|
|
Post by Poor Richard on Jun 27, 2021 13:20:42 GMT -7
Val O'Connell Seeks To Join Mizzi/Brozovsky Lawsuit Against GLA Politics can make for strange bedfellows. On June 16, 2021 Val O'Connell petitioned the 6th District Court to include her as a third party in the recent lawsuit against the Glastonbury Landowner's Association (GLA) filed by GLA President Newman Brozovsky and GLA Secretary Charlotte Mizzi. O'Connell contends that the GLA website contains outdated, incomplete, inaccurate and false information regarding her family and their many lawsuits against the GLA. As evidence, Val O'Connell included a photocopy of the first page of the GLA website which features an article about the O’Connell vexatious litigant ruling. The GLA website also contains many links to public court documents concerning various O'Connell lawsuits against the GLA. Photocopies of those pages are included with the official O'Connell court filing of June 16. O'Connell is asking that all of the pages containing information about the O'Connells be removed from the GLA website.
The GLA spent over $150,000.00 defending the Association from the various O'Connell lawsuits. Some of that was insurance company money. Then the GLA Legal Liability policy was cancelled and landowner money was spent. Does the GLA have a Constitutional 1st Amendment right to inform the landowners how their assessment money was spent? President Newman Brozovsky has said that he believes corporations do not have Constitutional rights. In an ironic twist of events the Montana 6th District Court may rule on that issue courtesy of a lawsuit filed in part by the GLA President. Adding to the irony is that a long time critic and litigant wishes to join with the current GLA President and Secretary in a costly lawsuit against the GLA. Insurance no longer covers GLA lawsuits so funding will come from landowner assessments.
The GLA board voted on Friday to hire attorney David Knobel of Crowley Fleck in Billings to defend the Association against the Brozovsky/Mizzi lawsuit. They paid an initial retainer of $10,000.00 to cover fees of $295.00 per hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Parker's Pal-Val on Jul 9, 2021 22:31:31 GMT -7
The past GLA treasurer–Rudy Parker can verify that Poor Richard's post above is wrong. The GLA has spent less than $15,000 as Defendants against all O'Connell lawsuits. But when Mark Seaver was GLA President in 2018-2019, the GLA as Plaintiffs filed three lawsuits and appeal that wasted almost $50,000 trying to collect attorney fees by calling attorney fees assessments in order to take away such members' property.
MT Federal Bankruptcy Court took over two of GLA's cases (one in state court and the other in Federal Court) and ruled against GLA for a "violation of the MT Homestead" Laws. This is good news for GLA members, because had the GLA not lost, every members' property would have been in jeopardy of possible foreclosure, because the GLA falsely claimed attorney fees were assessments that would have allowed GLA to foreclose and take members' property for covenant violations.
Thank God GLA lost this claim that was destroyed in a 16 page Federal Court Order against the GLA. Here is an excerpt of the Order (Case No. 19-60844-BPH):
The Federal Court Order said that GLA's lawsuit, "includes “reasoning” that reasoning mirrors and adopts Glastonbury’s arguments, arguments that on this record appear flawed. The record before this Court suggests Glastonbury’s rationale for the relief it sought in the Second Action was ill-conceived and not the product of adequate deliberation. In essence, Glastonbury used the Second [lawsuit] Action to recharacterize its Judgment for attorneys’ fees in the First Action as an encumbrance entitled to super-priority over all other [property] interests...concluding debtors' homestead exemption should not apply to a basic money judgment for attorneys’ fees in the First Action [which] is not persuasive, particularly given the liberal construction to be applied to exemption claims.
"The reasoning of the State Court [case] seems to encourage multiple suits on the same transaction, permit the splitting of causes of action, and ignore concepts of merger and bar. Taken to its logical extreme, it is the antithesis of judicial efficiency or economy and promotes the piecemeal adjudication of claims. Further, [GLA's case] is irreconcilable with the liberal construction afforded the homestead exemption. See Mont. Const. Art. XIII, Sect. 5; Neel v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 207 Mont. 376 (1984)...
"Less relevant to the Court’s analysis, but worth noting, if Glastonbury requested from the State Court a ruling on its Certification Motion on December 16, 2019, Glastonbury violated the automatic stay under § 362...[&] Glastonbury has not challenged Debtors’ homestead exemption on any [legal] grounds...the prepetition decision of the State Court was interlocutory and not final, so [GLA's claim of] res judicata is not applicable. Collateral estoppel is not available to Glastonbury because it has failed to establish the State Court Order was the subject of adequate deliberation and “final.”
"Further, the post petition effort by Glastonbury to make the interlocutory summary judgment decision “final” for purposes of full faith and credit, res judicata and collateral estoppel, impermissibly intruded into a core matter over which this [Federal] Court has jurisdiction. Glastonbury’s Objection is overruled...This Court has determined that [O'Connells'] are entitled to the homestead exemption. As a result, Glastonbury’s Judgment lien is subject to being avoided under § 522(f)....[O'Connells'] Motion to Avoid Lien under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) filed at ECF No. 55 is granted; pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A), the judicial lien held by Glastonbury against {O'Connells'] homestead property is avoided ; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any relief requested by Glastonbury ... is denied." (by Federal Court Judge Hursh).
|
|
|
|
Post by leokeeler on Jul 10, 2021 10:36:19 GMT -7
Everyone knows that I am not an attorney, and evidently neither is Parkler's Pal-Val.
I am not sure who Parker's Pal-Val is. WHY DO PEOPLE POSTING HERE NOT INCLUDE THEIR REAL NAMES??? What are they hiding or what group are they fearful of???
When I first read the BANKRUPTCY COURT decision (19-60844-BPH attached) I learned that the GLA Board had failed to finalize the State Court decisions for the O'Connell case(s). I feared that many would "assume" the homestead law provides blanket protection prohibiting GLA from pursuing collecting unpaid annual assessments.
I read the decision to show only that GLA administration, under the current leadership, failed to object tol the bankruptcy court decision and proceed to obtain a "Final" State Court decision about the O'Connell's attorney fees. This case only addresses thke $18,000 attorney fees related to the case and the ability to forclose due to not paying assessents is still available to GLA and hopefully (but doubtfully) the President and Secretary have learned how to properly close a State Court case and collect related attorney fees.
I encourage readers of the forum to read the Bankruptcy Court decision (Case No. 19-60844-BPH) and not take Parker's Pal-V writing here as that decision providing broad protections under the Homestead law or applying to more than bankruptcy court cases.
As the Bankruptcy Judge stated on page 14 "Based on the record presented to this Court, there is no binding decision that this Court must adopt or follow. To the contrary, the prepetition decision of the State Court was interlocutory and not final, so res judicata is not applicable. Collateral estoppel is not available to Glastonbury because it has failed to establish the State Court Order was the subject of adequate deliberation and “final so res judicata is not applicable..” (FYI - Definition of Interlocutory = Provisional; interim; temporary; not final" and res judicata = A rule that a final judgment on the merits by a court having jurisdiction is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were litigated or that could have been litigated in that suit.)
Most landowners I talk to are upset about the amount of money the Board is paying attorneys. A decision must be made if the Board will enforce the covenants or if individual landowners impacted by violations must enforce them on their own. During one discussion while I was on the Board, I brought out the fact that due to inaction by the Board on my 2009 complaint about violations of my neighbor, I had to file a lawsuit. After informing eveyone I had spent $7,000 to reach a settlement, I was asked "Did you expect the Board to spend money to enforce the covenants?
I hope the two lawsuits currently in court (Newman/Mizzi and Riley, Ladewig, Seaver, Sedlak, McAlister, and McAlister + 48 supporters) require Landowners to develop new Covenants and Bylaws that are not subject to approval/rejection by the original land developers.
|
|
