,
The Nacol Law Firm PC
The Nacol Law Firm PC

Archive for October, 2009

Texas Child Support Guidelines

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Under the Texas Family Code §154.125 the guidelines for child support are as follows:

 

(a) The guidelines for the support of a child in this section are specifically designed to apply to situations in which the obligor’s monthly net resources are not greater than $7,500 or the adjusted amount determined under Subsection (a-1), whichever is greater.

 

(a-1)  The dollar amount prescribed by Subsection (a) above is adjusted every six years as necessary to reflect inflation.  The Title IV-D agency shall compute the adjusted amount, to take effect beginning September 1 of the year of the adjustment, based on the percentage change in the consumer price index during the 72-month period preceding March 1 of the year of the adjustment, as rounded to the nearest $50 increment.  The Title IV-D agency shall publish the adjusted amount in the Texas Register before September 1 of the year in which the adjustment takes effect.  For purposes of this subsection, “consumer price index” has the meaning assigned by Section 341.201, Finance Code.

 

(a-2)  The initial adjustment required by Subsection (a-1) shall take effect September 1, 2013.  This subsection expires September 1, 2014.

 

(b)        if the obligor’s monthly net resources are not greater than the amount provided by Subsection (a), the court shall presumptively apply the following schedule in rendering the child support order: 

 

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES

BASED ON THE MONTHLY NET RESOURCES OF THE OBLIGOR

 

1 child              20% of Obligor’s Net Resources

2 children          25% of Obligor’s Net Resources

3 children          30% of Obligor’s Net Resources

4 children          35% of Obligor’s Net Resources

5 children          40% of Obligor’s Net Resources

         6+ children        Not less than the amount for 5 children

 

Depending on the number of other children an obligor has a duty to support, the percentage of child support may be lower.  For example, if the obligor was previously married and has 1 child to support in the previous marriage, the amount of support paid for one child before the court decreases to 17.50 percent.  See the chart below.

 

Multiple Family Adjusted Guidelines

(% of Net Resources)

Net Monthly Resources X Percentage Below = Monthly Child Support Obligation

 

 

Number of other children for whom the obligor has a duty of support

Number of Children Before the Court

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

40.00

40.00

1

17.50

22.50

27.38

32.20

37.33

37.71

38.00

2

16.00

20.63

25.20

30.33

35.43

36.00

36.44

3

14.75

19.00

24.00

29.00

34.00

34.67

35.20

4

13.60

18.33

23.14

28.00

32.89

33.60

34.18

5

13.33

17.86

22.50

27.22

32.00

32.73

33.33

6

13.14

17.50

22.00

26.60

31.27

32.00

32.62

7

13.00

17.22

21.60

26.09

30.67

31.38

32.00

 

Net resources are determined by deducting the following from the obligor’s income:

 

1.             Social Security Taxes;

2.             Federal Income Tax based on the tax rate for a single person claiming one personal exemption and the standard deductions;

3.             State Income Tax;

4.             Union Dues (if such deductions are being withheld); and

5.             Expenses for Health Insurance Coverage for Obligor’s Child(ren) (if such deductions are being withheld).

Sealing the Deal - Contracts (A Smart Investment) - Part II

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

There are two primary types of contracts:  express contract and implied contract.  The express contract is formal, and stated either verbally or in writing.  The implied contract is one that is not written down, but considered to be understood between the parties.  It is a matter of inference and deduction. 

 

Though most oral contracts are not legally binding, they are undertaken on ethical principles.  In the United States every contract for that sale of goods that involves an amount that exceeds $500.00 must be written to be legally enforceable.  The courts generally recognize any defined meeting of the minds of competent persons with a like purpose and intent to undertake some common task as a contract.  The Statute of Frauds mandates for some contracts to be enforceable they must be in writing.

 

There are three ways a term may be implied into a contract:

 

1.             By custom – A contract may incorporate as an implied term any relevant custom.  The custom must be well known within a particular trade and business and be generally accepted within such trade or business.

2.             By statute – The most common terms implied by statute are those relating to the sale and supply of goods and services.  The Sale of Goods Act of 1979 provides for implied terms in respect of:  1) that the seller has the right to sell the goods 2) that goods sold are of satisfactory quality; 4) that goods sold are reasonably fit for the purpose they were bought; and 5) that goods sold by sample correspond with the sample.  The Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982 states with regard to implied terms in a contract that the service will be carried out with reasonable care and skill, within a reasonable time and for a reasonable price.

3.             By the Court – Courts do not like to interfere in the construction of contracts. They will only imply terms into a contract under certain circumstances and with certain pre-conditions.  Terms can be implied in fact or in law.   

  1. A contract implied in fact is one in which the circumstances imply the parties have reached an agreement even though they have not done so expressly. 
  2. A contract implied in law (the quasi-contract) is not an actual contract, but a means for the courts to remedy situations in which one party would be unjustly enriched were he or she not required to compensate the other.  If one party has agreed to a term, but the other party has not, it will not be implied into a contract.  Further, terms will not be implied into a rigorous contract with detailed written terms where any omission would be deemed to be deliberate.

 

Express terms of a contract outline the primary obligations of the parties.  Distinction has been made among the various types of express terms.  This distinction is important as it sets apart the remedies available to the innocent party in the event of a breach.  Such terms fall into three categories:

 

1.             Conditions – the major terms of the contract.

2.             Warranties – the minor terms of the contract.

3.             Miscellaneous terms – neither conditions or warranties.

 

An implied term cannot contradict an express term.  However, it may widen or narrow an express term when necessary if the express term is flexible.

The basic rule is that parties to contracts must perform as specified in the contract unless (1) the parties agree to the change in the contract’s terms, or (2) the actions of the party who deviates from the terms of the contract are implicitly accepted (”ratified”) by the action or non-action of the other party.

If there is no acceptance of deviation from the terms of the contract, and the deviation is serious enough to make any real difference in the intended result of the contract, then the deviating party is said to have breached the contract.  His justified prevention or interference with the performance of the other party is also a breach.

Of course if one party fails more or less entirely to perform the contract, or totally prevents the performance of the contract by the other party, the situation is straightforward.  The situation becomes more complex where the argument is over specific terms such as the quality of materials or the timing of work.

Breach of contract leaves the non-performing or improperly performing party open to a claim for damages by the other party.  If the breach is a material breach, the non-breaching party is relieved of his obligations under the contract by the other party’s breach.

There are many possible ways for performance of a contract to give rise to dissatisfaction.  The courts have been forced to analyze the matter in much more subtle terms than “breached” or “not breached.”

The doctrine of “substantial performance” saves a party who has largely fulfilled his obligations under a contract from suffering major loss merely because he has unintentionally fallen short in some particular manner which does not affect the essence of the contract.

A breach is not defined as promises laid out explicitly in a contract, rather a breach of contract is defined as any violation of law, principal or obligation.  It is this definition of breach that leaves room for parties to file suits involving breaches of implied contracts.

THE ORAL CONTRACT

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

A ”contract” is a promise or set of promises with legal consequences.  The Texas Supreme Court has noted that every contract includes an element of confidence and trust that the parties will faithfully perform their obligations under the contract.

 

You may hear that an oral agreement is just as valid as a written agreement.  However, in a court of law, a written contract ordinarily trumps an oral contract.  This means that in disputes, should there be a disagreement on a provision of the contract, the Court will use the written provisions of the contract to interpret the meaning before it will consider the oral arguments.  Further, typewritten provisions control over printed provisions.  Under Texas law, the requirements for a valid contract are: (1) an offer; (2) an acceptance in strict compliance with the terms of the offer; (3) a meeting of the minds ”meeting of the minds” is actually subpart of offer and accepted elements, not an independent element; (4) each party’s consent to the terms; (5) consideration; and (6) execution and delivery of the contract with the intent that it be mutual and binding. The elements of written and oral contracts are the same, and they all must be present in order for the contract to be binding.

 

In determining whether an oral contract exists, the court looks to the communications between the parties and to the acts and circumstances surrounding those communications. The terms of an oral contract may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence Although delivery is generally essential to the validity of a contract, when the parties manifest an intent through their actions and words that the contract is effective, delivery is shown.

 

It is important when making an oral contract that a party keep any and all documentation regarding the agreement.  Should a party end up in litigation, notes regarding the agreements between the parties, the times such agreements were made, the witnesses to such agreements and any emails or written correspondence between the parties can be important to proving that a valid contract existed. Even hand written sticky notes become important when trying to prove the existence of an oral contract.  Place all information pertaining to your agreement in one place. 

 

A basic element of any contract is a promise. A ”contractual promise” is an express or implied declaration made by one person, the promisor, for the purpose of assuring another person, the promisee, that a particular action or restraint from action will occur. A contractual promise is what is objectively determinable from the parties’ words or actions. It is different from either party’s subjective intentions. ”Intentions” are the purposes formed in one person’s mind, which may begin and end with that person. Similarly, a party’s subjective ”expectations” that the other party will act or refrain from acting are also irrelevant to objectively determinable, contractual promises.

 

To prove a valid offer, a party must show (1) the offeror intended to make an offer, (2) the terms of the offer were clear and definite, and (3) the offeror communicated the essential terms of the offer to the offeree.  An ”offer” is a clear and definite proposal to enter into a contract immediately once the offer is accepted. A proposal qualifies as an offer when it is sufficiently definite so that, if accepted, it clearly and definitely establishes the promises and performances to be rendered by each party certainty of terms as element of valid contract analyzed. Thus, an offer that may ripen into a contract differs from a mere expression of desire or hope that the parties may, at some time in the future, come to an agreement. An offer that may ripen into a contract also differs from mere preliminary negotiations.

 

To determine whether there was a meeting of the minds, a court reviews in an objective fashion, without considering subjective intent, what the parties actually said and did. One party’s uncommunicated reservations concerning the contract are insufficient to prevent a meeting of the minds. The parties’ failure to agree on a material term precludes a meeting of the minds necessary to form a valid contract.  If evidence of the parties’ mutual agreement consists of their conduct and course of dealing, their mutual agreement may be inferred from the circumstances, in which case their contract is an ”implied contract’.’

 

In some cases, what objectively appears to have been a valid offer and acceptance results in only a voidable contract because one party’s consent was, in fact, procured by fraud, undue influence, duress, or mistake.

 

Some contracts cannot be made orally.  Contracts that must be in writing and must be signed are the following:

 

  • A promise by an executor or administrator to answer out of the executor or administrator’s own estate for any debt or damage due from the testator or intestate.
  • A promise by one person to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another.  For example, an alleged oral agreement between current and former partners in a joint venture, that the current partner would take over the former partner’s obligation on the venture’s debt in exchange for the former partner’s assignment of his interest in the venture, was subject to the statute of frauds as an agreement to assume the debt of another.
  • An agreement made on consideration of marriage or on consideration of nonmarital conjugal cohabitation.
  • A contract for sale of real estate.  An agreement to pay a certain sum of money out of the proceeds of a future sale of real estate in return for personal services rendered does not fall within this provision of the statute of frauds.  However, the Texas Supreme Court has indicated that the conveyance of an overriding royalty interest in future production from unleased land may be subject to the statute of frauds.
  • A lease of real estate for a term longer than one year.
  • An agreement that is not to be performed within one year from the date of making the agreement.  If the agreement may be conceivably be performed in one year, the statute of frauds does not apply, no matter how improbable performance within one year may be.  For the purpose of the one-year rule, there is a technical distinction between the termination of a contract and the performance of a contract.
  • A promise or agreement to pay a commission for the sale or purchase of an oil or gas lease or royalty, minerals, or mineral interest.
  • An agreement, promise, contract, or warranty of cure relating to medical care or results made by a physician or health care provider other than a pharmacist.
  • Loan agreements in excess of $50,000 made by financial institutions are also required to be in writing in order to be enforceable.  [Dorsoneo Litigation Guide].

 

A written contract that is not required by law to be in writing may be modified by the parties’ subsequent oral agreement, even if the written contract provides that it can be modified only by a written agreement.  Courts have allowed oral modification, reasoning that a written agreement is of no higher legal degree than an oral agreement, and either may vary or discharge the other.

 

Not every oral modification to a contract is barred.  The critical inquiry is whether the modification materially affects the obligation of the contract.  An oral modification is enforceable if the character or value of the contract is unaltered.

 

The fundamental problem with the oral contract is that it can be difficult to prove.  If a party chooses not to honor the bargain they will most likely claim that no agreement was ever reached. Thus, the case may be decided on the evidence available. 

Do you have an oral contracts with business vendors or employees that you would like to discuss with a Dallas contract attorney? Call Dallas contract attorney Mark Nacol to dicusss any questions you may have on oral contracts in the  Dallas,  Texas area.

Parent Alienation

Monday, October 19th, 2009

What is Separate Property and Community Property in Texas?

Monday, October 19th, 2009

The Whistleblower - Pharmaceutical Fraud

Monday, October 19th, 2009

In September of 2007, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and its wholly owned subsidiary, Apothecon, Inc. agreed to pay over $515 million to resolve a broad array of civil allegations involving their drug marketing and pricing practices.  In December 2007 the Corporate Crime Reporter reported Merick to pay $670 million to settle federal and state charges that it violated the False Claims Act by engaging in nominal pricing fraud.  In 1986, more than $20 billion was paid out in fraud lawsuits brought by whistleblowers.

 

Pharmaceutical fraud cases represent the largest percentage of False Claims Act recoveries by the United, and qui tam relator whistleblower lawsuits.  The False Claims Act Is a federal whistleblower law which has its roots in the civil war era and allows private citizens to file actions against federal contractors and corporations who conduct fraud against the government and the public.  It is the United States’ most powerful tool for rooting out fraudulent government contracts.  With the advent of the Medicare prescription plan, even more federal tax dollars will flow into the pockets of large ruling companies illegally and in violation of current law.  In an industry with great power and profitability, there are lots of pressures upon companies to ignore federal laws designed to prevent fraud and curb costs.

 

Pharmaceutical fraud can take a variety of forms and involve complex issues.  The following are some example:

 

  • Charging the government for drugs not used and returned to pharmacy providers;
  • Marketing, promoting, and selling drugs for use other than those approved by the FDA;
  • Paying kickbacks and inducements to physicians, hospitals and pharmacists to prescribe or otherwise favor a drug;
  • Engaging in off-label marketing; and
  • Providing false data to the FDA or withholding negative data from FDA about the efficacy of a pharmaceutical drug or medical device in clinical research trials to get approval to sell and market the pharmaceutical drug or medical device.

Currently, the United States Government, along with the governments of 15 states and the District of Columbia, have joined with two whistleblowers who allege that drug manufacturer Wyeth defrauded U.S. taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Wyeth is accused of overcharging Medicare and Medicaid programs nationwide for purchases of it’s acid-reflux drug Protonix.  Under federal law, drug companies are required to offer prescriptions to federal aid programs at the lowest possible price.  The Wyeth suit alleges that Wyeth was offering Protonix at a 90% discount to a private hospital, while charging the federal government much higher rates.

 

Other drug companies that have settled qui tam lawsuits include Pfizer, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, and Schering-Plough Corp.  A federal official recently said the government has approximately 150 pharmaceutical fraud cases pending involving over 500 different drugs.

 

Pharmacy benefits management companies have also come under increasing scrutiny as a result of the False Claims Act.  In one of the most prominent whistleblower cases reported, Phillips & Cohen represented two whistleblowers whose qui tam lawsuits resulted in a settlement of $875 million to settle the lawsuits and related criminal charges.

 

If you believe you have discovered fraud, you should try to assess the magnitude of the fraud and gather whatever documentary or electronic evidence is lawfully available.  Be sure you do not violate the law or the terms of your employment agreement.  Write down the details of any meetings or events where fraud was discussed, who was present and what documents may exist that memorialize the event.  This documentation should be given to your attorney.

 

Keep in mind, you cannot recover in a qui tam action if another whistleblower has already filed an action based on the same documentation and information.

Whistleblower - Federal Government and Federal Government Contractor Fraud

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

A large percentage of the United State’s enormous annual spending goes to development and implementation of new weapons systems, facilities, equipment, supplies, and logistical and technical services through the procurement of government contracts.  Such government contracts frequently involve military defense contracts such as B-1 Bombers, military tanks and vehicles, military fire power and uniforms, and extends to areas such as computer technology and food services for our troops. Defense contractor fraud remains one of the most prominent areas of false claims litigation under the Federal False Claims Act. In April 2009 TRW Inc.’s efforts to stop a scientist from revealing his research findings about faulty electronic components the company sold to the government for military and intelligence-gathering satellites were the basis for a whistleblower lawsuit that Northrop Grumman Corp. settled for $325 million.  It was the largest settlement ever paid by a defense contractor in a whistleblower case and the second largest ever paid involving defense contractor fraud. 

 

The whistleblower was awarded $48.7 million for his work and the work of his attorneys on the case.  The Federal False Claims Act requires the government to award whistleblowers 15 to 25 percent of the amount the government recovers as a result of whistleblower cases.

 

A false certification of regulatory and statutory compliance, necessary to obtain a contract, can render false all claims for payment under that contract.  A contractor’s failure to meet contract performance requirements and failure to provide goods and services in conformance with federal statutes and regulations may be sufficient to violate the False Claims Act. 

 

Presentation of a claim to the Government for payment, when the failure to abide by contract requirements has not been disclosed to the Government, is deemed equivalent to false certification of compliance with such laws and regulations.  Therefore, if a claim for payment is submitted and the contract requirements have not been fulfilled in all respects, if federal funding is conditioned on compliance, gives rise to a False Claims Act case.  Claims may be false, even though goods or services otherwise fulfill contract specifications.

 

Defense contractor fraud remains one of the most prominent areas of false claims litigation.  Billions of dollars have been recovered from defense contractors, mainly as a result of whistleblowers.  Some common ways in which defense contractors have tried to defraud the government are as follows:

 

1.             Cross-charging.  This occurs when a defense contractor improperly shifts costs and expenses from one defense contract to another in order to boost its profits. 

2.             Improper Product Substitution.  Contracts frequently request the contractor use a specific grade or quality of product or part.  There are often requirements that the products be new or made in the United States.  Defense contractors often attempt to save costs by substituting cheaper or substandard parts.

3.             Improper Cost Allocation.  Under this scheme the defense contractor will improperly allocate or shift cost from private businesses or foreign governments onto the cost-plus contracts they have with the United States government.

4.             Worthless or Substandard Products or Services.  In this case the defense contractor with knowledge or through reckless neglect, delivers products that do not perform as promised.

5.             Inflation or Costs and Charges.  In a cost-plus contract, the government pays the defense contractor a set price plus a percentage of the contractor’s costs for producing the product.  In this scheme the contractor improperly inflates their costs and charges to increase revenue the company earns from the U.S. government.

6.             Violations of the Truth-In-Negotiations Act.  Weapons systems and equipment can be extremely complex.  Much of the time, there is only one company in the world producing a particular weapon system or piece of equipment.  The government has no choice but to purchase the particular weapon system or piece of equipment from a single supplier.  Because other competitors are not bidding, the government has no way of knowing if it is paying a fair price.  The Truth-In-Negotiations Act is designed to prevent this problem by requiring defense contractors to disclose all relevant information about its costs to the government in such situations.  Defense contractors may sometimes attempt to inflate their costs and expenses because they have no competitor bidding for the contract.