In my previous post regarding the plaintiff's motion for Imposition of Costs and Sanctions/Injunctive Relief, the actual motion contains a number of points that support the plaintiff's "fear". As far as I can see in reading back over all the paperwork, these "fears" are nicely fabricated in an attempt to basically block us from using the cottage, removing any items (including those that belong to us) and paying for his attorney fees.
This is HOW NOT to handle a cottage issue. If any of you readers own a cottage or piece of property as tenants in common please, please do yourself a favor and read the book, Saving the Family Cottage by Stuart J. Hollander, Esq. I know. I should be getting kickbacks.
From the motion filed April 2, 2007 the plaintiff expresses his "fears", requests that the court prevent anyone from using the cottage and in addition, pay all his attorney costs. He does this by listing one lie after another. It is hard to read, even now. When it was happening we all just felt kicked in the gut. How can anyone make such false statements and SWEAR to them? (perjury?)
The second facilitation that failed??? This is how they "characterized" it in the motion.."5. Thereafter the parties met for a second facilitation on March 21, 2007 from 1:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., and all attempts to resolve the issues have been thwarted by unreasonable demands of the Defendant, Josephine".
Of course each time these motions are filed, our attorney has to file a response. You should see the boxes of paper. Our response to #5. "In answer to the allegations in paragrah 5, defendants admit that the parties met for a second facilitation before David Meyer on March 21, 2007 from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in said paragraph. Defendants further state that plaintiff David was not present at the facilitation, but was represented through a power of attorney by his son, Richard, an attorney with the firm ***. At the outset of the facilitation, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that plaintiff had changed his mind in regard to the issue of the three appraisals and would only consider the middle appraisal as the "mean price". Further, plaintiff's counsel informed defendants that he would insisit upon the reimburesement of his attorney fees from the sale of the property. These were two changes from the plaintiff's position in the previous facilitation. Despite these new demands, the defendants attempted, in good faith, to work toward a settlement of the case. In fact, a settlement was reached between the parties and Mr. Meyer drafted the agreement for siguature by the parties. While waiting to sign the agreement drafted by Mr. Meyer, defendants were informed that plaintiff's counsel and Richard had telephoned David who, in turn, summarily rejected the agreement that had been reached by his representatives at facilitation and by defendants. Therefore, defendants had wasted the complete afternoon in negotiating with the plaintiff's representatives, who apprently had no authorization from the plaintiff to act on his behalf."
In answer to the paragraph (10) of the plaintiff's motion, "...defendants state that plaintiff's "fears" are unfounded and not based upon fact. There has never been any waste or damage to the cottages as alleged by plaintiff, and such allegations are spurious and insulting. More specifically, there has been no painting or "graffiti" committed to the cottage in the past several months. Defendants are not aware of any such "graffiti". In regard to the painting of the door to the cottage, defendants state that the door was painted in August 2006 because the paint on the door was peeling and needed painting. Defendants painted the door a tasteful red...."
Again, the plaintiff's fears were expressed in paragraph 10.. "That e-mails and letters have been sent indicating very hostile and intentional negative feelings towards the Plaintiff." (join in... awhhhhhhhhhh)