A judge said Jones can’t use bankruptcy to avoid paying $1.1 billion he owes parents of the Sandy Hook massacre victims for airing lies about them on his talk show. That came 13 days after Cardi B scored a big victory in her battle to collect nearly $3 million from a blogger who falsely claimed, among other things, that the singer had been a prostitute and had herpes.
Read more at Bloomberg Law
Two bills (HB 4631 and HB 4632) that expand civil forfeiture at airports, making it much easier for law enforcement to seize—and permanently keep—cash and other valuables from travelers.
Read more at Forbes
A federal judge ruled the CDC overstepped its authority when it issued a nationwide eviction moratorium. What the ruling actually means still remains to be seen. Based on the move the Biden administration makes next in response and if a stay is granted.
One thing to remember: you cannot be forced from your home without an eviction notice.
Read more at WXYZ Detroit
Because of what was considered an oversight, Uri Rafaeli owed $8.41 in 2011 taxes on a rental property in Southfield.
Read more at Macomb Daily
"In February, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to state and local governments (as well as the federal government) and that it constrains civil asset forfeitures. Civil asset forfeiture policies enable law enforcement agencies to seize property that they suspect might have been used in a crime—including in many cases where the owner has never been convicted of anything, or even charged.
To determine if a forfeiture would be "grossly disproportional" and unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause, the Indiana Supreme Court devised a three-factor test. First, Hoosier courts will now have to consider the "harshness of the punishment," which may include considering if the forfeiture would remedy the harm cause by the offense and to what extent, as well as property's value and role in the offense.
Judges will also need to determine what effect forfeiting the property would have on the owner. After all, courts already consider a person's economic resources when it comes to levying court costs and civil punitive damages.
"The owner's economic means—relative to the property's value—is an appropriate consideration," Chief Justice Rush wrote. "To hold the opposite would generate a new fiction: that taking away the same piece of property from a billionaire and from someone who owns nothing else punishes each person equally."
Second, courts in Indiana must determine the "severity of the offense," which includes examining statutory penalties, the sentence imposed, and the harm cause by the crime. Finally, judges will also be required to consider an owner's culpability and "blameworthiness for the property's use as an instrumentality of the underlying offenses." A forfeiture may be unconstitutionally excessive "if a claimant is entirely innocent of the property's misuse."
Read more at reason.com
