We had again been granted a stay pending our appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. To say the plaintiff wasn't happy is an understatement. It looked like we'd enjoy another summer at the cottage afterall and scheduling of owner's "exclusive" use of the cottage was planned.
Remember Stu? Yeah, he defaulted. So, the schedule comes out, and since Stu had informed the court that "his family would never return", Katy contacted mother (who managed the schedule) that she would use the "deGeus" time for herself. Per our usual procedure, mother sent out the scheduled dates.
So what happened? Big surprise:
DEFENDANT STUART DEGEUS'S MOTION TO IMPOSE SCHEDULING OF COTTAGE USE BY THE PARTIES PENDING THE MICHGAN COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION
"Now comes, Defendant, Stuart deGeus, by his attorney, Philip A. Sturtz, and for Motion to Impose Scheduling of Cottage Use by the Parties Pending the Michigan Court of Appeal' Decision, states as follows:
1.,2.,3., etc. etc... (the case is presently on application for leave to appeal, This Court has jurisdiction over this motion...The Court denied Plaintiff David Symons's, Motion to prevent anyone from using the cottage during the pendency of the case... The Court indicated on the record at the April 9, 2007 hearing, that the Court would not prevent the parties from continuing to use the cottage as the parties have in the past. blah, blah, blah).
"WHEREFORE, Stuart deGeus asks this Honorable Court to enter an Order stating the following:
1. That Katrina Jenkins shall have her exclusive one-week period at the cottage beginning June 13 and ending June 22, 2008.
2. That Katrina Jenkins is barred from interfering with Stuart deGeus's exclusive use of the cottage for his three week period beginning June 23, and ending July 13.
3. Hold Katrina Jenkins in contempt of court for defying this Court's Order of April 9, wherin the Court ordered it would not prevent the parties from continuing to use the cottages as the parties have in the past: and
4. Award attorney fees and sanctions for having to bring this motion and grant such other relief the Court deems appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Sworn on 7th day of April, 2008 by Stuart deGeus.
Nice, real nice. And just who is Stu to decide WHEN Katy can have her week?????? What a guy! And hey... isn't it still a conflict of interest to use the same firm as the plaintiff????? Even if on paper it was Phil's son...never saw the guy!!! Nice.