Issues regarding the mishandling of mortgages and foreclosures around the United States have been in the news a lot lately. Recently, an even more disturbing trend has been appearing on the radar: home break-ins and ransackings by banks. Thanks to a common clause that is found in many mortgages, banks technically have the right to enter and secure a house that has been abandoned. Unfortunately, it appears that many banks aren't being too careful in determining whether or not a house has actually been abandoned. As a result, people around the country are returning to homes that have been looted for no good reason.

A New Breed of Lawsuit

Understandably, homeowners who have discovered that their homes have been wrongfully entered and/or ransacked by their banks have been filing lawsuits. In some cases, the homeowners have been at some stage of the foreclosure process; however, their homes have not been abandoned in any true sense of the word. In other cases, homeowners who are totally current with their mortgages - and even some who own their homes free and clear - have been grappling with these issues. Many experts believe the spate of bank break-ins is yet another sign that the foreclosure process is woefully out of control.

Locked Out of the House

When a California homeowner went to check on her vacation home in the mountains, she was shocked to find that the locks had been changed. When she was finally able to get into the house, she found that it had been cleaned out. All of her belongings were gone. Although the woman was in the midst of foreclosure proceedings, she filed a suit because the house was not actually abandoned. Bank of America, had jumped the gun; in turn, they had created a mountain of headaches for the woman.

Bank Break-Ins on Random Homes

A Texas man went through an even more troubling issue with Bank of America. The bank changed the locks to his second home; they also shut off its electricity. The irony was that the homeowner, owned the home free and clear. Bank of America no longer held the mortgage. As a result the electricity being turned off, 75 pounds of fish spoiled and caused significant damage. The homeowner is suing Bank of America and joins hundreds of other homeowners who are fighting back against banks unscrupulous tactics.

The time that many wealthy individuals have been dreading is almost here: the estate tax is coming back. Due to the unique laws and specifications of the new estate tax, only a fraction of a percentage of those who pass away in 2011 will be subjected to it. Back in 1977, approximately 10.5% of people had to pay the estate tax. According to estimates, less than half of one percent of those who die in 2011 will do so. When combined with savvy accounting practices, many people will escape from the tax altogether and will be able to pass their sizable fortunes on to their heirs.

When the estate tax expired in 2009, many people assumed that it would be reinstated quickly; it wasn't. Instead, it was out of effect throughout 2010, which made many rich people very happy. It was assumed that when it came back, it would do so with a vengeance. Instead, the 2011 estate tax is a lot gentler than the 2009 one. In 2009, there was a $3.5 million exemption and a tax rate of 45%; in 2011, the exemption rises to $5 million and the rate drops to 35%.

The new estate tax is the result of intense back-and-forth sessions between Republicans, Democrats and President Obama. It was included on the recently passed tax bill that also extends unemployment benefits in the United States. It's important to keep in mind, however, that the new estate tax isn't going to be around forever; it is due to expire in two years. At that time, there is no telling what will happen. There could be another moratorium on the estate tax, or it could be increased to become less favorable to the country's wealthiest people. For now, however, people can begin planning for the tax that goes into effect in 2011.

Importance of Proper Estate Planning
Proper Estate Planning can help you control your assets and help you minimize taxes. It is wise to work with a trusted advisor and Estate Planning Lawyer to assist you in proper Estate allocations.

Click on the following link to read more from the New York Times: Estate Tax Will Return Next Year, but Few Will Pay It

Recently, Verizon Communications Inc. agreed to settle a class-action employment lawsuit involving the Family Medical Leave Act that could cost them over $6 million in FMLA damages. The employment lawsuit revolved around Verizon's violations of various leave acts, especially the federal Family Medical Leave Act and and the California Family Rights Act, or CFRA. According to the lawsuit, Verizon engaged in many violations of leave acts between 2007 and 2010. The settlement is still subject to court approval; once it goes through, it will be the largest Family Medical Leave Act settlement in the history of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

How Verizon Violated the Family Medical Leave Act

The FMLA allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid protected leave for employees to care for newborn or newly adopted children, to recover from serious medical conditions or to care for loved ones with serious medical conditions. These laws change frequently, though; employers who don't stay on top of them, as Verizon apparently did not, could subject themselves to their own hefty class-action lawsuits.

According to the suit, Verizon failed to approve requests for leave - or flat-out denied those requests - several times over the three-year period. Furthermore, class members allege in the suit that Verizon fired some of them for violating the company's attendance policy - even when their absences fell under the scope of the FMLA.

It is important to mention that Verizon cooperated fully with the two-year investigation. In addition to the $6 million settlement, Verizon has agreed to do things like revise and review its leave policies; train all of its California managers, officers, HR personnel and others in current Family Medical Leave Act laws; provide an internal review process that employees can use to appeal denials of leave and to provide regular updates to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

What This Means for Employers

The steps that Verizon has promised to undertake as a part of its FMLA settlement are ones that employers everywhere should engage in at all times. The specifics of the federal act change all the time. Waiting until the first lawsuit is filed is a risky proposition. These matters are usually handled as class-action lawsuits that could bankrupt smaller, less powerful companies. It is always in an employer's best interests to stay on top of current laws to avoid these issues.