June 30, 2009

A little lull before another storm?

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:


"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.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

That must be the 25th motion filed, I can see why the legal fees became so high. Nice work if you can get it.

Katy Elizabeth said...

Stu is such a jerk. The fact ALONE that he had 3 weeks and she only had 1, when Stu never gave her what was rightfully hers... thanks Hank for that one!

And I thought "[his] family would never go back to Lakeside ever again." What happened with that? I always thought Stu liked the place, but it was his wife that bitched and complained every time they were up there... Kinda makes you wonder who really wanted what (when it comes to Stu).

Has anyone heard from Stu since we were all kicked out?

Anonymous said...

Stu is an A-Hole of the first order.

I wondered too, why Katy was only granted one week to Stu's 3 weeks of exclusive use. They owned equal percentages in the cottage, no?

Any rational, normal person would WANT their only surviving family member, their very own sister-- to have their time at the cottage if they were unable to use it.

To actually go to court, file a motion, to even go so far as asking for sanctions against Katy- this really makes me sick.

Maybe Uncle Slymey became a father figure to Stu? Maybe watching Uncle Slymie bully and kick around his own sister made Stu think this was OK behavior?

Stu, family is all you've got in this world. For your own sake, I urge you to make this right with your sister.

Anonymous said...

It is with very good reason that Stuart DeGeus is too embarrassed to ever visit Lakeside again.

His behavior towards his own sister is beneath contempt. What he did is absolutely reprehensible.

How can he have such a cold heart?

Don't get it.

Anonymous said...

Who the hell is Stuart DeGeus to "impose" scheduling of the cottage? On any of the parties?

This is the man who whined to the court that he would "never return to Lakeside," as his embarrassment was so huge.

Yet he furthered his embarrassment by these very public BS motions and letters to the Court, which are now part of the permanent record.

Stu's stated desire for "privacy" is inconsistent with his public rants to the Court.

Anonymous said...

One has to wonder, Did Uncle Slymie and Phil "Skirtz the Law" put Stu up to this nonsense?

If so, is Stu really that easily manipulated?

Also, yes I do believe it was an enormous conflict of interest for Phil "Skirtz the Law" Jr. to be the attorney of record for Stu's frivolous motions and his sad attempts to ban his sister from using his unwanted exclusive cottage time.

Anonymous said...

How did it come to pass that Uncle Slymie was able to use Stu's unwanted, exclusive cottage time?

Is Uncle Slymey really that much of a selfish pig that he would resort to all these behind the scenes machinations just to steal cottage time away from his neice?

For F%#k';s sake, the douche has a condo on the other side of the lake! Why couldn't have have just gone over there and allowed Katy to use the time that rightfully belonged to the DeGues's?

Stu- I am ashamed and embarrassed for you. You rose to the level of Uncle Slymie's douchedom with these actions. So sad.

Anonymous said...

I bet Uncle Slymie promised Stu and Kathy some extra payola to sweeten the deal~ after they bilked the Lee's outta the cottage.

Why else would Stu betray his own sister, and go along with such treachery and deceit?

This disloyalty of brother against sister makes my heart cry.

Anonymous said...

Now most people have known for a very long time that Slymons was just a no-account turd, a real low life Slymeball~ which he has proved himself to be in life over and over.

But, most people thought well of Stu. It seems Stu's actions regarding this cottage scam where out of character.

Was it really just for the $$, Stu?

Was it really worth it??

Anonymous said...

I still say the person who had the "problem" should be the one to go.

If Uncle Slymie, and Stu, were unhappy as familial tenants in common, fine, let's work out a fair and just buy out plan and cash you guys out.

The people who love and enjoy Lakeside, and did not have a "problem" per say with sharing the family cottage- should NOT have been the ones to get kicked out in a nasty court battle.

Anonymous said...

Stu, can you tell me, was it worth it? Why did you take these horrendously aggressive and ill advised court actions against your sister?

Did she really deserve that treatment?

You vowed never to return to Lakeside, so why would you care if Katy enjoyed the cottage during your unused time?

Did Uncle Slymie pay you to rent your time? Was that it?

This whole thing just doesn't make any sense. The Stu I knew was not a massive asshole.
What the hell happened?

Anonymous said...

The Slymons/DeGeus treason truly makes me ill. This story would make a great movie though!

Anonymous said...

Yes, Ms. DeGeus acted like royalty everything she was in camp, and complained endlessly. This is not slander, just a statement of fact. This observation is relevant because it may explain Stu's erratic, bizarre behavior with the motions, etc.

They wanted out, and fast!

Anonymous said...

Katy relocated back to northern MI from Las Vegas to be close to her friends and extended family around Lakeside!~

Why would Stu deny her a coupla lousy weeks at the cottage that he didn't want anyway?

His actions were full of spite and contempt!

Anonymous said...

Lakeside is badly in need of some new blood. The families that love it there should stay.

The trouble makers and nay sayers need to go. (and there are many more than just Uncle Slymie)

The place has become a bit cloistered and inbred. Could definitely benefit by some new blood.

Maybe the recession will shake things up- more cottages will be sold~ new families will move in.

Let's evolve!

Anonymous said...

Lakesides #1 Ne'er-do-well, David C. Slymons, should be the very first to go.

Can the association revoke someone's membership?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

That first comment wasn't as bad as some I've read. what's up. only the truth be told about stooge and slymie

Anonymous said...

This unholy alliance between Stu and Uncle Slymie has caused so much pain.

Slymie probably told Stu that this will all pass and be forgotten soon. And that he and his lovely wife can visit the cottage anytime!

But now that Stu has served his purpose in Uncle Slymie's grand scheme, you can bet Slymie will drop Stu like a hot potatoe!

Anonymous said...

Slymie has made a mockery and a douchery out of Lakeside Camp!

This is the most appalling story of greed and betrayal I think I have ever read.

And to think it's not fiction- it all actually happened right here in our sleepy little camp.

Anonymous said...

Slymie has made a mockery and a douchery out of Lakeside Camp!

This is the most appalling story of greed and betrayal I think I have ever read.

Exactly right!!!
Amazing isn't it? that one so called man could do that

Anonymous said...

Is it something in the water up there at Higgins, or what?

I mean, I know there's a lot of good people at Lakeside, Cottage Grove and Pinewoods too, but boy oh boy, are there some real douches up there!

Anonymous said...

"Stu never gave her what was rightfully hers... thanks Hank for that one!"

Who is Hank? How many misogynists can there be in one family?

Anonymous said...

What do you mean by saying that Stu "defaulted."

Defaulted on what?

Joey said...

Stu defaulted? When David filed his lawsuit, he listed mother, Stu and Katy as defendants. Mother and Katy partnered up with the same attorney and responded. Stu never did. He didn't show up, never got an attorney and basically "defaulted" in this case. When he started getting greedy, he joined up with David.

Anonymous said...

Hank is Katy and stu's father. Their mother was Helen anne

Anonymous said...

If you'd have told me 30 years ago that Stu would be doing this I'd never have believed it. He had such good values and was the kindest person I'd ever known. He has some way of justifying this to himself, and I rack my brain to figure out what it is. Sure isn't the Stu I knew years ago and Helen Anne would be disgusted.

Anonymous said...

Stu was adopted as was katy. Katy picked up on family morals, values where as in stu's case he never did. Not that I could tell. Oh yes he was very nice growing up and then wham, got married and it was downhill from there. It's just amazing how that happened to him.

Anonymous said...

Poor Stu. Throws away the family legacy and a lifetime of good friends and good memories for a few lousy bucks.

And shame on Uncle Slymie for manipulating the boy.

Anonymous said...

What the hell happened to Stu? He was a good kid and always was fun but as soon as he married he changed so much that no one can recognize him and to this day he sides with his wife and his sister Katy is just not part of his "life"
at all anymore. She was disposable as far as Stu was concerned. She has lost all contact with David and Elizabeth I hear, and that is a tragedy for Katy AND those 2 kids.What will he say when they ask what happend to Aunt Katy? She fought for the family cottage and stood her ground and is now being punished for it. Such a waste.

Just your under average blogger said...

Poor Stu my ass, from the time his father died he was there for the money and nothing would stand in his way. From the way Helen Ann' wishes were ignored and Henry did his split 75/25, it's all been about the money. Stu is the last person you should feel sorry for.

David didn't have to manipulte him, Stu was a willing participant.

Anonymous said...

Manipulate the boy?
Are you kidding me. What is he a little kid. He knew exactly what he was doing. Remember he was adopted so he didn't get his greed from his mother or father, he got it from his biological parents. He's a scum bag that would kick anyone that got in his way. In the real world he is P.W.-ed. I hope his kids realize someday what a liar he is and a money hungry jerk. I can only hope they don't grow up like their father. I also hope they read this blog

Anonymous said...

"Henry did his split 75/25,"

Is that why Stu had 3 weeks of exclusive time each summer compared to Katy's 1 week?

Why was such an unfair allocation worked out?

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Stu's greed came from a biological parent - I think it came from Henry. That's clear because of how Henry went against Helen Anne's wishes - Everything he left was 75/25 because he was just a prick. And did stu ever do anything to correct it? No. Even after other family members approached him and tried to convince him it was the appropriate thing to do, he still didn't budge. Even if Kathy is the greedy one who has persuaded her husband to do nasty things, Stu should still have enough decency (or balls) to not screw over his sister, or choose to not help his aunt jo, his cousins, and his sister with this whole cottage ordeal.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Henry was a crazy old loon. 2 children, but 1 of them gets 75% of everything, and the other only 25%

Why would he do something so unfair.

Take heed parents and elders. If your Wills are not FAIR, you sow the seeds of hatred and family destruction amongst your offspring.

Anonymous said...

OK, I'm about to puke. So out of the 1/3 "DeGues" cut of the cottage proceeds after Slymie's forced sale, katy only got 25% of the third?

I'm definitely noticing a pattern of misogyny in this family... in Henry, Stu and of course Slymie.