"Dirty Hands" clause

What is the name of your state? California
Looking for info on a clause called the Dirty Hands Clause--heard it used in regards to CC&R's where a Board Member was throwing out complaints about CC&R violations to other homeowners yet had several violations of his own
It is not in the CC&R's but I heard it is a legal term...

what exactly is this clause and can it be legally upheld in a court of law? Can a Board Member be removed for it?

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally posted by rachelb
What is the name of your state? California
Looking for info on a clause called the Dirty Hands Clause--heard it used in regards to CC&R's where a Board Member was throwing out complaints about CC&R violations to other homeowners yet had several violations of his own
It is not in the CC&R's but I heard it is a legal term...

what exactly is this clause and can it be legally upheld in a court of law? Can a Board Member be removed for it?

My response:

The phrase, in California, is "Unclean Hands". The "unclean hands" doctrine closes the courthouse door to one "tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which he seeks relief, however improper may have been the behavior of the defendant." [Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 620, 638, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d 329, 346 (emphasis added; internal quotes omitted)]

Unclean hands requires inequitable conduct by plaintiff in connection with the matter in controversy and provides a complete defense to plaintiff's action. [Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 436, 446, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 678, 686 (not an employment case)]

Whether the unclean hands defense applies is a matter within the trial court's sound discretion. The court must consider both the degree of harm caused by plaintiff's misconduct and the extent of plaintiff's alleged injury. The defense applies only where it would be inequitable to grant plaintiff any relief. [Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at 446-447, 99 Cal.Rptr.2d at 686]

"Unclean hands" originally was a defense only to suits in equity. But in California, the doctrine of unclean hands is not limited to equitable relief. It may also apply to legal claims and to both tort and contract remedies. [Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 638, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d at 346]

As an example of "unclean hands", Husband and Wife obtained their jobs by concealing felony convictions that would have otherwise disqualified them from employment. (Employer was a government contractor and was obligated to ensure that none of its employees had felony convictions.) Wife was discharged for "whistle-blowing" and Husband was allegedly discharged solely because he was married to Wife. She sued for tortious discharge in violation of public policy and he sued for "marital status" discrimination in violation of the FEHA. The "unclean hands" doctrine barred their claims when Employer discovered their felony convictions: "Since (Employees) were not lawfully qualified for their jobs, they cannot be heard to complain that they improperly lost them." [Camp v. Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at 639, 41 Cal.Rptr.2d at 346 (emphasis and parentheses added)]

IAAL

[JETX]

The 'dirty hands' application is that a person who has 'dirty hands' can't expect the court to assist them in recovering.

Example: A person knowingly purchases a stolen item and then, after the item is recovered by the police, sues the seller to try to recover the money spent.

Or a person agrees to take a stolen check to his bank and cash it for a friend. Then, after the bank discovers the stolen check and recoups their funds from his account, the person tries to sue his friend for the money lost.

Simply, the law does not protect someone who is involved or has knowledge of the act that damages him.

[HomeGuru]

The other term as used by a poster named Pamela V. is hippo crit.