Re: Hse issues - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• � i FREDRIKSON&BYRON,EA. Attorneys and Advisor Thomas J.Barrett,Esq. 10 December 1998 Page 2 agreed with Mr. Olson and indicated in a October 8, 1997 letter to Mike Arne(attached as Exhibit A),that the crack was"probably"cosmetic. At the same time, the City represented that the stoop met the requirements of the Building Code, and on that basis the Ames closed on the purchase of their home. As will be discussed below, the City's representation that the stoop met the requirements of the Building Code was blatantly false. After closing, the crack in the stoop reappeared and worsened. The Ames again complained to the City and to RKO Homebuilders. In a letter to Mr. Olson dated September 15, 1998 (attached as Exhibit B),Lyle Oman admitted that the crack was structural in nature and that the stoop needed to be removed and reinstalled. As referenced in this letter,the stoop also failed to meet the Building Code requirements because of its negative pitch towards the house. Further,the stoop fails to meet the Building Code requirement of an eight inch maximum rise. The negative pitch of the stoop is an obvious Code violation which was present at the time of the City's inspection before the Acnes closed on their home. As discussed above,the City represented at that time that the stoop met the requirements of the Building Code, and on that basis the Ames closed on the purchase of their home. The City's representation that the Ames' stoop met Code despite its negative pitch, an obvious Building Code violation,constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation under Minnesota law. The City misrepresented the condition of the stoop with malice and willfulness. See Burns v. State, 570 N.W.2d 17,20(Minn. Ct. App. 1997)(a public official acts with malice when he commits an act which he has reason to believe is prohibited). As a result of their reliance on the City's misrepresentation concerning their stoop,the Ames closed on the purchase of a home that was significantly devalued by the necessity of replacing the stoop and connected brick work at an approximate cost of$5,000.00. In addition to the City's misrepresentation concerning the stoop's condition,the City has also failed to take adequate steps to assist the Acnes in requiring RKO Homebuilders and/or its subcontractors to remove and replace the stoop. In a letter to Mr. Olson dated October 12, 1998 (attached as Exhibit C),Lyle Oman,requested that RKO Homebuilders correct the stoop by October 26, 1998 or face legal action. Despite RKO Homebuilders' continued failure to repair the stoop,the City has failed to take any legal action against Olson or RKO Homebuilders. The City's failure to follow through with promised legal action is especially disturbing in light of the two previous instances in which the City also threatened legal action and refused to follow through. Additionally,the City has failed to contact the subcontractor that installed the stoop, even though the City indicated it would do so.