II LTD v. Justine Candler et al. (2013)

COURT'S ORDER

THE COURT:  All right.   So for the record—and I'm gonna ask the monitor to please prepare this transcript.   I originally made the decision by way of a memorandum of decision dated October 17th.   Ms. Candler, you received a copy in the mail?

THE DEFENDANT:  Yes.

THE COURT:  And, Attorney Low, you received a copy in the mail?

ATTY. LOW:  I did.

THE COURT:  So today's transcript, once I get it, I'll sign it and that will be the amended order.

So number one, the Court vacates the judgment in favor of the defendant by way of memorandum of decision dated October 17, 2013.   And, madam clerk, there was not a copy of that in the file, but I did make a copy and I think it's there now.

Number two, the intent of the Court was to deny the request for execution;  not to enter judgment in favor of the defendant.   As I said, the defendant previously entered into a stipulated judgment with the plaintiff.   And, again, Ms. Candler, you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT:  Kind of.

THE COURT:  All right.   Let me finish with the orders and then any questions you have the Court will try to answer.

THE DEFENDANT:  Okay.

THE COURT:  All right.

THE DEFENDANT:  Thank you.

THE COURT:  Number three, by way of additional findings, the parties entered a stipulated—a stipulation, rather, in favor of the plaintiff on July 24th, 2013.

Number four, on July 24th, 2013, Judge McMahon, consistent with the stipulation, entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.   My understanding is that judgment entered by Judge McMahon was actually not on the record but was on the papers, which is customary in this court.   Madam clerk, do you have any confirmation of that?

THE CLERK:  I do not.

THE COURT:  All right.

Number five, an affidavit of non-compliance was filed by the plaintiff through counsel on August 20th, 2013.   Alleging, in relevant part, that the defendant continued to allow unauthorized—in authorized.   I'm sorry.   To allow an unauthorized person to live at the premises.   There was also an allegation with regard to the arrest, but the Court did not find that to be relevant at the time of the hearing.

Number six, a hearing was held on the affidavit of non-compliance on September 17, 2013, and on October 9, 2013.

Number seven, the Court filed its memorandum of decision on October 17, wherein it inadvertently entered judgment for the defendant rather than deny the plaintiff's request for execution.

Number eight, today the Court is denying the plaintiff's request for execution, with all due respect to the witness, based on the Court's finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish the allegation in the non-compliance.

All right.   Anything further, Attorney Low?

ATTY. LOW:  No thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  Ms. Candler, did you have a question about the stipulated judgment?

THE DEFENDANT:  Yeah. I don't really understand what it means.

THE COURT:  All right.   So here's what the Court understands occurred.   On July 24th, 2013, this judge was not involved in the case.   My understanding is, you met with the representative from the plaintiff's business and you met with I believe Mr. Cameron, who is the housing mediator;  is that correct?

THE DEFENDANT:  Yes.

THE COURT:  And, Attorney Low, you were not involved in that?

ATTY. LOW:  I was, Your Honor.

THE COURT:  You were.   So you were physically there as well?

ATTY. LOW:  I was.

THE COURT:  All right.

ATTY. LOW:  And, Your Honor, the—we were each provided a copy of the stip motion for judgment and the stipulated—

THE COURT:  Yes.

ATTY. LOW:—judgment.

THE COURT:  And what my understanding was—is that you came up with an agreement that you were in violation of some of the terms of the lease;  that you agreed that judgment would enter on behalf of the plaintiff, in their favor, but that you would not be evicted, essentially, if you continued to abide by all the rules and regulations, including the specific issue involving overnight guests.

THE DEFENDANT:  Yeah.

THE COURT:  After that, on August 20th is when Attorney Low filed what's called an affidavit of noncompliance where they claimed, no, Ms. Candler has allowed the overnight guest.   That's when we had the hearing that started in September and it ended in October.

THE DEFENDANT:  Okay.

THE COURT:  All right.   And the Court listened to the evidence.   I felt it was a close call, but I didn't feel that the evidence was sufficient to establish the allegation that you had had Mr. Peoples there as an overnight guest.

And I indicated in the written—I believe in my written memorandum that I credited the witness's testimony, that she felt—and I know that the witness is here with you, good afternoon, today.   That she felt that this is what occurred.   I didn't feel that, as a Court, I could make that finding based upon the evidence;  anything further?

ATTY. LOW:  No thank you, Your Honor.   Under the existing stipulated judgment the defendant has the right to occupy through December 31st and—

THE COURT:  That's my understanding.

ATTY. LOW:  Correct.

THE COURT:  All right.   Is there anything further that you need, Attorney Low, in terms of perfecting the record?

ATTY. LOW:  Not from the Court.

THE COURT:  Or, actually, clarifying the record?

ATTY. LOW:  Not from the Court.

THE COURT:  All right.

ATTY. LOW:  Thank you.

THE COURT:  Ms. Candler, ma‘am, do you have any questions at all?

THE DEFENDANT:  No. I think I get it.

THE COURT:  You sure?

THE DEFENDANT:  Yeah.

THE COURT:  All right.   Okay. Good luck to you.

Good luck, ma‘am.

THE DEFENDANT:  Okay.

ATTY. LOW:  All right.   Thank you.

THE COURT:  Thank you.

* * *

Dated this 21st day of November 2013.

Hon. Karen A. Goodrow

Goodrow, Karen, J.