Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
JUDGE JUDY stomps RUBBISH DEFENCE by California CONDO BOARD caught SLAM-DUNKING owner prerogative 2021/06/04 14:36  
Not legal advice.

Judge Judy Scheindlin - reality TV dispute resolution personality former Family Court judge; author of “Don’t Pee On My leg And Tell Me It’s Raining” (1996) and “Beauty Fades, Dumb Is Forever” (1999); claims + 10 million viewers ) thrashes a pair of GLENDALE California condo Directors.

Against the two Board member representatives of an unindentified 29 unit multi-storey Condo Corporation, she awards $ 3, 331 ( U.S.) to the plaintiff pair of unit owners.

That's to re-imburse for their LEGAL EXPENSES incurred in halting a slam-dunk ALL WINDOWS IN THE BUILDING window replacement project contrary to the 1978 Declaration.

The plaintiffs' lawyer - & one later hired by the condo corporation AND BY JUDGE JUDY HERSELF - agreed that the 1978 Declaration provided ZERO authority for the condo corporation ( between Sep 2020 and Feb 2021 ) to herd individual unit owners forcibly into an ALL WINDOWS IN THE BUILDING REPLACEMENT project.


Notified in Sep 2020 about a project stated expressly for "replacement of ALL WINDOWS in the building", all owners had received a misleading indicator that their participation was compulsory as to their own unit-dedicated windows.

Such however was false and beyond the Board's legal authority ( as ultimately even agreed after the Board hired a lawyer ) .

The misleading Project proposal as circulated, treated that ( in spite of the 1978 Declaration ) unit-dedicated windows would be slam-dunked with common area windows as part of an ALL WINDOWS replacement. Being recommended was a low-bid contractor ( later allegedly with some connection to one of the Directors ! ).

The Sep 2020 misleading Notice treated that individual owners' participation was limited merely to casting a YES or NO ballot ( arguably required by the comparative magnitude of project total cost ).

Owners pointedly were not asked lawfully for CONSENT limited to participating as to unit-dedicated windows !

One can readily construe that incompetently or dishonestly the condo Board had been either totally ignorant of the governance documents. Or incompetent to apply them. Or themselves manipulated ?

Judge Judy's volatile temper was soon engaged by lack of sympathy for the defendant condo Board's rubbish defence.

One of the senior-age representative Directors looked - at best - "disorganized", giving factually incorrect critical answers and short of bid documents.

The defendant reps claimed "a misunderstanding" instead of : "we were too lazy and incompetent and stubborn to listen to anyone until EVENTUALLY our own counsel had to tell us we were violating the governance documents" ! That rep kept on doing so until his microphone was cut. . . . .

He stubbornly also tried to argue bizarrely that a non-eligible participating Director's vote for the Project - and actually his eligibility to even sit on that Board - was skated onside by having a mere Power of Attorney. That's instead of Declaration-required FULL legal ownership of a unit. Judge Judy thrashed him for that argument too. Judge Judy summarily turfs their chutzpah counter-claim.

The PLAINTIFF senior-age non-resident investor were totally prepared & well-organized. And Judge Judy quickly recognized that resolution would best be served by relying on the Plaintiffs' Notices.

Postscript : In the "dissing" scrum-aftermath the plaintiffs indicated that mis-governance - even dishonest & incompetence - was rampant at this condo corporation !

The representative Directors kept on shrieking about "misunderstanding" without grasping that there had been none, as Judge Judy tried to straighten them out. They had learned nothing.

God help what the future may now hold back onsite for the plaintiffs . . .

( As noted by Judge Judy refusing to get their dedicated unit windows replaced was likely unwise IF - IF - such were 1978 vintage - 43 years old ? ).

CBS Broadcast Jun 3 2021 "Judge Judy" copyrighted : "HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION FRAUD ? " ( Philipossian plaintiffs v unidentified Glendale California Owners Association defendant represented by Directors Ms Robin Weiser & Mr Harmik Mirzakhanian)
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
retrieving : JUDGE JUDY stomps RUBBISH DEFENCE by California CONDO BOARD 2021/06/13 13:44  
This is NOT a paid endorsement.

noticed this appears to be viewable for a fee at as Episode 176 - 25th season 2021 ( ? ) and likely at other sites
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
gets some comment at U.S. HOA site:JUDGE JUDY stomps RUBBISH DEFENCE/ SLAM-DUNKING owner prerogative 2021/06/14 08:49

update July 13/21 : ( produced by Judge Judy enterprises )

to be televised today ( July 13/21 ) : HOT BENCH new episode # 6419 : "Your Honour : he was tinkering with my pipes !"

( "a woman accuses the V-P of her CONDO ASSOCIATION of covert plumbing work after he sues her for WATER DAMAGE he says was caused by her leaky pipes " )

Disclaimers :

1 - Not for folks who prefer to watch - on televised hearings at their national supreme court - debates about standards of review of appellate or tribunal decisions !

2 - Condo & HOA disputes are not commonly shown on "reality TV". ( Likely because documents do not readily lend themselves to viewer attention. )

3 - Judge Judy enterprises produced this. She is retiring after last year reporting an annual remuneration of $ 47 million.


( Hot Bench ) Martin Johnson v Peggy Clark :

Plumbers with law degrees ? No “lawyer-plumbers” testify.

Rather than insisting on being driven by explicit provisions of California condo statute ( Davis-Stirling Act 2004 ) & lawfully compliant Declaration / unit owner end-of life replacement obligations, the L.A. condo neighbours submit - & TV judges bizarrely declare resolved by – voodoo legal opinions of respective plumbers ! !

Top floor ( 2nd floor ) defendant Clark admits that in late 2020 an end-of-life / 50 year old, now-ruptured toilet DRAIN PIPE - solely draining her toilet through the plaintiff’s unit - split totally inside the plaintiff’s unit below on the way to main drain.

BUT says her “lawyer-plumber” told her it’s a condo corporation’s responsibility to replace the ruptured pipe & remedy the $ 1,760 damage to plaintiff Johnson’s unit below ( through which it ran ). No citation of law nor Declaration.

Also no citation of law nor Declaration from the plaintiff.
Nor do “lawyer-plumbers” testify.

Panel makes half-hearted attempt to resolve legal responsibility on basis of the legal skills of the plaintiff’s “lawyer-plumber” !

PLUS panel draws bizarre reverse conclusion that if only her unit drains into the pipe through the plaintiff’s unit, then the responsibility MUST be the defendant’s ! ie “if it drains only her toilet, then the Declaration MUST be worded to make her liable for end-of life failure & damage !

Panel awards $ 1760 damage award to ground floor owner / V-P of the condo Board which slope-shouldered the damage claim .

see also : "FIREPLACERS suffer another loss at Court of Appeal"
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster