Author Topic: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)  (Read 19904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #75 on: April 19, 2013, 05:39:51 AM »
Technically, I'm not sure that Tracy has a claim.  He was not a party to the settlement agreement. 

It's my understanding that the heirs of an estate are not parties to a wrongful death action. Only the estate itself is.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY only mentions 'the Estate of Trayvon Martin' as possibly being considered an 'interested party to this criminal case'.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #76 on: April 19, 2013, 08:50:25 AM »
It's my understanding that the heirs of an estate are not parties to a wrongful death action. Only the estate itself is.

DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DETERMINE CONFIDENTIALITY only mentions 'the Estate of Trayvon Martin' as possibly being considered an 'interested party to this criminal case'.

The original suit was filed by Sybrina Fulton.  She was the custodial parent. 

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #77 on: April 19, 2013, 09:42:33 AM »
The original suit was filed by Sybrina Fulton.

Source?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #78 on: April 19, 2013, 10:00:47 AM »
Clarifying the previous, I wouldn't doubt that Sybrina is acting as executor of Trayvon's estate, and in that capacity made the decision to pursue a wrongful death claim. But the law considers the estate, not Sybrina as a natural person, to be the party pursuing the action. Sybrina is no more a party in the matter than Tracy.


Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5447
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2013, 10:22:58 AM »
She was the custodial parent.

I would like a source for that too.

Some time ago, I did a google search for 'Trayvon Martin custody', and I kept finding articles that mentioned Zimmerman being taken into custody. As best I recall, I couldn't find anything on Trayvon's custody status.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2013, 11:46:12 AM »
Source?
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/6:2012cv01185/274256/

Plaintiff:   Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America
Defendants:   The Retreat At Twin Lakes Homeowners' Association, Inc. and Sybrina D. Fulton
 
Case Number:   6:2012cv01185
Filed:   August 1, 2012
Nature of Suit:   Contract - Insurance

Offline IgnatiusJDonnelly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2013, 12:21:18 PM »
I would like a source for that too.

Some time ago, I did a google search for 'Trayvon Martin custody', and I kept finding articles that mentioned Zimmerman being taken into custody. As best I recall, I couldn't find anything on Trayvon's custody status.

Didn't Tracy Martin's second wife say that Trayvon had lived at her house for much of his life?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2013, 03:28:02 PM »
Paragraphs under "8" are going to get under the state's skin.   O'Mara states Zimmerman's account as fact.

I didn't like it when the state did it, and I don't like it when the defense does it. I don't mind so much if the statement is formulated as something like, "The evidence will show...," but to make a a bald factual assertion in a motion just seems inappropriate.

Offline jeanmarc8

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2013, 06:41:31 PM »
IANAL but will offer the following:   

I think Mr. O’Mara is having fun stirring this legal pot. I wonder if Mr. Crump and Mr. Lyons will offer a response to produce another round. 

Mr. O’Mara has provided his scenario on the actions by Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman on the night in question which frames Mr. Martin as the aggressor.  Mr. Crump can respond with his own scenario, perhaps supported with audible evidence from his recorded interview from W8. Or he can leave it unanswered and on the record.  He can produce a copy of the improved voice recordings of screams, or he can let that go. He offered 3 comments in his initial response to refute allegation that the parents’ actions were intended to produce a civil settlement. He can now address the defense denial and their assertion that those statements were “outrageously inflammatory”, or offer nothing. 

I do not find credible Mr. Crump’s claim that sharing the settlement amount may cause “irreparable harm”.  The Orlando paper published an estimate of “$1 million plus” on 4/11/2013, http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-trayvon-hoa-settlement-motion-20130411,0,1837211.story. Mr. O’Mara provided information on the policy limit (4-11-2013, exhibit B).  Mr. Crump could have backed out of this legal wrangling by stipulating that the estimate in the Orlando paper was “about right”. Rather he chose to add discussion topics, which muddled the matter even more. The most embarrassing outcome for Mr. Crump would be the revelation that the settlement was for less than the reported policy limit.   It would seem immaterial if it was revealed that the settlement was $1.2 million, $1.5 million or $2 million.

I cannot believe that Mr. Blackwell reviewed the legal brief prepared by Mr. Crump and Mr. Lyons, or even had any inputs. I can’t believe that Mr. Blackwell was consulted about filing the settlement in the trial court.  It seems odd that Mr. Blackwell would not remain involved enough to be reviewing important legal papers going in front of the court, since that reflects on his previous legal paperwork.  If/when the DCA allows the deposition of Mr. Crump, those documents could limit Mr. Blackwell’s legal options for defending Mr. Crump. 

 Again, IANAL and I certainly could be wrong.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2013, 02:48:53 PM »
Crump filed a supplementary memorandum on the issue.

The primary argument is, in my opinion, quite silly. He cites Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Const., Inc., 3 So. 3d 1078 (Fla. 2009) for the broad claim that confidential statements are inadmissible as evidence. That's not what that case held. What the Florida supreme court said was that based on state statues 768.041 and 90.408, the defendant in a civil suit can't use a settlement with another party as evidence to show absence of liability. It relied completely on the plain language of the two statutes, which have no applicability to the present case.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 02:59:25 PM by MJW »

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2013, 03:12:56 PM »
For no particular reason, I'll also mention that I think Saleeby v. Rocky Elson Const., Inc. was badly reasoned, and agree with Polston's dissent.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2013, 04:40:16 PM »
On the Random Topics blog, John Galt cites State v. Walters, 719 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998):

Quote
In Johnson v. State, 625 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), the court explained that the revision note to this section states that the exclusion of such evidence is based upon two grounds:

1) The evidence is irrelevant, since "such an offer does not ordinarily proceed from and imply a belief that the adversary's claim is well founded, but rather that the further prosecution of the claim, whether well founded or not, would in any event cause such an annoyance as is preferably avoided by the payment of the sum offered."

2) The public policy of this state favors amicable settlement of disputes and the avoidance of litigation.

Id. at 1299. Because neither of these considerations support the exclusion of such evidence in criminal proceedings, and since the decision to prosecute rests solely with the state and not the victim, we agree with those Florida decisions which have confined the applicability of section 90.408 to civil proceedings. Id.; State v. Aylesworth, 666 So.2d 181, 182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) ("[T]he substance of the rule does appear to confine its applicability to civil proceedings."); see also Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 408.1 n. 2 (1997) ("Section 90.408 may not apply in criminal cases.").


Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #87 on: April 29, 2013, 08:09:47 AM »
Defendant's Response to Supplemental Memorandum of Law, filed Sunday, April 28th.

Maybe O'Mara is reading MJW ;-)

It is confusing, at best, to suggest to this Court that the fact that key prosecution witnesses received large sums of money in a civil settlement related to the issues in a criminal case is so prejudicial that it should be excluded, but then claim at the same time that their testimony isn't possibly affected.  That is nonsensical.


I point out that this was filed within the 48 hour window that Judge Nelson has established for consideration (at least of defense argument - the deadline for the state and Crump varies)

Edit to add blockquote and remarks following the blockquote
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 08:21:54 AM by cboldt »

Offline FromBelow

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #88 on: April 29, 2013, 08:44:23 AM »
It says "has been furnished by U.S. Mail/Facsimile/Hand Delivery this 28 day of April, 2013".

Does that mean by all of those methods? If so hand delivered would mean it was submitted in time. Well, it would if Nelson was on the list of people it was delivered to.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Motion to Unseal Court Filing (HOA Settlement)
« Reply #89 on: April 29, 2013, 09:06:38 AM »
It says "has been furnished by U.S. Mail/Facsimile/Hand Delivery this 28 day of April, 2013".

Does that mean by all of those methods? If so hand delivered would mean it was submitted in time. Well, it would if Nelson was on the list of people it was delivered to.

Usually means all three methods, but obviously, the USPS isn't open on 28 April 2013, so that method could not have been used on that day.  The original is filed with the Court.  I'd have to check to see if Nelson's 48 hour rule required personal delivery, or if delivery to the Court was sufficient.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking