County: Harrison
Age: 82
Our client contacted us after receiving a letter from her local Water Board that a complaint was made regarding her water meters. According to the complaint she has two water meters on her property in violation of the West Virginia Code of Sate Rules. My client had this arrangrment for more than 18 years with the authorization of the Water Board. Apparently she arranged it that way so her disabled son could reside in an adjoining trailer on her property. The letter my client recieved requested that she respond by the end of the month. I contacted the Public Service Commission and the Water Board. Under the Rules, the Water Board can make an exception. Because our client's son is disabled and the second water meter was previously authorized, the complaint will be dismissed. My client does not need to take further action and may keep both water meters.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
Case of the Week: 12/16/05
County: Randolph
Age: 62
This client contacted us when he received a bill from a health care provider that was 2 years old. The bill was for $1496. He recieved a summary from Medicare explaining the claim was made too late and he was only responsible for 20% of what Medicare would have paid had the claim been made properly. Working with a SHINE conselor, we were able to obtain a letter from CMS confirming that had the claim been submitted on time our client would have only been responsible for $110.22. Furthermore, the letter reiterated that my client is only responsible for the $110.22 eventhough Medicare never made a payment.
Age: 62
This client contacted us when he received a bill from a health care provider that was 2 years old. The bill was for $1496. He recieved a summary from Medicare explaining the claim was made too late and he was only responsible for 20% of what Medicare would have paid had the claim been made properly. Working with a SHINE conselor, we were able to obtain a letter from CMS confirming that had the claim been submitted on time our client would have only been responsible for $110.22. Furthermore, the letter reiterated that my client is only responsible for the $110.22 eventhough Medicare never made a payment.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Case of the Week: 12/9/05
County: Harrison
Age: 73
This client contacted us because she was having trouble collecting on a life insurance policy for her deceased husband. I contacted the insurance company on my client's behalf to check on the status of the claim and to provide information on where to find my client's deceased husband's medical records. The company acted quickly and reviewed my client's claim. After reviewing the claim it was determine that due to an error the policy was null and viod; however, the insurance company refunded the $700 her husband paid into the policy.
Age: 73
This client contacted us because she was having trouble collecting on a life insurance policy for her deceased husband. I contacted the insurance company on my client's behalf to check on the status of the claim and to provide information on where to find my client's deceased husband's medical records. The company acted quickly and reviewed my client's claim. After reviewing the claim it was determine that due to an error the policy was null and viod; however, the insurance company refunded the $700 her husband paid into the policy.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Case of the Week: 11/18/05
County: Hardy
Age: 76
This client is the legal guardian for her adult mentally disabled daughter. A doctor recommended sterilization for the daughter; however, declined to perform it without prior court authorization. My client felt that as a guardian she should be able to make this decision on her daughter's behalf. After researching the West Virginia Guardianship and Conservator Act I explained that some actions, like terminating parental rights, require prior court authorization. It is possible that since the procedure will render her daughter childless, prior court authorization is required. I also provided her with a copy of the relevant statute.
Age: 76
This client is the legal guardian for her adult mentally disabled daughter. A doctor recommended sterilization for the daughter; however, declined to perform it without prior court authorization. My client felt that as a guardian she should be able to make this decision on her daughter's behalf. After researching the West Virginia Guardianship and Conservator Act I explained that some actions, like terminating parental rights, require prior court authorization. It is possible that since the procedure will render her daughter childless, prior court authorization is required. I also provided her with a copy of the relevant statute.
Case of the Week: 11/11/12
County: Fayette
Age: 77
This client is the subject of predatory lending. She contacted us regarding her mortgage which she had fallen behind on. I reviewed the notice of foreclosing she received and the terms of her loan. One aspect of this case that hinted at predatory lending concerns insurance. Apparently the Mortgagor was charging the client for insurance even though she had her own. Also, the Mortgagor was very uncooperative about providing for a workout option for the client. I referred the client to Mountain State Justice. Interestingly, Mountain State Justice currently has other cases against the same Morgator who is a predatory lending.
Age: 77
This client is the subject of predatory lending. She contacted us regarding her mortgage which she had fallen behind on. I reviewed the notice of foreclosing she received and the terms of her loan. One aspect of this case that hinted at predatory lending concerns insurance. Apparently the Mortgagor was charging the client for insurance even though she had her own. Also, the Mortgagor was very uncooperative about providing for a workout option for the client. I referred the client to Mountain State Justice. Interestingly, Mountain State Justice currently has other cases against the same Morgator who is a predatory lending.
Case of the Week: 11/4/05
County: Berkeley
Age: 61
Client contacted us regarding bankruptcy. After determining that he is not judgment proof, I explained the changes in the new bankruptcy law and the differences in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. He was mostly concerned about his car. I explained that under Chapter 7 his car can be reaffirmed or if below $2,400, can be completely exempted. Under Chapter 13 all property can be kept; however, since the only asset the client had was his car, Chapter 7 was recommended.
Age: 61
Client contacted us regarding bankruptcy. After determining that he is not judgment proof, I explained the changes in the new bankruptcy law and the differences in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. He was mostly concerned about his car. I explained that under Chapter 7 his car can be reaffirmed or if below $2,400, can be completely exempted. Under Chapter 13 all property can be kept; however, since the only asset the client had was his car, Chapter 7 was recommended.
Case of the Week: 12/2/05
County: Mineral
Age: 77
This client contacted us after an energy company put power lines up over his property to an adjoining lot. He lives in a housing development and his understanding of the convenants and provisions is that an easement exits only for water, sewage, and drainage. I reviewed the Restrictive Covenants and Provisions and determined that although the provision in questions include water, sewage, and drainage, it does not specifically exclude electric. A reasonable reading of the document is that the energy company has an easement to the adjoining property. I explained a court may give it a different interpretation. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion on a term or provision in a document, the court can make a determination to end the conflict.
Age: 77
This client contacted us after an energy company put power lines up over his property to an adjoining lot. He lives in a housing development and his understanding of the convenants and provisions is that an easement exits only for water, sewage, and drainage. I reviewed the Restrictive Covenants and Provisions and determined that although the provision in questions include water, sewage, and drainage, it does not specifically exclude electric. A reasonable reading of the document is that the energy company has an easement to the adjoining property. I explained a court may give it a different interpretation. Generally, when there is a difference of opinion on a term or provision in a document, the court can make a determination to end the conflict.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)