var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
spindle
July 28, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

Except we won't read her twitter account, it's already closed!

Amanda Bonnen has closed her Twitter account and the post is gone, which probably is all Horizon wanted, but now that the suit is public, the post will continue to live

[www.therealestatebloggers.com]

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
clickbam
July 28, 2009 11:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spindle:

\"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization\"(from one of the owners of Horizon via therealestateblogger.com)

I think that statement is more likely to make me not want to do business with them than a statement about mold in a single apartment.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Wombatish
July 28, 2009 7:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@spindle: Or she already settled with them, rather than take it to court and win (if her apartment really was moldy, she really did properly notify them, and they really did tell her to eff off; all reasonably easy to prove.... it's not defamation if it's true!)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
timmclargehuge
July 28, 2009 10:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Wombatish: If she did settle with them then its extra funny. She settled, and now they really get their reputation dragged through the mold.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
hungryhomer
July 28, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yay, frivolous lawsuits. If it was the obligation of Horizon to keep the apartments free of mold, then Amanda has quite the counter-suit on her hands. Endangering the health of your tenants generally doesn't look good in court.

Otherwise, I still think Amanda has a leg to stand on in her defense. Considering she apparently has only 15 followers (according to Twitter), I highly doubt her tweet was capable of degrading \"its reputation as a landlord in Chicago\".

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
AngryK9
July 28, 2009 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: SHe would have a countersuit if she filed complaints about the mold and the complex management did not lift a finger to do anything about it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
July 28, 2009 5:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: @Cogito Ergo Bibo: Unfortunately, truth is not always a defense against libel or slander. Also, whether the information was communicated to 15, 15 million, or just 1 person is irrelevant (as far as the law is concerned).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
fantomesq
July 28, 2009 6:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: How is truth not always a defense? Defamation is

A false statement that injures someone's reputation and exposes him to public contempt, hatred, ridicule, or condemnation. If the false statement is published in print or through broadcast media, such as radio or TV, it is called libel. If it is only spoken, it is called slander.

If the statement is not false, then per se it is not defamation

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
July 28, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: Got that backward. Sorry. Truth is a defense against libel, but whether Horizon thinks it is ok to sleep in a moldy apartment is the question. That may not be true.

The number of people who hear the comments is irrelevant.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
WhoAsked You
July 28, 2009 8:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: How is the number of people seeing comments irrelevant? That goes directly to damages. There is no way they can prove $50k that is a joke. That is just to intimidate her.

I hope her defense attorney digs up and shows how much money they lost from not fixing the mold.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Xerloq
July 30, 2009 7:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@WhoAsked You: If I think something defamatory about you, but don't speak it, you couldn't win a defamation suit against me.

As soon as I share that thought with one person, defamation has occurred. Therefore the number of people who read the comment is irrelevant to the question of whether defamation occurred, so long as one person read it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
July 28, 2009 6:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xerloq: It doesn't necessarily have to be that Horizon truly believes that mold is OK. As long as the tenant is only expressing her opinion based on her treatment, she's fine. AFAIK, you can say a lot of things about a person or business that is rude or demeaning, but unless you had the actual intent to defame or harm them, then you're fine.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gover57
July 28, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: yeah, as far as i know (and the laws in canada are easier to deal with in this case anyways) libel, slander and defamation have to do with say9ing something damaging that isn't true - if there is in fact mold and she makes a comments about it, it's not against the law. and what about personal opinion - if you're using personal opinion - not an attack, then you can say what you want.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
July 28, 2009 4:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hungryhomer: Just musing here... If you do a \"Twitter search\" can't you read posts by people you aren't following? At least you can with Tweet Deck.

I swear I only use it for work.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Real Cheese Flavor
July 28, 2009 4:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jabberkaty: It will also show up (albeit fleetingly due to the volume of posts) on the public timeline.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
July 28, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Real Cheese Flavor: So feasibly, if someone happened to have searched \"Horizon\" for some reason more people could have seen it. All very theoretical, and I still doubt it had much impact.

It would have had less effect if there hadn't been any mold.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: Well, and truth is the ultimate defense. If the apartment was moldy, the landlord knew it and they didn't do anything about it, there you go.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SgtMajorFragg
July 28, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: Agreed. My fiancée owns numerous rental properties and we are very proactive about repairs. For example, in one unit we paid for a new roof and kitchen cabinets due to heavy rain. We also paid for an exterminator to keep squirrels out of the wall board. In another, we had the apartment tented, replaced tile, stove and refrigerator (just old, folks) and a new washer and dryer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
yesteraeon
July 28, 2009 4:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dooley: This really shows the power of Twitter. In that a tweet that theoretically should only have been seen by 15 people has ended up being seen by thousands.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ophmarketing
July 28, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@yesteraeon: As it was in the Chicago Tribune, on every Chicago news station, and in Consumerist, I'd say the number of people who saw this is now closer to a million.

Nice work, Horizon! I think we've all learned a valuable lesson about social media, haven't we?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RecordStoreToughGuy_starcommandseries.com
July 28, 2009 4:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@yesteraeon: Really more of the power of the Streisand Effect. If they had quietly contacted her to resolve the issue, we would have never heard of it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
pjorg
July 28, 2009 4:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hard to really know if the case has merit without knowing what happened to cause her to post that.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
lehrdude
July 28, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pjorg:


From the linked CBS Article...


\"Because Bonnen's Twitter account is set to 'public,' everyone following on Twitter can view the defamatory statement, the suit said. \"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
EdnaLegume
July 28, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If there really is mold in her apartment, is it still defamation? or the part where she implied that Horizon thinks it's ok to sleep in a moldy apartment, is that the bad part?

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
July 28, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: Most rental contracts have terms that release the landlord or management company from actually being responsible for anything for which they don't want to be responsible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skankingmike
July 28, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@econobiker: they won't hold up in court. The landlord is responsible for all things in the property. Its like those stupid signs that say their not responsible for your car if it gets hit by a shopping cart, it most certainly is.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lilyHaze
July 28, 2009 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skankingmike: Really?!? Is that true? I've seen those signs in every supermarket/big store.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 28, 2009 7:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lilyHaze: If a supermarket puts up a sign saying \"By setting foot inside our store you consent to being beaten and robbed by our employees\" does that mean it's legal for them to beat and rob you? No.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
July 28, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Actually, it would be. You can consent to stuff like that. Boxers consent to stepping in the ring and getting beat up. People who go to dominatricies consent to getting beat up, too (i'm sure you could even put in a fantasy where she takes all of your money). When you go to certain music venues, you consent to them filming you etc.

In every battery or robbery case I've ever seen in court, the prosecutor ALWAYS has to establish that permission was not given.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
madog
July 28, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@billy: While that may be OK in those particular professions, it still doesn't mean anyone can just say, \"By entering this store you consent to being beaten and raped by our managers and their families\". I don't think there are jobs that would require that statement....

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RobertBaron
July 28, 2009 9:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madog:

You can't consent to being raped. ;)

Anyway, IANAL, but I think if the signs are completely visible and if there is no question that a person entering a store consents to being beaten, then the store is legally off the hook.

It's a different story In situations like a valet sign saying \"We are not responsible for lost or damaged items or vehicles.\" Especially if negligence can be proven or if a valet driver damages the car or steals an ipod from it. Of course, this has to be proven, but simply having a blanket sign absolving them of any wrongdoing is not an adequate legal get out of jail free card.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
July 28, 2009 9:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@RobertBaron: I totally agree and I should have made myself more clear to mythago: a store claiming non-responsibility for its negligence is totally different than a customer consenting to an otherwise-illegal act.

As stated above, though: consent is a defense to rape. Boy, this is getting way off-topic.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
billy
July 28, 2009 9:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: Well, you didn't say anything about being raped, but isn't consent usually a defense to rape?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
July 28, 2009 4:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: You forget, they probably don't care at all about winning the suit, and it'll probably be dropped by the end of the week. They just wanted to intimidate her into shutting up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rhys1882
July 28, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: \"Truth\" is an absolute defense to defamation. If her apartment has mold, it seems likely that their suit wouldn't survive. It's possible that they don't believe there is mold and she is just complaining about a non-existent problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pjorg
July 28, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@EdnaLegume: Truth is a defense to libel, but like you mentioned, it's more complicated than that.

She didn't just say that her apartment is moldy (in fact, she didn't say that at all). Just that her landlord thought living in a moldy apartment was okay. If they gave her that impression with their actions (or inaction), then she's all set.

Still, even if she can't, I'm pretty sure you have to actually prove damages to win a defamation suit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
July 28, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@pjorg: even if there WERE damages, they would have no case; otherwise consumerist would have been sued out of existence a LONG time ago. They implied it was okay, by their actions- assuming all the information presented here is correct.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
BrandonOBrien
July 28, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe I shouldn't tweet about how my condo association still hasn't fixed my leaking roof after a full month of rain storms have destroyed my kitchen ceiling...

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
July 28, 2009 6:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BrandonOBrien: Good luck with that. I've been begging my condo board for 5 years to stop the leaks. I get over 20 gallons of water in my condo every time it rains. Not kidding, it fills up a 5 gallon bucket at least four times a day when it rains. My wall is so filled with mold and wetness, if you touch it your finger goes through. It looks like bleu cheese dressing the mold I scrape off and bleach. I have a child in the house and I'm scared for his health. I run HEPA air filters (3 of them) on full blast 24/7 and keep my child away from that damaged area. All these years we tried to sell and get out, but no one in their right mind would buy the condo with bad leaks and mold damage, even at a hefty discount.


Finally, after 5 years and two completely new condo boards, construction is finally started to repair the building (not just patches which never fixed the problems, actual renovations.) I am so happy they are finally getting it started.


I'm still holding my breath, however, as the workers have not gotten to my unit yet and a woman is gathering forces to overthrow the current condo board to stop all the repairs, because she has no leaks and doesn't agree that she and others on the side of the building without leaks should have to pay for the renovations of those on the side with leaks. If she wins I think I am going to jump off the roof.


We are NEVER living in a condo again. I'd rather rent or buy a single family house with no homeowners association. If we were renting, we'd have been easily able to move if we had problems when a lease was up. If we owned a single family house, we'd have just had leaks repaired right the first time. Having a condo has been a nightmare.


A word of advice, if I may, keep all your communication with the board in writing - very detailed accounts. Every bit of communication. Never by phone - only use email, fax (with confirmation sheet) or certified mail. Keep a big file on it. You may need it in the future.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SnoopyFish
July 28, 2009 9:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Julia789: Wow, Some lady is trying to stop repairs because her unit is completely fine while yours gets 20 gallons of water every time it rains. Just reading that irritates the hell out of me. I bet it's hard for you to refrain from going ape shit on the condo board lol.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Julia789
July 28, 2009 10:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SnoopyFish: It's sort of one side of the building vs. the other side of the building, with one side having bad leaks and the other side no issues. It's a very expensive renovation project, so I can understand why some are worried - we have to pay a couple hundred dollars a month for a few years to pay for it.

The ones protesting don't understand that problems anywhere in the building affect their resale value, their insurance rates, etc. They also seem to think that caulk would fix the problem. They don't understand architecture or construction. The building is old! Renovations are inevitable.

Again, it just comes down to condo ownership being a nightmare. Some people have no problems, but I know so many with other horror stories. I don't want to go through this again. Once the renovations are complete and our condo is in resale condition - and hopefully the housing market perks back up - we are out of here.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
almightytora
July 28, 2009 4:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Give me a break. It should be the TENANT suing the REALTOR for the moldy apartment.

Is there any story before this? Has Ms. Bonnen complained to Horizon Realty in the past about this and hasn't received a reply?

What an idiotic move for the realty company. Like the tenant has $50k to pay if she does lose the case, which I doubt. Does the realtor have proof (statistically) that they have lost that much reputation due to a single Tweet on a message board? Greedy bastards.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
July 28, 2009 5:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@almightytora:

I'd be counter suing for court costs and punitive damages. After I have someone come in to test air quality/mold presence, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jh
July 28, 2009 5:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@almightytora: As other posters mentioned, this suit itself probably makes it worse for the company- (1) this barely-seen post is now plastered all over the internet with their name on it, and (2) most people will complain and argue but won't go so far as to get a lawyer to defend their rights in court. With this lawsuit, they've effectively forced her to get a lawyer, and without a doubt the enterprising lawyer will suggest a countersuit that should be easy to win.


In the end it will cost them much more in legal fees and settlement/judgement costs. Another example of how being the bully will come back to bite you in the ass.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
KyleOrton
July 28, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@almightytora: You had me at \"suing the REALTOR.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
nightshade74
July 28, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can we say Streisand Effect? [en.wikipedia.org] ??

Reply
1 replies
","
\"user-pic\"
formergr
July 28, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well the attention their suit is getting in the press should just fix their injured reputation right up!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
July 28, 2009 4:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Even the original story from CBS-2 doesn't really tell us anything about her actual complaint, what the property manager did or didn't say or do about the mold, etc. It's just a he-said/she-said thing now. I hope they sent her a letter telling her they thought the apartment was fine, so she has a ready defense against their trumped-up lawsuit. After all, telling the truth in the first place is an excellent defense against such suits, hopefully she can prove that she was doing so.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
PsiCop
July 28, 2009 4:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

IANAL, but this looks suspiciously like a SLAPP to me.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 28, 2009 7:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: Depends on whether she lives in a state with anti-SLAPP laws.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
varro
July 28, 2009 11:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: Illinois has an anti-SLAPP law.

That's all I can say, as IANAILL, but Eyebrows McGee is...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jc364
July 28, 2009 7:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: Thanks for the link. The description of SLAPP from your link seems to describe the situation pretty well.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
CityGuySailing
July 28, 2009 4:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does anyone hear the words \"COUNTER-SUIT\" echoing through the hallways of some hungry law firm?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 28, 2009 7:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CityGuySailing: No. What would the damages be? $5 for the time it took to restore her Twitter account? Unless there is some law (like an anti-SLAPP statute) mandating damages, what would be the point?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
July 28, 2009 4:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

First off, IANAL but the law is pretty clear when it comes to private citizens in these cases.

this is just stupid. They know they have no case, and are just trying to shut the person up, because there's really nothing else they can do (outside of fixing the problem).

A statement of fact is protected speech. Logic would dictate that the whole statement is correct, given

1) The apartment is moldy
2) The landlords made no earnest attempt to remedy the problem or relocate the renter

The landlord must fix things that present a health risk; therefore, if they do not fix something, it is implying it must not present a health risk, or simply stated, \"it is okay\".

Assuming the tweeter in question really asked the company to fix the problem, and they really did nothing, The judge needs to throw this case out of court, and slap a fine on Horizon, end of story.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
jc364
July 28, 2009 7:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: I might be missing something, but it seems like those two givens are questionable. We don't know if the apartment really was moldy, or even if the moldy apartment was reported to the landlord.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
July 28, 2009 10:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jc364: that's always a possibility, isn't it? i think people are smart enough to know that this only applies if this is real, by now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 4:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@lpranal: I'd rather see all the C-level managers of the property company spend a day in jail for every unit in their portfolio found to still have mold 30 days after the court orders them to correct the problem.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
lpranal
July 28, 2009 5:08 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: a moldy jail. with no cable and walls thin enough so you can hear the other prisoners \"fraternizing\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rdclark
July 28, 2009 4:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the mold has been persistent and the realtor has been ignoring complaints, they'd better backpedal as fast as they can or they're likely to end up going bankrupt over this. It's the sort of thing that blows up really fast.

If on the other hand the tenant has never contacted management about this before, she probably wants to be apartment hunting under an assumed name right about now.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
wcnghj
July 28, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the place is moldy and Horizon did nothing or not enough about it, then she shouldn't have a thing to worry about.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rhys1882
July 28, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It seems interesting that the management company was reading her twitter. Seems to emphasize the fact that anyone could be listening. That's why I prefer Facebook over Twitter because only your friends can see facebook, everyone can see twitter. Not that facebook is particularly safe either.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
s73v3r
July 28, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@wickedpixel: Google Alerts for the win! Each week I get a summary of what a search for my name would pop up. Kinda helps me keep up with what's said about me on the internet.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
wickedpixel
July 28, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: they probably have a standing search for their company name. many companies do that so they receive any tweet that mentions them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JoeDirt
July 28, 2009 4:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Mold is not bad for you until mushrooms start growing in your butt.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Skellbasher
July 28, 2009 4:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If the apartment did have mold in in, then the statement has elements of truth, and as such invalidates the plaintiff's claim.

It's also generally accepted that an intent to defame must be proven. It should be obvious that a Twitter post seen by 15 people was not intended to defame, and as such blows their claim right out of the water.

I'd say Ms. Bonnen is legally fine, but shouldn't have to deal with this nonsense.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 28, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skellbasher: How is \"only 15 people read my tweets\" lacking proof of intent to defame? It's still defamation even if not everybody in the universe hears it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jc364
July 28, 2009 7:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skellbasher: IANAL, but I believe that you are correct in that the intent must be proven.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
The Porkchop Express
July 28, 2009 5:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skellbasher: legally fine, made me think of somebody so fine that even the law says they are fine.


do people still say fine as in hot?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
rickn99
July 28, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't know about the elements of truth thing. She didn't just tweet that her apartment has mold. She tweeted that \"Horizon Realty thinks it's OK\" for her to sleep in a moldy apartment.


If they didn't say that and/or she can't prove they said that, then the facts are on Horizon's side. This is assuming that the lawsuit isn't about her stating that she has mold but rather about her accusations about the realty company's response.


That said, what damages did they really incur prior to a public lawsuit?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
I Love New Jersey
July 28, 2009 4:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sounds like the landlord is just following The Chicago Way.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
July 28, 2009 5:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: No, no, no. The Chicago Way is about Clout. Clout with a capital \"C\".

The Chicago Way is when Horizon actually follows through to trial, the honorable judge gives a summary judgement in the plaintiff's favor, and the owner of Horizon takes the judge (his second cousin) out fishing on Lake Michigan the following weekend while they come up with creative shell companies to provide \"contracting\" services for no-bid contracts from City Hall. Part of the money from these contracts will then be funneled back into the reelection campaign of Mayor Daley and his hand-picked aldermen.

That's the Chicago Way.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
PunditGuy
July 28, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: They bring Cladosporium, you bring Memnoniella. That's the Chicago way!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
buffawhat
July 28, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, I used to live in a Horizon realty apartment in Buffalo. I can say that they were a bit shady when I dealt with them, but I wouldn't think they would do this. That company is too big for their britches.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 5:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@buffawhat: ... wouldn't do what? Leave mold in an apartment? Or sue to prevent people from finding out?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cmac
July 28, 2009 4:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just for fun, a link to Horizon's Contact Us page
[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
JohnQPublic
July 28, 2009 6:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I heard that they have a new logo?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
BigPapaCherry
July 28, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JohnQPublic: Shouldn't that say \"So i herd u liek moldy aprtmentz\"?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Princess Leela
July 28, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

IANAL either, so a question about burden of proof here. It's their job to prove the statement WASN'T true, right? Well, it sounds like she no longer lives in the apartment ... so having dealt with enough shady, lying, CYA-ing landlords in my day, I sure hope she has photos of said mold. Because it makes little sense to me that they would file this suit (drawing attention will hurt 'em worse than her tweet ever could have) unless they thought they could \"show\" there was no mold.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
CarbonFiberFootprint
July 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]

Let them know what you think, hopefully they wont sue you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TCama
July 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Horizon sounds like a huge management company. Doesn't this tenant's lease have a binding arbitration clause?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vladthepaler
July 28, 2009 4:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Twitter lacks the depth necessary to substantiate any such claim. For example, the situation might be: tenant called to report mold. Landlord said they'll send someone out to fix the problem on Thursday, and that it's safe for her to stay in the apartment for the time being. Or maybe: tenant called landlord for the fifteenth time to report that her apartment is now thoroughly costed in the mold which has been growing there for the last three months, and the landlord said that since she was still living there the mold must not harmful. Point is: Twittered soundbytes just can't be counted on to contain meaningful information.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
EtherealFlame
July 28, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well of course they want to silence her. If the other tenants see her complaint and start checking for mold as well you can certainly imagine what would happen if it's not confined to just her apartment. It's been my experience in situations like these, it's usually more then one unit. Is it possible for tenants to file a class action law suit with something like this?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There's a better article in the Chicago Sun Times: [www.suntimes.com]


Jeffrey Michael, whose family has run Horizon for more than 25 years, said: \"The statements are obviously false, and it's our intention to prove that.\"


He said that while she moved out recently, the company never had a conversation about the post and never asked her to take it down.


\"We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization,\" he said, noting that the company manages 1,500 apartments in Chicago and has a good reputation it wants to preserve.


What unbelievable assholes.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 28, 2009 7:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: And this, friends, is why in your legal needs you should steer clear of lawyers who advertise themselves as being super-aggressive bulldog types. \"Sue first and ask questions later\" means not asking yourself the most important question: What will ultimately happen if I file this lawsuit?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chocolate1234
July 28, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: Wow. That's just completely unbelievable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient
July 28, 2009 5:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo:
Wow, sue first, huh? I'm looking for apartments in Chicago and coincidentally my roommate set up a meeting with Horizon for later this week.

We'll be canceling that.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: Be sure to let them know why and then as a side remark, tell them you'll be tweeting about it, then mutter things like consumerist, slashdot, etc, etc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 5:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Hate_Brian_Club_I'mNotOnlyThePresidentI'mAClient: Good move. It's always hard enough to wring a security deposit out of a landlord when you leave. No sense risking a lawsuit besides.


BTW, I stumbled on this site in Chicago where residents were discussing the problem. Note the post from John Hoppes. He apparently lives in the same building as the Tweeter and complains of mold and pest problems. So not only are they total jerks, they really might have a mold problem.
[www.chicagobreakingnews.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Shoelace
July 28, 2009 5:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: John Hoppes could be a good witness. For Amanda's sake, I hope he took pictures and documented his concerns with the landlord.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
flamincheney
July 28, 2009 4:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: Nothing like a bullying company clogging up the legal system, while probably forcing their lease holders into arbitration. What an asset to society...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
July 28, 2009 4:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

someone should sick 4chat /b/ on their asses

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
July 28, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red_Flag: Does it still apply if she's already moved out?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Likerock
July 28, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I used to live in a Horizon building myself. Its not too surprising. I had a clogged shower drain when I moved in and they wouldn't come fix it. I wound up doing it myself. They also never kept the heat on in the winter. They would only come check the temperature after they ran the heat for a bit then turn it off after. I wound up speaking with my wallet and going elsewhere when my lease was up.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Halfdeaddavid
July 28, 2009 4:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Mold is not always the issue of the landlord. I run an apartment complex the buildings were built in the 70s so yes there quite often is mold but its something that just needs to be cleaned. The mold comes in the bathroom and sometimes on the window sills. most tenants have no mold issues it tends to only be the people who never do any cleaning that have the problem. There are a few exceptions of course some apartments need new fans and such. but having been in hundreds of different peoples apartments sometimes different tenants but the same apartment, with a few exceptions the mold problems are usually caused by the tenant.

The lawsuit is just stupid though.

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ha! There's a hashtag for Horizon where people are quoting and requoting what has been in the news. Hilarous. Check out #horizon on Twitter. If they thought they had Twitter problems before, they have no idea what they're in for now.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here is a copy of the lawsuit itself (PDF):

[www.chicagonow.com]

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Oh, I really love that. \"Because the statement damaged the Plaintiff's reputation in its business, the statement is libel per se. Damages are presumed.\" I really don't think this reaches the level of libel per se. Which, of course, it really wouldn't if it were a basically true statement.


They're asking for damages \"in excess of $50K\" plus costs. Um, THOSE damages are not presumed. $50K plus costs?! Since filing the lawsuit is going to cost them tons of money in bad publicity, seriously, how much of the damage can be laid at the feet of the Tweeter. All the folks yelling \"Streisand Effect\" are absolutely right.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 5:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: It's typical lawyer mumbo jumbo to make such pompous statements in a lawsuit. If Ms. Bonnen gets a good lawyer (and the chances of this are much greater, now), there will be equal mumbo jumbo in the defense motions.

One problem is she had moved out between the tweet and the suit. The apartment probably did get cleaned at some point, even if it might not have otherwise. So at this point the difficulty is it will be hard to prove one way or the other. Her statement will then be \"it did have mold on the day I made the tweet but since the plaintiff failed to preserve the situation for examination, the plaintiff is just wasting the court's time\". Their statement will be \"please come take a look at the apartment and see that it is nice and clean\".

Even if they win, they lose, because their own action has already hurt them more to the tune of a million dollars or more, now.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
maddiesdad
July 28, 2009 5:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The question is, when are Monster cable going to tag on their damages claim?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
July 28, 2009 5:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is the apartment building where she lived (according to the Sun-Times, the tweeter has already moved out).

[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]
Buena Terrace
4242 N. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60613

The Municipal Code of Chicago as applying to Landlord-Tenant issues would be applicable in this situation. (Municipal Code, Section 5-12-010)

\"This chapter applies to, regulates and determines rights, obligations and remedies under every rental agreement for a dwelling unit located within the City of Chicago, regardless of where the agreement is made, subject only to the limitations contained in Section 5-12-020.\"

Assuming the Municipal Code applies, I urge the ex-tenant-turned-tweeter to lawyer up, specifically exercising her rights under Section 5-12-150 (\"Prohibition on Retaliatory Conduct by Landlord\"), particularly clause (b).

\"5-12-150 Prohibition on retaliatory conduct by landlord.

It is declared to be against public policy of the City of Chicago for a landlord to take retaliatory action against a tenant, except for violation of a rental agreement or violation of a law or ordinance. A landlord may not knowingly terminate a tenancy, increase rent, decrease services, bring or threaten to bring a lawsuit against a tenant for possession or refuse to renew a lease or tenancy because the tenant has in good faith:

(a) Complained of code violations applicable to the premises to a competent governmental agency, elected representative or public official charged with responsibility for enforcement of a building, housing, health or similar code; or

(b) Complained of a building, housing, health or similar code violation or an illegal landlord practice to a community organization or the news media; or

(c) Sought the assistance of a community organization or the news media to remedy a code violation or illegal landlord practice; or

(d) Requested the landlord to make repairs to the premises as required by a building code, health ordinance, other regulation, or the residential rental agreement; or

(e) Becomes a member of a tenant's union or similar organization; or

(f) Testified in any court or administrative proceeding concerning the condition of the premises; or

(g) Exercised any right or remedy provided by law.

If the landlord acts in violation of this section, the tenant has a defense in any retaliatory action against him for possession and is entitled to the following remedies: he shall recover possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in either case, recover an amount equal to and not more than two months' rent or twice the damages sustained by him, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorneys' fees. If the rental agreement is terminated, the landlord shall return all security and interest recoverable under Section 5-12-080 and all prepaid rent. In an action by or against the tenant, if there is evidence of tenant conduct protected herein within one year prior to the alleged act of retaliation, that evidence shall create a rebuttable presumption that the landlord's conduct was retaliatory. The presumption shall not arise if the protected tenant activity was initiated after the alleged act of retaliation.\"

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
July 28, 2009 7:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red_Flag: The question, of course, is whether Tweeting your friends falls under those exemptions.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 5:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red_Flag: So can we get a corporate executive to spend 30 days in jail?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Red_Flag
July 28, 2009 5:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Red_Flag: For reference, you can read the Municipal Code here. [www.amlegal.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
July 28, 2009 5:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here is where the application of libel vs. slander differ. We of course know that libel is written words that give a company a negative image, and slander is spoken words.


However, slander (spoken negative words) generally need to be proven false, whereas libel is a little different. If the complainant can prove that even though the written negative statement is true, it was expected to be kept private (e.g. under a lease contract provision) then libel can still apply. In other words, it's still libel - even if it's true - if there was an expectation of privacy.


IANAL, just a fairly long-time student of such things.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 6:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: Given the provisions of law posted by one poster before yours, it would seem that there is no expectation that the contract or agreement situation was expected to be private.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
July 28, 2009 5:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: I can't imagine that it would be libel in that case, but rather it speaks to me as being a breech of contract, for lack of a better descriptor. Even then it would be down to how the terms of that expectation were laid out.


See, you can ask me not to tell someone your deepest, darkest secrets, but you can't sue me for libel if I go ahead and do it anyway, as long as I stick to the truth when I expose you. Now if I had signed a legally binding document agreeing to keep it between the two of us, then you might have a case for breech of contract. However in order to make the libel claim stick, I think you'd have to prove that the statements are false. Something I believe might be difficult to do, given the existing breech of contract claim, but I digress. I really do think that what you're suggesting represents two different beasts.


Then again, I'm not a lawyer either, so what do I know? And hell, I'm more of a student of common-sense than someone who follows stuff like this, and we all know how little our legal system has to do with common-sense. I could be way off the mark according to the logic of the law. Still, I have to wonder. Something about that doesn't seem right to me at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 5:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: The lawsuit doesn't mention any privacy clauses in a lease. And if she's moved out, the lease couldn't still be binding on her silence, anyway. Regardless, they don't mention such a clause in the papers filed. They're relying on libel per se and claiming that the damages are presumed. Somehow I don't see the statement rising to the level of libel per se.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
July 28, 2009 5:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: They don't have to mention privacy in the suit, it's part of libel law, they've filed a libel suit, thus they've declared that they want restitution under any part of the law. They only have to arrive in court with a lease that dictates tenants behavior as far as privacy.


And, I'm not saying that's what they're going to do, I'm just pointing out that simply declaring \"It's a factual statement\" doesn't automatically get you out of a libel suit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@humphrmi: Just seems odd, given they've seemingly pleaded everything else with such specificity, that they don't also mention the lease (if applicable). I'm absolutely not saying you're wrong (haven't seen libel since my law school days!), just that I would have expected to see it there. You obviously are on more solid ground than I am in knowing it doesn't have to be there to begin with.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Rectilinear Propagation
July 28, 2009 5:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A Google search of Horizon Group Management puts the CBS story sixth on the results page. A search for \"Horizon Group Management\" and Chicago puts the story second on the results page with most of the results on that page also being about this story.

If they were really worried about their reputation why didn't they consider this possibility? Or do they not care if people know that they're sue-happy as long as they convince people that there isn't any mold?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 6:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rectilinear Propagation: Apparently there are at least 2 things they don't care about. Or you can just refer to it as 1 thing like \"their moldy reputation\".

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
July 28, 2009 5:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am not blaming the OP, just presenting a scenerio here:
The question comes in, might Horizon have a leg to stand on in a suit (although weak based on the number of followers she had) because of the choice of words in the tweet. \"Horizon realty thinks it's okay.\" How does she know what they are thinking. One could probably assume what they are thinking based on their actions (or inactions), but she really has no proof that this is what they think.


Had she said something like \"5 days after notifying Horizon about mold, and they still have not shown up to attempt a repair\" she would be stating verifiable facts, or had she clarified that it was HER OPINION: \"Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? I Believe that Horizon realty thinks it's okay.\" she would be 100% ok, but her choice of words may come back to bite her.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 6:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: Even though her tweets were set public, it was in fact addressed to someone else (@JessB123). It was perhaps part of a private conversation simply overheard in public. What if you said those word to a friend out on the streets, and a few people sitting nearby happened to hear it and cancel pending deals with the affected company? The legal question there is, is that conversation a private one, or is it a public statement?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chocolate1234
July 28, 2009 5:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: I really don't think so. According to other posters, she only had 15 followers, and even if other people saw the message, it probably wasn't THAT many. The rental company has the burden of proof, and I think the only thing they can prove is that their lawsuit is what has damaged their reputation.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 6:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@chocolate1234: There is the potential for everyone on Twitter to see the post. Say, for example, you were going to do research on potential living situations in Chicago. You could do a search on \"Horizon Realty\" on Twitter to see if anyone had posted information about them. A post like that one might make me think twice about renting from them.


I agree that it would be hard to prove the damages. How many people DID search on their name? How many based rental decisions on that information? You are also, under most circumstances, required to mitigate your damages. By not asking her to remove the comment first, they've hardly shown the best of faith.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
TheAlarmist
July 28, 2009 6:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, well, isn't HOrizon a little full of themselves? Actually thinking that anyone heard of them, and would be affected by one little tweet? At first, I'd have given the benefit of the doubt but now it looks like they're asking for it! The tens who saw the tweet would have brushed it off and forgot about it. Not now!

I just love stories of digging your own grave...

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
madfrog
July 28, 2009 6:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I fought with my landlord over a mold issue in my apartment, he was a slumlord, always there the first of the month for the money, but never did anything.He claimed that I was making this up just to get out of paying rent. Then we had a sewer leak, that was the final straw. I now live in a beautiful old house, 3 times the size, no flooding, no mold, no plumbing issues (for only $200 mor per month). And it's incredible that I no longer get constant sinus headaches, stomach problems, colds and fatigue since I moved out almost a year ago. I hope she takes them to the cleaners, you go girl!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
savdavid
July 28, 2009 7:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You can sue for anything. Winning a suit is another matter. If Amanda's information was accurate then the company has no case and they know it. Free speech, where arth thou?

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
starzshine
July 28, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't follow the logic of Horizon Management here... so a private citizen has so much clout that a statement about her living conditions has caused them thousands in damages... yet the logical move for them was to blow the whole thing out of proportion and bring the law into it? I would figure that they wouldn't want another sentence involving their \"Good Name\" and mold floating around out there!


I don't know if any of you ever read The Week, but they have a section called \"Only in America\" and I'm always facinated by the number of times lawsuits come up. We really have gone crazy with this whole suing people business.


Does anyone remember the DC judge (or lawyer, something I can't remember) who sued his local Korean owned dry cleaners for over a million dollars for losing his pants? Those poor people were going to move back oversea's because they couldn't afford to fight the guy, and becasue they had a sign outside that said \"Your satisfaction is guaranteed!\"

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Rachacha
July 28, 2009 7:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@starzshine: Many corporations are still trying to figure out how to deal with social media/blogs etc. Just think back 5-7 years ago where the only way to file a public complaint against a company was to TRY to get in contact with your local TV station's consumer reporter, and hope that your story was compelling enough to be included in their weekly \"Action Team\" report. In this situation, the story would air, the company would sue (or settle), and that would be the end of the story. To recover, the corporation would need to take out an advertisement to bring exposure to the company name, or donate to a charity and everyone would forget about the bad situation that 1 consumer had.


Now with social media and websites, the corporations are trying to react in a similar fashion, the problem being that it almost always backfires on them as when they file a lawsuit (justified or not), it gets picked up by blogs (like Consumerist), Social Media sites like Digg and Twitter, and goes \"Viral\" in a matter of hours. The corporation has just been drop kicked across the country, and nothing they say in their \"traditional distribution channels\" (press releases or commercials) will matter. The only way to respond is to create a sincere message usingthe same social media sites that burned them in the beginning to tell their side of the story (ala Domino's reaction to the spitting in the sandwich escapade). Most corporations still don't know how to effectively do this.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
jamesdenver
July 28, 2009 7:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey look -- instead of staging their model units they ask current renters to volunteer their apartments for shoots - and compensate them with a measley $25


[www.horizonrealtygroup.com]

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Chris J. Stone
July 28, 2009 8:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

A prime of example of realizing you need to watch what you say over the Internet. I'm fascinated by these stories. Here's someone who got sued. Someone was fired for being seen on Facebook after calling in \"sick.\" Someone was evicted after Facebook photos revealed they were trashing their place. Someone fucked over their job interview for badmouthing the company on Twitter beforehand.

The good thing about the Internet is that information is free. The bad thing about the Internet... is that information is free.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dragonpup
July 28, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Horizon has a near 0% chance of winning in court. As a company they must not only must they prove that Bonnen's statement is untrue, they must also prove it was made with malice.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dragonpup
July 28, 2009 8:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Horizon has a near 0% chance of winning in court. As a company they must not only must they prove that Bonnen's statement is untrue, they must also prove it was made with malice.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
humphrmi
July 29, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonpup: True statements can still be libelous. Go ahead, look it up.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 9:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonpup: I wouldn't call it a zero chance. I'd say it's low, but not zero. Amanda didn't just give an opinion, she stated it like a fact. That means if the plaintiff can show that the apartment did not have mold, then she has to present a defense to defeat that.

Amanda's post, however, did not really cause any significant damage to Horizon. If she had not been sued, it would never have been retweeted around by thousands, or blogged by hundreds, or threaded by scores of forums. It would have just been 20 people wondering what she's fussing about, and maybe one person double checking to be sure their new apartment doesn't have mold.

But, Mr. Jeffrey E. Michael, a lawyer and owner of Horizon Realty Group, engaged his (quoted from the SunTimes article) \"sue first, ask question later\" organizational policy and just sued Amanda Bonnen without trying to settle the issue in advance. The combination of merely suing, and the statement he stupidly made (more stupid that the \"stupidly\" statement Mr. Obama made the other day), is likely going to cause his organization many millions of dollars in damage.

He might win the suit. He won't collect the money even if he does. Ms. Bonnen and might have to file bankruptcy. Horizon Realty Group might, as well. And all that because someone is a jerk.

[bit.ly]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Avi8tor
July 28, 2009 8:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This company really missed an oppertunity to make something good out of their mistake. 99% of the time when i use twitter it's to contact a company that i've had a customer service issue with, and so far it has been to great result.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
July 28, 2009 8:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Horizon Realty\" has become a Trending Topic on Twitter (which only gets more people to ask what's going on). Way to squash that bug, Horizon.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
smokinfoo
July 28, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It's not defamation if it's true.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
chapoec
July 28, 2009 8:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah her being sued was a way to strong arm her into deleting the post. She is not gonna have the money to get a lawyer, go to court, and do all that. That's what the company hoped for because they do not have no legal ground to stand on.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
seejanerun
July 28, 2009 9:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone know how this story was broken? There's a quote from the a Horizon guy, but then nothing from the defendant, and the Cook County docket isn't reflecting that she's even been served (although sometimes it does take a couple of days to get it updated). Did Plaintiffs tip off the papers?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 9:05 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@seejanerun: It would be more hilarious if court personnel tipped them off. \"You guys wouldn't believe the dumbass lawsuit which was just filed, here.\"

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 9:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Excellent! The national press is running with it, now!
[blogs.usatoday.com]

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 9:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nightshade74: Wall Street Journal? Whoops! Talk about an epic fail. Hee, hee.


And if you look up #horizon on Twitter, there are actually a lot of people trying to figure out how to contact the defendant and offer money for her legal fees. She's become the cause celeb over there. Wake the Twitter at your peril, corporate America.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 9:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here is another interesting writeup about this from a different perspective:

[bit.ly]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Interesting. Seems to come at it from a very middle of the road perspective, which I like. The author is correct in one respect. The rules concerning libel on the internet are still being written, so to speak, by our courts. Personally, I don't think that Tweet rose to the level of libel, but he's right to point out that with very little caselaw to fall back on, anything could happen in court. However even if Horizon were to win some level of damages (obviously, far less than $50K), they've lost far more than that in the long run with no one else to blame but themselves. Way to kick yourself in the ass, Horizon.

Reply
","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
July 28, 2009 9:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here is the building in question

[bit.ly]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
nacoran
July 28, 2009 9:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If there is mold, she's golden. Truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander. They better just hope they aren't subsidized housing or they may also feel the full wrath of HUD crashing down upon them. There are some decent laws protecting tenants from their landlords, but they are even stronger in HUD housing.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
picardia
July 28, 2009 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am moving to Chicago later this year, and looking in exactly the area Horizon Realty has buildings. And there is NO WAY I will be doing business with them under any circumstances. Thanks to their oh-so-inept handling of social media, I have obviously been spared the risk of ending up with these litigation-happy jerks as landlords.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
kateblack
July 28, 2009 10:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@picardia: Uh oh. Now they can sue you for $50,000+ for damages to their reputation.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cogito Ergo Bibo
July 28, 2009 10:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Press release from Horizon! [www.horizonrealtygroup.com]
Click link in lower right box on page. You'll get a pop-up of a scanned document.


Basically, the tenant actually sued over the mold problem. Horizon claims it stems from a leak which affected several apartments, that they dealt with the problem and never saw any mold. Apparently the tenant thinks otherwise. Regardless, Horizon is still going to be the big loser in this.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
hypnotik_jello
July 28, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cogito Ergo Bibo: It's just weird that this wasn't mentioned before hand. Nor can I actually find any thing related to a court filing for this \"class action\" lawsuit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
seejanerun
July 28, 2009 10:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hypnotik_jello: Yeah, I don't see anything class action. But she did file.

[w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com]

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Areia
July 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@seejanerun: It does say 'class action' in the section dated 6/24.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Saoi
July 28, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Fun thing about defamation lawsuits is that one of the defenses is \"it's the truth\". Now, the way she's phrased it could be construed as defamatory as she has no idea whether or not Horizon actualy thinks sleeping in a moldy apartment is okay. But if the case isn't thrown out outright, I doubt very much the court would find in favour of Horizon, much less to the tune of $50,000.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PølάrβǽЯ
July 28, 2009 10:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

To hell with all large property management corporations. Most large corporations suck, but property management companies suck more in that they screw people out of money because their customers must rely heavily on their product (it's their place to live, after all).

Shafting someone on their cable install, computer warranty, or other unnecessary item sucks (I know, I know, our computers ARE necessary, right?). But shafting someone out of either their place to live or a bunch of money because they can't (for whatever reason) move is downright wrong.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
carpwoman
July 29, 2009 12:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Bastards.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ovalseven
July 29, 2009 1:59 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Do you know how many of my own tenants complain about mold when the problem is actually just mildew?


All of them.


In terms of heath risks, there's a big difference, but they're aware that mold is hazardous. So every time they get the sniffles or a headache, \"It must be the mold\", and they act like I should call in a hazmat team.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Monkey_Business
July 29, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Tweeter beware! Nothing is private anymore. Would it have made any difference if she told the landlords she couldn't live in a filthy, moldy-ass apartment? I'm sure she already has and they didn't listen or, like mine did, gave me the option to break my lease and pay their fines. Now they want to go crying to the courts as if THEY have been wronged.


It's amazing what some of these slum-lords get away with now days. I had my own run-in with one at my last residence. They didnt get squat from me after I took them to court for wrongful eviction. I ended up getting all of my money back except for a few attorneys fee's but I still came out ahead of the battle. What a nightmare!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TessTalks
July 29, 2009 4:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Somebody at the Horizon Group Management must have a relative who's an attorney and needs the work.

It would have been a whole lot easier and less expensive if Horizon Group Management FIXED the problem, then sent out their own tweet saying, the issues was solved.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
PLATTWORX
July 29, 2009 5:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Apparently, Horizon Group Management knows nothing about public relationtions, spin and how to PROPERLY manage a dispute. They have just turned a small Tweet that would have been unnoticed by 99.9% of the public into a national news story and made sure Horizon is known by tens of thousand for moldy apartments!


GOOD WORK!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
NightStalker3
July 29, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The truth hurts....

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
sevenwhitehorses
July 29, 2009 8:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

as per signing away your rights, even if you sing a document it will not stand up in court. one is not able to sign away one's rights. if you go on a river rafting trip or skydiving adventure and sign that you will not hold them responsible for being hurt, you can still sue and win in court. most companies, when asked, will even admit to this but respond that it keeps most people from trying to go to court.

Reply
","");