Is a contempt of court that big a deal in civil cases? Could JK, KK, LK actually be arrested?
5 Likes
- I refuse under the 5th Amendment to cooperate on the case, deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum I initiated because my evidence may incriminate myself in direct opposition to what I stated the contents were.
24 Likes
The filing also explained the basis for the cross claim against Barisone: that he made a verbal barter agreement with LK and RG agreeing to let them live in the house and board 5 horses in exchange for $5,000 per month and the renovation work, which, according to SGF, was in violation of their lease agreement with MB.
They’re saying they, SGF, never agreed to let her live there and never agreed to the “verbal barter agreement”, and that Barisone’s doing so violated his lease of the facility.
3 Likes
No. They are saying that they are not liable because they didn’t agree to parties living there.
22 Likes
I would bet all day long that Seeker has never been KK. My money is on LK for this!
18 Likes
That brief also states that Michael was allowed to buy equity into the LLC. That changes the ownership and rights to the property up a bit….
12 Likes
Interesting to see that in writing…
6 Likes
Here are the exact words in the filing, least any incorrect information be presented (ETA: there are some format errors from copy/pasting from the PDF filing, please see the next post for the screenshot of this filing):
“Barisone was looking to open a training facility in New Jersey and John Lundberg was looking for someone t o train him in dressage. The Lundbergs, through their corporation, SGF, purchased farmland located at 411 W. Mill Road, Long Valley, New Jersey (“the Property”). SGF entered into a very crude lease agreement with Barisone that permitted him to build a wo SGF. rld class equestrian facility on the Property as well as buy equity into Lauren Kanarek was a student/client of Barisone. Although not allowed pursuant to the terms of Barisone’s lease with SGF, Barisone entered into an “oral barter arrangement” with Kanarek and her boyfriend, Robert Goodwin (“Goodwin”) , wherein they would be allowed to: 1) live on the New Jersey Property; 2) board their five (5) horses; and 3) receive training from Michael Barisone for $5,000 and the services of Robert Goodwin in renovating the Property. Given the fact that Kanarek did not have a lease with SGF her status for all times relevant hereto, amount to nothing more than a trespasser. {02870991.DOCX;1 }”
9 Likes
That’s what I said. SGF never agreed to LK and RG living there. They’re saying that Barisone’s agreeing to them living there was in violation with his lease agreement of the facility.
SGF is acknowledging that Barisone had a “verbal barter agreement” with LK and RG, and that that agreement was in violation of his lease of the facility from SGF.
1 Like
Before anything goes to the jury SGF (and RC - she’s a defendant in this too, also with a cross-claim against MB) will have their opportunities to show why they should not be held liable and any evidence they have that puts the liability on MB.
4 Likes
Yes, MB was a part owner of SGF. So what?
The point being THEIR LIABILITY not the infraction of the violation itself.
8 Likes
You are misstating the facts. The filings do not say “violated”. The filings say “Although not pursuant to the terms of Barisone’s lease with SGF”. Language matters in legal proceedings.
38 Likes
The point is LK went on and on about MB only being a leasee, not an owner.
23 Likes
Bolding mine.
I don’t think MB was permitted to “buy equity into Lauren Kanarek”.
A pdf of the actual document was linked in to OP.
Then he might have actually had the right to enter into the verbal barter and allow LK to stay there. It depends on the governing documents of the LLC. Can’t know without seeing it. Again, we are only seeing the one side and it’s claims and theory of the case.
10 Likes
Yes, I know, copying from a PDF, while on a cell phone isn’t perfect, which is exactly why I posted a screenshot immediately after.
ETA: I will go and add a disclaimer about the copy errors and direct views to my subsequent post with the screenshot, to remove any confusion it may cause.
14 Likes
You are correct. And technically they did not assert this in their actual cross-claim, yet. Their cross-claim against MB is about their indemnification waiver.
They may be raising this now as a possible defense re: their liability to LK, however. In calling her a trespasser, they are stating she had no right to be on the property, therefore they owe her nothing.
17 Likes
