Real Estate Settlement Procedures - Essay Example

Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. The case relates to the Real E Settlement Procedures (RESPA) which entailing regulations that guide purchase and sale of real estates. In this case, persons paid discount fees on their mortgages. There was no division of the fees, leading to the charging of the third party together with the interest rate of the client (Freeman v. Quicken Loans 2). This was supposed to be as the entire section price of the loan. With reference to RESPA 2607(b), the practice did not commit any violation of the clause. RESPA’s aim is to forbid any split of offending fees between corporations in the absence of unearned fees by the beneficiary. After Freeman and other couples lost the case in the state court, they proceeded to the Supreme Court claiming that the fees imposed on them were unearned. Recently, the Supreme Court decided that the plaintiff had to indicate the existence of a split between two or several persons for the purpose of a settlement associated with violation of the RESPA act. While making a decision, the court made various aspects of section 8(b) clear (Freeman v. Quicken Loans 5). There was a clarification on the difference between free-sharing and the user transaction. In the process, the court denied the definition regarding a consumer as a person capable of awarding “a split or percentage.” The issue that section 8(b) should not hold an interpretation needing fee splitting faced objection from the court. The decision by the court had various implications: that there may be future misinterpretations of the part (8b), and the queries regarding the suitability of the section in dealing with the settlement of matters such as credit report prices (Freeman v. Quicken Loans 7). Works Cited Freeman v. Quicken Loans. 566. U.S. Supreme Court. 24th May 2012. Print. Blueford v. Arkansas The case involves the charging of Blueford in the Arkansas Supreme Court. The court blamed the accused for the death of a child. Accusations entailed manslaughter, murder and negligent homicide. The court had required the jury to consider three aspects of capital murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide lest doubts existed. The jury could not reach a decision, so the court affirmed a mistrial (Blueford v. Arkansas 3). The courts attempt to perform another trial for Blueford who received resistance regarding the trial as a dual jeopardy. The conduct of the court to declare the suit a mistrial was not right. The argument by the defendant indicated that in the event of the jury’s failure to decide the suit, the court had a responsibility of providing a succinct decision on the issue. Arkansas law provides that the jury had to charge the defendant on both or a single felony (Blueford v. Arkansas 6). The jury failed to convict the accused of any crime; they failed to acquit him. The dual jeopardy phrase does not allow a second trial if the acquaintance of the individual existed. The clause on double jeopardy requires the questioning of the jury’s conduct. The jury failed to make convictions based on capital and first degree murder although there was a chance for the decision. Retrial faced challenges because of the possibility of defeat by the defendant. The failure to make a correct decision was due to delusion of the Arkansas law. The reaching of a mistrial was a mistake from the judge. At first, he thought the jury would come to succinct decision (Blueford v. Arkansas 6). Works Cited Blueford v. Arkansas. 566. U.S. Supreme Court. 24th May 2012. Print. Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez The US Constitution allows the attorney general to perform a cancellation of the elimination of an immigrant from the country. The immigrant must be subject to a condition of permanent residence for about five years. The person must have resided for a period of 7 years after entrance. The case involves the issue of Martinez’ immigration where he entered the state illegally. His father had followed required procedures and became admitted as an LPR. However, Martinez did not attain the standing until 2003 (Holder v. Martinez 11). After some time, he faced accusations that he smuggled aliens from his country. The judge argued that Martinez had the right for relief since his father had the required status. The respondent received a grant for review of the case by involving the board to reassess the case. Another respondent, Sawyers, became an LPR at the age of 15. In this case, her mother had stayed in the country for about six years (Holder v. Martinez 11). This was after a documented admission. When the respondent ventured in drug offense, the authorities decided to evict him from the state. The judge found the respondent unqualified for removal because he did not meet the clause’s requirements. After this decision, the judge allowed a review of the case. The respondents questioned the BIA adaptation of no-imputation because there was a loophole in the Congress. The board’s decision was due to the absence of logic and legality in employing an imputation policy. The decision from the court can be expressive to the BIA’s perception considering the skills in executing INA (Holder v. Martinez 13). Works Cited Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez. 566. U.S. Supreme Court. 21st May 2012. Print. Astrue v. Capato This case involved family issues where after the death of Robert Capato, his wife gave birth to children originating from her husband’s sperms. This was possible via the refrigeration of the sperms. The Social Security Administration (SSA) refused to provide Karen, the deceased wife, with the benefits for the twins. According to the court, the twins were to benefit if the Constitution had allowed inheritance from the deceased (Astrue v. Capato 4). Later, the court discovered that the deceased was in Florida in the event of his death. This drew suggestions that Karen did not qualify for the benefits since Florida state laws did not recognize her case. However, section 416(e) of the Constitution revealed a hope for the plaintiff because it defined child adoption differently. The clause did not recognize intestacy law. The eligibility of the defendant raised questions; various clauses defined a child in a different manner making it difficult for the court to come to a succinct conclusion (Astrue v. Capato 7). There was appreciation where the intestacy law allowed a child to inherit property from a parent. This applied in case of possibilities of a child dependency at the time of the parent’s death. The intestacy law can, on various occasions, lead to some benefits to children, for example, where the conception of a child occurs immediately or before the death of a father. Eligibility could be possible despite the lack of benefits when the father was alive. The respondent claimed that part 416(d) should be applicable to those born naturally. Following these controversies, the case was in remand for progress in accordance with the court’s idea (Astrue v. Capato 9). Works Cited Astrue v. Capato. 566. U.S. Supreme Court. 21st May 2012. Print. Wood v. Milyard This case revolves around the 1987 conviction of Wood which landed him to a life sentence. The accusations involved murder and other serious crimes. In 2008, Woods performed a habeas appeal to the district court. After consultations with the state court, the district court dismissed Wood’s claims. However, the circuit advocated a briefing to consider Wood’s petition. After the meeting, the court expelled the time for petition (Wood v. Milyard 2). The court argued that it had the authority to make changes on timeliness. In a day, there was an authority granted = for the purpose of considering the habeas protection in the presence of critical issues. There were miscalculations from the state in Day which suggested to the district court that the petition on habeas was timely (Wood v. Milyard 3). This led to the dismissal due to the error that was evident to the magistrate. With reference to the Day and Granberry, the court was incapable of making a succinct decision on whether to refuse the appeal court from changing various matters such as timeliness. Wood’s petition became subject to dismissal as the tenth circuit declared it so. The state court reaction to the petition was different; such expectations did not exist because the district court thought it would decide otherwise. The state court argued that it would not challenge the petition from Woods. Wood’s conviction originated from a robbery that occurred in Colorado. In the process of the robbery, the accused killed the deputy manager of the pizza facility. The issue on Woods petition is to progress in conformity with the opinion provided by the appeal court for the tenth circuit (Wood v. Milyard 8). Works Cited Wood v. Milyard. 566. U.S. Supreme Court. 24st April 2012. Print. Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington This case entailed a file by the petitioner on the federal court indicating breach of the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments. The alleged breach culminates from his stay in jail where he was subject to various checks. At first, a traffic police officer arrested him after finding an arrest document indicating the need for his arrest (Florence v. Board 2). He had failed to show up at a hearing aimed for fine enforcement. His actions landed him to Burlington centre where he served as a detainee before transfer to an Essex correctional facility. His release followed after settlement of the imposed fine. While in jail, the petitioner claimed that he was subject to various checks. He argues that he had to expose himself for checks of scars, tattoos and related checks. He was to appear naked for checks, where the persons in charge ordered him to lift his genitals and open the mouth (Florence v. Board 1). The defendant claimed that it was contrary to the amendments to subject a person to searches without evidence indicating the possibility of drug or weapon conveyance into the prison facility. The aftermath of his claims was the judge’s acceptance that the acts subjected to him were violating the constitution. This was so, if only those performing the checks had no grounds to suspect the petitioner of any weapon or drug transport. The justice provided a view of the court indicating the importance of the check criteria in the prison facilities. This was with the exemption of part four. The judge argued that the actions of prisons were for the safety of other individuals and prisoners (Florence v. Board 3). In order to ensure safety of individuals in detention and those in correctional facilities, officials must have sufficient expertise to devise amicable solutions for problems without influencing the lives of people. According to Turner v. Safley, a regulation has to exist to protect and introduce inmate’s constitutional rights (Florence v. Board 5). The case on Bell v Wolfish required persons in detainment to expose themselves for checks. This was to cub conveyance of forbidden materials into the prison. There are queries regarding the issue of checks because some detainees may be liable to exemption. This is because some may be petty criminals with no possibility of smuggling weapons or drugs. Despite the criticism, prisons are susceptible to violence, hence performance of checks is fundamental (Florence v. Board 7). Exempting detainees with small offenses from checks would not be a brilliant idea. Determining whether a detainee qualifies for exemption would be complex. The petty offenders can change due to the environment presented by other prisoners. The court fails to mention the reasonability of stripping an arrested person before the judge to confirm whether the arrestee is guilty or not. This is an issue that requires discussion in order to reveal what is right (Florence v. Board 7). The Fourth and the 14th Amendments require adherence because they aim to protect the privacy of individuals. Although performing searches may be ethical, it is not right to make a person strip naked for the purpose of checking on weapons and other factors. The correctional and prison facilities need to devise means of dealing with security issues (Florence v. Board 9). Works Cited Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington. 566. U.S. Supreme Court. 2nd April. 2012. Print. Read More