Anyone speak legal-ese? Sounds to me, (not fluent in legal-ese mind you or real estate-ese) like they are being sued for a bad real estate deal. In the tune of $9million dollars.
More legal trouble for the WT? jw.org
by blond-moment 20 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Scott77
Anyone speak legal-ese? Sounds to me, (not fluent in legal-ese mind you or real estate-ese) like they are being sued for a bad real estate deal. In the tune of $9million dollars. blond-moment Please, wait for our great apostess attorney Band on the Run to provide legal analysis and interpretation.
Scott77
-
whathappened
Sounds like the WTBTS's yes doesn't mean yes, and their no doesn't mean no!!!
-
breakfast of champions
'Although we are not yet certain of Jehovah’s will regarding Warwick,' said Brother Pierce, 'we are proceeding to develop the site with the intention of relocating the world headquarters of Jehovah’s Witnesses there.'
Is this what this ^^^^^ statement was all about?
-
cedars
Please let this be true....
Cedars
-
MeanMrMustard
Looks like they wanted out because the town kept denying them the tax except status...
-
cedars
If I understand this thread correctly, these words (appearing in the latest October 15th, 2012 Watchtower) could yet prove to be very poignant...
Cedars
-
cedars
I might be reading this all wrong, but at first glance this appears to be a legal battle that WT has won...
In this text, the Defendant is the Watch Tower Society, and the Plaintiff is the property company that they did a "U-turn" with over a property transaction for the World Headquarters site...
Notice how pretty much every motion of the Defendant is GRANTED, whereas almost every motion of the Plaintiff is DENIED...
"For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim for failure to pursue a rezoning of the Property, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing ciaims, and declaratory judgment claim. It is GRANTED without prejudice as to Plaintiffs request for specific performance in connection with Plaintiffs remaining claim. It is DENIED as to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim for failure to pay the Consulting Fee. Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiffs breach of contract claim for failure to pay the Consulting Fee. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Defendant's breach of contract counterclaim. It is GRANTED as to Defendant's fraudulent inducement and declaratory judgment counterclaims and GRANTED without prejudice as to Defendant's request for specific performance in connection with Defendant's remaining counterclaim. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to terminate the pending motions, (Docs. 15, 20). The parties are to appear for a conference before this Court on July 30,2012 at 10:30 a.m."
The one area in which the property developer seems to have made headway is as follows...
"It is GRANTED without prejudice as to Plaintiffs request for specific performance in connection with Plaintiffs remaining claim."
...but, having read the documents, I have no idea what the "remaining claim" is. I don't know what "specific performance" is for that matter.
Where's Band on the Run when you need her?!
Cedars
-
iamwhoiam
What I gather is this.
Watchtower purchased land from the plaintiff under the following conditions. They have 2 years to decide whether they will build on it or not..if they choose not to build on it...they have the right to sell it back to the plaintiff. In the contract, it was also stipulated that if the society goes thru with even trying to get a zone change, then the property is considered purchased in full from the plaintiff. The society went through with the zone change therefore making the possible sell back null and void and the purchase complete. However, after they went thru the motions of the zone change, the towns tax accessor keeps denying them tax-exempt status. Since they are not getting this status, they feel that they can reneg on the original contract agreement. Therefore they are not paying the plaintiff as per the contract agreement and stipulation. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit.
BOTR might be able to give a clearer picture than I. I just glanced over it.
-
cedars
iamwhoiam, yes that's pretty much what I gathered. The $9 million dollars relates to consultancy fees owed to the property company for their assistance in preparing the land following the sale. However, it appears the WT wanted to parachute out of the deal, get their money back on the property and wriggle out of the contract without paying a cent.
I'm just confused about what motions of the Plaintiff (the property company) were denied, and what was accepted, and the significance thereof? I hope BOTR can shed some light...
It's also hard to tell how these legal proceedings work, and what the next stage is (scheduled for July 30th).
Cedars
