A Hot Time in the Old Town

Tension ran high at the River Club Last night.  The situation demanded careful, thoughtful, and respectful analysis of the legal situation.  A request for Declaratory Judgement regarding only one question that has been before the HOA, The Garden City Fathers, and now the District Court in Idaho is what all the concern is about.  A one sentence question has been asked:  Does the Master Declaration Contract (MDC) apply to the golf course?

One would believe that all the parties in this case have a special interest in answering that question, but for over three years the ownership group of The River Club, The Garden City Fathers, and on occasion the HOA Board itself has done all that they can to keep that decision from coming before a judge.  Why?

Last night in a 15 min presentation before the HOA Board and the interested neighbors in the audience the legal counsel for the Board made a presentation that included comments about the process that included the use of an affidavit presented into the proceedings by the President of the HOA Board.  Representations were made that the concerns were merely about a difference of opinion raised by the affidavit about the number of homeowners in the neighborhood.  That was only a small piece of the concern of the interpleaders regarding the introduction of that affidavit into the proceedings. We were concerned that the affidavit was even presented by the legal council for the River Club.

As mentioned in an earlier post, we(I) have promised both the HOA Board and the agent acting on behalf of The River Club that actions would not be taken against them as we proceed to answer the one question that every homeowner has a vested interest in knowing the answer to.  Our legal team took pains not to introduce the HOA Board or any individual member of the Board into the dispute.  WE KEPT OUR PROMISE.  They introduced themselves into the dispute and Judge Medema on page 4 of the ruling noted this unusual situation:

“While the court does not usually consider materials outside the pleadings, when deciding pursuant material and The Master Declaration Contract and The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of The Plantation, WAS NOT ATTACHED TO THE INTERPLEADERS PLEADING---emphasis jml, IT WAS ATTACHED TO A WITNESS DECLARATION---emphasis jml, and BOTH PARTIES ASKED THE COURT TO CONSIDER IT”---emphasis jml.

That witness declaration was submitted by Counsel for The River Club.  Not the interpleaders who have tried to keep this case narrow and as cost effective as possible.

At the end of the meeting a neighbor spoke up and offered comments about neighbors taking legal actions against each other---I paraphrase without the actual notes or minutes of the meeting.  Along with several other comments aimed at the “small minority” of interpleaders.  I am only left to believe one of two things:  1. Either the second speaker had not read Judge Medema’s decision, or the purpose of his speech was to continue a political narrative based on calumnae and innuendo.  I hope he takes the time to read the decision in its’ entirety and sets the record straight. 

Reading documents seems to be a lost art, but it is critical if all sides want to approach each with a hand of equanimity, and mercy.

Otherwise, allegations in a speech before a group of neighbors have no bases in fact and are just more “fake news”.

In the name of full transparency, we will post Judge Jon Medema’s full decision. THE RIVER CLUB'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS DENIED. Read the full decision here.

WE know that there are other hurdles, political and legal that must be negotiated in this process.  All we ask is that the truth be a target for everyone to shoot at.  What was presented before the HOA Board last night was only a part of the whole truth.

Judge Jon Medema’s decision to follow.