FRED proclaimed that the issue in 8182 has already been decided by Branch 16 in 10255 ("eviction" of November 19, 2010). Therefore, FRED told Branch 9 of the circuit court, there was no reason to even allow a hearing regarding whether or not FRED owed me that $150 that it promised me in exchange for signing an early lease renewal.
I did not want to sign an early lease renewal, and I did not want to live at Valley View anymore. I only signed the early lease renewal in order to get the $150 that FRED promised. I only needed the $150 in order to pass the HUD inspection for that year.
FRED's appellate attorney included the transcript from 10255 (the trial in the other, "eviction" case) in the Appendix to its Brief on Appeal in 12 AP 0934.
It looks like he just wanted to pad the brief --- hence the bill --- with that Appendix, because the actual Brief is pretty thin --- eight pages. Even those eight pages consist primarily of a rehash of things in the record in both cases.
He also includes a huge litany of cites --- a sentence or two from each case --- in order to illustrate his legal theory, "issue preclusion". But, he doesn't explain what these cases have to do 12 AP 0934. He just sticks them in there, to make it look like he thought about it, or he knows what's going on. (Also --- it gives him a chance to use his that expensive legal citation software.)
I would have thought the Court of Appeals already knows what "issue preclusion" is --- and what legal authority delineates it. But, hey, I'm just a crazy old bag lady. What do I know?
There are only a few paragraphs of actual new copy. Those are either lies or distortions. I'm kind of starting to feel sorry for FRED. Those two attorneys have been exploiting them right from the start.