HOA Manager Stumbles Upon WICRLEAKS, Discovers WICR’s Secrets!
Suit Alleges Fraud, Damage to Property, Illegal Use of License!
Allegation That Company Attorney Wrote “Unconscionable Clauses” in WICR’s Contract & Illegally Withheld Information Upon Legal Demand as Agent for Service of Process
Suit Claims “Erratic Irrational & Aggressive Behavior” By Mazor Frightened His Clients, So They Barred Him From Entering Their Property!
WicrLeaks.com has received a copy of a 30 page suit filed against David Mazor, aka David Krubinski & WICR Inc of San Diego & Palm Springs that alleges that WICR defrauded the Association, caused severe property damage to both exclusive use common areas, the interior of a condominium and then attempted to deny the damage claims after admitting to being at fault.
Attorney Joesph Watson filed a suit several weeks ago, and then amended the complaint after discovering further causes of action after speaking with WICRLeaks.com about WICR and the secret ownership of it by David Mazor aka David Krubinski. Our invaluable assistance in providing reams of documents to the plaintiff’s attorney was the reason for the amended complaint. YOU CAN READ & DOWNLOAD THE COMPLAINT HERE first-amended-complaint
A frightening aspect of this suit is the allegations by the plaintiff’s of erratic and irrational Behavior and aggressive behavior being exhibited by David Mazor, aka David Krubinski. See the pic below highlighting that assertion. Attempts to gain a comment or reply from WICR remain unanswered at time of publication.
A second highlight of the complaint comes with this gem, (see pic below) an allegation that Fred Wanke is a “tool” used by Mazor and his son Sean Krubinski for hiding behind Wanke’s license. Filings we found from Riverside County clearly show Mazor, then known as Krubinski, registering WICR Inc as partners. The official storyline was that Krubinski/Mazor left WICR when he was a salesperson at Mer-Kote. The allegations are that he maintained the ownership illegally while getting his own D-12 Synthetic Products contractors license.
Deliberately using unconscionable clauses in a contract is unethical at the least and may be illegal as well.
This filing in Riverside County clearly shows that Wanke and Krubinski/Mazor were partners in WICR despite denials from Irina Mazor.
Also of great interest is the allegation that Mazor’s wife Irina Mazor of Mazor & Drill in Glendale, inserted unconscionable clauses into the WICR contract that are unenforceble.
According to the Drill & Mazor website, Mazor’s practice is primarily devoted to the representation of owners, contractors, developers and construction managers in all facets of construction law, including the litigation and mediation of construction and commercial claims, business litigation, real property-related matters and the counseling of clients in claims avoidance and mitigation techniques.
According to a paper published here by Marquette University “Section 2-302 of the Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) deals in a straightforward manner with the unenforceability of unconscionable clauses in contracts.”
The article continues to say
“It is unlikely that the party with inferior bargaining power will recognize and enforce his right to avoid an unconscionable contract. Conversely, the attorney hired to draft the unconscionable clause by the party with superior bargaining power should recognize that the contract is unenforceable. Therefore, the best and most overt way to minimize the occurrence of unconscionable contracts is to forbid a lawyer from drafting them. This article proposes a new disciplinary rule prohibiting the attorney from drafting unconscionable clauses. This prohibition is based on two notions. First, the profession has an interest in regulating this behavior because, as in litigation, the attorney is performing a public function when drafting contracts. The current rules of professional conduct, which prohibit assisting with baseless lawsuits, should be extended to prohibit the drafting of baseless contracts. Second, courts already have begun to use “covert tools,” such as the doctrine of fraud, to regulate this behavior. “
Since Mazor specializes in contracts and mitigating claims (something she worked very hard at to do in this case), she would have a duty to know that clauses she inserted are unconscionable and therefore MUST NOT be inserted. Even of she didn’t write the contract, she would have reviewed it as WICR’s counsel and would need to advise them to remove said clauses. Does this place her license to practice law in jeopardy or at least raise ethical questions? Possibly. Further along in the suit’s allegations is another gem, alleging Irina illegally denied that DavidMazor is the owner of WICR. If true, this most certainly would…
The main focus of the suit lies in claims of fraud by Mazor along with the damage claims to the interior and exterior of the property, loss of use, recovery of attorney’s fees etc. The suit alleges that Sean Krubinski originally took responsibility for the incident where a employee was installing flashing along a wall and a nail pierced a pipe behind the wall. Water flooded the unit and damaged walls, ceilings and floors along with personal belongings of he occupant. Later on, David Mazor took over and attempted to exert himself onto the occupant as not being responsible and making the plaintiff so uncomfortable with bullying tactics that Mazor and WICR was subsequently barred from entering the property.
Removal of walls and stucco to repair the pipe subsequently revealed alleged defective work where flashing and stucco paper was improperly installed. Construction consultant Jerry Acker was retained to inspect and document the findings. His reports and pictures detail the open flashing, improperly lapped paper and improperly installed stucco WICR repaired.
WICR and Mazor maintained that a clause on their contract that placed responsibility for making claims of damage on the owners insurance policy, not theirs, despite WICR carrying a liability policy against damages they caused. This is the clause that the plaintiff’s allege is illegal and unconscionable. Attorney Joe Watson advises any parties contemplating contracting with WICR to not sign anything unless their attorney has reviewed it first.
“8. INSURANCE AND DEPOSITS. Contractor shall maintain General Liability Insurance in the amount of 1,000,000. Contractor shall also carry Worker’s Compensation insurance for the protection of Contractor’s employees during the progress of the work. Owner shall obtain and pay for insurance against injury to Owner’s own property and employees including persons under Owner’s direction and persons on the job site at Owner’s invitation.”
We are waiting to hear about any dates set for conferences, pre-trial hearings etc. Joe Watson tells WICRLeaks that he has also filed a complaint with the Contractor’s State License Board against WICR with the same allegations as in the suit.
If you have any issues/problems questions about work done by WICR, Inc we advise you contact the Law Offices of Joesph Watson at 323-333-6286. We’d also like to hear about them as well to help publicize the problem and bring public scrutiny to bear on WICR and Mazor.
