2 Comments

1. 

   daytrip on April 23, 2016 at 10:48 am

   I believe there’s a law on our books that allows the victim to receive three times the amount owed, if the proper defendant is found guilty of withholding funds that belong to the victim. The law was intended primarily for insurance companies denying claims that were clearly within their contractual agreement.

   Essentially it’s a law that implies, “you’re to pay the initial judgement, plus three times the amount for thinking you could get away with it.” I suppose it was intended to discourage insurance companies for denying/delaying claims. I would hazard a guess that it might apply in this case regardless.

   I know about that law because someone tried to apply it against me in court, unsuccessfully. The defendant started pitching a fit when the judge wouldn’t give him three times the amount, and the judge screamed back at him, “I’m not giving you three times the judgement, simply because the defendant disagreed with you!!!”
   Epilogue: I had the judges deciding verdict against me overturned in appeals court.

   Civil court is the definition of “Funkytown.” A nuthouse with nobody running the show. I always try to avoid it at almost any cost, because anything can happen, but it might be worth to take a roll of the dice against the property manager if intent to steal is fairly easy to demonstrate. A $27,000 judgement could be worth the extra effort. I’d check it out with a decent lawyer.

2. 

   andrewa on April 24, 2016 at 1:50 pm

   Always supposing the judgeee had the funds or assets to pay up in the first place.