Law Office of Camron Hoorfar, PC

In the Gosch’s bankruptcy case, they received money from personal injury claims just before they filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy. They received this money in what is known as a “gap” period (time between the last day of the month preceding chapter 13 filing and the chapter 13 filing itself). Therefore, they were not required to contribute this money as part of their projected-disposable-income calculation.

If you’ve been injured and are considering a personal injury case, or if you’re considering bankruptcy, give us a call at (816) 524-4949 or visit our website at Hoorfarlaw.com.

Courts enforce contracts based on the parties’ intent. The intent is determined from the language of the contract. In the case of Pelopidas, LLC, et al., Respondents, vs. Rachel Keller, Appellant, the circuit court determined that the language of the contract known as the “Settlement Memorandum” was ambiguous. The respondents claimed that the words “shall be” meant that Keller’s stock would be surrendered immediately, and the circuit court agreed. However, Keller argued that “shall be” meant that her stock would be surrendered sometime later, and ultimately, the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed. It was decided that “shall be” refers to a future obligation, and if a deadline is not explicitly decided first, then it must occur within a reasonable amount of time.

Pelopidas, LLC, et al., Respondents, vs. Rachel Keller, Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District – ED109395

If you would like to speak to an attorney about dispute resolution or being sued, call our law office at 816-524-4949 or visit our website at hoorfarlaw.com.

U.S. states must hurry to meet a deadline committing to a $26 billion opioid settlement with three drug distributors as well as drugmaker Johnson & Johnson. With the U.S. government reporting nearly 500,000 overdose deaths in the last two decades, there are concerns that the settlement simply won’t be enough to adequately address the current situation.

States must decide if they will join this settlement, or if they should abstain and try and recoup more funds to aid in addressing the harms done by an epidemic of opioid abuse. There are some states, like Ohio, which are working on their own, separate deals with these companies. The Associate Attorney General of New Hampshire, James Boffetti, has said that the state would likely not join the deal because “it’s just not sufficient.” Although the companies deny any wrongdoing, there are over 3,000 lawsuits that accuse them of ignoring warning signs that pain pills were being diverted to communities for illicit uses and downplaying the risks associated with opioid addiction.

The Advance Child Tax Credit allows those who qualify to receive advance payments of the tax credit. The IRS will pay half the total credit amount in advance monthly payments through December 2021.

Who Qualifies?

For tax year 2021, a qualifying child is an individual who does not turn 18 before January 1, 2022, and:

What should someone who doesn’t want to receive the advance child tax credit payments do?

Some people may not want to receive these advance payments for a couple of reasons. They either prefer to claim the full credit when filing their 2021 tax return instead, or they know they will not be eligible for the credit in 2021. These people can unenroll here through the IRS website. People can unenroll at any point, but there are deadlines each month for the update to take effect.

For married people who are filing jointly and wish to unenroll, it is important that both spouses unenroll. If only one partner unenrolls, they will still receive half the normal payment. Additionally, if they are changing bank account information, both partners must properly update their information in order to receive the full payment in the new account.

Will receiving advance child tax credit payments affect other government benefits?

No. These payments are not counted as income when determining eligibility for benefits or assistance.   These programs cannot count advance child tax credit payments as a resource when determining eligibility for at least 12 months after payments are received.

Are advance child tax credit payments taxable?

No. These payments are not income and will not be reported as income on a taxpayer’s 2021 tax return. Rather, they are advance payments of a person’s tax year 2021 child tax credit.

Final Facts: The total amount of advance child tax credit payments someone receives is based on the IRS’s estimate of their 2021 child tax credit. This estimate is usually calculated using information from previous tax returns. If the total is greater than the child tax credit amount, they can claim on their 2021 tax return, they may have to repay the excess amount on their 2021 tax return.

Courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service.

If you need tax preparation assistance and would like to speak to an attorney, feel free to call us at 816-524-4949 or visit our website at hoorfarlaw.com.

In 2011 Austin Watterson, Josh Wilson, and Mike West entered into an agreement in which they were all working under the LLC of Wilson Home Development (WHD). The terms of this agreement are in dispute. In May of 2011, Watterson filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and he did not claim any ownership in any LLC in his petition. Watterson claims that on August 1 of that same year, he and Wilson met at Wilson’s home to discuss their business relationship. He alleges that in this meeting the pair agreed to start a new LLC, Wilson Home Restoration (WHR), without West, and that they would be equal co-owners. He claimed that they had agreed to split losses and profits equally. This agreement was never formally put in writing, and WHR’s articles of organization were filed in December 2011 with Wilson listed as “the organizer.”

Wilson and Watterson worked under WHR together until 2014. Wilson terminated Watterson’s relationship with the company at this time, and Watterson filed suit against Wilson claiming that Wilson had wrongfully ousted him from the company without compensation for the value of his ownership of the company. Watterson testified that their previous oral agreement provided that Watterson was, in fact, an equal co-owner. Wilson even admitted that on more than one occasion Watterson publicly referred to himself a co-owner of the LLC, and Wilson never corrected him.

The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s “grant of summary judgment on
Watterson’s claims of promissory estoppel, quasi-contract, and quantum meruit.” However, it reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment “on Watterson’s claims of
constructive trust, fraud, and breach of contract.” The case is being sent back to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the Missouri Court of Appeals’ opinion.

Austin Watterson vs. Josh Wilson, et al

If you would like to speak to an attorney about dispute resolution or being sued, or if you’re contemplating bankruptcy, call our law office at 816-524-4949 or visit our website at hoorfarlaw.com.