Source: https://getchas.com/law-gods
Timestamp: 2018-03-17 04:00:06
Document Index: 75665261

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 2520', 'art. 2520', 'art. 2531', 'art. 2545', 'art. 2548', 'art. 2522', 'art. 2522', 'art. 2521']

Law Gods — Attorney Chas Coleman
December 13, 2017 / Chuck Coleman
There was an accident. Perhaps someone was injured. Certainly there is property damages. And, as if that wasn’t enough to worry about, now we have to figure out who’s at fault. Ugh!
Best Case Scenario – Call Dassau & Coleman Law Firm J. Honestly, there is nothing I can write in this article that will replace the knowledge and expertise of a good attorney. But, aside from that, here are some general rules and pointers we will consider when determining who is at fault in a vehicle accident.
Proper Lookout. In general, all drivers have a responsibility to operate, control, and use their vehicles reasonably. Similarly, all drivers have a duty to maintain a proper lookout for hazards that may pose an unreasonable risk of harm. So what does that mean? If you have read any of my previous articles, you know the answer – it depends!
Obstructions in the road. Courts have said a driver may expect the road ahead to be safe for travel and is not required to anticipate unexpected obstructions. However, the driver is expected to see what should have been seen. The driver should see and avoid hazards that could be discovered with reasonable care and prudence. If using a public highway after dark, a driver is not required to anticipate an obstruction or construction she had no reason to suspect was present or that was difficult to see. But of course, when driving at night, or with otherwise impaired visibility, a driver is expected to use a higher degree of care to observe and avoid adverse conditions. One thing is for sure, although a driver is not expected to anticipate the unexpected, all drivers must use the diligence and care necessary for the circumstances.
Other Drivers. Later, we will talk more about the interaction between two or more drivers. But, as a general matter, I will note here that all drivers are expected to drive defensively if she witnesses the negligent driving of another motorist. I believe that means if a driver witnesses such negligent behavior, the driver should slow down or take other steps to avoid the negligent motorist. So remember that time you sped up to keep that obnoxious guy from darting in front of you? Probably should have done that. J
Speeding. Regardless of the posted speed limit, a driver is expected not to drive faster than is reasonable or prudent under the circumstances. That means she must take into account the road conditions, visibility, traffic, and other things that may make driving the speed limit unreasonable. On the other hand, the mere fact that a driver was speeding does not always mean she was at fault for a subsequent accident.
Rear-End Collision. So is it true that a driver who rear-ends another driver is always at fault? Almost every client I have who was involved in a rear-end collision has that question. Unfortunately I have to say no. True – the law presumes that a driver who rear-ends someone is liable for the collision. However, the presumption can be overcome when the rear-end driver can show that the lead motorist negligently created the hazard that cause the accident. For example, a lead driver may be at fault is she negligently made a sudden and unexpected stop that the trailing driver could not maneuver around.
Changing Lanes. One of the main arguments against fault of a rear-ending driver is that the lead driver negligently changed lanes in front of him. I won’t go into to much detail on this one because I have open and contentious litigation going on related to this very concept. Suffice it to say here that a driver changing lanes has a duty to ensure she can do so safely. The presumption of liability against a rear-ending driver may not apply when the leading motorist negligently changes lane and causes an accident. In fact, when a driver changes lanes and strikes another vehicle, the presumption of liability may lie with the driver who changes lanes. On the other hand, when a leading driver safely changes lanes, a trailing driver is required to take precaution not to cause an accident. I interpret that to mean the trailing driver should slow down and allow the first driver to change lanes safely. Bottom Line – When you change lanes, always make sure the lane is clear and use your signal lamps.
Passing. Speaking of changing lanes, how do we handle passing a motorist on the highway? Well, as a general matter, the driver of a passing vehicle should be alert of the actions of the motorist she is passing. Before attempting to pass, the driver should assess the traffic circumstances and ensure she can pass safely.
Special precaution should be taken when a driver passes to the left of a preceding motorist. The law considers passing to the left a dangerous maneuver. There is some case law suggesting using a turn signal may not be enough to entitle a left-side passer to the right of way. She may have to use her horn. So, no matter how frustrated you are with the slow poke in front of you, don’t pass unless you are sure its safe!
This only scratches the surface. There is plenty plenty plenty more to discuss; but I will save those topics for later articles. But, hopefully this is enough for you to see a theme. There are no black and white answers to liability. However, there are certain presumptions in law and certain maneuvers considered especially dangerous that help the courts decide on fault.
December 13, 2017 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment
May 23, 2015 / Chuck Coleman
Disclaimer: In this article, I will often refer to a domestic violence victim as “she” and the abuser as “he.” That is done for simplicity and is based on my client base and the issues I am seeing. I am well aware that there are males who are also domestic violence victims and I, in absolutely no way, mean to minimize their pain or experiences. For the purpose of understanding this article, I invite you to interchange the sexes if necessary in order to understand this information and how it may apply to other situations.
There may be a thought out there that the only penalty for battering a dating partner is a broken relationship or maybe a quick trip to the parish jail. If she is truly tired of it, maybe there will be a restraining order. Well, I would like to take a moment to discuss some of the remedies available under the law that may surprise some about how steep the penalties can actually be.
At an early age, most of us learned that violence against another person is wrong. The law certainly agrees. Violence is one of the main behaviors the law seeks to prevent and punish when needed. This is made clear by the fact that violence is one of the few behaviors that is punishable under both criminal and civil law. Therefore, domestic abusers may face what I call the Triple Whammy.
Violence against a person can trigger a number of criminal charges, depending on the severity of the violence and whether any objects were involved. Charges can range from assault to first degree murder. I won’t attempt to go into them all, so I will stick with the basics.
Battery. The first, and somewhat obvious criminal charge is battery. Hitting another person without permission is a crime punishable by law. That charge can be elevated to aggravated battery if a “dangerous weapon” is used. Now don’t be limited into thinking that only a gun or a knife can be considered a dangerous weapon. Some argue that a floor or a sofa will suffice if it causes injuries to the victim. The charge can be elevated to second degree battery if there is reason to believe the abuser intended serious bodily injury. Guess what, depending on the relationship and living arrangements of the abuser and victim, there is a second charge under the law for domestic violence – domestic abuse battery.
In all cases, the abuser can face financial penalties and jail time. For this article, let’s say $500 in financial penalties.
Assault. In most cases, a victim sees the abuser coming to hit her. Or maybe he threatened her before hitting her. Well, that’s illegal too. The law calls that an assault.
Like the battery example above, a simple assault charge may be elevated to aggravated assault if a weapon is used in the threat. Also like the battery example, there is an additional charge available under some domestic violence situations – domestic abuse aggravated assault.
Again, the penalties may include jail time and financial penalties. We will again say $500
Other crimes. Depending on the nature of the abuse, there may be additional charges. In one case I handled, the defendant was also charged with stalking and attempted burglary because he repeatedly came to my client’s home uninvited and attempted to enter.
Let’s throw another $500 financial penalty, (in addition to jail time), on the stalking charge.
So, without counting the cost of bail, attorney’s fees, and lost wages because of the jail time, the criminal penalties alone can cost $1500. We can assume another $3000 for the other costs. (And that’s probably on the low end).
As I discussed earlier, violence is punishable under both Criminal and Civil law. In the civil law, the defendant is sued for money. The law provides that a battery and assault are causes of action that an abuser can sue for. The damage awards vary greatly depending on the nature of the abuser’s actions and the damages he caused. But the damage calculation can include pain and suffering, lost wages, medical bills, the victim’s lost time with those she loves, and more.
Let’s be nice and say the award is $2000 for this article.
You probably know that a domestic violence victim can seek a protective order against her abuser. But, did you know that if a permanent protective order is granted, the abuser can be charged with court costs and the victim’s attorney’s fees? If the defendant has an attorney, of course he will need to pay those fees.
I’ll go on the lower end and estimate $2500 for those costs. (By the way, there are other consequences to the protective order. The abuser could lose gun rights and will be entered in a database of abusers.)
So, there you have it. On a relatively low cost day, the price of domestic violence could be as much as $9000 or more!!!
The Message: Hopefully, our childhood training and human decency is enough to restrain us from hurting each other. But, when that fails, be aware that the blows to her can be a blow to your pocket AND your m
May 23, 2015 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment
HOW TO DEAL WITH YOUR HOMEOWNER’S ASSOCIATION
April 11, 2015 / Chuck Coleman
With the rise of subdivisions in our country and state has come a new relationship that affects many homeowners – the relationship between the resident and the homeowner’s association. Like all relationships, the relationship between the resident and the association may include love, hate, satisfaction, or frustration. Likewise, as laws were developed to peacefully resolve relationship conflicts, (example: family law, wills & estates, employment), there are laws that govern conflicts between residents and homeowner’s associations. The most notable is the Louisiana Homeowner’s Association Act.
Unlike the other relationships, the institution of homeowner’s association is rather young and the law is less defined. Unfortunately, the law will continue to evolve and become more defined as more disputes between residents and associations are decided in our courts.
But, let’s take a look at what we know now.
Louisiana law defines a homeowner’s association (HOA) as a “nonprofit corporation, unincorporated association, or other legal entity, which is created pursuant to a declaration, whose members consist primarily of lot owners, and which is created to manage or regulate, or both, the residential planned community”. (La. R.S. 9:1141.2). Key characteristics are:
· It is a legal entity separate from its members;
· It is created by declaration or legal documents;
· It manages or regulates the subdivision.
Some may argue that because our state has a specific body of law dedicated to homeowner’s associations, commonly referred to as the Louisiana Homeowner’s Association Act, that this body alone governs. In my humble opinion (or IMHO as my teenager says), this body of law heavily favors the HOA.
However, based on the above characteristics, I suggest that the relationship and disputes that arise between the resident and HOA are governed by Contract Law and Business Law and SHAPED by the Louisiana Homeowner’s Association Act. I will discuss these in turn.
Under contract law, I envision the resident and the HOA as completely separate entities with the resident standing outside of the HOA.
Generally, a contract is the law of the parties. This means that as long as the provisions of a contract are not unenforceable according to law, the provisions have the power of law between the parties to the contract. Yes - the power of law! That means those provisions may be enforced by either party in the courts of law and violations may be penalized by monetary damages or injunctions. That notion is reinforced in the Louisiana HOA Act, which states, “the community documents of residential planned communities shall have the force of law between the homeowners association and the individual lot owners and as between individual lot owners. The remedies for breach of any obligation imposed on lot owners or the association shall include damages, injunctions, or such other remedies as are provided by law.” (La. R.S. 9:1141.8)
So the first place I look when determining the right of my client is to the documents that form and govern the HOA. What are the stated duties of the HOA? What are the stated duties of the residents? Are any of the duties breached?
The third question is one of great importance because, as a general matter, a party in breach of a contract cannot enforce the contract against the other party.
So let’s say a client is being sued over nonpayment of HOA dues. The client-homeowner refused to pay dues because of non-repair of sidewalks in front of her home and falling signs. The HOA charter provides that the HOA is responsible for the upkeep of signs, sidewalks, and common areas. The charter also provides that each homeowner is responsible to pay dues and assessments on time.
Under that simple example, I would first challenge the HOA’s right to bring its suit because it is also in breach of its obligation to maintain the sidewalks and signs in the neighborhood. I would argue that it must bring these items into good repair before it can seek enforcement of the payment of dues.
Likewise, I would advise my client to consider paying the dues. Why? Because by resolving his breach of her duty, she may now have standing to seek a court order mandating the HOA to bring the items into good repair.
Under the Louisiana Business Law, I envision the resident standing inside the HOA as a member or stockholder of the HOA.
We saw above that an HOA is a legal entity – either a corporation, unincorporated association, or otherwise. The owners of the entity are the homeowners themselves. First, it is important to remember that ownership does not necessarily mean the power to govern the entity’s action. You may be a stockholder and part owner of Wal-mart, but I doubt your order to reduce all prices by 50% will be honored.
However, there is a vast body of law that governs the relationship between owners with no management rights and the manager of the legal entity. It is so large, it would take a full law review article to discuss all of the nuances. So, this will be a very brief and superficial pass.
One of the places I will look is the owner’s voting power. Is there behavior by the association that can be changed or stopped by a simple vote of the homeowners? The charter and by-laws of the HOA will largely govern this. However, Louisiana reserves some activities that can only be modified by the owners.
Next I will look at whether the managers of the HOA acted in good faith when they committed the act that offended my client. Generally, the managers of a legal entity are protected from personal liability is some way. The depth of the protection will largely depend on the type of entity. However, to be entitled to those protections, the manager must have acted in good faith. What is good faith? You guessed it. It’s a matter to be determined by the courts.
Under the Louisiana Homeowner’s Association Act, I would also look for the offensive action by the manager was “willful or wanton” misconduct. The Act provides that these actions are also unprotected. (La. R.S. 9:1141.7)
Next, I will look to see whether a writ of mandamus is appropriate. This is a writ that requests the court to order the HOA to carry out its legal duties.
Finally, I will look to determine whether a derivative action is appropriate. A derivative action is a legal action brought by the owners of the HOA brought against it by its members.
Under extreme circumstances, I may consider whether an action to force dissolution of the HOA is appropriate.
So there you have it. There is a reason we call it the practice of law. Different attorneys approach things different ways. But, I would advise looking beyond the HOA Act to the powerful and more defined bodies of law to approach any dispute. The goal is to help alleviate some of the uncertainty of decisions that may result from looking at disputes of the young and rarely challenged HOA law.
April 11, 2015 / Chuck Coleman/ 5 Comments
BEWARE OF DOG: HE MAY BE A LEGAL NIGHTMARE
March 08, 2015 / Chuck Coleman
Many of us in my neighborhood have probably noticed a couple of unleashed dogs that seem to constantly roam the subdivision unsupervised. As a homeowner, I find it a disturbing nuisance. As an attorney, it makes me wonder if the owners really understand the extent of liability they could face if one of the dogs bites someone. If he bites someone in my household, I most certainly will help the homeowner become educated. But, I decided to write this article in hopes that it never comes to that.
Greater Risk for Dog Owners
In Louisiana, liability for harm caused by dangerous animals is generally determined under a negligence standard. In a nutshell, this typically requires some showing that the owner of the dangerous animal knew or should have known the animal was dangerous and failed to take reasonable action to prevent the harm the animal actually caused. Key to the definition is the knowledge requirement.
However, where the animal causing the harm is a dog, the liability of the owner is determined under a strict liability standard. In short, this means there is NO knowledge requirement. A person who sues a dog owner for harm caused by the dog does not generally need to prove the dog owner had any knowledge of the dog’s dangerous character.
This is an important concept because the most likely first excuse from a dog owner whose dog just bit someone is “he has never bitten anyone before.” Well under a strict liability standard, that may not mean a thing and may not protect you from liability.
So when you add it all up, the owner of a dog may have a tougher time defending himself than the owner of a pet alligator. At least a person bitten by the pet alligator would have to prove the owner knew of the pet’s dangerous character (which, admittedly, is probably not too hard).
Now, in fairness, the victim is not totally absolved of responsibility to act reasonably around dogs. Two concepts come to mind here: provocation and comparative fault.
If a person bitten by a dog actually provoked the attack, the strict liability standard may not apply. I don’t think this lets the owner of the hook. It just means the dog bite victim may have to prove the dog owner knew or should have known of the dog’s dangerous character (negligence standard).
What constitutes provocation? Well, that’s an issue of fact to be determined in court. But, I would expect actions like stomping at a dog, throwing things at it, or attempting to scare, harm, or aggravate it are examples.
The other issue is comparative fault. In Louisiana, the fault of ALL persons – including the victim – are taken into consideration when determining liability for injuries or harm. That means that liability for damages assessed to the dog owner could be reduced by a percentage equal to the victim’s fault in causing the bite. Here is a story to illustrate the point.
In Howard v. Allstate, an eleven year old child was bitten by her neighbor’s dog. We will call her Dolly. The dog was kept in a double fenced area. A “Beware of Dog” sign was posted on the gate of the outer fence, but no sign was posted at the entry of the second fence. The eleven year old victim was visiting the dog owner’s home to play with their child. We will call her Jane.
The children were initially playing across the street. But, after becoming bored – as children do – Jane invited Dolly to come into the second fenced area to play on the swing set. Remember the German shepherd was kept there. At trial, Jane claimed she asked Dolly to wait until she could get her parents to lock up the dog. Dolly claimed there was no such warning.
Dolly proceeded into the second fenced area and was immediately attacked by the dog. No need to discuss the details of her injuries, but the court assessed damages at $28,000.
Applying a comparative fault analysis, the court found Dolly was 10% at fault. Consequently, Dolly’s recovery against the dog owner was reduced to $25,300.
-Howard v. Allstate, 580 So. 2d 962 (La. 2nd Cir. 1991).
So, I wrote all of this to say only a couple of things. First, if you live in my subdivision and your dogs are running lose, please take control of them. The rest of us don’t think it’s cute.
Second, if you are a dog owner, please be apprised of your liability. The law is actually very strict. Even more strict than if you traded Fido in for a pet alligator!
March 08, 2015 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment
The Notorious R.B.G. and Her Crew Take on Rap Music and Facebook
February 25, 2015 / Chuck Coleman
Can rappers threaten people in their lyrics and be protected by the First Amendment? What if the lyrics are posted on social media networks like Facebook? Well the Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a case that may get us closer to the answers.
The case is Elonis v. United States.
Anthony Elonis of Pennsylvania was once married with children and worked at a local theme park. In 2010, his wife left him, taking the children with her. Soon after, he was fired from his job for complaints of sexual harassment.
In response, he became a Facebook rapper, posting threatening lyrics about his former coworkers, his ex-wife, and law enforcement officers. He also threatened to cause harm at local elementary schools. He posted:
I have sinister plans for all my friends… I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts… I’ve got enough explosives to take care of the state police and the sheriff's department…I’m checking out and making a name for myself Enough elementary schools in a ten mile radius to initiate the most heinous school shooting ever imagined ... The only question is ... which one?
Pull my knife, flick my wrist, and slit her (female FBI agent) throat Leave her bleedin’ from her jugular in the arms of her partner.
His “lyrics,” some loosely based on lyrics by Eminem, led to a federal conviction for using the internet to threaten to injure the person of another. He has appealed his conviction all the way to the highest court in the land.
Ok lawyers, the issue is whether the First Amendment requires a conviction for threatening another person is based on proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten. See Virginia v. Black. Or, is it sufficient to prove that a “reasonable person” would feel threatened by the statements in question.
Elonis argued that a conviction must be based on a “subjective” or actual intent to threaten. In other words, the government would have to prove he truly intended to cause others to feel threatened. The government says it need only prove that “a reasonable person” would feel threatened by the posts. Because the federal circuits are split, the Supreme Court took up the case to clarify the standard.
The moral of the story is this. Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, Elonis could face serious consequences for his Facebook posts. The First Amendment freedoms are NOT freedoms to say ANYTHING you want. There can be consequence. At DassauColeman.com, one of the first things we check are the social media posts of our clients and opponents. Flexing on Instagram, Shooting up Youtube, or Frontin on Facebook could have real world consequences. So don’t do it and don’t let your kids do it either.
February 25, 2015 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment
Don't "Pete Carroll" Your Business! Avoid 5 Bad Calls Entrepreneurs Typically Make
February 07, 2015 / Chuck Coleman
We all saw it. A few seconds left on the clock. The Seahawks were within a yard of winning the Superbowl. Luckily, they have one of the best running backs in the the league in Marshawn Lynch. Or, so we all thought. Coach Pete Carroll instead made the decision to pass the ball. It was intercepted and the rest is Superbowl history.
While it is easy to criticize Pete, the real question is how many costly bad calls are you making in your own small business? You started your company out of passion. You nurtured and grew it out of love. It means the world to you - much more than the Superbowl. Yet you may be subject to the same bad play calling that could limit your profits, stunt your growth, or cause the loss of your business and personal assets!
So, here are some costly mistakes to avoid at all cost:
Porous Veil. Many entrepreneurs form a business entity, such as a limited liability company or corporation, to add a sense of prestige and professionalism to their business. However, the most important feature of these entities is the ability to protect your personal assets from business liabilities. If someone is injured because of your business efforts or there is a dispute over a contract or debt, your personal assets could be seized to pay the obligation. This may include your money, cars, personal belongings, or your home! A business entity can protect your assets - but only if managed correctly!!!!! Failure to meet the legal requirements of managing your business could cause the court to ignore it all together and place your personal belongings at risk. Forming your business on an internet site or one-size-fits-all form and walking away may be a very bad call!
Single Business Enterprise. Some entrepreneurs have more than one company. They are smart enough to place them in different entities. One LLC may handle taxes. Another LLC may sell products. Great so far. the problem comes in when they fail to maintain the right degree of separation. Similar to above, a dispute may cause the assets of one company to be seized to pay the obligations of the other because the court will consider them one company owned by you! Managing multiple businesses without the property formalities? Bad call Pete! Bad call!!
Weak Contracts. The terms are in writing and they signed it. Got a contract, right? Maybe not!! Just because its in writing doesn't make it a contract!!! Louisiana law has certain requirements of a contract. Additionally, different types of agreements require different formalities. Some must be written. Some must be notarized. The elements change if the contract is a lease, a sale, or a donation, etc. Thinking you have a contract because you wrote something and signed it may be a horrible, horrible call!!! This one is such a big deal, I give tips on my website, DassauColeman.com.
Promises and Guarantees. If you are in business, the law imposes certain guarantees on you - AUTOMATICALLY. You need to know what they are because, in some cases, you can contract out of them. In other cases, the law protects you from certain guarantees. However, if you present your product or services in certain ways and under certain conditions, you may waive your legal protections and become obligated for much more than you otherwise would have been. Depending on the circumstances, your business actions could cause you to be sued under contract law as well as for negligence! Talking without knowing your legal rights may be the worst call of all!!
Ignoring Money. The Tax Code can be a friend of a business or its biggest enemy. Of course, tax mistakes can be costly. But, did you know that incorporating the tax code in your business decisions can actually make you more money??? People, LLCs, corporations, and partnerships are all taxed differently. If you understand them, you may be able to pocket more of the money you are currently shipping off to Uncle Sam. Imagine increasing your profits without having to sell or do more. I changed my mind. Failure to use the Tax Code is the absolute worst call of all. Shame on you Pete!
There is a sixth mistake. It's admitted lief serving, so I did not include it in the list. The mistake is thinking you can't afford legal advice to avoid the mistakes above. In many cases, you can get FREE consultation that can help you decide whether you need more help. Don't let a few dollars cost you your whole business.
I hope you find this helpful. You have worked too hard to get here. Don't blow it at the one yard line!
February 07, 2015 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment
January 25, 2015 / Chuck Coleman
Most real estate sales contracts in Louisiana contain a Redhibition clause. I remember being a realtor and fumbling through the explanation of the clause to my clients. I knew it had something to do with whether the sale was "as-is" or whether the seller guaranteed the condition of the home after the date of the sale. But, that was about it.
It wasn't until I became a lawyer that I realized the law of redhbition was MUCH MUCH bigger than that. My clients and I had entered a fairly significant area of Louisiana's law and hadn't quite realized it. So I decided to give a quick overview here to at least make it clear to other realtors, buyers, and sellers that the law of redhibition is something to take seriously. Get help understanding it if you need to.
In a sales contract, a seller has certain obligations provided by law. Some can be modified by contract. Some cannot. Among the legal obligations, the seller warrants a buyer against redhibitory defects. (La. CC art. 2520) What is a redhibitory defect? It can be one of two things.
It could be a defect causes the thing to be useless. A significantly cracked foundation may be redhibitory if the crack is so severe, the home cannot be occupied.
It could be a defect that makes use of the thing so inconvenient that the buyer would not have bought it had she known of the defect. Or, even is she bought it, she would have paid a significantly lower price. (La. CC art. 2520) There is lots of case law that goes into determining whether a particular problem is a redhibitory defect. Consult a professional if you have a question.
SELLER'S LIABILITY/BUYER'S RIGHTS
So, what's the seller's liability when he sold something with a redhibitory defect? Well, this is where the analysis gets very complicated. The determination of liability depends largely on what the seller AND buyer knew, or should have known about the defect before the sale. But, the seller could be made to repair or correct the defect. He could also be made to return the purchase price. (La. CC art. 2531) In other cases, the seller could be made to pay expenses and attorney fees of the buyer who sues him to undo the sale. (La. CC art. 2545)
This article started out referring to the waiver of redhibition. So, that's a big hint that the seller's obligations can be waived. But, the waiver is not a simple as it sounds.
The law allows a seller and buyer to agree that the seller will not be bound by the laws of redhibition. But the waiver must meet certain legal requirements of form and contain particular wording. (La. CC art. 2548) I won't go into it here; but, if you are attempting a waiver, I would strongly suggest getting help. An improper waiver may be unenforceable. Sellers who thought they sold a property as-is may find themselves in hot water - and very unhappy with their realtor!
Another important point is that the protections of a proper waiver my still be lost of the seller, or the seller's agent, overstep the bounds in giving the sales pitch of the home. So be careful what you say!
SELLER'S RIGHTS & PROTECTIONS
A seller may have some defenses if he is sued under the law of redhibition. I will talk about three. I discussed the (1) Waiver above. Here, I will also mention (2) Notice, (3) Buyer's knowledge.
A seller may be entitled to notice of a defect before the buyer spends her own money to repair it. (La. CC art. 2522) Again, whether the seller has a legal right to notice depends largely on how much the seller knew about the defect. If the buyer repaired the defect at her own cost, the seller may defend reimbursing the buyer if he can show he could have made the repairs or made them cheaper had the buyer given him notice. (La. CC art. 2522)
A seller may also defend himself if the buyer knew or had reason to know of the defect before the sale. This is a fairly complex determination. But, in its simplest form, obvious defects are less likely to be covered. Waivers of certain inspections may also prevent the buyer from seeking relief under the law. (La. CC art. 2521) Question is - will the buyer who loses here now come after the realtor for errors and omissions? Be mindful when advising them on inspections. A simple "do as you want" may not protect you.
There you have it. A brief overview. Who knew so much law was under that simple clause on the real estate purchase contract. But, please, please remember - this is only a simple overview. There is a lot of written law and case law that must be considered when addressing an issue of redhiibition. My goal here was to make you aware of its depth and to encourage you to get help when you need it. Protect yourself!
January 25, 2015 / Chuck Coleman/ 1 Comment
5 Links and 5 Reasons to Make Solid New Year's Resolutions
December 27, 2014 / Chuck Coleman
This is the time of year many people decide to take the plunge and start a business. Some people drop their resolutions by the first of February and never follow through. Others - the people whose time as truly come - launch in head first and become entrepreneurs. If you are toying with the idea, here are some helpful links to help you decide whether you are a January Dreamer or a 2015 Entrepreneur.
"7 Steps for Making a New Years Resolution and Keeping It" by Annabel Candy
"Ten Resolutions the Most Successful People Make and Then Keep" - Forbes Magazine
"5 Reasons to Make Starting a Family Business Your New Year's Resolution" by Daphne Mallory
"7 Tips to Help Your New Year's Resolution Stick" by Amanda Prischak
"7 Secrets From People Who Kept Their New Year's Resolutions" by Lauren Vanderkam
The links above provide opinions and information of how to keep your resolutions. Here are five reasons to make them:
Wealth Building - Because of favorable tax laws, entrepreneurs typically keep more of their money than wage earners.
Tax Shelter - High income earners should consider whether a small business or home office can cut down on their tax bills.
Security - If there is one thing the economic downturn should have taught us, it's that there is no such thing as job security. The only security is the ability to produce income independently.
Lifestyle - Ever had to work on a major holiday or at a time that was personally painful for you? Would that have happened if your only boss was you?
Legacy - No matter how far you climb up the ladder of another's company, you cannot pass your job on to your kids. They will still have to start from the bottom.
If you have resolved to start your business, CLICK HERE to incorporate for $150.
December 27, 2014 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment
You've Incorporated but Are You Really Protected?
December 24, 2014 / Chuck Coleman
Piercing the Corporate Veil – Consensual Creditors
So you have formed your corporation or your limited liability company and are now conducting business. Of course you are hoping things are problem free. But, if you are like most small businesses, you formed a separate company to protect your assets in case something goes wrong. But just how protected are you?
In some cases, small business owners have a false sense of security that their personal assets are protected by the existence of a business entity. But, the truth is there are other steps that must be taken to prevent creditors or plaintiffs from reaching your home, savings accounts, and other personal assets in the event of a problem. This is an overview of factors that should be considered in protecting your personal assets from business problems.
A corporation is an entity separate from its owners. It is a legal person but is owned by shareholders. Generally, the shareholders are not individually liable for its debts.
However, there are important exceptions that may allow creditors to access the personal assets of the shareholders.
The first is pretty straightforward. It applies when the shareholders are guilty of fraud. There, an alter ego exception applies. If fraud is proven. the courts may allow the defrauded creditor to access the shareholders' assets to satisfy a debt.
In the absence of fraud, alter ego exception applies when corporate formalities have been disregarded to the extent that corporation ceased to be distinguishable from its shareholders.
Factors to be considered when piercing the corporate veil:
1. commingling of corporate and shareholder funds
2. failure to observe statutory formalities
4. failure to provide separate bank accounts and book keeping records
5. failure to hold regular shareholder and director meetings
6. ownership of all shares by a single shareholder
Some factors weigh more heavily than others under particular situations. There is no magic bullet here. The court will consider the totality of the circumstances!!!
The factors above apply mostly to corporations because the case law on corporations is long and extensive. Limited liability companies are still new but there are indications that the veil of an LLC may also be pierced under similar circumstances.
The key is to be careful with your business operations. Consult your attorney to ensure your operational practices are not destroying the advantages you may otherwise be entitled to by owning a business entity.
For additional information on this article, contact the attorneys of Dassau & Coleman. Dassaucoleman.com.
December 24, 2014 / Chuck Coleman/ Comment