Lacambra vs. Glass et al
I neglected to blog about the last hearing on Lacambra vs. Glass (July 28th) where I was responding to Demurrers and a Motion for Sanctions. The hearing was re-scheduled for the 22nd of August because Judge Banks was absent. Parties are given an option to either reschedule or stipulate to having the case heard by a Temporary Judge. Because of what was at stake, I opted to wait until Judge Banks got back. I’ve since concluded that Judge Banks has a good grasp of the case and will likely not miss facts that are material and altogether prevent an error in ruling.
A number of motions and pleadings are actually being prepared for this case at the moment and will be filed by next week. I just discovered that my brother Wilbert had actually stopped paying on the house now subject to controversy, despite having a renter living in the house. Having it foreclosed would forever deprive me of the opportunity to re-assert my ownership rights. If my brother is willing to take that “Scorched Earth Tactic”, I’ll have to take drastic measures and go after all their assets – a strategy that I have thus far resisted. In a week I will have the following papers served on them:
- Lis Pendens (Notice of Pending Action)
- Leave to add Lacambra Inc. as Defendant
- Motion for Declarative Relief
- Injunctive Order against Countrywide Home Loans
- Motion to Disqualify Counsel (Angell)
- Motion for Sanctions against Counsel (Angell)
This case is just getting more and more interesting. If only because the defense is not being conducted well. Part of an attorney’s job is to keep a client out of court. If that could not be achieved, a client must be completely apprised of all the liabilities - potential or contingent. If my brother’s attorney did not advise him that a lawsuit can be filed against his company, she is arguably guilty of negligence. It should have been glaringly obvious because payments were made to the corporation. Including the company in the lawsuit increases the asset base to which a judgment can be attached.
Corporations offer protection to shareholders in so far as liabilities are limited to the aggregate value of the corporate assets. In other words, if a corporation is sued and loses a case, judgments can only be attached to corporate assets. Exceptions are made when shareholder(s) co-mingle funds with the company and use corporate assets like a personal piggy bank. In such cases, the liability extends to all assets owned by the violating shareholder. That is called “piercing the corporate veil”.
