|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Demeralda schreef:
Well, gee, if you think you might not trust the arbitrator, you don't AGREE to the process. That's my point! Once you agree to binding, there's no argument out of it.
They should've known who/what they'd be dealing with, including the possible worst case scenarios, before agreeing to something so ridiculous. If they don't trust the process, they should continue with their suits and counter-suits.
Demeralda, your point is not THE point. It's not a matter of trusting the arbitrator. The court can order arbitration, and there are several reasons the court can vacate an arbitration award. Ask the lawyer. |
|
|
Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:39 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
ain't over til the fat lady sings!!!  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:10 pm |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Well it must be over cause I saw her sing just the other night.
|
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:01 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
| |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:17 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
| Seems to me that it wasn't a court Ordered arbitration. The argreed to it. Because the City thought for sure they could get over on the owner. |
|
|
|
Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:49 pm |
|
|
00SL2
F L I N T O I D
|
Well, you could go to the Circuit Court clerk's office and review the many cases under Vemulapalli's name to VERIFY information, also review a number of Michigan Court of Appeals opinions online where Vemulapalli is a party.
Your saying "the City thought for sure they could get over on the owner" is a ridiculous statement. |
|
|
|
Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:50 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
yeah...the insinuation "get over" is a bit harsh,   |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:34 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
00SL2 schreef:
Well, you could go to the Circuit Court clerk's office and review the many cases under Vemulapalli's name to VERIFY information, also review a number of Michigan Court of Appeals opinions online where Vemulapalli is a party.
Your saying "the City thought for sure they could get over on the owner" is a ridiculous statement.
Not really, Do you remmember the quotes from the City Attorney. Or even THE DON's reaction at the dinner. I'm having a problem remmembering if that as was a DDA dinner or some Attorney's dinner. I'll try to find it. I've been meaning to get some more information from that meeting anyay. The Don or the City Attorney never once thought or felt that they would ever get a value close to a million dollars. IT's not so much what they are saying. It's how they are saying it. I can't play poker because I can't lie with a straight face. I do now how to read people pretty well. Especially when you know someone! Understand thier motiations. I do believe, (and I'm not the ony one) that the City really thought they would. It's the same thing with the Marvin Riley deal. The Mayor is trying to get over on Kearsley Golf view estates. The City recouped approxamately 120,000 from the court when the prior owners left it in default. Riley bought it from the court. Free and clear of any liens. The amount owed the city was 160/180ish. Riley, informed the city they could petition the court because there was funds in court from the bankruptcy of the prior owners. The City took that infromation and recouped much of the city's money. But, the Mayor wants a PAYOFF of 180,000 from Riley. Even if... someone could legitimately, and logically think that Riley owed the City anything. It would have to be 180,000 - the 120,000 that the city got from the court! But, that's not what the DON wants.
Granted, I cannot say I have a 100 percent sound bite of someone saying verbatum that the city was going to get over on Kumar. But, there is plenty of evidence to prove it. Based on the DON's track record of how he does business. |
|
|
|
Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:34 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
First of all, if it was easy to get out of an arbitration decision, it wouldn't be arbitration.
An arbitration award may be vacated if:
(A) The award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
(B) There was evident partiality or corruption on the part of the arbitrators….
(C) The arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
(D) The arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter was not made.
Those are pretty big wrongdoings to get it overturned. Basically it sounds like gross misconduct or gross incompetence would be required to get out of it.
So yes, the idiocy of entering into a process like this and not liking the outcome is *THE* point. |
|
|
|
Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:43 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
