The remaining provisions of any contract or agreement that includes a covenant not to compete that is rendered void and unenforceable, in whole or in part, under the provisions of this section shall remain in full force and effect, including provisions that require the payment of damages resulting from any injury suffered by reason of termination of such contract or agreement.

Several things to note

1.  The covenant can be part of a contract, or the covenant can be the whole contract.
2. The restriction  applies with regard to a physicians right to practice medicine.  Therefore, if a physician is doing research, the statute does not apply.
3. The restriction only applies if the physician is working within the state of Connecticut.
4. a.  The statute only permits a restriction which is no longer than 1 year, and no more than 15 miles from the primary site where a physician practices (may be more than one primary site) or

b.   any restriction is unenforceable if the employer terminates the physician, unless termination is for cause (legitimate reason for firing – such as drug or alcohol use) or

c.  if there was contract not made as part of a partnership agreement (or anticipation to have a partnership agreement)

1. in case agreement ends, either not renewed or expired

a.  for non-compete to be enforceable – need offer of continued contract

on same or similar terms

 

Examples –

4.a –   non compete provides for no work within 30 miles – too far distance

4.a – non compete provides for no work for 3 years – too long of time

4.b.   non compete and termination for no reason – unenforceable

4.b.  non compete and termination after allegations of patient abuse- enforceable

4.c – contract without anticipated of partnership agreement – if no subsequent offer – unenforceable.

 

Whether or not you are physician, Courts do not always enforce non-compete clauses, often finding that such a clause is an improper restraint on trade.

If you have any questions about non-compete clauses, please feel free to contact

Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2752 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518

203-248-8278    rsingerct@yahoo.com

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut

 

 

On July 12, 2021, Governor Lamont signed Public Act 21-161 into law.   The law changes certain amounts of property which is exempt from a judgment creditor.  (the exempt prevents a judgment creditor from selling exempt property).

The major changes are as follows

CGS 53-352b (10) Up to two motor vehicles to the value of
seven thousand dollars in the aggregate,
provided value shall be determined as the fair market value of the motor
vehicles less the amount of all liens and security interests
which encumber  them;

The number of motor vehicles protected increased to two, from one

The value of the equity protection increased from $3,500 to $7,000

(the equity is the fair market value of the property less any lien including a lien against the vehicle)

 

CGS 53- 352b(21) The homestead of the exemptioner to the value of  two hundred fifty thousand dollars, provided value
shall be determined as the fair market value of the real property less the
amount of any statutory or consensual lien which encumbers it, except
that, in the case of a money judgment arising out of a claim of sexual
abuse or exploitation of a minor, sexual assault or other wilful, wanton,
or reckless misconduct committed by a natural person, to the value of
seventy-five thousand dollars; and

The general homestead exemption increased to $250,000.   For many debtors, this will protect the full value of any equity in a residence.

 

CGS 53-352b(20) – provides an exemption for the cash surrender value of any life insurance policy (with limited exception).

 

If  you have any questions on any exemptions from creditors, please feel free to call

Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2572 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518

203-248-8278    rsingerct@yahoo.com

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut

 

Recently, a Federal Judge held that the federal stay on evictions was unconstitutional.  That decision is stayed, pending appeal.

Connecticut also has a moratorium, which stops many evictions.  The internet link to Executive Order 10A can be found below.

https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/Office-of-the-Governor/Executive-Orders/Lamont-Executive-Orders/Executive-Order-No-10A.pdf

Several things to consider

1.  The order extends the Eviction Moratorium, preventing evictions in many cases.
2. The moratorium applies to a “dwelling unit,” – where a person lives.
3. An exception applies for a serious nuisance – although not defined, commonly this is very loud noise or illegal activity
4. There is an exception where there is a “serious nonpayment of rent” – which is defined as being late for at least six months worth of rent due on or after March 1, 2020.

I am staring to encounter evictions in which a tenant is over 6 months behind on rent payments, and is in the middle of an eviction process.  Typically the tenant has lost a job, and has been unable to pay the rent, so the rental  past due amount increases.   This pandemic situation started over 1 year ago, so it is not surprising that tenants are over 6 months behind on rental payments.

Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2752 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518,

203-248-8278, rsingerct@yahoo.com

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act limits the ability of businesses to make unwanted sales calls.

The Supreme Court recently decided a case concerning the TCPA. In order for the TCPA to apply, a call must be from an “autodialer.”

 

The Supreme Court held that:

A device is an autodialer under the TCPA only if it can store or produce telephone numbers using a random or sequential number generator. A device that merely stores and then automatically dials telephone numbers, but does not have the capacity to use a random or sequential number generator, is not an autodialer and is therefore not subject to the TCPA’s prohibitions.

See Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, Case Number 19-511.

 

Therefore, if a company makes calls and does not use a system which dials randomly (without any systemic method) or sequentially (one number followed by the next number), there is no TCPA violation.

For example, if a company gets a person’s home phone number, and randomly makes calls using an automated phone system, there is no TCPA violation, if the system does not dial random or sequential numbers.

Unfortunately, this will make it difficult, if not impossible, to succeed in many TCPA cases.   There will be many situations in which a company puts a phone number into an automated system, and make calls at random times; Under these circumstances, there is no TCPA violation.

There is already talk in Congress to amend the TCPA, so that it covers calls from an automated system, which does not have the capacity to make random or sequential calls.

If you have had problems with unwanted phone calls, please feel free to call

Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2752 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518,

203-248-8278, rsingerct@yahoo.com

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut

The concept of piercing the corporate veil is that an individual can be an alter ego of a corporation.  By law, the corporation is disregarded, and an individual is treated as being liable for a debt(s) of a corporation.

In many situations, this occurs where a person uses a corporation to commit fraud, or a person fails to follow corporate formalities (no board meetings, no corporate records, no corporate checking account).

In some situations, a person can obtain a judgment against a corporation, and the corporation has no assets to pay the judgment.  In this situation, a person/plaintiff may attempt to pierce the corporate veil, and seek to hold an individual, who controls the corporation, liable for the corporate debts.

The issue is – what is the statute of limitations in which to collect a debt against an alter ego.

Although there is no Appellate Court decisions, one should look to a Superior Court decision in  Laura Pullicino v. John A. Jensen,  Jr. CV 13 – 6019108S

Judge Roche followed the decision of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals

“The present action is for enforcement of a prior judgment from the CHRO by piercing the corporate veil of Pelham, the company against which the judgment was entered.   When presented with facts and history similar to the present case, the court in CHRO v. Travel & Tour Services, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV–92–0519557–S (July 12, 1994, Hennessey, J.), decided that § 52–598 was applicable and twenty years was the appropriate statute of limitations.¹  The court relied on an opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., 933 F.2d 131 (2d Cir.1991), which, when presented with the same issue of piercing the corporate veil in the context of an enforcement action, the court in Wm. Passalacqua decided the case in favor of jurisdiction with § 52–598 as the applicable statute of limitations.   The court in Wm. Passalacqua stated that “if the plaintiffs in this case can prove the defendants are in fact the alter ego of Developers, defendants’ jurisdictional objection evaporates because the previous judgment is then being enforced against entities who were, in essence, parties to the underlying dispute;  the alter egos are treated as one entity.”  Wm. Passalacqua Builders, Inc. v. Resnick Developers South, Inc., supra, 142–43.”

 

In effect, because the individual defendant may be treated as an alter ego of the defendant corporation, the individual is treated as one and the same for purposes of determining the statute of limitations.  Because there is a 20 year time period to enforce the judgment against the corporation, there is a20 year time period to enforce the judgment against the individual (assuming there is no jurisdictional issue – such as the individual being from a different state than the corporation).    For purpose of this analysis, the individual defendant is treated as the corporation, they are alter egos, one and the same;   a judgment against the corporation can be the same as a judgment against the alter ego individual.

 

If you have any questions concerning corporate piercing, please feel free to contact Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2572 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518, 203-248-8278

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut

There are approximately 1.2 Million auto accidents with a deer each

year.    The number is surprising and way too high.

Unfortunately, and not unexpectedly, some of the accidents result in

death.  Because of the size of some deer, the collision between a deer and a

vehicle can result in death to the vehicle’s occupants.   There are

approximately 150 deaths and 10,000 personal injuries as a result of these

accidents.

Certain states have the majority of deer accidents.   Particularly, most

accidents occur in the Midwest.

Although not always involved in an accident, white-tailed deer are the

species most likely to be in an accident.  But deer accidents can happen

anywhere that deer are located.

The estimated cost of deer related accidents is $1 billion.  Most

accidents occur between 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.  during the months of October to

December.   Typically, the accidents happen during mating season.

Unfortunately, there is little evidence that deer whistles work.

 

Robert M. Singer, 2572 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518

203-248-8278                       rsingerct@yahoo.com

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut

Here is how the Debt Settlement Scam Works

 *You owe bills to multiple creditors, typically credit card companies. 

 * A debt settlement company tells you that it can help you pay off all of your bills.

* The settlement company tells you to stop paying all of your bills, and make a monthly payment to it.

  * The company will tell you that the monthly payments will be collected in an escrow account, to be used in the future to pay off your debt.  However, typically, during the initial payment period, such as 24 months, most of the money will be used to pay the settlement company its fees, up front.  

* Therefore, it can take over 24 months for you to have enough money to pay off more than one creditor.  The company may settle some smaller debts, in the first few months of the payment period.

* Unfortunately, because you are not paying your bills, when you pay the debt settlement company, it is likely that some larger creditor will sue you. 

 * Because you will likely have little money to pay the larger creditor when you get sued, you will get a judgment against you, and the creditor can then take collection action on the judgment – such as a wage withholding order.

The debt settlement agency want most of its money up front, when you start to make your monthly payments.   The debt settlement company tells you to stop making payments to creditors, knowing that you are likely to be sued at a later date, and not have enough money in escrow to pay for any future judgment.

Often, after using a debt settlement company, a debtor ends up being sued and is forced to later file for bankruptcy.   To make matters worse, you may not be able to sue the debt settlement company, as the contract can provide for binding arbitration.

If you are having problems with your debts, please feel free to contact

Attorney Robert M. Singer, 2572 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518

203-248-8278

rsingerct@yahoo

Cities and Towns are continuing to work hard on collecting delinquent real estate and personal property taxes.

 

Connecticut General Statutes Section 12-141 provides in part

“Except as otherwise indicated in the context, “tax”, wherever used in said sections, includes each property tax and each installment and part thereof due to a municipality, including any interest, penalties, fees and charges, including collection fees of a collection agency, attorney’s fees and those fees and charges set forth in § 12-140. “

 

This statute specifically permits collection fees of a collection agency, to be included as part of a tax bill.   However, the statute does not specify the “amount” or percentage” of the fee which is allowed.

I have seen collection agencies add a “15% fee” to a tax bill, as part of the collection fee.   This is similar to the amount due to a State Marshall seeking to collect on an outstanding tax bill.

Robert M. Singer, Esq., 2572 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT  06518, 203-248-8278,         rsingerct@yahoo.com

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut

ChexSystems is a credit reporting service.   Typically, financial institutions, such as a bank, use ChexSystems, to determine to open or refuse to open a bank account.

The reported information includes information on closed checking and savings accounts.   The information can include a history of bounced checks.

You can request a free copy of your ChexSystems report once very 12 months.

 

To contact ChexSystems:

call 800-428-9623

Mail – Check Systems, Inc., Attn. Consumer Relations, 7805 Hudson Road, Ste 100, Woodbury, NY  55125

web –  /web/chexsystems/consumerdebit/page/requestreports/consumerdisclosure

 

Once you get a copy of your ChexSystems report, you have the right to dispute the information on the credit report.

It can be difficult or impossible to open a checking account if you have certain bad information on your ChexSystems report.

Robert M. Singer, Esq., 2572 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, CT, 06518

203-248-8278                   rsingerct@yahoo.com

Serving New Haven County and all of Connecticut