Tenants by the Entireties and Planning

 Tenants by the Entireties is a special deed form for married couples only.   It creates a separate entity that owns the real property and it is protected from actions by individual creditors of the husband or the wife.  Joint creditors of the husband and wife can still come after the property, but hey, just don’t co-sign anything with your spouse.  

With a tenants by the entireties deed the property is protected in bankruptcy for an unlimited amount of equity.   You are no longer limited to just the $75k homestead exemption protection. This is the deed form the legislature created for the protection of the marital home.  There is a two year look back period in bankruptcy so you need to plan ahead and do it now.  

 

Tax Sale and Actual Occupation of the Property

Mississippi Code 15-1-15 may be useful if a client has a tax sale property.   The statute provides, "Actual occupation for three years, after two years from the day of sale of land held under a conveyance by a tax collector in pursuance of a sale for taxes, shall bar any suit to recover such land or assail such title because of any defect in the sale of the land for taxes, or in any precedent step to the sale, saving to minors and persons of unsound mind the right to bring suit within such time, after the removal of their disabilities, and upon the same terms as is provided for the redemption of land by such persons."

Vehicle Repossession and Bankruptcy

 In Mississippi, there is a 10-day absolute right of redemption for a repossessed vehicle. If a bankruptcy is filed after the repossession, if the vehicle has not been sold and the title transferred to another party, once the bankruptcy is filed the lender must return the vehicle under the bankruptcy code.  The lender would also have to follow the statutory provisions for the disposition of the vehicle (i.e.-notice and right to redeem and notice of the date of the sale at auction or otherwise).   If the lender refuses to return the vehicle,  an adversary proceeding can be filed in Bankruptcy Court and you can recover damages, including attorney's fees and costs.   

COVID-19 and Employers

 The federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of Title VII and the ADA and other EEO considerations discussed below.  These principles apply if an employee gets the vaccine in the community or from the employer.   

In some circumstances, Title VII and the ADA require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.  The analysis for undue hardship depends on whether the accommodation is for a disability (including pregnancy-related conditions that constitute a disability) (see K.6) or for religion (see K.12). 

As with any employment policy, employers that have a vaccine requirement may need to respond to allegations that the requirement has a disparate impact on—or disproportionately excludes—employees based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII (or age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (40+)).  Employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement.

It would also be unlawful to apply a vaccination requirement to employees in a way that treats employees differently based on disability, race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, age, or genetic information, unless there is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason.

Talc Verdict Affirmed

 The Supreme Court is leaving in place a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson talc products, the Associated Press reported. The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting Johnson & Johnson’s appeal. The company argued that it was not treated fairly in facing one trial involving 22 cancer sufferers who came from 12 states and different backgrounds. A Missouri jury initially awarded the women $4.7 billion, but a state appeals court dropped two women from the suit and reduced the award to $2 billion. The jury found that the company’s talc products contain asbestos and asbestos-laced talc can cause ovarian cancer. The company disputes both points. Johnson & Johnson, which is based in New Brunswick, N.J., has stopped selling its iconic talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada, though it remains on the market elsewhere. But the company faces thousands of lawsuits from women who claim asbestos in the powder caused their cancer. Talc is a mineral similar in structure to asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, and they are sometimes obtained from the same mines. The cosmetics industry in 1976 agreed to make sure its talc products do not contain detectable amounts of asbestos.

 

False Lien Statute

 Mississippi Code 85-7-429 provides a remedy for the filing of a false lien on real property.  The statute provides that:

"(1) Any person who shall falsely and knowingly file the claim of lien provided in this article without just cause shall be liable to every party injured thereby for a penalty equal to three (3) times the full amount for which the claim was filed, to be recovered in an action by any party so injured at any time within one hundred eighty (180) days from the filing of the claim of lien.

(2) Any person whose rights may be adversely affected by wrongful filing of a claim of lien, as provided by this article may, in addition to the remedies set forth in subsection (1) of this section, apply, upon seven (7) days' notice, to the circuit, county or chancery court, to expunge or vacate the claim of lien, in accordance with Rule 81(d) (2) of the Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure."

Double Jeopardy and Mistrial

 Yesterday, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that double jeopardy prohibited retrial of a criminal defendant if a mistrial was improperly granted.  A link to the opinion is here.