I am finally finished with jury duty – I headed back to work today and even though I was only gone 2 weeks, it feels like I haven’t been to work in quite a while. I wasn’t going to post anything on the trial, really, but I wrote Biji a humongous e-mail today and included some of the trial tidbits, so the least I can do is cut and paste for you all. :o)
The case was about real estate fraud and while it was interesting, it was very, very dry. I thought I might be excused when the attorneys asked us about any negative dealings we may have had with real estate agents in our own lives. Robert and I had some trouble at the end of our condo purchase because the repairs were not completed by the close of escrow and we couldn’t move into the place for at least another week. We fought with our agent for quite some time to get reimbursed for those days and finally had to take it to the top of the agency (but without litigation, of course). I relayed this story but I guess I didn’t sound too traumatized by it because neither counsel objected to my being a potential juror. Damn my unassuming and unbiased looks! ;o)
The plaintiffs were suing their real estate agent and his broker for breach of contract, blah blah blah, because they’d bought a 40-unit apartment complex in Oakland that was a big pile of dog doo. (The property has seen been foreclosed on and the people have lost all their investment properties plus their business trying to save it). In a nutshell, (well, maybe a big nutshell) the plaintiffs were Vietnamese Americans who argued that, due to their poor understanding of the English language, they were taken advantage of by their agent and conned into purchasing a bum piece of property. They testified through an interpreter to sort of drive the point home with the jury, but the fact that each one answered the attorneys’ questions before the interpreter reiterated them seemed to weaken their point! They actually had to be talked to by both the judge and their own counsel to say that while they may have understood some of what the attorney was asking, they really needed to wait for the interpreter before answering. The plaintiffs also argued that a lot of their paperwork was forged – like waivers of contingencies and/or inspections – so we literally had to sit through 5 hours of many, many pages being submitted one by one and the witness being asked “Is this your signature?” No. “Is this your signature?” No. And so on. Veeeeery dry. I absolutely understand their need to make the point but it was a bit difficult to sit through.
The real estate agents were shady, there was no doubt about that – many of the signatures were signed by the agent by his own admission, though he contended he had the verbal OK to do so. Did he have any written documentation to that effect? Not so much. In fact, there was little to no documentation at all regarding the transaction – no correspondence, nothing. Plus, the plaintiffs couldn’t qualify for financing so the agent (and his partner) personally loaned them the money to buy the property. Unfortunately, the loans were to be repaid within 12 months. If the people can’t afford financing, why would you expect them to pay you back hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans within a year?! Yikes. Then the agent suggested the plaintiffs sell all their other investment properties in order to help purchase the property in question. We were shown paperwork documenting that, in addition to their commission, the agents were paid money (along the lines of $100,000 per transaction) for “mortgage costs.” So, the plaintiffs were indeed repaying their loans – the only problem was they apparently paid the agents back, like, 4 times over without realizing it.
The property in question was a real piece of work. They showed us photos of it and it was absolutely the vilest place I could imagine having to live. It was chockablock full of mold, rust, water damage, asbestos, formaldehyde, lead paint… you name it, it had it. Plus, the disclosures stated that the building’s bathrooms and kitchens would have to be repaired, the roof would have to be replaced and that every internal system would need complete revamping within a year. Some closets had actual canes shoved in them in lieu of closet bars and the window frames were all busted from unprofessional replacement. As such, every window endured water damage and deep-rooted mold. Yum! The tenants were in the process of suing the owners (at the time the plaintiffs were looking to buy) for substandard living conditions and rising rent (in a rent controlled area, no less). The neighboring businesses were also threatening to sue because the tenants were vandalizing their properties. It was a “heavily suspected” place of business for drug dealers and had a lot of squatters living inside. However, to make the property appear more valuable, the plaintiffs were presented with full rent rolls, making it look like each unit was occupied. Upon closer inspection, however, 1/3 of the names were their own! Seriously, not only were the agents listed as tenants but they’d actually put the plaintiffs names on the roster as tenants, too! Ridiculous. Still, the plaintiffs were experienced buyers who’d owned at least 4 other investment properties and if they got a translator to help them with those transactions (as they testified they did), they could and should have done the same in this case. (Especially considering it was a $3.8 million investment!)
All in all, it looked to me like both parties were at fault to some degree and that the verdict would ultimately depend on the judge’s instructions. Unfortunately, (and fortunately) the case was settled and now I’ll never know what happened!! I did chat with the jurors afterward, since we were then free to speak about the case, and was pleasantly surprised to learn that almost all other jurors shared my opinions on the case. I think I’m a pretty skeptical person so I was surprised to see that most everyone else read into different testimonies what I did. I think that had we had to deliberate, we would have reached a verdict very reasonably. The attorneys wanted to speak to the jurors afterward, too, and while I didn’t intend to speak to anyone, one of the defense attorneys tracked me down at the elevator and spoke to me for a few minutes. I actually enjoyed the chance to tell him what I thought about his case vs. the plaintiffs’ case and whatnot. He seemed very interested to know what I thought about the credibility of each person and what, if anything, I thought was confusing during the trial. When I mentioned that I was a bit disappointed not to know the outcome, he said that it was “good for all sides.” Whether or not that’s true, I don’t know, of course! :o) It’s hard to say, since we didn’t get to see both sides present fully, in whose favor we would have found. It really would have depended on the letter of the law – we all agreed that most of what the agents did was unethical but could it all be proved “illegal?” From what we were told, it was hard to know.
I was sort of curious to drive by the property after being discharged, but never wound up doing so. I did do a quick Yahoo! search on property and it looks like it was still embroiled in litigation as of February last year. (The plaintiffs in the case bought the building in ’04 and it was foreclosed on a little over a year later). What a mess…
0 comments:
Post a Comment