2 Plaintiff's and 2 Defendants in one case. Is that make sense?

[cptndob]

hello everyone, I have a case in the Small Claims Court with an owner of a vehicle who lived in the Apartment for 6 years that was denied parking in the Garage below the Building that we live in that forced us to park in the street where the truck was vandalized and received multiple tickets and towing with impoundment. The reason that the first roommate truck owner was asked to move in with the Disabled Elderly friend of ours was because he provided "In Home Support Services" and drove him around. Our elderly friend is a Month to Month Tenant because his lease ran out from 1985. The truck owner roommate paid rent to the elderly Friend who in turn paid the Landlord. Applications for Rent were filled out and letters were written, but we never received an answer. Unfortunately, the property is owned by the City so we are under State Law, but no one in the Apartment is Rent Assisted. The Building is Project Assisted. The Management Company who was managing the complex at the time is no longer there. I have a Durable Power of Attorney for our friend who is in the Hospital right now. I was told that the Case had to be filed by the Roommate because the truck that received the tickets was in his name. I was also told that the Validity of the Roommates Tenancy is at question despite the fact that the Management knew of our presence in the Apartment. The property is leased by a Corporation who hires the Management. At first it was the truck owner vs. the Corporation, then I added the previous Management Company as a Defendant because I don't want to leave any one out. Now I believe that I should amend the Case again and include our elderly friend because his written tenancy is a little more dependable for the substantial reduction of services that he used prior us being there for 20 years and it is in writing also. The parking permit that we were denied states that every unit is entitled to a parking spot with emphasis on the disabled. I believe that it is a case of discrimination that our friend's privilege was taken away, rented out for cash by a previous manager to someone who doesn't live in the Building.
The local agencies won't help us because it is a Project Based Rental Assistance. I am the person who put up the money for all the $10,000 expenses. Does it make sense for me to have a POA for both the truck owner roommate and a POA for elderly friend then I sue the 2 Defendants? Is the Judge going to think that I am nuts or a pain in the neck to the system? How do I address the situation. I have 50 pages of documentation in the case. THANK YOU.

 

[disagreeable]

If the management company did not recognize the "in home support servant" as a regular tenant, they are entitled to not issue them a parking permit. Any issue of a right to have a permit to display, should have been argued by the tenant years ago. The management company is not responsible for someone breaking parking enforcement laws. That was a choice. It appears the tenant is not the one who broke them. It was the provider. The provider is liable. The tenant must go to court and file any action they feel they have. They must be prepared to make their case and answer questions. A POA does not allow you to represent someone in court. You must be a lawyer. They should name the provider who illegally parked the vehicle as a defendant.

If the provider owned the illegally parked vehicle, they should not have illegally parked it. It was a choice.

 

[cptndob]

hello disagreeable, I don't understand how the provider parked illegally. Do you mean that he should not have got the tickets? It was not by his choice to get the tickets. Parking tickets are something you get by being vulnerable in the street and it is a big inconvenience to have to always remember what day it is for this side of the road to clean and move your vehicle every two hours or you get a ticket and so on. Vandalism in the street is avoided by parking in a garage off the street. Parking in a Garage is how to prevent all of this totally. This situation has had many attempts to resolve the issue by meetings, letters, and an agency hearing involving the management. The result all that time was that we would get the old parking spot back again soon. Soon never happened. The parking permit application says that every unit is entitled to one spot. Apartments with Disable persons get more preference. The purpose of having the vehicle by the IHSS provider who was a tenant was to transport the elderly tenant and run errands for him. I just don't think that under state law the Provider's Tenancy is not justified because the management never received an rent directly from the provider. It came from the elderly person with the expired lease, but paid in a large share by the provider. I was told that to have a case against the management, the provider who the vehicle is registered to had to file the case. I don't know if the validity of his tenancy is a determining factor to claim the lack of a parking privilege. The Elderly person has a written agreement stating that he has parking. The parking application does not say anything about the requirement of a rental agreement to get a parking permit. It references only to the occupants of the units. The parking spot designated to his apartment was used unconditionally by the elderly tenant and a previous roommate before the provider for 20 years. Should I be looking at the elderly person just claiming a reduction in services? There was no charge for the Parking space that he used previously. All I know is that I am out $10,000 for funding all the unnecessary expenses associated with the vehicle because it was in the street when it should have had parking off the street. The designated spot in the garage was vacant the whole time. It is clear that they were discriminating against the vehicle and the rights of the occupants of the Apartment. Currently, the case has two Defendants. The corporation who leases the property from the City and the previous Management Company but the specific people that were involved are no longer around. I don't know if I am just spinning wheels here eating $10,000 when it is obvious that they are being creeps for causing it, when they could have just not made trouble for the Apartment. They never said no, just didn't answer. THANKS AGAIN.

 

[cptndob]

There are Police reports to document the Vandalism on the vehicle while out in the street during this issue. Should I forget about the tickets because you can't justify an "Illegal act" committed as a result of someone else's actions? Then what do I have for a case?

 

[army judge]

You chose to park YOUR truck on the street, repeatedly.
Or, you gave the use of your truck to a scofflaw.
The management company owed you no duty to permit you (or anyone) to park YOUR truck in their garage.
The tenant had no vehicle, thus no dog in this fight.
We gave you, or your alter ego this advice a few weeks ago.
It won't change regardless of the times you ask the same question.

You still have no case.

Good luck in small claims, and I'll save you the trouble.

You won your case.

Hooray for you!

 

[cptndob]

Thank you judge. Despite all the work that I put into this case, I will honor your opinion and cancel the case. Your opinion carries allot of weight with me. Have a great day.
.

 

[cptndob]

Its always about having the money to spend. I would much rather let a professional do the job and I go back to building. Thanks again and have a great day.

 

[army judge]

Thank you judge. Despite all the work that I put into this case, I will honor your opinion and cancel the case. Your opinion carries allot of weight with me. Have a great day.
.

That's very gracious and magnanimous of you, Captain.
I'd rather tell you what i believe to be true than blow smoke up your you know where.
Best of luck to you, sir.

 

[cptndob]

yes judge, I appreciate you holding back the smoke. The legal issues are minor compared to the fact that I have accepted a responsibly (POA) of a dear friend's well being. A stubborn friend who still thinks he is coming home from the hospital no matter what I tell him. I have told him that I am up to the point of signing the settlement agreement on the UD. That just gets a few tears. I haven't told him yet that all of his personal life is in the top drawer of his cabinet at the hospital. All of it. Thank God for his best friend' s support on what I am doing. It is not an easy job bringing someone's life down to a very simple means. Good day to you.

 

[Betty3]

That's sad & I'm sure hard on you. Thank you for what you are doing for your friend. I just wanted to say that.

 

[disagreeable]

Having been in the same position a few times, I can appreciate your sacrifice. I have even harbored "runaway" old people, who wanted to return home from care and were being held in "limbo" while another care place was organized. It can be a trial.

yes judge, I appreciate you holding back the smoke. The legal issues are minor compared to the fact that I have accepted a responsibly (POA) of a dear friend's well being. A stubborn friend who still thinks he is coming home from the hospital no matter what I tell him. I have told him that I am up to the point of signing the settlement agreement on the UD. That just gets a few tears. I haven't told him yet that all of his personal life is in the top drawer of his cabinet at the hospital. All of it. Thank God for his best friend' s support on what I am doing. It is not an easy job bringing someone's life down to a very simple means. Good day to you.