BUS-LAW

Surname 1

Surname 2

Business Writing

 __________________________________________________

Smarthinking Reviewer Response Form

Hi, Cristina! I’m Amanda O. and I look forward to working with you today. I have written comments about your submission in the form below and embedded comments directly into your work.

Thank you for choosing us to help you improve your workplace writing. Let's begin!

What’s Working:

Cristina, you’ve done a nice job of making sure to include each of the sections the instructor requested. By making sure to answer each of the primary questions of the assignment, you create a paper that meets expectations. Nicely done!

What Needs Work:

I’ve chosen three priorities to focus on as you revise.

Content Development:

Your comments on the case and whether you agree on the ruling could be developed a bit further, Cristina. Right now, your reasoning is sometimes supported by vague references to “similar cases” that aren’t really explained and therefore don’t clearly support your thinking. For instance, you wrote:

There are very similar cases that are present such as this one?

Which cases are similar to this one, and how does that influence your belief that granting more time was the right decision for the court? By naming an example or two and explaining how the decision made in that case supports your thinking, you will create a clearer, more well-developed explanation of why you support this ruling. As you revise, look for other places

Organization/Formatting:

Cristina, I’m wondering if presenting the facts of the case as a bullet-point list is the most effective way to describe the case. From the assignment description, I can’t tell whether a bullet-pointed list would be acceptable for the assignment (this would be a question for the instructor). However, reading the bullets, some of them refer back to previous bullet points in a way that suggests it may be easier to present the facts of the case in a paragraph or two that allows you to describe the situation in complete sentences, telling the story of the case rather than listing items. As you revise, consider whether the format in which you present information is the most effective way to get that information across to your reader.

Word Choice:

Sometimes, Cristina, you combine words or phrases that don’t quite fit together to create clear sentences. For example, you wrote:

I support the ruling given since it provides time for which both sides could gather evidence and defend themselves properly

Here, “time for which” is a phrase that doesn’t quite make sense in this context. Generally, we speak about time in terms of durations, such as “time in which” or “time during which.” Because “for” suggests doing one thing in order to obtain another, such as “working for wages,” it doesn’t quite fit here. As you revise, read through sentences at the word-choice level to make sure that your words and phrases really fit together in a clear, logical way. When in doubt, consult the dictionary definition of a word to make sure it means what you thought it did.

Revision Checklist:

·  Develop more specific support for why you agree with the court ruling.

·  Consider organization and formatting in terms of presenting the facts of the case.

·  Watch out for words and phrases that don’t quite fit together clearly.

Thank you for your submission, Cristina! I enjoyed reviewing it and wish you the best of luck with your revision.

You can find more information about writing, grammar, and usage in our Writer’s Handbook.  Please look for comments [in bold and in brackets] in your submission below. We hope to work with you again soon!

NAME

Professor

Unit

Date

U.S. Bank NA v. Rickie A. Mercer

Case Type: This is a property case since it involves housing and land, lending based on the fact that the house itself was the security. [This sentence doesn’t quite seem to come together to express a complete thought. There seem to be words or phrases missing after “land” that would help us understand what the “lending based on the fact…” portion of the sentence means. How might you revise this sentence to more clearly express your thoughts?]

Issue: Did the bank have the right to have a bankruptcy stay lifted on a mortgaged home based on the fact that the owner filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 to chapter 13?

Facts

· Mercer had acquired mortgage through U.S. Bank NA and was unable to pay

· He defaulted payment of the mortgage worth $160,191

· He then filed for bankruptcy under chapter 7 protection in the Bankruptcy Code which would allow the caught to discharge his debts

· The bank was, therefore, unable to conduct foreclosure proceedings

· Mercer had to submit the documentation of proof to the bank which he failed to do so on multiple occasions but later did deliver

· He later contacted the bank to reinstate his loan so that he would be able to stay payments when due

· This was to allow for the bank to return the house back to Mercer

· The bank, therefore, filed a motion to lift the bankruptcy stay

· Mercer was now opposing the motion on the claim that he was in the process of filing for bankruptcy relief under chapter 13 which the bank knew

The Court: District Court

Ruling: A hearing date was set for a later time for which both the plaintiff and the defendant are expected to come with evidence to defend their …… The bank was further advised to stop any further proceedings until the case was resolved.

Comments

I support the ruling given since it provides time for which both sides could gather evidence and defend themselves properly. There are very similar cases that are present such as this one. Often foreclosure provides no room for argument and thus this is an opportunity for which the client would be able to save their home. Alternatively, there are cases such as this in which the clients use bankruptcy to forego the payment of their arrears. [Here is another place where the example you reference is a bit vague, Cristina. Could you be more specific here to help illustrate your line of reasoning?] Sometimes they are filed falsely which in the end might lead to a financial crisis if allowed to continue. It is, therefore, important, that the bank should be able to provide evidence to the court on the reasons for their motion. This would not only act as an example to any other defaulters but it would help to rule out the possibility of false ‘bankruptcy filing’ and prevent the bank from being duped. [Here, you are missing a comma that would help clarify sentence structure. Because “but” connects two complete sentences, a comma after “defaulters” will show that one complete thought has ended and another related thought is about to begin. As you revise, double-check comma usage to improve sentence clarity.] Either way, this works best for the benefit of the bank in terms of reputation even though it could backfire on them; it is a calculated risk that I also think the two parties could have settled outside of court.