Condominium owners in Nevada brought three separate, similar actions against the declarant (developer) of their condominium related to the development of the condominium project. A single arbitrator was selected to hear all three actions.
While serving as the arbitrator in the three matters, the arbitrator founded a company designed to invest in “high-probability” legal claims, but did not disclose this investment activity to the condominium owners or declarant.
The developer (after discovery of the investment) moved the American Arbitration Association (AAA) to disqualify the arbitrator from the matter – AAA denied the request and the developer moved the federal district court to disqualify the arbitrator – the federal district court agreed, disqualifying the arbitrator.
Sussex v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D. Nevada, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 327558 (9th Cir. Jan. 27, 2015) reverses the federal district court’s findings, vacating the federal district court’s order disqualifying the arbitrator. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not find a “direct financial connection” between the arbitrator and either of the parties.
34-2-5635 Jaye v. Oak Knoll Village Condominium Owners Association, App. Div. (per curiam) (4 pp.) Chris Ann Jaye appealed from orders granting judgment in favor of Oak Knoll Village Condominium Association (OKV) for arrearages associated with common element assessments pursuant to N.J.S.A. 46:8B-17 and from an award of counsel fees to OKV in its collection action. Appellant is, and at all relevant times was, a unit owner at Oak Knoll Village, a condominium community. Appellant failed to pay her common element expenses. OKV instituted legal action seeking a judgment against appellant. Prior to the entry of judgment, a settlement was reached between the parties whereby in exchange for a “zero-out” of the claimed balance owed by appellant to OKV, appellant would commence payment of the common element charges. Notwithstanding the agreement, appellant ceased payments. OKV instituted another action by way of counterclaim seeking judgment for unpaid common element expenses and counsel fees. The appellate panel found the court appropriately granted OKV’s motion for summary judgment. Among the powers assigned by law to a condominium association is the authority to assess and collect funds for the payment of common expenses. Here, the judge’s finding that OKV was entitled to judgment for outstanding common expenses owed by appellant was in accord with the uncontroverted facts and the controlling law. A condominium association is also authorized to charge a nonpaying member with “reasonable” attorney fees. Here the judge acted within his discretion in determining that $8,000 in attorney fees was reasonable.
It is well established that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as trained legal counsel and are required to follow procedural rules. See Whatley v. State, 937 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). Our appellate rules are not mere suggestions, and flagrant violations may result in waiver of the issues presented. See Ramsey v. Review Bd. of Ind. Dep’t of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“The way humans hunt for parking and the way animals hunt for food are not as different as you might think.”
Tom Vanderbilt, Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do 145 (2008).
A Court’s opinion doesn’t have to say much to say a lot…the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, reverses a foreclosure judgment where the claim of lien overstated the amount actually due. The only case cited in the opinion, Saar v. Wellesley at Lake Clarke Shores Homeowners
Ass’n, 68 So. 3d 417 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), found against the Association, holding:
What can be gleaned from this record is that the association and its accounting methods were woefully inadequate to correctly ascertain and give notice of the amounts claimed to be due. Because of this imperfect record-keeping, the association did not make a proper claim of lien, nor did it give sufficient notice in its complaint of its claim. Had it done so, in all *420420likelihood this case would not have even been filed. Saar showed that she consistently made the payments required and had detailed records to support her payments, many of which were not properly credited by the association. She paid all sums due in accordance with the notices and claim of lien.
Good record keeping and correct accounting are critical in any assessment collection case.