California Personal Injury Lawyers - Bakersfield Personal Injury Attorneys - Chain, Younger, Cohn & Stiles

February 2007


New Driving Laws for 2007
New Passport Requirements for 2007
Change in Law for Month to Month Tenants for 2007
New Law Concerning Dogs for 2007
Beware of Unsolicited $1,000+ Checks - Lottery Scam Update
New Orleans Judge Rules In Favor Of Hurricane Victims: Vague Insurance Policies Insufficient To Deny Policyholders’ Claims
Matthew Clark: Our Newest Attorney
Current Product Recalls
Other Chain Younger Websites
Free Case Evaluation

New Driving Laws for 2007

Every New Year also brings a slew of new California laws. For California Drivers, there were 145 changes to the California Vehicle Code. It's every driver's responsibility to educate themselves to these changes. Ignorance of the current vehicle code will not be a defense if you are found in violation. Some of the more important changes to the California Vehicle Code include increased license suspension for certain DUI's, stiffer penalties for street racing and regulations for complying with stopped emergency vehicles.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles highlights the more significant changes to the California Vehicle Code on their website. Click Here For More Info.



New Passport Requirements for 2007

Local travelers should also be aware that passport regulations have also recently changed. Effective January 23, 2007 The Department of State and Homeland Security is requiring citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda to present a passport when entering the United States while traveling from flights originating in the Western Hemisphere. You can find these changes detailed at the U.S. Department of State's website: Click Here



Change in Law for Month to Month Tenants for 2007

Section 1946.1 of the California Civil Code was changed for 2007 to require landlords to provide sixty (60) days notice to terminate any periodic leases, such as a month-to-month rental, if all tenants and residents have occupied the property for at least one year. If the tenant or resident has been residing in the property for less than one year, then thirty (30) days notice is still sufficient.

The thirty days (30) notice may apply to tenants who have occupied the property for more than one year only if all the following conditions are met:
  1. The dwelling or unit is alienable separate from the title to any other dwelling unit.
  2. The owner has contracted to sell the dwelling or unit to a bona fide purchaser for value, and has established an escrow with a licensed escrow agent, as defined in Sections 17004 and 17200 of the Financial Code, or a licensed real estate broker, as defined in Section 10131 of the Business and Professions Code.
  3. The purchaser is a natural person or persons.
  4. The notice is given no more than 120 days after the escrow has been established.
  5. Notice was not previously given to the tenant pursuant to this section.
  6. The purchaser in good faith intends to reside in the property for at least one full year after the termination of the tenancy.
This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2010, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2010, deletes or extends that date.



New Law Concerning Dogs for 2007

There is a new law which prohibits dog owners from restraining their dogs. The law states that:

      no person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object for more than three hours within a 24 hour time period.

A person who violates this chapter is guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor. An infraction is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to two hundred fifty dollars ($250) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs. A misdemeanor is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) as to each dog with respect to which a violation occurs, or imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months, or both.

There are exceptions to this law. A dog owner still may:
  • Attach a dog to a running line, pulley, or trolley system. A dog shall not be tethered to the running line, pulley, or trolley system by means of a choke collar or pinch collar.
  • Tether, fasten, chain, tie, or otherwise restrain a dog pursuant to the requirements of a camping or recreational area.
  • Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog no longer than is necessary for the person to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained for a reasonable period.
  • Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog while engaged in, or actively training for, an activity that is conducted pursuant to a valid license issued by the State of California if the activity for which the license is issued is associated with the use or presence of a dog. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit a person from restraining a dog while participating in activities or using accommodations that are reasonably associated with the licensed activity.
  • Tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog while actively engaged in any of the following:
    • Conduct that is directly related to the business of shepherding or herding cattle or livestock.
    • Conduct that is directly related to the business of cultivating agricultural products, if the restraint is reasonably necessary for the safety of the dog.
If you have compliance concerns contact your local Animal Control Services Division.



Beware of Unsolicited $1,000+ Checks - Lottery Scam Update

In this newsletter we've discussed the ongoing trends of fraud and scams through the mail or e-mail. Since these types of scams evolve as consumers become more savvy, new twists to recurring scams spring up quite frequently. The latest version of the lottery scam to hit Kern County is an even more enticing version of the two forms we've previously covered in our newsletter.

The first variation we covered dealt with an invitation to participate in foreign lotteries. The letter promises a secret technique or formula to winning these foreign lotteries. They promise large sums of cash at very favorable odds. As awareness grew regarding these e-mails or letters, they became easily ignored.

The second version of this scam involves a letter stating that the recipient has won a large sum of money via an international lottery. The recipient is then told either through mail or e-mails that in order to handle the transfer fees of this money; they need to transfer several hundreds of dollars upfront from their bank accounts. Sometimes the victim receives a check of a few thousand dollars as an upfront "good faith" payment. Of course, this check is fraudulent. To add validity to their claims, the scam artists sometimes use the name of an attorney or barrister in a foreign country as their contact. Again awareness of these scams grew and they have become less effective.

Recently, a third and even more dangerous, variation of this scam has reared its head in Kern County. This new variant of the lottery scam involves counterfeit or stolen checks being sent accompanied with a congratulatory letter. The letter claims that the check, usually several thousands of dollars, is just a portion of a sizeable award. The "winner" is then asked to deposit the check and send a portion back to the sender. The step requiring contact to receive the check has now been removed, and the scam artist relies on impulse reactions of the consumer holding a check for several thousand dollars in their hands. The presence of a check "in hand" gives the impression that this lottery is legitimate. Subsequently, the consumer is more likely to unwittingly participate in this scam. The belief of legitimacy is then carried over temporarily after the consumer deposits the phony check because the check will often initially clear. It's not until a few days later that the check is discovered to be counterfeit and the associated funds will then be flagged by the bank, minus the money sent to the scam artists and whatever of their imaginary windfall the consumer has spent. In a worst case scenario the defrauded consumer not only is liable for the funds of the check, but also the fee withdrawn, plus overdraft charges from reckless spending. The consumer also faces potential criminal charges for participating in this fraud.

If you or anyone you know has received one of these checks in the mail, contact your local authorities and file a report with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. Click Here For More Info.



New Orleans Judge Rules In Favor Of Hurricane Victims: Vague Insurance Policies Insufficient To Deny Policyholders’ Claims

Nearly a year and a half ago, Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast, leaving many of the area’s residents homeless and awaiting assistance – from both their government and their private insurers. Click here to read more...



Meet Our Newest Attorney!

Matthew Clark joins the Chain-Younger team.

Click here to learn more about him....





You can visit Chain-Younger Websites for additional information regarding: