BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
http://ontario.cafcor.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=46&func=view&catid=11&id=18963#18963
A service of:
Community123.com
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
Professional websites for HOAs & condos, since 2004
š 1st year FREE for HOATalk members! ā
millions see CONDO PRES PERSONALLY liable in tort Cal
Started by BobD4 ā¢ 25 replies ā¢ 1189 views
š¬ Join us to post & get advice from 50,000 HOA & Condo leaders.
Create Free Account ā
ā” Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in
TimB4 (Tennessee)
Posts: 21,059
Posts: 21,059
Posted:
Bob,
It's been awhile since you posted.
Nice to see you are still with this forum.
Hope you and yours are doing well.
Tim
BTW: That is an interesting article.
The individual had to agree to the arbitration and, in my opinion, should not have.
As the article says: "No - its [decisions] not binding precedent nor always sensible. "
It's been awhile since you posted.
Nice to see you are still with this forum.
Hope you and yours are doing well.
Tim
BTW: That is an interesting article.
The individual had to agree to the arbitration and, in my opinion, should not have.
As the article says: "No - its [decisions] not binding precedent nor always sensible. "
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
thanks.
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
I saw that episode last week. I thought it was one of those setups where both parties are actually on good terms and both agree to go on a judge show for laughs. I wonder if a judge or some other California entity ordered them into binding arbitration and agreed on the Hot Bench judge-show venue for resolution. I think the case was bogus and intended to do nothing except get the parties their 15 minutes of fame on TV.
So many of these disputes are intimately entwined with provisions of one's Governing Documents and I think most TV judges just can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with those things. Those shows are on because viewers find them entertaining, not to dispense justice, and they make money. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendent, win or lose, ever have to reach into their pockets to pony up for any sort of fine, penalty or restitution (note the lack of an Oxford comma).
I wonder from what sort of jurisdiction a case like this ends up on a TV show. None of any importance is my guess. Nevertheless, I didn't find the case all that interesting aside from brief moments of "Oh! He said CC&Rs!"
So many of these disputes are intimately entwined with provisions of one's Governing Documents and I think most TV judges just can't be bothered to familiarize themselves with those things. Those shows are on because viewers find them entertaining, not to dispense justice, and they make money. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendent, win or lose, ever have to reach into their pockets to pony up for any sort of fine, penalty or restitution (note the lack of an Oxford comma).
I wonder from what sort of jurisdiction a case like this ends up on a TV show. None of any importance is my guess. Nevertheless, I didn't find the case all that interesting aside from brief moments of "Oh! He said CC&Rs!"
RoyalP
Posts: 1,104
Posts: 1,104
Posted:
"..... for any sort of fine, penalty or restitution (note the lack of an Oxford comma). ....."
Comma not necessary because of the 'or' between the two nouns rendering the meaning clear and precise.
The issue arises when 'and' is used when 'or' is actually meant.
Comma not necessary because of the 'or' between the two nouns rendering the meaning clear and precise.
The issue arises when 'and' is used when 'or' is actually meant.
Here is an example I ran across recently. "We need to return to our former profitability, ensure that we are retaining our best talent and adhere to our budgeting principles." I had to read that sentence several times before I figured out that everything after the comma was not an appositive phrase. It gets even more tricky when there are conjunctions within the list. "I had three kinds of oatmeal: Strawberries and cream, apples and cinnamon and brown sugar." An Oxford comma is absolutely required in that list, and yes, that example actually did come up in an email I received a couple of years ago (and retained precisely for the reason of providing it as an example on why the Oxford comma is necessary).
My general rule of thumb on this topic is that I find it acceptable for writers who are strong enough in their craft to know when a sentence needs to be re-written to avoid ambiguity to forgo the use of an Oxford comma. However, these writers are extremely rare; therefore, it is my stance that the default position should be to include the Oxford comma. People who insist on not using it because they are skilled enough to understand ambiguity are correct because they know enough to not make their writing ambiguous. People who insist on not using it simply because the rule they learned told them it wasn't necessary are just plain wrong. If a person fails to use an Oxford comma and it causes ambiguity, I already know that I'm dealing with the latter.
My general rule of thumb on this topic is that I find it acceptable for writers who are strong enough in their craft to know when a sentence needs to be re-written to avoid ambiguity to forgo the use of an Oxford comma. However, these writers are extremely rare; therefore, it is my stance that the default position should be to include the Oxford comma. People who insist on not using it because they are skilled enough to understand ambiguity are correct because they know enough to not make their writing ambiguous. People who insist on not using it simply because the rule they learned told them it wasn't necessary are just plain wrong. If a person fails to use an Oxford comma and it causes ambiguity, I already know that I'm dealing with the latter.
AugustinD
Posts: 5,144
Posts: 5,144
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By GenoS on 05/19/2019 4:43 PM
I wonder from what sort of jurisdiction a case like this ends up on a TV show.
I wonder from what sort of jurisdiction a case like this ends up on a TV show.
It appears this would be Canada.
NpS (Pennsylvania)
Posts: 4,216
Posts: 4,216
Posted:
In the real world, there's a difference between a "hot bench" and a "cold bench." A hot bench means that the Judge has prepped for the case. A cold bench means that the judge is looking at the case for the first time when she comes into the courtroom to try it.
Most states have a huge backlog of cases. Typically, there's a lottery system where every other case gets sent to non-binding mediation. If mediation isn't successful and the parties don't come to an agreement, then it gets scheduled for trial. If it gets to trial, some judges can be nasty if think thinks that the case should have been settled in mediation.
There's no such thing as binding arbitration, unless there's a contract or a statute that requires it.
Agree with Geno's final assessment.
Hey Bob.
Most states have a huge backlog of cases. Typically, there's a lottery system where every other case gets sent to non-binding mediation. If mediation isn't successful and the parties don't come to an agreement, then it gets scheduled for trial. If it gets to trial, some judges can be nasty if think thinks that the case should have been settled in mediation.
There's no such thing as binding arbitration, unless there's a contract or a statute that requires it.
Agree with Geno's final assessment.
Hey Bob.
Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By AugustinD on 05/19/2019 7:19 PM
It appears this would be Canada.
It appears this would be Canada.
Ah? I guess I missed the very beginning. I thought they were from California for some reason. Thanks.
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868
Posts: 3,868
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By GenoS on 05/19/2019 7:50 PM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/19/2019 7:19 PM
It appears this would be Canada.
It appears this would be Canada.
Ah? I guess I missed the very beginning. I thought they were from California for some reason. Thanks.
No, they're from Van Nuys, California.
RoyalP
Posts: 1,104
Posts: 1,104
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RichardP13 on 05/19/2019 10:09 PM
Ah? I guess I missed the very beginning. I thought they were from California for some reason. Thanks.
Posted By GenoS on 05/19/2019 7:50 PM
Posted By AugustinD on 05/19/2019 7:19 PM
It appears this would be Canada.
It appears this would be Canada.
Ah? I guess I missed the very beginning. I thought they were from California for some reason. Thanks.
No, they're from Van Nuys, California.
correct, a foreign country
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868
Posts: 3,868
Posted:
I wouldn't dignify that with an answer.
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
replies /comments are sincerely appreciated.
1 - What's worth taking away from these shows, respectfully if at all, is the jurisprudential thinking. The events on set can be sloppy & heavily edited, but the group decision afterwards was a quick 85 seconds in full view.
2 - Courts ( especially summary dispute types ) are so congested that there is no basic need to invent disputes. Whatever "makes good television" may be what gets some selected by the producers; covenant disputes don't usually lend themselves to keeping viewers tuned in.
Yes, a trip to Los Angeles for filming might get someone out of a North Dakota winter. But these Van Nuys adversaries were already in California. It's also true that lots of folks don't grasp / may dispute exclusive use common element issues.
3 - A balcony leak & cladding damage may be annoying & may complicate quick-flipping.
But were they urgent and/or seriousness enough to turn a repair dispute into a ( 3rd party interference ) civil tort finding ? And such personally against a governancer ?
Timelines here were uncertain but the events may have occurred over only a couple of months amidst lots of more serious stuff.
4 - As Tim notes, defending these personally has risks. It may be tempting for a "one man show" type of President for example to get over-confident or lose patience . . .
1 - What's worth taking away from these shows, respectfully if at all, is the jurisprudential thinking. The events on set can be sloppy & heavily edited, but the group decision afterwards was a quick 85 seconds in full view.
2 - Courts ( especially summary dispute types ) are so congested that there is no basic need to invent disputes. Whatever "makes good television" may be what gets some selected by the producers; covenant disputes don't usually lend themselves to keeping viewers tuned in.
Yes, a trip to Los Angeles for filming might get someone out of a North Dakota winter. But these Van Nuys adversaries were already in California. It's also true that lots of folks don't grasp / may dispute exclusive use common element issues.
3 - A balcony leak & cladding damage may be annoying & may complicate quick-flipping.
But were they urgent and/or seriousness enough to turn a repair dispute into a ( 3rd party interference ) civil tort finding ? And such personally against a governancer ?
Timelines here were uncertain but the events may have occurred over only a couple of months amidst lots of more serious stuff.
4 - As Tim notes, defending these personally has risks. It may be tempting for a "one man show" type of President for example to get over-confident or lose patience . . .
AugustinD
Posts: 5,144
Posts: 5,144
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/20/2019 9:08 AM
But were they urgent and/or seriousness enough to turn a repair dispute into a ( 3rd party interference ) civil tort finding ? And such personally against a governancer ?
But were they urgent and/or seriousness enough to turn a repair dispute into a ( 3rd party interference ) civil tort finding ? And such personally against a governancer ?
Isn't it better that this played out on court reality TV than at the taxpayers' expense? Also as part of the cynical, popcorn-throwing peanut gallery, I think the President got what he deserved. This got my attention:
____
The judicial arbitrators accepted plaintiff Kacie Andersonās argument that Joe Gravina (President of her Van Nuys California condo corporation) had ātortiously interferedā with her relationship with the (third party) condo corporation & other owners .
It took the judges only 85 seconds to decide that by refusing to submit to the full Board of Directors, owner Andersonās application for consent to repair, President Joe Gravina had ātortiously interferedā with Andersonās legal rights & remedies involving the non-litigated third party condo corporation.
___
I am pleased this is in the United States (not Canada, as I erroneously posted). HOA Presidents frequently act unilaterally and so unlawfully. I think justice in dealing with such idiots is rare and a long road.
JeffT2 (Iowa)
Posts: 880
Posts: 880
Posted:
Am I correct that the plaintiff had no actual damages?
She requested approval to repair the patio that was causing damage to the unit beneath hers. I don't see anything that says the plaintiff's unit was being damaged or that the plaintiff could not use the patio.
The president delayed or stopped the approval.
She was awarded the amount of the repair, which existed before the president got involved, even though she had no extra damages from the president's action (or lack of action).
She requested approval to repair the patio that was causing damage to the unit beneath hers. I don't see anything that says the plaintiff's unit was being damaged or that the plaintiff could not use the patio.
The president delayed or stopped the approval.
She was awarded the amount of the repair, which existed before the president got involved, even though she had no extra damages from the president's action (or lack of action).
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868
Posts: 3,868
Posted:
So everyone is responding to a "verdict" from a Judge Judy type reality show that has no teeth. This is a 20 unit complex built in the 1980's probably not in too good of shape where neither one of the two officers even live at and managed by a MC who is more interested in rental property than HOA's.
Some people need to get a life.
Some people need to get a life.
AugustinD
Posts: 5,144
Posts: 5,144
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RichardP13 on 05/20/2019 11:13 AM
So everyone is responding to a "verdict" from a Judge Judy type reality show that has no teeth.
So everyone is responding to a "verdict" from a Judge Judy type reality show that has no teeth.
Pfft. It has plenty of teeth. As a matter of law, the outcome of the Hot Bench cases is binding arbitration. The alternative for the litigants was to continue in small claims court. Small claims court decisions may be appealed by the defendant. The court which hears the appeal starts de novo -- all over, with the attorney's piling on the billable hours anew. To have the dispute settled via binding arbitration is a big deal. It keeps HOA President doh-doh from potentially reaching (further?) into the HOA's coffers for his attorney's fees and using corporate power to trump basic fairness.
I like the theory ("tortious inteference") that the plaintiff here used. I wonder whether any other HOA member has ever brought claim against a rogue President-director who failed to seek a board majority's support prior to major decision-making.
As for damages in tortious interference, and outside of arbitration, a plaintiff may seek damages for economic loss, mental distress, and as punishment ('punitive damages') in instances where the defendant acted with malice. Arbitration permits more forms of damages.
RoyalP
Posts: 1,104
Posts: 1,104
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RichardP13 on 05/20/2019 9:02 AM
I wouldn't dignify that with an answer.
I wouldn't dignify that with an answer.
yet, you did
GenoS (Florida)
Posts: 4,276
Posts: 4,276
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/20/2019 9:08 AM
Courts ( especially summary dispute types ) are so congested that there is no basic need to invent disputes. Whatever "makes good television" may be what gets some selected by the producers; covenant disputes don't usually lend themselves to keeping viewers tuned in.
Courts ( especially summary dispute types ) are so congested that there is no basic need to invent disputes. Whatever "makes good television" may be what gets some selected by the producers; covenant disputes don't usually lend themselves to keeping viewers tuned in.
Absolutely. If I were producing a reality judge show that considered only condo and HOA disputes in Florida, I'd be very selective in what cases to put on the air. I have no doubt that, in Florida at least, there are many such disputes that have plenty of entertainment value. There are lots of people who don't have the faintest notion about what their association governing documents say or what the state statutes require, both owners and board members.
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868
Posts: 3,868
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By RoyalP on 05/20/2019 11:49 AM
Posted By RichardP13 on 05/20/2019 9:02 AM
I wouldn't dignify that with an answer.
I wouldn't dignify that with an answer.
yet, you did
I responded with a comment, not an answer.
RoyalP
Posts: 1,104
Posts: 1,104
Posted:
i did not ask a question
sheez, rich
laugh, it will NOT hurt
cross my heart
sheez, rich
laugh, it will NOT hurt
cross my heart
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By JeffT2 on 05/20/2019 11:01 AM
Am I correct that the plaintiff had no actual damages ? She requested approval to repair the patio that was causing damage to the unit beneath hers. I don't see anything that says the plaintiff's unit was being damaged or that the plaintiff could not use the patio. The president delayed or stopped the approval. She was awarded the amount of the repair, which existed before the president got involved, even though she had no extra damages from the president's action (or lack of action).
Am I correct that the plaintiff had no actual damages ? She requested approval to repair the patio that was causing damage to the unit beneath hers. I don't see anything that says the plaintiff's unit was being damaged or that the plaintiff could not use the patio. The president delayed or stopped the approval. She was awarded the amount of the repair, which existed before the president got involved, even though she had no extra damages from the president's action (or lack of action).
Replies /comments are sincerely appreciated.
This "tort" remedy appears to be a tool to help disempowered stakeholders or minority victims of an oppression that otherwise might get skated onside as some sort of management Business Judgement. And yes - some of the same loose ends look prone to get left. Some judgments about this (generally), go back over a century.
Aside from "what should be the actual loss or injury ?", there seems to other chronic loose ends.
Such as : Upfront is a claimant's condo or other governance organization, actually a genuine arms length "THIRD PARTY" to be interfered with ? Exactly what's being interfered with ? Is it some sort of a right to due process whose denial triggers compensation ? That's as opposed to trying to unseat someone or lining up to seek a conventional court order for performance ?
And specifically : How long - for example - should a President or manager be allowed to conduct diligence before triggering the "tort" ? And what kind of diligence ?
This Van Nuys California owner may be lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that seems to be friendly to the remedy.
Whatever the public policy benefits, some jurisdictions fear expanding the remedy to claims beyond heavy duty wrongdoing with harm done indirectly through wronged third parties . . . retaliation . . RICO type shenanigans . . .
The comments have been appreciated.
AugustinD
Posts: 5,144
Posts: 5,144
Posted:
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/21/2019 7:17 AM
Upfront is a claimant's condo or other governance organization, actually a genuine arms length "THIRD PARTY" to be interfered with ?
Upfront is a claimant's condo or other governance organization, actually a genuine arms length "THIRD PARTY" to be interfered with ?
Do you think there is a contractual relationship between a HOA corporation and HOA members?
I also bear in mind that the courts often view HOAs as partial landlords, with specific contractual obligations deriving from the HOA's covenants.
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/21/2019 7:17 AM
Exactly what's being interfered with?
Exactly what's being interfered with?
My take: The HOA corporation's covenants evidently require a member to receive approval to do certain repairs in or about the member's units. Defendant Joe deprived the Plaintiff Kacie of any chance of receiving approval from the HOA for a repair that required the HOA's approval.
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/21/2019 7:17 AM
Is it some sort of a right to due process whose denial triggers compensation ?
Is it some sort of a right to due process whose denial triggers compensation ?
The law (case law and constitutional law) requires "due process" when a HOA member is accused of a violation. I do not see that the HOA member was accused of a violation in this instance.
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/21/2019 7:17 AM
That's as opposed to trying to unseat someone or lining up to seek a conventional court order for performance ?
That's as opposed to trying to unseat someone or lining up to seek a conventional court order for performance ?
Plaintiff Kacie did not seek either of these. All she sought was to get her covenant-required application for approval before the HOA. Defendant Joe refused to put her application before the HOA.
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/21/2019 7:17 AM
And specifically : How long - for example - should a President or manager be allowed to conduct diligence before triggering the "tort" ? And what kind of diligence ?
And specifically : How long - for example - should a President or manager be allowed to conduct diligence before triggering the "tort" ? And what kind of diligence ?
It appears to me that Defendant Joe flat-out maintains diligence was completed. Defendant Joe, at best acting ultra vires (and so unlawfully), concluded that the required application need not be reviewed by the HOA.
Quote:
Posted By BobD4 on 05/21/2019 7:17 AM
This Van Nuys California owner may be lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that seems to be friendly to the remedy.
This Van Nuys California owner may be lucky enough to live in a jurisdiction that seems to be friendly to the remedy.
I think where Plaintiff Kacie was lucky was in getting Defendant Joe to agree to legally binding arbitration. Plaintiff Kacie saved a fortune in time and/or money. She got on record that a single director, even the President, can neither speak nor act for the HOA as a whole in matters like this.
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
Yes, those issues are absolute zingers.
Jurisdictions with more fear ( than California ) of the "tortious interference" remedy, may not be so easy for a claim like plaintiff Kacie A's.
Would love to hear more about outcomes of that claim where made from condo or mutualized / general scheme of development / "Building Scheme" type models.
( Jurisprudence in my own backyard shows lots of fear / loathing about the remedy. Cites it as 'unlawful third party interference"; arguably requires RICO-like wrongdoing such as to be actionable by the targetted arms-length third parties themselves. One was direct threats to litigate or worse against a third party amidst the "trucking industry" ; diversion of victim's funds accessed from a chartered bank . . . etc )
Jurisdictions with more fear ( than California ) of the "tortious interference" remedy, may not be so easy for a claim like plaintiff Kacie A's.
Would love to hear more about outcomes of that claim where made from condo or mutualized / general scheme of development / "Building Scheme" type models.
( Jurisprudence in my own backyard shows lots of fear / loathing about the remedy. Cites it as 'unlawful third party interference"; arguably requires RICO-like wrongdoing such as to be actionable by the targetted arms-length third parties themselves. One was direct threats to litigate or worse against a third party amidst the "trucking industry" ; diversion of victim's funds accessed from a chartered bank . . . etc )
RichardP13 (California)
Posts: 3,868
Posts: 3,868
Posted:
You two need to get a room.
AugustinD
Posts: 5,144
Posts: 5,144
Posted:
Here's 20 seconds of the Hot Bench arbitration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c20&v=WHRcfy4xys8
Facebook's first several dozen or so comments on this episode:
Julie D. Grant That man was full of himself, an egotistical narcistic. He thought he would outsmart the judges. She was quite and dignified and let him make the case - which he did - in her favor.
Debra Hughes This is the first time I have gone to Hot Bench page. This case was so shocking I wanted to say. WOW WOW WOW WOW What a horrible man she has to deal with.
Pat Hunter-Cooper me too
Susan Jackson me, too!
Annie Bobannie I loved that young woman from head to toe...poised, professional, and prepared!!! That guy was a creep, (and that's being kind).
Karen Guinen If this disgusting guy acts like this in front of the judges, imagine what he's really like elsewhere.
Janet Carlson Vaughn That man was terrible....he needs to step down from HOA Pres immediately...one reason I would never live anywhere with an HOA.
Wendy Leroux He should be fired! His entitled behavior was disgusting and very unprofessional
Cheryl Nolan The defendant needs a throat punch. Little men like him think they are invincible when they get into positions of "power".
Heather Wilson Great decision by the judges! This guy made my blood boil when he said ānot much to like ā! What!!!
Karen Brown Solt So happy about the verdict! She deserves every penny. Hopefully the board will get rid of him!
Leanne Schwab I just love it when people come on here & show millions just how OBNOXIOUS, IGNORANT, & RUDE they are! So full of himself! So glad she won!!
Leanne Schwab He should be KICKED off the board! He's causing way to much drama for all!
Victoria Montie That Defendant was an absolute jerk and so full of himself. Iām glad the judges ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Maybe it will take him down a notch or two.
Breana Redmond I wouldnāt doubt that that pathetic excuse of a man is prejudice and racist.
And the saddest thing about this situation is the way he chose to behave, thereās always someone worse than him that will be his comeuppance.ā¦See More
Barbara Simonds A great verdict in favor of the plaintiffāthe defendant should be ashamed of his behavior.
Lisa Gauthier The nerve of that man his rudeness to the judges what a jerk!!
Mj Fleming How ignorant the defendant was. Ego added to it.
Mike Hard He couldn't help but show his true motive
Denise Cusack Watching now!
Danielle Rogers The sad part of this story, is thereās so many HOA presidents with his attitude.
Rebecca Samuel-Jackson Love your show and all three of you but I'd be lying the Judge C is my fav. Like Judge Acker - practical and y the book, mostly. But you do have favs! Watched this show and am quite conflicted. Generally a "Community" representative does not make decisā¦See More
Carrie Agee I watched that today and I thought that he was horrible. And when she said that she might run, he turned around and told good luck with that. He was very disrespectful to all of the judges. I hope that they kick his but out of the office and run him out of his home.
Loretta Simonetti Tawney I watched this and whether you agree or not with the judges verdict,that man was disrespectful and obnoxious to the judges
Karan A Smith I like this young lady!!! Good for her!!!! Perhaps she can take over and sheāll do a much better job!!!!
Larry Spaeth Oh I'm a big HOA President! Look at how bloated I am with self importance. Look at how smart I think I am. Never seen so much arrogance displayed by someone with so little justification. He made his HOA look bad and I hope they can him.
Anne Marie That HOA President did not present himself
well and I surely hope someone else runs and wins
that position.ā¦See More
Sylvia Moe DiDomenico Good Griefš”š”That man was rude and totally disrespectful to the Judges. The HOA needs to fire him and hire someone who understands and is respectful of people. UGH!!! What a total JERK!!
Leslie Holden Robinson He had my blood boiling.....a complete sack of š©.....hope she runs for HOA president so his azz can go!!
Tom Barr Boy these judges were WRONG!!!!!
Have any of these judges EVER VOLUNTARILY been a Board Member? It is an unappreciated, unpaid job of being yelled out and demanded to do what one selfish homeowner wants. Usually so they avoid PAYING their share. Someā¦See More
Avi Wilk I hope she can file a complaint against him and have him removed as the President because his personal vendetta against her is atrocious
Veronica Brown Where can we see the whole video?
Tom Barr All you praising the judge are manipulated by editing and limited facts.
Stop putting EMOTION into it.ā¦See More
Coppere Spears It's a shame that there are still people like him in this world to think they can do whatever they want to you for no reason
Phoebe Ann Baker Her snippy comments in the hall after winning took
My respect for her down a notch. With regard to her running for President. ā¦See More
Mary-Lynn Adcock Schwoob Great decision Judges. BTW Direct TV interrupted the 2:30 shoeing if Hit Bench with some nonsense program then it re-ran the 2 pm showing.
I really felt for the plaintiff of the 2 pm program. I applaud her for her calm, professional demeanor. I felt the defendant was acting like a bully.
Melissa Mashike That dude needed that attitude slapped right outta him!
Joanna Warhold That guy was horrible and really shouldn't be in that position. I am glad she won.
Karen Walters Van Hoose He was awful! She was classy, intelligent, and Iām glad she fought for what was right!
Nina Antonoff The Judges were on it .
Lori Ann Fugate That man, the defendant, is a nasty man. He is disrespectful and I almost think heās a racist.
12
Dr-LaVerne Lake Davis Never live in an HOA. My sister has been going through hell for years living in one of those.
Kimberly Anne Mine lives above me and walked into the middle of my condo and scared the crap out of me. He then came over the next day and wanted a key to my home. Today he walked back into my kitchen. I had told our property manager and he seemed annoyed that I am annoyed. Next time Iām calling the police!
Elaine Hankins Can't even describe this man in words that would not get me censored probably. What a...............(fill in the blank).
David Kerwell Jr. https://m.facebook.com/Kacie-Anderson-Inc-1567543199960608/
Sandra Scholer No words can describe this man. I can not believe that someone has not taken care of him.
Kari Thomas I'd up the money she got to $5000 because of his arrogance.
Jackie Johnson Reedy Couldnāt see it... presented by Chicago baseball...anywhere I can see the full episode?
Joseph Walters I saw the end of it he was just a jerk
Facebook's first several dozen or so comments on this episode:
Julie D. Grant That man was full of himself, an egotistical narcistic. He thought he would outsmart the judges. She was quite and dignified and let him make the case - which he did - in her favor.
Debra Hughes This is the first time I have gone to Hot Bench page. This case was so shocking I wanted to say. WOW WOW WOW WOW What a horrible man she has to deal with.
Pat Hunter-Cooper me too
Susan Jackson me, too!
Annie Bobannie I loved that young woman from head to toe...poised, professional, and prepared!!! That guy was a creep, (and that's being kind).
Karen Guinen If this disgusting guy acts like this in front of the judges, imagine what he's really like elsewhere.
Janet Carlson Vaughn That man was terrible....he needs to step down from HOA Pres immediately...one reason I would never live anywhere with an HOA.
Wendy Leroux He should be fired! His entitled behavior was disgusting and very unprofessional
Cheryl Nolan The defendant needs a throat punch. Little men like him think they are invincible when they get into positions of "power".
Heather Wilson Great decision by the judges! This guy made my blood boil when he said ānot much to like ā! What!!!
Karen Brown Solt So happy about the verdict! She deserves every penny. Hopefully the board will get rid of him!
Leanne Schwab I just love it when people come on here & show millions just how OBNOXIOUS, IGNORANT, & RUDE they are! So full of himself! So glad she won!!
Leanne Schwab He should be KICKED off the board! He's causing way to much drama for all!
Victoria Montie That Defendant was an absolute jerk and so full of himself. Iām glad the judges ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Maybe it will take him down a notch or two.
Breana Redmond I wouldnāt doubt that that pathetic excuse of a man is prejudice and racist.
And the saddest thing about this situation is the way he chose to behave, thereās always someone worse than him that will be his comeuppance.ā¦See More
Barbara Simonds A great verdict in favor of the plaintiffāthe defendant should be ashamed of his behavior.
Lisa Gauthier The nerve of that man his rudeness to the judges what a jerk!!
Mj Fleming How ignorant the defendant was. Ego added to it.
Mike Hard He couldn't help but show his true motive
Denise Cusack Watching now!
Danielle Rogers The sad part of this story, is thereās so many HOA presidents with his attitude.
Rebecca Samuel-Jackson Love your show and all three of you but I'd be lying the Judge C is my fav. Like Judge Acker - practical and y the book, mostly. But you do have favs! Watched this show and am quite conflicted. Generally a "Community" representative does not make decisā¦See More
Carrie Agee I watched that today and I thought that he was horrible. And when she said that she might run, he turned around and told good luck with that. He was very disrespectful to all of the judges. I hope that they kick his but out of the office and run him out of his home.
Loretta Simonetti Tawney I watched this and whether you agree or not with the judges verdict,that man was disrespectful and obnoxious to the judges
Karan A Smith I like this young lady!!! Good for her!!!! Perhaps she can take over and sheāll do a much better job!!!!
Larry Spaeth Oh I'm a big HOA President! Look at how bloated I am with self importance. Look at how smart I think I am. Never seen so much arrogance displayed by someone with so little justification. He made his HOA look bad and I hope they can him.
Anne Marie That HOA President did not present himself
well and I surely hope someone else runs and wins
that position.ā¦See More
Sylvia Moe DiDomenico Good Griefš”š”That man was rude and totally disrespectful to the Judges. The HOA needs to fire him and hire someone who understands and is respectful of people. UGH!!! What a total JERK!!
Leslie Holden Robinson He had my blood boiling.....a complete sack of š©.....hope she runs for HOA president so his azz can go!!
Tom Barr Boy these judges were WRONG!!!!!
Have any of these judges EVER VOLUNTARILY been a Board Member? It is an unappreciated, unpaid job of being yelled out and demanded to do what one selfish homeowner wants. Usually so they avoid PAYING their share. Someā¦See More
Avi Wilk I hope she can file a complaint against him and have him removed as the President because his personal vendetta against her is atrocious
Veronica Brown Where can we see the whole video?
Tom Barr All you praising the judge are manipulated by editing and limited facts.
Stop putting EMOTION into it.ā¦See More
Coppere Spears It's a shame that there are still people like him in this world to think they can do whatever they want to you for no reason
Phoebe Ann Baker Her snippy comments in the hall after winning took
My respect for her down a notch. With regard to her running for President. ā¦See More
Mary-Lynn Adcock Schwoob Great decision Judges. BTW Direct TV interrupted the 2:30 shoeing if Hit Bench with some nonsense program then it re-ran the 2 pm showing.
I really felt for the plaintiff of the 2 pm program. I applaud her for her calm, professional demeanor. I felt the defendant was acting like a bully.
Melissa Mashike That dude needed that attitude slapped right outta him!
Joanna Warhold That guy was horrible and really shouldn't be in that position. I am glad she won.
Karen Walters Van Hoose He was awful! She was classy, intelligent, and Iām glad she fought for what was right!
Nina Antonoff The Judges were on it .
Lori Ann Fugate That man, the defendant, is a nasty man. He is disrespectful and I almost think heās a racist.
12
Dr-LaVerne Lake Davis Never live in an HOA. My sister has been going through hell for years living in one of those.
Kimberly Anne Mine lives above me and walked into the middle of my condo and scared the crap out of me. He then came over the next day and wanted a key to my home. Today he walked back into my kitchen. I had told our property manager and he seemed annoyed that I am annoyed. Next time Iām calling the police!
Elaine Hankins Can't even describe this man in words that would not get me censored probably. What a...............(fill in the blank).
David Kerwell Jr. https://m.facebook.com/Kacie-Anderson-Inc-1567543199960608/
Sandra Scholer No words can describe this man. I can not believe that someone has not taken care of him.
Kari Thomas I'd up the money she got to $5000 because of his arrogance.
Jackie Johnson Reedy Couldnāt see it... presented by Chicago baseball...anywhere I can see the full episode?
Joseph Walters I saw the end of it he was just a jerk
BobD4 (up north)
Posts: 1,002
Posts: 1,002
Posted:
Wow. good digging.
For most of these commenters, President Gravina is now less popular than the dictator of North Korea.
But to be fair Hot Bench's edited answers were imprecise about how long the President's diligence lasted before the plaintiff owner filed in Small Claims. ? Five months ? Was he unable to access as claimed ? The engineering aspect ain't a slam dunk, and arguably the price looked excessive. Those commenters won't be voting in the next condo elections.
( Judge Judy ("The Exploding Barbeque") Sheindlin reportedly developed Hot Bench after seeing in IRELAND multi-member ADR boards ( see : " shillelagh" duels ). The show may ? still be seen in Ireland & the UK besides next door).
For most of these commenters, President Gravina is now less popular than the dictator of North Korea.
But to be fair Hot Bench's edited answers were imprecise about how long the President's diligence lasted before the plaintiff owner filed in Small Claims. ? Five months ? Was he unable to access as claimed ? The engineering aspect ain't a slam dunk, and arguably the price looked excessive. Those commenters won't be voting in the next condo elections.
( Judge Judy ("The Exploding Barbeque") Sheindlin reportedly developed Hot Bench after seeing in IRELAND multi-member ADR boards ( see : " shillelagh" duels ). The show may ? still be seen in Ireland & the UK besides next door).
šÆ You've read this entire discussion
Join the conversation with 50,000 HOA & Condo Leaders:
- ā Ask follow-up questions
- ā Share your experience
- ā Get expert advice
- ā Access 350,000 discussions
Create Free Account ā
ā” Takes 30 seconds
Already a member? Log in here