Sunday 31 May 2020

Gun Control Act Of 1968

Gun Control Act Of 1968

This Legislation regulated interstate and foreign commerce in firearms, including importation, “prohibited persons”, and licensing provisions. After the assassinations of President John Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the Gun Control Act is passed and imposes stricter licensing and regulation on the firearms industry, establishes new categories of firearms offenses, and prohibits the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons and certain other prohibited persons. It also imposes the first Federal jurisdiction over “destructive devices,” including bombs, mines, grenades and other similar devices. Congress reorganizes ATU into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division (ATTD) and delegates to them the enforcement of the Gun Control Act. “Forget the democratic processes, the judicial system and the talent for organization that have long been the distinctive marks of the U.S. Forget, too, the affluence (vast, if still not general enough) and the fundamental respect for law by most Americans. From the nation’s beginnings, in fact and fiction, the gun has been provider and protector.” Though the 1968 law was a victory of sorts for gun-control activists, many were disappointed it didn’t include a registry of firearms or federal licensing requirements for gun owners. TIME reported, “It may take another act of horror to push really effective gun curbs through Congress.” Those dynamics the disappointment of gun-control activists, particularly after moments of tragedy, running up against the very real place of guns in American society may sound familiar.

What are the most important things the law changed?

It banned interstate shipments of firearms and ammunition to private individuals [and] sales of guns to minors, drug addicts and “mental incompetents.” This is the first time you have in law that mentally unbalanced people ought not to be able to get gun also convicted felons. It also strengthened the licensing and record-keeping requirements for gun dealers, and that was significant because gun dealers were subject to virtually no systematic scrutiny up until this time, although a 1938 federal law did establish a fee they paid to government to be a licensed dealer. It banned importation of foreign-made surplus firearms, except those The President of the NRA, who had testified before Congress about the bill had said [paraphrasing], ‘We’re not thrilled with this, but we can live with it. I think it’s reasonable.’ The fact that he would concede there’s any such thing as a reasonable gun control legislation that represented the prevailing point of view of NRA leadership at the time, from 1968 to the late 1970s. Portions of the ’68 law were modified by a law passed by Congress in 1986, the Firearms Owners Protections Act, which sought to repeal even more of the law. It didn’t succeed, but the 1986 law does repeal or modify or blunt some of the aspects of the ’68 law. [It does that] by amending the ’68 law to allow for the interstate sale of rifles and shotguns as long as it was legal in the states of the buyer and seller, eliminating certain record-keeping requirements for ammunition dealers, and making it easier for individuals selling guns to do so without a license. The 1986 federal law was the culmination of the effort to try to roll back the 1968 law. The gun issue hadn’t been politicized in the ’60s the way it has been in the last few decades, where it has become even more angry and strident; 1968 was a year of political assassinations that shocked the nation. One of the great myths is the idea that gun-control laws are an artefact of the modern era, the 20th century. Gun laws are as old as America, literally to the very early colonial beginnings of the nation. From the beginning of the late 1600s to the end of the 1800s, gun laws were everywhere, thousands of gun laws of every imaginable variety. You find virtually every state in the union enacting laws that bar people from carrying concealed weapons. That’s something people don’t realize. The GCA is the main federal law that governs the interstate commerce of firearms in the United States. Specifically, the GCA prohibits firearms commerce across state lines except between licensed manufacturers, dealers, and importers. Under the GCA, any individual or company that wants to partake in commercial activity dealing with the manufacture or importation of firearms and ammunition or the interstate and intrastate sale of firearms must possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Procedural jargon notwithstanding, the enactment of 1968 GCA was a watershed moment in US politics. It was the first piece of legislation that put the gun control debate on the map.

Political Context of the GCA

It should be noted that the GCA was not the first piece of gun control passed at the federal level. In 1934, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act of 1934 into law. The first comprehensive gun law at the federal level, the NFA taxed and mandated registration of certain firearms such as machine guns, sawed-off rifles, and sawed-off shotguns. This law was passed under the pretext of addressing mob-style violence during Prohibition, but a careful review of the New Deal era shows how the NFA was just another piece of FDR’s unprecedented social engineering program. This NFA was followed up by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which created a precursor to the 1968 GCA’s FFL system. Despite the government’s encroachments on gun rights, the federal government stayed away from further regulation for the next three decades. The passage of the GCA wasn’t without its fair share of opposition. Groups like the National Rifle Association, which traditionally focused on conservation and outdoor niches, were compelled to take nominally pro-gun stances. However, the NRA wasn’t alone. Groups like Gun Owners of America came into the spotlight, positioning themselves as a “no compromise” alternative to NRA. By the early 1980s, pro-gun lobbies would become pivotal actors in the never-ending circus of DC politics.

deas are Still Key

As the days go by, gun rights appear to be gradually falling down the path of statist micromanagement. But there’s something more fundamental to this trend than the cliché aphorism of eternal vigilance and conventional strategies of political activism. It really comes down to the battle of ideas. The GCA is a child of the New Deal and Great Society mindset that views the government as an omnipotent administrator of human affairs. A paradigm shift in ideas is needed to break free from this top-down vision of society. Until then, gun lobbies face an uphill battle. A solid first step is for gun owners to recognize that infringements like the GCA of 1968 must never be tolerated by anyone who believes in the right to self-defense. After three decades of quiescence in the arena of gun control politics, the turmoil of the 1960s unleashed a wave of demand for new gun control legislation. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on November 22, 1963, prompted the country to focus on the regulation of firearms. Then the urban riots beginning in 1964 and the 1968 assassinations of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy fueled an inferno of outrage that demanded congressional action. In the wake of these acts of violence the U.S. Congress enacted the Gun Control Act which President Lyndon B. Johnson signed in 1968. Although the Gun Control Act did not contain the owner licensing and gun registration provisions that President Johnson desired, the act, along with the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act passed by Congress months earlier, contained the most significant restrictions on firearms since Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION IN THE 1960s

A highly controversial bill that precipitated emotional debate and ferocious political battles, the Gun Control Act travelled quite a convoluted path prior to its ultimate approval by Congress. It started down its torturous road in 1963 when Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, championed legislation geared specifically at tightening restrictions on the sale of mail-order handguns. After President Kennedy was murdered with a military-style rifle obtained through the mail, Senator Dodd extended the reach of the legislation to include “long guns,” including rifles and shotguns. The legislation met an early demise when it was held up in the Commerce Committee and not allowed out for a vote on the Senate floor. Interestingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders initially supported the measures and even engaged in drafting Dodd’s bill. Yet the NRA leadership did not wish to alienate its more radical rank and file, so they neglected to divulge this to their members. Instead, in a letter to each of its affiliates, the NRA claimed its executive vice-president testified against the bill and prevented it from being voted out of Committee.

The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of “irrational emotionalism,” and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership’s support of the bill. These publications provoked the grass roots members to send off a great number of angry letters opposing the bill to Congress. In 1965 President Johnson aggressively endorsed the cause of fighting crime and regulating firearms by spearheading a new, strict gun control measure that Dodd introduced in the Senate. But the Johnson administration’s proposal suffered a string of defeats over the next three years because of heavy pressure from the NRA, key congressional leaders who supported them, the American Legion, and gun importers, manufacturers, and dealers. Adding to the administration’s difficulties was the lack of an organized pro–gun control lobby to check the relentless onslaughts against the legislation by the NRA. In 1968 President Johnson and his administration intensified their efforts. Johnson began using the bully pulpit of the presidency to chide Congress publicly to enact his gun control policy. In his 1968 State of the Union address, Johnson exhorted Congress to pass a gun control law that would stop “mail order murder.” And months later, President Johnson conveyed to Congress, in no uncertain terms, his desire for crime legislation that required national registration of every gun in America and licenses for all gun owners. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate responded to the president’s admonishment in short order. Congressional representatives carefully, and often vociferously, argued about the provisions of the president’s crime legislation. The measure, titled the Safe Streets and Crime Control Bill, received stiff resistance from gun control opponents.

NRA OPPOSITION TO THE ACT

By 1968 the leadership of the NRA was fully against any and all gun regulations. The group undertook a mass-mailing lobbying effort to undermine the legislation. Their organized lobbying efforts proved successful in wiping out much of the support for gun licensing and registration restrictions. Congress eventually enacted the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, a watered-down version of the Johnson administration’s anticrime and gun control proposal. The act prohibited the interstate shipment of pistols and revolvers to individuals, but it specifically exempted rifles and shotguns from any regulations. With the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968, the groundswell of support for tough gun control laws reached unprecedented levels. On June 6, the day after the Kennedy assassination, Johnson signed the Safe Streets and Crime Control Act, but lamented the law’s weak provisions. President Johnson, who had proposed gun control measures every year since becoming president, appeared on national television imploring Congress to pass a new and tougher gun control law that banned mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition. Reading a letter he sent to Congress, Johnson pleaded to Congress “in the name of sanity… in the name of safety and in the name of an aroused nation to give America the gun-control law it needs.” On June 24, President Johnson again addressed the country, calling for mandatory national gun registration and licenses for every gun owner. Around this time, polls showed that approximately 80 percent of Americans favoured gun registration laws. The public flooded members of Congress with letters demanding greater regulation of guns. Protestors picketed the Washington headquarters of the NRA. Even many members of Congress who had been staunch adversaries of strict firearms regulation crossed over to the other side and rallied in favour of a tough gun control bill.

ORGANIZED GUN CONTROL EFFORTS

Pro–gun control advocates mobilized and constructed an effective pro–gun control pressure group called the Emergency Committee for Gun Control. The bipartisan organization was headed by Colonel John H. Glenn, Jr., a former astronaut and friend of Senator Robert Kennedy. The Committee, comprising volunteer staffers who had worked for Senator Kennedy before he was assassinated, received extensive support from a variety of organizations such as the American Bankers Association, the AFL-CIO, the Conference of Mayors, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Riding a wave of support, the Committee sought to counteract the highly organized and resource-laden NRA. Their efforts proved somewhat effective, but ultimately fell short of the group’s goal of a comprehensive scheme of gun registration and gun owner licensing. Facing this unprecedented, widespread push for gun control, the NRA became highly energized and rallied against the president’s proposed regulations. National Rifle Association executive vice-president Franklin L. Orth argued publicly that no law, existing or proposed, could have prevented the murder of Senator Kennedy. On June 15, 1968, the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for a legal purpose was in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, Glassen wrote, the clear goal of gun control proponents was complete abolition of civilian ownership of guns. Senator Joseph D. Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, who had introduced the provisions requiring licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, responded to this accusation in a press conference calling the letter “calculated hysteria” and saying no bill would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns. Nevertheless, Glassen’s tactic effectively energized the membership of the NRA, then 900,000 strong, just as the public outcry calling for more firearms regulations was dissipating. Whereas Congress had encountered overwhelming support for more gun control measures in the week after Senator Kennedy’s death, by late June and early July they reported the majority of the letters from constituents indicated opposition to any new gun control provisions. The battle over the president’s proposals continued in the halls of Congress in typical fashion, featuring emotionally charged debates and supporters split along specific demographic and ideological lines. In the House, opponents argued against a registration provision claiming it would be costly and ineffective in preventing crime. In the Senate, Dodd attacked the NRA, decrying its tactics of “blackmail, intimidation and unscrupulous propaganda.” The licensing and registration provisions, backed solidly by northern liberals, were easily defeated in both the House of Representatives and Senate by a conservative coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats. However, the provisions banning mail-order and out-of-state sales of long guns and ammunition fared better, passing both the House and Senate. Eastern and Midwestern members of Congress overwhelmingly supported these measures, while those from the South and West were much less supportive. Members of Congress representing urban areas staunchly supported the bill, whereas those from rural sections of the country voted against it in significant numbers.

PROVISIONS OF THE GUN CONTROL ACT

On October 22, President Johnson signed into law the Gun Control Act of 1968—an instrument which, just months earlier, was considered a lost cause because of staunch opposition. The signing of the legislation represented a significant political win for the president, Senator Dodd, and other gun control advocates who had struggled for years to pass a gun control bill that would effect real change. Enacted pursuant to the Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, the legislation had three major features. First, it prohibited interstate traffic in firearms and ammunition. Second, it denied guns to specific classes of individuals such as felons, minors, fugitives, drug addicts, and the mentally ill. Third, it prohibited the importation of surplus military weapons into the United States as well as guns and ammunition not federally certified as sporting weapons or souvenirs. As is usually the case in American politics, the statute did not signify a complete victory for either side. Advocates of gun control failed to get provisions requiring owner licensing and firearms registration, yet gun control opponents, typically NRA members, suffered another setback to their goal of removing governmental regulation of firearms. This partial defeat for the NRA served as the group’s wake-up call, energizing and expanding the membership of the NRA who suddenly felt politically vulnerable. Yet unlike the NRA, the pro–gun control advocates were not organized for long-term pressure politics, and their political influence began to wane. Thus in 1986 the NRA successfully weakened the provisions of the 1968 act by spearheading the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act.

Utah Gun Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a Gun Attorney in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Michael R. Anderson, JD

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States

Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/gun-control-act-of-1968/

Local Probate Lawyer

Local Probate Lawyer

A probate lawyer is a state licensed attorney who works with the executors and the beneficiaries of an estate to settle the affairs of the decedent. In some instances, probate can be avoided if all the decedent’s assets have been placed in a trust. A trust can ensure a smooth transfer of property outside of court and legal proceedings.

Is a probate lawyer the same as an estate attorney?

A probate lawyer is also known as an estate attorney and will be involved in different ways depending on the particular circumstances of that estate. Their involvement will depend on the value of the decedent’s assets and whether or not they had a last will and testament at the time they passed away. In cases where no will exists, beneficiaries file claims and sue for what they believe they are entitled to. In situations where there is a will, challenges may arise as to the validity of the will, also leading to possible litigation.

What does a probate lawyer do?

Specifically, here are some of the common tasks a probate lawyer may assist an executor and beneficiaries with during The Probate Process:
• Collecting proceeds from life insurance policies
• Identifying and securing estate assets
• Obtaining appraisals for the decedent’s real property
• Assisting in the payment of bills and debts
• Preparing and filing all documents required by a probate court
• Determining if any estate or inheritance taxes are due, and making sure those debts are satisfied
• Resolving income tax issues
• Managing the estate checking account
• Transferring assets in the decedent’s name to the appropriate beneficiaries
• Making a final disbursement of assets to beneficiaries after all bills and taxes have been paid

Hiring a Probate Lawyer: With a Will

The process will likely go smoother when the decedent has drafted a will prior to his or her death. If an individual dies with a will, a probate lawyer may be hired to advise parties such as the executor of the estate or a beneficiary on various legal matters. For instance, an attorney may review the will to ensure the will wasn’t signed or written under duress (or against the best interests of the individual). Elderly people with dementia, for example, may be vulnerable to undue influence by individuals who want a cut of the estate. There are numerous reasons that wills may be challenged, although most wills go through probate without a problem. Additionally, a probate attorney may be responsible for performing any of the following tasks when advising an executor:

• Collecting and managing life insurance proceeds;
• Getting the decedent’s property appraised;
• Finding and securing all of the decedent’s assets;
• Advising on how to pay the decedent’s bills and settle debts;
• Preparing/filing documents as required by probate court;
• Managing the estate’s check-book; and
• Determining whether any estate taxes are owed.

Hiring a Probate Lawyer: Without a Will

If you die without having written and signed a will, you are said to have died “intestate.” When this happens, your estate is distributed according to the intestacy laws of the state where the property resides, regardless of your wishes. For instance, the surviving spouse receives all of your intestate property under many states’ intestate laws. However, intestacy laws vary widely from state to state. In these situations, a probate lawyer may be hired to assist the administrator of the estate (similar to the executor) and the assets will be distributed according to state law. A probate lawyer may help with some of the tasks listed above but is bound by state intestacy laws, regardless of the decedent’s wishes or the family members’ needs. A relative who wants to be the estate’s administrator must first secure what are called “renunciations” from the decedent’s other relatives. A renunciation is a legal statement renouncing one’s right to administer the estate. A probate attorney can help secure and file these statements with probate court, and then assist the administrator with The Probate Process (managing the estate check-book, determining estate taxes, securing assets, etc.).

Personal Representatives in Testate Estates

A “testate” estate is one that has a valid last will and testament. A will should — and usually does — name the individual the decedent would like to serve as his personal representative or executor. Courts almost invariably honor the decedent’s wishes if the person he named is still alive and is otherwise able to serve. Why wouldn’t the person named as personal representative in the last will and testament legally be allowed to serve? This can happen if he doesn’t meet all the criteria under the state’s law. He might have been convicted of a crime, or he’s suffered some mental decline that would prevent him from meeting his duties. Maybe he’s not yet legally of age. Minors and convicted felons typically can’t serve as personal representatives, nor can banks or trust companies that don’t have fiduciary powers in the state where probate is taking place. Some states have more specific rules. For example, a person can’t serve as a personal representative in Florida unless he is related to the decedent by blood or marriage, or, if he’s not, he is a Utah resident.

When Beneficiaries Object to a Personal Representative

Beneficiaries or heirs can contest a will and object to the personal representative the decedent named in his will. This usually results in a full-blown trial where the beneficiaries and others can present evidence and testimony to convince the judge to overturn the provisions of the will or to honor them. Courts usually prefer to honor the decedent’s wishes whenever possible. When a will is contested over who has been named as personal representative, the judge will make the ultimate decision as to who will serve — the personal representative named in the will or perhaps another party nominated by the beneficiaries, or someone else entirely that the judge selects. These rules and laws can vary from state to state. What holds true in Utah might not be the case in New Hampshire. If you’re planning your will and you’re unsure about the person you want to name, check with a local attorney.

Personal Representatives in Intestate Estates

If the decedent didn’t have a last will and testament, the intestacy laws of the state where he lived at the time of death take over. The court will determine who has priority to serve as personal representative in this case, and the position is often called the “administrator” of the estate. It’s usually the surviving spouse, but if she is unwilling or unable to take on the responsibility, a surviving child or children may be appointed. The judge will work down a list of kin until someone appropriate can be appointed, maybe a surviving parent, sibling, niece or nephew, or someone steps forward to request the job. Typically, if the decedent’s heirs-at-law — those entitled to inherit from him without a will — can agree on who should serve, the probate judge will simply appoint that person. But if the heirs-at-law don’t agree, the probate judge will make the decision based on state rules and statutes

How to probate a will without an attorney

The Probate Process
• Petition the court to be the estate representative: The court will require the petitioner (person asking the court to appoint an official representative) to fill out specific forms. These forms can (with the help of EZ-Probate) be filled out by you. It will be the basic Who, What, When, Where etc. types of questions.
What you will need: A valid will, a copy of a will, or know for sure there is no will.
When would you need an attorney: In this part (filling out the court form) there probably is no need unless you don’t understand what the will is instructing the executor to do.
• Notify heirs and creditors: The court will provide you forms to fill out to notify heirs (listed in a will, or if no will state law dictate who the heirs are). Additionally the representative is also responsible to find out what debts the deceased had and devise a plan to pay those debts. Remember, only assets that pass through probate are liable to pay debts. Learn which assets pass through probate here.
What you will need: a clear understanding of who the heirs are (will or state succession laws), and a reasonable attempt to uncover debts.
When would you need an attorney: If you don’t understand the will or need help determining who the heirs are. Note that all states post the “succession laws” and you can Google them by searching: (state) succession law, or (state) intestate succession.

• Change legal ownership of assets: This may be the most straightforward part. With the court appointment, you will now be able to change assets owned by deceased to the “estate of…”
What you will need: Court appointment and knowledge of what the deceased owned.
When you would need an attorney: There may be assets that have complicated ownership, businesses, royalties, mineral rights etc. If you are unsure how to transfer ownership, then an attorney is needed. For most common assets (bank accounts, investments, property) you will be able to do it yourself.
• Pay Funeral Expenses, Taxes, Debts and Transfer assets to heirs: Note the order that you will need to prioritize payments. The court places priority on payment of funeral, taxes and debts before any payments to heirs.
What you will need: A good accounting of all assets, debts and likely tax liability. The executor is responsible (personally) to ensure that all attempts are made to pay funeral expenses and taxes.
When would you need an attorney: If you don’t have enough money to pay for all of the estate expenses, particularly the taxes.
• Tell the court what you have done and close the estate: This is when you report to the court and show proof that you have done everything needed to close the estate.
What you will need: Good documentation of what you have done and the court will provide you with a template to use to report your actions.
When would you need an attorney: We recommend that at this point everyone should consult with an attorney to review your taken actions. Although not necessary, it is wise to have an expert’s eye on your actions to avoid any costly (personally to you) mistakes.
How to Find the Right Probate Lawyer
• Finding Candidates to Interview: It’s not usually difficult to get the name of a local lawyer or two who handles probates and estates. Probates are generally profitable for lawyers, so they’re happy to take on the work.
• Interviewing the Probate Lawyer: When you first sit down with a lawyer you’re thinking about hiring, make it clear up front that you plan to talk to several lawyers before you hire one for the estate work. Then try to ask some questions before you get into the details of a probate court proceeding. A lawyer who has handled a lot of probates may assume that you’re on board and quickly start asking you for documents and information.

Finding the Attorney Who’s a Good Fit for You

Finding a local attorney who is experienced and competent when it comes to handling a probate court proceeding may not be the hardest part of finding the right lawyer. Most probate cases aren’t complicated; they require careful attention to detail, but you don’t need a courtroom star. Most probates consist almost entirely of routine paperwork. And if you are interviewing lawyers who were personally recommended to you by friends or other local professionals, they’re probably competent. Having a successful working relationship with a lawyer, however, takes more than legal knowledge. So pay attention to how clearly the lawyer explains the process, how well the lawyer listens to your concerns, and how respectful the lawyer is. Make sure you’re signing up with someone who:
• Communicates clearly. Some lawyers just can’t seem to talk in plain English. If you can’t understand what the lawyer is talking about and don’t get good explanations when you ask for clarification, look elsewhere.
• Respects your efforts to educate yourself. If you’re doing your best to learn about your responsibilities as an executor—and possibly do some of the work yourself to save on fees—you want a lawyer who will cooperate respectfully.

Local Probate Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need legal help from a local probate lawyer in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Michael R. Anderson, JD

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States

Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/local-probate-lawyer/

Saturday 30 May 2020

Business Structure

Business Structure

A Sole Proprietorship is one of the simplest forms of business organizations one can ever have. It is a business formed, managed and controlled by one person who is the owner. The business and the owner are the same thing. When you form this type of business, you are your own consultant, you are the decision maker and all the losses and profits come to you. They include canteens, restaurants, simple shops and boutiques. For this meaning to stand, the business should not have branches in other areas.

Pros of Sole Proprietorship

The owner enjoys all the profits of the business: since it is owned by a single person, he enjoys all the profits that the business accrues.
• Quick Decision Making: When it comes to making decisions about changing the type or quantity of commodities that the business deals in, you do not have to consult anyone.
• Easy to Manage: As a single business owner, it easy to manage your business since there is no bureaucracy that you have to follow when making decisions.
• Flexibility: This applies in terms of changing the commodities that you sell. You can change them anytime you feel like as long as it is a general sole proprietorship with freedom to sell any product.
• Easy to Start: Yes, this business type does not have very long legal procedures to follow before it gets established.
Cons of Sole Proprietorship
• The owner incurs all the losses: In case of losses, the sole proprietor bares all the burden solely.
• Unlimited liability: This means that in case the business runs bankrupt, the assets of the business owner will be sold to clear off the debts.
• The business owner pays personal income taxes on the business net profits.

General Partnerships

A partnership is a type of business entity owned and operated by two or more individuals. The partners contribute money in order to raise the required capital so as to start the business. All of them are responsible for how the business operates and take part in decision-making. At times, the partners might decide to allocate each of them a different role so as to enhance the efficiency and performance of the entity. If you would like to start a general partnership, have a look at the pros and cons.

Pros

• Easy to Start: Forming a general partnership usually takes a short time since it does not involve long legal procedures.
• Requires less capital: The amount required to start off a partnership is not equal to the amount you need to start a company. The amount of profits are shared according to the ratio of capital contribution of each partner. The higher the capital you contributed, the more the profits you enjoy.
• Consultation: The good thing with partnerships is that before arriving at a final decision, there is always consultation between the partners. This leads to better decisions that improve the business.
• Quick Decision Making: A partnership owned and operated by two people is easy to make decisions that can enhance the performance of the business. You don’t need to call a meeting to discuss arising issues, just a phone call is enough.

Cons

• Unlimited liability: General partnerships means that all the partners have unlimited liability. In case of business debts that the business is unable to pay, the personal assets of the partners are at risk of getting sold in order to clear off the debt.
• Internal Wrangles: Sometimes many partnerships do fail because of internal conflicts or personal interests of a certain partner. The partners have a burden of paying personal income taxes on the net profits of the business.

Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)

A limited type of partnership is whereby all the individuals have limited liability unlike in general partnerships where all partners have unlimited liability. A partnership operates as a limited type only after the partners file an application of registration with the secretary of state. These types of partnerships used to be limited to professional services such as lawyers, accountants or doctors. However, nowadays even common businesses may apply for registration for as long as the partnership has partners that run and operate the business and partners who act as investors. Those running the business have unlimited liability while the investors have limited liability.

Pros of LLP

• A partner is not liable for any wrongful acts of other partners. Each partner carries their own burden and face consequences of wrongdoings individually.
• The formation procedure is not long: When you want to create a limited partnership, it is not tiresome since it only needs approval by the secretary of state.
• Quick Decision Making: A limited partnership has a few partners which makes consultation easier and quicker.
• There is room for consultation: Two heads are better than one that’s what they say. Partners have a room for discussion before making the final decision. This improves the quality of business decisions made. Partners with limited partnership can leave anytime without dissolving the partnership.
Cons
• They are more expensive to form than general partnerships.
• Affected by personal interests: Most of the times what leads to dissolving partnerships is disagreements between individual partners.
• Partners with unlimited liability (those in managerial positions) suffer whenever the business is unable to pay off its debts.

Corporation

This is a business entity owned by a list of shareholders. The shareholders have the mandate to elect a board of directors whose work is to oversee the day to day running of the corporation. When it comes to decision making, it is the responsibility of the directors to make sure that any decision made benefits the corporation and is in support of the corporation’s objectives. Also, the directors have the power to hire and fire employees. The employees of the corporation have the obligation to make sure that the targets of the business are met within certain duration of time. A corporation operates as a separate legal entity from the owners. This means that the owners have limited liability. As a separate legal entity, it means it can buy real estate, sue and even get sued by creditors. An established corp. can raise capital via sale of stock in the stock market. Its ownership can also be transferred from one party to another. It also has perpetual existence meaning that it can continue operating even if the ownership changes. When you want to start a corporation, most probably you will be the major shareholder with authority to appoint directors. The directors will then go ahead to hire employees that will be responsible for the running of the company. A corporation operates under what is termed as corporation by-laws. This is a set of document that provides guidelines on how the corporation should operate. These by-laws can be modified as the company grows. Every year, the corporation should hold an annual meeting to discuss how the entity has performed.

Pros of Corporations

• One of the most attractive things about a corporation is that the owners have limited liability. This means that in case of debts, the assets of the owners are very safe and remains untouched by the creditors.
• There is a possibility to lower taxes especially when the owner and the business share profits.
• At certain times, benefits may be deducted as business expenses.
• The ownership of a corporation is easily transferable. This means that in an event whereby the current shareholders and directors foresee a dark future, they might sell the corporation and hence avoid losing their capital investment.
Cons
• It is very expensive compared to setting up simple business setups such as sole proprietorship and partnerships.
• Starting a corporation involves a lot of paperwork. When it comes to legal paperwork, the owner must file it with the secretary of state.
• A corporation operates as a separate legal entity and hence is entitled to pay taxes.
• There is slow decision making in corporations since the directors have to be consulted before any verdict is reached.

S Corporation Information

The difference between an S corp and a c corp is based on the taxation process. When it comes to an s corp, there is only one level of taxation. The income generated by the corporation is distributed among the shareholders for taxation purposes. However, with corps, there is double taxation. The corporate pays corporate tax on its own as a corporate while the dividends generated by the company and passed down to shareholders are also taxed in terms of personal income tax.

Pros of an S Corporation

Before you take a step and register your business as an s corporation, you should beware of both the merits and demerits it comes with. The merits include:
• Single layer of taxation: The shareholders of s corporation escape double taxation since the taxes are only payable at the shareholder’s level and not at the corporate level. While the business’ income continues to be taxable, the shareholders do not carry any extra burden when it comes to tax liability.
• Step up in Basis: Depending on the amount retained each year by the corporation as income, the shareholders receive a step up on the basis on their stock. This reduces tax liability on the shareholders especially when the shares are ever sold.

Cons of an S Corporation

• Cash flow vs. tax liability: Whether the shareholders get their share of dividends or not, they are expected to pay their pro rata share of taxes on the company’s earnings. This means that a corporation needs to have proper management of cash flow to avoid any inconveniences in this area.
• Built-in Gains: When an asset of an s corporation is sold within 10 year period of s corporation election, then the gain based on the value of the conversion date is taxable to the company. This means that for a corporation which is growing, it is advisable to convert sooner than later in order to minimize the amount gains within a 10 year period.

Limited Liability Company (LLC)

This is a hybrid of both a corporation and a partnership. A limited liability company operates as a separate legal entity and hence has exclusive rights to buy and own assets, sue or be sued. It has a pass through taxation feature just like a corporation. This means that the members (shareholders) only suffer from a single taxation just like in a partnership. Unlike a corporation, it has no stock and does involve fewer formalities during the formation process. The owners of an LLC are called members and not shareholders like in a corporation. This has made many people refer to it as a corporation with fewer complications. This type of company operates under a set guideline of rules referred to as ‘operating agreement’. These set of rules can be modified depending on how the business performs over certain time duration. Operating a limited liability company is less complex since it only requires the members to meet once or twice a year to make or implement certain decisions.

Pros of LLC

• Single Taxation. An LLC does not pay taxes at the company level. The taxes charged are ones that are passed through to the members who later pay personal income tax.
• Liability protection for members: The members of an LLC have limited liability meaning that their assets cannot be taken away to cater for business debts.
• They are easier to establish compared to corporations since little paperwork is involved.
Cons of LLC
• They require more capital in order to establish compared to sole proprietorships or partnerships.
• They require more paperwork and legal procedure.
Thus, establishing a business entity structure requires an entrepreneur to consider these things, the amount of capital, the type of liability and how easy it is for them to be formed.

Factors to consider before choosing a business structure

For new businesses that could fall into two or more of these categories, it’s not always easy to decide which structure to choose. You need to consider your start-up’s financial needs, risk and ability to grow. It can be difficult to switch your legal structure after you’ve registered your business, so give it careful analysis in the early stages of forming your business.
• Flexibility: Where is your company headed, and which type of legal structure allows for the growth you envision? Turn to your business plan to review your goals, and see which structure best aligns with those objectives. Your entity should support the possibility for growth and change, not hold it back from its potential.

• Complexity: When it comes to start-up and operational complexity, nothing is more simple than a sole proprietorship. You simply register your name, start doing business, report the profits, and pay taxes on it as personal income. However, it can be difficult to procure outside funding. Partnerships, on the other hand, require a signed agreement to define the roles and percentages of profits. Corporations and LLCs have various reporting requirements with state governments and the federal government.
• Liability: A corporation carries the least amount of personal liability since the law holds that it is its own entity. This means that creditors and customers can sue the corporation, but they cannot gain access to any personal assets of the officers or shareholders. An LLC offers the same protection, but with the tax benefits of a sole proprietorship. Partnerships share the liability between the partners as defined by their partnership agreement.
• Taxes: An owner of an LLC pays taxes just as a sole proprietor does: All profit is considered personal income and taxed accordingly at the end of the year.
“As a small business owner, you want to avoid double taxation in the early stages,” “The LLC structure prevents that and makes sure you’re not taxed as a company but as an individual.” Individuals in a partnership also claim their share of the profits as personal income. Your accountant may suggest quarterly or biannual advance payments to minimize the end effect on your return.

Business Lawyer For Business Structures In Utah

When you need legal help with business structure in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Michael R. Anderson, JD

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States

Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/business-structure/

Self Defense In Utah

Self Defense In Utah

Self-defense is defined as the right to prevent suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This definition is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations.

For instance, what is a sufficient level of force or violence when defending oneself? What goes beyond that level? What if the intended victim provoked the attack? Do victims have to retreat from the violence if possible? What happens when victims reasonably perceive a threat even if the threat doesn’t actually exist? What about when the victim’s apprehension is subjectively genuine, but objectively unreasonable? Force can only be used to stop an imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person’s imminent use of unlawful force. Deadly force is only justified to stop death, seriously bodily injury, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person’s imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

No Duty to Retreat (Stand Your Ground)

A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained.

Is the Threat Imminent?

As a general rule, self-defense only justifies the use of force when it is used in response to an immediate threat. The threat can be verbal, as long as it puts the intended victim in an immediate fear of physical harm. Offensive words without an accompanying threat of immediate physical harm, however, do not justify the use of force in self-defense. Moreover, the use of force in self-defense generally loses justification once the threat has ended. For example, if an aggressor assaults a victim but then ends the assault and indicates that there is no longer any threat of violence, then the threat of danger has ended. Any use of force by the victim against the assailant at that point would be considered retaliatory and not self-defense.

Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. To illustrate, picture two strangers walking past each other in a city park. Unbeknownst to one, there is a bee buzzing around his head. The other person sees this and, trying to be friendly, reaches quickly towards the other to try and swat the bee away. The person with the bee by his head sees a stranger’s hand dart towards his face and violently hits the other person’s hand away. While this would normally amount to an assault, a court could easily find that the sudden movement of a stranger’s hand towards a person’s face would cause a reasonable man to conclude that he was in danger of immediate physical harm, which would render the use of force a justifiable exercise of the right of self-defense. All this in spite of the fact that the perceived assailant meant no harm; in fact, he was actually trying to help!

Imperfect Self-defense

Sometimes a person may have a genuine fear of imminent physical harm that is objectively unreasonable. If the person uses force to defend themselves from the perceived threat, the situation is known as “imperfect self-defense.” Imperfect self-defense does not excuse a person from the crime of using violence, but it can lessen the charges and penalties involved. Not every state recognizes imperfect self-defense, however. For example, a person is waiting for a friend at a coffee shop. When the friend arrives, he walks toward the other person with his hand held out for a handshake. The person who had been waiting genuinely fears that his friend means to attack him, even though this fear is totally unreasonable. In order to avoid the perceived threat, the person punches his friend in the face. While the person’s claim of self-defense will not get him out of any criminal charges because of the unreasonable nature of his perception, it could reduce the severity of the charges or the eventual punishment.

“Reasonableness” as a Factor in Utah Self Defense Criminal Cases According to Utah criminal law, you may be justified in either threatening or actually using force against another to the extent that you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to defend against the use of unlawful force by another person. This requirement of reasonableness in the use of force means that the level of force you may use can depend on the specific circumstances of your case. The specific threat you are facing can be a major factor in determining whether your use of force will be considered reasonable. A person facing an assailant who is threatening the use of a gun would likely be entitled to use more and different kinds of force than would be a person who faced an assailant who was unarmed. Similar legal principles apply both to cases of self-defense as well as using force to defend a third person.

Restrictions on the Use of Force in Self Defense in Utah

While Utah’s self-defense laws are fairly broad, there are restrictions on a person’s ability to use self-defense or defense of another as a defense in a criminal case. You may not use force in defending yourself if you are “attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony.” You may not use force to defend yourself if you initially and intentionally provoked the other person use of force with the intent to use that force as an excuse to “inflict bodily harm upon the assailant.” You also may not use force in defending yourself if you were the initial aggressor or were engaged in mutual “combat by agreement,” unless you have withdrawn from the fight and effectively communicated that fact to the other person.

Use of Deadly Force as a Defense in Utah Criminal Cases

Utah law allows you to use deadly force (“force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily inure”) only under circumstances where you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to yourself or another, or to “prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Use of Force in Defense of Home or Other Property in Utah

A person may also be entitled to use force in defending their home or other property. But the criminal law relating to the use of force in defense of a home or force in defense of property are different. Utah criminal law places significant restrictions on both the level of force that can be used and under what circumstances that force can be used.

Utah’s Self-Defense Statute

Utah’s self-defense law is found in the Utah Criminal Code at section 76-2-402. Under this code, a person can use force when he or she reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent harm. The danger presented must be imminent in nature and serious enough to cause injury or death. Force is also justified to prevent a forcible felony. This class of felonies includes violent crimes such as carjacking, battery or kidnapping.

Utah’s Castle Doctrine

The castle doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that persons have no duty to retreat in their home, or “castle”, and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, to defend their property, person, or another. Outside of the abode, however, a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force. Under this doctrine, one may use force to prevent unlawful entries into a residence. Deadly force can be used if the other party acts in a violent manner. In such a case, there is a presumption that the defendant (homeowner) acted reasonably in using force to defend his or her home. At common law, self-defense claims are not valid if the defendant could have safely retreated from danger (duty to retreat). The castle doctrine is an exception to this. It gives immunity from liability to individuals who acted in self-defense in the home even if they could have safely retreated from the threat and failed to do so. The duty to retreat is a legal requirement in some jurisdictions that a threatened person cannot stand one’s ground and apply lethal force in self-defense, but must retreat to a place of safety instead. Deadly force or lethal force is force with the intent of serious bodily injury or death to another person. In most jurisdictions it is only accepted under conditions of extreme necessity and last resort.

Self-Defense Laws in Utah

• A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person’s imminent use of unlawful force.

• A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person’s imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

•  A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection if the person: initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony;  or was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

• For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute “combat by agreement”: voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.

• A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained (expect if you fall into the exception).

•  For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.

•  Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.

• Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204 , does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.

• In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other’s prior violent acts or violent propensities;  and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties’ relationship.

Can you use Self-Defense in Utah?

Many high-profile self-defense cases have graced the headlines over the past few years. Self-defense laws have become been a central issue in the national discussion about gun rights. The states are split when it comes to how self-defense is regulated. Some states limit use of the doctrine, while others give citizens the full right to protect themselves. If you have considered using self-defense in an emergency situation, make sure you are familiar with the laws of your state. Utahans should fully understand their state’s take on this issue in the case that they have to act in their own defense.

Self Defense Attorney Free Consultation

When you need legal help with self defense in Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Michael R. Anderson, JD

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States

Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/self-defense-in-utah/

Thursday 28 May 2020

Changes In Utah Foreclosure Law

Changes In Utah Foreclosure Law

A foreclosure can be either judicial (which means the foreclosing party files a lawsuit in court and the case goes through the court system) or non-judicial (which means the foreclosing party follows a set of state-specific, out-of-court procedural steps to foreclose the home). In some states, foreclosures are always judicial. In other states, the foreclosure may be either judicial or non-judicial; in those states, usually one or the other is more commonly used. When a house is sold at a foreclosure sale for less than the amount of the outstanding mortgage debt, the difference between the total debt and the foreclosure sale price is called the deficiency. For example, let’s say you owe $300,000 on your mortgage loan and the home is sold at a foreclosure sale for $250,000. The deficiency is $50,000. Some states let the foreclosing party get a personal judgment called a “deficiency judgment” against the borrower for this amount, while other states prohibit deficiency judgments under particular circumstances. In the chart below, this column states whether a deficiency judgment is allowed in (or after) the most commonly used foreclosure procedure for that particular state. Certain states give foreclosed homeowners a period of time called a “redemption period” to buy back or “redeem” the home after a foreclosure. Depending on state law, in order to redeem you have to reimburse the purchaser for the amount paid at the sale (plus certain allowable costs) or repay the total mortgage debt, plus interest and expenses. In the chart below, this column shows whether a borrower gets a redemption period after the most commonly used foreclosure procedure for that particular state.

A reinstatement occurs when the borrower brings the delinquent loan current in one payment by paying the overdue payments, plus fees and expenses incurred as a result of the default. Once the loan is reinstated, the borrower resumes making regular payments on the debt. In a foreclosure, state law sometimes gives a borrower the right to reinstate up until a specific deadline. You should be aware that, even if state law does not give you the right to reinstate, your mortgage or deed of trust might. The 2016 Utah legislature passed two bills affecting Utah foreclosures and evictions. The effective date for both bills was May 10, 2016. Senate Bill 0022, Foreclosure of Residential Rental Property, created state law protections for tenants of foreclosed residential rental property. Senate Bill 0220, Non-judicial Foreclosure Amendments, made a number of helpful changes, including an amendment to last year’s Utah Reverse Mortgage Act that eliminates the challenge of ensuring that a deceased borrower receives the required pre-foreclosure notice.

Tenant Protection: Senate Bill 0022 enacts certain protections for tenants occupying foreclosed property following foreclosure sale. New Utah Code section 57-1-25.5 allows a “bonafide tenant” to remain in the foreclosed property for up to one year after foreclosure, subject to the right of the new owner to terminate the tenancy upon 45 days’ notice, if the new owner (immediate purchaser of the foreclosed property only) intends to occupy the property as the new owner’s primary residence. A “bona fide tenant” is defined as an individual who is not a child, spouse, or parent of the trustor of the foreclosed deed of trust, whose rental agreement or lease was entered into in an arm’s-length transaction before foreclosure was commenced, and whose rent is not substantially less than fair market rent for the property. As a practical matter, the period of time during which a tenant will be able to remain in the property after foreclosure will be much less than a year. To meet the “bona fide” qualification, the lease cannot be for a period longer than a year and it had to have been entered into prior to the commencement of foreclosure. Since foreclosure requires four and one-half to five months, the actual amount of time that a tenant will typically be able to remain in a foreclosed property is limited to six or seven months at the most.

Foreclosure Amendments: As indicated, Senate Bill 0220 made a number of helpful changes to statutes governing different aspects of non-judicial foreclosures. Two of the most beneficial were a modification to the statute of limitations for non-judicial foreclosures, and a revision to the requirements for giving pre-foreclosure notice to reverse mortgage borrowers.

Statute of Limitations: Utah Code section 57-1-34, which previously required that a non-judicial foreclosure be completed within the six-year statute of limitations, now requires only that the foreclosure be commenced within that time period. This change will be useful to mortgage servicers in light of the increasing number of loans facing statute of limitations issues as a result of multiple loss mitigation or foreclosure relief applications.

Pre-Foreclosure Notice to Reverse Mortgage Borrowers: Utah Code section 57-28-304, enacted in 2015, required that before foreclosure proceedings could be commended for a reverse mortgage, the servicer had to send the borrower written notice, and give the borrower 30 days after the day that the borrower received the notice to cure the default. The event of default is the borrower’s death for many reverse mortgage loans. Since a deceased borrower could not receive the notice, servicers were for all intents and purposes unable to proceed with foreclosure with confidence that the property would be insurable following foreclosure. Senate Bill 0220 changed the statute to only require that the servicer give the borrower 30 days after the day on which the servicer sends the notice to cure the default. This is a welcome change for reverse mortgage lenders and servicers. Senate Bill 0220 made a number of other changes to Utah’s non-judicial foreclosure statutes. A short summary follows:

• The statute now affirmatively allows the appointment of a trustee for a deed of trust where the original trustee was not eligible to serve as a trustee or where no trustee was named in the original deed of trust. (Utah Code § 57-1-22)

• A new code section provides that a party to a legal action involving a deed of trust need not join the trustee as a party unless the action pertains to a breach of the trustee’s obligations. If a party does join the trustee and the trustee is able to have itself dismissed from the action, the trustee is entitled to reasonable attorney fees resulting from its having been joined. (Utah Code § 57-1-22.1)

• Successful third-party bidders at non-judicial foreclosure sales who fail to pay the bid price will forfeit their bidder’s deposit. The forfeited funds will be treated as additional sale proceeds. Previously, defaulting bidders were only liable for any loss resulting from their refusal to pay the bid price. This change should effectively eliminate defaulting bidders in the future. (Utah Code § 57-1-27)

• A clarifying change was made to the provisions regarding postponement of scheduled non-judicial foreclosure sales. Previously, it was unclear whether the trustee could make multiple postponements without re-noticing the sale so long as each postponement did not exceed 45 days from the last scheduled sale date. As amended by the bill, the statute now provides that postponement can only be for a period of up to 45 days after the date designated in the original notice of sale. Beyond that, the sale must be re-noticed. (Utah Code § 57-1-27)

• The bill repealed former Utah Code section 57-1-24.5, which required a foreclosure trustee to give the borrower notice if the servicer did not delay foreclosure proceedings while engaging in loss mitigation or foreclosure relief efforts. With the ban on dual tracking found in the CFPB’s regulations beginning January 2014, that requirement was no longer needed.

How Can I Avoid Foreclosure?

To avoid foreclosure, pay your monthly mortgage. The lender does not want to foreclose on your property because it takes time and money to go through the process. If you cannot make a payment, it is important to contact your mortgage company to agree to make payments. Be sure to get any payment plan in writing. Discuss with your lender how much you owe and how long it will take to catch up on any missed payments. Be prepared to answer
• why you fell behind on your payment,
• what your current financial resources are, and
• if you have a realistic plan for repaying the money you owe.
If you go to your lender with a good attitude and are honest, your problems will likely be easier to solve. You may also ask your lender about modifying the loan. That might reduce your monthly payments to an affordable level.

Trust Deed Foreclosure

To foreclose on a Trust deed, a creditor must follow these steps:
• A trustee records a Notice of Default at the county recorder’s office. The Notice of Default includes the reason the trustee believes your loan is in default. A trustee must give written notice of the default to the borrower and anyone who has filed a Request for Notice. This is usually done by registered mail. Always arrange to get letters sent by registered mail. The notice is valid even if you fail to sign for it or pick it up from the post office.
• You will receive a copy of the Notice of Default. If you suspect you are in default, you should check with the county recorder to see if a notice of default has been filed. You may also file a request for notice with the county recorder’s office so you are notified of any default. A notice of default does not mean you have to move out, but you will have to move once the sale of the property is final.
• After the Notice of Default is filed, you must make a payment plan with your creditor. You will have to pay any past due payments, late fees, collection fees, and legal fees. This must be done within three months of the recording of the Notice of Default. Otherwise, after three months the trustee can issue a Notice of Sale and you will have to pay the entire loan to avoid losing your property.
• If you do not cure the default, the trustee must give written notice of the time and place of the sale. This is done by: Placing an ad in a newspaper once a week for three straight weeks. The last notice must occur more than 10 days but less than 30 days before the date of sale; and, Posting a Notice of Sale at least 20 days before the date of sale on the property and in at least three locations in the county where the property is located.
• The sale can be postponed by the trustee. Once the Notice of Sale has been issued, you can only redeem the property if you pay the entire loan balance plate fees, collection fees, and legal fees. If you cure the default, you should ask the trustee to file a Cancellation of Notice of Default.
• If the house sold for less than what you owe the lender, they may, within three months after the sale, sue you for the rest of the debt owing and expenses. This is called a deficiency judgment. The deficiency judgment is limited to the amount the debt, interest, costs, and expenses of sale is more than the fair market value of the property at the date of the sale. The fair market value is the value of the property to the normal buyer on the date of sale. The fair market value is not always the amount the property sold for at the Trustee’s Sale.
When a trust deed or mortgage goes into default, the lender has the right to declare the entire balance of the loan due and file a lawsuit to collect the debt. To foreclose on the property in this manner, the mortgage holder must file a summons and complaint and serve them on you. You must file a response to these papers in court. It is not a defense that you cannot afford the payments. Once the mortgage holder has a judgment against you, a sheriff can serve an order called a writ of execution that allows your house to be sold to satisfy what you owe on the mortgage. Once the property sells, you have six months to redeem the property. To redeem the property, you must pay the amount the property was purchased for at the foreclosure sale plus any costs incurred by the mortgage holder, plus a 6% redemption fee. If you do not redeem the property, the purchaser will get a deed after six months. You will have to move out. You do not have to pay rent during the six month redemption period. The mortgage holder is entitled to a deficiency judgment if the foreclosure sale price is less than the full amount owed. Unlike the trust deed foreclosure, the mortgage holder is entitled to judgment based on the price of the property at the foreclosure sale rather than the fair market value of the property at the time of the sale.

If you are buying a house using a Uniform Real Estate Contract and the seller wants to foreclose, they must give you a written notice that says what part of the contract you have defaulted on. After you receive a notice, you have the time limit provided under the contract, to cure the default. If you fail to cure the default, the contract may allow the seller to choose one of the following:

• The seller may declare that you are a tenant at will and keep all payments that have been made under the contract. However, if you have a lot of equity in the property, the court can refuse to enforce this provision. The court might force the seller to proceed under options (2) or (3), or force the seller to return a portion of your payments.

• The seller may bring suit and recover judgment for all late payments, costs, and legal fees.

• The seller may treat the contract as a mortgage and proceed under the mortgage foreclosure statutes.

Power of Sale Notice Requirements:

• Prior to initiating a foreclosure, the lender must file a notice of default in the county in which the property is located and with the defaulting borrower within three (3) months of the default. A copy of the notice of default must be published at least once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county, with the last notice of sale published at least 30 days before the proposed sale. A notice of the proposed sale must also be recorded with the recorder where the trust property is located.

• The notice of default must contain certain information, including the date, time and place of sale, a description of the default, the lender’s election to sell, and the document recording information from the deed of trust.

• Foreclosure sales must take place as a public auction between 9AM and 5PM on a business day at the time, place and date designated in the notice of sale. The trustee auctions the property to the highest bidder. The foreclosure sale may be postponed for 45 days from the original sale date if written notice is provided to the original recipient of the notice of default.

In Utah, the lenders can also go to court in a judicial foreclosure proceeding where the court must issue a final judgment of foreclosure. A complaint is filed in court along with a lis pendens. A lis pendens is a recorded document that provides public notice that the property is being foreclosed. Judicial foreclosure in Utah is an option which generally follows the same procedure as a non-judicial foreclosure, with the distinction that the process is pursued through the courts. The property is then sold as part of a publicly noticed sale.

Foreclosure Lawyer Free Consultation

When you need a Utah Foreclosure Lawyer, please call Ascent Law LLC for your free consultation (801) 676-5506. We want to help you.

Michael R. Anderson, JD

Ascent Law LLC
8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C
West Jordan, Utah
84088 United States

Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/changes-in-utah-foreclosure-law/