AVOID BANKRUPTCY WITH DEBT SETTLEMENT, DEBT NEGOTIATION, OR DEBT RELIEF
Debt settlement, debt negotiation and debt relief all mean the same thing. It is a process by which the debtor negotiates an agreement to pay a portion of the debt owed in exchange for relief from the remainder of the debt. If a credit card company or other creditor agrees to a debt settlement the rest of the debt is eliminated forever, avoiding Bankruptcy.
Most consumers have tried to negotiate a settlement on their own but have failed. Choosing to retain the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm to negotiate your debt relief can help protect your rights and will generally result in a better offer from the credit companies who know that they will receive nothing if you file for Bankruptcy.
The San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm can you help you avoid bankruptcy and attempt to negotiate a debt settlement on your behalf.
What is Debt Settlement, Debt Negotiation or Debt Relief?
Debt Settlement, Debt Negotiation and Debt Relief all refer to the same thing it is the process of negotiation with creditors by a professional agency or law firm which results in having to payback only a percentage of the debt you owe while wiping out the rest of your debt.
How does a Debt Negotiation program work?
The San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm and its team of attorneys will negotiate with your creditors. Typically, if a creditor cannot collect on the debt, they write it off as a loss on their taxes; however they may still pursue a law suit to recover their money. Therefore, it is in their best interest to negotiate or settle the debt for a fraction of what you owe, rather than receive nothing. Working with the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm can help protect your rights and in the event that a lawsuit is threatened or filed, we can help you pursue Bankruptcy as a last resort. Creditors may reach agreements to settle debt in order to recover a portion of monies they often would not of have been able to collect.
Will Debt Relief affect my credit?
This depends on your current situation. Typically, you must stop making your payments so that the Credit Card Company will negotiate your debt. Your credit may be adversely affected due to non-payment of existing debt that you wish to settle. In the process of reaching an agreement with your creditors, many items can be negotiated such as removing negative remarks. This depends on the creditor. However, once your Credit Card Debt has been settled you can begin to rebuild your credit.
How Much does it Cost?
Every case is different and the cost will depend upon how much you owe and how much we are able to save you. Contact us today to see if you qualify for debt settlement. We can be reached 24 hours a day at 619-260-1800 or 877-GOBK619.
This blog is updated by the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm. The blog is designed to illuminate, update and educate consumers about their bankruptcy rights. Our staff of Bankruptcy Attorneys help consumers file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 and 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. Feel free to contact our Bankruptcy Lawyers for a free consultation at 619-260-1800 or visit us at www.gobksandiego.com
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
California Foreclosure Basics. How to Stop a Foreclosure
The Bankruptcy Attorneys at the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm are always looking for helpful information for individuals struggling with keeping their home. Here is some information on foreclosure from a great website: http://preventingforeclosure.org/help-stop-foreclosure/california-foreclosure-basics/
For more information on stopping a foreclosure with a bunkruptcy please contact us at 877-GOBK619 or 619-260-1800 or visit our website at www.gobksandiego.com. Speak to an attorney today, there is no charge for an initial consultation.
California Foreclosure Basics
Definition of Foreclosure
Foreclosure is a process, governed by California state law, by which a home is sold to satisfy an unpaid debt such as a home mortgage, a tax lien or other debt.
What Causes a Foreclosure
A foreclosure is initiated once a default occurs. A default can be triggered by a failure to make a payment on a deed of trust or mortgage, or, for example, can also happen if a property is sold without permission or if property taxes aren’t paid. The note and mortgage will stipulate what the lender considers a default.
California Foreclosure Process
The California foreclosure process typically takes about 200 days starting from the time that a homeowner misses their first payment to the point when the home is auctioned off in a foreclosure sale. Though this might seem like a lot of time, the four month process moves very quickly and a homeowner must act immediately in order to take advantage of as many options as possible to avoid foreclosure.
Foreclosures in California are typically non-judicial under power of sale in deed of trust. This means that the foreclosure process occurs without any court intervention, with requirements for the foreclosure process set by state statute. The lender will typically send a Notice of Intent to Accelerate after 60 days. Next, the lender will contact the homeowner 30 days before sending the first of two notices in the foreclosure process, a Notice of Default. The Notice of Default gives the homeowner a 90-day window until the lender takes the next step, which is a Notice of Sale, the second notice required by California law. The Notice of Sale then gives the homeowner 20 days before the foreclosure sale takes place.
A homeowner has a right to cure the default up to within 5 days before the sale. In a non-judicial foreclosure, commonplace in California, a lender is not able to seek a deficiency judgment*. (*A deficiency judgment allows a bank or lender to obtain a judgment lien against a homeowner when a foreclosure sale does not produce enough to cover the full amount due on a home loan.) Without a deficiency judgment a homeowner is not given a redemption period. What all this basically means is that not having a redemption period available after the foreclosure sale makes the foreclosure sale date the deadline for a California homeowner to rescue his home. (You can find more information pertaining to California foreclosure statutes, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2924 to 2924l, on the California Legislative Information website, but the reading contains a lot of legalese, so be forewarned.)
However, after the foreclosure sale, a homeowner may still remain in the home for some time while the legal eviction process churns on. After a foreclosure sale happens, if the foreclosed homeowner has not moved out of the home, the lender/bank or new owner is required to produce a 3-Day Notice to Quit. Once the three days expire and a homeowner still has not moved, then the new owner is required to start the legal eviction process by filing an unlawful detainer, which basically means that the foreclosed homeowner has 30 days still before the sheriff will come out to force an eviction.
California Foreclosure Timeline
From the day that a homeowner first misses their mortgage payment, they have 200 days until a foreclosure sale, and 233 days total until a foreclosed homeowner is evicted.
Avoiding a Foreclosure in California
Delaying or stopping a foreclosure may be possible if the foreclosure was based on false information (for example, the lender substantially overstated the amount you had to pay to reinstate your mortgage, depriving you of your reinstatement rights under California law). Other reasons why you might be able to prevent a foreclosure include:
bringing a case to court that could delay or stop the foreclosure because
a loan origination didn’t abide by fair lending practices or other required mortgage regulations according to federal and California law,
failure by the foreclosing party to follow the requirements of a non-judicial foreclosure in California, for example, not properly serving the homeowner with a notice of default, or
the party attempting to foreclose is not legally entitled to do so,
you are able to short-sale the home, and
you are able to qualify for a loan workout or bankruptcy protection.
This list is not all inclusive, there are other options and reasons why you may be entitled to preventing a foreclosure. We encourage you to ultimately seek professional help since these situations can be mentally and emotionally taxing on a homeowner, not to mention extremely time-sensitive. Start by educating yourself through the foreclosure prevention resources available on this website to help you understand what it is exactly that you are facing in a foreclosure, and in the end that will help you to make better decisions with how you will save your home.
Next Step…
Make sure you understand the tax implications and what the results may be if you pursue a foreclosure defense strategy or solution.
For more information on stopping a foreclosure with a bunkruptcy please contact us at 877-GOBK619 or 619-260-1800 or visit our website at www.gobksandiego.com. Speak to an attorney today, there is no charge for an initial consultation.
California Foreclosure Basics
Definition of Foreclosure
Foreclosure is a process, governed by California state law, by which a home is sold to satisfy an unpaid debt such as a home mortgage, a tax lien or other debt.
What Causes a Foreclosure
A foreclosure is initiated once a default occurs. A default can be triggered by a failure to make a payment on a deed of trust or mortgage, or, for example, can also happen if a property is sold without permission or if property taxes aren’t paid. The note and mortgage will stipulate what the lender considers a default.
California Foreclosure Process
The California foreclosure process typically takes about 200 days starting from the time that a homeowner misses their first payment to the point when the home is auctioned off in a foreclosure sale. Though this might seem like a lot of time, the four month process moves very quickly and a homeowner must act immediately in order to take advantage of as many options as possible to avoid foreclosure.
Foreclosures in California are typically non-judicial under power of sale in deed of trust. This means that the foreclosure process occurs without any court intervention, with requirements for the foreclosure process set by state statute. The lender will typically send a Notice of Intent to Accelerate after 60 days. Next, the lender will contact the homeowner 30 days before sending the first of two notices in the foreclosure process, a Notice of Default. The Notice of Default gives the homeowner a 90-day window until the lender takes the next step, which is a Notice of Sale, the second notice required by California law. The Notice of Sale then gives the homeowner 20 days before the foreclosure sale takes place.
A homeowner has a right to cure the default up to within 5 days before the sale. In a non-judicial foreclosure, commonplace in California, a lender is not able to seek a deficiency judgment*. (*A deficiency judgment allows a bank or lender to obtain a judgment lien against a homeowner when a foreclosure sale does not produce enough to cover the full amount due on a home loan.) Without a deficiency judgment a homeowner is not given a redemption period. What all this basically means is that not having a redemption period available after the foreclosure sale makes the foreclosure sale date the deadline for a California homeowner to rescue his home. (You can find more information pertaining to California foreclosure statutes, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2924 to 2924l, on the California Legislative Information website, but the reading contains a lot of legalese, so be forewarned.)
However, after the foreclosure sale, a homeowner may still remain in the home for some time while the legal eviction process churns on. After a foreclosure sale happens, if the foreclosed homeowner has not moved out of the home, the lender/bank or new owner is required to produce a 3-Day Notice to Quit. Once the three days expire and a homeowner still has not moved, then the new owner is required to start the legal eviction process by filing an unlawful detainer, which basically means that the foreclosed homeowner has 30 days still before the sheriff will come out to force an eviction.
California Foreclosure Timeline
From the day that a homeowner first misses their mortgage payment, they have 200 days until a foreclosure sale, and 233 days total until a foreclosed homeowner is evicted.
Avoiding a Foreclosure in California
Delaying or stopping a foreclosure may be possible if the foreclosure was based on false information (for example, the lender substantially overstated the amount you had to pay to reinstate your mortgage, depriving you of your reinstatement rights under California law). Other reasons why you might be able to prevent a foreclosure include:
bringing a case to court that could delay or stop the foreclosure because
a loan origination didn’t abide by fair lending practices or other required mortgage regulations according to federal and California law,
failure by the foreclosing party to follow the requirements of a non-judicial foreclosure in California, for example, not properly serving the homeowner with a notice of default, or
the party attempting to foreclose is not legally entitled to do so,
you are able to short-sale the home, and
you are able to qualify for a loan workout or bankruptcy protection.
This list is not all inclusive, there are other options and reasons why you may be entitled to preventing a foreclosure. We encourage you to ultimately seek professional help since these situations can be mentally and emotionally taxing on a homeowner, not to mention extremely time-sensitive. Start by educating yourself through the foreclosure prevention resources available on this website to help you understand what it is exactly that you are facing in a foreclosure, and in the end that will help you to make better decisions with how you will save your home.
Next Step…
Make sure you understand the tax implications and what the results may be if you pursue a foreclosure defense strategy or solution.
Friday, July 30, 2010
The San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm Will Serve Clients Affected by the Closing of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center
The San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm announces that it will serve clients that may have been affected by the "winding down" of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center and will only charge the client the remainder of what they already owe Pacific Law Center.
www.gobksandiego.com
"The San Diego Bankruptcy Law firm has offered to serve clients of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center that may have been affected by the closing" San Diego, CA (PRWEB) July 30, 2010
On June 30, 2010 the Union Tribune published an article entitled: Pacific Law Center "winding down," not adding clients. The Bankruptcy Attorneys at the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm have noticed an increase in inquiries from clients of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center. "We probably receive a couple of calls a week from individuals who are concerned about their case," says Todd Williams and Scott Schlegel who own the San Diego Bankruptcy Firm.
As a result of the demand the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm, with offices in Mission Valley, has offered to serve clients of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center that may have been affected by the "winding down" of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center and will only charge new clients the remainder of what they owe to Pacific Law Center. "Essentially, we can substitute in at no additional cost to the client," says Mr. Williams.
We think it is our obligation as professionals and as attorneys here in San Diego to help protect San Diegans when they need it most. "The last thing someone facing bankruptcy needs is to feel abandoned or to have to hire another attorney to finish something that has been partially paid for, especially when they are financially burdened already," says Maureen Enmark a bankruptcy attorney with the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm].
Pacific Law Center has indicated that "it is well-equipped to represent existing clients to the fullest" and the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm does not wish to interfere with clients that are pleased with their representation. However, for those that feel that they have been affected please feel free to contact us immediately to set up a free consultation at 619-260-1800, toll free at 877-GO-BK-619 or visit us on the web at www.gobksandiego.com.
www.gobksandiego.com
"The San Diego Bankruptcy Law firm has offered to serve clients of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center that may have been affected by the closing" San Diego, CA (PRWEB) July 30, 2010
On June 30, 2010 the Union Tribune published an article entitled: Pacific Law Center "winding down," not adding clients. The Bankruptcy Attorneys at the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm have noticed an increase in inquiries from clients of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center. "We probably receive a couple of calls a week from individuals who are concerned about their case," says Todd Williams and Scott Schlegel who own the San Diego Bankruptcy Firm.
As a result of the demand the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm, with offices in Mission Valley, has offered to serve clients of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center that may have been affected by the "winding down" of Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center and will only charge new clients the remainder of what they owe to Pacific Law Center. "Essentially, we can substitute in at no additional cost to the client," says Mr. Williams.
We think it is our obligation as professionals and as attorneys here in San Diego to help protect San Diegans when they need it most. "The last thing someone facing bankruptcy needs is to feel abandoned or to have to hire another attorney to finish something that has been partially paid for, especially when they are financially burdened already," says Maureen Enmark a bankruptcy attorney with the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm].
Pacific Law Center has indicated that "it is well-equipped to represent existing clients to the fullest" and the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm does not wish to interfere with clients that are pleased with their representation. However, for those that feel that they have been affected please feel free to contact us immediately to set up a free consultation at 619-260-1800, toll free at 877-GO-BK-619 or visit us on the web at www.gobksandiego.com.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
We Take Abandoned Kerry Steigerwalt Pacific Law Center Clients
San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm at www.gobksandiego.com will take clients abandoned by Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center. We will only charge you what you owe to Pacific Law Center. Call us today as this offer is limited. Please see the latest article to surface about Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center in the San Diego Reader. 619-260-1800
SAN DIEGO READER
It Wasn’t the Economy, Stupid
By Don Bauder | Published Wednesday, July 21, 2010
lINK: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/jul/21/city-light-1/
The heavily advertised Pacific Law Center was once San Diego’s best-known law firm, but its most controversial. Two years ago, Kerry Steigerwalt, a criminal lawyer who is regularly quoted on local television, gained control of the firm and changed its name to Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center. It became a household name.
In a deposition for a lawsuit filed against the center last year, Steigerwalt claimed that the firm’s previous owners had wooed him and fed him false information. He said he was the “fall guy.”
Steigerwalt has indeed fallen. The firm, which specializes in driving-under-the-influence, personal injury, and defective-product cases, while purportedly counseling those with financial woes, intends to take no new cases but will wrap up old ones and eventually close down. Just recently, the Yellow Book sued the firm, saying it hasn’t paid for more than $200,000 in advertising. UTC Properties has also sued, saying the firm hasn’t paid rent at its posh La Jolla suite since the beginning of the year and owes almost $200,000.
Tom Slattery, a former lawyer at the firm, filed a massive complaint about its practices with the California State Bar, sending copies to state officials including the attorney general’s office. Some current and former lawyers say that the bar is probing the matter, but the bar won’t confirm that. Last week, Slattery filed suit against the firm, claiming that early this year, Steigerwalt’s firm was trying to stave off an “imminent collapse.”
The law firm has a D+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, generating 79 complaints in three years. That D+ is a slight improvement on an earlier F rating. Since 2004, there have been more than 40 superior court suits filed against the firm under both its names.
Steigerwalt blames most of his problems on the weak economy forcing criminal defendants to go to public defenders. But the inescapable truth is that he didn’t do his homework when taking over Pacific Law Center. On June 30, a new law firm registered with the secretary of state: Steigerwalt Law Firm, APC.
One key suit was filed in 2008 by Carl Hancock, who worked for Pacific Law Center for only nine months. The suit charged that Steigerwalt’s entrance into the firm was a “sham sales transaction for the purpose of protecting the assets” of the firm’s founders, Larry Majors, his son Austin Majors, and son-in-law Jeffrey Phillips, a Phoenix attorney. Hancock settled the suit early this year.
Another suit was filed last year by Dagoberto Llamas, who alleged he was blatantly cheated by the firm, which took big bucks from him to handle a criminal case in which he was charged with driving under the influence, battery, hit and run, and contempt of court. He was initially assured he could win the case but subsequently told it was hopeless. Llamas’s case against the law firm was handled by well-known criminal attorney Michael Pancer, his son Ian, and Doug Gilliland.
The suit says that the business model of both Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center and its predecessor “is the brainchild of a convicted felon and car dealer from Arizona named Larry Majors. After serving time for fraud in Arizona, Majors, a non-lawyer, opened a law firm in San Antonio, Texas, using a down-on-his-luck lawyer.… Majors launched a massive television advertising campaign to attract clients.” But Majors fled Texas after a bankruptcy judge called the firm “a borderline criminal enterprise.”
Then, according to the Pancer team’s account, Majors set up shop in San Diego with a lawyer who was eventually disbarred. Majors vamoosed when Texas authorities charged him with absconding with clients’ money. In 1993, Pacific Law Center opened in San Diego with son Austin Majors as executive director. The office was in La Jolla, but the listed address was that of son-in-law Jeffrey Phillips’s Phoenix law firm.
There has always been controversy about who owned and ran Pacific Law Center. According to Slattery’s testimony, Phillips was the owner. When Steigerwalt came in two years ago, he put in no money and got 51 percent of the firm, although at around the same time he gave part of his own practice to Phillips. Steigerwalt claims that Robert Arentz, then a member of Phillips’s Arizona firm and also one who hung around the La Jolla firm, had 100 percent of Pacific Law Center and then 49 percent of the successor after Steigerwalt took control. In any case, Phillips basically ran Pacific Law Center, according to the Llamas and Slattery suits. Phillips did not respond to calls, and Arentz would not comment.
Phillips and Arentz have run into trouble with the State Bar of Arizona for using the same tactics that the San Diego firm used, both pre- and post-Steigerwalt. Phillips was censured and placed on two years of intensive probation by the Arizona bar in 2002. One of the reasons: so-called “intake personnel at his firm” who interviewed potential clients and failed to identify themselves as non-lawyers.
Late last year, the Arizona bar acted again: it recommended that Phillips be suspended for six months and a day and Arentz be suspended for 60 days. The bar said that the two “acted for their own immense financial benefit, overusing non-attorney employees for inappropriate tasks…to squeeze every last penny out of their clients.”
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Arentz’s suspension but agreed to review Phillips’s. The bar had investigated 22 complaints, mainly on aggressive sales practices of non-attorney personnel.
And that goes to the heart of the complaints against Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center and its predecessor, both of which spent almost $5 million a year on advertising, according to Llamas’s suit. So-called “intake coordinators,” later called “legal administrators” (similar to those used by Larry Majors in Texas and Phillips in Arizona), greet the often impecunious people who have been swayed by the advertising.
According to the Pancer team, the intake coordinators are often former car salesmen who con the clients, asking initially for a high price and then coming down when meeting resistance. “The fee is based on how much the client is able to pay, not on traditionally recognized criteria such as complexity or novelty of legal issues and consumption of attorney time,” says the suit, which was dismissed on summary judgment and is now on appeal. Pacific Law Center’s intake coordinator told Llamas that the firm wins 90 percent of its Department of Motor Vehicles hearings, when the figure is actually 25 percent.
If Llamas would pay the firm’s price, the coordinator said he could guarantee Llamas would not lose his driver’s license, according to the suit. But in the end, an attorney told Llamas his case was indefensible and he should plead guilty.
The Llamas, Slattery, and Hancock suits stress that the sales personnel engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
Under rules of the California bar, a lawyer has to sign a retainer agreement in front of a client. But at Pacific Law Center, the lawyer who signed the document would say he was not the one who would handle the case. Thus, the potential client did not learn his rights or the strength of the case from an attorney handling it. Steigerwalt said in his deposition that he changed this procedure but couldn’t remember when.
In his deposition, Steigerwalt said Pacific Law Center lawyers “were schleps,” according to the Llamas suit. Also, Steigerwalt admitted that he knew of the pressure tactics used by the intake coordinators. But he didn’t change things significantly, say the Llamas and Slattery suits. Indeed, Steigerwalt, said in the Slattery suit to make $900,000 yearly, was constantly checking to see if the firm was bringing in the daily gross receipts it needed to keep its head above water.
Says Steigerwalt, “In forming [Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center] I realized there were challenges. I just did not realize the extent of those challenges.”
He won’t answer questions about the Llamas suit because it was dismissed. Ripostes Michael Pancer, “It is true that the summary judgment motion was granted, but that does not affect the validity of statements made under oath in support of our lawsuit.” That includes deposition statements made by Steigerwalt.
Says Pancer, “I will give Kerry Steigerwalt the benefit of the doubt when he claims he wanted to turn [Pacific Law Center] around. But it was obvious to those of us who practice criminal defense that the business model was ethically flawed and could not be saved no matter what his best intentions were.” Steigerwalt’s adventure represented a “desire for profit overwhelming good judgment.”
SAN DIEGO READER
It Wasn’t the Economy, Stupid
By Don Bauder | Published Wednesday, July 21, 2010
lINK: http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2010/jul/21/city-light-1/
The heavily advertised Pacific Law Center was once San Diego’s best-known law firm, but its most controversial. Two years ago, Kerry Steigerwalt, a criminal lawyer who is regularly quoted on local television, gained control of the firm and changed its name to Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center. It became a household name.
In a deposition for a lawsuit filed against the center last year, Steigerwalt claimed that the firm’s previous owners had wooed him and fed him false information. He said he was the “fall guy.”
Steigerwalt has indeed fallen. The firm, which specializes in driving-under-the-influence, personal injury, and defective-product cases, while purportedly counseling those with financial woes, intends to take no new cases but will wrap up old ones and eventually close down. Just recently, the Yellow Book sued the firm, saying it hasn’t paid for more than $200,000 in advertising. UTC Properties has also sued, saying the firm hasn’t paid rent at its posh La Jolla suite since the beginning of the year and owes almost $200,000.
Tom Slattery, a former lawyer at the firm, filed a massive complaint about its practices with the California State Bar, sending copies to state officials including the attorney general’s office. Some current and former lawyers say that the bar is probing the matter, but the bar won’t confirm that. Last week, Slattery filed suit against the firm, claiming that early this year, Steigerwalt’s firm was trying to stave off an “imminent collapse.”
The law firm has a D+ rating with the Better Business Bureau, generating 79 complaints in three years. That D+ is a slight improvement on an earlier F rating. Since 2004, there have been more than 40 superior court suits filed against the firm under both its names.
Steigerwalt blames most of his problems on the weak economy forcing criminal defendants to go to public defenders. But the inescapable truth is that he didn’t do his homework when taking over Pacific Law Center. On June 30, a new law firm registered with the secretary of state: Steigerwalt Law Firm, APC.
One key suit was filed in 2008 by Carl Hancock, who worked for Pacific Law Center for only nine months. The suit charged that Steigerwalt’s entrance into the firm was a “sham sales transaction for the purpose of protecting the assets” of the firm’s founders, Larry Majors, his son Austin Majors, and son-in-law Jeffrey Phillips, a Phoenix attorney. Hancock settled the suit early this year.
Another suit was filed last year by Dagoberto Llamas, who alleged he was blatantly cheated by the firm, which took big bucks from him to handle a criminal case in which he was charged with driving under the influence, battery, hit and run, and contempt of court. He was initially assured he could win the case but subsequently told it was hopeless. Llamas’s case against the law firm was handled by well-known criminal attorney Michael Pancer, his son Ian, and Doug Gilliland.
The suit says that the business model of both Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center and its predecessor “is the brainchild of a convicted felon and car dealer from Arizona named Larry Majors. After serving time for fraud in Arizona, Majors, a non-lawyer, opened a law firm in San Antonio, Texas, using a down-on-his-luck lawyer.… Majors launched a massive television advertising campaign to attract clients.” But Majors fled Texas after a bankruptcy judge called the firm “a borderline criminal enterprise.”
Then, according to the Pancer team’s account, Majors set up shop in San Diego with a lawyer who was eventually disbarred. Majors vamoosed when Texas authorities charged him with absconding with clients’ money. In 1993, Pacific Law Center opened in San Diego with son Austin Majors as executive director. The office was in La Jolla, but the listed address was that of son-in-law Jeffrey Phillips’s Phoenix law firm.
There has always been controversy about who owned and ran Pacific Law Center. According to Slattery’s testimony, Phillips was the owner. When Steigerwalt came in two years ago, he put in no money and got 51 percent of the firm, although at around the same time he gave part of his own practice to Phillips. Steigerwalt claims that Robert Arentz, then a member of Phillips’s Arizona firm and also one who hung around the La Jolla firm, had 100 percent of Pacific Law Center and then 49 percent of the successor after Steigerwalt took control. In any case, Phillips basically ran Pacific Law Center, according to the Llamas and Slattery suits. Phillips did not respond to calls, and Arentz would not comment.
Phillips and Arentz have run into trouble with the State Bar of Arizona for using the same tactics that the San Diego firm used, both pre- and post-Steigerwalt. Phillips was censured and placed on two years of intensive probation by the Arizona bar in 2002. One of the reasons: so-called “intake personnel at his firm” who interviewed potential clients and failed to identify themselves as non-lawyers.
Late last year, the Arizona bar acted again: it recommended that Phillips be suspended for six months and a day and Arentz be suspended for 60 days. The bar said that the two “acted for their own immense financial benefit, overusing non-attorney employees for inappropriate tasks…to squeeze every last penny out of their clients.”
The Arizona Supreme Court upheld Arentz’s suspension but agreed to review Phillips’s. The bar had investigated 22 complaints, mainly on aggressive sales practices of non-attorney personnel.
And that goes to the heart of the complaints against Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center and its predecessor, both of which spent almost $5 million a year on advertising, according to Llamas’s suit. So-called “intake coordinators,” later called “legal administrators” (similar to those used by Larry Majors in Texas and Phillips in Arizona), greet the often impecunious people who have been swayed by the advertising.
According to the Pancer team, the intake coordinators are often former car salesmen who con the clients, asking initially for a high price and then coming down when meeting resistance. “The fee is based on how much the client is able to pay, not on traditionally recognized criteria such as complexity or novelty of legal issues and consumption of attorney time,” says the suit, which was dismissed on summary judgment and is now on appeal. Pacific Law Center’s intake coordinator told Llamas that the firm wins 90 percent of its Department of Motor Vehicles hearings, when the figure is actually 25 percent.
If Llamas would pay the firm’s price, the coordinator said he could guarantee Llamas would not lose his driver’s license, according to the suit. But in the end, an attorney told Llamas his case was indefensible and he should plead guilty.
The Llamas, Slattery, and Hancock suits stress that the sales personnel engage in the unauthorized practice of law.
Under rules of the California bar, a lawyer has to sign a retainer agreement in front of a client. But at Pacific Law Center, the lawyer who signed the document would say he was not the one who would handle the case. Thus, the potential client did not learn his rights or the strength of the case from an attorney handling it. Steigerwalt said in his deposition that he changed this procedure but couldn’t remember when.
In his deposition, Steigerwalt said Pacific Law Center lawyers “were schleps,” according to the Llamas suit. Also, Steigerwalt admitted that he knew of the pressure tactics used by the intake coordinators. But he didn’t change things significantly, say the Llamas and Slattery suits. Indeed, Steigerwalt, said in the Slattery suit to make $900,000 yearly, was constantly checking to see if the firm was bringing in the daily gross receipts it needed to keep its head above water.
Says Steigerwalt, “In forming [Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center] I realized there were challenges. I just did not realize the extent of those challenges.”
He won’t answer questions about the Llamas suit because it was dismissed. Ripostes Michael Pancer, “It is true that the summary judgment motion was granted, but that does not affect the validity of statements made under oath in support of our lawsuit.” That includes deposition statements made by Steigerwalt.
Says Pancer, “I will give Kerry Steigerwalt the benefit of the doubt when he claims he wanted to turn [Pacific Law Center] around. But it was obvious to those of us who practice criminal defense that the business model was ethically flawed and could not be saved no matter what his best intentions were.” Steigerwalt’s adventure represented a “desire for profit overwhelming good judgment.”
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center Closing---San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm Will Help Abandoned Clients
Kerry Steigerwalt's Pacific Law Center appears to be closing down. Bankruptcy Attorneys at the San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm will take abandoned clients for what they owe to Pacific Law Center. The San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm is committed to our community and to our clients. The last thing someone facing bankruptcy needs is to lose their money because their law firm went out of business. Contact us at www.gobksandiego.com or call us at 619-260-1800.
UNION TRIBUNE ARTICLE:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/30/pacific-law-center-winding-down-not-adding-clients/
Pacific Law Center 'winding down,' not adding clients
By Dana Littlefield, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 9:37 p.m.
Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center, the highly visible firm with its ubiquitous television ads, has stopped taking new clients and is “winding down” its business, the firm’s owner said Wednesday.
Steigerwalt, a well-known San Diego defense attorney who bought a majority interest in the firm in 2008, said that he broke the news to his staff during a morning meeting at the University City-based firm and advised them to focus on current cases. He said the economic downturn and the company’s business model of “little or no money down” contributed to the firm’s money woes.
“Our model is predicated on people making payments,” Steigerwalt said in a telephone interview. “Fewer and fewer people have money to hire us, and those that do are not paying. It just became a managerial nightmare.”
Steigerwalt said the firm, which has offices in San Diego, Chula Vista and Escondido, isn’t going out of business. Despite some staff reductions, he said, the lawyers working there are well-equipped to represent existing clients to the fullest.
“At this point in time, I want to take no further cases,” he said. “I want to begin winding down this business.”
The 17 attorneys listed on the firm’s website represent hundreds of clients in criminal cases, bankruptcies, loan modifications and personal injury lawsuits. The firm has 107 employees after staff cuts in February,
The lawyers, including Steigerwalt, are featured in the law center’s frequently running television commercials in which they promote aggressive representation for “little or no money down” and affordable payment plans. Testimonials from clients also are used in the ads.
Steigerwalt said he called local television stations Wednesday and told them to stop running the ads.
Steigerwalt bought 51 percent of Pacific Law Center in March 2008. Former managing partner, Robert Arentz, had a 49 percent stake. Steigerwalt later became sole owner.
Before he bought a stake in Pacific Law Center, the firm had been dogged by complaints from clients and allegations of unethical activity by former lawyers. The problems continued to some degree after Steigerwalt came on board. Clients had filed lawsuits against the firm, as did a former attorney who claimed that the sale to Steigerwalt was a fraud.
Steigerwalt said he believes he successfully turned the firm around and that its old reputation was not a factor in the decision to stop taking new clients.
Kerry Armstrong, a defense lawyer who worked for Steigerwalt for 11 years but did not work at Pacific Law Center, said Wednesday’s announcement was inevitable.
“I knew it was coming; I just didn’t know when,” Armstrong said.
Armstrong said the firm was hamstrung by its business model and a poor reputation that changed little despite Steigerwalt’s efforts.
“I think Kerry really wanted to change it when he went in,” Armstrong said. “He just didn’t put the right people in place to do it for him.”
UNION TRIBUNE ARTICLE:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/30/pacific-law-center-winding-down-not-adding-clients/
Pacific Law Center 'winding down,' not adding clients
By Dana Littlefield, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Wednesday, June 30, 2010 at 9:37 p.m.
Kerry Steigerwalt’s Pacific Law Center, the highly visible firm with its ubiquitous television ads, has stopped taking new clients and is “winding down” its business, the firm’s owner said Wednesday.
Steigerwalt, a well-known San Diego defense attorney who bought a majority interest in the firm in 2008, said that he broke the news to his staff during a morning meeting at the University City-based firm and advised them to focus on current cases. He said the economic downturn and the company’s business model of “little or no money down” contributed to the firm’s money woes.
“Our model is predicated on people making payments,” Steigerwalt said in a telephone interview. “Fewer and fewer people have money to hire us, and those that do are not paying. It just became a managerial nightmare.”
Steigerwalt said the firm, which has offices in San Diego, Chula Vista and Escondido, isn’t going out of business. Despite some staff reductions, he said, the lawyers working there are well-equipped to represent existing clients to the fullest.
“At this point in time, I want to take no further cases,” he said. “I want to begin winding down this business.”
The 17 attorneys listed on the firm’s website represent hundreds of clients in criminal cases, bankruptcies, loan modifications and personal injury lawsuits. The firm has 107 employees after staff cuts in February,
The lawyers, including Steigerwalt, are featured in the law center’s frequently running television commercials in which they promote aggressive representation for “little or no money down” and affordable payment plans. Testimonials from clients also are used in the ads.
Steigerwalt said he called local television stations Wednesday and told them to stop running the ads.
Steigerwalt bought 51 percent of Pacific Law Center in March 2008. Former managing partner, Robert Arentz, had a 49 percent stake. Steigerwalt later became sole owner.
Before he bought a stake in Pacific Law Center, the firm had been dogged by complaints from clients and allegations of unethical activity by former lawyers. The problems continued to some degree after Steigerwalt came on board. Clients had filed lawsuits against the firm, as did a former attorney who claimed that the sale to Steigerwalt was a fraud.
Steigerwalt said he believes he successfully turned the firm around and that its old reputation was not a factor in the decision to stop taking new clients.
Kerry Armstrong, a defense lawyer who worked for Steigerwalt for 11 years but did not work at Pacific Law Center, said Wednesday’s announcement was inevitable.
“I knew it was coming; I just didn’t know when,” Armstrong said.
Armstrong said the firm was hamstrung by its business model and a poor reputation that changed little despite Steigerwalt’s efforts.
“I think Kerry really wanted to change it when he went in,” Armstrong said. “He just didn’t put the right people in place to do it for him.”
Monday, April 19, 2010
Foreclosure rates surge, biggest jump in 5 years. (San Diego Bankruptcy Attorneys & Lawyers)
By ALEX VEIGA, AP Real Estate Writer Alex Veiga, Ap Real Estate Writer – Thu Apr 15, 7:32 am ET: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100415/ap_on_bi_ge/us_foreclosure_rates?source=patrick.net
LOS ANGELES – A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace, according to a new report.
RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday that the number of U.S. homes taken over by banks jumped 35 percent in the first quarter from a year ago. In addition, households facing foreclosure grew 16 percent in the same period and 7 percent from the last three months of 2009.
More homes were taken over by banks and scheduled for a foreclosure sale than in any quarter going back to at least January 2005, when RealtyTrac began reporting the data, the firm said.
"We're right now on pace to see more than 1 million bank repossessions this year," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac senior vice president.
Foreclosures began to ease last year as banks came under pressure from the Obama administration to modify home loans for troubled borrowers. In addition, some states enacted foreclosure moratoriums in hopes of giving homeowners behind in payments time to catch up. And in many cases, banks have had trouble coping with how to handle the glut of problem loans.
These factors have helped slow the pace of foreclosures, but now that trend appears to be reversing.
"We're finally seeing the banks start to process the inventory that has been in foreclosure, but delayed in processing," Sharga said. "We expect the pace to accelerate as the year goes on."
In all, more than 900,000 households, or one in every 138 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, RealtyTrac said. The firm based in Irvine, Calif., tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions.
Homeowners continue to fall behind on payments because they've lost their job or seen their mortgage payment rise due to an interest-rate reset. Many are unable to refinance because they now owe more on their loan than their home is worth.
The Obama administration's $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has only been able to help a small fraction of troubled homeowners.
About 231,000 homeowners have completed loan modifications as part of the Obama administration's flagship foreclosure prevention program through March. That's about 21 percent of the 1.2 million borrowers who began the program over the past year.
But another 158,000 homeowners who signed up have dropped out — either because they didn't make payments or failed to return the necessary documents. That's up from about 90,000 just a month earlier.
Last month, the administration expanded the program, launching a plan to reduce the amount some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans and give jobless homeowners a temporary break. But the details of those programs are expected to take months to work out.
The states with the highest foreclosure rates in the first quarter were Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California, with Nevada leading the pack, RealtyTrac said.
Rising home prices and speculation fueled a wave of home construction there during the housing boom. But now the state, particularly around the Las Vegas metropolitan area, is saddled with a glut of unsold homes.
Still, the number of homes in Nevada that received a foreclosure filing dropped 16 percent from the first quarter last year.
All told, one in every 33 homes in Nevada was facing foreclosure, more than four times the national average, RealtyTrac said.
Foreclosure filings rose on an annual and quarterly basis in Arizona, however.
One in every 49 homes there received a foreclosure-related notice during the quarter.
Florida, meanwhile, posted the third-highest foreclosure rate with one out of every 57 properties receiving a foreclosure filing.
California accounted for the biggest slice overall of homes facing foreclosure — roughly 23 percent of the nation's total. One in every 62 properties received a foreclosure filing in the first quarter.
(San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm has Bankruptcy Lawyers and Bankruptcy Attorneys available 24 hours a day to answer your questions at www.gobksandiego.com.
LOS ANGELES – A record number of U.S. homes were lost to foreclosure in the first three months of this year, a sign banks are starting to wade through the backlog of troubled home loans at a faster pace, according to a new report.
RealtyTrac Inc. said Thursday that the number of U.S. homes taken over by banks jumped 35 percent in the first quarter from a year ago. In addition, households facing foreclosure grew 16 percent in the same period and 7 percent from the last three months of 2009.
More homes were taken over by banks and scheduled for a foreclosure sale than in any quarter going back to at least January 2005, when RealtyTrac began reporting the data, the firm said.
"We're right now on pace to see more than 1 million bank repossessions this year," said Rick Sharga, a RealtyTrac senior vice president.
Foreclosures began to ease last year as banks came under pressure from the Obama administration to modify home loans for troubled borrowers. In addition, some states enacted foreclosure moratoriums in hopes of giving homeowners behind in payments time to catch up. And in many cases, banks have had trouble coping with how to handle the glut of problem loans.
These factors have helped slow the pace of foreclosures, but now that trend appears to be reversing.
"We're finally seeing the banks start to process the inventory that has been in foreclosure, but delayed in processing," Sharga said. "We expect the pace to accelerate as the year goes on."
In all, more than 900,000 households, or one in every 138 homes, received a foreclosure-related notice, RealtyTrac said. The firm based in Irvine, Calif., tracks notices for defaults, scheduled home auctions and home repossessions.
Homeowners continue to fall behind on payments because they've lost their job or seen their mortgage payment rise due to an interest-rate reset. Many are unable to refinance because they now owe more on their loan than their home is worth.
The Obama administration's $75 billion foreclosure prevention program has only been able to help a small fraction of troubled homeowners.
About 231,000 homeowners have completed loan modifications as part of the Obama administration's flagship foreclosure prevention program through March. That's about 21 percent of the 1.2 million borrowers who began the program over the past year.
But another 158,000 homeowners who signed up have dropped out — either because they didn't make payments or failed to return the necessary documents. That's up from about 90,000 just a month earlier.
Last month, the administration expanded the program, launching a plan to reduce the amount some troubled borrowers owe on their home loans and give jobless homeowners a temporary break. But the details of those programs are expected to take months to work out.
The states with the highest foreclosure rates in the first quarter were Nevada, Arizona, Florida and California, with Nevada leading the pack, RealtyTrac said.
Rising home prices and speculation fueled a wave of home construction there during the housing boom. But now the state, particularly around the Las Vegas metropolitan area, is saddled with a glut of unsold homes.
Still, the number of homes in Nevada that received a foreclosure filing dropped 16 percent from the first quarter last year.
All told, one in every 33 homes in Nevada was facing foreclosure, more than four times the national average, RealtyTrac said.
Foreclosure filings rose on an annual and quarterly basis in Arizona, however.
One in every 49 homes there received a foreclosure-related notice during the quarter.
Florida, meanwhile, posted the third-highest foreclosure rate with one out of every 57 properties receiving a foreclosure filing.
California accounted for the biggest slice overall of homes facing foreclosure — roughly 23 percent of the nation's total. One in every 62 properties received a foreclosure filing in the first quarter.
(San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm has Bankruptcy Lawyers and Bankruptcy Attorneys available 24 hours a day to answer your questions at www.gobksandiego.com.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Bunkruptcies Increase in March 2010
NY Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/business/economy/02bankruptcy.html?source=patrick.net
Sharp Increase in March in Personal Bankruptcies
By DUFF WILSON
Published: April 1, 2010
Sign in to Recommend
Twitter
Sign In to E-Mail
More Americans filed for bankruptcy protection in March than during any month since the federal personal bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005, a new report says, a result of high unemployment and the housing crash.
Federal courts reported over 158,000 bankruptcy filings in March, or 6,900 a day, a rise of 35 percent from February, according to a report to be released on Friday by Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a data collection company known as Aacer. Filings were up 19 percent over March 2009. The previous record over the last five years was 133,000 in October.
“Even with the restrictive new law, we’re back up over where we were before the law changed,” Mike Bickford, president of Aacer, said in a phone interview Thursday from his headquarters in Oklahoma City. He faulted the stagnant economy, saying a surge in bankruptcies generally follows economic contraction by 6 to 18 months, and he pointed to March as a historically busy month for bankruptcy filings.
Other experts point out that filings invoking Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, a simple and inexpensive option, are rising faster than more complex Chapter 13 reorganization filings, under which consumers repay a portion of their debts so they can keep their homes, suggesting that more homeowners are simply walking away from underwater mortgages.
“Fewer people are trying to save their homes,” Katherine M. Porter, a University of Iowa law professor and bankruptcy expert, said in an interview by phone on Thursday. “They realize their payments are not affordable, and bankruptcy judges do not have the power to adjust the mortgages to make them more affordable.”
Statistics from the United States Trustee Program, the Justice Department office that oversees bankruptcy cases, show that Chapter 7 filings as a percentage of all bankruptcies have increased to about 73 percent in 2009 from about 62 percent in 2006-07. Of the 158,141 bankruptcy filings in March, 118,505, or 75 percent, were Chapter 7s and 38,241 were Chapter 13s, the Aacer report says.
“We think that means fewer and fewer families think they’re really going to save their homes,” Professor Porter said. “They don’t have any equity, so why try to keep up with their home payments?”
The nation’s high unemployment rate is one more reason for people to choose Chapter 7, Professor Porter said. “To file Chapter 13, you need ongoing income, and to the extent we have more people who are unemployed, they can’t use Chapter 13 because they don’t have that income to pay into the plan,” she said.
Finally, Professor Porter said, March is the high season for bankruptcy filings because many people in financial distress get a tax refund check that they can use to pay the $1,500 to $3,500 that a bankruptcy lawyer charges.
“People use their tax refunds to pay their attorney fees,” she said.
San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm and its San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyers can help you stop foreclosure, save your home, eliminate your credit cards and protect your assets. Visit us at www.gobksandiego.com.
Sharp Increase in March in Personal Bankruptcies
By DUFF WILSON
Published: April 1, 2010
Sign in to Recommend
Sign In to E-Mail
More Americans filed for bankruptcy protection in March than during any month since the federal personal bankruptcy law was tightened in October 2005, a new report says, a result of high unemployment and the housing crash.
Federal courts reported over 158,000 bankruptcy filings in March, or 6,900 a day, a rise of 35 percent from February, according to a report to be released on Friday by Automated Access to Court Electronic Records, a data collection company known as Aacer. Filings were up 19 percent over March 2009. The previous record over the last five years was 133,000 in October.
“Even with the restrictive new law, we’re back up over where we were before the law changed,” Mike Bickford, president of Aacer, said in a phone interview Thursday from his headquarters in Oklahoma City. He faulted the stagnant economy, saying a surge in bankruptcies generally follows economic contraction by 6 to 18 months, and he pointed to March as a historically busy month for bankruptcy filings.
Other experts point out that filings invoking Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code, a simple and inexpensive option, are rising faster than more complex Chapter 13 reorganization filings, under which consumers repay a portion of their debts so they can keep their homes, suggesting that more homeowners are simply walking away from underwater mortgages.
“Fewer people are trying to save their homes,” Katherine M. Porter, a University of Iowa law professor and bankruptcy expert, said in an interview by phone on Thursday. “They realize their payments are not affordable, and bankruptcy judges do not have the power to adjust the mortgages to make them more affordable.”
Statistics from the United States Trustee Program, the Justice Department office that oversees bankruptcy cases, show that Chapter 7 filings as a percentage of all bankruptcies have increased to about 73 percent in 2009 from about 62 percent in 2006-07. Of the 158,141 bankruptcy filings in March, 118,505, or 75 percent, were Chapter 7s and 38,241 were Chapter 13s, the Aacer report says.
“We think that means fewer and fewer families think they’re really going to save their homes,” Professor Porter said. “They don’t have any equity, so why try to keep up with their home payments?”
The nation’s high unemployment rate is one more reason for people to choose Chapter 7, Professor Porter said. “To file Chapter 13, you need ongoing income, and to the extent we have more people who are unemployed, they can’t use Chapter 13 because they don’t have that income to pay into the plan,” she said.
Finally, Professor Porter said, March is the high season for bankruptcy filings because many people in financial distress get a tax refund check that they can use to pay the $1,500 to $3,500 that a bankruptcy lawyer charges.
“People use their tax refunds to pay their attorney fees,” she said.
San Diego Bankruptcy Law Firm and its San Diego Bankruptcy Lawyers can help you stop foreclosure, save your home, eliminate your credit cards and protect your assets. Visit us at www.gobksandiego.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)