With the report in from the receiver, Mr. Meyers, we reviewed his opinion that the cottage would be sold to David C. Symons and the Radke Trust as well as the proration of costs. The itemized statement of attorney fees from Sturtz were not included. We didn't lay eyes on that until we were back in court the first part of the next year. At this point, all we had was David Meyer's report with figures provided by David Symons. You'd think he'd have taken the time (Mr. Meyer) to actually gather all the figures.
In the OBJECTIONS TO REPORT OF RECEIVER FOR CLOSING ON SALE OF REAL PROPERTY,
"Defendants disagree that the court had the authority to approve sale of the property to plaintiff's assigns because the purchase agreement executed by plaintiff stated in pertinent part:
'15. Assignment. Purchaser may not assign his right to purchase the Parcel under this Apreement.'
Under plain, clear, and unambiguous language of the purchase agreement, the plaintiff agreed that he could not assign his right to purchase the property under the agreement. The parties are bound to their agreement. The court may not make a new contract for the parties or change the intent of the parties to the contract."
(various rulings are referenced...)
more..."The purchase agreement makes no provision that plaintiff pay only two-thirds of the purchase price. The receiver is, in effect, modifying or reforming the purchase agreement without authority and is not adhering to the clear and unambiguouis terms of the purchase agreement."
"c. The closing expenses do not reflect the $575,000.00 sale price, the proration of the LC Association dues, the proration of the home owners insurance, the proration of association assessments. The request for additional attorneys fees in the amount of $37,311.00 that plaintiff provided to the receiver, was not provided to the defendants for their review. Defendants have been unable to review the proposed attorneys fees as to whether they are reasonable. This is prejudicial to the defendants.Plaintiff has not submitted the proposed additional attorneys fees to the court for approval or copied defendants. Plaintiff has not provided any documentation that he actually paid the attorneys fees, even though the receiver has deducted plaintiff's alleged unsupported payments from the calculations for the reimbursement of plaintiff's attorneys fees."
More legal mumbo jumbo. Boy there sure was a lot of that!!!! Our closing summation:
"WHEREFORE, defendants, Josephine S. Lee and Katrina Jenkins, object to the report of receiver for closing on sale of real property because the terms for the closing do not comport with the terms of the offer of purchase signed by plaintiff. The report authorizes plaintiff to assign his interest to the Reinhardt Radke Trust, which is expressly prohibited by the offer to purchase. Defendants request the court to enforce the terms of the offer to purchase and request the court to adjourn the hearing until plaintiff provides documentation to support his claim for reimbursement of attorneys fees." Dated December 30, 2008
Note the date. While this was going on, another motion had been filed preventing mother and I from using the cottage over Christmas. I'll share that story tomorrow. Clearly, the cottage had not yet been sold. Distribution of property had not been worked out yet. The receiver requested a detailed inventory and that hadn't been prepared as yet. Our plans to head north for Christmas remained unchanged as of Dec. 22, 2008.