Jump to content

luckygerm

Members
  • Content Count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Is the ANY type of pleading I can file to just get my actual damages back? Request for Relief Order? How about under CCP section 598? A motion to order a trail of issue? (I think that's what 598 is).
  2. Thanks for the "Sure". You made my day! And as for your role in playing Devil's Advocate....superior job. I'm sure that's how the jury would see it too. Now I can work on preparing for the scenario. The big question: Why did I do it? I keep asking myself that too. The only true answer i can come up with is: because I am an idiot. Thanks for your input.
  3. One more thing....the defendant stated to the judge that this "new information" they just got in the deposition they gave me made necessary the continuance so they could file a MSJ based on the info they got in the deposition "just two weeks" prior. You know, my copy of the deposition was dated Sept 18 from the Court Reporting Company. This is when they mailed it to me and said it is ready for review and execution. i had not even reviewed it yet when the defense told the judge they had received this "new information" in the deposition. If the ex parte motion was filed on Sept. 12 and the deposition wasn't even finished for me to review yet, it appears that counsel for the defense may have been jumping the gun when they told the judge they had this information. It doens't look like they concretely even had it yet, based on the above paragraph. If so, how do I present that information to the court? Thanks for your help.
  4. One more thing....the defendant stated to the judge that this "new information" they just got in the deposition they gave me made necessary the continuance so they could file a MSJ based on the info they got in the deposition "just two weeks" prior. You know, my copy of the deposition was dated Sept 18 from the Court Reporting Company. This is when they mailed it to me and said it is ready for review and execution. i had not even reviewed it yet when the defense told the judge they had received this "new information" in the deposition. If the ex parte motion was filed on Sept. 12 and the deposition wasn't even finished for me to review yet, it appears that counsel for the defense may have been jumping the gun when they told the judge they had this information. It doens't look like they concretely even had it yet, based on the above paragraph. If so, how do I present that information to the court? Thanks for your help.
  5. I'm in California. My case is being litigated with the defendant having representation, and myself in pro per. I would like to know (ahead of time) how things work when it comes to payment of court costs. I know that the defendnat has been delaying the case for an extended period of time in order to drive the court costs up so that in the likely event that I lose, I will have to pay astronomical costs. Can I declare Bankruptcy on this? Since I have a fee waiver, and my court costs are waived, would that help me out any? Do I actually have to pay for the defendant's lawyer if I lose the case? Please advise. Thank you.
  6. Yes. I showed up at the ex parte hearing and sat outside whilst the paperwork was supposedly looked over. I filed an oppostion, although (not unlike a moron) I did not ask to continue the discovery. In my opposition, I pointed out that the defendant did not obtain the information they mentioned only a week earlier, but that they had had it for over a year. I also pointed out that the defedant's ex parte motion did not contain the necessary requirement which is a description of who will be harmed if the ex parte motion is not granted, and why it is an emergency so as to necessitate such a filing. I pointed out and attached evidence of a recent visit I had to make to the hospital emergency room due to having heart attack symptoms. Wasn't a heart attack, but it was GERDS, which is brought on from stress. I stated to the judge that no immediate danger would come to the defendant from not getting his case continued, but it might come to myself because of the prolonged stress affecting my health because of this case. I also attached a copy of a Case Managment Statement from the defendant dated over one year ago, in which he stated he was going to file a MSJ. Therefore, how could he request another 6 months to file a MSJ, based on him saying that he just got "new information" when he already planned to file one about 18 months ago? It seems he should have been working on it all that time, not just now requesting to continue the trial 24 days before trial call...which is what I pointed out to the judge. Also, I gave actual case citations in my opposition, and the defense only listed rules of court which were interpreted to model its needs. They failed to list one case citation in their motion. For all these reasons, I opposed the continuance. Yet it was still granted. Is there anything I can file to ask the court for an explanation of the law as it pertains to the decision that the judge made? It doens't seem right that this was granted. Something about the granting of this rubs me wrong in my gut. And I just learned information (correct me if I'm wrong) that the motion for continuing the trial must be made before the settlement conference (which it was) but also before the settlement conference statement is due. The statement was due 5 days prior to the 17th. Would this be court days, or calendar days? I turned in my statement on the 10th, served it on the defendant and filed it with the court, and I never received a copy of the defendant's statement. The ex parte motion was made and heard on the 12th. Did the defendant meet the deadline for timing on the continuance? (I know I might be grasping at straws, but sometimes those deadlines can change the outcome if they are not met.)
  7. One more thing. I just received a notice from the Court Reporter who took the deposition saying that it is now available for my review and execution, and will be available for the next 30 days. I don't know how these things usually work, but it seems strange to me that the defense attorney could say in his declaration and ex parte motion on Sept 13 that new facts just came to light in a depoisiton taken on August 30, when the letter to me saying the deposition is available for review for 30 days from Sept 16. It seems that the defense attorney stated facts to the judge that were premature. The deposition had not even been reviewed when he made his comments to the judge. Can he do that before the deposition is even reviewed and executed by me?
  8. Another thought: I didn't mention the part that defendant stated in his ex parte motion that due to facts just obtained in a deposition only two weeks earlier that information would allow them to effectively submit a MSJ and that's why they wanted the continuance. To prepare the MSJ This is B.S. because they didn't need the deposition to gain that information, they knew it all along. And I think 6 months time to allow the other side to prepare a MSJ is completely unfair. Further, they did not include information in the Declaration of clear and convincing evidence that the court must hear this matter immediately or irreparable harm will occur and there will be immediate danger. Also, in my opposition, I mentioned that the defense first mentioned filing a MSJ in one of their Case Management Statements over a year ago. They should have been working on it all this time. I think they just weren't ready for trial, and they did not have proper reason for the continuance.
  9. In California. Defendant just won an ex parte motion to continue the case for 6 months. This was 24 days before trial. He also asked that discovery be cut off as if the continuance did not exist. Both were granted. I figure, if I have six more montjhs, there is always more discovery I could do: another set of special interrogatories, and more RFA;s. I feel I have pertinent information vital to the case that is necessary to obtain by more discovery. I feel that to allow another 6 months, but not let me obtain this information would be prejudicial to my right to due process. How do I go about asking the judge to allow a little more discovery time? What type of papers do I file?
  10. Okay. And thank you for your time, but my original question was: Do the citations that I've displayed lend to the general nature that the clean hands doctrine might not be invoked? And what about Penal Code 26? Specifically two, three, and five. If I had not criminal involvement or intent to forge and commit a crime, then how could I be held capable of committing a crime? If it wasn't a crime, then it was a mistake, and that is why I filed the lawsuit, to correct the mistake I made. My brother's acts were not a mistake. And I did not do what I did to avoid lengthy probate proceedings. I did what I did at my brother's insistence. I felt like I wasn't capable of thinking for myself, and if I had been capable, I would not have done what i did. If he had never come at me, things would be have been just fine. It was all his deceit that started everything.
  11. The following you had was pretty much correct. The property wasn't called Blackacre. It was just a house on one acre in Contra Costa County. My brother asked me to sign my mom's name about 1 hour after she died, on the day that she died. The next sentence you had correctly . At the time of the "signing" (I hate to call it forging), I was not aware of the terms of my mother's will. That is because 5 days before she died, he went and got it from her, then took it with him to his house. I never got to see it until a month later...after everything was filed, and after the damage was done. After the house sold, my brother got $76,100 from the sale, I got $76,100 from the sale, and my daughter got the rest. And yes, you have the last part correct, I claim that all of the proceeds should have been mine because the house was left to me, and were it not for the false deed that he got me to sign under false pretenses, he would not have received anything....if I had gotten a copy of the will right away. I am also upset because had he not put that deed through, I would still have the house....like my mom wanted. He pulled off the perfect crime, didn't he? I didn't know what else to sue for. i thought all the elements of fraud were there. I see what you were saying, though, about the fact that it is my word against his about the misrepresentations. I can drop that one, but the fraudulent concealment is provable. He admitted to taking the will home with him 5 days prior to her death. So he KNEW I was supposed to get the whole house and he lied to me to trick me. He knew I didn't know I was supposed to get the house. Nothing would have been tied up in probate for years. All I had to do was go file a Transfer of Title and Notice of Death of Trustor, or something like that, and I easily would have been given the title to the house. I don't know what else to say.
  12. I'm so sorry if I am bugging you. Truly. I've tried to stay away for a while... I'll answer your questions in order of importance. 1) The causes of action I alleged were for fraudulent misrepresentation and for fraudulent concealment. Him concealing the trust, and him misrepresenting that my mother wanted the property to go to him 25%, me 25%, and my daughter 50%. He also told me that the way mom's will was written up the property "would be tied up in probate for YEARS." He acted frantic, and pushed me at a time when I was confused, after just returning from saying goodbye to my mother's dead body at the hospital. I trusted my brother, and I knew NOTHING about property, deeds of trust, reconveyances, grant deeds, or anything like that. In addition, he is president of his own corporation that deals in buying foreclosed properties for investors, rehabbing them, and then selling for profit. He has been in the mortgage lending industry--successfully for over 20 years--so I believed him because of that too. 2) I am just seeking the actual damages of $76,100 which is the amount that he received from the sale of the property. Then whatever special damages I can get. But I would be happy just to get the actual damages back. 3) You are right about the notary. He was a former colleague of my brother's (he is no longer a notary, due to being dragged into the lawsuit -- via my subpoena that he ignored and is in contempt of court for) and my brother paid him $100 to notarize the deed and backdate it. I don't know what my brother said to him before we went to the guy's house (he could even have told him that my mom DID sign it...I don't know, but he knew that I signed the notary log book) I wish I hadn't. it was a big mistake, and the lawsuit is me trying to correct that mistake. I didn't want to sign her name on anything, but I really, honestly was afraid to question my brother. Not afraid of getting hit or anything, but afraid of getting scorned by him, and afraid of angering him. He's very good at getting what he wants. And I am not all that smart. As much as he is a winner, i am a loser. 4) My brother's attorney knows that the signature is not my mom's and I admitted to signing her name. Even though I did a bad thing, I never in a million years would have done something like that on my own. It was ONLY due to my brother's interference that I was put in that position. 5) My only other defense is that I am a former meth addict. All this happened in 6/09, and I didn't quit until 2/10---eight months later. Maybe due to my brain being confused from the occasional drug use, to my brother's insistence, to being in shock after my mom's dying, I was easy prey. Does that mean I don't deserve justice? (I promise I won't bother you with this topic any more again after this discussion.) Maybe I'm dreaming in my interpretations of the citations I gave. Thank you...sincerely.
  13. Hi. I'm just curious, and wondering what you all and/or any of you attorneys think about this situation. I had an attorney, but he withdrew from the case after the defendant (my brother)'s attorney wrote my lawyer a letter filled with lies--saying I was arrested trying to break in to his client's residence, had a shotgun, was intoxicated--that should be a crime in and of itself, but nevertheless it wasn't true, but my lawyer still quit. I had to go on and try to in pro per my case. Long story short, after my mom died, my brother tricked me into signing my mom's name on a gift deed he had made up which gave us joint tenancy. I thought 50/50 was fair, and he said there would be problems with the title if this deed didn't go through. i was dumb, I trusted him, and I did it. Come to find out, I was supposed to inherit the house wholly and severally. Found out after the fact. I claim that my brother (when he advised me to sign mon's name on the deed) was acting in the capacity of a confidential relationship. I thought he was the executor advising the beneficiary on what needed to be done. Also, he is an expert in the real estate industry. He tricked me the whole time. No ifs, ands, or buts. The case is getting ready for trial after much delay, and of course my brother's attorney is filing a MSJ and claiming that I have unclean hands because I "forged" the deed. If you look at it in black and white, I did sign my mom's name, and that is what contributed to my injury. I am thinking about dismissing the entire case, I need an attorney, but can't afford one. I didn't really "forge" her name, in the true essence of the word. I "signed" her name, but not with intent to cheat anybody. My brother tricked me into doing it to cheat me. He is the one that filed the deed with the county recorder. In my settlement conference brief, for supporting authorities and citations, I listed some of the precedent cases below. I know it may be asking a little bit much to request that you look over my citations and then render an opinion, so please don't get mad that I am asking all this. If you don't want to, please just pass on it. But I need to know if the cases I found might apply in my case and do I have a chance at this case? What is your guys' opinions on this? Do I have any chance at all, or should I just drop the case and get on with my life? Thank you with all my heart. -------------------------------------------- Clean hands doctrine. However, the doctrine of "clean hands" was not intended to be a sterile, legalistic rule of law. "But the rule that he who comes into equity must come with clean hands must not be applied where to do so would create an injustice. [Citation.] It is neither proper nor necessary to sacrifice justice in order to vindicate the honor of the court. [Citation.]"[1] The decision whether to apply the unclean hands defense is a matter within the trial court's discretion.[2] In exercising this discretion, the court “must consider the material facts affecting the equities between the parties … .” (Ibid.) ( Hill, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 880, 883.) ------------------------------------------------------------- Estate of MARIA ASTRID BLANCO, Deceased. THEODORE ENCINAS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JOHN D. CLOSS, as Guardian, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four 86 Cal. App. 3d 826; 150 Cal. Rptr. 645; 1978 Cal. App. LEXIS 2130; 6 A.L.R.4th 850 November 29, 1978 ------------------------------------------- Petitioners assert that there are several situations in which a grantor's original "unclean hands" may become dissipated to preclude application of the "clean hands" doctrine. Thus, it has been said that "[the] fact that a court of equity is the proper court for [an action], however, does not necessarily dictate the conclusion that the doctrine of clean hands is a complete defense. It is well settled that public policy may favor the nonapplication of the doctrine as well as its application." ( Radich v. Kruly (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 683, 686 [38 Cal.Rptr. 340].) "Whenever an inequitable result would be accomplished by application of the 'clean hands' doctrine the courts have not hesitated to reject it." ( Womack v. Womack (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 572, 579 [51 Cal.Rptr. 668].) In Soon v. Beckman (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 33, 36 [44 Cal.Rptr. 190], the court set forth the principle that: "'In applying the maxim that he who comes into equity must do so with clean hands, . . . the misconduct must be intimately connected with the matter in which he seeks equitable assistance, and of such a prejudicial nature to the rights of another that it would be inequitable to grant him that assistance.'" (Italics in original.) --------------------------------------------------------- An instructive case on the "clean hands" doctrine is that of Tinney v. Tinney (1963) 211 Cal.App.2d 548 [27 Cal.Rptr. 239]. In Tinney, plaintiff and defendant were formerly married and later divorced. Plaintiff sued his former wife to establish his sole ownership of property located in Oklahoma. Plaintiff was in the process of selling some of the property and had forged defendant's name to a deed to the buyer. The trial court found that defendant had no interest in the property even though her signature on a deed had been forged. In holding that defendant could not validly assert a defense of lack of clean hands by plaintiff, the court relied upon the principles set forth in Bradley Co. and Wiley, and concluded: "Defendant does not in any way suggest how the forgery, even if accomplished by plaintiff, has prejudiced any of her rights. The trial court found that the husband was the sole owner of the subject properties. The wife's asserted interest in the properties could not have been divested by the forgery because she in fact had no interest therein. It is thus apparent that the defense of unclean hands is not here applicable." ( Tinney, supra, 211 Cal.App.2d 548, 555.) ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAM H. FARAHANI, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Appellants. D054087 COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE 175 Cal. App. 4th 1486; 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 900; 2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1225 July 28, 2009, Filed (this one is important because clean hands doctrine did not apply to this guy because he was acting on the advice of the defendant's attorney--just like I was acting on the advice of the defendant in my case.) [1] Hill, supra, 274 Cal.App.2d 880, 883. [2] (Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 447 [99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 678].)
  14. Thank you very much Fallen, and jgower, and FindLaw_AHK. I appreciate your responses to my questions. Thank you.
  15. I'm in California, and I was wondering about the legalities involved with being a Room & "Boarder" as opposed to just renting a room. What are the general rights that a boarder would have? That a landlord would have over a boarder? Does a boarder just meant that you rent a room in someone's house where they also live? Thanks for any insight.
×
×
  • Create New...