I have handled numerous real estate (property and construction) cases, both at the pre-litigation dispute
stage and in litigation, primarily as related to materialman/subcontractor/contractor liens and actions to foreclose thereon
- in conjunction with claims for breach of contract, accounts stated and general damages, etc.
The statutory scheme
for materialman/construction lien claims is extremely convoluted - and much of it had to be re-learned as of March 31, 2009,
when fairly substantial changes to the statutory framework were enacted - and it is therefore extremely important for those
seeking counsel to handle disputes involving these issues to be certain that any attorney being considered has specific
litigation experience involving these unique nuances.
All too often I have heard or read about cases in which
an attorney who is otherwise very experienced and competent in general civil litigation [and even real estate], but who lacks
the specialized knowledge about the materialman/construction lien statutes, commits one 'minor' error or procedural misstep
that ultimately proves fatal to the client's claim. Georgia appellate courts are fairly unforgiving in their strict reading
of the statutes and caselaw [and it is important to note that since our lien statutes are considered to be in "derogation"
of (or contrary to) common law, they are usually construed against the claimant]; accordingly, rather harsh consequences often
result from an attorney's mistake.
For example, the recent [GA] caselaw is replete with scenarios such as the following,
which were held to be fatal to the claimant's lien claim and resulted in a defense verdict:
Failing to accurately describe
or identify the property that was the subject of a Claim of Lien with sufficient precision to satisfy the evidentiary
burden, which is unusually stringent;
Failing to timely file a Notice of [Lien] Action - which is a separate
pleading that is required to be filed in the Superior Court of the county in which the lien action was filed [see, e.g., O.C.G.A.
§ 44-14-361.1];
Failing to pay the fees associated with the above-referenced Notice of Action;
Failing
to properly execute such a Notice under oath (amendable defect);
Failing to identify with precision the identity
of the parties or property that is/are the subject of the Claim of Lien and lien action;
Failing to include
the proper necessary and indispensable parties to the foreclosure suit; and
Failing to recognize the unusual idiosyncrasies
that exist in claims involving a claimant [i.e. subcontractor] who contracts with a tenant of the owner/landlord of the property
(generally speaking, a tenant cannot, by requesting that a contractor or subcontractor make improvements thereon, bind or
subject the fee simple interest of an owner's property to a lien claim; there are some very narrow exceptions, which form
yet another layer of complexity to the already convoluted analysis - and I am in the process of writing an article on this
exact topic).
And the list goes on and on.
CONSUMER CREDIT & RELATED
DISPUTES
I also have substantial experience in handling (primarily prosecuting) Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA) and related consumer/credit cases - including those involving the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions (FCRA/FACTA), Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and, more recently, HAMP and home loan Modifications, among many other aspects of
consumer related law and litigation.
As recently as November and December of 2010 I have filed two civil actions in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against large national banks, mortgage servicers and the "Big
Three" national consumer Credit Reporting Agencies [Equifax, Experian and Trans Union] for various claims, including
violations of RESPA, FCRA, FDCPA, FCBA, HAMP, Check 21 Act, mortgage escrow accounting, force-placed [flood] insurance, etc.
These cases and their dockets/pleadings can be found by searching the Federal Courts online PACER system.
Last month
[November 2010] I also helped reach a substantial settlement [$170,000] for a client who had been severely injured in a bicycling
accident after being hit by a motor vehicle driven by an elderly woman, who was charged with "Hit and Run"
and leaving the scene of the accident.
In addition I recently reached a favorable settlement on behalf of a client who
had received a [very subtle, yet significant] misleading letter from a debt collection agency, leaving him confused as how
to respond to the payment demand.
Additional details and cases can be found on my Avvo.com Attorney Profile.
VEHICLE WARRANTIES & SERVICE CONTRACTS
My firm is also handling
numerous disputes involving consumers who have purchased automobile/motor vehicle [car] so called "Extended Warranties"
- which, in the typical scenario, are more accurately described as "Service Contracts". These disputes often involve
a "warranty" or repair company that has denied a claim based on an alleged failure by the vehicle's owner to comply
with the routine maintenance as defined by the manufacturer/owner's manual, etc., and unreasonable requests to provide proof/documentation
evidencing the vehicle's service/maintenance history. Other disputes involve questions as to whether or not something is a
"Covered Part" or whether or not there has been a "Failure" of same as defined by the contract.
I
usually look to the UCC and any related state and federal provisions governing these issues - most of which are outside the
scope of this context, but if this sounds like a dispute or issue you are experiencing, by all means, please contact me.
