Court Documents Signed Under Penalty of Perjury

October 31, 2004

By HOA Voices (View author info)

It has been a banner year for homeowner association foreclosure lawyers, Peter & Freedman. They have been collecting untold amounts from victimized seniors and homeowners who fell into their legal traps in Riverside County, San Diego County and Orange County. Hundreds of seniors in Desert Crest Homeowners Association, other associations and their families are fighting their liens and lawsuits.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW FOX 6 NEWS REPORT ON SAN DIEGO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION FORECLOSURES AND LAWSUITS

On October 19, 2004 homeowner association lawyer, Michael Kim from Peters & Freedman, appeared before Judge Brenner in an Orange County courtroom. He had sworn under penalty of perjury that he was due $73,253.37 for doing an appeal.( Case #798869 Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association against a homeowner.) Judge Brenner told him that $30,251.08 of his bill belonged to a completely different case and was unrelated to the appeal. Hence, Judge Brenner struck that amount from Kim's bill.

On October 29, 2004, the same Michael Kim was told by Judge Jacqueline M. Stern in San Diego County, that he was again asking for legal fees unrelated to the case. The judge again denied the the fees requested by Kim. She said that it appeared that Kim of Peters & Freedman had submitted all attorney billing statements generated in this case up to the time of the filing of this motion, whether or not they related to the case they were prosecuting.

The following is the judges tenatative order on Peters & Freedman misreprestation of legal fees to the court.

Superior Court
San Diego County, State of California

Following is a TENTATIVE ruling for 10/29/2004,
Department 27, the Honorable Jacqueline M. Stern presiding.

Case Number GIN026443

#1: Cross-Defendant Peters and Freedman's unopposed Motion for Determination of Prevailing Party and for award of costs and reasonable attorneys‚ fees is denied without prejudice.

The court concludes Peters and Freedman is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees pursuant to CCP Section 425.16(c). However, the court must deny the motion for the following reasons:

CCP 425.16(c) has been interpreted to allow recover of fees and costs only on the motion to strike, not the entire litigation. (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v Chronicle Pub. Co. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1379).

Moving party's Motion to Strike was directed at a pleading which was originally filed on July 2, 2003. However, exhibit C to the Kim declaration reveals the moving party is seeking fees generated prior to the filing of that pleading, before the moving party was even a party to this action. In addition, even though the Motion to Strike was granted in April 2004, moving party is seeking fees generated after the granting of that motion. As the moving party was no longer a party to this action in view of the granting of the Motion to Strike, there is no basis for seeking fees for tasks performed after that date, unrelated to the Motion to Strike or the instant motion. After the granting of the motion to strike, the only parties to this action were Plaintiff Brook Hills Homeowner's Association and Defendants. There is no basis for moving party to seek fees generated in prosecuting the complaint on behalf of Brook Hills. The only party moving for attorney's fees in this motion is Peters and Freedman.

It appears moving cross-complainant submitted all attorney billing statements generated in this case up to the time of the filing of this motion, whether or not they relate to the prosecution of the anti-SLAPP motion and whether or not they relate to moving Cross-Defendant.

The court also notes that while Mr. Kim states he divided the total fees by four to reach a total of $8,697.86, the latest statement in exhibit C to the Kim declaration shows a balance due of $28,661.35 which, when divided by four, does not equal $8,697.86.

Since it is not possible for the court to make any kind of calculation of reasonable attorneys' fees based upon the above, the motion is denied at this time.

#2: Cross-Defendants Nilsson and N.N. Jaeschke's Motion for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to CCP Section 425.16(c) is granted.

The court awards each moving cross-defendant the amount of $982.00 as reasonable attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting their successful anti-SLAPP motion to strike.