|
Wednesday, September 09 2009 |
|
A fence in Westport, Connecticut has pitted neighbor against neighbor and city against citizen, with the fence owners’ legal costs at $150,000 – so far.
In 2005, Albert and Susan Hancock built a stone wall around their home. Neighbors in this trendy coastal town filed a complaint, but construction continued. Later, the town filed its own complaint. And now, the homeowners have filed a separate suit claiming that because the wall runs along a private lane, all of the homeowners on the road are liable.
According to news reports, the initial complaint dealt with the wall’s proximity to a wetland. The town’s complaint accused the Hancocks of encroaching on town property (even though the new wall was built where an old wall had been) and not getting the necessary permits.
Four years and over $300,000 later, the dispute continues. The Hancocks claim to have spent $150,000 on legal expenses thus far, $50,000 for modifications and inspections of the wall, in addition to the $170,000 initial cost of building the wall.
“The reason this has gone on so long is because the town has put the private dispute in the middle of the other issues,” said Hancock attorney Gwen Bishop. “They’ve taken that issue and used it to tie everything up.”
With the matter now headed into superior court, the Hancocks’ lawyer said the couple could spend $150,000 more before the matter is resolved and if they lose, it could cost them at least $120,000 to tear down the wall, in addition to fines.
“If we knew we were going to be $150,000 into this on Day 1 and still only be halfway there, I’m not so sure we wouldn’t have just torn down” the new wall, Mr. Hancock admitted.
—Source: The New York Times |
|
|
Thursday, August 27 2009 |
|
A Chicago-area zoo is being sued by a woman who claims she slipped and fell near a dolphin exhibit, injuring herself. In the lawsuit filed in Illinois' Circuit Court of Cook County against the Brookfield Zoo, Allecyn Edwards accuses the zookeepers of encouraging the dolphins to splash water, but failing to warn spectators of the slippery-when-wet sidewalk and neglecting to provide skid-proof mats. According to news reports, Edwards is demanding more than $50,000 for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional trauma. Both sides declined to comment on the pending legislation. —Source: Chicago Tribune |
|
Thursday, August 20 2009 |
|
It used to be that the most popular excuse for missing homework was that “the dog ate it.” Not so if you are Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old Michigan high school senior. Gawronski is blaming Amazon for losing his homework after the company wirelessly deleted a copy of George Orwell's “1984” from Gawronski's Kindle, deleting along with it the notes he had taken on the device for his homework. According to the complaint filed in a federal class action lawsuit in Seattle: “As part of his studies of '1984,' Mr. Gawronski had made copious notes in the book. After Amazon remotely deleted '1984,' those notes were rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book. The notes are still accessible on the Kindle 2 device in a file separate from the deleted book, but are of no value. For example, a note such as 'remember this paragraph for your thesis' is useless if it does not actually reference a specific paragraph. By deleting '1984' from Mr. Gawronski's Kindle 2, this is the position in which Amazon left him. Mr. Gawronski now needs to recreate all of his studies.” Gawronski seeks to prevent Amazon from again deleting books from Kindles. Gawronski also seeks monetary relief for his lost work. He filed the lawsuit, he said, because he wants to “help set a precedent so that Amazon doesn't do this again” and to help move the industry forward. “When you think that you own something and don't own it – that's not how it should be,” he said. According to news sources, the Amazon Kindle Terms of Service shows that Amazon has the right to do what they will with the books: “You acknowledge that the sale of the Device to you does not transfer to you title to or ownership of any intellectual property rights of Amazon or its suppliers. All of the Software is licensed, not sold, and such license is non-exclusive…Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right.” —Source: WSJ.com |
|
Thursday, August 13 2009 |
|
Sue, of course. At least that's what a Brooklyn man did. Sean McGinn, a 37-year-old TV producer, sued Match.com alleging that the popular matchmaking website dangles phony date bait by posting profiles of people who no longer subscribe to the service. In a class action suit filed in a Manhattan federal court, McGinn seeks an unspecified amount of damages in excess of $5 million against Match.com for inflicting “humiliation and disappointment” on lonely hearts “who feel rejected when their e-mails get no reply.” McGinn is demanding that the Internet's largest dating site “cease and desist its deceptive practices.” According to the lawsuit, “Match's policy causes severe emotional distress and anxiety for some [subscribers], including those who keep writing e-mails to one member after another and never hear back because he/she is writing to people who've canceled." McGinn declined to comment, but his lawyer did say that shortly after filing the suit, McGinn “met someone he's happy with” through the site. To date, the lawsuit remains active. —Source: nypost.com |
|
Thursday, August 06 2009 |
|
With the financial sector struggling and consumer fees rising, the last thing banks need right now is to defend against lawsuits – especially a lawsuit one bank has filed against itself. In a Florida foreclosure case, Wells Fargo Bank NA has filed a civil complaint against itself, with the bank engaging separate lawyers and law firms on each side of the case – as plaintiff and defendant. “Due to state foreclosure laws, lenders are obligated to name and notify subordinate lien holders,” said Wells Fargo spokesman Kevin Waetke. In this case, Wells Fargo holds the first and second mortgage on a condominium. As holder of the first mortgage, Wells Fargo is suing all other lien holders, including itself as holder of a second mortgage. “You can't sue yourself,” attorney Dan McKillop, who represents the condo owner, said. “It's just so ridiculous. … It's a waste of paper. It's a bastardization of the legal process.” “This is just folks cranking out paperwork without conscious thought,” added Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's School of Law in New York City. —Source: FOXBusiness.com |
|
|
|
