Buying a Car Online? A Few Things to Keep In Mind

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only. For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please contact us at www.SchillbergLaw.com or Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

When buying a car these days, there are a lot of options and a lot of pitfalls. Technology has changed the way we buy cars; but beware, with the options and convenience come new ways for people to run scams. Today, dealerships must compete online with Ebay and Craigslist for customers. Used and new car dealerships now market extensively online in forums like cars.com. Convenience and competition have standardized the prices for cars, and businesses like Carfax give reliable vehicle history reports. While the technology is new, the story is as old as time: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

My friend’s wife was in a car accident and was looking for a replacement car. The insurance company had given them a fair reimbursement for her car, and they were simply looking to replace one Lexus RX300 for another. They went to several dealerships and found the process tedious. They also looked online, searching Cars.com, Ebay, and Craisglist to see if they could find a car. Most cars they found ran between $6,000 - $9,000 depending on mileage and condition. However, on Craigslist they saw a 2005 Lexus RX330 with 150,000 for $3,000. It seemed to good to be true: a newer model, similar mileage, and a very low price. They began communicating with the seller. It turned out the woman selling the car was a widow, and her husband drove the car. She just wanted to get rid of it because it was too emotional for her. Someone had previously agreed to purchase the car in New Jersey and she had paid for the shipping, but that deal fell through, and now she was just hoping to unload the car for whatever she could get. Also, she wanted to broker the deal through Ebay to protect both parties. Everything sounded reasonable at this point.

The first red arose when it was discovered that there was no ad for the car on Ebay. The seller explained that the ad for Ebay had expired and she just wanted to reduce expenses by running a free ad on Craiglist. Not a good explanation, but the deal was so good!

Next came a guarantee: Ebay Buyer Protection Program. My friends could test drive the car for 10 days, and if they weren’t completely satisfied with the purchase they could return the car and get a full refund. They even received an official looking email that was designed to look very similar to the notices that ebay sends regularly.

Finally, my friends needed to pay for the car, and here is where the scam began to unravel. Ebay insisted on being paid with MoneyPak cards and have the receipts faxed to the Ebay Financing Center at an 866 number. Why would Ebay want to be paid that way; why not with paypal, or a major credit card? So my friends called Ebay to find out why they wanted to handle a transaction in such a strange fashion (together with the other strange things about this transaction, they were sure it was a scam by now). This is the reply they got from Ebay:

Thank you for contacting eBay.

It’s our goal to make sure that your online car purchase goes smoothly, so first things first: the only way to purchase a car on eBay Motors is to start and end your transaction on the eBay Motors website.  If a seller from some other site tells you that the purchase will be handled by eBay or covered by eBay, they are lying to you.

Here are key things to look for to shop securely and to avoid fraudulent online car offers:

- Transactions that do not start and end on the eBay Motors website.
- Sellers who push for a speedy completion of the transaction and request payments via Western Union or Moneygram.
- Sellers who are unwilling to meet in person, or are unwilling to allow the buyer to physically inspect the vehicle before the purchase.
- Sellers who insist the vehicle be shipped despite the buyer’s offer to pick it up themselves.
- Transactions where the seller is in one location and the vehicle is in another.
- Vehicles advertised at well below their market value. Remember, if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

For more information, please visit: http://www.ebay.com/safecarbuying/

If you have received suspicious emails:
---------------------------------------

If you have not already done so, please forward all email or live chat communications you had with the seller or "eBay" to car@ebay.com.

If you can, please forward emails as attachments in order to preserve the original email. The original email with full headers will help us investigate the fraudsters.

If you have sent money, please include "MONEY SENT" with a dollar value in the Subject to help us identify and prioritize your emails.

Due to the volume of emails received, we cannot respond to every email sent tocar@ebay.com.

If you have been scammed:
-------------------------

To help us and law enforcement stop the fraudsters, please do the following:

- Please file a complaint at the Internet Crime Complaint Center, http://www.ic3.gov
- as noted above, forward emails to car@ebay.com with "MONEY SENT" and a dollar value in the Subject

Other Resources
---------------

- eBay Security Center: http://pages.ebay.com/securitycenter/index.html
- report eBay phishing emails to spoof@ebay.com

Will New Jersey REQUIRE Re-Appointment of Judges After Conclusion of Their 7-year Term?

New Jersey has operated since the 1947 constitutional revisions under a modified federal system for appointment of judges to the state’s top courts (Supreme, Appellate Division of the Superior Court, and Superior Court). Essentially, the Governor appoints and the Senate must confirm a qualified judicial candidate for an initial term of 7 years. After 7 years the Governor traditionally reappoints (and the Senate reconfirms) the judge to serve until age 70. New Jersey is one of only a few states that specifically provides the Senate the ability to confirm the picks of the Governor. Recently, however, the confirmation process has effectively come to a standstill with Supreme Court nominees of Republican Governor Chris Christie finding it hard to get through the Democratically-controlled Senate. Hence, although reappointment was effectively automatic in the past, Governor Chris Christie has essentially ended the practice by declining to reappoint several members of the state’s Supreme Court and threatening the potential reappointment of Chief Justice Rabner.

Although Governor Christie has re-appointed Chief Justice Stuart Rabner to an additional term after his current term 7-year term comes up in June, it appears that there may be some efforts by both parties to put some changes in place to either solidify the hold by existing judges on their positions (the Democrats' position) or make it easier to force the Governor's selection through a Senate controlled by the opposing party (the Republican position).

There have been some news reports that the State Bar of New Jersey and some county bar associations have backed a proposal to change the constitution to, in effect, REQUIRE the Governor to reappoint judges. The key change sought by the bars would make reappointment an automatic process unless it could demonstrate the judge in question was unfit. However, no such plan has been introduced.

Conversely, citing the recent end of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate, a New Jersey Senate Republican introduced a resolution in the Senate to end the practice of delay of judicial nominees. Although the Senate doesn’t have a filibuster process of the type with which most people are familiar (as in the US Senate), the Democratic leadership of the Senate has declined to schedule hearings or votes for nominees, effectively blocking the confirmation of the Governor's nominees. The Republican resolution would counteract that, providing a 90-day time limit on hearings for nominations to the Supreme Court. If a vote on the nominee does not take place within 90 days, the nominee would be automatically confirmed.

We'd like your opinion on this issue:

Should Governor Christie, who was overwhelmingly reelected on a promise that he would "overhaul" the judicial system, be given an opportunity to "overhaul" the bench to a view more consistent with that of the Governor and the people who elected him by getting confirmation of his judicial appointees who share those views as to what the judicial system should be;
OR
is it preferable to have a constitutionally-imposed requirement that sitting judges receive an "automatic" re-appointment until age 70?

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only. For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please contact us at www.SchillbergLaw.com or Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

Wells Fargo Forced to Disclose Its "Foreclosure Manual"

Earlier this week, Wells Fargo, in a Bankruptcy Court matter in New York, was required to admit into evidence a copy of its foreclosure procedures manual, which apparently had been written on November 9, 2011.  Wells Fargo had been trying to keep the manual out of evidence, fearing that its foreclosure practices, which have been called into question by many foreclosure defense attorneys (including this writer), would be revealed to the world to be questionable at best or fraudulent at worst.  

Now Wells Fargo will be required to produce a witness to testify as to the contents of the manual.  This is important because defendants fighting foreclosure actions (against Wells Fargo and other lenders as well) question the tactics that the lenders and their attorneys have been utilizing to, in some instances, allegedly fraudulently produce documents to support the lenders' claims to have the right to foreclose on homeowners' properties.  In the New York Bankruptcy case, the defendant homeowner claims that the endorsement on the Note in question was fraudulent, and the homeowner's attorney claims that this manual proves there was a concerted and coordinated effort by Wells Fargo to do so in their foreclosure preparations and filings.

This blog will follow the developments in that case, and report on any additional details as they emerge.

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only. For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please contact us at www.SchillbergLaw.com or Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

News Videos Now Warn of IRS Scams

My latest blog post warned all Americans about the recent scams being perpetrated by fraudsters preying on our fears of being targeted by the IRS.  I had hoped that the scam that I reported that my client had experienced was a relatively minor occurrence.  Well, it appears that the scam is more widespread than previously thought.  Imagine my surprise when, weeks later while watching cable news, there was a report of THOUSANDS of such reported attempts to scam people, resulting in losses of over $1 Million!  

I repeat my earlier advice that if you receive such a phone call, do not panic.  Ask the caller for any identification (usually  legitimate callers from the IRS will have an identification number), request that you are provided a number to call them back, and then immediately seek the assistance of counsel, or  make an inquiry to your local IRS office to attempt to confirm the allegations.  

Remember,  time is on YOUR side; don't make any hasty decisions to give personal information simply to get them off the phone and avoid the alleged dire consequences.  These scam artists attempt to capitalize on your fears, and will make all sorts of threats about immediate punishments if you do not provide that information to them over the phone in an effort to compel you to pay immediately.  

In addition, if you  have received such a phone call, or are faced with such a call in the future,  do not hesitate to call the Inspector General's  fraud hotline:  1–800–366–4484, or get additional information from the Inspector General's website:
www.treasury.gov/tigta/contact_report.shtml.

Also, watch the news video at foxnewsinsider.com/2014/03/21/irs-warns-elaborate-phone-call-scam-targeting-taxpayers.

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only. For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please visit our website www.SchillbergLaw.com, or contact Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

BEWARE OF SCAMMERS ATTEMPTING TO "CASH IN" ON YOUR IRS FEARS

I am sitting in my office one day last week when suddenly a client rushes into the office, cell phone pressed against his ear, wildly waving his other hand, wearing a look of abject terror on his face. Once he finishes the call, he tells me that he has just received a phone call from a person purporting to be with the IRS seeking to collect on a supposed tax deficiency. 

Compounding his fears, the caller claimed that unless a payment of $4500 was made within the next several hours, all sorts of dire consequences would cascade on his head, including the threat of arrest.

After calming the client down, I  questioned him about his tax payment status. The client advised that he was not aware of any supposedly unpaid tax liability and, in fact, was in the process of preparing and finalizing his 2013 return.   It did not seem likely that, in this particular case, the threat of arrest was a valid threat.

Immediately, I suspected that this might simply be a scam;  as much as we all are aware of the "iron fist" of the IRS, the reality is a typical phone call from your friendly IRS representative is usually an effort to obtain payment of an amount supposedly due, like any other collection agency.   In this case, the threat of arrest set this apart from what otherwise might have been a typical IRS collection effort.

The client contacted the IRS directly to ascertain that there was not any outstanding lien (there was not) and, after relating the story to the IRS agent, the client was referred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration hotline to report this clearly fraudulent attempt by a scammer to capitalize on everyone's innate fear of the IRS.  

My advice to you is that if you receive such a phone call, do not panic. Initially, ask the caller for any identification (usually  legitimate callers from the IRS will have an identification number), request that you are provided a number to call them back, and then immediately seek the assistance of counsel, or  make an inquiry to your local IRS office to attempt to confirm the allegations.  

Remember,  time is on YOUR side; don't make any hasty decisions to give personal information simply to get them off the phone and avoid the alleged dire consequences.  These scam artists attempt to capitalize on your fears, and will make all sorts of threats about immediate punishments if you do not provide that information to them over the phone in an effort to compel you to pay immediately.  

In addition, if you  have received such a phone call, or are faced with such a call in the future,  do not hesitate to call the Inspector General's  fraud hotline:  1–800–366–4484, or get additional information from the Inspector General's website: http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/contact_report.shtml. 

_________________________________________

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only. For more information regarding any of the issues discussed above, please contact Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

PROTECT YOUR PERSONAL ASSETS AGAINST BUSINESS LIABILITY CLAIMS

So, you have taken that giant leap in your life and gone into business for yourself.  You have entered into a lease agreement for office space, leased a copier/scanner/printer, purchased a computer, hired staff, purchased liability insurance, hung out your shingle advertising your business, generated many new customers for your product or service, and you're ready to go, right?  Well, maybe not.

The fact is, in our highly litigious society, each of the simple acts mentioned above not only builds your business, but each has some legal ramifications that might someday negatively impact upon your business.  If proper care is not taken at some point during the life of the business, such claims might also impact your personal assets if you have not taken the proper steps to protect those assets.  One of the simplest, yet most effective, ways to protect your personal assets from a misstep in your business life is to either incorporate the business entity (as a “C” or “S” Corporation), or establish a Limited Liability Company ("LLC”).

The creation of either of these business entities generally shields you and your personal assets from exposure for liability incurred as a result of your business activities.  By adhering to certain rules designed to keep your business and personal activities separate (e.g.: not using business assets for personal items, or not co-mingling business and personal banking matters), one can ensure that one's personal assets will not be placed at risk due to exposure from liability for the acts of the Corporation or LLC.

While these business entities provide the advantage of limiting one's exposure to personal liability, careful consideration of the business’ goals and objectives must be given when determining whether to incorporate or create an LLC.  For example, while a “C” Corporation generally exposes income generated by the business to double taxation (once when the income is generated and when the income is distributed to shareholders), the LLC will generally be taxed once.  In addition to tax ramifications, one must also consider the goals and objectives of the business.  The LLC allows more flexibility in structuring the internal arrangements of the business, such as allocation of income, gains, losses, deductions, etc, as well as more flexibility in providing employee benefits.  Both “C” and “S” Corporations present more difficulty in structuring the allocation of profits in a manner other than in proportion to ownership of shares in the Corporation.  Hence, the LLC might be the preferred choice of business entity if these are the major concerns of the business owner.

In conclusion, the business owner – along with the legal advisor and accountant - must consider the business’ goals and objectives, such as limiting tax exposure, flexibility in allocation of profits, or the provision of employee benefits, when determining the most effective form of the business entity. However, proper selection of the business entity will provide the business owner with protection of personal assets from liability claims, as well as maximizing business profits.

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only.  

For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please contact Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

IT IS ESSENTIAL TO REVIEW YOUR WILL WITH AN ATTORNEY BEFORE MAKING ANY DESIRED CHANGES

Throughout your life, few documents will be as important or valuable to you as your will. Most people spend their adult lives considering what will become of their possessions after they pass away. “What will I leave to my children? My husband? My best friend?” The process of crafting an estate plan and determining how to parcel out one’s assets is a difficult and sometimes lengthy procedure. After making these hard decisions and finalizing a plan, it is common for people to have a change of heart. We meet new people, our relationships can become strained, or a certain loved one might need to be provided for more than someone else. These are reasonable changes that can occur to anyone after they’ve crafted their will.

Under these circumstances, the instinct many people will have is to simply retrieve their will and write in the changes as they see fit. After all, the process of writing the first draft may have taken time and effort that you don’t want to go through again. Handwriting a simple change can avoid revisiting the process and save money.

Making any physical change to an estate plan is a serious mistake that people make and it has significant unintended consequences. Any alteration to a signed and witnessed will can invalidate the entire document. Writing changes onto a will immediately indicates that the intent of the testator has changed from when the signing was witnessed. Additionally, courts cannot be sure of the intent of the deceased once handwritten changes are made. This opens the door to fraud and leaves the will susceptible to a host of challenges by dissatisfied beneficiaries.

This issue does not pertain solely to the use of handwritten alterations to the language of a will. The physical integrity of a will is equally important to maintain the validity of the document. Any destruction of the will can provide the court with the implication that the maker of the will no longer intended it to be a representation of their final wishes. Large tears, burns, or even the removal of staples can create the presumption that the testator had a change of heart and no longer wished for this copy of the will to be used. Once this presumption arises, it becomes necessary to provide the probate court with an effective copy of a will. Failure to do so results in the deceased’s estate being probated intestate: not allowing for specific bequests and giving the entirety of the estate to the testator’s next of kin.

This is why it is essential for people who seek to change their will to hire an attorney to make their desired changes. A new will can appropriately reflect the changes you wish to see in your estate plan and ensure that your family and friends receive exactly what you intend. If you need help writing your first will or editing an existing will, Schillberg Law can assist you whenever you’re ready to get to work!

The author, Steven Oran, Esq., is an Associate at Schillberg Law, LLC.  This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only.  For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please contact the author or Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).

Punishment for Lenders playing "Fast and Loose" with the rules?

Some good news for homeowners on the foreclosure front, and bad news for those lenders playing fast and loose with the rules regarding recording of mortgages and assignments.

In a recent case in Sussex County, Judge William McGovern III, J. S. C. discovered a "serious matter" relating to the recording of title and mortgage records. The court concluded that a recorded document (an assignment of mortgage) used in the prosecution of a foreclosure matter was apparently forged.  The actual mortgage was dated June 29, 1998.  After several assignments in 1998, the plaintiff in this action (the purported assignee) did not purchase the note and mortgage until 2005.  The problem for the plaintiff lender was that the document which purports to be the assignment relating to that 2005 transfer is an exact duplicate of an earlier 1998 assignment, and the assignment purporting to assign the Note in 2005 was signed and dated in 1998!

The Court went on to warn that  recording such fraudulent documents is a violation of criminal law. As a result of such criminal activity, the Court dismissed the foreclosure complaint with instructions that no new foreclosure action may be filed or commenced until the fraudulent documents had been properly corrected and rectified. In addition, the Court warned that the parties responsible for the creation and transmission of the bogus document should be identified and held responsible for that action, and an appropriate investigation should be conducted into such actions.

The Court concluded that "forging of a document, and transmission of a forged instrument, to the County Clerk for recording, represents a serious breach of and damage to the integrity of the land title records and the function of the recording system.”

Finally, this Court was willing to listen to the arguments that virtually all foreclosure defense counsel have been arguing for years; namely, that lenders often do not have the appropriate documentation to support the chain of title to their claim to foreclose on a homeowner's property and have improperly created documents to support that claim.  Under such circumstances, no lender should not be permitted to take a person’s home without the proper documentation to support that claim.

This blog post is not considered to be legal advice, and is intended for educational purposes only.  For more information regarding any of the foregoing issues discussed above, please contact Robert F. Schillberg, Jr. (rschillberg@schillberglaw.com).