« Ma Said No! | Main | Power of Advertising »
February 14, 2005
Lawsuit Update
CORRECTION: I inadvertently left out an accompanying paragraph to a quote below, which is now included in bold type.
The sex offender sued by a local developer has filed a $5 million counterclaim for emotional distress. (The realtor that arranged the sale is also trying to get dismissed from the original lawsuit because she said she didn't know the guy was a sex offender until after the sale closed.)
Rogers attorney Ken Swindle filed the answer and counterclaim Friday on behalf of Carmen and Randall Collins and Shirley Colunga....According to the answer and counterclaim, neither Carmen and Randall Collins nor Colunga tried to hide Randall Collins would live in the home.
They suggested NGI Rentals should ask potential buyers who will live in a home. They denied offering to move for $250,000, but said they did tell NGI it would cost that much to buy a new home and move.
"Any allegation that this amount was an attempt by the defendants to profit from their unfortunate situation is ludicrous," the answer stated.
They also claim NGI used "outrageous methods in an attempt to intimidate, harass and coerce the defendants into selling their property."
$5 million is a lot of emotional distress, isn't it? Here's the example of the 'outrageous methods' used by the developer:
[The Collins] also claim NGI used "outrageous methods in an attempt to intimidate, harass and coerce the defendants into selling their property."
Randall Collins was told neighbors were "very upset and willing to do anything to get you out of the subdivision. They have people to sit and wait at the bus drop to protect their children from you," the suit alleged.
Well no shit. What did he expect, a parade welcoming him to the neighborhood? And how is this the developer's fault? The neighbors found out about his sex offender status when the local police notified everyone who lived around him, as required by law.
This is starting to smell more & more like a hustle.
Posted by Rita at February 14, 2005 12:55 PM
Comments
The lawyer's name is "Swindle??" I don't think I could take the pounding.
Posted by: Jim - PRS at February 15, 2005 07:53 AM
I know, that cracked me up. I don't know the gentleman, but I imagine he gets a fair amount of teasing about his name.
Posted by: rita at February 15, 2005 09:56 AM
Just one problem - the couple were starting a new life as the evidence will show. They didn´t ask to get sued and they were not the ones who started this. Selected reporting with a bias toward big business is intellectually dishonest. Are you even interested in getting the whole story? You´re right though. It was an attempted hustle - by the company. The company won´t survive a summary judgment motion because they did not state a proper cause of action. Are you even an attorney? At any rate, if you would like more information to actually see who is trying to hustle whom, you may call me.
Ken Swindle
Posted by: Ken Swindle, attorney for Counter-Plaintiffs at February 17, 2005 05:54 PM
I have always gotten teasing about my name. It actually comes from English swine-farmers (You know, the farmer and the dale, hi-ho a merri o, etc.) At any rate, it is ironic that it is the big company that was trying to "swindle" someone. They will not make it past summary judgment because the facts, even if true (which they are not) do not state a proper cause of action.
Ken Swindle
Posted by: Ken Swindle at February 17, 2005 05:57 PM
As a matter of fact I am Ken, licensed in two states. Just stating my opinion, based on the newspaper articles.
Posted by: rita at February 17, 2005 05:59 PM
Haven't seen the pleadings so I have no opinion on whether it'll survive a motion for SJ or not. I appreciate that you're zealously representing your client, as you should.
Posted by: rita at February 17, 2005 06:01 PM
I have no problem with you being "cracked up" about my name. Whatever gets you out of bed in the morning. But if you report on the facts, you should report all the facts. Half of the story is a whole lie. If you interested in reporting what has actually happened and how a multi-billion dollar company was attempting to trample on a someone who has paid his debt to society and was trying to get back on his feet, I will gladly e-mail you all the pleadings so that reasoned analysis may prevail. If you are only interested in getting cheap laughs at another´s misfortune by telling half the truth without analysis, well, like I said, whatever it takes to get you out of bed in the morning . . .
Posted by: Ken Swindle at February 17, 2005 06:08 PM
Mr. Swindle, I'd like to remind you that learned minds may disagree without being discourteous. Or rude, as the case may be.
You've presented your client's side of the story. I appreciate the additional information.
Posted by: rita at February 17, 2005 06:13 PM