Post by Admin on Jan 5, 2018 9:22:18 GMT -7
Rakela Lawsuit - News and Updates
The January 2nd court hearing was stayed by agreement of both Kathleen Rakela's and the GLA's attorney. In a motion filed with the court by Rakela's attorney Jami Rebsom she stated that "the parties have been negotiating all issues and are optimistic they will reach an agreement without litigation". Rebsom further stated that the GLA attorney Seth Cunningham "does not object to this motion". Thus the January 2nd hearing was stayed.
In a court order on December 28th Judge Brenda Gilbert created a schedule for both the GLA and Kathleen Rakela. The January 2nd hearing was omitted. The schedule sets deadlines and steps that both sides must honor before the pretrial hearings can begin in October or November of 2018. The trial may not even start until after our next annual election in November.
The Forum estimates that the GLA has spent over $10,000.00 of landowner money to date in legal fees. The GLA had $30,000.00 in the legal fund and no legal liability insurance. Thus they still can spend $20,000.00 before they have to take money from the 2018 budget or request a special assessment from all landowners.
In a court order on December 28th Judge Brenda Gilbert created a schedule for both the GLA and Kathleen Rakela. The January 2nd hearing was omitted. The schedule sets deadlines and steps that both sides must honor before the pretrial hearings can begin in October or November of 2018. The trial may not even start until after our next annual election in November.
The Forum estimates that the GLA has spent over $10,000.00 of landowner money to date in legal fees. The GLA had $30,000.00 in the legal fund and no legal liability insurance. Thus they still can spend $20,000.00 before they have to take money from the 2018 budget or request a special assessment from all landowners.
Forum requests for detailed information are being stonewalled with the usual claims of attorney client privilege. Although landowners are paying the full legal costs of defending the association and specifically named GLA Directors, very little information is being shared with members.
Commentary
This court case is a classic example of how justice is served...slowly and costly. It will be in everyone's economic interest to settle so the question is not "if" but when. The GLA has already spent over $10,000.00 in legal fees and the final bill could be two to four times that amount. The case has mushroomed from a petition signed by 46 landowners to an increasingly costly power struggle between two opposing parties. One group wants to return the community to a time when Church Universal and Triumphant members were the sole occupants, harmony reigned and the GLA was a theocracy. The other group is mostly made up of newcomers who believe the Covenants contain the the guiding principles for Glastonbury and view the GLA Association as a business.
The legal expense bar is lower for Kathleen Rakela and Val O'Connell has assisted by composing many of the legal documents. Rakela's out of pocket legal costs are probably a small fraction of what the GLA has spent. However at some point she has to ask herself just how much she is willing to spend for an attorney so she can get her name on a ballot. Since a full blown case would not be decided until after our next scheduled annual election in November of 2018 common sense should tell her to settle now. However if the group that has helped her create and propel the current lawsuit forward decides to bankroll her attorney, the GLA could be in for a long and expensive battle.
Which party is weak and which is strong? The GLA has a good attorney and $30,000.00 in the legal fund. They can spend all of that before they have to find money in the budget or ask for a special assessment. So financially the GLA is in good shape. This case will NOT bankrupt the GLA. But future lawsuits could.
Which party is weak and which is strong? The GLA has a good attorney and $30,000.00 in the legal fund. They can spend all of that before they have to find money in the budget or ask for a special assessment. So financially the GLA is in good shape. This case will NOT bankrupt the GLA. But future lawsuits could.
The GLA Board lost it's liability insurance years ago due to the O'Connell lawsuits. The Board now must pay for legal defense out of landowner's money via the Legal Fund. Once the fund is depleted the money will have to come from the current budget, unallocated funds or a special assessment.
If the GLA Board settles early then Rakela, O'connell and crew will receive a clear message that they "won" the case. The next time the GLA Board does something they do not agree with, out will come the threat of another lawsuit. Allowing Val O'Connell and Rakela to "win" via a premature settlement gives them tremendous veto power over the GLA Board and the community.
Other disgruntled landowners will be encouraged to sue or threaten to sue the Board regardless of how trivial their claims are. The legal merits of their claims will not matter if the GLA Board lacks the funds and/or the will to defend itself in court.
Other disgruntled landowners will be encouraged to sue or threaten to sue the Board regardless of how trivial their claims are. The legal merits of their claims will not matter if the GLA Board lacks the funds and/or the will to defend itself in court.
If the GLA Board lets the legal process play out the Forum believes Rakela and crew may settle in a month or two. They will soon tire of spending their money for a lawsuit that will become increasingly meaningless as we approach the fall election cycle.
From our viewpoint the Board simply needs to stall the legal process as much as possible. Slow things down so the costs are lowered for the GLA and any "victory" for the other side becomes costly and meaningless.
What do you think? Please share your thoughts below.
