Hillsborough County Bar Association Announces Schedule for People's Law School

The Hillsborough County Bar Association has released the schedule for the upcoming series of free educational seminars entitled "People's Law School."  Interested consumers can download a flyer with information about the location of the classes.  Daniel Anderson, of The Anderson Law Firm, will be participating in the upcoming class on foreclosures, scheduled to occur on September 25th.  The list of all classes is provided below.

The Hillsborough County Bar Association

Presents

PEOPLE’S LAW SCHOOL

An educational series taught by lawyers and legal professionals

2008-09 Schedule

 

Date                           Time              Subject

September 11^th           6-8pm              Family Law (Child Custody, Divorce, Child Support)

 September 25^th           6-8pm              Foreclosures

 October 9^th                  6-8pm              Bankruptcy

 October 23^rd                6-8pm              Consumer Complaints/ Identity Theft

 November 6^th              6-8pm              Alternatives to a jury trial: Small Claims Court & Mediations

 November 20^th            6-8pm              Landlord/ Tenant Disputes

 December 4^th              6-8pm              Immigration Law

 December 18^th            6-8pm              Wills, Trusts and Estate Planning/ Probate Court

 

Anderson Weighs In On Wireless Early Termination Fee Issue

Attorney Daniel Anderson weighed in today on the early termination fee issue currently under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). In a letter to FCC Chairman, Kevin J. Martin, Anderson urged the FCC to adopt rules that protect consumers against early termination fees imposed by so-called "family plans" offered by wireless carriers. Anderson recounted his own experience as a consumer as an example of the difficult choice faced by millions of consumers each year. Anderson likened the practices of wireless providers to insurance companies that offer insurance policies at below market rates in order to lock consumers into a particular company. Anderson said this practice should be stopped, and asked the FCC to "consider the collateral effect on family members that participate in some version of a plan involving two or more cellular telephones, each of which are subject to different contractual obligations."

The FCC held hearings on this issue on June 12, 2008, and Anderson said he expects the FCC will take action on this issue in the very near future. Anderson said he intends his letter to add additional support for FCC rules that provide for the elimination or significant reduction of early termination fees being paid by millions of consumers each year. The Anderson Law Firm does not represent any specific client on this issue, nor is it being compensated for its efforts to help consumers. Anderson said that he sent the letter because he believes attorneys have a duty to speak out on important issues that affect American citizens "and this is one of those issues."

Florida Bar Speeds Up Process of Helping Homeowners Facing Foreclosure

The Florida Bar recently created an intake form for consumers that wish to receive free assistance from attorneys participating in the Florida Attorneys Saving Homes project. According to The Florida Bar web site, this statewide effort provides a toll-free hotline for consumers that need help avoiding foreclosure, and provides consumers with free legal resources. The online form is intended to speed up the process of getting help, and permits consumers to bypass the toll -free hotline.

11th Circuit Says Car Rental Companies Cannot Be Held Liable for Negligent Acts of Renters

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (the federal appellate court governing appeals in Florida) ruled yesterday that recently enacted federal legislation known as "the Graves Amendment" (49 U.S.C. § 30106) preempts state tort claims against car rental companies under a theory of vicarious liability.  In English, what the Court said was that the statute passed by Congress, and signed into law by President Bush in 2005, prevents a plaintiff from suing a car rental company for "negligent entrustment" of the vehicle to a person renting the car.  Thus, if the car rental company rents the car to someone that is later found to be at fault in an accident, the car rental company cannot be held liable for renting the car to the person that caused the injuries even if the company knew or should have known that the driver had a bad driving record.

 

Critics of the Graves Amendment claim that the law provides too much protection to car rental and leasing companies, and such companies should be held accountable for placing a vehicle into the hands of a dangerous driver under the "dangerous instrumentality doctrine."  According to these critics, leasing companies in particular do little to ensure that a driver has a safe record before leasing a vehicle to a driver.  Others argue that the law should shield car rental and leasing companies against liability because these companies cannot always know if a driver is safe.

 

Given the rancor over this particular law, it is likely that this or another case will reach the United States Supreme Court.  Whether the Court will hear the case is another matter.

 

Case: Garcia v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., No. 07-12235, (11th Cir., Aug. 19, 2008).

President Bush Signs Product Safety Reform Legislation

Public Citizen reported today that President Bush has signed into law strong product safety reform legislation that will overhaul the Consumer Product Safety Commission. According to Public Citizen, this legislation represents the most significant improvement to the Consumer Product Safety Commission since the agency was established in the 1970s.

Among other things, the new law provides that:

- Lead and toxic phthalates will be essentially eliminated from toys and children's products

- Consumers will have an Internet database where they can share information with each other about dangerous products

- Toys will be tested for safety before they're sold, so our children aren't treated like guinea pigs

- Whistleblowers will be free to alert the public to important safety problems without fear of reprisal from their employers

Payback: Wells Fargo Bank Pays Big Bucks To Woman After It Filed Foreclosure Action Against Her

The Baltimore Business Journal reports that a Baltimore woman who defaulted on a subprime loan has been awarded $1.25 million in damages from her lender, Wells Fargo Bank. Experts say the case may lead to similar lawsuits nationwide and may also help Baltimore City in its suit against the bank alleging that Wells Fargo targeted minority neighborhoods with subprime loans. 

The woman was awarded $250,000 in damages and $1 million in punitive damages by a six-member jury that found Wells Fargo guilty of fraud, negligence and other charges for inflating the woman's income and assets on her mortgage application, and locking her into a bigger loan than she had applied for -- one she couldn't afford. The woman said in an interview with the newspaper that her case 'destroys the myth' that the subprime mortgage meltdown is fueled by homebuyers taking loans they can't handle.

Many consumers do not realize that they may be able to file a counterclaim against their mortgage lender if they were given a loan under circumstances like those encountered by the Baltimore woman.  A counterclaim is essentially a lawsuit against the person or company that sued you.  In many cases, consumers have been led to believe that their inability to pay their mortgage is their own fault, rather than the fault of an unscrupulous mortgage company that preyed upon minorities and unsophisticated consumers.

The Anderson Law Firm is helping consumers that are facing mortgage foreclosure and, in some cases, we may be able to file a counterclaim against the mortgage company on the consumers' behalf.  Each case is heavily fact dependent.  Please give us a call if you think that you may be the victim of unfair mortgage practices.

 

Does Verizon Wireless Settlement Spell Doom For Early Termination Fees?

Verizon Wireless agreed last week to pay $21 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that it unlawfully charged consumers early termination fees for ending cell phone contracts before they expired.  According to the report at Cellular-News.com, a Verizon Wireless spokesman called the lawsuit a "distraction" and said "this was an easy way to resolve it."  But with similar lawsuits pending against Sprint, and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) waiting in the wings to enact rules which permit such fees under a national framework, the question of whether these fees will continue has not yet been resolved.

 

Certainly a wireless provider that sells a phone at a discount to a customer is entitled to recoup the difference between what it paid for the phone and the amount that it charged the customer for the phone.  The problem lies with charges to customers that have already paid enough during the term of their contract to fairly compensate the wireless provider for the phone, and to others that did not purchase the phone from the wireless provider.

 

It makes no sense at all, for example, to charge a customer early termination fees when that customer bought his or her phone on eBay, and simply signed up with the wireless provider for cell phone service.  Likewise, a customer that has had their phone for 5 years should not pay an early termination fee.  And yet, these customers are charged the same amount as a customer that bought a phone from the wireless provider and then terminated the contract a month later.  It is not right, it is not fair, and this practice should be stopped.  With any luck, Verizon Wireless, Sprint, and every other wireless provider will get the hint: start treating customers fairly or pay the consequences.