Bass v Bass Case History

Chynna

  1. From the beginning, assured the case for sole ownership of house (and possibly remaining inheritance still in cash after house purchase) was solid based on Intent interpretation vs Title. Everything else became secondary to this.
  2.  In July 2021 there was a face-to-face mtg with OC - Carol was present via Zoom.
    • Valuation of the businesses was summarily dismissed by Natalie.   Chynna offered zero resistance.  In fact, no response.  Just moved on.
    • After private sidebar with Natalie, Chynna told me she turned down an offer of 40%.  She assured me I could do much better.
    • She also told me they agreed to schedule a hearing (wrong term) to determine if the case of Intent vs Title would be heard at trial in 2022.  Chynna agreed that Judge Juries was not a favorable "draw" as the judge for this case, but said she would appeal Juries denied the request to hear the Intent vs Title case.
  3. After this meeting walking back to the Cordell office, Chynna said she was going to hear about a job at another firm offer that week and was confident it would happen.  It did not.
  4. Alimony was not likely but only due to it considering assets.  It was assumed that I would have too many assets because I would retain the inheritance money and house.  There was never any mention that the huge income differential would not work to my advantage even if my assets were low.
  5. I was not aware of the missed deadlines, or in a couple instances when Terry forwarded court documents, assumed Chynna would respond.  When Terry notified me about the motion to compel I blew up at her for not making it clear to me that this was in my court to provide information.  I had never heard from Chynna.  Terry said it was not her job to keep track of lawyers' schedules or tasks. Terry hung me out to dry.
  6.  It was clear Cordell knew of issues with Chynna.  I do not think all of the "out of the office" periods Terry mentioned in email was because of COVID.  I believe Chynna's exit was a termination, not voluntary (unless to avoid formal termination).  Cordell was complicit.
  7. I never heard about the 11/4 hearing or any other items after Chynna left Cordell except the exchange we had about the roof.

Jennifer

1) To the end, Jennifer said it was Chynna who "screwed" me.  This was an overarching position - that I did NOT get the outcome I would have otherwise received had Chynna done her job.  It was a statement that there was not enough time to get the settlement I deserved.  It was credited with giving Natalie a considerable advantage and momentum by never receiving push-back from OC.

2) While I agree time and Chynna worked to my disadvantage, I do not believe Jennifer properly represented me.

  • As she admitted 5 days before trial, she did not believe me re:the BVA Appraisal until she did the math on the Townhouse rent numbers that week.  There were just one of the points I made.  The rent numbers matched what I was saying to the penny. It was late in the game to be working in partnership.  I always felt I had to defend myself and argue with my own attorney as if she was Natalie.  Jennifer said she reminded me of her brother.  I clearly triggered Jennifer as I did Natalie.
  • Re: Natalie being triggered - Jennifer said she worked many case as OC with Natalie and had NEVER seen the side of Natalie I brought out.  She agreed that Natalie was off the hook, but nonetheless seemed influenced by her.  Jennifer said she did not entirely read the first off-the-hook letter from Natalie
  • Jennifer told me Natalie offered her a job shortly after the first hearing. Isn't that illegal?  She also pointed out how angry Natalie was with the Judge's ruling.   It seemed I had to talk Jennifer out of that and explain it was to take her off her game, and at the least, who does something like that during a case??  It also was clearly not in Jennifer's best interest to engage with OC on a job offer during a proceeding. There were times I wondered if I would see Jennifer at Boise Law Group after my case was completed.
  • There is no way Natalie read all the emails between Cheryl (paralegal) and I.  While I agree there were a lot, they weren't chit/chat.  All had material points/issues.  I expected my attorney would read and respond to them even after "a long week".  Jennifer was copied on all of them which leads to reasonable expectation she would read and respond.
  • I built the whole case.  I should have billed my attorney for the time that was required to sell her on it, which mostly failed.  She even said she would impugn our expert witness Time to explain would have been fine, but not having to plead my case.
  • I was not involved with the initial "settlement" but stayed silent during the hearing.  I made it clear there was no way I was agreeing to what the Judge was told.  I telegraphed to Jennifer, via Cheryl, there was no way I was settling and would go to trial.  That seemed to light a fire under Jennifer, but nonetheless, I was told in no uncertain terms we would go to trial.  She didn't say it, but there was no time remaining for her to prepare, nor would she be able to control me during trial as she did during hearings.  Was it how bad I would make her look?????  To this day, I do NOT know if trial was, or was not, an option.  Doesn't matter if it was a good one or not.  It was my decision to make, even against the advice of my lawyer - who clearly lost my trust.