BASIC FACTS
Case Name: Lacambra vs. William Glass, et al
Case No.: 07CC11725
Defendants: William Glass CPA, Wilbert Lacambra, Agnes Lacambra, Gilbert Lacambra, Bernadette Chua and Susan Angell Esq.
Defense Counsel: Susan L. Angell, Esq. for Wilbert Lacambra, Agnes Lacambra, Gilbert Lacambra, Bernadette Chua and Susan Angell Esq.. Fred Fletcher, Esq. (Law Office of Matthew E. Neal) for William Glass, CPA
Date Filed: November 7, 2007
Court: Superior Court, Central Justice Center – Santa Ana CA
Presiding Judge: Hon, Andrew J. Banks
Department: C-6
Status: Defendant Susan Angell, Esq. was finally served the Complaint and Summons on Jan. 14, 2009. Trial Date has been set for April 13, 2009.
ABOUT THE NAME
The name “Mad Cow” came from the Preliminary Statement in the Complaint. There is an old Jewish saying that goes - when there is litigation, the opposing parties are pulling on a cow in opposite directions – one on the tail and another on the horn while the lawyers are underneath milking the cow. Thus, the catchphrase – “Got any Milk?”
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
(from the actual complaint)
An old saying goes that, “In a lawsuit, the Defendant and Plaintiff are both, by their own choosing, each pulling on the tail and the horn of a cow in the opposite direction while the lawyers are underneath milking the cow”. In the hands of an unscrupulous Certified Public Accountant, you are likely to have all of the above plus the potential ruinous occasion of having the IRS, Franchise Tax Board, your mortgage company, a slew of creditors, your mother and brothers after you as well.
WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
This case tests the limits of what a partnership really means and to what degree society and its laws participate in an agreement. At issue is the effect of a “verbal agreement” on a real estate transaction. There are very good laws that define the duties of a partner. Here is one such case law that appears in the complaint:
A partner owes to the partnership and the other partners a duty of loyalty and duty of care. The partnership relationship is confidential and fiduciary in nature; partners are trustees for reach other. In all matters connected with the partnership relationship business, every partner is bound to act in the highest good faith toward his or her partner(s) and may not obtain any unfair advantage or secure an undue benefit by the slightest misrepresentation, concealment, threat or adverse pressure of any kind. The burden is on the partner seeking the advantage to show complete good faith and fairness towards the other partner(s) (Corp. Code Section 16404; Page v. Page (161) 55 Cal. 2d 192, 197, 10 Cal. Rprtr. 643, 359 P2d 41; Laux v. Freed (1960) 53 Cal. 2d 512, 522; 2Cal. Rprtr. 265, 348 P2d 873; BT-I v. Equitable Life insurance Soc’y (1999) 75 Ca; App. 4th 1406 1411-1413, 89 Cal Rprtr 2d 811)
The Complaint alleges that Defendant Wilbert Lacambra, for his own advantage and in collusion with his wife Agnes Lacambra, disavowed a verbal agreement and evicted Robert. To show a prima facie case, he and his attorney (Susan Angell) produced a “fabricated rental agreement” without showing Robert prior to the trial and in violation of evidence rules. Because of the lax procedures at the UD Trial (Limited Jurisdiction), the document went past Robert in a procession of paperwork presented to the judge in a freight train fashion.
In this instant case, Robert alleges that there was no written agreement and has requested a copy from Ms. Angell several times only to fall on deaf ears. Further search for all papers filed in court failed to locate the agreement, corroborating Robert’s assertion of the commission of Fraud. With the Complaint, Robert has filed copies of the cancelled checks to prove that he paid the Mortgage, Property Taxes, Association Fees and Property Improvements - all of which only an owner of a house would pay. By contrast, a renter would only pay the rent. The trial has been set for April 13, 2008.
