Macon Lugny

[Nellie Macon]

Totally wrong Durendal -I would have thought so too but not in our case. This is also a matter of public record - look it up for yourself - same judge - no chance at all.

[Durendal]

Totally wrong Durendal -I would have thought so too but not in our case. This is also a matter of public record - look it up for yourself - same judge - no chance at all.

But you got refund of costs?

Ergo you were sucessful?

[Nellie Macon]

No refund of costs - only £26K from the £50K she conned out of us because our lawyer made an error on the pleading.

[Ruddler]

Actually, the Judgement starts with "This is a sad case which both parties will almost certainly come to realise would have been better compromised long ago.  As it is, both sides have become bitterly entrenched." and not "I had made up my mind before hearing any of the witnesses...." .  Of course, that is the point of going before a Judge, for him to decide where the parties cannot agree.  Really, it's old ground (I'm surprised it was alluded to, so many years on, by a previous poster - unless there is something else they were meaning to refer to?) but it's the credibility issue which was the most eye-catching in the Judgement.  Maybe if you let the JEP have the full judgement they could publish something by way of balance? I wasn't aware they had printed such a prejudicial piece after the hearings.  Hopefully you've been able move on from what must been a difficult (and expensive where m'learned friends are concerned!) time.

[Dylan]

Actually, the Judgement starts with "This is a sad case which both parties will almost certainly come to realise would have been better compromised long ago.  As it is, both sides have become bitterly entrenched." and not "I had made up my mind before hearing any of the witnesses...." .  Of course, that is the point of going before a Judge, for him to decide where the parties cannot agree.  Really, it's old ground (I'm surprised it was alluded to, so many years on, by a previous poster - unless there is something else they were meaning to refer to?) but it's the credibility issue which was the most eye-catching in the Judgement.  Maybe if you let the JEP have the full judgement they could publish something by way of balance? I wasn't aware they had printed such a prejudicial piece after the hearings.  Hopefully you've been able move on from what must been a difficult (and expensive where m'learned friends are concerned!) time.

My friend Dylan thanks you for that.

[Ruddler]

And he is very welcome.  I rather think posters should sometimes engage critical faculties before accepting at face value all that appears on blogs/fora.  A little, er, judicious digging before posting sometimes creates more light than heat!

[Nellie Macon]

Ruddler- they obviously don't report every word of the judge's summing up, just as they didn't allude to all the correspondence from us pleading with her for a compromise because we did not want to go to court and just wanted to be able to get on with our lives. However as she refused to give us "even one penny" of the funds expended on her property through her deceit, we had very little choice.

Yes, we have put it behind us, however we have never really recovered financially and the stress over the 4 1/2 years it took to resolve the case definitely affected our health.

That's why I am really sympathetic to the plight of the Pinels.

[Ruddler]

Yes, no matter how great an inheritance you might have come by or how much cash you could possibly save up, once those lawyers get their hooks into it won't last too long!  Points of principle definitely don't come cheap however you look at it.

[rogueelement]

A brief review of the case in question might offer a more truthful version than the one sided view we are being presented with. the case is in the public archives.
It would be possibly better for all parties to let this go , rather than open another can of worms , which would serve none of us , Nellie, not anyone else any benefit.
Let it go .

[Ruddler]

Second that emotion Spart!

[Nellie Macon]

Just finally on the point of the judge's opening comments when pronouncing his judgement - the judgement is a prepared statment which he reads out and becomes part of the pubilc record, however his opening repmarks are ad-lib and apart from the court stenographer who will have written them somewhere, these opening remarks do not form part of the public record. However as there were upwards of 50 people in the courtroom that day, there were a lot of people who heard what he said.

Anyway, thank you for the opportunity of being able to put forward my side of the story, this is apprecaited.

[Dylan]

A brief review of the case in question might offer a more truthful version than the one sided view we are being presented with. the case is in the public archives.
It would be possibly better for all parties to let this go , rather than open another can of worms , which would serve none of us , Nellie, not anyone else any benefit.
Let it go .

Curiously Spart, I agree with you wholeheartedly, once something is settled, it is exactly what it says on the tin - settled!