Supreme Court nixes quantity limits for medical marijuana

How much pot can you possess courtesy of a medical marijuana card? The answer used to be straight-forward: eight ounces of dried pot, 6 mature or 12 immature plants.

No more. Last month the California Supreme Court ruled that those limits, approved by the Legislature in 2003, are unconstitutional. Every person can have a “reasonable” amount for their individual needs, the Court said. That could mean some people like Patrick Kelly, the plaintiff in the case, could have way more than the above limits. It also means that a whole bunch of people who have med-mar cards for nothing more serious than headaches or stress could be in violation for having less.

The decision does raise a lot of questions for law enforcement. Cops don’t want to arrest, nor the DA prosecute, cases where the person has a right to the pot under state law. Doing so is obviously bad for the person arrested and the jail and court system. Some kind of guidelines could be issued for the normal case, while recognizing that each case must be decided individually. Obviously, cops aren’t qualified to say how much is reasonable for each individual. I think the end result is that arrestees must clearly hire counsel to argue the facts of how much they’re entitled to.

Sebastopol cracks down on parents who allow teen drinking

Sebastopol, California passed a “social host” law this week, the Press Democrat reports, which could expose parents who allow drinking – or should reasonably have known drinking is happening on the premises – to criminal prosecution.

“This legislation would endanger the lives of my friends. Right now teenagers are drinking in bedrooms and garages, in back yards and guest houses. If there were a solution, that would be great. That solution, however, isn’t to kick the intoxicated teens out of their houses,” said Gordon Allen, an Analy High School junior.

“Pass this legislation and you cling to a naive misunderstanding of the Sebastopol teenager telling yourselves that if we don’t give them a haven, they won’t drink,” Allen said.

New courthouse in downtown Santa Rosa?



Above: The Soviet-style hulk that is the Hall of Justice

The Press Democrat reports that a new $240 million criminal courthouse is in the works, to be built either on the site of the current downtown Post Office or on Administration Drive, near the “overcrowded and unsafe” white elephant called the Hall of Justice.

It seems the ultimate decision belongs to the state courts administrator but city officials were taken aback that a downtown location is in the works. The article says construction will begin in 2012 and be complete by 2014.

Gary Nadler, presiding judge of Sonoma County courts, said court staff and the public can’t afford to delay.

“The way things presently stand, we’re more likely to suffer a shooting, stabbing or some other traumatic event because of our inability to provide the level of security that is required,” he said. “The safety of the public, courthouse staff and the judiciary must come first.”

The state court is relying on feedback from a Public Advisory Group made up of 11 officials, including Jose Obregon, director of the county’s Department of General Services; Jocelyn Lundgren, Santa Rosa’s redevelopment manager; Court Executive Officer Jose Guillen; and Deputy Court Executive Officer Cindia Martinez. Nadler and two other Superior Court judges — Rene Chouteau and Robert Boyd — are on the panel, as are four private attorneys: Chris Andrian, Harry Allen, John DeMeo and Patrick Broderick, who is dean of the Empire Law School.

A downtown location for the criminal court is hands-down the best possible choice. With lawyers, jurors and those attending court coming downtown, local eateries and shopping places could see a jump in business. More importantly, the decision to move the courthouse out of Courthouse Square back in the 1960s was exactly the kind of decision that sucked the life out of downtown Santa Rosa. Only the decision to slice downtown in half with US 101 and creation of the the Santa Rosa Marketplace, were more damaging to the city’s life force.

I recently had an appearance in Ukiah, and I have to say, while the interior of the old courthouse is no great shakes, there is a lot to say for a city with a downtown courthouse. Coffee shops, restaurants and pubs are all within a block of the court, there is plenty of sidewalk traffic. Bringing the legal process to downtown Santa Rosa would be a great choice!

BK filings up 21%

Bankruptcy filings in January 2010 were up a whopping 21% over last January, according to an automated review of court records, Bloomberg reported.

The number one state for personal bankruptcy: Nevada, followed by Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Michigan.

Don’t wait until the bitter end for bankruptcy

Personal bankruptcy makes the most sense when done at the beginning of financial difficulties, not at the bitter end, as several attorneys tell the Kalamazoo News.

“Most people, being honest and decent, exhaust every possible resource and it’s only when they’re at the bitter end they come in” said Paul Davidoff, a Kalamazoo bankruptcy attorney. “Only when they are down to a couple of thousand left, and they can see the writing on the wall, do they think about bankruptcy.”

If people would realize that bankruptcy is a way to protect assets so that you can make a fresh start, rather than just calling uncle when they’re already down and out, they would be a lot better off.

“We have been traditionally taught in America two things. The first thing we have been taught is that if you work hard, if you work harder than others … you will succeed. The second thing we have been taught, taught throughout past generations, is that the future will be better than the past,” attorney Steve Rayman said. “The difficulty that we have today is that neither of those two premises are true.”

As with so many things, a consultation with a lawyer when a problem first appears leaves so many more options – including bankruptcy – available.

Client kudos: Breach of lease defense

Former clients of mind posted this nice comment on Avvo.com. This was a breach of contract matter where a small business had been forced to close up shop in the recession, thus breaching a long-term commercial lease. Here’s what they said.

Our business was forced to close its doors during the economic downturn, and Mr. Koman assisted us in a breach of contract action filed by the commercial landlord. Throughout our dealings with him, Mr. Koman was calm, knowledgeable, and did a good job of keeping us informed of the case. We felt he had our best interests in mind, and would recommend him to anyone facing a similar legal action.

Read more client reviews on Avvo.

Quick guide for tenants at Avvo

I posted another legal guide at Avvo.com. There are so many people I talk to who have suffered serious problems but they failed to create a paper trail of providing proper notice. This makes it very difficult to take their cases, so I am urging tenants to get some kind of counsel, from your Legal Aid or the SF Tenants Union, before taking action or failing to take action. Check it out on Avvo.

Extensive FAQ on Chapter 7

Divina Westerfield has a comprehensive list of 36 frequently asked questions about Chapter 7 that provides an excellent starting point to thinking through Chapter 7. For instance:

14. Can I keep my home and personal property?
As for real property in many states, dependent upon which exemption scheme is selected and your circumstances, you may exempt up to $100,000 in equity. When calculating your equity you should use a value that is based upon a forced liquidation as opposed to the best selling conditions to arrive at a value for your home. Once you determine this value, subtract the amount owed plus selling and transfer costs from the value to calculate the equity.

As for personal property, in California, you are permitted exemptions for a variety of personal property. This includes, automobiles, household furnishings and personal effects, jewelry, tools of the trade, retirement plans, unmatured life insurance, personal injury awards, earnings, animals and some other miscellaneous property. The value of each exemption and which exemptions can be used are determined by the statutory exemption scheme is selected. Again, state laws vary. Talk to an attorney in your state.

And:

19. Will bankruptcy stop a foreclosure?
Yes. However, a home is an asset usually secured by a mortgage or deed of trust. The lender is entitled to apply to the court for relief from the automatic stay, the order preventing creditor action by virtue of the bankruptcy. Depending upon several factors, you may be able to prolong a foreclosure until you have received your discharge from bankruptcy. You usually have to make a deal with the lender in order to keep a home that is in foreclosure.

Tenant-cops standoff over eviction

Here’s one way to win a stay of execution. The San Jose Merc reports on a tenant who refused to leave when the sheriff showed up in Santa Cruz county.

The attempted eviction of a renter Tuesday led to an hours-long police standoff and closed roads before sheriff’s deputies decided to leave the man inside the Vienna Drive home and seek an arrest warrant.

Sheriffs are expecting to see more tenant resistance to vacating from foreclosure sales, although not to the point of standoffs.

Most of the time they are amicable, but I think they need the proof of us actually showing up at the door to see it’s really happening.” Colleen O’Reilly, the civil process supervisor at the Sheriff’s Office, said. “Reality becomes alive to them and they do go, but it seems, I think, lately that more people are hanging in there to the very end.”

Court upholds $1.2 million judgment against SF landlord

A San Francisco landlord tried to permanently evict longtime tenants after getting them removed temporarily in order to make serious repairs to their unit. The penalty? $1.2 million, a judgment that the California Court of Appeals just affirmed, SF Weekly reports.

The landlord used a city ordinance to give notice to the tenants that they had to vacate for three months to do repairs. When they didn’t leave on time – they said they had no place to go unless he paid the relocation fees – he sued in unlawful detainer and won. Based on that case and a stipulation, they left and after three months expected to return. The landlord refused, saying they had “surrendered” possession.

They sued and won $1.2 million, the judge finding the remaining tenancy was 20 years and the rent amount was $381,825, the amount trebled under the city ordinance. The judge added another $300,000 in attorneys fees.

The case is Chacon v. Litke, 2010 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 363