|
|
|
|
|
|
An Article
|
|
Does She or Doesn't She Exist...?
You would think that an attorney, who is constantly suing homeowners and Homeowner Associations, would know who does his bookkeeping. Well guess what?
March 03, 2004
By
Ethical Hoas
|
|
|
|
| |
I am just preparing a complaint to the California State Bar Association over unconscionable fees; I think $4,000 for a simple demurrer is a bit over priced. $2,350 for a simple response to a motion falls into that category as well.
I am hoping to write a post here soon, and just why the Shadow Crest Association is not foreclosing on me, after they made a claim they paid these attorney fees [but from where -- we had no money to do that!] and made it an assessment.
Now they claim the attorney fees are $14,000 and that it is "all because of me!" However, they will not allow anyone to view documents,etc. under AB104 -- and two days ago they told a police officer that they are considering taking the lien off my home if I will move out in return.
INTERESTING, since we are going to mediation in a month to discuss a lawsuit for all of their violations -- AND, where is that $14,000????
Posted Mar 14 2004 6:37PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Sharon Stephens
(View Profile)
Cathedral City, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I just thought that those reading this article and the many "case attachments" may be interested in the Rules For Attorney Fees from the California State Bar Act.
I understand that this case was dismissed? Does anyone know why?
Was it dismissed because this attorney's inability of knowing who, what, where, WHEN, and how he was able to back up his fee charges?
Was it dismissed shortly after his deposition was taken?
I sure would like that piece of information....
Rule 4-200. Fees for Legal Services - California Bar Association
(A) A member shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or unconscionable fee.
(B) Unconscionability of a fee shall be determined on the basis of all the facts and circumstances existing at the time the agreement is entered into except where the parties contemplate that the fee will be affected by later events. Among the factors to be considered, where appropriate, in determining the conscionability of a fee are the following:
(1) The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed.
(2) The relative sophistication of the member and the client.
(3) The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly.
(4) The likelihood, if apparent to the client, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the member.
(5) The amount involved and the results obtained.
(6) The time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances.
(7) The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client.
(8) The experience, reputation, and ability of the member or members performing the services.
(9) Whether the fee is fixed or contingent.
(10) The time and labor required.
(11) The informed consent of the client to the fee.
Number (11) just above would seem rather important!!!!
Posted Mar 10 2004 7:56PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Diego, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Some time back, a New York judge issued a written reprimand to David Peters.
He was too kind, undoubtedly because of a misplaced sense of respect for officers of the court.
The transcript in this case shows it is much worse than that ,and someday David Peters will be held accountable.
Posted Mar 10 2004 5:36PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I found this case in the County of San Diego Superior Court North County Division and could not believe what I was reading.
The case is Villa Aspara Homeowners Association v. Peters & Freedman, LLP. Peters & Freedman were hired by Villa Aspara HOA to represent them in a construction defect case. Peters & Freedman were than fired by Villa Aspara HOA.
Villa Aspara did receive a settlement in excess of $1.2 million in the construction defect case (San Diego County Superior Court Case No. 709969). Peters & Freedman than placed a lien on the case which kept the funds from being distributed.
The Association states that they were held hostage by Peters & Freedman's unliquidated attorney lien for an undisclosed amount. Peters & Freedman had some trouble accounting for fees that they claimed they were owed. This lawsuit was filed in an effort to get the funds released. I would encourage anyone with the time to read the case.
.A pdf copy of the case and some of the legal filings appear below this article link.
Posted Mar 10 2004 1:01AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Melissa Colburn
Chula Vista, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Love that David Peters cartoon.
Hope the Peters & Freedman lawyers and bookkeepers are enjoying their fame and fortunes.
Will Senator Ducheny and the California Housing Senate Committees be getting the testimony of Melissa Colburn and those RICO lawsuits homeowners have attempted against these lawyers?
Homeowners, government and businesses are losing billions in life savings and home equity in homeowner associations and unless laws are enacted to protect these real estate investments, homeowner associations will go the way of the American Stock Market.
After many Corporate CEO's, lawyers and accountants stole everybody's investments, savings and pensions, no amount of corporate and government hype has been able to bring back investors to the American Stock Market.
The government must enact laws to protect investors and prosecute corporate fraud. Millions of Americans and international investors are due restitution both from the stock market fraud and from homeowner association fraud.
Posted Mar 8 2004 3:54AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Juan Capistrano, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Since it is public information, can you post the actual case number from the court records?
Thanks
Posted Mar 7 2004 5:42PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
| |
Poor David! He does not know who his bookeeper is! He pays her salary every month. His associate, Michael Kim, says that they are in it for the money. The bookeeper takes care of the money. So, if there is one person in the law firm that David knows, surely it would be his bookeeper.
Maybe we have got it all wrong with Dave. Maybe he just does not care about money. Maybe we should submit his name for canonization to the Pope. Long live St. Dave!
Posted Mar 3 2004 4:25AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Juan Capistrano, California |
| |
|
|
Return to 'Does She or Doesn't She Exist...?' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
