Twin Cities Business Litigation Blog : Minneapolis Business Litigation Lawyer & Attorney : Gavin P. Craig Law Firm : St. Paul, Twin Cities, Minnesota MN

The Minnesota US Senate election case is going on, and on, and on. But the three judges, who are admittedly in uncharted waters on this one, are forcing the parties to make arguments about which category of rejected votes should be counted. The judges provided a list of 19 reasons votes were rejected. The parties get to try to argue which ones can be counted.

Since this is like the Twilight Zone, Norm Coleman, the Republican, is arguing that the court should ignore the law and effectively legislate new rules to allow ballots to be counted in violation of the law. This position is contrary to every Republican position over the past several decades that judges must follow the law to the letter. (I've always thought that politicians that preached this line didn't understand either the law or how the courts work.) As an example, Coleman's team was arguing to the court several days ago that absentee ballots with forged signatures should be counted. This of course would violate Minnesota law.

Franken's team is arguing that the court must follow the law - this is a much sounder argument. The Minn.Post has an interesting story about the recount. It is fun to read that Coleman was telling identified voters in one county that their votes were wrongfully rejected - yet the reason they were rejected in the first place was because the Coleman team objected to including them.

Hopefully the court will make some decisions soon that improve the chances that a decision will be made soon.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Business Owners who incorporate their business, or create a Limited Liability Company, usually have a misconception that they have immunity to liability. Company officers, agents for the company, are responsible for their own misdeeds.In a recent case the appellate court in New York State found the sole owner of the plaintiff corporation personally responsible for the failure of the company to comply with certain court orders, even though he was not a party to the action.

The court held: Although appellant Qasemi is not a party to the action, he is the sole owner and principal of plaintiff, and can be punished for plaintiff's disobedience of the order and judgment. While Qasemi was not personally served with these dispositions, it is undisputed that plaintiff was served and was aware of the mandates contained therein. It defies credulity that Qasemi himself was unaware of the orders ... Furthermore, since there were no issues of fact to be resolved at a hearing, it was proper for the court to make a finding of contempt without a hearing...

So much for limited liability. That concept of limited liability only goes so far. An officer is an agent of their company, and as such is not liable for contracts entered into on behalf of the company so long as the agent informs the other party of the agency and the identity of the principal. Failure to do so leaves the agent liable for the debt. In this case the court didn't hesitate to nail the agent because the agent caused the principal to violate the court's order.

This case is a good lesson for all.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Minnesota legislature is looking into what has become a very big business. In summary, the life insurance companies want to ban the practice, whereby a policy holder/owner sells the right to collect the death benefit for a payment now. The practice is legal and even international in scope. Thanks to the Minneapolis Star tribune for the report. 

In essence, a person can purchase life insurance when elderly, make the initial deposit, and then sell the rights to collect on the policy. The policies then become assets that are bought and sold, bundled with other policies, and traded. The Insurance companies don't like them even though the insurance company gets exactly what it bargains for. The premiums. The insured gets what they bargained for, the policy on their life, and when sold they receive a payment for the buyer. The sellers receive a percentage of the death benefit for cash now instead of the estate or beneficiary receiving the payout when the insured dies.

The buyer pays the premiums until the insured dies. This of course means that the insured will not let a policy lapse after they can't afford it anymore. The insurance company keeps all the premiums it receives, and never has to pay on a lapsed policy. So, the number of large policies lapsing will be reduced: and the profits are reduced.

The insurance policy is a contract, and the policy owner should have the option to sell their right in a contract. It will be interesting to see what the legislature does with this issue, because the market is international, not just in Minnesota. I don't see how the state can regulate a market that they can't control. Also, people should be able to sell there contract rights: it is the American way.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Coleman's attorneys are clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel for votes. They are now apparently arguing the a person who was living in the jail of a county, that was not his home county should have his vote counted. I am not a fan of Norm Coleman, but I think that if the situation were reversed, I would want Franken to concede so the state would have it's two senators.

Coleman's team has already argued that two forged ballots should be counted. Altered evidence, and they were caught, and they want the prisoner vote.   In another developement Coleman might have picked up three votes in an unusual situation. 

Meanwhile, Franken is asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to order a temporary certification pending the outcome of the case, so that Minnesota will have a senator. If Franken was not leading I think this would be an easy call - No. But since he is leading, the argument makes sense. I am not sure that the law contemplates such a thing, and I am not aware of this happening before.Another view of the case is here.

Is the Franken case asking the court to make a poliyical decision?  I can't imagine that the legislature ever thought this would happen, so there is no clear direction for the court. 

And unfortunately it will go on for awhile.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link