Monday, July 2, 2012

"True JACC" Case Comes To Its Oh-So-Bitter End, Here Is Court Of Appeals Decision...

Creative stock photo, blog post by John Hoff

Click here for the Minnesota State Court of Appeals decision. Commentary will take place at a later time, if it's even necessary.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

http://minnlawyer.com/minnlawyerblog/2012/07/03/referee-seeks-inactive-disability-status-for-jill-clark/

Johnny Northside! said...

First reported on Johnny Northside Dot com.

Anonymous said...

A hypothetical. Only that. I only know what I read in the opinion. If the plaintiff-appellant group is liable for attorney fees jointly and sevrably, then the attorney fee judgment can be levied against the property of any one, to attain a full or partial satisfaction of judgment, with the plaintiffs then among themselves left to adjust and indemnify one another.

What does Jerry Moore own? The only fact I know, he owns a judgment, subject to outcome on appeal - not absolutely final - against John Hoff.

Again as a hypothetical, if the JACC were to levy against that asset and sell it at sheriff's sale, who might bid and how much, being that the asset is highly conditional and uncertain as to absolutes down the road of time.

If there were a sheriff's sale would it not be interesting if all the thing drew was a bid of a dollar three eighty from Hoff?

That would be then only a partial satisfaction of judgment, and not much of one but how that asset might change hands is interesting.

And of course as part of the hypothetical, we have to assume that Moore has not conveyed his interest in the judgment lien position and right to execute judgment to some third person.

If done, it might not be recorded, but then notice to thrid persons is what recording is all about.

Possibilities abound. Presuming Moore still holds - and there was a sheriff's sale -

Given circumstances, would Clark bid? Don Allen? That one family on the south side of Minneapolis? One or several of the NoMi slumlords?

And how might any bidder discount likelihoods in choosing an amount to bid?

It is all part of one big hypothetical. There is that pending chance the value of the Moore judgment asset may be reduced to zero value, indeed it may be struck on appeal.

My guess, only a guess, is that if a decision issues soon on the Moore v. Hoff case a link would be posted on this particular news and views publishing site.

Johnny Northside! said...

Not sure I completely follow what you're saying but, yeah, some of those plaintiffs own houses, some of them do not.

The judgment can be slapped on all those houses but I think it's up to JACC to follow through and make the next move.

anne mcc said...

Actually, I think it is up to Briggs and Morgan, JACC's lawyers to seek recovery of judgement. Since JACC had insurance, the organization is not out any money due to legal fees. Insurance has paid out over $190,000 and they want to recoup whatever they can.

Jerry Moore owns nothing and already owes more than he'll probably ever be able to pay off. At least three of the parites suing JACC own houses.

Ben Myers may have to see that the money is paid in order to keep his law license in good standing, but I'm not sure. Just a guess on my part.

While JACC lost financially because of the stolen equipment and the checks cashed after the new board officers were elected, we could never get any criminal actions against them (politics). I would cost more than we would ever recoup to take civil action. I'm just glad it's over with. The job now is to move on and DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN

Johnny Northside! said...

Who are the three parties who own interest in a house? One is Ben Myers, huh? Who are the others?

Anonymous said...

The attorneys can go after all the plaintiffs or just selective ones. The liablility is "joint and severable." That means they could theoretically make 1 or 2 of them pay everything. I would suggest they go after Ben and Jerry since they were the ones who caused the majority of the problems and acted in bad faith, per Judge Porter. Ben will need to pay or risk trouble with his law license. They can garnish Jerry's wages. Or maybe Ben and Jerry can ask JillClark to pay the attorney's fees.

Johnny Northside! said...

Any possibility this was MALPRACTICE and fees could be paid from an insurance policy for malpractice? Are lawyers in Minnesota required to carry malpractice insurance?

Anonymous said...

Every private attorney in MN is required to carry malpractice insurance. I have never been accused of malpractice so am not quite sure about the ins and out of it. Both Ben and Jerry seem to be very litigous (Ben has already brough lawsuits which have been dismissed and costs have been awarded against him and Jerry has filed harassment orders against people which have been thrown out). They would have to bring a malpractice lawsuit, which would probably not go well given their litigous natures. In the meantime, the judgments will have already been collected and they will have been out of luck, unless they can recover later on from her insurance. I think the attorneys should move to collect against them immediately.

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

Two things: first, I immediately understand and am fascinated by the hypothetical situation, because it involves mortgages and liens and such. I'm not sure if that process is even a possibility in Minnesota as it is in other states, but the anonymous person seems to know their stuff.

Second, we ought to keep track of these judges that have done a good job on the JACC case and other mortgage fraud and slumlord cases. Voting on judge elections is quite low, and north Minneapolis folks should be informed about which judges have been on our side so we keep those people around.

Anonymous said...

My understanding is the courts have a form that is tendered to judgment debtors; perhaps the judgment creditor has to initiate it; querying about assets. If an insurance company stands to pick up a bit of offsetting cash, if cost of collection is added to the judgment, there can be post judgment discovery as to the lawyer's receivables. It is not an employment thing, so there's no percentage limit as with wage garnishment. Find his bank account, his receivables, and snap, snap. But it is Briggs and Morgan and the insurer who need to act or not. Most liekly, they hold the subrogated position.

Anonymous said...

HH - The neighborhood organization should be aware of who the judges are and have sound reason if backing one in an election. You may have to stand back or be careful that you wear your private citizen organization member hat, not your employee hat, and it is easiest to leave endorsement questions to the organization's management people. HOWEVER, if JACC is a non-profit having 501(c)(3) IRS status - be careful to not impact that by overreaching into political involvement - any side on an issue has the other side watching, and Mac Hammond in the burbs endangered his pulpit tax situation in touting Michele Bachmann, (but that complaint got swept away during the Bush years). Still, it's old hat to the enviro groups, some are political and not tax exempt, some the other, but the exempt ones need to be careful. Pure as the driven snow, etc.

Johnny Northside! said...

To the extent that I can contribute to the arcane discussion about going after assets...

Jerry Moore works at that "HUB" project at that church on, what is it, near Penn and Lowry? I'm sure he's got some kind of paycheck. Garnish it, I say, like an asserted appetizer tray.

The Hawthorne Hawkman said...

I've kept my blog pretty separate from HNC activities for quite some time, and I'm not even on the Jordan board. So if I were to, say, publish a list of all sorts of great rulings and the judges that made them, that would be entirely unaffiliated with any neighborhood group. Sounds like a job for a Hawkman!

Anonymous said...

link is dead

Johnny Northside! said...

OK, the link should work now if you try it.

Below is a copy and paste of the link I am using.

http://minnlawyer.com/wp-files/opa111198-070212.html