Update regarding the CommunityBound/My Mountain Town Dispute

Didn't know you were an attorney frogger. Perhaps you need to read up on affiliates and what was actually signed in the agreement. I'm not an attorney so that is why the perhaps.

So would it be too much to ask that it be good riddance to both parties based on how they both have behaved? More than likely another website will come along hopefully managed by professionals. That would be novel approach.

Who would pay that much to be an affiliate? SC should have started her own site and then wouldn't have had to deal with the contract she committed to. But she did.

I think frogger is right to point out that not all contract provisions are enforceable, and there are other legal elements that only the attorneys can figure out too. Generally speaking, I think lawyers earn their keep (even though I know that's not the popular view).

SC, I know you've worked very hard! so sorry it has worked out this way, as even if all the issues go your way, OMG what a hassle! tongue:

The best time to get attorneys involved is to read the contract before you sign it.

TM....you are absolutely right about that.

And Ridgeway.......I am no lawyer. I simply work under a non compete clause myself so there is a bit of personal knowledge about the non compete statutes in CO.
I have to say that I am just as offended by your continued malicious critique of this website that you continue to use each day in your hypocritical fashion.
I usually don't frequent businesses that I personally feel aren't up to snuff. Just sayin'.

Frogger, there is a major difference between a Non-Compete that limits an individual from seeking employment and a Non-Compete between two business.

In my experience, a Non-Compete between two businesses is normal and enforceable. In this case party A paid for the right to use Party B assets for x period of time. Party B is protecting themselves against Party A so they doesn't steal or otherwise leverage the knowledge, data or experience post contract to harm Party B's asset.

As stated above and backed up by a simple google search......the perimeters of enforcing a non compete are VERY narrow in CO.
It is merely my opinion but knowing a little under lying information......the micro management of one individual by another could significantly limit the future ability to enforce......just sayin'

This is merely my opinion but as I remember the situation and how it began.......

SC asked for permission to move her site to a new server......
It was granted.
She continued her association with CBound and provided proof of that on the front page of her website.
She continued to honor her agreement with her existing customer base and membership. A good deal of which she had earned through her efforts on behalf of the website.
The site was moved and a disagreement ensued.
The old 2B forums were not visible to the public and MMT acted on behalf of 2B and CBound.
The owner of CBound made a decision to "compete" with the new and improved 2B/aka MMT which was still acting on behalf of CBound in it's contractual agreement.
Seems to me, the decision to place 2B up and become a competitor to it's own affiliate was where all this went south. Then the actual owner was locked out of their own confidential information and the owner of CBound then attempted to act on behalf of the actual owner and misrepresent herself as the actual owner with correspondence (printed) and make decisions on behalf or the actual owner that were contrary to the concepts of CBound and the actual owners philosophy. (thus harming the reputation of the actual owner.)
I cannot say for sure but having had my own dealings with the CB owner through numerous activities associated with the original website, I can easily understand why the owner of MMT would wish to at least have a modicum of control over her hard work and efforts while still fulfilling her contractual obligations to CB.
For me.....it was the act of placing the original website up as a competitor to it's own affiliate that screams UNFAIR.
That is where the parties should have entered into arbitration or mediation at the highest level to determine if the act of placing the old website back up was a legal and moral thing to do.
If SC was fulfilling her contractual obligation with payment and signage then the CB owner, in my opinion, should have refrained from becoming her direct competitor.
Just my opinion.

IF you step back and review this from a distance or detachment......the endeavor (on both
sides of the fence) is a LEARNING EXPERIENCE.......WHEN do you hold and when do you fold?
THAT can only be answered by the individuals involved, but what REALLY is at stake is not only
$$$$,but also community perception of CREDIBILITY. As this continues to spiral downward,I fear
the patronage of all sites involved will decline and posters will just move on.....energy is a FINITE
factor and many will opt to spend their energy in other ways.....JMO

And for me.....the work ethic and dedication to the community through good old fashioned hard work and a proven desire to serve will sustain me.
I do find the entire situation to be very sad.
I unfortunately understand more than some here and find that what has been done to an individual who, in my opinion, was so wrong. I have to believe that SC was driven to decisions in which she probably wouldn't have made if the partnership had been less intrusive and more professional. Just my opinion.
I base my opinion solely on my own personal interactions with the parties involved.
How many of you have had more than a passing conversation with an online persona as opposed to numerous phone calls and personal interaction with the parties involved?

I'll bet that the judge doesn't have personal knowledge of this situation either. That is irrelevant to the outcome of this case, but does say a lot of good things about the value of friendship. I really am saddened by this whole thing, first because I don't think SC bought what she thought she bought, and second, because this is the best site to come to for information and people when you want to just talk without having to tiptoe. I am, like you said frogger, just an observer from a distance. Perhaps though, this lets me see things with a bit more clarity.

My take on this is that SC made the move to a new server, maybe with a little bit of FU towards CG. CG, seeing that the new site had a different name, thought that this was a site in direct competition to the bound site. What will be decided in court, is what happened vs what is in the contract. All of the personal stuff is just so much fluff. My gut feeling on this is that the name change is the key and that will bend this in CG's favor based on my reading of section 10. That, admittedly, was never approved and did make it appear to be competition and theft rather than a simple server change. All of the other related claims and counterclaims will be decided based on how that primary finding goes.

Honestly, all this seems like such a waste. Like Homeagain said, I'm afraid that the distraction will bring both sites down and leave both parties angry and bitter. I would suggest, just this one more time, that both parties sit down and hash this out before going to court. Do it this weekend! Get it over with!