Judgement in favor of the Plaintiffs

Case S2-06-255 and S5-06-265.

It really didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that we were right and that the "lawyers" were wrong. You gotta fight for what's right. We did and we won. Riverview Third Townhouse Association is required to pay back monies charged to all landlords for the new rental license policies. They are discriminatory and against the Declarations and Covenants which were put in place when the property was developed. The aim of the board is to limit rental properties and in fact, as sited in the court documents, this is not lawful.
A few other items of interest should concern all members of Riverview Third Townhouse Association and will be addressed in the next meeting by all landlords. Here are the fundamentals which were outlined to the board members today June 15th 2006:

To:

Riverview Board Members C/O

New Concept Management Group, Inc

5707 Excelsior Blvd. St Louis Park, MN 55416

Subject Case S2-06-255 and S5-06-265

Date: June 15^th 2006

You are probably aware at this time that you lost the court case and will be required to refund all monies charged in association with the new rental policy which was formulated by “the lawyers”’ the management company and the board.

At this time, I would like to point out that Riverview Third Association paid $750 to a firm that did not even read our Declarations or covenants and in fact based all work on what other associations are doing and various magazine articles. The decision from the court is stayed until July 6^th so that the board can get “the lawyers” involved and possibly appeal the ruling. Based on the incompetence of the lawyers and the overwhelming detail supplied by the courts, I expect that the decision will be; not to appeal. The court is clear. Common interests are “INDIVISABLE” from an owners interest.

I have attached the court conclusion for your review. There are a few other items sited by the court which will force our next action items for Riverview Third Townhouse Association. All landlords will be at the next meeting to discuss the following items. I would remind you that the law requires answers to members questions and I list the items here so that you can be prepared.

1. Charges to members with no services provided ref Chin v Coventry Square. “extra fees are invalid where there is no relation to actual expenses incurred by the association.” This particular item will be challenged in court again and discussions need to take place so that Riverview third are redirected away from court action. It’s time to empathetically listen to members and make good policy decision” The idea of shut up and sit down needs to change. We need to focus on the issues and not the time spent on the issues.
   1. We will discuss various charges that have been applied where no association expenses have occurred. We will discuss the required changes.
   2. Charges for weeds etc where no service is performed.
2. Fees paid to Carole Ebsen for her day in court. In this case, the board lost and in fact 4 other paying members of the association were present and won. Either we need to return the Carol Ebsen Charges or pay the members who were wrongfully treated. The board members serve on a voluntary basis and this has a legal standing. Again court action will decide if emotion takes over to the point where no one can make rational decisions.
3. Review of procedure when hiring lawyers and a request to have charges returned to Riverview based on an incompetent lawyer firm. This is our money (not the boards) and we need to follow up on this.
4. Review of the discrimination text which explains that the board has no power over an owner or his delegates (Tenants). In fact the text aims at associations where it is clear that they attempt to limit rentals by landlord manipulation. This is discriminatory because the declarations anticipate rental property.
5. Case law that renders the annual charges invalid even in cases where proper procedures are followed. In other words a super majority vote does not allow the board to have discriminatory charges.
6. Specific items (A broken gate on 12205 Drake) which are apparently not covered by the association. What outside items are covered and a request to pay for time spent on repairs of a gate. 12162 coverage for outside items (windows etc). We will focus in on items that we believe should be covered by the association. These items have not been covered in the past. Len Lorence will site case law indicating that our association is wrongfully withholding repair money.

We will conclude and I will formulate an action item list. This list will move forward in time until we have concluded. Similar to the last list which festered until the court ultimately decided.