- This topic has 1 reply, 5 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The decision demands $810,895.94
U.S. court reaches out and touches resort operators here.
http://www.amcostarica.com/thursday.htmIn the week a person was interested in creating a biz for residency, many people in this forum have small business such as hotels and such.
How would these owners feel if a person slips and falls on their property and sues them in a U.S. court?
In the real estate market you can not openly market a development in most U.S. states unless you have them regesterd with the commers department other wise you are liable for action take against you by the state!
Does this sound like somthing that CR just went thru like online gambeling?
Hey Scott…
I read that article in AM Costa Rica this week… let’s see what happens next… getting a judgement in the US is easy… lot’s of bottom feeding lawyers working the system… the tough part is collecting. I’d have to say the US lawyers had a pretty easy time of it so far… a default judgement because the defendants didn’t reply was easy! And how did the demand of $75,000 become $800,000+? I’m not sure that CR is going to be very interested in bringing this kind of US justice system to their shores.
In the states… getting the judgement is easy… collecting takes work… and with the assets in CR… we’ll see how well the lawyers do when they have to WORK in CR to get their payday!
Edited on May 06, 2007 13:22
Edited on May 06, 2007 19:47
But wasn’t this because the owners of the business in Costa Rica were US citizens?
Scott Oliver – Founder
WeLoveCostaRica.comYes, and they claim Florida as their residence!
I guess my point is, is anyone safe if they are U.S. citizens and advertise in the shores of the U.S.?
For that fact is anyone? Because their were many people that were caught up in the online banking that were not U.S. citizens!
Hey Scott
I know we don’t do the legal advice thing here…. but… if you read the article (I haven’t seen the legal documents)… the issue is not that the owners of the S.A. are US citizens that creates the jursidictional tie that the courts are using to hear the case.
The court (at the pleading of the lawyers) are trying to show a “relationship” between the S.A. and the US… in this case… they had at one time apparently… Had a PO box in the states, attended a seminar, had a bank account, enjoyed word of mouth recommendations, and had otherwise promoted their business in the states. The judge even brings in the fact that the incident happened on the high seas in a boat made in the US… so apparently the US court feel they have dominion over all the worlds oceans! It doesn’t appear that the courts took the citizenship of the owners of the S.A. at all… as it should be… the lawyers went after the S.A. and IT’S ties to the US.
All pretty thin if you ask me try to show they were a US business that should be subjected to the US (in)justice system. Using this kind of logic they have applied here… ANY business ANYWHERE in the world would be subject to the US courts if you try hard enough! I don’t think ANY country wants or needs that!
A good lawyer working for these guys should be able to get this kicked… but it takes time and money. A better approach would be to be sure that the assets are fully mortgaged or otherwise “spoken” for… when there’s no equity there’s not much for the lawyers to go after… and since in a personal injury case like this lawyers work on a percentage… they’d drop this case in a minute… too much work, not a big payday! They got a free ride so far… a default judegement for filing some paperwork and paying a small fee… NOW it’s going to be work and cost big bucks!
The error here is doing nothing in the first place THEN responding… the owners of the boat would have been better off NOT replying to the suit at all… now it’s costing money! I could go on and on about the angles here… but time will settle this one.
Let’s see what people think about this issue… it should be an interesting chat….
This is true its not about the citizens but how they advertised. I belive the article also stated that the owners did attend seminars and word of mouth. Like the online gambeling which advertised heavly.
So the question is if you have a company in CR and they advertise on the web or in the papers or any other media in the U.S. They are liable in the U.S. system. Is this fair?
As for recovering the money, I hope the owners of that resort doesnt have a pension or any revenue coming from the states.
Hey Scott…
I guess you got the same thing out of the story as I did. It’s an issue that will be determined in time… but I don’t see other countries allowing the US courts to mendle in their issues. As I said… getting a judgement in the states is easy… collecting is MUCH more difficult… and in this case… having the assests in another country… and having a case that was heard in the US by a REAL REACH of jurisdiction…..makes it even more so!
As for the concern about the owners having income coming from the states (pensions and such)… I don’t see that as being an issue. The S.A…. just as a corporation (entity) in the states… shields the owners from liability. I can’t see even the US courts trying to make that case! And if they do…. it might be better if the defendants offer the plantiff another boat ride…. REAL far out in the ocean!
imxploring…as I have said so many times on this site…the United States will go to any lengths to get money out of its’ citizens. Have you ever tried to go up against them….Well I have and I was told A. you will not win even though you are right..B. it will cost you 10 times the amount of loss and you will loose. C. Attorney fees are not re-paid as part of a settlement IF you should by some freak win. I had $18,400 “on deposit” with the IRS for future tax bills that might come due and by some obscure law at the end of three years with out notice they took my money and NOthing could be done…We are the Government and we are here to help you….yaa right. The govenment is desperate for money and will do everything they can to take it from whom ever they choose. I.E. the new law that allows private citizens to take “emminent domain” over other private citizens properties if they can show the local,state of Feds that they can bring more tax revenue to the taxing authority…..and yes this is correct
Terry From TexasThis is all good but what about the online gambeling than? The long arm of the U.S. did meddle in Costa Rica. The U.S. put people in jail when the companys that were located in Costa Rica were operating with in the law of CR.
Hi Scott and Terry…
You’re not going to get an arguement from me… the government is hell bent to fund itself… I know that all too well. It’s amazing that during a period of rising interest rates that the government “recalculated” the method by which it pays interest on US savings bonds (basically paying below market rates)… they are really scraping! They’ll do anything to stay afloat… seems there’s WAY to many people taking from the system and not enough putting in! So they come back to the well…. the middle class… and I for one am quite tried of the attack! It’s easy for them… adjust the tax rate… and the money comes flowing in!
Currently as a simple W-2 kind of guy I’m a hostage of the system…. I have taken the steps of moving my assest off-shore… not that Uncle Sam is after me… but it’s nice sleeping at night know that if I should be in the crosshairs of some attorney and a white trash client looking to take what I’ve worked for…. they’re in for a battle… Taxes are something I’ll work on next after retire… I do pretty well now knowing the system… years ago I worked for the IRS… so the system isn’t much of a mystery.
As for the issue of the lawsuit at the root of this discussion…. it has nothing to do with the government looking for a payday…. this is nothing more than a US citizen with a lawyer looking for a payday…. which… by the way (personal injury awards) are NOT currently taxed by the US… perhaps they might look there for another revenue stream! It would be a gold mine! This way lawyers aren’t the only one benefiting… we’ll ALL get a little tax relief!
The issue of on-line gambling is a whole other issue… I can go into the good, the bad, and the ugly of the industry and gambling itself… but the issue you bring up is all about the fact that the US governement didn’t want the money going off-shore via credit cards which had been the case. They put a law on the books to stop it… nothing stops someone from making a deposit with a website and then gambling… the problem became that the operators couldn’t make it without the credit card players. I’m not a gambler… no luck… so no big deal! The issue was much clearer in that… the webplayers were gambling in the US… at their home computers… with a company that was doing business INSIDE the US… and not paying taxes. I have less of an issue with that logic than the boat incident.
As for the courts ruling on emminent domain… that was a bone head move… and many states have placed laws on the books to protect private property owners from such actions. While the courts intention was well meaning… the overall picture was one that left a bad taste inthe mouth of the people. No one wants to see an 80 year old barricaded in the family home with a shotgun holding off the bulldozer! It was an isolated case that should have never been placed before the court. I’m sure we’ll see a modification to the ruling with future cases.
Edited on May 07, 2007 15:20
IMX It seems that the people being sued have assets in the U.S. which is probably why now they have responded. With that default judgement in hand the plaintiff can proceed to attach assets(in the U.S.)? Am I correct? If so the ability to sue someone for something that happened in C.R. can not be ignored and can not only be a big headache but quite costly…
The assets in Costa Rica were owned by a CR S.A….. thus the suit is trying it’s best to tie the CR S.A. to the US to obtain jurisdiction. And as I said… all that does is allow the case to be heard in a US court… it’s all uphill from there!!!
The suit isn’t against the owners… I don’t think the article stated that at all! If it had been as easy as going after the owners of the S.A. as US citizens and their assets in the states there would have been no need for all the work trying to get it into a US court. And as the article indicated… the plaintiff is looking to go after the CR assets… good luck with that one!
As I like to say… ANYONE can sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING… but that doesn’t mean you’ll collect a dime! In this case the S.A. should shield the owners personal assets… unless the plantiffs attorney is able to “pierce” it… they would need to show a lot more than what I’ve seen thus far.
Having the S.A. assets mortgaged to the max will head off the claim… in a situation like this it’s hard to believe that the boat operators didn’t have some basic insurance… I’d love to know the WHOLE story!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
