The Way it Really Is

November 24, 2004

By AHRC News Services Staff
Copyright AHRC News Services

Homeowners may think that when they go to court, the two sides will both calmly tell the truth, and then a judge will calmly make a ruling. The following story may give you pause for thought.

A homeowner had made a motion to suspend depositions until after a voluntary settlement conference. He expected that the hearing would focus on that issue.

Instead, lawyer Michael Kim of Peters and Freedman almost immediately launched into three issues that had nothing to do with the motion. Coincidentally, they were framed to paint the homeowner in a bad light and prejudice the judge against the homeowner. This was all done with so much consummate skill - if that is the right word - that one can only conclude that there had been a lot of prior practice.

First, Michael Kim "just wanted" to give the judge a "heads up" that not all documents had been produced at a prior deposition. Of course, there would be a "meet and confer", but Mr. Kim clearly wanted to leave a poison pill in the judge's mind that documents were being concealed.

Then, Michael Kim told the judge that the homeowner had violated the judge's order by making objections at the deposition. The homeowner is in pro per and not represented by counsel. The judge clearly arched at this, and leant back in his chair.

Michael Kim then attempted a coup d'grace by claiming that another homeowner was trying to intimidate witnesses by "putting a camera in their face". He stated that this had taken place in a related case as well.

At this point, Michael Kim had successfully coated the original motion with enough bad material that it was lost to sight. Just one little problem! What Michael Kim said was false. The homeowner then had to attempt to remove all this.

For example, he pointed out that he had examined the Code of Civil Procedure at length and found nothing that forbade a pro per from raising objections at depositions. In fact, the Code granted a pro per the right to cross-examine a witness. The judge recognized this and announced that homeowner did have a right to raise objections at a deposition.

On the photographing issue, the homeowner stated that what Michael said was false. The latest photograph was taken at least 100 feet from two board members and their lawyer as they stood in an open parking lot. On the previous occasion, the homeowner was standing still at an entrance to a public garage, and the board president had walked about 30 feet into the camera. In the related case, the homeowner had not taken any photographs.

The above shows that when a homeowner goes to court against certain types of lawyers, the homeowner has to be prepared for anything - including this dirty pool lawyering. Homeowners report that this seems to be particularly true of homeowner association lawyers. Truth seems to be first casualty of such lawsuits. Try to make sure that you are not the second casualty.

Editor's note: This lawsuit grew out of an 18 year experience for two homeowners who lived in Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association in San Clemente, California. During that period, their garage door and home were spray-painted with obscenities and such words as "Move". Racial slurs were directed at their children and the board president said that he did not want "East Los Angeles moving in here." An anonymous note told them to go back to Iran. Cars were egged, trees cut down, garage door padlocked and a skull left outside.

Board members and the notorious management company Marquis then posted a false $5 late charge to foreclose on the home. When they lost that lawsuit, they hired the law firm of Peters & Freeman and continued their discriminatory practices.

California homeowner associations are set up to let homeowners become prey to such practices. The homeowner association lawsuit and foreclosure industry in America is a industry protected by a well organized group of lawyers, politicians, judges and vendors.