Court Opinion

ID: 9593110
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:19:44.356065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:18.535381
License: Public Domain

SCHWARTZMAN, Judge,
specially concurring.
I fully concur with the opinion in this case, but write specially to give vent to a few legal/philosophieal musings:
1. This legal “feud” is, at least temporarily, now brought to a merciful termination point; much to the relief, I might speculate, of District Judges Haman and Judd.
2. After four separate case filings, numerous motions, one court trial, and consolidated appeals, spanning eight years, the parties are back to ground zero, right where they started. Realistically, for all the parties excepting their legal counsel, these cases have been nothing short of a financial drain and legal boondoggle, an exercise in futility. Hopefully, the attorneys obtained their retainers up front.
3. This dispute centers over a small piece of landlocked real estate that sold at auction for the princely sum of $495. One might question why Bossingham would bid on such a parcel, which has no intrinsic commercial worth, other than to the Pines? To which a response might be, why did Kljavin and his corporation, the Pines, let this parcel go to a complete stranger for a pittance? I fear that both parties got far less than what they did or did not bargain for.
4. The bottom line or irony is this: there are just some human situations, relationships and entanglements for which our legal system has no helpfiil response; or, that the parties would have been better off to work out their own solutions in a civil and courteous manner without the full baggage of all these lawsuits. Their legal journey ends right where it began. They are older, poorer, but hopefully, wiser.
Further, this jurist sayeth naught.