Ad
related to: affirmative defenses in foreclosure actions
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense. [4]
Correspondingly, the foreclosure defense strategies were influenced by clients’ underlying goals to stay in their homes for as long as the law would allow. Some of these foreclosure actions were ...
Consent can be a defense to any intentional tort, although lack of consent is occasionally incorporated into the definition of an intentional tort, such as trespass to land. However, lack of consent is not always an essential element to establish a prima facie case in such situations. Therefore, it is properly treated as an affirmative defense.
Equitable defenses are usually affirmative defenses asking the court to excuse an act because the party bringing the cause of action has acted in some inequitable way. Traditionally equitable defenses were only available at the Court of Equity and not available at common law.
Judicial foreclosure: With a judicial foreclosure, the lender files a lawsuit and the borrower is notified of the non-payment. The homeowner has 30 days to make up the missed payments, otherwise ...
In a civil proceeding or criminal prosecution under the common law or under statute, a defendant may raise a defense (or defence) [a] in an effort to avert civil liability or criminal conviction. A defense is put forward by a party to defeat a suit or action brought against the party, and may be based on legal grounds or on factual claims.
An innocent owner defense is a concept in United States law providing for an affirmative defense that applies when an owner claims innocence of a crime and so the property should not be forfeited. It is defined in section 983(d) of title 18 of the United States Code ( 18 U.S.C. § 983(d) ) and is part of the Code that defines forfeiture laws ...
They also authorize affirmative defenses like discretionary immunity. In the 1961 Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District decision, the California Supreme Court decided that "total governmental immunity […] does not exist" and would no longer protect the state and other public entities from civil liability for their torts. [ 18 ]
Ad
related to: affirmative defenses in foreclosure actions