After it was determined that the cottage property could not be "partitioned"..or parcelled off in equal lots, the judge ruled that it would be sold. To do this, he appointed his partner/friend to facilitate the terms of the sale. Now I have some experience with facilitation and mediation processes. In my previous career as a chief deputy director with the Ohio Dept. of Commerce one of my responsibilities was as a liason to the Office of Dispute Resolution and Mediation. I learned the techniques and various processes of facilitation and mediation. I conducted many facilitations and a number of mediations. What our court appointed facilitator/mediator did was in no way NOTHING like any facilitation processes I ever learned. Perhaps that is why both sessions failed.
From a letter dated March 22, 2007 David Meyer wrote: "Although progress was made with respect to certain issues, including the scheduling of appraisals and determination of minimum bid, other procedural issues regarding the mechanics of sale continue to separate the parties." He went on to say, "I do not believe that further facilitation will resolve the matter." Duh!
As you may recal from previous posts, the first session ended prematurely when the plaintiff and his attorney left early. The second session was somewhat productive with Rick negotiating on behalf of his father. Apparently his limited power of attorney was VERY limited. All parties worked towards an agreement of terms to abruptly end when a phone call to the plaintiff undid everything. Sorry to have wasted everyone's time? Not.
So.. the bottom line.. a general idea that there would be appraisals conducted to determine the fair market value. The facilitator would obtain a third. The high and low would be thrown out, a visit to the property would be made and a price would be set. If the parties couldn't agree on the time line and process for selling said property, it would be listed with a realtor and offered up for sale to the public. Or, something like that. Yeah. Or something.
At this point, summer was approaching and the plaintiff did not want us any where near the cottage. In the Plaintiff's Motion for Imposition of Costs and Sanctions/Injunctive Relief filed on April 2, 2007 he stated "That the Plaintiff, David C. Symons, is fearfull that the cottage, would sustain damage or waste and that articles of personal property would be lost or misplaced while the matter is pending. That Plaintiff is fearful that waste or damage will be committed to the cottage in that there has already been painting and graffiti committed to the cottage in the past several months; to wit the painting of a door, painting of walls and brick fireplace..." (ok, so we painted the front door. The walls in the back cottage had been painted about 10 years earlier as was the fireplace that he agreed to).
And so we waited. Back to court again to hear this motion. Would the judge rule? Would we get to use our cottage??? More to come....