Acting Interim City Administrator Heidi Nelson has responded to a public data request by providing an emailed copy of the Minnwest Bank's answer to the City in the litigation where the City has a lis pendens giving notice of the dispute to any purchaser from the bank.
Presumably Ramsey's lis pendens would apply to a purchase at a sheriff's sale or an assignment of the Bank's interest to a new and different real party in interest; occuring after suit was filed and lis pendens notice attached as perfected.
Presumably whether there has been an assignment would be an ongoing discovery matter between parties.
More may be posted, but on a quick reading, the bank says their interest was recorded first; the bank disclaims prior knowledge of any dealings the RTC LLC had with the city [despite taking a security interest in such a contract]; and the bank claims the city's position does not run with the land.
The pleading is dated July 19, 2007; and a City answer to the bank's counterclaim will be a final step, presumably, to close pleadings. It should be filed before the middle of next month - in the absence of a settlement of issues before it is due.
The bank said If Ramsey had wanted to nail down a superior position, it should have had the lender subordinate the mortgage but no such request was ever made [regardless of whether the bank would have subordinated, had there been a request]. That is an "academic" question, and moot, because it is hypothetical and not how things happened. The court must decide, given how things did happen, what are the abiding rights and burdens running with the land, regarding the City's actual position. A secondary question is whether the city's not expressly seeking a subordiantion or pushing for escrow instructions that its position be recorded before the lenders, etc., demonstrates a negligence that the City might recover upon, if it decides to sue advising and/or acting agents. But that question would be mooted by winning the litigation or possibly in settlement.
Same old, same old. Paths to the courthouse can get worn from the traffic, but with dueling banned, litigation is how disputes over rights and responsibilities are setted, if negotiation fails.
Sure, getting a subordination would have resolved things; as well as getting a covenant not to sue or defend; but "could have," and "should have" is 20-20 hindsight. Circumstances known only to insiders, including those deceased, may have mattered in ways someone not involved in dealings might not know of or understand.
_____________________
Other public data responses from Ms. Nelson were given on other matters, but they do not merit mixing into this post dealing primarily with litigation court papers and related matters.
Again I am impressed with the turn-around attention that minutes and data requests achieve and have achieved since the start of this year. It is good for a city government to be responsive that way.
In only one recent instance have I been stonewalled entirely - and that is based on a point of law asserted by City Attorney Goodrich, where he and I differ but where I would have to sue to have any chance to see a purported item - which will not happen.
My understanding is a public official from outside of Ramsey [outside of Anoka County even] wrote to "Ramsey" [to someone or some group or official person or body], complaining of things that were alleged to have occured outside of Anoka County, and outside of Minnesota, but which, if true and if truly complained of in that fashion, could be interpreted as reflecting badly on the city and its regional and international goodwill. My guess is that a letter exists, and was sent via public mail [or internet email]. There might have been phone calls. I have no idea whether others not present at any closed session [besides the author of the item] might have discussed it or its reprecussions with councilmembers. Without seeing the item I cannot say whether it requested confidentiality or identified itself as personnel-related rather than being written as a matter of general interest, a general complaint, and a general notice.
It appears from the City Attorney's response a document does exist, and was reviewed in a closed council session where a personnel matter was the topic.
The city's contention is that documents reviewed in the closed session are all confidential, presumably acquiring that aura by attachment, from the circumstances of review and not based on the origination or history of any particular item - or that is how I read the Goodrich email statements.
Because I have no first hand knowledge that such a document actually exists, and can only infer it does from the response of the City Attorney, it is interesting to speculate what the purported item possibly said and what, if any, impact it had with city officials. But, I will not fund a lawsuit and motion for a judge to have the item produced for his/her examination to see if it is public data or not.
Again, my clear impression is that things have been far better for citizen requests for information since the beginning of this year - independent of that one instance, or including it. I hope the new Ramsey City Administrator, when hired, will not deviate from that praiseworthy approach set during Ms. Nelson's leadership.