Michael/ Lauren civil trial update February 9

[Knights_Mom]

@hut-ho78

Yes, you have a fine history and knowledge of another state. Three years to find New Jersey eviction law thought even after it was posted on these threads in the first few weeks after the actual shooting.

The laws for treble damages are the same.

You keep speaking of 3 years about something but I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[ohnoO]

Ahhh, good save!

I noticed that in your post (that @FitzE pointed out), but thought I would let it go.

[ekat]

In case it matters, here’s the insurance adjuster’s testimony. At approx 8:30, he talks about the remediation company they brought in on January 31st. He even gives the name of the company.

NJ v. Michael Barisone Trial - Direct Exam of Brian Gibson - Public Insurance...

[Sdel]

@ohnoO

One of the interesting things in the civil trial (if we ever get that far) will be the interpretations by all sides as to the verbal agreements. I’ll bet they differ by a mile!

Oh, I can’t wait to hear the details on who negotiated what and made which claims in the process. It may have been scrubbed off the internet, but someone out there knows what was said and by whom and will eventually testify about it.

[hut-ho78]

@ohnoO

Ahhh, good save!

I noticed that in your post (that @FitzE pointed out), but thought I would let it go.

And if “legal professionals” posting here had a clue about civil litigation, “a good save” would not have been necessary.

[ohnoO]

It reminds me of negotiating with my sisters:

Me: Why are you wearing that shirt?
Sister: You told me I could borrow your gray shirt!
Me: But that shirt is blue!

Oh, maybe there are recordings.

[Ambitious_Kate]

@ekat

In case it matters, here’s the insurance adjuster’s testimony. At approx 8:30, he talks about the remediation company they brought in on January 31st. He even gives the name of the company.

See, my impressions of what happened with the house were that the house was “remediated”, de-molded, sheetrock taken down, wall, ceilings removed, floors, etc., then MB was waiting for the check to do the repairs, which finally came, oh, what, May of that year? This was a check to pay for the repairs, and Lauren was crazy to get that check! She thought RG should get that check to do repairs to the house. They mayhave made arrangements for RG to do the repairs, or something, or thought he should, but my guess is that by the time the check came (what was that check 50k?) MB wasn’t necessarily going to use it to pay RG to do the repairs, in fact may well have decided to hire other people to do the repairs. If RG had already done some work, LK may have been taking the position that MB was robbing them blind! RG may well have done work to pay for board. Who knows what she thought RG was owed, but she wanted that check and I don’t think it was going to go to RG. They may even have wanted MB to pay it to RG up front, and have him be the one to do all repairs. Who knows what she thought, but she thought that check should be hers/RG’s that much is certain. That’s why she was exagerating “insurance fraud”, saying MB was pocketing the check. MB probably was going to hire contractors to fix the house with that check. But I don’t think at that point he was going to “hire” RG for the work. This may well have been the start of her “I’ll ruin him” anger. Finding out that MB had received the insurance check by finding it in his office, or going through his mail or something really set her off. She wanted that money!

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

Yes and even real squatters who just drop a little house on land not their own must be formally evicted if one wants them gone. If the land owner is ok about them staying for a while to say keep an eye on things, it is recommended that they sign an Acknowledgement of Tenancy.

In this instance LK and RG staying at the house and paying board/rent, there is no dispute they were tenants. It may be there was dispute as to the value of the “repair and deduct” agreement and it may not have been strictly according to the letter of the law but that would still be ok so long as the owner and tenant agreed. Changing the barn from strictly animal to mixed people and animal and adding wiring and plumbing would be very problematic. Repairing the house from flood damage, no. The majority of that is removing ruined Sheetrock and insulation, flooring, furniture and appliances, drying out and treating for mold, replacing Sheetrock and insulation, flooring, and appliances. Furthermore, a tenant in New Jersey, if the room, apartment, house, etc. is not habitable and the landlord will not repair it or enter into “repair and deduct agreement, has a legal right to report any condition rendering that space inhabitable to the local building inspector and housing authority. Any retaliation against that tenant by the landlord is illegal.

I also found it interesting that a landlord cannot enter a tenant’s area without permission in a residential lease. RC should not have entered their apartment.

I don’t think your Google Law Degree™ is paying off so well.

[Jenerationx]

Hmmm… I have never seen one in a store, but I’ve had this delicious version.

Mississippi Mud Cake

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

RC had no authority to enter a tenant’s unit on a residential unit (less than 3 units) even if sent by the landlord.

I am sure someone has already beat me to it, but how do you know she entered the unit? Is it not possible she was in the hall? How do you know she had no authority to do so, if she did as you allege? Do you know that she didn’t act on an emergent basis? Your Google Law Degree ™ is troublesome, me thinks.

[ohnoO]

Interesting. I remember the check (per LK, I believe) was $150K.

[ekat]

I don’t think they ever mentioned date or amounts for that insurance check in the criminal trial. But Lauren Kanarek sure posted about it here, there, and everywhere.

We do know, per Rob Godwin’s testimony, he wrote up a bill for work on June 18th, 2019, and, per his testimony, Lauren and her dad told him not to submit it because it would “ruin the plan”.

We also know, per his testimony, that by August 5th, he had decided to go to the inspectors, because he wasn’t getting paid for his work.

It will be interesting to find out more details about that “plan” and what ensued between him writing the bill and going to the inspectors.

[ohnoO]

I think I used to have a recipe for a Mississippi Mud Cake and made it once, but it never looked like that picture!

My problem is there are not enough people home now that can eat my other shares.

I used to make a fine coconut custard—not cream. Custard— pie, but I don’t need to eat half of it!

[Unfforgettable]

@hut-ho78

So, board gives access to the common areas of the barn and stalls during the hours set by barn rules and living spaces in a less than 3 living space abode are not to be trespassed by the landlord.

And yet LK and RG refused to respect barn hours.

[Sdel]

@Unfforgettable

And yet LK and RG refused to respect barn hours.

And maybe even living spaces. Litter box in a kid’s bed? Michael’s medications?

[Sdel]

Cut into portions and freeze.

[ohnoO]

@ekat

I don’t think they ever mentioned date or amounts for that insurance check in the criminal trial. But Lauren Kanarek sure posted about it here, there, and everywhere.

We do know, per Rob Godwin’s testimony, he wrote up a bill for work on June 18th, 2019, and, per his testimony, Lauren and her dad told him not to submit it because it would “ruin the plan”.

We also know, per his testimony, that by August 5th, he had decided to go to the inspectors, because he wasn’t getting paid for his work.

It will be interesting to find out more details about that “plan” and what ensued between him writing the bill and going to the inspectors.

Exactly! So what was the “plan” that would be “ruined “ back in June? Were the K’s not getting credit for RG’s sweat and toil?

[erinmeri]

The difference between non-legal professionals who respect legal professionals and certain posters who think a Degree from Google Law ™ somehow renders them authorities on the subject of litigation is eye-opening. The hubris required to not only argue with, but disrespect, a professional’s opinion is astounding. I, personally don’t care if someone is a JD or a career vacuumer. I am extremely thankful for their input.

Anyways… carry on. We see you.

[ohnoO]

I’m not sure it would freeze well. Sounds mushy to me !

[ekat]

@ohnoO

Exactly! So what was the “plan” that would be “ruined “ back in June? We’re the K’s not getting credit for RG’s sweat and toil?

That’s what’s so confusing to me. If they weren’t getting credit, then why not submit the bill?

But then again, these are people who have bragged for 3+ years about audios, videos and transcripts but don’t want to give them up to help their civil suit. Under subpoena no less.

I don’t get it.