A California Court of Appeal affirmed a Superior Court judgment that Steve Pappas — who lost to Doreen Farr both in 2008 and again in 2012 during bids for the county’s 3rd District Supervisor seat — owes Farr the $528,657.50 in legal fees she spent defending herself in court against Pappas.
In his suit, Pappas alleged widespread voter fraud in the 2008 election, contending that if it had not existed, he would have won the election. Pappas lost to Farr by 806 votes out of 35,524 total.
“Pappas acknowledges that had Farr not defended the election contest, he, not Farr, would be county supervisor today,” according to the court’s September 26 opinion. “What Pappas does not acknowledge is that he failed to prove even a single vote was unlawfully cast in the election. The public has a profound interest in making sure those who lawfully win elections are able to take the office to which they were elected.
“This public interest extends to ensuring that those elected to office are not forced to withdraw because they cannot afford to defend a meritless election contest. The trial court could reasonably conclude that the public interest so overwhelms whatever compensation Farr might derive from her office that no deduction from the fee award is warranted.”
The case was already in front of the same Court of Appeal once, when the panel determined that the lower court properly found no fraud had been proven.


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Does anyone know what the legal implications are if Pappas simply refuses to pay? Can he escape the debt by declaring bankruptcy? All this seems ho-hum, but if I owed an unsecured debt of a half a million bucks, I would be feeling sort of uncomfortable at this point.
Eckermann (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It's ironic that Steve Pappas is accusing Farr of thwarting the election process. Isn't that exactly what he's trying to do?
Nockamixon (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Farr now has a judgment in her favor, and has stronger collection abilities than other creditors. So she can attach wages, place liens on property, and of course pursue further legal action to burrow deeper.
I believe bankruptcy can get a judgment discharged, but it's not a simple or free process.
I welcome higher paid counselors than myself to chime in.
Chester_Arthur_Burnett (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am guessing that there was no retainer of $500,000 up front, so he will probably declare bankruptcy and screw the attorney's. Whoopsie! Otherwise, maybe Ms. Crawford can foot his bill?
bimboteskie (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They should include interest on that.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 5:17 p.m.
Meanwhile Supervisor Farr , who has been victimized by these creeps, is bearing the weight of the legal debt incurred in defense of her rightful election. She is probably too good a person to pursue a civil case against Crawford Hall . In a perfect world , a judgement would be handed down with Crawford Hall equally liable for the damage inflicted .
geeber (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2012 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
John_Adams (anonymous profile)
October 17, 2012 at 9:56 a.m.
C'mon, Steve, time to pay up, pal! You pushed this when you knew there was a weak case, Crawford helped you, get her to help you pay this. Why should Farr have to bear this burden, and for so long? Pay up, and McCaw oughta obey the law.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 17, 2012 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)