uConsumers Can’t Void Second Mortgage In Bankruptcy, SCOTUS Rulesr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (frankieleon)

  Consumers taking out a second mortgage will now have to consider the fact that if they encounter financial difficulties and file for bankruptcy, they won’t be able to strip off the additional loan obligation.

  The Wall Street Journal reports that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of banks when it came to determining that struggling homeowners can’t get rid of a second mortgage using bankruptcy protection, even if the home’s value is less than the amount owed on the first mortgage.

  Monday’s unanimous ruling involved two cases in which Florida homeowners sought to cancel their second mortgages – issued by Bank of America – under the argument that when both primary and subsequent loans are underwater, the second is worthless.

  The homeowners in the cases were previously allowed by lower courts to nullify the second mortgages. Back in 2013, those rulings were affirmed by the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court, the Associated Press reports.

  However, Bank of America maintained that the rulings conflicted with Supreme Court precedent, arguing that even if the primary mortgage is underwater, it shouldn’t affect the lien securing the second loan.

  According to the bank, there remains a possibility that the second loan would be repaid if the property’s value rose in the future.

  The company also claimed that after the Circuit Court ruling, hundreds – if not thousands – of struggling homeowners had moved to nullify their second loans, the AP reports.

  Justice Clarence Thomas said on Monday that the SCOTUS decision took into consideration the shifting nature of property, the WSJ reports.

  “Sometimes a dollar’s difference will have a significant impact on bankruptcy proceedings,” he wrote in the decision.

  Supreme Court: ‘Underwater’ Homeowners Can’t Void Second Mortgages in Bankruptcy [The Wall Street Journal]
  Supreme Court says homeowners underwater on loans can’t void second mortgage in bankruptcy [The Associated Press]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uWhataburger Shortening Weekday Breakfast Hours Amid National Egg Shortager

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Jay Adan)

  We were warned, and so it has come to pass: The recent outbreak of avian flu that’s been decimating poultry populations in the Midwest is putting the hurt on American consumers. Whataburger announced that starting today, it’ll be shortening its breakfast hours in the face of a national egg shortage.

  The company made the announcement on its Facebook page today, saying it’s going to have to adjust when it can serve breakfast at its 750 locations. Starting today, breakfast will be available on weekdays between 5 a.m. and 9 a.m. and on the weekends until 11 a.m. as per usual.

  Whataburger says it hopes this is just a temporary situation, but there’s no end in sight as of yet.

  “We know this is no fun for anyone and hope this doesn’t last long, and we apologize the supply of eggs cannot currently meet demand,” the chain explains, posting a photo of other breakfast options for customers who arrive to find their store out of eggs.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uSupreme Court: Job Applicants Don’t Have To Explain That Their Garb Is Religiousr

4 4 4 9

• 

  “Abercrombie & Fitch” and “modest dress” are usually not concepts that go together. (Molly)

  Back in February, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of a 17-year-old who applied to work for Abercrombie & Fitch. She was apparently beautiful enough to work there, but always wore a black scarf on her head. Did she wear it for religious reasons, which would mean that it couldn’t be a factor in hiring decisions? She didn’t say, so Abercrombie didn’t hire her. That case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued an opinion today.

  Which accessories and pieces of clothing that might violate a company’s dress or grooming code are universally understood to be religious symbols? Some visual cues, like pieces of jewelry, headscarves, beards, wigs, or pieces of clothing, can be personal fashion choices or worn for sincere religious reasons. This decision doesn’t put the burden on employees to explain that a given piece of clothing or accessory has a religious origin, but employers are guilty of discrimination if they make a decision not to hire someone based on a practice that might be worn due to the applicant’s sincere religious belief.

  “To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need,” the Court explained in its decision. A woman wearing a hijab-style headscarf to a job interview shouldn’t be a factor in the decision whether to hire her or not. Management can’t be sure whether she will wear it to work, and choosing not to hire her based on that assumption is discrimination.

  In the Abercrombie case, while making the decision whether or not to hire Ms. Elauf, managers at Abercrombie & Fitch discussed her appearance and whether the black scarf she wore was for religious reasons. The manager who interviewed her believed that it as, but they couldn’t be sure. This Supreme Court decision dictates that employers should err on the side of hiring someone without interrogating them about their religious preferences, and sort out accommodating religious practices later.

  EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC. [U.S. Supreme Court]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uSupreme Court Rules That You Have To Intend A Threat For It To Be A Real Threatr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (afagen)

  
  Lots of people have ill-will and mountains of unflattering things to say about their exes. Many of those people say those things online. But if your rant happens to be filled with violent language that makes your former partner afraid for their safety, even if you say you had no intention of ever following through, is it still a real threat?

  That was the question before the Supreme Court in Elonis v. United States, which the Court decided 7-2 in favor of the individual convicted of making those threats.

  As a refresher, the case centered around a particular man’s (Mr. Elonis) angry Facebook rants against his ex-wife. She perceived them as threats, and filed for a restraining order. In response, he escalated his rhetoric, including some potentially threatening allusions toward the FBI agent who visited his home.

  For these threats, Elonis was arrested and indicted by a grand jury. However, he then sought to have the charges dismissed, arguing that prosecutors had no evidence that he intended to follow through on his rants. The difference between the two? Intent to follow through transforms the statements into threats, which are not protected free speech; the absence of intent means he’s just a loudmouthed jerk, but a constitutionally protected one.

  The court disagreed, and held that when a statement is made “in a context or under such circumstances wherein a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted by those to whom the maker communicates the statement as a serious expression of an intent” to harm, that it’s a threat. Elonis was convicted on four of the five counts.

  He appealed the conviction, as one does. An appeals court sided with the first court, agreeing that the only proof required to determine whether a statement posed a true threat was if “a reasonable person would foresee that the statement would be interpreted” as a threat. The appeals continued, and that’s where the Supreme Court comes in.

  SCOTUS was to decide the answer to one big question, broken into two legal statements: Does convicting someone for making threats require proof of their intent to threaten, or is it enough that a “reasonable person” would see said statement as a threat?

  In the majority opinion (PDF), the Court essentially ruled yes and no, in that order. Or, more specifically: “Communicating something is not what makes the conduct ‘wrongful.’ Here, ‘the crucial element separating legal innocence from wrongful conduct’ is the threatening nature of the communication. The mental state requirement must therefore apply to the fact that the communication contains a threat.”

  The opinion continues:
  

  In light of the foregoing, Elonis’s conviction cannot stand. The jury was instructed that the Government need prove only that a reasonable person would regard Elonis’s communications as threats, and that was error. Federal criminal liability generally does not turn solely on the results of an act without considering the defendant’s mental state. That understanding “took deep and early root in American soil” and Congress left it intact here: Under Section 875(c), “wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal.”

  In short? The intent behind an illegal action is critical to the application of criminal law — state of mind matters, and the courts are not allowed to ignore it. Because those lower courts did did, their conviction of Elonis is invalid.

  The Supreme Court’s ruling does not address whether Elonis’s statements were in fact threats, or whether he did have the intent to follow through and harm or kill his ex-wife and others given half a chance. It only determines that those were matters that lower courts were, in fact, supposed to determine and prove when carrying through their case.

  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justices Alito and Thomas filed separate dissents.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Kate Cox via Consumerist

uJohn Oliver Pledges To Eat McDonald’s, Drink Budweiser If They Use Sponsorship Power To Change FIFAr

4 4 4 9

• Last week, the soccer world was rocked when numerous current and former FIFA officials were arrested and charged with accepting illegal kickbacks and bribes. Only days later, FIFA President Sepp Blatter, under whose oversight these alleged crimes have occurred for nearly two decades, was reelected. That’s why John Oliver has called on FIFA’s high-profile sponsors to use their financial leverage to effect some change in the most powerful soccer organization in the world.

  In addition to last week’s corruption allegations, FIFA and Blatter have been criticized for awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a nation with a horrendous human rights record where more than 1,000 migrant workers have already died working on Cup-related projects. Others have complained about having their passports and visas taken away from them by bosses, while also not being paid for months at a time.

  Sponsors like Visa and Coca-Cola have already responded to concerns about the Qatar event, but have thus far not given any indication of backing out of their sponsorships.

  There’s also the upcoming Women’s World Cup event being hosted by Canada. Not only is FIFA okay with all of the games being played on artificial turf that can shred players’ bare skin, but Blatter has publicly suggested that female soccer players show more flesh in order to drum up more interest in the sport.

  “It is rare to find a non-fired boss who will openly say, ‘I would like to make it easier for me to masturbate to my employees,’” says Oliver. “That is pretty much the full extent of Blatter’s care for female player’s legs.”

  In the run-up to last week’s FIFA presidential election, Blatter offered a rather weak defense of the scandals that have occurred on his watch.

  “I know many people hold me ultimately responsible for the actions and reputation of the global football community,” he explained. “I can not monitor everyone all of the time.”

  Oliver likened this to “basically Charles Manson saying, ‘Listen, I’ve got a big family. I don’t know what Squeaky gets up to half the time.’”

  Ultimately, Blatter’s continued presence at the head of FIFA comes down to money.

  “The last group to get rid of [Blatter] is in the hands of the only group even more powerful than world governments,” explains Oliver. “Barring an indictment, the only people powerful enough to get rid of Sepp Blatter are FIFA’s sponsors.”

  To these advertisers — Budweiser, McDonald’s, Kia, Hyundai, Adidas, Coca-Cola, Visa — Oliver begged, “Please, make Sepp Blatter go away. I’ll do anything.”

  To Adidas: “I’ll wear one of your ugly shoes, that make me look like the Greek god of aspiring DJs.”

  To McDonald’s: “I will take a bite out of every item on your dollar menu, which tastes like normal food that was cursed by a vindictive wizard.”

  To Budweiser: “I will even make the ultimate sacrifice… I will put my mouth where my mouth is and I will personally drink one of your disgusting items. I’m serious. It can be a Bud Light. I will even drink a Bud Light Lime, despite the fact that all the lime in the world can not disguise the fact that this tastes like a puddle beneath a Long John Silver’s dumpster… If you get rid of the Swiss demon that has ruined the sport I love, this will taste like f*cking champagne.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uWaitress Donates Kidney To 72-Year-Old Patron, Both Feeling “Excellent” After Surgeryr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (MeneerDijk)
  

  We all love hearing stories of big tippers at restaurants, those generous folks who leave behind piles of money in appreciation. But the generosity trend can swing both ways, as a waitress near Atlanta proved after giving a 72-year-old patron one of her kidneys. The transplant was successful and both are now doing well.

  The clinical manager at the hospital says the man is “progressing at a remarkable rate,” and that he’s in good spirits, up and walking around the unit, reports 11 Alive News.

  The 22-year-old waitress was released from the hospital late on Saturday, while the patron is expected to be home by Tuesday, just four days after the procedure.

  “The surgery could not have gone better,” said the doctor who performed the donor procedure and the transplant both on the same day.

  The woman hadn’t worked that long at Hooters before learning that one of her customers was in need of a kidney transplant. Her grandmother had recently passed away from kidney failure, and she said she felt inspired to help him.

  “I wasn’t able to do anything for my grandma. If [he] can live two more years, happy as he’s ever been, that’s fine with me. That’s not up to me. I did my part, now it’s God’s turn to keep him alive,” she said prior to the surgery on Friday, according to USA Today.

  She Tweeted a photo of the twosome after surgery, saying both were doing “excellent”:

  Thank you all for your kind words! We're doing excellent thanks to our mighty God! #blessed http://pic.twitter.com/bZ2FBKYg8o

  — Mariana Tolentino (@Mariiana0_o) May 30, 2015

  Doctors: Waitress, patron fine after kidney transplant [11Alive]
  Hooters waitress, patron fine after kidney transplant [USA Today]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uLooking To Finance A New Or Used Vehicle? You’re Likely In For The Long-Haulr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Chris Goldberg)

  Purchasing a new or used vehicle can represent quite a commitment for consumers, especially as the length of an average vehicle loan continue to get longer, now reaching all-time highs.

  In fact, the average loan terms for new and used vehicles span 67 and 62 months, respectively, according to the latest State of the Automotive Finance Market report from credit reporting agency Experian.

  The terms for both types of loans increased by one month in the first quarter of 2015, representing the longest length since Experian Automotive began tracking the terms nearly nine years ago.

  In all, the report found that even longer loans – those with terms lasting 73 to 84 months – are on the rise, with 29.5% of all new vehicles financed with such terms. Long-term used vehicle loans for the same duration represented 16% of that market.

  “While longer term loans are growing, they do not necessarily represent an ominous sign for the market,” Melinda Zabritski, senior director of automotive finance for Experian, said in a statement. “Most longer-term loans help consumers keep monthly payments manageable, while allowing them to purchase the vehicles they need without having to break the bank.”

  Still, people undertaking such a long loan should be aware of other drawbacks, including the fact that they need to keep the car longer or face negative equity, Experian points out. The average age of cars on the road in the U.S. is 11 years.

  The report also found other upward trends in the new and used car loan markets, with the average amount financed for both types of vehicles increasing.

  A new vehicle loan for the first part of 2015 clocked in at $28,711, nearly $1,000 more than the same time in 2014. Used cars saw a more subtle increase in average cost with an increase to $18,213 in 2015 from $17,927 in 2014.

  According to the report, it appears that more and more people are turning away from buying a vehicle outright, instead turning to a leasing option.

  Leases accounted for about 31.5% of new vehicles financed in the first quarter of 2015, an increase of 1.3% from the previous year.

  At the same time, the average monthly payment for a leased vehicle decreased to $405 from $412.

  Auto loan terms reach all-time highs [Experian]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist