August 25, 2016 Many victims of domestic violence stay silent and choose not to seek help from the police or domestic violence shelters for a surprising reason. Ashlee Rousey’s story exemplifies what she and others face when they contact authorities. In 2008, Ms. Rousey called the police when her abusive ex-boyfriend showed up at her apartment. Her phone call led to her eviction by her landlord just five days later. According to court documents, when she explained what happened to the property management company, she was told she would have to leave due to nuisance laws, which held her responsible for the disturbance, even though she was the victim. The National Network to End Domestic Violence reports that victims of domestic abuse face increasing rates of homelessness with between 22 and 57 percent of homeless women claiming that domestic violence resulted in homelessness. Nuisance ordinances introduced during the prohibition era cracked down on speakeasies that have evolved in the decades since, giving landlords grounds for evicting tenants in domestic disturbances that require police intervention. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) introduced the Fair Housing for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Survivors Act, which aims to provide exemptions for these victims of abuse, making them a protected class . Landlords currently can include lease or rental contract stipulations in which criminal activity of any kind on the property is grounds for dismissal. Unfortunately for people like Ashlee Rousey, this provides a loophole, allowing their entire households to be kicked out of their homes if the police are called. To this day, Rousey claims that she struggles to find adequate housing as this incident from 2008 remains on her record, following her every time she seeks a new home. As a victim of domestic abuse seeking new housing, potential landlords can reject her lease application without knowing any context. For this reason, an alarming number of domestic violence victims will not seek police intervention for fear of what the future may hold for them if they do. If you have been a victim of domestic violence or believe that your housing rights have been violated, you might need legal representation. Larry Bellomo is renowned as a leading Orange County attorney, having practiced extensively in divorce, domestic violence and housing issues. Give our firm a call for your free, no obligation consultation.
August 10, 2016 The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Utah Supreme Court decision in which evidence used to convict Edward Joseph Strieff Jr. was not admissible because the stop was unlawful. Strieff had been stopped by police officers as he left a home that was under surveillance for drug activity. The officer ran his identification and discovered an outstanding warrant for a traffic violation. This discovery allowed police to physically search Strieff whereupon they found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 5-3 majority and declared that while the stop was unconstitutional, he still felt that it was justifiable once authorities discovered the arrest warrant, especially after they confiscated the related evidence. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first justice of Hispanic heritage, has a number of concerns regarding this decision. In her dissenting opinion , Sotomayor wrote that the authorities overstepped their boundaries and that previous court cases required that the evidence be dismissed as fruit of the poisonous tree. Sotomayor further expanded in her dissent that the ruling permits authorities to randomly stop anyone, ask them for identification and then search records for any outstanding warrants. She additionally expressed fears that the ruling could negatively impact people of color who would be unfairly targeted, especially with the political climate in the nation. She cited regular talks that black and brown parents have with their children regarding proper interactions with authorities in order to protect themselves during any type of police contact. Thomas wrote that he did not have any concerns about police misconduct related to this specific stop. However, Sotomayor disagreed and declared that no matter the race or innocence or guilt of a person, the police could confirm his or her legal status. Authorities could search a person without grounds, thus violating his or her rights as a citizen, effectively treating him or her as a number. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Strieff case, continued legal challenges might yet arise when it comes to arrests and the rights of minorities. If you think that you were unfairly targeted due to race in a traffic stop, contact our office for legal assistance. Larry Bellomo is an Orange County attorney practicing Family and Bankruptcy Law.
Learn the first steps in the divorce process with Larry Bellomo Attorney at Law in Mission Viejo, CA. Expert family law guidance—click to read our guide now.
January 28, 2018 According to an October 27, 2017, announcement, the Los Angeles jeans company, True Religion, exited Chapter 11 bankruptcy with about $357 million less debt, debt maturities extended, cash to implement a growth plan and a positive outlook for the future. The company emerges with a reduced retail footprint and an exit loan of $60 million from Citizens Bank, the same bank that provided the initial cash during the reorganization process. At the peak of the company, True Religion jeans were selling anywhere from $150 to $250 a pair at their nearly 140 stores and online. The brand also sold at upscale department stores, such as Bloomingdales, Saks Fifth Avenue and Nordstrom and at other locations in the U.S., Mexico and South America. Around 2013, True Religion, like many other apparel stores, struggled for success, watching sales decline as it competed with the internet, online shopping and competing discount retailers. The rapid growth in the trend of athletic wear for leisure caused the sales of blue jeans to quickly decline. Behind $192,000 on rent for its California office headquarters and drowning in major debts owed to creditors, manufacturers, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and malls around the country, True Religion filed for bankruptcy on July 5, 2017, in a U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. At the time of filing, the company had 128 stores in the United States and 11 stores outside the country. The company made some major changes, hiring John Ermatinger as CEO and president and bringing on a new chief marketing officer and a new vice president of sourcing. They also reduced costs, streamlined processes and closed unprofitable stores. John Ermatinger publicly thanked the company’s supporters — consumers, employees, vendors and suppliers — for their ongoing commitment and devotion to True Religion. He expressed his excitement regarding the future of the company, which includes implementing new growth strategies through innovative partnerships, expanding True Religion’s digital presence and refining its marketing operations. You do not have to be a major corporation to file bankruptcy , Like in the case of True Religion, bankruptcy allows individuals to emerge in a better financial position than before. Our legal team can help you navigate through these difficult times.
January 16, 2018 A Fresno State professor who intimidated a pro-life group was ordered to pay $17,000 and attend training on the First Amendment. He was recorded on video in an attempt to harass pro-life students who were drawing with chalk on the sidewalk. He also asked students from his public health class to assist him in his efforts. He claimed they were outside of the campus free speech area, but no such area has existed on campus since 2015. The sidewalk messages suggested pro-life options for students. The president of the club stated that the First Amendment gives students the right to speak on campus. She documented an incident between herself and the professor on video. He can be heard telling her that she is not in a free-speech area. However, she claimed that she had school permission to be there and to be speaking. The professor began erasing the sidewalk messages with his shoe. He told her that she did not understand the areas where free speech was permitted on campus. Alliance Defending Freedom acted as legal representation for the group, the Fresno State Students for Life. The professor must pay $1,000 to the president and $1,000 to another student as well as legal fees. However, he said that the money was paid by his insurance company, so he is not concerned about the legal fees. He does not admit to any wrong actions but is willing to attend the training so that he can learn the opinions and thoughts of others. The president expressed her relief that he will not be able to harass them again and explained that the case was not about winning money. She was extremely surprised at his actions, especially on a public campus. She further opined that professors should encourage and not prohibit free speech. Legal counsel for the pro-life group stated that the professor’s behavior flagrantly violated the First Amendment He added that school officials do not have the right to restrict freedom of speech on campus. The school did not comment about the case. If you believe that your First Amendment rights have been violated, you will need experienced legal representation to defend you. Contact us so that we can discuss your case.
January 5, 2018 The complexities of any divorce include dividing money, property and assets between both parties. While this might not be as complex for a millennial as it is for a couple who has spent their lifetime acquiring possessions, both types of divorce require finding a qualified family lawyer to deal with the personal issues. Legal experts report that stereotypes claim that other generations are more loyal than millennials who don’t really value traditions. She continues that even though they wait to marry, they still place a high priority on the institution. However, she added that they will not tough out a relationship the way their parents did. This by no means makes a divorce any easier for millennials. They feel just as hurt and disappointed as any others who divorce , but their outlook for the future tends to be more optimistic. Although marriage rates in the U.S. continue to decline, divorce rates are also dropping. Millennials delay marriage until later in life, placing an emphasis on education and careers before taking this significant life step. Millennials tend to be more open to diverse relationships, including living together. In the past, prenuptial agreements held a negative connotation as if one of the parties expected the marriage to end. The more-practical millennials, who prioritize acquiring and preserving wealth, see the prenup as a planning tool and communication map to manage financial expectations and interests. Creating a prenup with a lawyer realistically deals with the uncertainty of the future and helps a couple draft specific plans. Millennials choosing to live together instead of marrying can benefit from an attorney’s expertise when drawing up a cohabitation agreement, protecting both parties and their assets in case the relationship ends. When couples know the laws regarding cohabitation , marriage and divorce in their state, they tend to be ready for even unexpected contingencies. Whether a couple plans to cohabitate, marry or file for divorce, planning for a big relationship step helps the individuals prepare for the future, no matter what happens in the marriage. Consulting with a knowledgeable, experienced family lawyer sets up both parties for success.
December 23, 2017 The 32-year-old mother entered the high rise in downtown Memphis as a memory tugged at the far corners of her mind. Suddenly, it came to her. She had been in this very building with her own mother for the same purpose — to file bankruptcy . She anguished over the decision but a court order had recently enforced a judgement against her that allowed a company to seize a portion of her check. With her struggle to make ends meet, the judgment would put an unbearable strain on her already overburdened finances — the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. Despite the stigma, she decided that bankruptcy would stop the vicious cycle of juggling bills each month so that she could now start fresh. She even dreamed of becoming a homeowner one day. While the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee in Memphis funnels millions of dollars to the court, the lawyers and the creditors, the debtors for whom the entire system exists don’t fare so well. The clients are stuck in a vicious cycle. Most people choose to file Chapter 7, which allows the person to start over from square one without seizing any debts. In contrast, Chapter 13 requires monthly payments while stopping car repossessions and home foreclosures. This method is most common in the South and was what this mother chose. She didn’t understand the difference between the two. However, filers who opt for Chapter 13 must continue making payments for five full years. Most cannot even last 12 months under the program. These individuals went through each and every step of the bankruptcy — paying filing and legal fees and dealing with a seven-year blemish on their credit record — but do not ultimately benefit from the program. Once they have defaulted, they revert back to all unpaid debts with interest rates higher than ever. When comparing Caucasian filings with African-American filings, the latter usually file under Chapter 13 but cannot complete the program. Some return for repeat filings, with a few filing Chapter 13 up to 20 times during their lifetimes. They view bankruptcy as a last resort. If you are considering bankruptcy, talk to our knowledge attorneys about which options — Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 — is best for you.
