June 20, 2009

The race to sell....

With much flurry and paperwork between counsel and Mr. Meyer, a letter was sent to the Association announcing the sale of the cottage. In addition, a letter was sent to "some" of the association members. In the letter dated June 7, 2007 Mr. Meyer sent the procedures for submitting an offer to purchase as well as the "offer to purchase form". He noted that (after much argument) that the minimum offering price has been changed to $575k and also admitted to "now" understanding that this minimum price is still below the offering price which was first proposed by the parties to this action. (duh). He also requested "sellers disclosures" from both parties.

This was followed by another attempt from our attorney to point out that in addition to his "minimum" bid price, the property also has a 1/35th stake in the SEV of the Association. At that time the fair market value of the association was $17,191.00. We shared additional concerns regarding the procedure to sell. Like, does the seller reserve the right to refuse all bids if an appropriate purchase price is not reached??? and.. What is the procedure after the July 31, 2007 deadline? The note to association members was very confusing to say the least. We also felt that expanding the marketing approach would be beneficial and again suggested this be done.

In response... Mr. Meyer mentioned his office had received several telephone calls regarding the property and said he'd provide additional information once it was available to interested parties. He said NO to additional advertising with the exception of allowing a contact person from the other associations to disseminate information. He went on to say if it turns out that there is little interest generated from the letter he sent it may be necessary to reconsider how the property is being marketed. Perhaps a real estate broker could handle it. He said, "let's wait a few weeks to see what materializes from the letter I sent out."

We were busy preparing to head north for a month. You can imagine how truly gut wrenching this mess was. This looked like our last summer. We were in the hands of some guy who didn't have a clue and people were going to be touring through the cottage to see if they'd like to make a "bid". Nice. Really nice. Already things were getting more confusing by the minute and the July 31, deadline was looming. It would not be changed. More to come....


Anonymous said...

Wow, the more is revealed about this mess- the more questions come to mind.

Firstly- it must have been hell being up there, trying to enjoy your vacation- and having would be "bidders" traipsing through.

At least you enjoyed the fellowship and support of your fellow campers!

Anonymous said...

Now for the preguntas:

"a letter was sent to "some" of the association members."

Why some and not all? Who were the lucky ones who received formal notification of the cottage for sale? Did David just submit his personal list of those in camp he considered most unlikely to make an offer?

"the property also has a 1/35th stake in the SEV of the Association. At that time the fair market value of the association was $17,191.00."

Excuse my ignorance, but what does SEV mean? Are you saying that the market value of owning 1/35th of the association is only some $17,000???? This seems WAY off base. Given the vast wealth of Lakeside's land holdings- I mean, Lakeside's gotta be worth well over $17,000,000. 1/35 at that value would be almost half a million bucks. Something's very fishy here- and I'm not talking about the perch fries in the dining hall!

"The note to association members was very confusing to say the least. "

Was this note composed by David Slymons? Please post for reference.

"He said NO to additional advertising with the exception of allowing a contact person from the other associations to disseminate information."

Who were the designated contact people from the other associations? Do you have any proof or evidence that that actually happened?

Given the half-assed job Meyer did of getting the word out to other campers in Lakeside and the other associations-- it would seem only logical and fair to properly market the property to a larger audience via the MLS.

Anonymous said...

Lemme get this straight. A court appointed facilitator, with no experience staging or marketing real estate, dictated and executed a flawed strategy for marketing and "selling" your cottage- (intra associations-) with less than a 2 month window to accomplish this task?

This is a complete outrage. Meyer was nothing but a puppet of David Slymons.

Anonymous said...

Yup...that's about the gist of it. First, if any of you are confused, imagine dealing with this confusion on our end. My mistake on not clarifying the SEV amount..(state equalized value). It was $17million dollars... correct. Mr. Meyer threw this together in about a half hour. It was as flawed as it could get. You haven't heard the rest of the story..it gets better..or I should say worse?

Joey said...

That was me by the way on the previous comment.. Forgot to put my name on it...ooops. Also, someone asked who got notices and who decided the list? Mr. Meyer selected names from the book. As for CG and PW.. we provided their contact for their e-mail lists. We had to work hard to get that one done...and yes, we appreciated all the support from many fellow campers.

Anonymous said...

Man, the numbers still don't check out. If Lakeside is worth 17Mil, and your cottage owned 1/35 of the whole-- your cottage's share was worth approximately $485,714.00.

There were 3 ownership entities in your cottage: Slymons, Lees and DeGeus/Jenkins.

Therefore, each of the shareholding entities in your cottage held shares in Lakeside Assoc. valued at approx. $161,904.

So, in this particular case-- wouldn't Slymons and his "investors" owe the Lees and DeGeues/Jenkins each an additional $161,904 on top of whatever the cottage actually sold for?

I'm getting the impression the additional $324K collectively due the Lees and DeGues/Jenkins for their shares in Lakeside Association was never factored into the deal. Am I right?

Oh the sweet sound of an appeal is ringing in my ears! :)

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Meyer selected names from the book."

So Mr. Meyer, who know absolutely nothing about the associations, protocol, rituals, traditions, etc. --randomly picked out a few Lakesiders from a directory to solicit your cottage to?

Sheer lunacy.

Anonymous said...

Did any offers whatsoever materialize from Mr. Meyer's very scientific and astute outreach efforts within Lakeside, Cottage Grove and Pinewoods?

Anonymous said...

Go Team Lee!

Go Team Jenkins and DeGeus!!!!

Joey said...

The SEV is generally halved to determine "fair" market value. This depends on a number of things but for the most part is the case. The actual "value" of each lots cut of the assoc. value is around 20k right now. (give or take a few). This is generally the amount used to determine the camp's "transfer" fee. When property changes hands, outside the immediate family, the transfer fee is owed by the new buyers.

Anonymous said...

I bet when and if you do appeal,slymons is going to have a stroke for certain. Given the facts of your 1/35th. I'm sure he never thought that he would owe the remainder. He'll probably have to sell to someone else. He'll never be able to afford the rest and wanting to sell asap he never thought you guys didn't do or know your homework. Go Lee's/Jenkins. Maybe stu and the witch can fork over that money and slymons will have to owe him. Yeah right. I'm so glad you guys figured that out.Oh the wheels of deceit are turning.

Anonymous said...

OK Joey- even if SEV value is halved to determine "FMV"- I still calculate your family's ownership shares in the Association at approx. 81K. That is the amount the old douche still owes you!

Now, the "Transfer fee" is another matter.
Why is the "transfer" fee owed to the Association? Shouldn't it be owed the the former owners, in compensation for their former shares in the Association?

And back to the old question- Did Carol and her sister and brother in law pay the transfer fee? Cuz if the didn't...

Anonymous said...

Cuz if they didn't-- we need to hold an emergency meeting of the Lakeside board to discuss the following motion:

1.) It is well understood that President Slymons and his in-law encroachers still owe the Lees 81K and Stu and his delightful sister, Ms. Katrina Jenkins, another 81K. Until these funds are paid in full, the association cannot in good conscience approve this deal.


2.) Carol Slymons, Her sister Bonnie and Bonnie's husband, Jim, owe the Association $20,000 in transfer fees. This 20K is due in full and immediately payable.

Until such time as all fees due the Association, the Lees, the DeGues's and the Jenkins' are paid in full, the following new camp rules will be strictly enforced.

A.) Mr. and Mrs. Slymons are not to access any association owned roads leading into camp and to their cottage. Neither are their kids, nor Bonnie and Jim or their kids, or any of their guests.

B.) Mr. and Mrs. Slymons are not to access the lakefront in front of the patch in front of their cottage leading up to the lake. They actually cannot access the lake from any point in camp. They are also enjoined from approaching camp via boat. The same prohibitions apply to the Slymons' boys, Bonnie and Jim- and all affiliated spawn or friends of same.

C.) No member of the Slymons family, nor Bonnie and Jim (what is their last name?) may enter any point in camp, even their own cottage, via parachute.

D.) NO tunnel may be dug from any point outside camp, leading to the Slymons cottage.

E.) NO Slymons or Bonnie/Jim Radke Trust people may use the dining hall, the tennis courts, or any other of the commonly owned association property.

D.) To enforce these provisions, armed guards will be posted at the main entrance to Lakeside, the border with Cottage Grove, and the little hole in fence at the end of camp.

It is further decreed that if President Slymons cannot meet his obligations by the time of the annual meeting, he will obviously not be permitted to attend the annual meeting. The Board of Trustees, in its sole discretion, may decide to allow video conferencing so that President Slymons may still participate in the annual meeting via video conferencing from his undisclosed location in Saginaw.

All in favor of this motion, say "Aye."

Anonymous said...

Any cottage that is sold in Lakeside has the right to deny any new cottage owners membership. When was slymons given the vote. Hey he tried to sell and in doing so doesn't he give up his rights as a Lakesider? I don't care if he was a partial owner. From the time he decided to sell he should have been out as a cottage owner and Lakesider. I know I never voted him back in... Scumbag
Ah yes he's the pretending prez

Anonymous said...

"Any cottage that is sold in Lakeside has the right to deny any new cottage owners membership. "

This is unclear. Are you saying that any member in good standing of Lakeside Association has the right to deny any new cottage owners membership in the association?

Or do prospective new members just have to be voted in by a majority, like in Cottage Grove?

Has a vote been scheduled on the membership application of Carol's sister and her husband?

Regarding Slymons losing his membership for putting his cottage up for sale (not to mention numerous other crimes and misdemeanors) what exactly do the bylaws say about that? If you are right, that is a very interesting development. Slymons might have to re-apply for membership.

If even one other member could block Slymons- he's definitely out. If he only needs a majority of the association to vote him back in-- he's probably STILL OUT!

Might as well pack your backs now, Slymedog! (Assuming the previous poster's comments are accurate)

Anonymous said...

Not only should people be voted in, there should be a ruling on what kind of cottage should be built. I mean if slymons wanted to tear down his cottage and build an "A" frame, it just wouldn't fit in with all these other beautiful cottages. He's the type of person that would try anything to just piss people off.

Anonymous said...

you know what else pisses me off? Rick slymons. Trampsing around here like everybody likes him. How can anyone from that family come up here and act like nothing has happened. Waving and trying to be nice when in fact everyone hates him as much as his swine-flu carrying father. MAKES ME SICK!!!!!

Man I can't wait for the annual meeting

Anonymous said...

excuse my correction on go team lee/jenkins/degeus. There is no team degeus. Degeus was one of the original starters of this mess. Stu and his quick rich wife that probably talked stu into selling.
The Stu that I always knew growing up would never have agreed to such a lawsuit, but people change and then they listen to their wives. Tisk,tisk. Shame on you stu.

Anonymous said...

Rick Slymons was sent up by his old man to be a "diplomant" a sort of good will ambassador to get people to feel good about the Slymons family-- which majorly BACKFIRED!

Rick, you're a phony and a fraud, just like your old man.

Save the fake smiles. You are a slithering little serpent winding it's way on sacred ground where you don't belong.

Anonymous said...

Tell us more about the DeGeus wife. She sounds like a money grubbing C U Next Tuesday.

Anonymous said...


Agree with every point in the motion! Absolutely no access into camp for Slymons & Sons, or the Radke Rip off artists until ALL of the funds due are paid, or until the results of a new appeal come in, whichever happens latest.

Anonymous said...

Was Stu aligned with Uncle Slymons during this legal mess?

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

whoa... that's not too cool. I doubt she had a "problem"..but still..we are better then this.

Anonymous said...

your right delete my insert. sorry got carried away.just pissed

Anonymous said...

Damn, blink and you miss something juicy!

Now we're wondering what was the comment that got deleted!

Anonymous said...

Old man Slymons sent Rick up to damage control in advance of the dining hall opening.

Sorry Sly, but the operation was a failure.