Post by Admin on Oct 17, 2013 20:57:43 GMT -5
The law encourages the consolidation of lawsuits because it reduces the court’s workload and because it expedites the adjudication of rights. It also seeks to avoid inconsistent judgments for lawsuits resulting from the same injury. Consolidating cases that are based on similar facts, parties or circumstances helps to accomplish both goals.
Joinder is a legal term that refers to the process of joining two or more legal issues together to be heard in one hearing or trial. It is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes.
The statutes that govern permissive joinder generally provide that plaintiffs may unite in one action if they claim a right to relief for injuries arising from the same occurrence or transaction.
This is important for SLohA to appreciate; the injury that I claim ie Slander of Title, affects 787 lots. That's 786 potential joinders. Every lot in SLohA was either encumbered or re-encumbered with an improper Notice of Preservation. My complaint to SLohA is REMOVE IT from MY lot! There are 786 owners who may assert that they have suffered the same injury from the same act by BOD and join in a "joinder".
Cross-post from AnonNews
September 20, 2013
So, is Mr. Frd O'N eel (Attny) in a position to take on other clients as "joinders" to your suit?
If so, it would at that point turn into a class action lawsuit, which, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't notices supposed to be sent out to all qualified, interested parties first to find out how many want to get on the band wagon?
Another question: if this does go class action, how are the retainer fees handled in this case; do all parties pay the attorney a retainer or ? I'm not too clear on that aspect.
This board/mgmt. co. seem to WANT to drag this out, thus costing more needless and senseless $$$$ in attorney fees on both sides; it also is apparent that if they don't like the answer one attorney gives them, they seek out another attorney and then another.
This is just useless and senseless and is pure insanity on their part for doing the same thing over and over in their futile quest of expecting a different answer from subsequent attorneys, yet get the same answer as the last one.
It doesn't matter what the subject is, if this board and mgmt. believe one way, and the law says something opposite, they will still believe they are right and will search heaven and hell for an attorney that says they are.
Then when they announce how much they've spent on attorney fees, it's easy for them to point the finger at the resident or residents that "caused" this exorbitant expenditure, when in all reality, it's all their fault for believing they are right and they just Hayvn't found an attorney yet that will agree with them.
As far as them settling with S u e Tg if this goes to mediation, I do not believe that this board and mgmt. co. will agree on anything that is the proper and right thing to do; I believe they will not agree on anything in the mediation process and be argumentative and unyielding, then litigation will result, and once again, more $$$ in the attorney's pockets. It will no doubt result in a merry go round of more and legal fees and community condemnation of the resident(s) involved in any of the mediation and/or litigation.
This board and manager are unyielding, deceptive, argumentative, steadfastly ridiculous, etc. in just about every thing that is brought to them by someone who opposes them or criticizes them or goes against them in the least little way.
The leaders in this community do NOT like to have the finger pointed at them as being screw-ups or having screwed up; they want to be considered to have done things properly and correctly, which has not happened.
Unfortunately, this law suit is just another example of how horribly wrong they are, but don't want to believe it, admit it and/or deal with it, and there in lies the crux of the issue.
__________________________________________-
September 20, 2013
My confidence in peoples' intelligence and judgment may be misplaced but I believe that people will see that the fundamental problem in SLR is not the owner who is pointing the finger at MANBOD. If people think and produce facts that support an opposing interpretation, that is fine. At least there has been some effort to understand a very complex subject. I am not concerned about people who drink koolaid and swallow. In the end, they will not affect the outcome; this is not a voting issue.
I suspect that SLohA may be "attorney shopping" for a second opinion which supports what it really wants to do. This opinion is totally based on their general level of modus operandi in the past.
As far as the joinder, that will be "down the road" if litigation becomes necessary. My attorney did this with Sand Lake Hills HOA and is familiar with the option. It is my understanding that there will be a fee to join the lawsuit but it will be nowhere near what it would cost to start from scratch and launch an individual complaint.
I assure you that you will get the information about this when and if it becomes available in the future.
________________________________________________________________
Joinder is a legal term that refers to the process of joining two or more legal issues together to be heard in one hearing or trial. It is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It helps courts avoid hearing the same facts multiple times or seeing the same parties return to court separately for each of their legal disputes.
The statutes that govern permissive joinder generally provide that plaintiffs may unite in one action if they claim a right to relief for injuries arising from the same occurrence or transaction.
This is important for SLohA to appreciate; the injury that I claim ie Slander of Title, affects 787 lots. That's 786 potential joinders. Every lot in SLohA was either encumbered or re-encumbered with an improper Notice of Preservation. My complaint to SLohA is REMOVE IT from MY lot! There are 786 owners who may assert that they have suffered the same injury from the same act by BOD and join in a "joinder".
Cross-post from AnonNews
September 20, 2013
So, is Mr. Frd O'N eel (Attny) in a position to take on other clients as "joinders" to your suit?
If so, it would at that point turn into a class action lawsuit, which, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't notices supposed to be sent out to all qualified, interested parties first to find out how many want to get on the band wagon?
Another question: if this does go class action, how are the retainer fees handled in this case; do all parties pay the attorney a retainer or ? I'm not too clear on that aspect.
This board/mgmt. co. seem to WANT to drag this out, thus costing more needless and senseless $$$$ in attorney fees on both sides; it also is apparent that if they don't like the answer one attorney gives them, they seek out another attorney and then another.
This is just useless and senseless and is pure insanity on their part for doing the same thing over and over in their futile quest of expecting a different answer from subsequent attorneys, yet get the same answer as the last one.
It doesn't matter what the subject is, if this board and mgmt. believe one way, and the law says something opposite, they will still believe they are right and will search heaven and hell for an attorney that says they are.
Then when they announce how much they've spent on attorney fees, it's easy for them to point the finger at the resident or residents that "caused" this exorbitant expenditure, when in all reality, it's all their fault for believing they are right and they just Hayvn't found an attorney yet that will agree with them.
As far as them settling with S u e Tg if this goes to mediation, I do not believe that this board and mgmt. co. will agree on anything that is the proper and right thing to do; I believe they will not agree on anything in the mediation process and be argumentative and unyielding, then litigation will result, and once again, more $$$ in the attorney's pockets. It will no doubt result in a merry go round of more and legal fees and community condemnation of the resident(s) involved in any of the mediation and/or litigation.
This board and manager are unyielding, deceptive, argumentative, steadfastly ridiculous, etc. in just about every thing that is brought to them by someone who opposes them or criticizes them or goes against them in the least little way.
The leaders in this community do NOT like to have the finger pointed at them as being screw-ups or having screwed up; they want to be considered to have done things properly and correctly, which has not happened.
Unfortunately, this law suit is just another example of how horribly wrong they are, but don't want to believe it, admit it and/or deal with it, and there in lies the crux of the issue.
__________________________________________-
September 20, 2013
My confidence in peoples' intelligence and judgment may be misplaced but I believe that people will see that the fundamental problem in SLR is not the owner who is pointing the finger at MANBOD. If people think and produce facts that support an opposing interpretation, that is fine. At least there has been some effort to understand a very complex subject. I am not concerned about people who drink koolaid and swallow. In the end, they will not affect the outcome; this is not a voting issue.
I suspect that SLohA may be "attorney shopping" for a second opinion which supports what it really wants to do. This opinion is totally based on their general level of modus operandi in the past.
As far as the joinder, that will be "down the road" if litigation becomes necessary. My attorney did this with Sand Lake Hills HOA and is familiar with the option. It is my understanding that there will be a fee to join the lawsuit but it will be nowhere near what it would cost to start from scratch and launch an individual complaint.
I assure you that you will get the information about this when and if it becomes available in the future.
________________________________________________________________
