Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful-death claim

Rocky1

Rocky1

New member
Quote:
Trayvon Martin's parents settle wrongful-death claim


Homeowners association is thought to have paid more than $1 million


April 5, 2013|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel


SANFORD — Trayvon Martin's parents have settled a wrongful-death claim for an amount thought to be more than $1 million against the homeowners association of the Sanford subdivision where their teenage son was killed.

Their attorney, Benjamin Crump, filed that paperwork at the Seminole County Courthouse, a portion of which was made public Friday.

In the five pages of the settlement that were available for public review, the settlement amount had been marked out. Lower in the agreement, the parties specified that they would keep that amount confidential.

When asked during an earlier interview whether the amount was more than $1 million, Crump said: "I have no comment on that subject … I know you did not get that from me."

Trayvon was shot to death by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman at the Retreat at Twin Lakes townhomes in Sanford on Feb. 26, 2012. Zimmerman served as head of the Neighborhood Watch and called police that evening, describing Trayvon as suspicious. He has said the teen attacked him and he fired in self-defense.

The community-association manager, Kent Taylor, did not return phone calls from the Orlando Sentinel about the settlement. Neither did its attorney, Thomas R. Slaten Jr.

Robert Taylor is founding partner of Taylor & Carls P.A., a law firm that represents homeowner associations but has no connection to the Retreat at Twin Lakes.

"When claims are filed, they're filed against anybody who could possibly have any culpability," he said. Trayvon's parents must have concluded that Zimmerman's homeowners association did, he said, thus the claim.

In the settlement, the association did not admit any wrongdoing or liability. Taylor said its decision to settle was most likely a business decision.

"It's really nothing more than a risk-versus-reward analysis," Taylor said.

The association's insurer, Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, filed suit in federal court in August, asking a judge to clarify its liability in the case, but that suit was dropped in November.

"Travelers is not a party to the settlement," the company said in a prepared statement. "The settlement would have been with other insurers of the homeowners association and/or the property managers."

The policy had a $1 million limit, according to federal-court records, and went into effect March 30, 2012, a few weeks after Trayvon was shot. Trayvon's mother filed a claim with the insurer after it went into effect, according to federal-court records.

During an interview in February, Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said Trayvon's parents had tried to settle through mediation and the association or its insurer had offered $1 million, but Trayvon's parents had rejected that amount.

O'Mara said the two parties then renewed talks and agreed to settle several months ago.

The portion of the settlement made public Friday had been edited to eliminate the names of the parties and people making payment.

"It is understood and agreed that the payment made herein is not to be construed as an admission of any liability by or on behalf of the releasing parties; but instead the monies being paid hereunder is consideration for avoiding litigation, the uncertainties stemming from litigation as well as to protect and secure the good name and good will of the released parties," the settlement said.

Under the terms of the settlement, Trayvon's parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, and his estate agreed to set aside their wrongful-death claim and claims for pain and suffering, loss of earnings and expenses.

Crump has made clear that he intends to file suit later against Zimmerman, and the settlement spelled out that Zimmerman was not part of this deal.

Crump provided a copy of the settlement to O'Mara's office, that of Special Prosecutor Angela Corey and the judge Thursday, according to a cover page attached to the settlement that was placed in Zimmerman's criminal-case file. It was not immediately clear whether in those versions the settlement amount was blacked out as well.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013...eorge-zimmerman
 
I agree it is wrong that they payed a dime, but had Trayvon Martin's parents filed suit and came up with a sympathetic,jury, With Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson spewing racist hate, who knows how much they would have had to pay.
 
i KNEW this would happen when i first heard the new's about the punk months ago!
the po parenz done lost their dear chile. Lode have mercy!!
 
Originally Posted By: semo97The parents should be sued for wrong full parenting. The HOA just bent over and took it, society of give in.


NOT the Housing Authority; the Housing Authority's insurance company. Insurance companies are notorious for such, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or what damage it might do you in the future, if they think there is even a remote chance of losing the case, and the cost of trial might exceed half of settlement, they will settle out of court rather than try the case. Mostly because it ain't their money they're throwing away, it's ours!
 
So wonder if they will continue the Neighborhood watch program. And how are other HOA's and insurance companies going to handle Neighborhood Watch? My thoughts are you can kiss NW's as we know them now goodbye.
 
This is all they were really after anyway. A few months from now they'll think they should've asked for more and will try to revive the suit.
 
wait until they get that tax bill for $420,000 lol

A million dollars isn't what it used to be and not as much as one would think.. lol

They will be broke and audited by the IRS for tax evasion within a year.
 
I'd bet the IRS is smart enough to get their cut before the Martins do. The attorney will also get his 30% at settlement so the Martins may have enough for a new car left over.
 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Originally Posted By: semo97The parents should be sued for wrong full parenting. The HOA just bent over and took it, society of give in.


NOT the Housing Authority; the Housing Authority's insurance company. Insurance companies are notorious for such, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or what damage it might do you in the future, if they think there is even a remote chance of losing the case, and the cost of trial might exceed half of settlement, they will settle out of court rather than try the case. Mostly because it ain't their money they're throwing away, it's ours!


That's one way of looking at it. The other is, they may have had a $10 mil policy and settled for $1 mil, thus saving themselves $9 mil. Both sides most likely saw that they could burn up their limits in lawyer fees and decided this was the best option for everybody. The money was not ours as you say. It was the insurance company's money. They did not get that money from tax dollars, they get from the premiums that their insureds pay.
 
I bet the premiums in the area go up, costing all of the people in the area more, when all they were trying to do was protect themselves and their property.

There just seems to be something wrong with a system where the people just trying to protect their stuff from thieves are the ones in the end the end up loosing.
If you stay and fight, this happens, if you leave, Detroit happens. We need to be responsible for our actions and respect the individuals we live around, and their property rights. But we also need to stop crying, and rioting over the deaths or perceived injustices against punks, that neither respect others, or the property of others.
The riots that followed this, were disrespectful to others. Just because you are mad, doesn't give you the right and they should be ashamed of themselves for destroying the property of others when something doesn't go the way the want. Destroy your own stuff if you want, but not that of others.
 
Wait till they use that money they now have on a civil suit against Zimmerman.

OJ was acquitted but it didn't prevent him from being sued.

Also there may be a look at whether the trial will be called a mistrial before the jury came up with the acquittal, prior to that it was a hung jury.

The judge when giving a 3/3 hung jury further instructions (three jurors had voted to convict Zimmerman) invoked Florida's stand your ground law and told those jurors that they "had to acquit based on the Florida law". Wrong, to be valid it had to be explored in court which it was not.

Yet for that law to be valid in this trial it had to be used as a defense and withstand the court's scrutiny, which it would not have done. The standard specifically states that the person using it has to be in retreat, not the aggressor. The judge was dead wrong and made the jurors feel that even though they thought Zimmerman was guilty that Florida law which was not in play (as per the judge's words) forced them to let him get away with murder.

If a higher court agrees with the judges error to the jury it could be ruled as a mistrial before jury deliberation, which is what and where a mistrial takes place, it's declared when something unduly and incorrectly influenced a jury in a way that can't be undone.

We may not be done with this one. That judge used a law that was not being used in the defense to incorrectly tell jurors that they had no choice but to honor that invalid law that had nothing to do with this trial.

You haven't heard anything about this yet, but you will be.

I think everyone knew before the trial that the stand your ground law was not going to be used for the defense because it did not apply.
 
Originally Posted By: woodguru
The judge when giving a 3/3 hung jury further instructions (three jurors had voted to convict Zimmerman) invoked Florida's stand your ground law and told those jurors that they "had to acquit based on the Florida law".

Do you have a citation for this?
I have seen no mention of this by the jurors or anywhere else.

I thought it went down like this:

Quote:An initial vote was divided. Three of the jurors first voted Zimmerman was guilty, while three voted he was not guilty, she said. Juror B37 was among those who believed he was not guilty from the start.
"There was a couple of them in there that wanted to find him guilty of something and after hours and hours and hours of deliberating over the law, and reading it over and over and over again, we decided there's just no way, other place to go," she said.

Citation

When were these "further instructions" supposedly given?

I watched the trial.
I saw this:
Quote:Every line of the jury instructions was fought over by the attorneys, until a final draft was agreed upon and read aloud to jurors by Judge Nelson.

Citation

Later, on the second day of deliberations, I saw when the jury asked about manslaughter:

Quote: Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson read the question in open court: “May we please have clarification on the instructions regarding manslaughter?”

Citation

I saw where the judge, after consulting the attorneys on both sides, asked the jury to narrow their question down specifically:

Quote: Lawyers for both sides in the George Zimmerman murder trial are working on an answer to a question posed by the jury this afternoon concerning the definition of manslaughter.

Judge Debra Nelson said she will use the language the lawyers have come up with to tell the jury they must ask a specific question about the meaning of the charge of manslaughter.

Citation

So where are you coming up with this "further instructions"?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: mhammerOriginally Posted By: Rocky1Originally Posted By: semo97The parents should be sued for wrong full parenting. The HOA just bent over and took it, society of give in.


NOT the Housing Authority; the Housing Authority's insurance company. Insurance companies are notorious for such, doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, or what damage it might do you in the future, if they think there is even a remote chance of losing the case, and the cost of trial might exceed half of settlement, they will settle out of court rather than try the case. Mostly because it ain't their money they're throwing away, it's ours!


That's one way of looking at it. The other is, they may have had a $10 mil policy and settled for $1 mil, thus saving themselves $9 mil. Both sides most likely saw that they could burn up their limits in lawyer fees and decided this was the best option for everybody. The money was not ours as you say. It was the insurance company's money. They did not get that money from tax dollars, they get from the premiums that their insureds pay.


Been down this road before, you are not afforded a say in whether the case goes to court. The Insurance company and their bean counters decide. Makes no difference whether you have a solid case or not, if they think it's going to cost them more than half than they could possibly settle out of court for, they aren't going to take a chance on it, because too damm many juries make ridiculous awards to idiots because... "Well it isn't going to cost them nothing, their insurance company is going to pay for it."

And, I didn't say it was tax dollars, I said the insurance company was giving away "our money", which anyone who purchases a premium has contributed. We are essentially investors in the insurance company, we purchase a policy assuming that we may someday need it. On the other hand, we hope we never need it. The insurance company is supposed to invest that money wisely, and set it aside for us, so that in the event we need it, they can give it back to us. Not give it away without a hearing, because "someone done them wrong, and they gonna pay."

Fact is, after the attorneys take their cut, Trayvon's parents might have enough to buy a new Beamer, and get them some bling. They aren't going to wind up with a whole lot out of it, and their attorney was afraid he'd lose in court, or he wouldn't have advised them to settle for a measely $1 Million, he'd have held out for more.

 


Write your reply...
Back
Top