California Landlord Lawyer

California mortgage consumers absolutely love adjustable rates mortgages like the pick a payment and option ARMs. Maybe it was not so much love but some sort of cult like following. You had to get one or you were a loser.

But now these folks are realizing they may have been a loser for getting one. I have talked to so many people from California over the past 3 years. These people had good jobs, made good money, and all told me the same story.

They got caught up in the home buying craze just like everyone else across the country. The difference was in California, adjustable rate mortgages were just about the only loan you used. Strangely, it was not just the loan officer pushing an ARM, it was their peers.

They not only told these people who were their co-workers, friends, and family to buy a house or refinance with one of these pick a payment or option ARMs, they told them to buy a second home using one. And then the kicker, they could state their income to buy a much bigger house than they could afford. If you are investing, then you might as well invest big right?

They would not leave them alone about it either. If these people went out and found someone like myself to explain the dangers of these loans, their peers would ridicule them back at home or the office.

Why would these so-called helpful peers be so over zealous about this mortgage? My theory is Californians got a taste of something with the tech bubble. Even though most lost everything, they had it for a while even if it was only on paper. They needed something else to get that back and they looked to the real estate market and these adjustable rate mortgages to get it. It is like peer pressure. If you are doing something bad you want to take others with you.

These folks were told by the loan officer, their co-workers, and friends and family that the market would always go up and they would not have to worry about the payments. Just make the minimum payments every month and sell to take your profit when the time is right.

If you do not know by now, the minimum payment on those loans does not even cover your interest. Your loan balance grows every month. So, the balance is growing and the market is declining and they are struggling to make even the minimum payments because they used income they didn’t have. So, this isn’t shaping up any better for them than the tech bubble.

A California adjustable rate mortgage was also used by quite a few drug dealers. Yes, drug dealers. These guys would pick upscale neighborhoods all over California and use a pick a payment or option ARM to buy a house. The minimum payment was less than rent and they didn’t have to worry about the landlord showing up unannounced.

Once they got into the property, they completely gutted it and the whole thing was used to grow marijuana. It seemed perfect with massive square feet and every inch growing pot. It was in such a nice neighborhood that no one would suspect anything.

But eventually many of these drug houses were raided and shut down. And left were condemned houses and mortgages in foreclosure. These loans were just too easy to get. Even a drug dealer could get one! It had to end.

Right now the COFI is going up and that means so is your interest rate. Also, these loans are set to recast in five years. The bulk of the California adjustable rate mortgages were originated in August 2005. In August 2010, your payment will go way up. But that may not be the only thing to worry about. What will the housing market in California be doing by then?

Good Luck!

Originally published here.

Rob K. Blake, author of the BUILD System, Adjustable Mortgage Rates created a mortgage calculator called “No Cost” Mortgage Software- Save $-No Refinance! Click link for more California adjustable rate mortgage

This digital document is an article from Trial, published by Association of Trial Lawyers of America on May 1, 1997. The length of the article is 763 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.

From the supplier: The California Supreme Court ruled in Alcaraz v. Vece that a landlord could have liability for property a landlord controls without owning, clearing the way for an action by the tenant of an apartment complex who was injured when stepping on a broken water meter box. The box was located in a strip of municipal land right by the complex. The court ruled the landlord should take reasonable care to protect the tenant, even though the landlord did not own the meter box.

Citation Details
Title: California landlords may be liable for hazards on city property.
Author: Julie Gannon Shoop
Publication: Trial (Magazine/Journal)
Date: May 1, 1997
Publisher: Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Volume: 33 Issue: n5 Page: 88(3)

Distributed by Thomson Gale

California landlords may be liable for hazards on city property.: An article from: Trial

Defenses for Penal Code 594: Vandalism

Vandalism is against the law and is defined by the destruction of property belonging to another person, with malice.  Malice simply means the intent to damage the property to annoy or hurt another person.  One example might be if a man and woman break up and the woman shreds the man’s clothing before giving it back to him. She has destroyed his property on purpose, with the intent of causing him pain or annoyance.

Vandalism is a common charge, and the accused could face up to three years in prison and fines depending upon how serious the crime.  This is often determined by the value of the items that were damaged, and in most places if the value is more than $400, the crime is considered a felony rather than a misdemeanor.  Misdemeanor vandalism usually brings a possible prison charge of up to one year. Individuals accused of vandalism should speak to an attorney right away, as there are several possible defenses that could be used.

Possible Defenses for Vandalism

If consent for destruction was given by the owner, the individual charged has not committed a crime, but this must be proven to the court.  An example might be if a tenant received permission to tear out the cabinets of the home he was renting in order to have new ones installed, but ended up moving out before the new ones were installed.  The landlord may become angry that the new cabinets were not installed and claim vandalism, but if it can be proven that he or she told the tenant to tear out the cabinets, there is no crime.

Another defense includes lack of malice, where the individual did not destruct the property with the intent to hurt or annoy the owner of the belongings.  In cases where it was necessity or no damage occurred, the individual can use these facts as defenses as well.  For instance, if the destruction of property happened because of a life or death situation, and it can be proven, it is likely that the charges would be dropped. An example might be if during a natural disaster, an individual kicked in the door of a storage unit or vacant home to take shelter. Also, if no damage occurred and there is no value to attach to the destruction, this might be a working defense as well.

Other defenses include self-defense, accidents, ownership of the property or the failure by the police to give Miranda warnings.  Often times the police make serious mistakes that can cause the accused to have a rock-solid defense against the crime of vandalism, such as the failure to give Miranda warnings at the time of the arrest. These are often details that the attorney of the accused will learn as he or she begins to gather details of the case. Individuals who are accused of vandalism should contact an attorney right away to protect their interests, and to begin planning a defense against the charges.

Originally published here.

Robert Miller is a lawyer handling Los Angeles DUI and Orange County DUI cases, as well as Rancho Cucamonga Criminal Defense matters, and Criminal matters in Riverside County, California.  He can be reached at his firm, Miller and Associates, through his websites, http://www.expertlawfirm.com, or his blog, http://www.ocduiblog.com.