Please, I will not ask again, gutter language comments have no place here. Most of you are good about what you say, and I appreciate that. I understand to an extent some frustration, but please, you all are above it.
I will turn off the ability to post anonymously if that should continue. There are better ways to express your displeasure with or in someone, without using the language that has been used.
As much as I would agree with some of what I have removed, this is not the venue for that. Our mission is to inform, not to be nasty, mean and vindictive.
Thank you for your continued support, it does mean a lot to us, and makes the effort all seem worthwhile.
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:
DEFENDANT STUART DEGEUS'S MOTION TO IMPOSE SCHEDULING OF COTTAGE USE BY THE PARTIES PENDING THE MICHGAN COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION
"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.
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:
DEFENDANT STUART DEGEUS'S MOTION TO IMPOSE SCHEDULING OF COTTAGE USE BY THE PARTIES PENDING THE MICHGAN COURT OF APPEALS' DECISION
"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.
June 29, 2009
Another flurry of motions....
We filed a "stay" pending our appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. That didn't go over well with the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals...Dismissed this claim "for lack of jurisdiction because the order of October 29, 2007, is not a final order as defined by MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) because it does not adjudicate all the rights and liabilities as is required by MCR... . In the Order of April 18, 2007, the trial court stated, 'following confirmation of the sale and closing, the Court will determine the distribution of the proceeds of sale, including dower interests, if any, in the proceeds.' At this point there has been no closing and no order that distributes the proceeds of the sale."
So, a final order from the court isn't final until all proceeds are distributed, title is transfered, etc.. It seemed to make sense to us to do this BEFORE it all got split up and handed over to David. Guess it didn't make sense to the "gatekeepers" of the Appeal Court.
The plaintiff was pretty pissed off. They knew we were going to go back and appeal again. They demanded an "Order that an appeal bond be set in this matter in the amount of $718,750.00." Right. And this wasn't about money??
In the end, the judge set the appeal bond at $25,000. You have to wonder at the reasoning. She had a 1/3 interest in the property. The same interest as the plainiff. So, she had to get a $25,000 bond.
More motions to convey sale occured. In a letter dated January 2, 2008 our attorney reported that "he'd attended the hearing on plaintiff's motion to conform with the court of appeals. The judge agreed with our answer that he did not have jurisdiction over this matter because jurisdiction remained exclusively with the court of appeals pending our motion for reconsideration.. Therefore, the matter will be held in abeyance."
He went on to say, "In speaking with Judge Borchard, it appears that he will do whatever he can to insure that an appeal goes forward before any action is taken to convey the property. He also realizes that great prejudice would be created if the property were conveyed and then his decisions were reversed by the court of appeals. He agrees that the appeals process should be exhausted before any further action is taken by him in the trial court."
Plaintiff filed an answer /response to our motion for reconsideration of the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
"Although Mr. Sturtz has filed this answer with the Michigan Court of Appeals, I assume that the Court of Appeals will return the answer to him because there is no provision in the court rules that allows for him to file an answer to our motion. The Michigan Court of Appeals is very strict in this regard. Where there is no provision in a court rule for filing an answer, the Court of Appeals will not consider the pleading and, in fact, simply returns the pleading to the filing party without considering it." Phil must have skipped the "procedural" part of his legal training. He kept doing this. Maybe he was just running up his bill?
This was all rather boring. Motions and more motions... mounting legal costs and on and on. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was pushing to get "his" cottage. From our attorney, "I am enclosing for your file a re-notice of the motion to confirm sale, convey real estate and payment of costs and expense that rescheules the hearing date from February 4, 2008 to February 11, 2008 at 9:00 a.m..
I note on the notice that Mr. Sturtz has still noticed the wrong motion. As we previously discussed, the judge granted the motion several months ago. That is the order from which we are appealing.
I am preparing an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals that will need to be filed this week before the Monday hearing. With the filing of the application, I would assume that the hearing on the motion will be cancelled because the trial court would not have jurisdiction over the matter."
And so it went. Back and forth, hearings rescheduled, cancelled, re-noticed, etc. etc. The final gist of all of this??? We jumped through all the hoops and landed in the hands of the Michigan Court of Appeals once again. Their backlog is such that it would be months if not years to go all the way through with this. Stay tuned.. we had a "time out" of sorts. Nice for us. Frustrating to the others. Poor Stu.. he had to wait even longer in hopes of getting some money. Awwwwwwww.
So, a final order from the court isn't final until all proceeds are distributed, title is transfered, etc.. It seemed to make sense to us to do this BEFORE it all got split up and handed over to David. Guess it didn't make sense to the "gatekeepers" of the Appeal Court.
The plaintiff was pretty pissed off. They knew we were going to go back and appeal again. They demanded an "Order that an appeal bond be set in this matter in the amount of $718,750.00." Right. And this wasn't about money??
In the end, the judge set the appeal bond at $25,000. You have to wonder at the reasoning. She had a 1/3 interest in the property. The same interest as the plainiff. So, she had to get a $25,000 bond.
More motions to convey sale occured. In a letter dated January 2, 2008 our attorney reported that "he'd attended the hearing on plaintiff's motion to conform with the court of appeals. The judge agreed with our answer that he did not have jurisdiction over this matter because jurisdiction remained exclusively with the court of appeals pending our motion for reconsideration.. Therefore, the matter will be held in abeyance."
He went on to say, "In speaking with Judge Borchard, it appears that he will do whatever he can to insure that an appeal goes forward before any action is taken to convey the property. He also realizes that great prejudice would be created if the property were conveyed and then his decisions were reversed by the court of appeals. He agrees that the appeals process should be exhausted before any further action is taken by him in the trial court."
Plaintiff filed an answer /response to our motion for reconsideration of the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
"Although Mr. Sturtz has filed this answer with the Michigan Court of Appeals, I assume that the Court of Appeals will return the answer to him because there is no provision in the court rules that allows for him to file an answer to our motion. The Michigan Court of Appeals is very strict in this regard. Where there is no provision in a court rule for filing an answer, the Court of Appeals will not consider the pleading and, in fact, simply returns the pleading to the filing party without considering it." Phil must have skipped the "procedural" part of his legal training. He kept doing this. Maybe he was just running up his bill?
This was all rather boring. Motions and more motions... mounting legal costs and on and on. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was pushing to get "his" cottage. From our attorney, "I am enclosing for your file a re-notice of the motion to confirm sale, convey real estate and payment of costs and expense that rescheules the hearing date from February 4, 2008 to February 11, 2008 at 9:00 a.m..
I note on the notice that Mr. Sturtz has still noticed the wrong motion. As we previously discussed, the judge granted the motion several months ago. That is the order from which we are appealing.
I am preparing an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals that will need to be filed this week before the Monday hearing. With the filing of the application, I would assume that the hearing on the motion will be cancelled because the trial court would not have jurisdiction over the matter."
And so it went. Back and forth, hearings rescheduled, cancelled, re-noticed, etc. etc. The final gist of all of this??? We jumped through all the hoops and landed in the hands of the Michigan Court of Appeals once again. Their backlog is such that it would be months if not years to go all the way through with this. Stay tuned.. we had a "time out" of sorts. Nice for us. Frustrating to the others. Poor Stu.. he had to wait even longer in hopes of getting some money. Awwwwwwww.
June 28, 2009
Enter Stu....
From a letter dated October 22, 2007, the court responded to a letter that Stu deGues sent to the judge. "Please be advised that it is inappropriate for a party to contact the Court directly. All further contact with the Court should be handled through the parties' legal counsel. Thank you, Fred L. Borchard." No kidding!
So, Stu defaulted. He was getting a bit antsy about his money. I'm sure there may have been some prompting for this letter from the plaintiff.. the letter?
To: The Honorable Judge Fred Borchard:
I am here today to present my views on, and opposition to, the latest motion to stay the sale of the family cottage.
My family and I are exasperated by the continuation of frivolous motions, intentional delays, and mounting legal and property tax costs.
We are asking that the property be sold immediately and proceeds be distributed immediately".
Stu goes on to list all the reasons why everything should be wrapped up, ending with, "IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THIS MATTER, AND MOVE ON."
"Finally, I would be remiss on behalf of my family if I did not personally comment on reason number four of the opposition's most recent motion to stay proceedings: "The defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the subject property is conveyed to plaintiff pending appeal."
"My family will never again visit Lakeside Camp. The actions, comments and innuendo made by the opposition have embarrased my family, and they can no longer face years' old friends. Please bring this matter to a close." signed, Stuart deGeus. No shit.
So, he defaults but somehow thinks he can just write a letter to the judge and tell him to move this forward. Duh. What a chump.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff is requesting that mother post a $75,000 bond. What??? Their arguement, if this goes to appeal, harm could come to the cottage. Really??? What else is up their sleeve??? What a mess.
So, Stu defaulted. He was getting a bit antsy about his money. I'm sure there may have been some prompting for this letter from the plaintiff.. the letter?
To: The Honorable Judge Fred Borchard:
I am here today to present my views on, and opposition to, the latest motion to stay the sale of the family cottage.
My family and I are exasperated by the continuation of frivolous motions, intentional delays, and mounting legal and property tax costs.
We are asking that the property be sold immediately and proceeds be distributed immediately".
Stu goes on to list all the reasons why everything should be wrapped up, ending with, "IT IS TIME TO SETTLE THIS MATTER, AND MOVE ON."
"Finally, I would be remiss on behalf of my family if I did not personally comment on reason number four of the opposition's most recent motion to stay proceedings: "The defendants will suffer irreparable harm if the subject property is conveyed to plaintiff pending appeal."
"My family will never again visit Lakeside Camp. The actions, comments and innuendo made by the opposition have embarrased my family, and they can no longer face years' old friends. Please bring this matter to a close." signed, Stuart deGeus. No shit.
So, he defaults but somehow thinks he can just write a letter to the judge and tell him to move this forward. Duh. What a chump.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff is requesting that mother post a $75,000 bond. What??? Their arguement, if this goes to appeal, harm could come to the cottage. Really??? What else is up their sleeve??? What a mess.
June 26, 2009
Another deleted comment warning....
Going back to April 30th and again on May 27th
I really don't like removing comments, however, when we get so far from target, and things start bordering on slander, I get nervous, and for good reason. You've only seen the tip of the iceberg regarding the costs to defend, we don't need to incur more.
As long as we are careful in what we say and who we direct it too, I am good.
Distant family, children, and wives of those not directly affected by this are not issues and should be left out. They undoubtably will have to suffer the consequences by virtue of being related, that's penalty enough wouldn't you think?
I really do appreciate all who have commented and will continue to do so, you are what makes this fun to do, and I thank you for your loyal support.
I really don't like removing comments, however, when we get so far from target, and things start bordering on slander, I get nervous, and for good reason. You've only seen the tip of the iceberg regarding the costs to defend, we don't need to incur more.
As long as we are careful in what we say and who we direct it too, I am good.
Distant family, children, and wives of those not directly affected by this are not issues and should be left out. They undoubtably will have to suffer the consequences by virtue of being related, that's penalty enough wouldn't you think?
I really do appreciate all who have commented and will continue to do so, you are what makes this fun to do, and I thank you for your loyal support.
Defendent's Motion to Stay Proceedings
The court... in a startling turn of events (ha ha ha)...denied our motion for reconsideration. Really! Can't say we were terribly surprised. Given the way things had been going, did we really think the judge would "reconsider" this mess and determine that perhaps they bungled things?? Oh well. It was an action we could take and it bought us a little time.
While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the plaintiff's attorney filed an answer (not allowed) as well as another motion. The motion wasn't allowed either. However, it produced a flurry of paperwork and legal expenses.
What next? Clearly the process set up by Mr. Meyer didn't work. The plaintiff was going to walk off with the cottage and he submitted multiple pages of attorney fees that he wanted paid. The total submitted by their counsel was $22,232.65 plus costs of $319.64. The pages of itemized expenses was rather revealing. Many calls to Stu, a lot of time spent with Rick, an amazing amount of money for trips to the court house and on and on and on. Example: On September 18, plaintiff's attorney charged 1 hour, 45 minutes ($350.00) to take the summons and complaint to the courthouse for filing. (it's about a 5 minute trip) 2. On Sept. 19, plaintiff's attorney charged 45 minutes to contact the process server. 3. On Nov. 8, plaintiff's attorney charged $200 to take the motion for summary disposition to the courthouse for filing. (he was getting quicker) Dictation must take Phil a very very very long time...numerous examples of just how long it took. Hmmm. Wow. Good work if you can get it. We argued that this was pretty stupid.
Motion for reconsideration was denied, motions to convey sale and reimburse attorney fees were filed, we filed a "stay" pending our appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Boy were they pissed off. Stays are a good thing!!!
Lesson here, partition is costly. Things will happen you have no idea "could" happen. Naturally the relationship between siblings (David and mother) remained cool? Cold? Hostile? to say the least. Start talking about your future vision for your cottage. Are you all on the same page??? Are you sure??? Transfer to a LLC and start capturing this "good will".
While the motion for reconsideration was pending, the plaintiff's attorney filed an answer (not allowed) as well as another motion. The motion wasn't allowed either. However, it produced a flurry of paperwork and legal expenses.
What next? Clearly the process set up by Mr. Meyer didn't work. The plaintiff was going to walk off with the cottage and he submitted multiple pages of attorney fees that he wanted paid. The total submitted by their counsel was $22,232.65 plus costs of $319.64. The pages of itemized expenses was rather revealing. Many calls to Stu, a lot of time spent with Rick, an amazing amount of money for trips to the court house and on and on and on. Example: On September 18, plaintiff's attorney charged 1 hour, 45 minutes ($350.00) to take the summons and complaint to the courthouse for filing. (it's about a 5 minute trip) 2. On Sept. 19, plaintiff's attorney charged 45 minutes to contact the process server. 3. On Nov. 8, plaintiff's attorney charged $200 to take the motion for summary disposition to the courthouse for filing. (he was getting quicker) Dictation must take Phil a very very very long time...numerous examples of just how long it took. Hmmm. Wow. Good work if you can get it. We argued that this was pretty stupid.
Motion for reconsideration was denied, motions to convey sale and reimburse attorney fees were filed, we filed a "stay" pending our appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Boy were they pissed off. Stays are a good thing!!!
Lesson here, partition is costly. Things will happen you have no idea "could" happen. Naturally the relationship between siblings (David and mother) remained cool? Cold? Hostile? to say the least. Start talking about your future vision for your cottage. Are you all on the same page??? Are you sure??? Transfer to a LLC and start capturing this "good will".
June 25, 2009
All sorts of crazy....
As I mentioned earlier, David filed a motion to facilitate sale and filing of the receiver's report on Aug. 6. We filed an answer to the motion on August 15. The court ruled on Aug. 24 to sell the cottage to David. On September 6 we filed a motion for reconsideration. If anyone is lost in the time line you may reference everything by accessing the Saginaw County Circuit Court site and enter David Symons' name. It'll all come up. Pages and pages and pages.
On September 20 our attorney forwarded to us a letter that he received from Phillip Sturtz written to David Meyer dated Sept. 19th as well as a response to our motion for reconsideration. He also enclosed a copy of our answer to the new matter and affirmative defenses. He said "As you will note in the answer, a response to the motion for reconsideration is not allowed under the court rules. In filing such a response, plaintiff has violated the Michigan Court Rules". No big deal except you have to pay to respond and answer these crazy motions. The gist of their arguement was they wanted it sold NOW plus they were concerned about "payment of attorney fees for the Plaintiff for having to bring this suit pursuant to Court rule, and the Receiver's fees and costs to be deducted from the purchase/sale price.
While all this was going on, David Meyer was getting phone calls from a prospective bidder. In a letter addressed to counsel he relayed the concerns of the prospective bidder regarding the right of first refusal. He stated that "I explained that the right of first refusal was given to the Association..." He went on to say he'd had several letters from Mr. Sturtz asking to confirm that the right of first refusal in favor of family members continues. "I have not confirmed this, because I was concerned that by doing so it would jeopardize my ability to recieve additional bids."
We were actively in discussions with Mr. Meyer via the "third party". What we learned was rather astonishing and while the bid never did happen, it was not without serious consideration. What we got out of it?? A BIG FAT CASE for appeal.
On September 20 our attorney forwarded to us a letter that he received from Phillip Sturtz written to David Meyer dated Sept. 19th as well as a response to our motion for reconsideration. He also enclosed a copy of our answer to the new matter and affirmative defenses. He said "As you will note in the answer, a response to the motion for reconsideration is not allowed under the court rules. In filing such a response, plaintiff has violated the Michigan Court Rules". No big deal except you have to pay to respond and answer these crazy motions. The gist of their arguement was they wanted it sold NOW plus they were concerned about "payment of attorney fees for the Plaintiff for having to bring this suit pursuant to Court rule, and the Receiver's fees and costs to be deducted from the purchase/sale price.
While all this was going on, David Meyer was getting phone calls from a prospective bidder. In a letter addressed to counsel he relayed the concerns of the prospective bidder regarding the right of first refusal. He stated that "I explained that the right of first refusal was given to the Association..." He went on to say he'd had several letters from Mr. Sturtz asking to confirm that the right of first refusal in favor of family members continues. "I have not confirmed this, because I was concerned that by doing so it would jeopardize my ability to recieve additional bids."
We were actively in discussions with Mr. Meyer via the "third party". What we learned was rather astonishing and while the bid never did happen, it was not without serious consideration. What we got out of it?? A BIG FAT CASE for appeal.
June 24, 2009
Procedure for selling member's property..Artical VII
It is unclear to any of us whether these procedures were ever followed. From the association by-laws it states that a member may sell his real estate in this association to whoembver he deems a suitable buyer, provided that such buyer qualifies and is acccepted for membership in accordance with these bylaws. In SECTION 2. Right of first refusal. Within 10 days of the decision by a member to sell his real estate in the Association he shall notify the President or Secretary of the Association in writing that his interest in such real estate is for sale. Such notices shall specify the name and address of the prosepective purchaser and the terms and conditions of the purchase. Each member covenants and agrees that the Assoication shall have the first right and option to purchase such real estate at the same price and on the same terms and conditions as set forth in such notice. The board of directors, with the approval of the membership, shall determine whether or not to excersise such option. Within thrity days after receipt of such notice, the Secretary shall notify the member of the decision of the Association as to the exercise or non-exercise of such option.
Due to the confusion that first year, I believe that David Meyer did notify the camp when it was first determined that the cottage would be sold. The fall of '07 was ripe with motions, back and forth and back and forth. The order to sell to David Symons was made and then we filed for appeal. This put things on hold. Again, with the appeal being denied (didn't have a final order and the court of appeals refused to hear the appeal).. I think things got sort of lost in the dust. Zooming ahead a year, enter the Radke Trust. This was news to us and under the circumstances of the new purchaser, only the board would know if the notice to purchase was ever presented for first right of refusal. We have no paperwork on this.
As spelled out in the by-laws, transfer of ownership between immediate family starts with the person whose name is on the deed. From that person or persons the property can be trasferred, without a fee, to the spouse and to their issue.
(The question remains.. is the Radke Trust considered a spouse?) In real estate terms, no. It is an entity and therefore, subject to certain transfer taxes, etc. As far as the association goes?? I'm sure it was handled professionally and with utmost care considering the relationship of the owner/president, etc. Perhaps someone from the board could validate that this transfer of ownership was handled appropriately? Notice to members, etc.?
I suppose the annual meeting will address whether there was a transfer fee imposed. Did the association board and its members vote on this transfer of ownership?
Due to the confusion that first year, I believe that David Meyer did notify the camp when it was first determined that the cottage would be sold. The fall of '07 was ripe with motions, back and forth and back and forth. The order to sell to David Symons was made and then we filed for appeal. This put things on hold. Again, with the appeal being denied (didn't have a final order and the court of appeals refused to hear the appeal).. I think things got sort of lost in the dust. Zooming ahead a year, enter the Radke Trust. This was news to us and under the circumstances of the new purchaser, only the board would know if the notice to purchase was ever presented for first right of refusal. We have no paperwork on this.
As spelled out in the by-laws, transfer of ownership between immediate family starts with the person whose name is on the deed. From that person or persons the property can be trasferred, without a fee, to the spouse and to their issue.
(The question remains.. is the Radke Trust considered a spouse?) In real estate terms, no. It is an entity and therefore, subject to certain transfer taxes, etc. As far as the association goes?? I'm sure it was handled professionally and with utmost care considering the relationship of the owner/president, etc. Perhaps someone from the board could validate that this transfer of ownership was handled appropriately? Notice to members, etc.?
I suppose the annual meeting will address whether there was a transfer fee imposed. Did the association board and its members vote on this transfer of ownership?
June 23, 2009
Good questions...a few answers.
In reading some of the comments I think I'll try to clarify a few things and hopefully provide a few answers as well.
First, while it sure seemed that the whole group, i.e., the judge, Mr.Meyer, Sturtz and the plaintiff seemed to be in cahoots.. I don't think they were. Certainly the judge and Mr. Meyer were buddies and who knows what went down there. (We raised the issue of conflict of interest and it didn't go anywhere). Secondly, once it was handed over to Mr. Meyer, it was in his hands. He really had no interest except an eventual pay check. The work he did was pretty minimal. Could you tell? As much as we tried to argue all the wrong turns or bad turns, it just is what it is. We thought there was an agreement as to how the sale would be handled. Turned out the agreement was whatever Mr. Meyer wanted it to be. He did the least amount of work possible including never finishing any of the bidding instructions.
Yes the cottage sold for $575k. That was the offer David made per the "bidding" terms. The outline as proposed by Mr. Meyer allowed for outside bids (outside the family) for a period of a few weeks. Then, another set of instructions were to follow. They did not. Could we have submitted a bid? Sure. We did not. We were still hoping for an opportunity to obtain a fair market price.
What was Stu DeGeus's role in all of this? Nothing. In the very beginning, before the partition suit was even filed he e-mailed mother and David and indicated he would like to sell his share. He did not state a price. He expected his phone to start ringing. We expected to have some conversation with David, decide how to "buy out" Stu and move on. Quickly on the heels of Stu's statement, David filed his lawsuit. Stu defaulted. He chose not to have an attorney and did not show up for any of the legal actions until later in the whole mess. All he wanted was to keep everything private. I think he was embarrassed and stated he would never go back. He also said he'd "taken" what he wanted from the cottage so, he had no interest in anything else. (until later). At one point, Katy had decided to use Stu's time during the second summer and he took that to court. (Supposedly using Phil's son as his attorney since using Phil would have been a conflict of interest). Funny.. the son never showed. Stu was represented by Phil and the judge ruled that Stu's "time" could not be used by Katy. Was it a surpise that David and family used this time?? No.
Someone asked if we appealed.. would we get a different judge. The way it works is once a final order is made, we would appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. It takes this out of Saginaw, into a different court. Can we still appeal? Once a final order is entered.
Keep the questions coming. This is all pretty typical for a partition case. If you or someone in your family wants to either get out, or get you out.. this is how it works. It's ugly for sure. Don't go there. All it takes is one person.
First, while it sure seemed that the whole group, i.e., the judge, Mr.Meyer, Sturtz and the plaintiff seemed to be in cahoots.. I don't think they were. Certainly the judge and Mr. Meyer were buddies and who knows what went down there. (We raised the issue of conflict of interest and it didn't go anywhere). Secondly, once it was handed over to Mr. Meyer, it was in his hands. He really had no interest except an eventual pay check. The work he did was pretty minimal. Could you tell? As much as we tried to argue all the wrong turns or bad turns, it just is what it is. We thought there was an agreement as to how the sale would be handled. Turned out the agreement was whatever Mr. Meyer wanted it to be. He did the least amount of work possible including never finishing any of the bidding instructions.
Yes the cottage sold for $575k. That was the offer David made per the "bidding" terms. The outline as proposed by Mr. Meyer allowed for outside bids (outside the family) for a period of a few weeks. Then, another set of instructions were to follow. They did not. Could we have submitted a bid? Sure. We did not. We were still hoping for an opportunity to obtain a fair market price.
What was Stu DeGeus's role in all of this? Nothing. In the very beginning, before the partition suit was even filed he e-mailed mother and David and indicated he would like to sell his share. He did not state a price. He expected his phone to start ringing. We expected to have some conversation with David, decide how to "buy out" Stu and move on. Quickly on the heels of Stu's statement, David filed his lawsuit. Stu defaulted. He chose not to have an attorney and did not show up for any of the legal actions until later in the whole mess. All he wanted was to keep everything private. I think he was embarrassed and stated he would never go back. He also said he'd "taken" what he wanted from the cottage so, he had no interest in anything else. (until later). At one point, Katy had decided to use Stu's time during the second summer and he took that to court. (Supposedly using Phil's son as his attorney since using Phil would have been a conflict of interest). Funny.. the son never showed. Stu was represented by Phil and the judge ruled that Stu's "time" could not be used by Katy. Was it a surpise that David and family used this time?? No.
Someone asked if we appealed.. would we get a different judge. The way it works is once a final order is made, we would appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals. It takes this out of Saginaw, into a different court. Can we still appeal? Once a final order is entered.
Keep the questions coming. This is all pretty typical for a partition case. If you or someone in your family wants to either get out, or get you out.. this is how it works. It's ugly for sure. Don't go there. All it takes is one person.
Moving on.....
The July 31 deadline for "third party" bids came and went. There were no third party bids. There was however interest from some third parties. This interest however never resulted in a bid but did stir up much confusion.
On Aug. 6, the plaintiff motioned for sale. On August 24, 2007 the court ruled in favor of the sale to David Symons. (nice birthday for mother). On September 6, we filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration basically asks the court to "reconsider" their ruling. Did we think that the judge and his buddy Mr. Meyer were likely to say "hey..we screwed up. Let's do this right???" Not so much but, it put a hold on the sale for the moment.
Somewhere in all of this, the court decided that an additional 30 days be granted to entertain third party bids. Of course there was no discussion or effort made to let anyone know this. We however, started planning. It was never our intention to pull a "David". The cottage was a "family" cottage. We were not going to go to the mat and do what he had done. We thought we were taking the high road. It seemed to go nowhere good, but it was the choice we had made. This 30 days gave us pause to reconsider.
Meanwhile, a "third" party was evolving and ongoing discussions with Mr. Meyer proved very very interesting. The "third" party included us. We learned quite a bit during this time and were scrambling to put together a plan. It was a very interesting and revealing opportunity. Stay tuned....
On Aug. 6, the plaintiff motioned for sale. On August 24, 2007 the court ruled in favor of the sale to David Symons. (nice birthday for mother). On September 6, we filed a motion for reconsideration. The motion for reconsideration basically asks the court to "reconsider" their ruling. Did we think that the judge and his buddy Mr. Meyer were likely to say "hey..we screwed up. Let's do this right???" Not so much but, it put a hold on the sale for the moment.
Somewhere in all of this, the court decided that an additional 30 days be granted to entertain third party bids. Of course there was no discussion or effort made to let anyone know this. We however, started planning. It was never our intention to pull a "David". The cottage was a "family" cottage. We were not going to go to the mat and do what he had done. We thought we were taking the high road. It seemed to go nowhere good, but it was the choice we had made. This 30 days gave us pause to reconsider.
Meanwhile, a "third" party was evolving and ongoing discussions with Mr. Meyer proved very very interesting. The "third" party included us. We learned quite a bit during this time and were scrambling to put together a plan. It was a very interesting and revealing opportunity. Stay tuned....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)