The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1987-07-20 Letter, Statement of Adverse Claim060[6•. a.•w.- e .a.rfy...wnn •G. •6004. . O•r.t.. a. .r•o6\t■ •60•/•10. 1061.. • rr.t.o. N.•. [ 640\.•a•• N.la• a M.N 661 •.6• a aaK.M• iarw . N•KO.♦ ♦.rff P, r•.tt .t •! w I'll*" V.. lQaC. 6N 10 0-C . .tr•w a ..a U16 -lo Ya• w00iat O 0. 9= /o s ..f. 9-u\f. tc N • .eti • • .NU. iwa.6.O.wt. a.t •t•\ •O.. ■ O[. ttK \•.o... / 1060 ♦wer.0 P 4t0.•u• Go .t• /0..040 6 •N.•. &O.w a. O. a.. ♦e. • Oa.t O/a 0466 1-06.0 Iarto 1. 6406.• -000. I N l N. .t4.+4.. 10.6+6. ►ttt. •-uc. •lwrt + .....t July 20, 1987 ATTOCCMCT% AT LAW 1100 "Cov"Oltstca" /I0140ac1a► cCol9Ca 1000 P1Pta Jal,aav ?Oren 7000 rtaaCs •1/tlaut bout" 1[J sOuf" "Golf" stwett •tt)p"1"of0/a. "Irllt%Ofa 6%4 to "11a"CaWtGs. 40106016109• $0407 tC►Ct."OGIC 10111 a11.1000 tCtl P-C%C 10111 )sa•4610 fCItCOPlta 146-21 as1.1101 IticcoP1C. 161/1 BloomingtonP�QkrF ago". In Donald R. Sjostrom, Esq. SJOSTROM AND LOFTHUS 807 Twelve Oaks Center 15500 Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 Re: Statement of Adverse Claim by VC1 Capital, Inc. against Lot 2, Block 1, North Arm Estates Third Addition Our File No. 14621-00 Dear Mr. Sjostrom: of 0066 \sec. +••.r • W.1.0u•61 t-owa • wurPrwt.. •. 106.6 a Past /a..c.• f 0.06:406.ft rKraa► t 10.. •. 6-606 Y.14w41t M.... 46.06.. . •tr.Ia.r f•.ta a• 04 NaKa .. at0- 9l 9. • �. •.. 610•.• w 1 • t•.a 0064• .•.Na • r all r. P.cmtc .arra. a..0c. 1, t6.\i a.0t 6Ma40t 6.{061.• • G166.."a40a. at 64004.00. \ 666\6• .M 6 uwa • � wr.0v .6 1 .0 t .000.6 Pi tf alM 014.9 .9 .fovea .. •.• • • .1.4rN.00t '• COV.OIt SOU.- 0601. wwWr . 4.•00.0 .• ••.t Na.• My firm represents Mary Anderson, the owner of the property described above. We have received a copy of a Statement of Adverse Claim prepared by your firm and your June 25, 1987, correspondence to our client which states this statement has been recorded against her property. FIRST CLAIM The Statement's first claim states that Mary Anderson and her ex-husband purchased their lakefront property with Veda, Inc., and the parties agreed that they would build a joint dock on the Anderson parcel for their mutual use. My client anti her ex-husband did agree to share their dock'with their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. White, but did not have any agreenent with any corporation regarding any easement rights. My client did receive a letter dated July 1, 1986, regarding her dock on Mr. r.hite'g business stationery for Van Dale Companies, Inc. My client's 11411-1-MAx. DAIN .` LIND(;It1.N. I:cu. Donald R. Sjostrom, Esq. July 20, 1987 Paqe 2 understanding has always been and is that her agreement to share her dock is a personal agreement between her and her neighbors, Mr. and Mr— White, and not an easement which would bind any other party. She has no agreement with the claimant at all. It is very clear under Minnesota law, that any correspondence between your client and mine is not an easement unless it is in recordable form, which Mr. white's July 1, 1986, letter is not. It is also clear that any document purporting to be an easement (which that letter does not purport to be) will be strictly construed. See Thompsony. Germania Life Insurance Co., 106 Nw 102 (1966). My client has never intended to grant the easement your Statement refers to, as is further evidenced by her refusal to execute any document evidencing such an easement. Also, Mr. and Mrs. White and the claimant have no claim based on an easement by necessity since the adjoining property has its own lake access. SECOND CLAIM The second claim of the Statement fails to state a claim pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 508.70. It does not allege a "right, title or interest in registered land adverse to the registered owner." It states that the claimant's right to drain its own property has somehow been impeded due to the pond on my client's property. I have discussed this claim with Richard Little, one of the Hennepin County Examiners of Title. He has indicated his agreement that this fails to state a claim. Please contact him If you wish further clarification on this issue. Secondly, the pond to which the statement refers is not located on Lot 2, Block 1, North Arms Estates Third Addition (the House Lot). Rather it is located on Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 748 (the Pond Lot). Therefore, even if this claim were valid under Minnesota Statutes Section 508.70, it is filed against the wrong parcel of land. Thirdly, my client has been informed that the portion of the Pond Lot on which this pond is located and a significant portion of Mr. White's adjoining property have been designated wetlands by the City of Orono, as shown on the enclosed map. My client was told by Michael Gaffron, Assistant Zoning Administrator for the City of Orono that the City would be opposed to any change to either parcel which would alter these wetlands. Despite this, cry client contacted an engineering firm to determine what could be bone. to -irsin some of this wetland, assuming that the City woul.i approve it. She was informed that the neck of the pond anti the ravine to Lake Minnetonka would have to be dredged five feet deeper and 30 feet LARKIN, DALY C"` I.1ND(;Il1:X. I:rt). Donald R. Sjostrom, Esq. July 20, 1987 Paae 3 wider, which would eliminate a portion, and weaken the remainder, of the drivewa- on the House Lot so that that section of the driveway would have to L'� completely relocated. Also, some of the property which would have to be dredged to widen the ravine is owned by the adjoining property owner, Mr. John McDowell, and not my client. All trees located within fifteen feet of either side of the new ravine on the Pond Lot and on the House Lot would also have to be removed. The cost to my client and diminution in the value of my client's property and Mr. McDowell's property caused by such changes would be immense. CONCLUSION Thpre is no easement between the claimant and my client as asserted in t s first claim, and the second claim would be dismissed on a number of bases, including the fact it is recorded against the wrong parcel of land. As you know, my client is in the process of selling her home. This Statement was filed now in an obvious attempt- to coerce her agreement to your client's unfounded demands. Please be advised that Minnesota Statutes Section 508.70 provides that the court may award such costs and damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as it deems just in adjudicating a statement of adverse claim. If I do not receive a copy of a recorded document releasing this adverse claim on or before July 27, 1987, my client will petition for a hearing on this matter and seek damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. Sincerely, Catherine Barnett Wilson, for LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. jj Enclosure cc: Ms. Mary Anderson 4-c ' uiaea_-- .� ... &. _ �. •