|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Release
|
|
DRAMATIC DEVELOPMENT IN MELISSA COLBURN CASE
Law Firm of Peters and Freedman Requests Settlement
July 18, 2003
By
AHRC News Services
Copyright AHRC News Services
|
|
|
|
| |
Like a steady drip that can destroy an impenetreble wall...
The greed that has been legally protected by the paid off politicians has reached such outrageous proportions.
It is up to us all to keep writing to our state and federal representatives, to go to meetings and demand that CC&R's be changed. I urge AHRC to start an initiative movement; there are enough homeowners in associations California to get a proposition on the ballot to make changes.
Posted Apr 10 2004 6:43AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Marcos, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Reading through the telephonic ruling, am I correct to assume that it's "not over yet?" Here's what I see that seems important:
" ... Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing how she relied on P&F's representations to her detriment. (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1818.) For example, she does not allege that she paid more than she was obligated to pay. Although she alleges her home was foreclosed upon over a year after she came current on the assessments, no connection is alleged between P&F's October 2000 representations and the February 2002 foreclosure.
Moreover, although paragraph 62 alleges that P&F did not reduce the account to zero, etc., plaintiff does not allege that P&F's representations were false at the time they were made, that P&F knew the representations were false, and that P&F made the false statements with the intent to induce plaintiff's reliance thereon. ..."
What happens next? What is a "demurrer" that is being sustained for the defendants, the Law Firm of Peters and Freedman?
Also, I would like to thank Nancy Levy for her comments:
"... My response to one particular letter has been to have my privately retained legal counsel, Douglas Joseph Rosner, respond to those false accusations with the truth; innumerable violations of state corporate and civil codes, as well as governing documents. I have also filed a complaint with the State Attorney General.
Owners and honest, ethical directors must stand up to any individual or firm who feel that it is their God-given right to destroy the trust and lives of others. "
This says it all.
Posted Jul 26 2003 8:45AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Catherine Todd
(View Profile)
Durham, North Carolina |
| |
|
|
| |
Superior Court
San Diego County, State of California
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a TELEPHONIC, ruling for 7/25/2003,
Department 12, the Honorable Luis R. Vargas presiding.
Case Number GIS11535
Defendant Peters & Freedman and David Peters' Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint is sustained with 15 days leave to amend.“The essential allegations for an action in fraud or deceit are false representation as to a material fact, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance and resulting damage.” (Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1331.) The facts constituting the fraud must be alleged. This means every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged factually and specifically, and the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect. (Committee on Children's Television v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which 'show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.'" (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73, quoting Hills Trans. Co. v. Southwest (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 707.) The requirement of specificity is relaxed when the allegations indicate that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy or when the facts lie more in the knowledge of the opposing party. (Committee on Children's Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.)
The SAC alleges that in October 2000 plaintiff became aware of unpaid homeowner assessments and a pending foreclosure. (Paras. 14 and 20.) She contacted Peters & Freedman (“P&F”) who informed her of the amount necessary to bring the homeowners' association account current and stop the pending foreclosure proceedings. (Para. 59.) She went to their offices and paid the specified amount. (Para. 59.) P&F represented that the foreclosure would be halted and the HOA and property management company would be informed that the account was paid in full on that date, and that plaintiff would be restored to the mailing lists so she would receive regular billings and the lien on her home would be released. (Para. 60.) In fact, P&F did not reduce the account to zero and the notices were not properly withdrawn or cancelled. (Para. 62.) Also, P&F failed to restore plaintiff to the appropriate mailing lists. (Para. 62.)
Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing how she relied on P&F's representations to her detriment. (Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807, 1818.) For example, she does not allege that she paid more than she was obligated to pay. Although she alleges her home was foreclosed upon over a year after she came current on the assessments, no connection is alleged between P&F's October 2000 representations and the February 2002 foreclosure.
Moreover, although paragraph 62 alleges that P&F did not reduce the account to zero, etc., plaintiff does not allege that P&F's representations were false at the time they were made, that P&F knew the representations were false, and that P&F made the false statements with the intent to induce plaintiff's reliance thereon. Further, the SAC does not allege the identity of the person at P&F who made the representations. While plaintiff may be able to explain why she is unable to name the person with whom she spoke, nothing in the present allegations indicates defendant must necessarily know or is a better position than plaintiff to know with whom plaintiff allegedly spoke.
Defendants' request for judicial notice of Jennifer'Todd's declaration is denied. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice of the bankruptcy court decision is granted.
This ruling constitutes the order of the court and no formal written order is required. Any party desiring oral argument shall notify by telephone all other parties and the court of its desire for oral argument within two (2) court days following this telephonic ruling, as required by San Diego Superior Court Rules, Division II, Rule 2.19. A brief written statement of issues to be argued shall be submitted to the other parties and the court by the Wednesday before the oral argument. If oral argument is not requested within the period specified above, this ruling will become the final order of the court, effective the date of the telephonic ruling.
San Diego Superior Court, Systems Group, 330 West Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
Posted Jul 26 2003 6:44AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Juan Capistrano, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Is a copy of the case available for viewing on ahrc or on the Internet?
This is great news, especially from Cecilia Taylor, President, Cortina Homeowners Association.
The whole thing sounds startling "familiar" as to what has been happening in our own homeowner association in Durham NC. We are all "staying tuned."
Posted Jul 26 2003 4:46AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Catherine Todd
(View Profile)
Durham, North Carolina |
| |
|
|
| |
Ms. Taylor,
I find your story so remarkable, yet so unremarkable. As a prior director of my HOA, Westmont North HOA No. 2 in San Pedro, CA, I too have been witness to such "secret, back-door" actions and meetings. Myself and another "minority" director were the ones excluded. Property management was also involved in that deception, in the form of denying my directors' absolute right of access, inspection and copying of books and records.
I have received letters threatening, in effect, to sue me, also. The statements made in those letters from the firm of Swedelson & Gottlieb are false.
My response to one particular letter has been to have my privately retained legal counsel, Douglas Joseph Rosner, respond to those false accusations with the truth; innumerable violations of state corporate and civil codes, as well as governing documents. I have also filed a complaint with the State Attorney General.
Owners and honest, ethical directors must stand up to any individual or firm who feel that it is their God-given right to destroy the trust and lives of others.
Posted Jul 26 2003 3:54AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Nancy A. Levy
San Pedro, California |
| |
|
|
| |
The New York Times called Melissa Colburn and her lawyer Herb Taylor.
The calls from the media reportedly "freaked out Peters & Freedman" and they began intensifying their efforts to muzzle Melissa Colburn and her attorney.
Fox 6 news called AHRC and said they had scheduled an interview with David Peters and wanted information on cases and complaints involving David Peters.
The reporter said that David Peters said "everything in the Melissa Colburn case has been taken care of and there were no more probems with the case."
Posted Jul 26 2003 2:47AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Juan Capistrano, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I am the president of our homeowner association at Cortina in San Diego. Our association fired Peters and Freedman after our association had huge problems with an "action without a meeting" which was not disclosed to the association. This action without a meeting caused a person to remain on our board of directors who was voted off of the board by the membership.
After we fired Peter's law firm we found e-mails from the management company to Peters. These e-mails suggested that the persons involved in the "action without a meeting" fraduently note dates of correspondance to the association so that the board would be stacked with members who the law firm found "cooperative" to their way of doing things. In our by laws and cc&rs it states that an "action without a meeting" must be posted for the full membership to view within 3 days of the decision.
Long story short - this was never done. A member of the association threatened to sue the association because of this and the board nullified the action without a meeting. The same night at the same meeting, the board was notified of Peter's serving a probation for the dumping of sewage into the water ways. The membership present at the meeting requested that the board fire Peters - He was fired by a unamous vote of the board.
We have had letters which have been proven to have been copied on the same copy machine which came from Peters and Freedman office which defamed one of our board members and was sent to everyone at our association.
We have had members threatened by Peters and Freedman and specifically by Peters at board meetings. We have had Peters and Freedman write letters to board members threatening to sue them and send them to their work places via certified mail so that employees had to sign for them.
If you need someone to help you and the information I have will do so - please have your attorney contact me or call me yourself. Hang in there.
Perhaps your attorney would like to do a class action law suit. I have been contacted by other associations concerning Mr. Peters - maybe it is time we all get together and talk to someone concerning what has happened to all of us.
Sincerely,
Cecilia Taylor (858)547-0457
President
Cortina Homeowners Association
San Diego, California
Posted Jul 26 2003 12:47AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Cecilia Taylor
(View Profile)
San Diego, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Dear Ms. Colburn:
It is unfortunate that you have had to spend so much money to defend yourself in this dirty lawsuit.
More and more often we hear such tragic stories about people incarcerated in HOA's, being sucked up into the litigation vortex, barely able to keep their head above water. The number of horror stories have increased so much that it has become difficult to respond to and help each homeowner.
Please know that there are many people who support you and are behind you 100%.
Come hell or high water and with a little common sense from competent judges - the homeowners will someday begin to get the courts on their side. hopefully, your case will be one of those that contributes to that change.
'P. Flamingo'
Posted Jul 23 2003 4:21AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
| |
A week ago, we heard that David Peters of Peters & Freedman offered to return Melissa Colburn her home and give her $5,000. He does not want the settlement agreement to be filed in the court and does not want Melissa to talk to anyone about it..
We are told she refused because these collection lawyers have cost her almost $80,000 in investigations and costs.
See HOA Forum Discussions on Peters & Freedman lawsuits and foreclosures./A>
Posted Jul 20 2003 3:30PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
AHRC Admin Account
San Juan Capistrano, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Bravo, Melissa!
We are all "staying tuned..."
Posted Jul 19 2003 7:55AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Catherine Todd
(View Profile)
Durham, North Carolina |
| |
|
|
Return to 'DRAMATIC DEVELOPMENT IN MELISSA COLBURN CASE' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
