Blogs
Florida law provides for a certain exemption for annuities. Florida Statute section 222.14 provides that "the proceeds of annuity contracts issued to citizens or residents of the state, upon whatever form, shall not in any case be liable to attachment, garnishment ... or legal process in favor of any creditor ... of the person who is the beneficiary of such annuity contract, unless the ... annuity contract was effected for the benefit of such creditor.
One requirement is that the annuity must be issued to a "citizen" or "resident" of Florida. Sometimes there is a question of whether the item in question constitutes an "annuity" and whether the involved person is a "beneficiary" within the meaning of the statute.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
I enjoy listening to a variety of podcasts while walking the dog or driving to the office. Podcasts are really amazing thing for those who crave learning, although there seems to be some rule that requires 50 bad shows to appear before you find a really great one. (Have you loaded the Stitcher radio app on your smartphone yet? You really should.) The EntreLeadership podcast is one of the better shows being streamed these days, and I had the pleasure of listing to Dale Partridge talk about his new book, People Over Profits.
As you might guess, the message of the book is that a business will not succeed in the long-run if it places profits over people, despite some evidence to the contrary. Perhaps it is better to say that businesses will be more successful in the long-run if they keep their customer’s best interest at heart. I think it really comes down to establishing trust. We trust that Apple computers are top notch and that Starbuck’s coffee is always great–they have earned that reputation.
What Partridge is talking about is more than just good business sense. We all need a set of core values to steer our personal lives and our businesses as well. In the long run, businesses and individuals get lost when they routinely put selfish short-term needs and wants ahead of others, especially customers.
I’d like to think we have modeled our law firm with the client needs and wants placed first. How do we do that?
- One-on-One Client Relationships. I strongly believe that each client should be assigned one attorney and one paralegal to handle their case from beginning to end. There is no confusion as to who is responsible or who to call. There is no red tape. You know your team and they know you.
- We do the Work. Many firms hand out thick questionnaires for clients to complete that list all debts, property, income and property transfers. Some of these questionnaires are 50 pages long! I have two objections to that: First, bankruptcy law is complex and it is unreasonable to assume that clients can really answer the questions correctly without prior experience. Second, isn’t filling out paperwork what you pay the attorney to do?
- Easy Access to Attorneys & Staff. It is easy to contact our attorneys when questions arise. Each attorney has a direct phone extension (mine is Extension 100) and appointments over the phone or in person are easy to schedule. We want you to understand your case and the legal process. That means we are here to answer questions in person, over the phone, through email or video chat or whatever else it takes.
- Copies of Documents. You are entitled to a copy of your case documents without charge whenever needed.
- Flat Fees. About 95% of all our cases are charged on a Flat Fee basis. Nobody likes surprises when it comes to fees. You know what your case will cost before it is filed.
- Resources. Our goal is to provide you with great resources to help guide you through the legal process. Our website is filled with helpful articles, legal forms and videos to help educate you on your legal rights. This is a ongoing project that we work on every day.
Creating a customer-focused organization is expensive and challenging. It takes a lot of time and money to be responsive. In the long-run it pays off. Deciding to be great instead of mediocre takes commitment, training, planning, money, passion and dedication. I don’t want to work any other way.
Image courtesy of Flickr and Janine & Jim Eden.
One of the most difficult hurdles Elkhorn bankruptcy clients face is paying bankruptcy attorney fees when they are already broke. However, the last thing an Elkhorn bankruptcy client should do is hire the cheapest bankruptcy attorney they can find. There are many low cost bankruptcy attorneys who advertise their cheap prices to unsuspecting clients, just like you. You must use extreme caution. The old saying, “You get what you pay for” holds true for bankruptcy attorney fees, too.
Hiring a Cheap Elkhorn Bankruptcy Attorney Can Be a Huge Mistake
When you research bankruptcy attorney fees, you may find a huge spread in the price ranges. This is due to the quality of work that will be dedicated to your case. This could be disastrous for you. Hiring an Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney who is not skilled, experienced, or knowledgeable in bankruptcy law, could potentially end with your bankruptcy case being thrown out. Once that happens, it is over. You get one shot. You don’t want to blow it.
While not all inexpensive bankruptcy attorneys are ignorant of bankruptcy laws and not all expensive bankruptcy attorneys are outstanding, you will need to proceed with caution. Research is the key to finding the best bankruptcy attorney for your needs. There are many more factors to consider, besides price, when looking for a competent Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney. You should also consider the following:
1. Does the attorney focus in bankruptcy? Many attorneys add bankruptcy to their list of practice areas since there is a fast turnaround on bankruptcy cases. These attorneys are only practicing bankruptcy for the quick money and they do not know the bankruptcy code inside and out. The quality of work performed on your bankruptcy case will be compromised.
2. What is the Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney’s success rate? Find out how many of the attorney’s bankruptcy cases were actually approved and debts discharged by the bankruptcy court.
3. How comfortable were you with the Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney during your initial consultation? You should not only “click” with your bankruptcy attorney, but you should also feel comfortable with his or her level of knowledge. Did the attorney answer all your questions with certainty? Do you feel you can trust this person?
4. Are there any hidden fees? Many bankruptcy attorneys will advertise a cheap price, but as your case progresses, there will be many fees added that you were not forewarned about. In the end, these hidden fees will cost you more than an honest, experienced bankruptcy attorney.
5. Who will be working on your bankruptcy case? Make sure you are working with an attorney and not a legal assistant. Many bankruptcy clients find they meet with a cheap bankruptcy attorney during the initial consultation and, once hired, never hear from them again.
6. How can the bankruptcy attorney afford to charge so little? Find out how many bankruptcy cases the law firm handles. They may be charging so little because they are handling a large volume of bankruptcy cases. These types of law firms are called bankruptcy mills. Don’t expect your bankruptcy file to get the attention it deserves.
7. What is the Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney’s response time to questions? How quickly will your phone calls and emails be answered about your bankruptcy case during the process? Many bankruptcy clients find they meet with a cheap bankruptcy attorney during the initial consultation and, once hired, response times are very slow or nonexistent.
Choose Your Elkhorn Bankruptcy Attorney Wisely
The Bankruptcy Code is extremely complex. There have been many changes to the law over the last several years. You need an experienced and knowledgeable Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney on your side. At Wynn at Law, our Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney has a 100% success rate, strictly practices bankruptcy, and is the only attorney handling your bankruptcy case. Your file will not be passed off to someone else. Your phone calls and emails will be answered promptly. There are no hidden fees involved with your attorney fees. There are no long lines in our waiting rooms. Wynn at Law also offers convenient payment plans to make our bankruptcy attorney fees affordable for you.
Contact Our Elkhorn Bankruptcy Attorney
Our Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney offers a free, initial consultation. Please, feel free to schedule your consultation any time via phone or through our website. You can reach our Elkhorn bankruptcy attorney by phone at 262-725-0175 or by email on our website’s contact page. Wynn at Law has bankruptcy offices conveniently located in Lake Geneva, Delavan, Salem, and Musekgo.
Find out if you qualify for bankruptcy.
Click Here to Get a Free Bankruptcy Assessment
from Wynn at Law, LLC
.
It’s Free. It’s Easy.
*The content and material on this web page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
When a person files for bankruptcy in Florida and owes a gambling debt in Nevada, which state's law apply in determining the various issues about the claim for gambling debt? In the bankruptcy case there may be issues as to the allowability of the claim or whether the claim should be dischargeable or nondischargeable? A 2006 Florida bankruptcy ruling dealt with this issue.
The Bankruptcy Court reviewed that normally a federal court hearing a matter pursuant to diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the state in which it sits, but that such rule does not apply to a bankruptcy court as it is not sitting as a federal court with jurisdiction based on diversity. The bankruptcy court reviewed that the choice of which state's law applies should in part be based on which state's law more logically relates to the claim and the "significant relationship" test.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
When a person files for bankruptcy in Florida and owes a gambling debt in Nevada, which state's law apply in determining the various issues about the claim for gambling debt? In the bankruptcy case there may be issues as to the allowability of the claim or whether the claim should be dischargeable or nondischargeable? A 2006 Florida bankruptcy ruling dealt with this issue.
The Bankruptcy Court reviewed that normally a federal court hearing a matter pursuant to diversity jurisdiction must apply the law of the state in which it sits, but that such rule does not apply to a bankruptcy court as it is not sitting as a federal court with jurisdiction based on diversity. The bankruptcy court reviewed that the choice of which state's law applies should in part be based on which state's law more logically relates to the claim and the "significant relationship" test.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
Both well meaning friends and creditors will tell you myths about filing bankruptcy. Dispel the myths about filing bankruptcy and be informed about your financial choices. http://ow.ly/QfqXO
Filed under: Uncategorized 
A 2013 Florida case dealt with the issue of whether a mortgage remained enforceable after a the dismissal of a foreclosure case and more than five years has passed from the date of the first default in mortgage payments. The homeowner argued that the five year Florida statute of limitations applied to render the mortgage no longer enforceable.
In agreement with a number of recent decisions, the District Court in the case of Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5944075 (S.D. Fla. 2013) held that after the dismissal of a foreclosure case, with or without prejudice, a mortgage remains a valid and enforceable lien on the property and a lender is not barred from filing a second foreclosure action if the second foreclosure action is based on payment defaults different from and subsequent to those that formed the basis for the first foreclosure case. As have other courts recently, the Court based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004).
Quiet Title Action DismissedThe Court dismissed the homeowner's "quiet title" action in which he sought to obtain a court order determining that the mortgage was no longer enforceable after the dismissal of the foreclosure case as more than the fiver year period had passed. The Court dismissed the homeowner's quiet title action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), holding that as a "matter of law," the homeowner could not state a claim based on plausible facts "actual, apparent, or potential", that his title to the land was at issue or show that a cloud on the title to his home existed as despite the dismissal of the foreclosure case and the passage of five years since his first default in payment, the mortgage note remained valid and the mortgage remained a valid and enforceable lien against the property.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
A 2013 Florida case dealt with the issue of whether a mortgage remained enforceable after a the dismissal of a foreclosure case and more than five years has passed from the date of the first default in mortgage payments. The homeowner argued that the five year Florida statute of limitations applied to render the mortgage no longer enforceable.
In agreement with a number of recent decisions, the District Court in the case of Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5944075 (S.D. Fla. 2013) held that after the dismissal of a foreclosure case, with or without prejudice, a mortgage remains a valid and enforceable lien on the property and a lender is not barred from filing a second foreclosure action if the second foreclosure action is based on payment defaults different from and subsequent to those that formed the basis for the first foreclosure case. As have other courts recently, the Court based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004).
Quiet Title Action DismissedThe Court dismissed the homeowner's "quiet title" action in which he sought to obtain a court order determining that the mortgage was no longer enforceable after the dismissal of the foreclosure case as more than the fiver year period had passed. The Court dismissed the homeowner's quiet title action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), holding that as a "matter of law," the homeowner could not state a claim based on plausible facts "actual, apparent, or potential", that his title to the land was at issue or show that a cloud on the title to his home existed as despite the dismissal of the foreclosure case and the passage of five years since his first default in payment, the mortgage note remained valid and the mortgage remained a valid and enforceable lien against the property.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
A 2013 Florida case dealt with the issue of whether a mortgage remained enforceable after a the dismissal of a foreclosure case and more than five years has passed from the date of the first default in mortgage payments. The homeowner argued that the five year Florida statute of limitations applied to render the mortgage no longer enforceable.
In agreement with a number of recent decisions, the District Court in the case of Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5944075 (S.D. Fla. 2013) held that after the dismissal of a foreclosure case, with or without prejudice, a mortgage remains a valid and enforceable lien on the property and a lender is not barred from filing a second foreclosure action if the second foreclosure action is based on payment defaults different from and subsequent to those that formed the basis for the first foreclosure case. As have other courts recently, the Court based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004).
Quiet Title Action DismissedThe Court dismissed the homeowner's "quiet title" action in which he sought to obtain a court order determining that the mortgage was no longer enforceable after the dismissal of the foreclosure case as more than the fiver year period had passed. The Court dismissed the homeowner's quiet title action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), holding that as a "matter of law," the homeowner could not state a claim based on plausible facts "actual, apparent, or potential", that his title to the land was at issue or show that a cloud on the title to his home existed as despite the dismissal of the foreclosure case and the passage of five years since his first default in payment, the mortgage note remained valid and the mortgage remained a valid and enforceable lien against the property.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
A 2013 Florida case dealt with the issue of whether a mortgage remained enforceable after a the dismissal of a foreclosure case and more than five years has passed from the date of the first default in mortgage payments. The homeowner argued that the five year Florida statute of limitations applied to render the mortgage no longer enforceable.
In agreement with a number of recent decisions, the District Court in the case of Kaan v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 WL 5944075 (S.D. Fla. 2013) held that after the dismissal of a foreclosure case, with or without prejudice, a mortgage remains a valid and enforceable lien on the property and a lender is not barred from filing a second foreclosure action if the second foreclosure action is based on payment defaults different from and subsequent to those that formed the basis for the first foreclosure case. As have other courts recently, the Court based its ruling on the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Singleton v. Greymar Assoc., 882 So. 2d 1004 (Fla. 2004).
Quiet Title Action DismissedThe Court dismissed the homeowner's "quiet title" action in which he sought to obtain a court order determining that the mortgage was no longer enforceable after the dismissal of the foreclosure case as more than the fiver year period had passed. The Court dismissed the homeowner's quiet title action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), holding that as a "matter of law," the homeowner could not state a claim based on plausible facts "actual, apparent, or potential", that his title to the land was at issue or show that a cloud on the title to his home existed as despite the dismissal of the foreclosure case and the passage of five years since his first default in payment, the mortgage note remained valid and the mortgage remained a valid and enforceable lien against the property.
Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - North Miami & Kendall Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com
Updated daily, this blog will keep you informed on the latest bankruptcy news! 
Learn more about how Bankruptcy works and what you need to know.