Elizabeth Espinoza MGMT 230 – 01 Case Number: 27.1 Jeanmarie v. Peoples 34 So.3d 945 (2010) FACTS: Anthony and Alcibia Jeanmarie sold a house to a woman named Melanie Murray. Murray used two loans with balances of $104,000 and $26,000 from Encore Credit Corporation to secure the mortgage for the property. Mark Peoples, who works for Pyramid Title, LLC, made sure to sign the check of $110,303.86 to pay the Jeanmaries for the property sold. However, there were insufficient funds for the company since the loan of $26,000 was not “timely funded,” according to Peoples. The Jeanmaries took Peoples to court because they believe he is liable for the returned check because Peoples had authorized the check with his signature. ISSUE: Was Mark Peoples
liable for the returned check to the Jeanmaries when the company Pyramid Title, LLC had insufficient funds even though he authorized it with his signature? LAW: UCC 3-402. Signature by representative (c) states that “if a representative signs the name of the representative as drawer of a check without indication of the representative status and the check is payable from an account of the represented person who is identified on the check, the signer is not liable on the check if the signature is an authorized signature of the represented person.” ANALYSIS: The check signed by Mark Peoples was not a personal check but the one for the company, Pyramid Title, LLC. His signature was authorized since there was no evidence leading up to the fact that the signature was not authorized or that the check was a fraud. CONCLUSION: For Jeanmaries.
The failure to talk to the justice of the peace is not evidence of fraud; see Young v Hoger [2001] QCA 453 at [26]. The other conduct by the agents did not amount to fraud either as a result the court finds in favor of the plaintiff thus requiring Mr Gray to pay the mortgage and pursue legal action against SHELLA LONERGAN in pursuit of recovery of funds, as Fraud must be shown to have been practised against the person who seek relief who in this case is Mr
Doris Reed bought a house for $76,000.00 from Robert King. Mr. King and his real estate agent failed to disclose to Mrs. Reed that a murder had taken place in the home ten years ago. Neighbors told Mrs. Reed about the murders and the stigma associated with the house after she moved in. The property appraised in the amount of $65,000.00 with reference to the history of the house. Reed sued King on allegations of misrepresentation for the purchase of the home seeking rescission and damages to terminate the contact.
Jane Parks-Mckay, 63, placed a boiling pot of macaroni on the stove and lit the flame when she noticed grease ringing in the burner. During this time, she had an idea that seemed logical at the time. She pulled out a roll of paper towels that she had dipped in vinegar, and she started to clean. The flame still continued.
Procedural History: Claim was filed against decedent 's (Jack Tallas) estate to recover on written agreement to make the claimant (Peter Dementas) an heir for the amount of $50,000. The Third District Court of Salt Lake County held in favor for the estate. Dementas challenged the initial verdict in Utah’s Court of Appeals, Orme, J.. In this appeal, the court held that agreement was not an enforceable contract in that it constituted a promise for past services performed gratuitously.
In order to highlight all aspects of People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991) we must first discuss the initial findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decision was based on the precedence of two similar court cases that created discussion concerning the admission of juvenile records into adult trials. Following the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court entered the final decision on Ricky Smith’s motion for resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court also conducted a thorough examination of People v. Jones, People v. McFarlin, and People v. Price to determine the outcome of Smith’s motion to be resentenced.
“You are a liar. I am no more a witch than you are a wizard, and if you take away my life God will give you blood to drink.” Those were Sarah Good’s last words before she was hung on Tuesday July 19, 1692. Sarah was just one of the victims of the Salem Witch trials, but we don’t know if these accusations are true. All we know is that people were hung with some pretty pesare motives.
Does anyone wake up one day thinking “today’s the day my name will go down in history?” It is hard to imagine that Mrs. Gladys Escola woke up on that fateful 21st day of August in 1941 thinking that her life was going to forever change the laws of the land.
Maymuna, but likes to be called May is a new intake in room #4. Jacque is her primary case worker. OM does not have any identification with her at this time, but will be getting it from her friend within a day or two. OM works casual as a Security Guard (2 to 3 days a week). OM has been to shelter before, and her last shelter was YWCA. OM was living with parents, but now having family problems. She disclosed to the writer that, her parents put her in jail for some false accusations and was charged. She said, those charges against her was after dropped. OM disclosed to the writer that, she only smokes Marijuana and drinks. Though, she is trying to quit drinking; also wants someone she can talk to about it. According to OM, she has depression
Colorado maintains a stricter standard when it comes to the admittance of testimony of an unavailable witness. People v. Madonna declared that the “offering party must establish the present unavailability of the witness… there must be sufficient opportunity for cross examine the witness at the former hearing.” People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378, 384 (Colo. 1982).
American society is not more violent because there is no legal duty to retreat from an assailant because it will help none criminals from being killed because in the case people v. La Voie the defendant was peacefully driving home when 4 other men in a car started to come after him the defendant pulled his car to the side of the road while the other 4 men followed. The defendant got out with his gun and the other 4 men said they were going to kill the defendant. There forth, the defendant felt scared and for his life so shot on of the men coming after him and he died. The court ruled that if your life feels threatened then you have the right to do whatever it takes to defend yourself "when a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that danger of his being killed, or of receiving great bodily harm it
I agree with the Court’s decision in this case People v. Oliver. Because how the facts explain thee issues, that how Carol it is responsible for Carlos in the way that if she saw him in these conditions why she take him to her car and from there to her house. That’s something that you don’t do to a stranger specially is he or she is intoxication she would call and provide medical assistances, also she could call a taxi, or a family member of him for this reason she failed to do so, and she commit negligent mens rea. Second fact why take him to her house? In this situation now the responsibility is on her because what ever it happen is also with her, and how the fact shows Carlos ask for a spoon and Carol give him one knowing that it was for
If one considers how the location of the post secondary institution she attends will affect her career, she obviously must also consider what degree she wishes to pursue. There is a wide variety of career paths to pursue at Maryville; the university offers over 55 undergraduate degrees which are focused into 43 majors (“Maryville University of St. Louis Majors”). Maryville is well-known for having outstanding academic programs, and their Nursing Program stands out in particular. Maryville offers a Bachelors of Science in Nursing (BSN), a Masters of Science in Nursing (MSN), and a Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP). They also offer various concentrations for the DNP, such as Family Nurse Practice, Pediatrics, and Adult-Gerontology Primary Care
Fran Delaro is one of KSCL’s top camera operators and has worked for the organization for over 5 years. Fran is a number one-rated camera operator in the company.Fran had a choice of hours and shows as she was extremely competent. She and her supervisor, Alex, have become close over the years and Alex is proud to have Fran on the team. However, as of lately, Fran has not been performing up to standard. Fran’s tardiness, last minute cancellations, and drinking on the job, has left Alex with an unfavorable impression and requires immediate intervention. Alex, her supervisor, would attempt to address the issue by confronting and counseling Fran on the issue.
To properly identify and understand Anne Marie and her behaviors, it is important that the people involved in her life and those helping her can distinguish the difference between what is a typical development, developmental disability, and an emotional disturbance. Knowing the differences between the three will provide a better understanding and equip Anne Marie’s parents, school, and mental health professionals of what is causing Ann Marie symptoms, actions, or behaviors and how to properly help her succeed and thrive in he relationships, school, and at home.
Following these facts, I conclude that Michael is liable and the creditors can take any action to recover their debts from Michael, so long as the claims is equal to the amount of debts that are in the name of the corporate trustee.