Stay Away, Joe: Klock Inevitably Invokes "Peace Pipe" in Tribal Motion to Disqualify!

How is The Intrepid One™ able to elicit such delicious quotes?

(Maybe you need to interview the right people.)

Continuing her blockbuster reporting on the growing Miccosukees vs. All Their Former Lawyers mess, Julie managed to ask Joe about a motion to disqualify his law firm RKRPEVN, (aka the spy agency from Get Smart?) which is representing longtime former tribe attorney Dexter Lehtinen.

The motion was filed by current tribe attorney Bernie Roman:

"The idea that I represent other people that are adverse to the Indians so I can't represent Dexter is ludicrous," Klock said. He said adding that Roman, the tribe's Miami attorney, "has been smoking something. He must be passing around the peace pipe. It's hard to take this motion seriously."

I'm glad Joe stopped there.

In fact, it's taking every fiber in my being to not run with this and throw in every impermissible historic pop cultural Indian reference and/or caricature lurking in my subconscious and just set off on a wildly inappropriate yet epic riff.

But it's a holiday so I'll just note that I'm with Joe on the merits here -- the motion makes no sense, Ke-mo sa.... shoot!

The motion makes no sense.

Judge King Nixes Delta Baggage Delay Reimbursement Case!

Did you know you are entitled to up to $3300 in expenses from Delta if your bags are delayed?

Neither does anybody else.

But in a suit brought by Aaron Podhurst over Delta's failure to advise customers of this policy, Judge King has dismissed the suit with prejudice, holding that it is preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act:

Plaintiff's claims clearly rest on allegations that "relate to the heart of services that an airline provides.'' Koutsouradis, 427 F.3d at 1344 n.2. Permitting this claim to move forward as plead would thus impermissibly sanction regulation of the manner in which the airline advertise their reimbursement services and would interfere with the provision of baggage handling services to their passengers, thereby offending the stated purpose of the Deregulation Act.

You can't win 'em all, I guess.

Oh yeah -- happy almost Good Friday, plebes!

Settled in a Flash, Shuster & Saben obtains loan modification for 85 year old client.

An eighty-five year old homeowner came to the Melbourne office of Shuster & Saben caught between a rock and a hard place.  Her property insurance company dropped her because she did not replace a thirty-year-old electrical panel in her home.  When her lender learned that her property insurance was not renewed it replaced the old insurance policy with a force-placed policy costing nearly quadruple the price.  The client could not afford to pay both her mortgage and the cost of replacing her electrical panel.

The client’s sole source of income was Social Security and she did not have savings available to pay for the expensive home repair.  The client had tried on her own, for months, without success,  to obtain a loan modification from her mortgage servicer. Prior to the filing of a foreclosure action, firm attorney Richard Shuster advised her that she since she could not obtain other insurance coverage until she replaced a dangerous, outdated, electrical panel and she could not afford force-placed coverage she had no other choice but to miss a few mortgage payments and use the money that to fix her home.  The client was encouraged to speak to the lender and let them know her situation.  Hopefully the homeowner could fix her electrical box and obtain a loan modification before the loan servicer brought a foreclosure action.

Unfortunately the loan servicer filed a foreclosure action after the client missed several payments.  When the servicer filed the foreclosure action, the client did not have sufficient funds to pay the firm’s usual fees for foreclosure defense and was given a hardship discount.  After being retained the firm moved to dismiss the foreclosure action and submitted a loan modification package for the borrower.  Less than sixty days after being hired, the firm has obtained a HAMP loan modification that will lower the client’s interest rate from 6% to 2.25%  The client has fixed her electrical box.  Shuster referred the client to top insurance agent to obtain a new insurance policy to replace the force-placed insurance policy obtained by the loan servicer.  With swift proactive representation designed to solve problems, the firm has helped another client save their home.

About Shuster & Saben:  Shuster & Saben tailors its approach to each clients unique situation with a goal of solving problems and protecting our clients home and assets.  If you want more than cookie-cutter foreclosure delay, a free consultation (for homeowners in foreclosure) is a phone call away. 

3d DCA Watch -- New and Improved, Now With "Citation Opinions"!

The Scene:  a hushed emergency meeting convened in the bunker's ornate central conference hall (also serving as the court "gym" and alternatively its "mechanical room/electrical closet").

Attendees: bunker denizens, evenly divided into "pro" and "con" on the topic at hand, many holding signs and cheering for their respective positions.

(There is no truth to the rumor one participant appeared fully adorned in body paint with the words "PCA" emblazoned in a particularly memorable area).

The Topic at Hand:  whether or not to create a new category, in addition to Opinions and PCAs, for "Citation Opinions."

The Debate:  It unfolded in the usual manner, with proponents of one side or the other hurling spit balls made from prior Court rulings, giving each other "robe-wedgies," and exchanging valuable Pokemon cards for promises of support and subtle changes in alliance or position.

(Hey, trends take a while to make their way through the concrete.)

The Verdict:  After much soul-wrenching debate lasting more than 72 straight hours, a thin puff of white smoke emerged from the bunker -- signaling to the eager crowds gathered outside that yes, yes, and yes!! -- a new category has indeed been created.

Behold those who bitterly cling to their outdated chardonnay, Opinions, and PCAs, it has been thusly revealed:

CITATION OPINIONS

And here is an example of the Court's newfangled handiwork:

Affirmed. See O’Brien v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 999 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Weesner v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 711 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Tres v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 705 So. 2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

Suck on that, 4th DCA (which doesn't even provide links to their PCA affirmances)!

Contempt Order Reversed by Fourth District

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed today in Ramirez v. Ramirez, on the grounds that the contempt and incarceration order entered below lacked the required findings that the appellant had the present ability to pay the support, that he willfully failed to comply with the support order, and a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor could pay the purge, along with factual findings supporting each such finding.  On remand, the Fourth District also ordered that a new evidentiary hearing be held on the ground that the appellant was prevented from presenting rebuttal evidence prior to the entry of the contempt order.

Fourth District Court Reverses Contract Modification

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed today in Hartman v. Hartman that it was error for the lower court to require the former husband to pay only half of an agreed upon amount for college tuition, on the grounds that there was no motion for modification pending, and the court as such lacked jurisdiction to modify the final judgment.

Lord Mansfield Returns to the Fourth District

The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed today in J.T.J. v. N.H. and E.R., a case in which the lower tribunal had dismissed a petition to establish paternity on the grounds that the minor child was born while the mother was married to another man, thus raising a presumption of legitimacy.  The Appellant, the putative father of the minor child, argued that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing prior to dismissal for such a reason.  The Fourth District Court agreed, holding as they did in the recent D.O.R. ex rel Iglesias case that an evidentiary hearing was required as to the best interests of the minor child prior to any such dismissal.