http://www.nahi.org/Motion-Filed-Copy.pdf
It appears that the ink has not even dried on the settlement agreement between NAHI and NACHI and NAHI has already purported to the court that NACHI is in violation.
After reading the motion and noting my own name showing up and some of my message board posts quoted, I can see how consumed they are by being talked about in a negative way by anyone. They have been dishing it out left and right but when the shoe is on the other foot they want to cry foul (and do so at NAHI members expense).
They have littered this latest motion with so much BS that has nothing to do with the basis of their motion to somehow obscure the facts and take yet another opportunity to repeat their original bogus claims.
They themselves indicated in the motion that Nick Gromicko is the "sole director/owner of" The National Association of Certified Home Inspectors, Inc." NACHI is not a member run organization.
Nick was not acting in bad faith to answer questions about who was party to the agreement. If he had actually stated (on the record) that it would take time for members to come on board with the new name and logo, there is no way in God's little green earth that the statement indicated that members were a party to the agreement.
Obviously as NACHI begins to use its new logo and name, members will want to signify their membership by using them. There was nothing ambiguous about NACHI's agreement to (over two years) to begin to change over it's market materials to use the new name and logo. What NAHI wishes is that the agreement was going to somehow be enforceable to roughly 10,000 members, chapters and licensees.
Take private companies that were licensed to use NACHI in their name (such as NACHI Certified Education, The NACHI Store, NACHIStuff, independent chartered chapters and members).
Q: How can Nick and NACHI enter into agreements on their behalf?
A: They cannot.
As sole director/owner, Nick can only enter into a settlement on behalf of the corporation to which he is a the "director" of.
One can only hope that the new logo, and brand name takes hold among those organizations as well as members.
Did they think that all the publications inventoried all over the country with the NACHI name would be burned in the town square?
They wanted to have the agreement include censoring the NACHI message board and as part of the settlement agreement, that was not going to happen.
If Mallory, NAHI and their attorneys feel that people making fun of them is offensive and a judge should intervene, let's roll the clock back and include everything any NAHI member has said to make fun of Nick, NACHI and it's members for years.
I am betting that the judge will see through this thinly veiled attempt to put more BS for their members consumption to try to justify the continued wasteful spending of members hard earned money. It is pretty expensive entertainment reading.
They might want to save some money to help defend their PA chapter and some of the members their for trying to destroy NACHI members businesses by falsely claiming that NACHI members could not legally do inspections in PA.
Mallory and company. Try as you might, getting a judge to enforce things that are not part of the settlement agreement is a huge pill to get him to swallow. But you and your lawyers already know that.
"Clinton St. Greater Bethlehem Church v. City of Detroit, 484 F.2d 185, 189 (6th Cir. 1973). Summary enforcement of a settlement agreement for which there is no dispute as to the terms of the agreement is the only appropriate judicial response, absent proof of fraud or duress".
Just the basis of your motion indicates that there apparently is a dispute as to the terms.
Jaynes v. Austin, 20 Fed. Appx. 421, 427 (6th Cir. 2001) -
"However, to award attorney fees under a court‟s “inherent powers” requires “a finding that an attorney „willfully-abuse[d] judicial processes by conduct tantamount to bad faith.‟
"...oral settlement agreements on the record are enforceable when entered into, even if the parties agree to later memorialize the agreement in writing." Aro Corporation, 531 F.2d at 1374.
The odd thing is that you use an "off the record" agreement to get a new logo onto the website quickly as the basis for part of your claim that NACHI is in violation (of that off the record agreement).
I would like to go on shredding this motion but I just don't like reading fiction
Quote me in your next motion, puleeese!
