Author: The Wolf Firm

Written By: Alan S. Wolf  Published in Summer USFN Report 2010 

Written By: Eric D. Dean 

Written By: Eric D. Dean 

Written By: Eric D. Dean 

Written By: Eric D. Dean 

Written By: Alan S. Wolf  Published in Spring USFN Report 2009 

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

Partnership disputes inevitably arise and can often be emotionally charged — especially when the partners involved are family members, or long-time friends or business associates.  Although the reasons for partnership disputes can differ dramatically, the effects of the disputes can range from minor squabbles to a complete breakdown in the functioning of the partnership.  When the partnership is a going business with significant assets and liabilities, a breakdown in the partnership can result in a severe blow to the economic stability of the partnership, and in some instances even to the financial well-being of the partners.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

Whatever form the dispute takes, a well-drafted shareholders’ agreement is oftentimes the most important means of defining and limiting a shareholder’s rights and obligations.  However, even if no shareholder agreement exists or if it does not apply to the situation, a carefully planned and focused strategy, combined with a thorough understanding of the legal tools available to resolve the dispute, can be the difference between the success or failure of any litigation involving the prosecution or defense of shareholder’s lawsuit.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

Disputes of many types and varieties can and do develop among individuals operating, managing and investing in corporations and other types of business entities.  These internal disputes frequently involve struggles to control the operation of the present business operations or the future of the company.  Such corporate disputes can be further fueled by shareholders or members of the business entity whose positions are at odds with the current management of the business entity.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

Often questions are posed to us regarding what a Lis Pendens recorded against real property is and what its effects are on the owner of the real property. “Lis Pendens” is merely a Latin expression which means that an action is pending in Court concerning an ownership or possessory interest in the property in question. That is, anyone who would acquire an interest in that real property, a purchaser or a lender, would take that interest subject to any judgment that may be entered in the lawsuit described in the Lis Pendens.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

Buying a condo, townhouse or single family home can present many challenges and rewards, but buying real estate in a development governed by a homeowners association (HOA) can be a serious trap for the unwary. Not only is the property subject to the laws, codes and ordinances affecting all other residential properties in the same geographical area; it is also governed by the covenants, conditions and restrictions of the development, and the bylaws, and rules and regulations of the association.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

Q: What is Mediation?

A: In Mediation, a neutral third party acts as a mediator, whose role is to listen to both sides of a dispute and help the parties arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement. The mediator cannot force either side to a dispute to do anything. The parties themselves are in control of the terms of the settlement. In fact, the parties can end the Mediation without reaching a settlement.

Written By: Joseph J. Narulli

Timing Is Everything: Bringing a case to mediation at the wrong time: or Timing is Everything.

It is well known by most experienced litigators that there comes a crucial window of time when the attorney knows 85-95% of the information about the case, yet only 10-20% of the cost of going to trial has been expended. This is the optimal time to take the matter to mediation, particularly in cases where the cost of litigating the matter through trial is significant.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

There are some who litigate regularly and if you do, most of what is to follow is familiar to you, but if you are in a company that seldom litigates or an individual who has never set foot in a courtroom then this article, hopefully, will take some of the mystery out of what happens during a civil lawsuit, and some of the terms that are bantered about between lawyers, which have little meaning to the non-lawyer.

Written By: Joseph J. Nardulli

The Superior Courts in the State of California are governed by the “Fast Track” system, more formally referred to as the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code § 68600 et seq.). This portion of the Government Code governs the way in which Courts manage litigation. Prior to the adoption of this Act, the attorneys were primarily responsible for moving their cases forward. Under the Fast Track rules it is the Court, specifically the Judge’s responsibility, to assume and maintain control over the litigation, rather than the attorneys.

Written By: Eric D. Dean

Small business is the backbone of America. When the business is operated by a small group of individuals it can also be a significant source of disputes and litigation.  Whether the business is operated as a partnership, limited liability company or corporation, to often the participants in the venture are during the start up and building years view themselves as being in alignment and are focused on protecting themselves from third party claims and building their business. However, many events can arise resulting in a dispute between the co-venturers. Such disputes can have a wide range of causes such as a dispute between the co-venturers over the direction of the business, a fragmentation resulting from a diversity in work ethic, talent or style, the death or incapacity of one of the venturers resulting in family members or an administrator of an estate assuming a role in the business or one of the co-venturers desiring to retire or be bought out.

Written By:  Eric D. Dean

Secured lenders must assess a number of concerns before concluding a non-judicial foreclosure by a trustees sale. If the secured lender fails to do so, it may be waiving valuable rights or exposing itself to unnecessary risks. Some of these concerns are addressed below in no particular order. This article is not meant to constitute a comprehensive discussion of all possible concerns or of any of the concerns referenced  below but merely a checklist and brief description in order to heighten the lender awareness that further investigation and analysis may be warranted. The lender should consult counsel in the event any of the following concerns may exist.

Written By: Eric D. Dean

In many instances, there will be similarities in the nature of the defaults occurring on different loans. However, the adoption of a loan specific, objective-oriented approach to the resolution of loan defaults will in most instances substantially enhance the prospect of a significantly enhanced outcome of the resolution of the default.  Such an approach requires an objective analysis of the pertinent facts, documents and the nature and extent of the default and, based on this analysis, the adoption of stated objectives.

Written By: Eric D. Dean

With the current economic crisis has come an increasing number of failing businesses and businesses that even if surviving are not paying their creditors timely.  Where there is a defalcation on payment the unsecured creditor has two primary goals (1) put enough pressure on the obligor to make it resolve the outstanding debt quickly and (2) tie up the obligor’s assets before these assets are diluted, hidden or paid to other creditors.

Written By: Alan S. Wolf  Published in Autumn USFN Report 2007

The dictionary defines myth as “an unfounded or false notion or a thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.” In the mortgage servicing world, and especially in regard to the servicing of loans involved in bankruptcy, there are a variety of myths that have developed in our industry. Instead of a proper analysis based on current law and fact, these myths are based on the premise that the practice must be correct “because it has always been done that way.” Here is a list of the top 10 bankruptcy myths, which is presented in true David Letterman format, from the lowest-rated to the highest-rated myth. Here they are:

Written By: Alan S. Wolf  Published in Summer USFN Report 2007

When a bankruptcy case is filed by a major lender, it obviously reflects poorly on our industry. The headlines about the demise of the subprime sector more than prove this point. Moreover, the filing creates tremendous havoc throughout the industry. For example, the lender’s employees become understandably frantic because their jobs are in serious jeopardy, prospective borrowers generally lose their pipeline loans and eagerly search for other financing options, investors and master servicers scramble to move the servicing to more secure financial partners, and attorneys and general creditors often freeze their services pending some guarantee of payment. It’s a mess.

Written By: Alan S. Wolf

On April 26, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a decision in In re Brown, __ F.3d __, 2007 WL 1217739 (9^th Cir. (Ariz.), 2007), diving into the analysis of what truly constitutes a bankruptcy court order. In Brown, the debtor brought an adversary proceeding against the loan servicer for its alleged violation of the automatic stay. Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the bankruptcy judge ruled from the bench. Later that day, the judge signed a “minute entry” stating that the loan servicer’s motion was granted and the debtor’s motion was denied. The bankruptcy court further took under advisement a related motion for sanctions. Three months later, the bankruptcy court entered judgment on the sanctions motion, granting about $19,000 in sanctions against the debtor.

Written By: Alan S. Wolf

On March 26, 2007, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Frank of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania decided that a Chapter 13 debtor could reopen her case more than three years after it had been closed and the mortgage loan paid off, so that debtor’s counsel could challenge the legal fees claimed by the mortgagee’s counsel. In re Padilla, __ B.R. __, 2007 WL 891290 (Bankr. E. D. Pa.).

Written By: Alan S. Wolf

On March 20, 2007, Judge Thomas Catliota of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Maryland (Greenbelt), issued a troubling ruling in In re King, Case No. 06-15660-TJC. In that case, the debtor, Marnitta King, was a joint owner of real property in Maryland. The other joint owner was Timothy Savoy. The property was secured by a mortgage held by Wells Fargo. Ms. King filed three Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases within one year. Mr. Savoy had not filed bankruptcy during this time. On the third filing, Wells Fargo went to sale without first seeking relief from stay due to section 362(c)(4)(A)(i), which provides as follows: