Six Legal Issues

These issues will be resolved by legal counsel:

1. Is the title of this site (DesertMountainGolfScam.com) defamatory? Answer: McCabe v. Rattiner, 814 F. 2d 839 (1987) stands for the proposition that the word scam has no precise meaning and falls within the definition of constitutionally protected opinion.

2. Is the picture above depicting the entrance to Desert Mountain an infringement on the rights of the Desert Mountain Club? Answer: Intellectual property rights do not prevent the publication of a picture of a physical object, such as a celebrity golfer or the exterior of a well-known building. ETW Corp. v. Jireh Pub., Inc., 332 F. 3d 915 (2003)

3. Does the site DesertMountainGolfScam.com constitute an improper interference with contract? Answer: Arizona law requires that a claim of tortious interference be based on seven factors. The first two of these are the nature of the actor’s conduct and the actor’s motive. Evaluating the improper element of interference requires weighing the social importance of the interest the defendant seeks to advance against the interest invaded. Neonatology Associates Ltd v. Phoenix Perinatal Associates Inc., 216 Ariz. 185 (2007). Informing Desert Mountain Club members of their legal options is a worthy social objective.

4. Do lawsuits filed December 29, 2014 by the Desert Mountain Club against three resigned members constitute discriminatory enforcement of Club rules? Arizona Revised Statutes § 10-3610 gives all members of a nonprofit corporation the same rights and obligations provided in the Club articles of incorporation and bylaws. For example, it would be discriminatory enforcement if the Club allowed some members to resign without paying a fee and sued others in the same position to collect a resignation fee. Has the Desert Mountain Board of Directors revoked membershipss retroactively to obscure the fact that members have left the Club without paying the exit fee?

5. Is the Desert Mountain Club contract unconscionable under Arizona law and thus void because of the following: (1) Does not permit termination by the consumer except at considerable expense and after protracted delay. (2) Offers the party drafting the agreement multiple options for termination at will. (3) Can be (and has been) changed to the consumer’s disadvantage multiple times.

6. Is the Club’s $65,000 transfer fee a reasonable estimate of damage caused by resignation of a member? Or is the $65,000 fee a penalty intended to lock members into the Club for life? Arizona law voids contract penalties which are not a reasonable estimate of actual damages.