Lieutenant Governor Hutchison‘s law firm sent letters to two Las Vegas city councilmen charging that they are biased against the developer of the Badlands golf course and should recuse themselves. [RJ]
Assuming the Lamplight verdict holds up, or even if only the compensatories do, what happens to the individual homeowners? Can the HOA file bankruptcy? Do individual homeowners have standing to sue the carrier for bad faith in not settling within limits? I don't know who the carrier is but they had best be trying to get this one settled.
This case has so many screaming problems that honestly I am not certain how Hardy does not end up granting a new trial. Mistakes everywhere all over this case, including some egregious ones by defense counsel that are nonetheless unwaivable errors.
HOAs should have liability insurance. If the Board somehow did not buy a policy, I would think there would be a claim against the Board and/or Management directly for gross stupidity. (That's not the technical term, I know.)
9:57 here. I read somewhere that the policy is $2 million. Claggett, not being an idiot, surely made a demand for the limits at some point prior to trial. That could have the effect of opening the policy, such that the carrier would have to pay or face a bad faith case. If insurance-retained defense counsel has a brain (always questionable) he or she would have advised the HOA to retain counsel to write poison-pen letters to the carrier demanding that they settle within limits. Until this gets sorted out, the individual homeowners could be in a pickle. No mortgage lender is going to want to touch anything in there, monthly assessments could potentially go through the roof, etc. Hence my question as to whether they would have standing as individuals to go after the carrier.
I agree with the analysis to a point. I agree defense counsel should recommend the insured to get its own counsel and to evaluate any demands. I do not agree that defense counsel has a duty (or even ethically can) recommend that the insured write poison pen letters to the carrier because he/she would be setting up their own carrier for a bad faith case. Just report the facts and recommend that the insured get their own counsel to evaluate. If that independent counsel determines that poison pen letters are merited, that counsel can make that call.
9:57 here again. I mostly agree with you. It is a difficult ethical position for insurance-retained defense counsel due to having a duty to both the insured and the carrier. At some point it becomes an inherent conflict. You have to advise them to seek independent counsel without explicitly stating that you think the carrier may be disregarding their interests. Always an ethical tightrope. In my opinion too many defense lawyers are either ignorant of this potential conflict, or are so desperate to keep an account that they disregard it. Some are very good about it though.
According to CVN.com the HOA was defended by Kevin Brown of Brown Bonn & Friedman, a CA firm with a NV office (www.BrownBonn.com. According to the RJ the HOA was represented by Patrick Orme and Edward Boyack.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 6:08 pm
Probably just foreclose on the whole community, rename it Claggett Village.
10:58– Well that is not true. Claggett has been bragging around the Courthouse about how he and Al plan to foreclose on all of the homeowners. Al has said the same thing.
Boyd has some real low lifes over there now. Why is he discussing a current case with his class. What a joke. You have him and Cadish over. Two morals.
He is representing his client .he should foreclose if that will get his client paid. When did lawyers ever get souls to begin with. Look at all the defense whores on here that try to fuck every plaintiff they can. Maybe defense counsel should have offered more than 125k. Why is it that a shit offer is not considered soulless. The insurance company and counsel did this to themselves. Don't be mad at Claggett or Lasso.
7:29 (or should I say Clags)- Your information that you are publishing that the HOAs highest offer was $125,000 is erroneous. Furthermore with multiple millions in settlement proceeds already on the table as an offset from the other 2 Defendants, and no specials boarded for a 20 year old wannabe rapper who is not treating, there is nothing soulless is valuing the case at less than 5 Million dollars.
305 it is real simple. The jury spoke. Many times the jury comes back with a $0 verdict. In fact, I think Shawn got defensed a few months back. Rather than trying to hate, try becoming a better lawyer and get some great results from your client. Based upon the facts you indicated I am even more impressed by the verdict.
I was not criticizing the lawyering (I was not personally involved in the Thompson case but have information that the indication that there was only a $125,000 offer is false). But the assertion that "the jury spoke" equates to the right result was reached, that there were not substantial problems at trial and that the verdict will stand up is a nonsequitur.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 6:21 pm
I bet every HOA is looking at its playground equipment and saying, "We better rip those suckers out…"
He's clever. Many don't understand just how much money personal injury attorneys make because of incompetent defense attorneys who have 1,000 files to make up for billing out at $125/hour.
This whole blog is full of career insurance defense attorneys who don't have the balls to give up their paycheck and bet on themselves. It's pathetic. Go bill those hours and keep making your partners rich, and keep pretending like you're good at your job.
To: 12:20–I'm going to take your advice. Yes, I am bitter about P.I. attorneys and how much they earn, and it is true that I don't have the stones to go on my own, and all I am really accomplishing is to make the partners richer.
But I usually make about $200,000., have no family to support, and all the business is provided to me–I don't need the constant stress of attracting clients of my own(which I never could accomplish due to my shitty personality), I have no pressure to meet large monthly overhead, etc.
So, mediocrities like me(and I am being quite generous in describing myself as a mediocrity as many would suggest I am not even at that level)can sail through life fairly anonymously, and without reaching for more.
I don't have financial stress. My bills are all paid each month with plenty left over as I am by myself(and I will probably remain by myself not just due to the aforementioned shitty personality, but also because I am not much to look at). And since I don't have extravagant tastes to any extent, and in fact earn more than I need, why should I take all these chances just to hopefully become a success and earn more? I not only don't need more money, but I also lack the competence, confidence or drive to make it on my own.
Well, 1:20 does have one thing going for him(if it is a him).He's pretty damn funny, IMO. If he does get to a point where the $200,000 per year is not enough, perhaps he can supplement his income a little with open mic stand up.
The $200,000. poster, above, did not necessarily indicate his practice is limited to insurance defense. If it so limited, I agree it's unlikely that he would make that much, as most who limit their practice to insurance defense don't earn that much. But it does not mean one is on crack to believe that an insurance defense, senior associate attorney could make $200,000.
And certainly partners in a very successful insurance defense firm can earn far more than such amount.
That all said, 2:08 may wish to hone his skills as to determining what is relevant in a passage, and what point one is attempting to make. Neither 1:20 nor 1:23 were attempting to argue that most insurance defense attorneys can earn $200,000. Instead, they were thematically joining the discussion concerning those who take the chance and stake their own ground vs. those who let themselves be exploited for the purpose of having the perceived safety net of working for someone else.
If 2:08 re-reads such posts and still believes the discussion revolves around whether or not one can earn as high as $200,000. as an insurance defense associate, then 2:08 is an attorney who can be easily distracted and thrown off the relevant issues by pursuing wild goose chases.
Perhaps the posters should have used the figure $125,000 or $140,000., so as not to distract and confuse very literal and concrete thinkers like 2:08 who have still not progressed to the level of analytical, abstract though.
But the fact 2:08 misses the point completely, is not the main problem. The main problem is that when he misses the obvious point he lashes out with aggressive arrogance–thus the colorful crack reference rather than merely pointing out how much he thinks these defense attorneys generally earn.
Now, unlike 2:08, I understand nuance and metaphors and the like.
I realize that 2:08 does not really believe the poster was on crack.
I am not certain that it will turn out well for the Plaintiffs. There is some bad stuff lurking in the weeds regarding Plaintiffs which I think at the appellate level looks ugly, I mean really ugly. There was a mention that Hardy might want to consider a new trial to clean up the mess, which I think is right. If you are a judge, hoping your screw-ups just get settled out in a Supreme Court settlement conference does not cut it. This is a bad record. You are correct: the case is a cluster fuck which I would not want going up if I was a judge.
There were three defendants and all three have open policies. And they have claims for malpractice against their defense counsel. The HOA is fine, and the money will come out of the insurers pockets.
Where did you get your information? 2 of the 3 Defendants settled before trial and do not have open policies. What was the malpractice by the Defense Counsel? Inquiring minds want to know.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 7:32 pm
I own and live in Lamplight Village. My first home out of law school. I don't work in HOA litigation but after review of my bylaws and NRS 116 it looks pretty grim for me. Can anyone with experience in this area tell me how screwed am I really?
Pretty screwed. Even if this is overturned on appeal there are some objectively bad things Clagget and Lasso can do to mess with the homeowners. If it is affirmed, expect a special assessment of $40k-$50k.
Sue the HOA’s insurance company for failing to protect you by settling the case. Sue defense counsel for not recommending or insisting on Cumis counsel, if that is what happened. Sue the individual Board members for not protecting your interests. They should have E&O coverage.
The $64,000 dollar question is whether the HOA's carrier may be on the hook for an excess. But this is essentially a bad faith claim so there has to be a second trial against the HOA's carrier by assignment of rights or whatever. Also, is there a likelihood of a reduction or remittitur? Too many unanswered questions. Did the court apply the right standard and proof with respect to punitive damages. I suspect it will settle. The carrier will pay something, the HOA will pay something and the Plaintiff will reduce the amount. Right before the verdict, the insurance company tendered the policy. If I were the carrier, I would hire separate counsel and interplead it. Was there a demand for the policy limits before the tender. Believe there was and it was rejected with a low offer–$125,000 maybe. Not so easy to get the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn a jury verdict.
You and the other unit owners should read NRS 116.3117(1)(a). It will make you poop your pants. Assuming the HOA does not have the funds to satisfy the judgment (it doesn't) and the insurance company doesn't, won't, can't pay, – Claggett, et al. will have a lien on ALL of the units in your neighborhood!
Here is my question (because I think it likely in this case): Claggett liens all of the homes with the Judgment. Case gets reversed on appeal. Homeowners have not been able sell their homes for the 2-3 years that the case is up on appeal (without paying a pro rata portion of the Judgment which would be around $60,000 a door). Recourse against the Plaintiffs when the Judgment has wrongfully marred their title?
Their title is not wrongfully clouded. Claggett has a valid judgment and can collect until a court issues an order saying otherwise. The carrier can post a bond to protect the homeowners.
If the carrier does not take immediate action to bond around the judgment (about $30 million or probably more as the usual standard is 1.5x) the bad faith claim will be hellacious.
Here is the problem however: if Claggett records the Judgment, even if a bond is posted that stops execution, the Judgment is still on title for all of those properties. No lender will lend on those properties, bond or no bond.
Given the subject matter of most CLEs (medicaid liens, I'm looking at you), I think it looks pretty interesting. Sitting U.S. Senator Q&A alone is worth the cash. Also, it looks like you can choose either pro bono hour for your ethics credit.
Guest
Unknown
February 23, 2018 10:00 pm
The State Bar of Nevada submitted its petition to the Nevada Supreme Court that would amend SCR 78.5 to allow for random audits of trust accounts. The Petition is docketed as ADKT 0533 and can be reviewed under the "Administrative Orders" sub-tab (which is inside the "Court Rules" tab) on the Nevada Supreme Court website.
I am disappointed by the Board of Governors' actions, especially since the survey results indicate that our members oppose the proposal.
I wrote Comment No. 19 erroneously posted as a "Favorable Comment" on Page 20 of the pdf based, in large part, on the recent comments posted on this blog. In hindsight, I should have started off by stating my strong opposition to the proposal, so I will take responsibility for my comments being misconstrued as weighing in on the positive side of the V when I am against the proposal. Nonetheless, I am grateful to my many colleagues who provided input (both positive and negative) on this blog, which undoubtedly led to the many comments submitted as part of the SBN's survey which, in turn, were reprinted in Exhibit C.
I continue to oppose ADKT 0533 and the recent actions by our Board of Governors in seeking draconian changes to our practice rules and requirements. I am hopeful that many of you will submit comments to the Nevada Supreme Court during its comments process and consider supporting new candidates to the Board of Governors during the upcoming election.
Thank you Andrew. This is proof positive once again what a WASTE of money the BoG's did. They took a survey. The survey was overwhelmingly negative. They did it anyway. So Andrew if you are running, say so now because you have my vote if you are ready to tip the apple cart of corruption.
In the ADKT Petition, the SBN falsely (and fraudulently) asserts that the results of the survey were "mixed." The results weren't mixed. The results were overwhelmingly against the proposal (49 comments for; 167 comments against). Your State Bar lies and does it with your money and your approval.
Folks, just search under case no. ADKT 0533. Comes right up. And yes, the comments are anonymous, except for one dude who identified himself in the comment.
This is incredible! How did they reach the position that responses were mixed? The hundreds of thoughtfully written comments demonstrate a lot of valid concerns about the legality and necessity of such audits. I'm truly impressed with the thoughtful responses so many people gave. Saddened by the BOG deciding to ignore them. Time for a revolution.
@5:27– Survey results are unanimous, overwhelming or mixed. It is legalese when you want a result and are not taking the actual results of the survey into account.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 10:05 pm
Does Hardy have ties to Russians?
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 10:18 pm
Houston, this commAnd center. The legal field is in complete upheavel. We cannot save you. Do you copy?
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 10:54 pm
I feel like the wizard of oz has been revealed to me as a kid. First I found out Scott Hamilton is a Trump supporter. Now I find out that Armeni is an asshole.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 11:07 pm
I am laughing so hard, my pants are ready to explode.
Guest
Anonymous
February 23, 2018 11:36 pm
There are some rumblings that Haig may sue Eighth Jud. District Court.
A judge and her staff took action pursuant to a judicial order that was unquestionably within her jurisdiction to make. Negligence, even gross negligence, doesn't strip away immunity in that case. 6:48, why do you think JI doesn't apply?
Cadish does not strike me as a blog person. Hardy strikes me as a blog person. Cadish not so much. As to 2:50, if you believe that 12:50 is wrong and judicial immunity does not apply, provide what authority you are relying upon?
This is both 6:41 and 9:01. I dont work at the RJC. Judicial immunity applies to judicial actions taken pursuant to a judicial function in a matter in which that court has jurisdiction. Every element is met here. Now, if you want to argue it doesn't, consider yourself free to put up or shut up.
Assuming the Lamplight verdict holds up, or even if only the compensatories do, what happens to the individual homeowners? Can the HOA file bankruptcy? Do individual homeowners have standing to sue the carrier for bad faith in not settling within limits? I don't know who the carrier is but they had best be trying to get this one settled.
HOAs are prohibited from filing BK.
This case has so many screaming problems that honestly I am not certain how Hardy does not end up granting a new trial. Mistakes everywhere all over this case, including some egregious ones by defense counsel that are nonetheless unwaivable errors.
Can you say "special assessment"?
HOAs should have liability insurance. If the Board somehow did not buy a policy, I would think there would be a claim against the Board and/or Management directly for gross stupidity. (That's not the technical term, I know.)
Can't we assume that there was a policy limits demand at some point? If so, perhaps the carrier pays.
9:57 here. I read somewhere that the policy is $2 million. Claggett, not being an idiot, surely made a demand for the limits at some point prior to trial. That could have the effect of opening the policy, such that the carrier would have to pay or face a bad faith case. If insurance-retained defense counsel has a brain (always questionable) he or she would have advised the HOA to retain counsel to write poison-pen letters to the carrier demanding that they settle within limits. Until this gets sorted out, the individual homeowners could be in a pickle. No mortgage lender is going to want to touch anything in there, monthly assessments could potentially go through the roof, etc. Hence my question as to whether they would have standing as individuals to go after the carrier.
I agree with the analysis to a point. I agree defense counsel should recommend the insured to get its own counsel and to evaluate any demands. I do not agree that defense counsel has a duty (or even ethically can) recommend that the insured write poison pen letters to the carrier because he/she would be setting up their own carrier for a bad faith case. Just report the facts and recommend that the insured get their own counsel to evaluate. If that independent counsel determines that poison pen letters are merited, that counsel can make that call.
9:57 here again. I mostly agree with you. It is a difficult ethical position for insurance-retained defense counsel due to having a duty to both the insured and the carrier. At some point it becomes an inherent conflict. You have to advise them to seek independent counsel without explicitly stating that you think the carrier may be disregarding their interests. Always an ethical tightrope. In my opinion too many defense lawyers are either ignorant of this potential conflict, or are so desperate to keep an account that they disregard it. Some are very good about it though.
Who defended the HOA at trial?
What prohibits an HOA from filing bankruptcy?
According to CVN.com the HOA was defended by Kevin Brown of Brown Bonn & Friedman, a CA firm with a NV office (www.BrownBonn.com. According to the RJ the HOA was represented by Patrick Orme and Edward Boyack.
Probably just foreclose on the whole community, rename it Claggett Village.
I am happy for Al Lasso. He is a good guy.
Is he a good guy if he forecloses on the homeowners who had nothing to do with this?
No one is hoping that he forecloses on anybody.
10:58– Well that is not true. Claggett has been bragging around the Courthouse about how he and Al plan to foreclose on all of the homeowners. Al has said the same thing.
Are you shitting me? That is fucked up.
1205, you are fos. Even Claggett is not that soulless.
12:24– No. Quite true I am afraid.
My file clerk is in Claggett's class at Boyd. He told the class that he will foreclose on every house. Yes soulless was a good term for it.
Claggett teaches a class at Boyd. Wow.
Boyd has some real low lifes over there now. Why is he discussing a current case with his class. What a joke. You have him and Cadish over. Two morals.
He is representing his client .he should foreclose if that will get his client paid. When did lawyers ever get souls to begin with. Look at all the defense whores on here that try to fuck every plaintiff they can. Maybe defense counsel should have offered more than 125k. Why is it that a shit offer is not considered soulless. The insurance company and counsel did this to themselves. Don't be mad at Claggett or Lasso.
Claggett and Lasso throwing it down. You are on notice. Hire them and you know you are deal8ng with the grinch. There are a few attorneys with souls.
One, two, three, four, please say you won't foreclose.
5:50, they need to flea bomb Boyd with Sean and Elissa Cadish there. Jesus.
I’d gladly sign individual homeowners as clients. It would be a target-rich environment.
7:29 (or should I say Clags)- Your information that you are publishing that the HOAs highest offer was $125,000 is erroneous. Furthermore with multiple millions in settlement proceeds already on the table as an offset from the other 2 Defendants, and no specials boarded for a 20 year old wannabe rapper who is not treating, there is nothing soulless is valuing the case at less than 5 Million dollars.
305 it is real simple. The jury spoke. Many times the jury comes back with a $0 verdict. In fact, I think Shawn got defensed a few months back. Rather than trying to hate, try becoming a better lawyer and get some great results from your client. Based upon the facts you indicated I am even more impressed by the verdict.
I was not criticizing the lawyering (I was not personally involved in the Thompson case but have information that the indication that there was only a $125,000 offer is false). But the assertion that "the jury spoke" equates to the right result was reached, that there were not substantial problems at trial and that the verdict will stand up is a nonsequitur.
I bet every HOA is looking at its playground equipment and saying, "We better rip those suckers out…"
No specials in evidence, just pie in the sky Reptilian bullshit.
Yes. No medical futures, no economic loss, etc.
Also past medical bills, no wage loss (Claggett got a motion in limine to keep out any mention of any specials). Not a single dollar boarded.
Evidence of Russians tampering with jury pool.
Clever, Claggett.
Clever? Hardly. It is textbook David Ball stuff where the meds don't serve the story you want to tell.
He's clever. Many don't understand just how much money personal injury attorneys make because of incompetent defense attorneys who have 1,000 files to make up for billing out at $125/hour.
This whole blog is full of career insurance defense attorneys who don't have the balls to give up their paycheck and bet on themselves. It's pathetic. Go bill those hours and keep making your partners rich, and keep pretending like you're good at your job.
To: 12:20–I'm going to take your advice. Yes, I am bitter about P.I. attorneys and how much they earn, and it is true that I don't have the stones to go on my own, and all I am really accomplishing is to make the partners richer.
But I usually make about $200,000., have no family to support, and all the business is provided to me–I don't need the constant stress of attracting clients of my own(which I never could accomplish due to my shitty personality), I have no pressure to meet large monthly overhead, etc.
So, mediocrities like me(and I am being quite generous in describing myself as a mediocrity as many would suggest I am not even at that level)can sail through life fairly anonymously, and without reaching for more.
I don't have financial stress. My bills are all paid each month with plenty left over as I am by myself(and I will probably remain by myself not just due to the aforementioned shitty personality, but also because I am not much to look at). And since I don't have extravagant tastes to any extent, and in fact earn more than I need, why should I take all these chances just to hopefully become a success and earn more? I not only don't need more money, but I also lack the competence, confidence or drive to make it on my own.
Well, 1:20 does have one thing going for him(if it is a him).He's pretty damn funny, IMO. If he does get to a point where the $200,000 per year is not enough, perhaps he can supplement his income a little with open mic stand up.
Insurance defense is not making 200k a year. You are on crack. They don't even make that over at Akerman, where you sell your soul to defend banks.
The $200,000. poster, above, did not necessarily indicate his practice is limited to insurance defense. If it so limited, I agree it's unlikely that he would make that much, as most who limit their practice to insurance defense don't earn that much. But it does not mean one is on crack to believe that an insurance defense, senior associate attorney could make $200,000.
And certainly partners in a very successful insurance defense firm can earn far more than such amount.
That all said, 2:08 may wish to hone his skills as to determining what is relevant in a passage, and what point one is attempting to make. Neither 1:20 nor 1:23 were attempting to argue that most insurance defense attorneys can earn $200,000. Instead, they were thematically joining the discussion concerning those who take the chance and stake their own ground vs. those who let themselves be exploited for the purpose of having the perceived safety net of working for someone else.
If 2:08 re-reads such posts and still believes the discussion revolves around whether or not one can earn as high as $200,000. as an insurance defense associate, then 2:08 is an attorney who can be easily distracted and thrown off the relevant issues by pursuing wild goose chases.
Perhaps the posters should have used the figure $125,000 or $140,000., so as not to distract and confuse very literal and concrete thinkers like 2:08 who have still not progressed to the level of analytical, abstract though.
But the fact 2:08 misses the point completely, is not the main problem. The main problem is that when he misses the obvious point he lashes out with aggressive arrogance–thus the colorful crack reference rather than merely pointing out how much he thinks these defense attorneys generally earn.
Now, unlike 2:08, I understand nuance and metaphors and the like.
I realize that 2:08 does not really believe the poster was on crack.
Don't be that guy.
According to the HOA facebook page, everyone is freaking out about the freeloading renters…
This is objectively a terrible result.
This HOA case is a cluster fuck. This will not turn out well for all the parties, except plaintiffs. Appeal.
I am not certain that it will turn out well for the Plaintiffs. There is some bad stuff lurking in the weeds regarding Plaintiffs which I think at the appellate level looks ugly, I mean really ugly. There was a mention that Hardy might want to consider a new trial to clean up the mess, which I think is right. If you are a judge, hoping your screw-ups just get settled out in a Supreme Court settlement conference does not cut it. This is a bad record. You are correct: the case is a cluster fuck which I would not want going up if I was a judge.
You judges need to get your head out of the Mojave desert sand. We appeal when you fuck things up.
If you get push back from a judge about an appeal, you have a good appeal.
There were three defendants and all three have open policies. And they have claims for malpractice against their defense counsel. The HOA is fine, and the money will come out of the insurers pockets.
Where did you get your information? 2 of the 3 Defendants settled before trial and do not have open policies. What was the malpractice by the Defense Counsel? Inquiring minds want to know.
I own and live in Lamplight Village. My first home out of law school. I don't work in HOA litigation but after review of my bylaws and NRS 116 it looks pretty grim for me. Can anyone with experience in this area tell me how screwed am I really?
Pretty screwed. Even if this is overturned on appeal there are some objectively bad things Clagget and Lasso can do to mess with the homeowners. If it is affirmed, expect a special assessment of $40k-$50k.
Sue the HOA’s insurance company for failing to protect you by settling the case. Sue defense counsel for not recommending or insisting on Cumis counsel, if that is what happened. Sue the individual Board members for not protecting your interests. They should have E&O coverage.
These are good posts. These are informative, like yesterday.
The $64,000 dollar question is whether the HOA's carrier may be on the hook for an excess. But this is essentially a bad faith claim so there has to be a second trial against the HOA's carrier by assignment of rights or whatever. Also, is there a likelihood of a reduction or remittitur? Too many unanswered questions. Did the court apply the right standard and proof with respect to punitive damages. I suspect it will settle. The carrier will pay something, the HOA will pay something and the Plaintiff will reduce the amount. Right before the verdict, the insurance company tendered the policy. If I were the carrier, I would hire separate counsel and interplead it. Was there a demand for the policy limits before the tender. Believe there was and it was rejected with a low offer–$125,000 maybe. Not so easy to get the Nevada Supreme Court to overturn a jury verdict.
You and the other unit owners should read NRS 116.3117(1)(a). It will make you poop your pants. Assuming the HOA does not have the funds to satisfy the judgment (it doesn't) and the insurance company doesn't, won't, can't pay, – Claggett, et al. will have a lien on ALL of the units in your neighborhood!
And that’s why I would take a case against the carrier, defense counsel and Board in a New York minute.
Here is my question (because I think it likely in this case): Claggett liens all of the homes with the Judgment. Case gets reversed on appeal. Homeowners have not been able sell their homes for the 2-3 years that the case is up on appeal (without paying a pro rata portion of the Judgment which would be around $60,000 a door). Recourse against the Plaintiffs when the Judgment has wrongfully marred their title?
Their title is not wrongfully clouded. Claggett has a valid judgment and can collect until a court issues an order saying otherwise. The carrier can post a bond to protect the homeowners.
If the carrier does not take immediate action to bond around the judgment (about $30 million or probably more as the usual standard is 1.5x) the bad faith claim will be hellacious.
Here is the problem however: if Claggett records the Judgment, even if a bond is posted that stops execution, the Judgment is still on title for all of those properties. No lender will lend on those properties, bond or no bond.
They have no claim for quiet title against Claggett as 1120 says. It is a valid judgment.
But I think the point that 2:23 makes is that a bond does nothing in this case because, while it stops execution, a recorded Judgment clouds title.
Homeowners, go buy some pot.
There is a CLE next Friday with Senator Dean Heller as the keynote. It includes two meals and there will be several judges in attendance. http://www.jrcls.org/chapters/chapter.php?id=84
Elissa Cadish won't be there.
That looks like one of the more boring CLE agendas I've seen in a while. Two identical hour-long sessions for pro bono, too? I hope that's a misprint.
Given the subject matter of most CLEs (medicaid liens, I'm looking at you), I think it looks pretty interesting. Sitting U.S. Senator Q&A alone is worth the cash. Also, it looks like you can choose either pro bono hour for your ethics credit.
The State Bar of Nevada submitted its petition to the Nevada Supreme Court that would amend SCR 78.5 to allow for random audits of trust accounts. The Petition is docketed as ADKT 0533 and can be reviewed under the "Administrative Orders" sub-tab (which is inside the "Court Rules" tab) on the Nevada Supreme Court website.
I am disappointed by the Board of Governors' actions, especially since the survey results indicate that our members oppose the proposal.
I wrote Comment No. 19 erroneously posted as a "Favorable Comment" on Page 20 of the pdf based, in large part, on the recent comments posted on this blog. In hindsight, I should have started off by stating my strong opposition to the proposal, so I will take responsibility for my comments being misconstrued as weighing in on the positive side of the V when I am against the proposal. Nonetheless, I am grateful to my many colleagues who provided input (both positive and negative) on this blog, which undoubtedly led to the many comments submitted as part of the SBN's survey which, in turn, were reprinted in Exhibit C.
I continue to oppose ADKT 0533 and the recent actions by our Board of Governors in seeking draconian changes to our practice rules and requirements. I am hopeful that many of you will submit comments to the Nevada Supreme Court during its comments process and consider supporting new candidates to the Board of Governors during the upcoming election.
Thank you for having the guts to speak out on this, Andrew. Thank you, BOGs for fucking us over.
Thank you Andrew. This is proof positive once again what a WASTE of money the BoG's did. They took a survey. The survey was overwhelmingly negative. They did it anyway. So Andrew if you are running, say so now because you have my vote if you are ready to tip the apple cart of corruption.
Let me build on the bullshit that Andrew bravely pointed out…
This is the Supreme Court's page for proposed ADKT's. You will notice it has not been updated in almost 3 years.
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Rules/Proposed_Rule_Amendments_for_all_Nevada_Courts/
No you have to go to the Administrative Orders tab (good luck finding it quickly)
https://nvcourts.gov/Supreme/Decisions/Administrative_Orders/
In the ADKT Petition, the SBN falsely (and fraudulently) asserts that the results of the survey were "mixed." The results weren't mixed. The results were overwhelmingly against the proposal (49 comments for; 167 comments against). Your State Bar lies and does it with your money and your approval.
Are the comments anonymous?
Folks, just search under case no. ADKT 0533. Comes right up. And yes, the comments are anonymous, except for one dude who identified himself in the comment.
Let me guess, Gus Flangas is the State Bar hero
This is incredible! How did they reach the position that responses were mixed? The hundreds of thoughtfully written comments demonstrate a lot of valid concerns about the legality and necessity of such audits. I'm truly impressed with the thoughtful responses so many people gave. Saddened by the BOG deciding to ignore them. Time for a revolution.
As lawyers you should all know that all survey results are either unanimous or they are mixed. It's legalese/lawyer speak…NOT rocket science.
Run, Andrew. You will have my vote and the vote of many others. The BOG needs to be answerable to the rank and file.
@5:27– Survey results are unanimous, overwhelming or mixed. It is legalese when you want a result and are not taking the actual results of the survey into account.
Does Hardy have ties to Russians?
Houston, this commAnd center. The legal field is in complete upheavel. We cannot save you. Do you copy?
I feel like the wizard of oz has been revealed to me as a kid. First I found out Scott Hamilton is a Trump supporter. Now I find out that Armeni is an asshole.
I am laughing so hard, my pants are ready to explode.
There are some rumblings that Haig may sue Eighth Jud. District Court.
Good luck with that, seeing as judicial immunity absolutely applies.
No, it does not.
Back the pizza truck up, we could be forced to pay for Judge Cadish's screwup? Wonderful.
A judge and her staff took action pursuant to a judicial order that was unquestionably within her jurisdiction to make. Negligence, even gross negligence, doesn't strip away immunity in that case. 6:48, why do you think JI doesn't apply?
Ask your attorney.
Judicial immunity absolutely applies and it was in her discretion. She didn't have to protect Haig at all.
Good response. You just threw yourself under the bus. We know you, Eliss Cadish, did it on purpose and you blamed your staff.
Cadish does not strike me as a blog person. Hardy strikes me as a blog person. Cadish not so much. As to 2:50, if you believe that 12:50 is wrong and judicial immunity does not apply, provide what authority you are relying upon?
Hardy and Cadish both are on the blog, so is her JEA.
This is both 6:41 and 9:01. I dont work at the RJC. Judicial immunity applies to judicial actions taken pursuant to a judicial function in a matter in which that court has jurisdiction. Every element is met here. Now, if you want to argue it doesn't, consider yourself free to put up or shut up.
6:22, chill out.
F the HOAs and who ever loved em!