• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

HOA Liability Dark Area of Community

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
No I don't. The residents on the dark street have been discriminated against for decades.
Just because I'm a glutton...

What makes you feel that the residents of the dark street have been discriminated against?

EDIT: To be clear - I'm not asking you to come to a conclusion that discrimination (of any type) has occurred. I'm simply asking you to explain what actions have been taken (or not taken) that make you believe discrimination has occurred.
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
How is it possible to know whether a case that has been remanded by a state Supreme Court to a lower trial court, actually was re-tried?
You go back and look up the trial court's case file and see what happened. Since the HOA is in Phoenix I was able to find the original case on the Maricopa County Superior Court website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV1993-015519

That's the docket. You can see by the activity of 1997 and 1998 (after remand) that there was apparently some sort of settlement. You would have to visit the courthouse to see if the settlement details are in the case file. It might not be as settlements are often confidential and details kept out of the case file. Your HOA board members might be able to look up the outcome from 20 years ago. My guess is that they wouldn't tell you nor would they be obligated to.

Most people assume the state Supreme Court ruling stands. HOA attorneys still cite this case as a reason for an HOA to maintain a safe and secure neighborhood and act as a landlord.
Did you even read the decision? The general ruling stands but whether there was any specific liability for the specific incident was for the jury to decide. Apparently, the jury never got a chance to as there was a settlement. It's also likely that negligence in this particular case was never decided. For Martinez to get his money he would have had to have signed a release and I can guarantee you that the release said that the HOA was settling a disputed claim without any admission of liability.

I put that last sentence in bold because it's based on my 35 years experience in the insurance industry.
 

adjusterjack

Senior Member
No I don't. The residents on the dark street have been discriminated against for decades.
That's legal discrimination.

Like if you drove your Chevy into my parking lot and I turned you away because I only allow Fords into my parking lot, that's discrimination against Chevy drivers and is perfectly legal.

Get it?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
That's legal discrimination.

Like if you drove your Chevy into my parking lot and I turned you away because I only allow Fords into my parking lot, that's discrimination against Chevy drivers and is perfectly legal.

Get it?
The problem *I* have is I don't think that what the OP is describing even rises to the level of "discrimination", be it legal or illegal. The OP has failed to explain what actual actions he believes are discriminatory.
 

Pedas2

Junior Member
You go back and look up the trial court's case file and see what happened. Since the HOA is in Phoenix I was able to find the original case on the Maricopa County Superior Court website:

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV1993-015519

That's the docket. You can see by the activity of 1997 and 1998 (after remand) that there was apparently some sort of settlement. You would have to visit the courthouse to see if the settlement details are in the case file. It might not be as settlements are often confidential and details kept out of the case file. Your HOA board members might be able to look up the outcome from 20 years ago. My guess is that they wouldn't tell you nor would they be obligated to.



Did you even read the decision? The general ruling stands but whether there was any specific liability for the specific incident was for the jury to decide. Apparently, the jury never got a chance to as there was a settlement. It's also likely that negligence in this particular case was never decided. For Martinez to get his money he would have had to have signed a release and I can guarantee you that the release said that the HOA was settling a disputed claim without any admission of liability.

I put that last sentence in bold because it's based on my 35 years experience in the insurance industry.

I read the decision where the justices mentioned that the HOA is in essence a landlord and has an obligation to maintain the common areas in a safe and secure manner.
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
Yes, logically it is impossible to discriminate against an inanimate object, but it is understood that the discussion is about HOA members living on that street their monthly dues support the maintenance of.
Of course, it is understood the discussion is about residents on a street, not the street itself.
I asked before:
Is the demography of that street "different" from (rest of) the well lit part of the HOA community?
You have failed to answer that question.

So I will be more blunt: are the residents in the previously poorly lit area predominantly of a group that has historically been discriminated against? Do you believe that the residents of the previously poorly lit area are treated differently because of race, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, or some such thing?
 

Pedas2

Junior Member
I asked before:


You have failed to answer that question.

So I will be more blunt: are the residents in the previously poorly lit area predominantly of a group that has historically been discriminated against? Do you believe that the residents of the previously poorly lit area are treated differently because of race, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, or some such thing?

What specific rule states one can only file a discrimination case based on being a member of a protected class?
 

Pedas2

Junior Member
The problem *I* have is I don't think that what the OP is describing even rises to the level of "discrimination", be it legal or illegal. The OP has failed to explain what actual actions he believes are discriminatory.

Decades of committees and owners on the dark street wanting a streetlight and being ignored, while other owners enjoy adequately lit streets.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
Decades of committees and owners on the dark street wanting a streetlight and being ignored, while other owners enjoy adequately lit streets.
Yes, I understand, but that, in and of itself, is NOT discrimination (of any kind). What specific actions have been taken that you feel are discriminatory?
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
42 posts already. This is in troll territory. Let's stop feeding the troll.
I don't think this is a troll...I think this is someone who has a true misconception about what discrimination is. But your point it taken. We can only say the same thing so many times before it becomes pointless.
 

not2cleverRed

Obvious Observer
What specific rule states one can only file a discrimination case based on being a member of a protected class?
There is a legal definition of discrimination, and there is the non-legal, colloquial definition.

For the purposes of a legal action, based on illegal discrimination, the party with the complaint has to be able to show that they are a member of protected class, as defined by the law.

Your resistance to sensibly discuss things seem to indicate that a desert island would better suit you, or an isolated oasis in the desert.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top