Fulton County, Georgia retired employees who were employed by Fulton County in 1991 and who thereafter retired, your rights to health insurance coverage may be affected by the attached Consent Orders entered in a class action brought on behalf of retired Fulton County employees. Questions have arisen as to whether the proposed new health insurance rates for Fulton County, Georgia retired employees presented in October 2015 comply with the Consent Orders. In short, Fulton County retired employees that worked for Fulton County in 1991 and who thereafter retired from Fulton County are entitled to the same or greater health insurance coverage as such retirees had immediately prior to retirement at no greater percentage of the total costs that was paid by the retiree immediately prior to their retirement. Please review the attached Consent Orders and if you have any questions, please contact Austin Ramsey at Rumsey & Ramsey at (770) 394-9400.
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently ruled that the antenuptial agreement (also known as a prenuptial agreement) a deceased husband had entered into with his surviving wife prior to his death that prescribed the assets the wife would receive at the end of the marriage was unenforceable due to the fact that the husband did not list or disclose all of his assets in the agreement. Accordingly, the Court found the agreement unenforceable. This case illustrates the need to be adequately represented by an experienced family law attorney when contemplating or entering into agreements related to marriage. Please contact Rumsey & Ramsey at (770) 394-9400 to discuss your case or other legal inquiry with an attorney.
Please be sure to read the fine print of a vendor or supplier agreement your are asked to sign on behalf of your business before you can receive products or services from a vendor. Oftentimes, the need for the vendor’s products or services is immediate and business managers do not read the fine print of agreements presented to them by vendors and suppliers. These agreements govern the business-vendor relationship and how any disputes between them are resolved. Usually included in these agreements are terms favorable to the vendor and potentially prejudicial to the business customer. An example of a provision recently encountered was a binding arbitration provision contained in a vendor agreement. These clauses leave the business customer in the position of having to submit to an arbitration process of a private arbitration forum that charges fees for an arbitrator’s time and other administrative costs. These costs can be significant depending on the type of dispute. These costs are mandatory and are required to be paid by the business to an arbitration forum selected by the vendor in the agreement signed by the business. Also, the business customer cannot seek redress in the court system after agreeing to binding arbitration. From a cost standpoint, resolution of a problem in court can be much less expensive than the arbitration process. Other minefields for businesses that can be found in vendor agreements are liquidated damages clauses and attorneys’ fees provisions. These can make it a contractual requirement that the vendor receives money damages in an amount set by a formula and attorneys’ fees in certain amounts if a dispute arises and the vendor prevails in the matter. These terms can provide a contractual right to the vendor to receive liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees that the vendor otherwise would not be entitled to if the business had not signed the vendor agreement. Beware, and read the fine print of what you sign. It may turn out be an expensive mistake.
The Georgia Court of Appeals recently ruled that siblings claims against a brother for the latter having fraudulently induced the siblings to sign a deed conveying their interest in a property to him were barred by the 7 year statute of limitation. The siblings were only given the signature page of what they believed to be an easement, which was in fact the signature page for a deed. They signed the deed at the request of their brother. They admitted that they did not read the deed before they signed it because they trusted their brother. The Court of Appeals ruled that the siblings had a duty to read the document they signed, there was nothing that prevented them from reading the document, and so the time period for bringing their action started on the day they signed the document now determined to be a deed. The siblings case was dismissed as untimely. The point to be taken from this case is that you should always read what you are asked to sign. If you are not able to understand the meaning of a legal document you are asked to sign, do not sign it until you have consulted an attorney. Please contact Rumsey & Ramsey at (770) 394-9400 to discuss the facts of your case with an attorney.
Partner Ronald Cundy recently visited China and toured manufacturing facilities and met with owners and upper management. The purpose of Mr. Cundy’s trip to China was to study and evaluate the Chinese corporate culture as it relates to Chinese manufacture of goods that are exported to the United States. Mr. Cundy visited the cities of JinHua, Hangzhou, and Shanghai as part of his fact finding mission. The information gathered by Mr. Cundy will be useful in his representation of clients engaged in business with companies located in China. If you have questions in this area with regard to engaging in business in China, please contact Ronald Cundy at Rumsey & Ramsey at (770) 394-9400 to discuss your needs.
Judging from your brief description, there is a reasonable chance that you will qualify for unemployment benefits under Georgia law. The general rule is that a person cannot receive unemployment benefits if they have not followed the rules and instructions set out by the employer or they have failed to carry out their duties of employment that have been set out by their employer. The law does become more specific, and hopefully to your benefit. Under O.C.G.A. § 34-8-194, a person cannot be denied unemployment benefits if “[t]he individual made a good faith effort to perform the duties for which hired but was simply unable to do so… [t]he individual did not intentionally fail or consciously neglect to perform his or her job duties.” So, a person cannot be denied benefits because they were just unable to perform their duties. The former employer must prove that the discharge was caused by the deliberate, conscious former employee decision to be neglectful, careless, or dishonest.
If an employee is simply unable to perform their job and not because they were negligent, careless, or dishonest, then the employee may be able to collect unemployment benefits. In your case, if you were not properly trained, but you made a conscious effort to succeed at your job, then you could be awarded unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefit law does not punish those who cannot do their job for reasons that are out of their control. If your only problem was that you were not properly trained and your lack of training was the cause of your subpar performance, you may be awarded unemployment benefits. Please contact Rumsey & Ramsey at (770) 394-9400 to discuss the facts of your case with a lawyer.
The short answer is yes. Reverse mortgage agreements are detailed, complex, and not easy to understand. Additionally, the potentially devastating financial impact that these contracts may have on those who are unfamiliar with the legal impact of the terms and conditions contained in these documents may result in a financial loss, including the loss of your home. The New York Times has recently written extensively on the losses that senior homeowners have experienced from not understanding what they have agreed to and from high pressure sales tactics.
The attorney writer of this blog was asked to review a reverse mortgage agreement for an elderly woman in Georgia whose son was concerned about what she was being asked to sign. In her case, the mortgage broker trying to sell the reverse mortgage used high pressure tactics on the homeowner, including imposing unreasonable deadlines for her to have a lawyer review the documents. This is a sign that the terms of the agreement were potentially harmful to the homeowner. What was discovered by the writer in the reverse mortgage documents was that the fees that were going to be charged for the transaction substantially reduced the amount of equity that was actually available to be borrowed against by the homeowner. Additionally, the interest rate was unusually high. Please contact Rumsey & Ramsey at (770) 394-9400 to arrange for a lawyer to review your reverse mortgage documents before you sign them.
1864 Independence Square, Suite C, Atlanta, Georgia 30338; 770-394-9400
