SHERRY BELLAMY, et al. * IN THE
|
|
- Geraldine Stokes
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SHERRY BELLAMY, et al. * IN THE Plaintiffs * CIRCUIT COURT v. * FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OF ARUNDEL ON THE BAY, INC., et al. * Case No.: C IJ Defendants * RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE COUNTERCLAIM Defendants, Property Owners Association of Arundel on the Bay, Inc. ( Association ), Frank Florentine, Barry Dempsey, R. Rebecca Morris, David Zeman and Michael Merrigan, by their undersigned attorneys, Wayne T. Kosmerl, Susan T. Ford and Council, Baradel, Kosmerl and Nolan, P.A., hereby respond to the Motion to Strike Counterclaim. A. The Counterclaim Was Timely Filed Plaintiffs make the argument, without any supporting authority, that under Rule 2-331(d), a Counterclaim must be filed before a Court rules on a Rule motion to dismiss a complaint and the ensuing answer is filed. This argument is patently frivolous and the Motion to Strike should be denied. The Plaintiffs filed a six count Complaint on July 5, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss all counts except one and an Answer to one count on August 8, The Plaintiffs filed an opposing memorandum on August 28, The Court ruled on the Motion to Dismiss by Order dated September 5, 2006, but not entered on the docket until September 8, 2006, denying the motion to dismiss. Exhibit A. Accordingly, pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-321, the time for filing an answer to the complaint was
2 extended without special order to 15 days after entry of the court s order disposing of the motion. Fifteen days from the date of the entry of the order disposing of the motion was September 23, 2006, a Saturday. If a time period by which a document must be filed ends on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, then the required filing day is the next day the court is open, or in this case, September 25, Maryland Rule The Answer to the Complaint was filed on September 25, The Counterclaim was filed within thirty days of the date of filing the Answer to the Complaint, on October 25, Maryland Rule (d). Plaintiffs statement at page 3 of their Memorandum that Defendants even failed to file the Counterclaim within 30 days after the time for filing their answer to Counts I - IV and VI of the Complaint is completely without merit. Thirty days from September 25 th is October 25 th. Obviously, the Counterclaim was timely filed. Plaintiffs argue that because Defendants filed a limited Answer to one of the counts of their six count Complaint along with the Rule Motion to Dismiss, they were required to file a Counterclaim within 30 days of the date they filed their Motion to Dismiss and limited Answer, despite the fact that a Rule motion to dismiss the majority of the Complaint was pending. Plaintiffs cite no authority for this proposition and indeed it is not supported by the Maryland Rules, case law or common sense. The Maryland Rules clearly allow the filing of a Counterclaim within 30 days of filing an Answer. The Defendants filed a Counterclaim within 30 days of filing an Answer to Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI of the Complaint. If Plaintiffs argument prevails, then Defendants would have been in the position of having to file a Counterclaim against a Complaint which the Court could have dismissed. Under this reasoning the Plaintiffs 2
3 would then have been in the position they profess to object to, being forced to expend resources to respond to a Counterclaim which could be moot. B. Plaintiffs Are Not Prejudiced By The Counterclaim Presuming for the sake of argument that the Counterclaim should have been filed before the Court ruled on Defendants Rule Motion to Dismiss and filed an Answer, or was otherwise not timely filed, Defendants hereby seek leave of court to permit the filing. Plaintiffs have not been prejudiced by the filing of the Counterclaim. Plaintiffs admit that the Counterclaim addresses the same issues raised in Defendants defenses to the Complaint filed months ago, namely a dispute over title to platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. Plaintiffs claim that they will be prejudiced by the timing of the filing of the Counterclaim and that they may need to extend the Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in July, 2006, over four months ago and still have not propounded any discovery requests nor sought to take any depositions. Indeed, Plaintiffs waited until the date the Scheduling Order mandated that they name experts, November 8, 2006, to request an extension of time to name their experts. Plaintiffs chose not to use four months of available time to conduct any discovery. They can not now claim to be prejudiced by the filing of the Counterclaim. Plaintiffs admit that the Counterclaim refers to the same issues raised in Defendants defenses to the Complaint filed months ago, namely a dispute over title to platted streets in Arundel on the Bay. Plaintiffs claim superior title to certain platted streets in the community of Arundel on the Bay pursuant to Maryland Real Property Code Ann They also seek injunctive relief to prevent the Defendants from 3
4 trespassing upon portions of the platted streets which Plaintiffs claim to be their properties and to prevent the Defendants from constructing any improvements on the same platted streets. As was raised in the listed defenses to Count V of the Complaint filed over three months ago, the Defendants put Plaintiffs on notice the Association has held a deed to the same streets claimed by the Plaintiffs since 1951 which the Association was granted upon the dissolution of the town of Arundel on the Bay ( 1951 Deed ) and that it claims title to the streets pursuant to that deed. The Plaintiffs now assert, more than fifty years after the 1951 Deed to the Association was recorded, that the deed is invalid and request that this Court quiet title and grant declaratory relief regarding the ownership of the platted streets in their favor. The Counterclaim filed by Defendants seeks declaratory relief and to quiet title regarding the ownership of the roads based upon the 1951 Deed. The Plaintiffs are apparently requesting that the Court rule on their claims of ownership of the platted streets in a vacuum, without considering the import of the deed held by the Association for over fifty years and surrounding circumstances regarding the scheme of development in Arundel on the Bay. As discussed in Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Response to Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Complaint, invalidating the Association s 1951 Deed to the streets in Arundel on the Bay could have serious repercussions for all property owners in the community. Based upon the 1951 Deed, the Association has granted deeds conveying certain streets in Arundel on the Bay to Anne Arundel County and the County now maintains those streets. The Association has also conveyed utility easements in the streets to the County and community recreational amenities have been built on certain street ends which can be used and 4
5 enjoyed by all property owners in the community. Decades ago, the community voted to impose a Special Community Benefit Taxing District whereby all the property owners in Arundel on the Bay are specially taxed for purposes which include the maintenance of non-county owned roads in the community. The Association administers the Special Community Benefit Taxing District. If this court finds the Association s 1951 Deed to the streets invalid (and thus presumably from the Plaintiffs argument, also that the deeds to the County for certain streets and utility easements are invalid) and that the hundreds of private property owners in Arundel on the Bay each individually own small segments of the streets, complex liability and maintenance issues arise which could impact all the property owners in Arundel on the Bay, particularly as Plaintiffs are seeking to prevent the Association from making any improvements to the platted streets. As Plaintiffs acknowledge, the Defendants expressly raised the existence and claim of validity of the 1951 Deed in their Answer and Defenses to Count V of the Complaint. The Counterclaim was not filed late, and even if it were, there is no prejudice arising from filing the Counterclaim. It specifically counters the claims for declaratory judgment and quiet title made in the Complaint. Plaintiffs were put on notice of those claims months ago, as they acknowledge, and have chosen not to undertake discovery. Last, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants know that the 1951 Deed is invalid and argue that they should not be required to defend the Counterclaim and prove the invalidity of the 1951 deed by hiring experts and taking depositions. Plaintiffs cite as support for this proposition portions of depositions from litigation to which none of them were parties (although Plaintiffs Bumbrays and Bellamys predecessors in title were parties to the Durant litigation) and in which litigation no court has ruled on the title issue 5
6 presented in this case. The same issue raised by Plaintiffs herein, of a property owner s claim of superior title to the streets in Arundel on the Bay by virtue of Md. Real Property Code 2-114, was, however, raised by the Defendant in the McManus litigation referenced by Plaintiffs in a motion for summary judgment supported by an affidavit of a title expert. The Court refused to grant summary judgment to the defendant in that case on her claim of superior title pursuant to Md. Real Property Code Ann The Court did not rule on the title issue in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, much less rule that the Association s deed was invalid. 1 Indeed, the Court stated at page 6 of its decision in the McManus litigation, Exhibit C to Plaintiff s Motion to Strike, that if it made a finding for the Defendant in that case based upon adverse possession, it did not need to reach the title issue. The Court s final order at page 16 of the McManus decision was only made based upon adverse possession. Likewise, in the 1996 Durant Opinion, Exhibit D to the Motion to Strike, this Court did not rule on the issue of title to the streets, although the Court commented on page 10 of its Opinion that [t]here was evidence presented before the Court that supported the Plaintiff s argument that it had obtained title decades earlier by means of the grant from the Trustees of Arundel on the Bay. Both the Durant and McManus cases involved the removal of fences which obstructed platted streets in Arundel on the Bay which were decided based upon grounds other than fee simple title. Further, the 1951 deed is an ancient document and is entitled to a presumption of validity. Siemiesz v. Amend, 237 Md. 438 (1965), Homewood Realty Corp. v. Safe Deposit and Trust Co. of Balt., 160 Md. 457, 473 (1931). When there is a missing link in a historic chain of title, the court is permitted to supply the missing link in the chain 1 There is a pending Rule Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed in the McManus litigation which has not been ruled upon as of the date of the filing of this Opposition. 6
7 through the legal fiction of presuming the existence of the missing deed if doing so would further the public purpose and promote equity. Baltimore Chemical Manufacturing v. Dobbin, 23 Md. 210 (1865). Defendants are entitled to have this Court determine whether Plaintiffs claims are barred by laches and/or limitations because they have waited over fifty years to challenge the Association s deed to the streets. Defendants are entitled to have this Court determine whether it will invalidate the 1951 Deed with all the resulting potential shifts in liability and maintenance responsibilities for the platted streets in Arundel on the Bay, or whether to promote justice and equity, it will presume the missing deed as it is entitled to do and leave in place the status quo that has existed for over fifty years. Plaintiffs claim they will have to depose all the residents in Arundel on the Bay to determine the scope of the prescriptive easement claimed by Defendants. The Durant Opinion at page 11 expressly found that the portion of Chesapeake Avenue abutting Plaintiff Bellamys and Bumbrays deeded property boundary was subject to a prescriptive easement. Despite that finding by the Court, Plaintiffs chose to seek equitable relief prohibiting the Defendants from trespassing on platted streets which they deem to be their house or yard, including Chesapeake Avenue. They chose to seek a court order prohibiting Defendants from constructing any improvements to the disputed portions of paper streets despite settled Maryland precedent granting the holders of easements the right to construct improvements consistent with the scope of their easement. Shallow Run Limited Partnership v. State Highway Administration, 113 Md. App. 156, 171, 686 A.2d 1113 (1996). Paradoxically, Defendants admit there is a right of ingress and egress over Chesapeake Walk for the benefit of property owners. 7
8 Plaintiffs chose to bring an action which on its face seeks injunctive relief limiting rights of use of property owners in Arundel on the Bay. The Counterclaim seeks relief regarding settled and important rights in easements that the Plaintiffs put at issue by filing Count VI of the Complaint seeking to enjoin Defendants trespassing on their properties and from constructing any improvements thereon. They should not now be permitted to complain because they are being forced to litigate the scope of property rights which they chose to put in dispute. Wherefore, for the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that the Motion to Strike be denied. COUNCIL, BARADEL, KOSMERL & NOLAN, P.A. By: Wayne T. Kosmerl Susan T. Ford 125 West Street, 4 th Floor P. O. Box 2289 Annapolis, MD (410) Attorneys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the _22_ day of November, 2006, a copy of the Response to Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim was mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Ava E. Lias-Booker, Esquire Jessica E. Morrison, Esquire Robert T. Johnson, Esquire McGuireWoods, LLP 7 Saint Paul Street, Suite 1000 Baltimore, Maryland Eileen E. Powers, Esquire Blumenthal, Delavan & William, P.A. 8
9 170 Jennifer Road, Suite 240 Annapolis, Maryland Susan T. Ford 9
SHERRY BELLAMY, et al. * IN THE
SHERRY BELLAMY, et al. * IN THE Plaintiffs * CIRCUIT COURT v. * FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OF ARUNDEL ON THE BAY, INC., et al. * Case No.: C-06-115184 IJ Defendants INTERROGATORIES
More informationFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION * IN THE OF ARUNDEL-ON-THE-BAY, INC. P. O. Box 4665 * CIRCUIT COURT Annapolis, Maryland 21403-4556 * FOR And * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY FRANK A. FLORENTINE, President Property Owners
More information2. Defendant is the record owner of certain property consisting of the north half of Lot K and Lot I in Block 58 as shown on the Subdivision Plat.
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION * IN THE OF ARUNDEL-ON-THE-BAY, INC. P. O. Box 4665 * CIRCUIT COURT Annapolis, Maryland 21403-4556 * FOR Plaintiff * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY v. * JOYCE Q MCMANUS 3430 Rockway Avenue
More information* IN THE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * AFFIDAVIT OF N. TUCKER MENEELY
ROSALYNNE R. ATTERBEARY REVOCABLE TRUST, et al. v. Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION OF ARUNDEL ON THE BAY, INC., et al. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. * IN THE * CIRCUIT COURT
More informationPlaintiffs * CIRCUIT COURT
SHERRY BELLAMY, et al. * IN THE Plaintiffs * CIRCUIT COURT v. * FOR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION * ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY OF ARUNDEL ON THE BAY, INC., et al. * Case No.: C-06-115184 IJ Defendants ANSWERS TO
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 3rd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE. Hon. Kathleen I. McDonald
STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE 3rd JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE Stanley Puchala and Kathleen Puchala, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, Case No. 14-002802-CH Hon. Kathleen I. McDonald v. Huron
More informationPetitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS. v. * OF MARYLAND. MARIROSE JOAN CAPOZZI, et al., * September Term, Respondents. * Petition Docket No.
LINDA H. LAMONE, et al., * IN THE Petitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS v. * OF MARYLAND MARIROSE JOAN CAPOZZI, et al., * September Term, 2006 Respondents. * Petition Docket No. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * PETITION
More informationCase Doc 1 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 14
Case 18-10334 Doc 1 Filed 01/10/18 Page 1Docket of 14 #0001 Date Filed: 1/10/2018 1 q#b2!!1«1810334180109000000000001 Case 18-10334 Doc 1 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 14 Case 18-10334 Doc 1 Filed 01/10/18
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant. for Denbury Resources, Inc. ("Denbury" or "Defendant") shares pursuant to the merger of
Case 1:10-cv-01917-JG-VVP Document 143 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 9369 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELI BENSINGER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
More informationDefendant moves the court for reconsideration of the court's Order on Defendant's Motion
IN I E R E D JUL 2 8 20~ STATE OF MAINE YORK, SS. CATHERINE F HAYWARD, TRUSTEE OF THE CATHERINE F. HAYWARD REVOCABLE TRUST OF 2012, Plaintiff, V. OCEAN HOUSE, INC., Defendants. SUPERIOR COURT CIVJL ACTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 25, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 25, 2009 JO TAYLOR, ET AL. v. WENDELL HARRIS, ET AL. AND JO TAYLOR, ET AL. v. LOUIE R. LADD, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Third District Court of Appeal Case No. 3D09-1314 Lower Court Case No. 08-39632 CA 04 (11 th Judicial Circuit) VENEZIA LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Florida not-for-profit
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BONNER ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
STATE OF IDAHO County of BONNER ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BONNER JEFFREY L.
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND. v. * Defendant * PRELIMINARY MOTION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND FRIENDS OF FREDERICK COUNTY, et al. * No. 10-C-11-000410 Plaintiffs * v. * THE TOWN OF NEW MARKET, * Defendant * PRELIMINARY MOTION The Town of New Market,
More informationORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' JOINT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The Plaintiffs in these consolidated cases have moved for summary judgment against
( ( STATE OF MAINE Cumberland, ss. SUPERIOR COURT Civil Action JEFFREY W. MONROE & LINDA S. MONROE, Plaintiffs, v. Docket No. PORSC-RE-15-169 CARlvfEN CHATMAS & IMAD KHALIDI, Defendants, and MARIA C. RINALDI
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2009-0932, David K. Sorak & a. v. Alan E. O'Neal & a., the court on June 14, 2011, issued the following order: The petitioners, David K. Sorak and Glenda
More informationROAD PETITION ( ) INSTRUCTIONS & INFORMATION
ROAD PETITION (13-2-203) INSTRUCTIONS & INFORMATION General Instructions Please furnish all information requested so that your petition will not be delayed. Remember that complete and legible information
More informationBY-LAWS OF BLAIR FARM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I NAME AND PURPOSE OF THE CORPORATION BLAIR FARM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
BY-LAWS OF BLAIR FARM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I NAME AND PURPOSE OF THE CORPORATION Section 1. Name: This corporation shall be known as: BLAIR FARM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Section 2. Purposes:
More informationCourthouse News Service
-\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA PICTURE PATENTS, LLC, ) ) \.L Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Case No. j.'o&cv o?&>4' MONUMENT REALTY LLC, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ) Defendant.
More informationv. DECISION AND ORDER
STATE OF MAINE HANCOCK, ss: DISTRICT COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. CV-05~232 "". ROBERT B. WILLIS, and TARA KELLY, PETER FORBES, Plaintiffs, v. DECISION AND ORDER Defendant. DECISION In October 2005, Plaintiffs,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GERALD MASON and KAREN MASON, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross- Appellants, FOR PUBLICATION February 26, 2009 9:05 a.m. v No. 282714 Menominee Circuit Court CITY OF MENOMINEE,
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/14/ :34 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2016
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 12/14/2016 11:34 PM INDEX NO. 655323/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/14/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK 426 REALTY ASSOCIATES, LLC
More informationCase bjh Doc 22 Filed 12/30/11 Entered 12/30/11 19:33:15 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 70
Document Page 1 of 70 Richard G. Grant Texas Bar No. 08302650 RICHARD G. GRANT P.C. 1304 John McCain Road Colleyville, TX 76034 Telephone: 214-210-2929 Facsimile: 214-224-0198 rgrant@rgglaw.com Robert
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:
Morlock, LLC v. The Bank of New York Mellon Doc. 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MORLOCK, L.L.C., a Texas Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,
More informationPROCEDURES RE: VACATION OF PLATTED ALLEY OR STREET IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA (As of January 1, 1991)
PROCEDURES RE: VACATION OF PLATTED ALLEY OR STREET IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF ELKHART COUNTY, INDIANA (As of January 1, 1991) 1. Any person who owns or in interested in a parcel of real estates located
More informationLauren Heyse et al. William Case et al. No. CV S Superior Court of Connecticut September 9, 2009
Lauren Heyse et al. v. William Case et al. No. CV065001028S Superior Court of Connecticut September 9, 2009 Judicial District of Litchfield at Litchfield Judge: Pickard, John W., J. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STANDARD FEDERAL BANK, N.A., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 16, 2006 v No. 266053 Wayne Circuit Court LAWRENCE KORN, LC No. 05-517910-CH
More information12 CVS. Scenic NC, Inc., ) Plaintiff ) ) ) North Carolina Department of MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. ) Transportation, ) Defendant )
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF WAKE Scenic NC, Inc., Plaintiff North Carolina Department of Transportation, Defendant IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 12 CVS MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 10, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE July 10, 2014 Session WALTER ALLEN GAULT v. JANO JANOYAN, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 185155-3 Michael W. Moyers, Chancellor
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION M & T MORTGAGE CORP., : : Plaintiff : : v. : No. 08-0238 : STAFFORD TOWNSEND AND BERYL : TOWNSEND, : : Defendants : Christopher
More informationCase 6:11-cv CJS Document 76 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendant.
Case 6:11-cv-06004-CJS Document 76 Filed 12/11/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, -v- SENECA COUNTY, NEW YORK, Plaintiff, Defendant.
More informationMOTION TO VACATE FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 13th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA LIQUIDATED INVESTMENTS, LLC., n/k/a CITICOMPANY HOLDINGS, INC. CASE NO: 2009-xxxxx CA 01 Plaintiff, v. HECTOR R.
More informationCase Doc 554 Filed 08/07/15 Entered 08/07/15 18:36:50 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 15
Case 13-31943 Doc 554 Filed 08/07/15 Entered 08/07/15 183650 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 15 B104 (FORM 104) (08/07) ADVERSARY PROCEEDING COVER SHEET (Instructions on Reverse) ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NUMBER
More informationmg Doc 7850 Filed 12/10/14 Entered 12/10/14 12:27:11 Main Document Pg 1 of 9
Pg 1 of 9 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 250 West 55 th Street New York, New York 10019 Telephone: (212 468-8000 Facsimile: (212 468-7900 Norman S. Rosenbaum Erica J. Richards Counsel for the ResCap Liquidating
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MEMORANDUM ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE JOAO BOCK TRANSACTION SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. JACK HENRY & ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendant. Civ. No. 12-1138-SLR MEMORANDUM ORDER At Wilmington
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) Case No.
STATE OF IDAHO County of KOOTENAI ss FILED AT O'Clock M CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT Deputy IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI JACKLIN
More informationEugene Racanelli Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon 2015 NY Slip Op 32492(U) December 3, 2015 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number:
Eugene Racanelli Inc. v Incorporated Vil. of Babylon 2015 NY Slip Op 32492(U) December 3, 2015 Supreme Court, Suffolk County Docket Number: 13433/2011 Judge: William B. Rebolini Cases posted with a "30000"
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2016
FILED NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/2016 1205 PM INDEX NO. 654752/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF 09/08/2016 SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More informationB. The public road petitioned to be returned to private ownership shall continue to be used as a private road.
PROCEDURE FOR PETITIONING COUNTY TO RETURN ROAD/ROADS TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 13, SECTION 2-204 OF THE ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY CODE I. A. Petitioner(s) shall submit petition for road
More informationBY-LAWS OF THE LONDON TOWNE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION
BY-LAWS OF THE LONDON TOWNE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I PURPOSE OF THE ASSOCIATION Section 1: The London Towne Property Owners Association, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the Association,
More informationFiled. Artie. ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE MARYLAND LLC, et al.,
JANE AND JOHN DOE, at 11., * IN THE V. ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE MARYLAND LLC, et al., - - Petitioners, * COURT OF APPEALS Bessie * OF MARYLAND * September Term, 2916' 7.0.7 Respondents. * Petition Docket No.
More informationSMDFUND, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Auth. 831 N.E.2d 725 Supreme Court of Indiana, August 2, 2005,
SMDFUND, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Auth Readers were referred to this case on page 243 of the 9 th edition SMDFUND, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Auth. 831 N.E.2d 725 Supreme Court
More informationCircuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV UNREPORTED
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. C-02-CV-15-3083 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2189 September Term, 2016 JOSHUA O DELL, et al. v. KRISTINE BROWN, et al. Berger,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION RANDALL TOWNSEND, PLAINTIFF, v. CHARLES H. SCRUGGS III., CASE NO. 05-0911 Individually, DIVISION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
Chapman et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION BILL M. CHAPMAN, JR. and ) LISA B. CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. et al Doc. 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN APPLE INC. v. Plaintiff, MOTOROLA, INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) )
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
FILED Sixth Judicial Circuit 8/31/2017 2:38 PM Katie M. Blakeman Clerk of the Circuit Court Champaign County, Illinois By: GF IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, ILLINOIS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No: 14 C 206 )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS TOYO TIRE & RUBBER CO., LTD., and TOYO TIRE U.S.A. CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Case No: 14 C 206 ATTURO TIRE CORP., and SVIZZ-ONE Judge
More informationCase pwb Doc 1097 Filed 11/26/14 Entered 11/26/14 10:26:12 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 9
Document Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION In re: Chapter 11 CGLA LIQUIDATION, INC., f/k/a Cagle s, Case No. 11-80202-PWB Inc., CF
More informationDISTRICT COURT DIVISION
Complaint: COMPLAINT FOR RECOVERY OF CIVIL PENALTY PURSUANT TO N.C.G.S 45-36.3 1., _ and _ are citizens and residents of, and and are citizens and residents of. 2., is a with an office and doing business
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND Case No. 03-1496
More informationS13A1807. MATHEWS et al. v. CLOUD, EXR., et al. This case arises out of a dispute over title and right of possession of
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: January 21, 2014 S13A1807. MATHEWS et al. v. CLOUD, EXR., et al. BENHAM, Justice. This case arises out of a dispute over title and right of possession of certain
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS SUSAN L. GALLAGHER, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2004 v No. 242945 Oakland Circuit Court SHERI FIROSZ, LC No. 2001-029978-CH Defendant-Appellant, and TONY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE KNOXVILLE DIVISION HOLLIS H. MALIN, JR. and ) LINDA D. MALIN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) No. 3:11-cv-554 ) JP MORGAN; et al., ) ) Defendants. )
More informationIN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) ) SCHEDULING ORDER. Pharmaceuticals Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
EFiled: Oct 20 2015 11:35AM EDT Transaction ID 58039964 Case No. 10553-VCN IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE NPS PHARMACEUTICALS STOCKHOLDERS LITIGATION ) ) CONSOLIDATED C.A. No.
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DENNIS MILSTEIN Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. THE TOWER AT OAK HILL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION AND LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP APPEAL
More informationCase: HJB Doc #: 3116 Filed: 02/16/16 Desc: Main Document Page 1 of 4
Case 4-96-HJB Doc # 36 Filed 02/6/6 Desc Main Document Page of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE -----------------------------------------------------------------------x
More informationBYLAWS OF AGUA DULCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
BYLAWS OF AGUA DULCE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Pursuant to the provisions of Article 1, Chapter 22, Title 10, Arizona Revised Statutes, the Board of Directors of Agua Dulce Homeowners Association hereby adopts
More informationWYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS
WYOMING RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR CIRCUIT COURTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Rule 1. Scope. 2. Applicability. 3. Pleadings. 3.1. Commencement of action [Effective until June 1 2018.] 3.1. Commencement of action
More informationTHIS INSTRUMENT IS BEING RECORDED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ. NO RECORDING FEE IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Santa Cruz Housing and Community Development Dept. Attn: Norm Daly 809 Center Street, Rm. 206 Santa Cruz, California 95060 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE
More informationAMENDED BYLAWS MISSION BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
AMENDED BYLAWS MISSION BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. Paragraph 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Corporation. Corporation and/or Association shall mean and refer to Mission Bay Homeowners Association, Inc., a Montana
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv MR-DLH
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00030-MR-DLH TRIBAL CASINO GAMING ) ENTERPRISE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) MEMORANDUM
More informationCase 2:08-cv GLF-NMK Document 62 Filed 12/09/09 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 2:08-cv-00575-GLF-NMK Document 62 Filed 12/09/09 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE, AS THE NATURAL PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS JOHN DOE, ) Plaintiff ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16cv-30184-MAP v. ) ) WILLIAMS COLLEGE, ) ) Defendant. ) ) PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE EX
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 1:15-cv-00089-RDB Document 15 Filed 03/02/15 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND * A Body Corporate and Politic 400 Washington
More informationAQUIA HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
AQUIA HARBOUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. RESTRICTIONS AND COVENANTS 1. Use Said lots shall be used exclusively for residential purposes except those lots that may be designated, subjected to rezoning
More informationCase 2:11-cv WJM-MF Document 88-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 71 PageID: Exhibit A
Case 211-cv-07298-WJM-MF Document 88-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 71 PageID 4010 Exhibit A Case 211-cv-07298-WJM-MF Document 88-3 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 71 PageID 4011 Case 211-cv-07298-WJM-MF Document
More informationDefendant State of Missouri s Motion to Dismiss
IN CIRCUIT COURT OF MONITEAU COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI RICHARD N. BARRY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. CV704-29CC STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., Defendants. Defendant State of Missouri s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GWENDER LAURY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED May 10, 2007 v No. 272727 Wayne Circuit Court COLONIAL TITLE COMPANY LC No. 04-413821-CH and Defendant/Third-Party Defendant-
More informationSECOND AMENDMENT TO ROAD DESIGN, PERMITTING & CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT [EXTENSION NW 35 TH STREET PHASE 2a]
This Instrument Prepared by and return to: Steven H. Gray Gray, Ackerman & Haines, P.A. 125 NE First Avenue, Suite 1 Ocala, FL 34470 TAX PARCEL NOS.: RECORD: $ -------------------------------THIS SPACE
More informationCase 2:14-bk Doc 129 Filed 02/14/14 Entered 02/14/14 15:44:27 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7
Document Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA In re ) Chapter 11 ) FREEDOM INDUSTRIES, INC. ) ) Case No. 2:14-bk-20017 ) Debtor. ) ) APPLICATION TO EMPLOY AND RETAIN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Case 3:07-cv-00015 Document 7 Filed 04/04/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHERRI BROKAW, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:07 CV 15 K DALLAS
More informationROBERT W. WOJCIK AND DEBORAH A. WOJCIK
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER 2015-0258-V ROBERT W. WOJCIK AND DEBORAH A. WOJCIK THIRD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DATE HEARD: JANUARY 7, 2016 ORDERED BY: DOUGLAS CLARK HOLLMANN ADMINISTRATIVE
More informationEXHIBIT A HIGHLAND RIDGE HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. A NON PROFIT CORPORATION BY LAWS ARTICLE I
EXHIBIT A HIGHLAND RIDGE HOMEOWNER S ASSOCIATION, INC. A NON PROFIT CORPORATION BY LAWS ARTICLE I SECTION 1: The name of the corporation shall be: Highland Ridge Homeowner s Association, Inc. SECTION 2:
More informationINDEPENDENCE NORTH PARK ANNEX ADDITION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
INDEPENDENCE NORTH PARK ANNEX ADDITION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AMENDED AND RESTATED BYLAWS OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY INDEPENDENCE NORTH PARK ANNEX ADDITION Print Date: October 2014 Table of Contents
More informationGENOVA & MALIN Date: July 22, 2001
GENOVA & MALIN Date: July 22, 2001 Attorneys for the Debtors Time: 12:00 P.M. Hampton Business Center 1136 Route 9 Wappingers Falls, New York 12590 (845 298-1600 Thomas Genova, Esq. (TG4706 Andrea B. Malin,
More informationCase 2:11-cv CMR Document 30 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 7
Case 2:11-cv-03535-CMR Document 30 Filed 05/07/12 Page 1 of 7 Case 2:11-cv-03535-CMR Document 29-1 Piled 05/07/12 Page 2 of 8 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
QVC, INC. v. SCHIEFFELIN et al Doc. 10 Case 2:06-cv-04231-TON Document 10 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA : QVC, INC. : Studio
More informationEARTH FARE, INC. S MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND A JUDGMENT
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF GREENVILLE Tracey Rose, v. Plaintiff, Central Realty Holdings, LLC & Earth Fare, Inc., STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF GREENVILLE Earth Fare, Inc., v. Central Realty
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 07/06/ :55 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 61 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/06/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS -----------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. 510166/2015 MARTIN MOSCOVICS, Plaintiffs, -against- AFFIDAVIT OF MARTIN
More informationFLORIDA UTILITY SERVICES 1, LLC 3336 GRAND BLVD. SUITE 102 HOLIDAY, FL ::r. November 7, 2016
FLORIDA UTILITY SERVICES 1, LLC 3336 GRAND BLVD. SUITE 102 HOLIDAY, FL. 34690 863-904-55 7 4 November 7, 2016 Commission Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL.
More informationBYLAWS ASHTON MEADOWS PHASE 3 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I NAME AND LOCATION ARTICLE II DEFINITIONS
BYLAWS OF ASHTON MEADOWS PHASE 3 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. ARTICLE I NAME AND LOCATION The name of the corporation is ASHTON MEADOWS PHASE 3 HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., (hereinafter referred to as
More informationOPINION AND ORDER. the motion, briefs and argument, Defendant s motion for partial summary judgment is
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS, LLC., : CV- 13-02,339 Plaintiff, : : CIVIL ACTION vs. : : THE ALLEGHENY APARTMENTS, LLC., : NON-JURY - PARTIAL Defendant.
More informationMOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER BARRING DEFENDANTS FROM SCHEDULING PLAINTIFFS EXECUTION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS LITIGATION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURTY FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY RALPH BAZE, and, THOMAS C. BOWLING, CIV. ACTION # 04-CI-1094 Plaintiffs, v. JONATHAN D. REES, Commissioner, KentuckyDepartment of Corrections,
More informationalg Doc 1331 Filed 06/06/12 Entered 06/06/12 15:56:08 Main Document Pg 1 of 16
Pg 1 of 16 PEPPER HAMILTON LLP Suite 1800 4000 Town Center Southfield, Michigan 48075 Deborah Kovsky-Apap (DK 6147) Telephone: 248.359.7331 Facsimile: 313.731.1572 E-mail: kovskyd@pepperlaw.com PEPPER
More informationSequoia Park Associates, a California limited partnership, Petitioner and Plaintiff,
1 1 1 STEVEN M. WOODSIDE # County Counsel SUE GALLAGHER, #1 Deputy County Counsel DEBBIE F. LATHAM #01 Deputy County Counsel County of Sonoma Administration Drive, Room Santa Rosa, California 0- Telephone:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
Case 4:17-cv-00516-MW-CAS Document 1 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION JOHN DOE, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 4:17-cv-516 On removal from
More informationFILED: ORANGE COUNTY CLERK 04/18/ :39 PM
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE WILL ISNADY, -against- Plaintiff; WALDEN PRESERVATION L.P. cl/b/a THE CEDARS, VILLAGE OF WALDEN and THE VILLAGE OF WALDEN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants.
More informationUNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT FOR ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Burbank Business Park Owners' Association ("Association"): 1. Meeting
More informationCHAPTER 33 ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS ARTICLE 1 TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS
CHAPTER 33 ADMINISTRATION OF TRUSTS 2014 NOTE: Unless otherwise indicated, this Title includes annotations drafted by the Law Revision Commission from the enactment of Title 15 GCA by P.L. 16-052 (Dec.
More informationCRYSTAL CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS CASE NUMBER 2015-0167-V CRYSTAL CREEK PROPERTIES, LLC FOURTH ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DATE HEARD: SEPTEMBER 24, 2015 ORDERED BY: DOUGLAS CLARK HOLLMANN ADMINISTRATIVE
More informationCase 6:05-cv ACC-DAB Document 56 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
Case 6:05-cv-01859-ACC-DAB Document 56 Filed 01/12/2007 Page 1 of 11 MARIE-PASCALE MOLEMA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILBERT WHEAT, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED February 5, 2004 v No. 242932 Wayne Circuit Court STEGER HORTON, LC No. 99-932353-CZ Defendant-Appellant. Before: Schuette,
More informationthejasminebrand.com thejasminebrand.com
Case 13-62570 Doc 31 Filed 01/13/15 Entered 01/13/15 07:44:13 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Lynchburg Division IN RE: MAXINE
More informationCircuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. 02-C UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2017
Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County Case No. 02-C-13-178732 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0545 September Term, 2017 JOSEPH M. BILZOR, v. FRANK A. RUFF Fader, C.J., Shaw Geter,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ORDER
BERG v. OBAMA et al Doc. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, Plaintiff vs. CIVIL ACTION NO 08-cv- 04083 BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, ET AL, Defendants
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/19/ :26 PM INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/19/2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK HAYDEN ASSET VIII, LLC, Plaintiff -against- ' AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE Index No.:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CONRAD P. BECKER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED May 23, 2006 v No. 262214 Mackinac Circuit Court BENJAMIN THOMPSON and TRUDENCE S. LC No. 02-005517-CH THOMPSON,
More informationResponding to a Complaint: Maryland
Resource ID: w-011-5932 Responding to a Complaint: Maryland CHRISTOPHER C. JEFFRIES AND STEVEN A. BOOK, KRAMON & GRAHAM, WITH PRACTICAL LAW LITIGATION Search the Resource ID numbers in blue on Westlaw
More informationCLERK UF ta(3urf SIIPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO THE DISPATCH PRINTING CO., et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, Case No. 11-1006 -vs-. On Appeal From The Court Of Appeals Of Franklin County, Ohio, RECOVERY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et
More information