May 11, 2009

The process server comes a knocking

So much for friendly family discourse and communicating their differences. Apparently suing is the chosen method, one what would be repeated several times over the ensuing two and half years.

Almost on schedule a shady character shows up knocking on mothers kitchen window, causing her an uncomfortable moment, prior to serving the summons shown in my previous posting. Click to enlarge it.

So it appears it's game on. The court hearing was a joke, the first of many indications that we had an odd judge who couldn't make a decision without having to sit and study it for a week. He refers us to a facilitator, who just happened to share ownership of a sailboat with the judge, our first indication that this was not going to be easy, nor fair. A lesson experienced often.

Next up a 7th grade history presentation, or I think it was, looked like one, sounded like one, and my apologies to all 7th graders.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Question: Did Stu and Kathi support the legal action to resolve this,. or were they just as pissed by it as the Lees. I'd guess they didn't support it, since the costs just sucked up their profits.

Still don't get why the Lees didn't buy out Stu and Kathi, which would have given them majority ownership, and beaten DAvid into submission.

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to seeing David's 7th Grade project on how to devalue the crap outta the family cottage!

Anonymous said...

david's still dumber than a fith grader

Whatever said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Just your under average blogger said...

The idea of buying out Stu and Kathi was discussed and talked about, however, once the complaint was filed that no longer was an option. You will see why in my next posting. And for those who watch for deleted messages, I removed my own comment for tech reasons, and reposted under the right name. My bad!

Joey said...

When Stu and Kathi sent the e-mail letting everyone know they wanted out, the thought was to sit down and talk about it. We figured that either we (mother) would or, jointly it would be split. The percentage of ownership is mute when it comes to tenancy in common. A 1% owner has just as much right as a 99% owner to use, etc. Costs are the only thing affected by different percentages of ownership.

Joey said...

mute??? duh.. moot.. or better yet, read up on the legal aspects of tenents in common...it's an eye opener.

Anonymous said...

This is a wonderful blog! You guys are really bringing to light the pitfalls of "tenants in common" which will help many, many people.

Anonymous said...

Again, not sure why your family didn't jump at the chance to buy out the other two families giving you total ownership. Your families have had a history of not getting along, as a result having to split usage of the cottage for a lot of years. Just not sure why when given the chance you didn't buy everyone out. You stated the appraisal was LOW, so you would have been getting a good deal. I realize time was short but with the history you would think it was the right move and you could have acted quickly. In hindsight, do you think you made the right move?

Whatever said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Just your under average blogger said...

To the last commentor let me address several of your points. First, we all got along really well, almost to the point of loving, well maybe not that well, but...There were so many of us and so few beds, that at one point it was decided to split the summer into three one month sections and then rotate each year. It workded well for many years, and made planning next years vacations real easy, you knew well enough in advance when you would be up there. Secondly, mother was fine with the idea of buying out Stu and Kathi, except they never indicated how much they wanted, and secondly, the time span between Davids e-mail and when he filed suit against mother, Stu and Katy did not afford enough time for due dilligence. Not to mention David's reluctance for any type of open conversation. Once it went into the court system, all thoughts of an offer were move to the back burner by viture of the nature of a partion suit. Your last question about in hind sight did we make the right move, we had no other choice, the court dictates what can and cannot be done. You will see very soon just what I am talking about.

Just your under average blogger said...

Disregard tha last comment that shows a being removed, that we me making a mistake.

Just your under average blogger said...

Let me make one more comment about the idea of buying out David. That was never going to happen, is simply would play into his plans. His plan on being camp President required him to be a property owner and there was no way he was going to be denied. You will see soon enough why I say the courts really prevented us from buying anyone out. Just have to follow along, take notes, you'll see soon enough.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your honest answers to my questions and clarifying my mistakes

Just your under average blogger said...

The main problem with your comment about buying out the others is it requires the attention and willingnes for the other party to listen. David never had any intentions of shared ownership or letting anyone else own the cottage. With the eight days notice before filing his partion suit that frooze any potential offer, our hands were tied. Secondly Stu never suggested what he wanted for his share but did mention his estimate of value was 700 to 800K and any offer made at 600K was not going to work. So once the law suit was filed nothing else could happen without all participating and Sti went and hid under a rock and David was out to screw everybody, as you soon see. But thanks for commenting and keep tuning in.