by Andy Chen | Jul 24, 2013 | Philosophy
Much is said these days about the state of the economy (booth US and world) as well as problems like persistent unemployment, the increasing number of people on entitlement programs, etc. Many people wonder aloud about where the jobs of tomorrow will come from and what kind of future and economy their children will live in. If you stop and think about it logically, the problem is actually much overblown and the analysis starts with this simple picture. On the left is a flip-style phone common up until about 2007, when the first generation iPhone was introduced. On the right is a Samsung Galaxy SII smartphone. The phone on the left is prepaid and costs about $20 per month. The phone on the right is under contract and costs roughly $50 per month. Given the price difference, you would think most people would avoid the phone on the right, but you’d be wrong. The question then becomes: why do people pay more for the phone on the right? Answer: the phone on the right allows you to do much more stuff than the phone on the left. In other words, people pay more for the phone on the right because it is more useful than the phone on the left. This leads to the first big lesson: People pay more for things that are more useful to them. This should not come as a surprise if you think generally about why people spend money. Regardless of what you buy — a car, a sandwich, a vacation to Bora Bora — you spend money in order to solve a problem. The...
by Andy Chen | Jul 21, 2013 | California, Law, in real life, Statutes... and stuff
A few weeks ago, I was called upon by a former client to deal with the aftermath of a close friend passing away suddenly. The passing did not occur in a hospital so the deceased’s body was taken by the county coroner. If you were like me, you’ve never dealt with a situation like that before. One big question I had was how long does the county coroner’s office hold on to the deceased’s body? After a bit of research, this is what I found. Hopefully it will help you as well. The question of how long the coroner will keep the body is specified by California law in Health and Safety Code section 7104.1 which states the following: If, within 30 days after the coroner notifies or diligently attempts to notify the person responsible for the interment of a decedent's remains which are in the possession of the coroner, the person fails, refuses, or neglects to inter the remains, the coroner may inter the remains. The coroner may recover any expenses of the interment from the responsible person. In lay person’s terms, the coroner has 30 days in which to locate and notify the deceased’s family to come claim the body. As the Santa Clara County coroner was kind of enough to tell me, a county coroner is a law enforcement agency and has the same access to law enforcement databases and research tools to locate people that a police department or sheriff’s office might. The other big question I had was what happens if the deceased’s family is located, but fails to claim the body for whatever...
by Andy Chen | Jul 14, 2013 | Philosophy
I’m sure all of us have witnessed a moment when, for example, an older person gets confused about a piece of technology. For example, it might be a parent or elderly relative who can’t use a cell phone or computer. A similar type of confusion/intimidation occurs when, for instance, a young person (e.g. the stereotypical high school jock) walks in to a school library. The reasons for the confusion can be varied. For instance, perhaps the technology is relatively new and given the older person’s age, this is literally the first time in their life that they’ve had to use it before. Another circumstance is if the older person has used a similar device in the past, but the device has been upgraded now to include so many more features that it becomes too confusing. A modern cell phone, for example, that is also a camera, text messaging device, email device, GPS, and web-surfing device is a good example of this. I imagine most of us dismiss such incidents as being harmless or annoying and move on. My take on an incident like that is, you guessed it, different. In thinking about the example of an older person getting confused by a cell phone because it has too many functions, a couple of things jump out at me as being evident. The cell phone did not get the ability to text, take pictures, display driving directions, and check email overnight. In the same way, the old person’s confusion at how to use the cell phone likely did not arise all of a sudden either. It is more likely that...
by Andy Chen | Jun 17, 2013 | Law, in real life
One of the situations clients often present to me is this: “Andy, I sold my car a few months back and I got a letter in the mail a few days ago that I owe money for a parking ticket on that car”. Sometimes, the parking ticket is a toll transponder ticket for crossing a bridge or using a toll road without paying. In really bad cases, the unpaid ticket the client didn’t know about has already gone to collections. Often, the only reason the client discovered it was because they were denied credit somewhere. Regardless of what it was you got in the mail, the bottom line is that the law (or, more accurately, the department of motor vehicles in your state) still believes that you are the registered owner of the vehicle you sold and, thus, are responsible for any tickets, fines, etc that the car accumulates. To fix this, what you — as seller of the automobile — should have done is notify your department of motor vehicles that the car you sold is no longer yours. The way to do this in California is to file a Notice of Release of Liability form (REG 138) with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. The form is available as a PDF file you can print or you can even fill it out online if that works better for you. Under California Vehicle Code section 5602, filing a REG 138 Notice of Release of Liability form cuts off the seller’s liability for future fines, tickets, fees, registration, etc that the car might accrue. Vehicle Code section 5900 says...
by Andy Chen | Jun 13, 2013 | California, Law, in real life, Statutes... and stuff
In this episode of Info Series, I’m talking about a problem that I run in to surprisingly often: Does a Power of Attorney or Durable Power of Attorney in California need to be notarized in order to be valid? I recently helped an elderly client execute a Durable Power of Attorney and the client had me present it to his nationwide bank as well as his previous employer from whom he is receiving a retirement pension. Both the bank and the employer tried to convince me that the Durable Power of Attorney needed to be notarized. Fortunately, I’ve looked this question up before and the answer lies in California Probate Code sections 4121 and 4122. Section 4121 begins by saying that “A power of attorney is legally sufficient if all of the following requirements are satisfied:” 4121’s subsections are listed as: a. The power of attorney contains the date of its execution b. The power of attorney is signed either (1) by the principal or (2) in the principal’s name by another adult in the principal’s presence and at the principal’s direction. c. The power of attorney is either (1) acknowledged before a notary public or (2) signed by at least two witnesses who satisfy the requirements of section 4122. Section 4122 lists the following requirements for witnesses: a. The witnesses shall be adults. b. The attorney-in-fact may not act as a witness. c. Each witness signing the power of attorney shall witness either the signing of the instrument by the principal or the principal’s acknowledgment of the signature or the power of attorney. Thus, under California Probate Code...
