This document is a memorandum opposing a temporary restraining order filed by defendants Michael and Linda Crow. The Crows own a 15-unit rooming house in Minneapolis that they have agreed to sell to a developer who plans to demolish the building. The plaintiff, the Healy Project, sued to prevent the demolition, arguing the building is historically significant. However, the memorandum argues a TRO is not warranted because: (1) only the Crows will suffer financial harm from a delay in selling the property; (2) the building has been substantially altered over the years and is no longer historically accurate; and (3) the city council properly approved the demolition permit after determining the building was not historically protected.
This document is a memorandum opposing a temporary restraining order filed by defendants Michael and Linda Crow. The Crows own a 15-unit rooming house in Minneapolis that they have agreed to sell to a developer who plans to demolish the building. The plaintiff, the Healy Project, sued to prevent the demolition, arguing the building is historically significant. However, the memorandum argues a TRO is not warranted because: (1) only the Crows will suffer financial harm from a delay in selling the property; (2) the building has been substantially altered over the years and is no longer historically accurate; and (3) the city council properly approved the demolition permit after determining the building was not historically protected.
This document is a memorandum opposing a temporary restraining order filed by defendants Michael and Linda Crow. The Crows own a 15-unit rooming house in Minneapolis that they have agreed to sell to a developer who plans to demolish the building. The plaintiff, the Healy Project, sued to prevent the demolition, arguing the building is historically significant. However, the memorandum argues a TRO is not warranted because: (1) only the Crows will suffer financial harm from a delay in selling the property; (2) the building has been substantially altered over the years and is no longer historically accurate; and (3) the city council properly approved the demolition permit after determining the building was not historically protected.
The Healy Project, Court File No. 27-CV-14-7064 Judge Marilyn Brown Rosenbaum Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM v. OF LAW OPPOSING A TRO
Michael Crow and Linda Crow,
Defendants.
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants 1 are owners of real estate with a real property address of 2320 Colfax Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota (the Property). Defendants have owned the Property, which is a 15 unit rooming house, for approximately twenty-three years. Michael Crow previously was active in managing the Property but he has suffered a number of health related problems over the past several years, is unable to actively manage the Property or make it economically viable, and has entered into a Purchase Agreement to sell the Property to a developer. The developer/Mr. Crow have applied for and received approval for a demolition permit from the City of Minneapolis to demolish the Property and redevelop the same. The present lawsuit is an inappropriate and frivolous effort led by a citizen of the City to nullify that demolition permit which was seriously studied and approved by votes of 5 to 1 by the Planning/Zoning Commission, and 11 to 2 by the full City Council.
1 Defendants only retained counsel in this matter late on Friday, May 2, 2014. 2
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Defendant incorporates herein the Affidavit of Michael Crow with respect to the facts relevant to this matter. III. ARGUMENT
A. INTRODUCTION.
There must be irreparable harm for an injunction/TRO to issue. See Cherne Industrial, Inc. v. Grounds & Associates, Inc., 278 N.W.2d 81, 92 (Minn. 1979). An injunction is an equitable remedy. Oxford Development Minnesota, Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 428 N.W.2d 434, 437 (Minn. App. 1988). The Minnesota Supreme Court has set forth five factors for a trial court to consider in evaluating whether or not to issue an injunction pending trial. They are: (1) the nature and background of the parties preexisting the dispute giving rise to the request for relief; (2) the harm to be suffered by the plaintiff if the temporary restraint is denied as compared to the harm the defendant will suffer if the injunction issues pending trial; (3) the likelihood that one party or the other will prevail on the merits when the facts are viewed in light of established precedents; (4) the aspects of the fact situation, if any, which permit or require consideration of public policy; and (5) the administrative burdens involved in judicial supervision and enforcement of the temporary decree. Dahlberg Brothers, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company 272 Minn. 264, 137 N.W.2d 314, 321-322 (Minn. 1965). Defendant will now address what is commonly known as the Dahlberg criteria. 1. Nature and Background of the Parties. By overwhelming votes, the Zoning/Planning Commission for the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis City Council, have approved/granted the Defendants (its developer) a demolition permit. The Plaintiff, who has a singular opinion and mindset with respect to the 3
Property, brings its Complaint to convince the Court that the considered and reasoned decisions of the City of Minneapolis are incorrect. Defendants have owned the Property for twenty-three years. Due to health and financial issues, as well as the outdated business model of a rooming house, the Property is not something that the Defendants can viably retain. See Affidavit of Michael Crow. Accordingly, Defendants retained a realtor and have obtained a buyer for the Property at the price of $600,000. However, the buyer for the Property is only interested if the Property can be redeveloped, as it is not economically viable as it presently sits and operates. Plaintiffs present suit has the potential to jeopardize the sale of the Property to the proposed buyer and cause the Plaintiff serious economic harm. In fact, Plaintiffs moving papers, which allude to an offer from Plaintiff or persons associated with Plaintiff to purchase the Property for a mere $400,000, illustrate the significant financial consequences which Defendants may suffer if the proposed sale to a developer fails as a result of the instant suit. Accordingly, Defendants are in a position to endure and suffer real financial harm. In contrast, the Plaintiff is not a party that can or will suffer any real financial harm itself. The Plaintiff, an entity that is headed or directed by a singular citizen of the City of Minneapolis, will suffer absolutely no financial harm if Property is sold. The Plaintiff portends to be looking out for the Citys (or the States) interest in attempting to preserve an alleged historical piece of real estate in the City, but the City has already overwhelmingly rejected Plaintiffs arguments, both at the Planning/Zoning Commission level and at the level of the full City Council. The purported harm is not to Plaintiff personally if the Property is demolished. The purported harm is to the City as a whole, but Plaintiffs motion paperwork does not discuss or point out how City Staff or the City Council are patently incorrect in their conclusions. 4
Because the background of the parties is such that Defendants are the only real party that will suffer economic harm if the TRO were to be granted, this factor should mitigate against the Plaintiffs present motion. 2. Relative Harms to the Parties Vis-A-Vis the Issuance of a TRO. Plaintiffs moving paperwork ignores the very real financial harm that Defendants may suffer if the TRO is granted. The granting of a TRO jeopardizes the potential sale of the Property to a developer who is only interested in buying the Property if it can be redeveloped. Defendants, due to the health and age of Mr. Crow, are financially distressed and have been attempting to sell the Property since 2012. And any grant of a TRO certainly delays the sale of the Property to the developer which causes real financial harm on a daily basis as Defendants will not receive the purchase proceeds until a sale is concluded. Defendants have already gone through numerous painstaking processes with the City of Minneapolis to reach the point that they have reached wherein the proposed sale of the Property to a respected developer is within reach. This lawsuit by the Plaintiff is a desperate last ditch effort to impose their singular mindset and will on Defendants who face very real financial issues. Plaintiff argues that the Property is a one-of-a-kind Property. Arguably any piece of real estate is one-of-a-kind. This, in and of itself, is not persuasive. Plaintiffs moving papers are not supported by any affidavits or information which establish any undeniable facts which challenge the City of Minneapolis overwhelming decisions to approve the demolition permit. And the facts, as can be seen by the documents attached to the Affidavit of Michael Crow, are that the Property is not presently in a condition that makes the Citys decision incorrect. The Property is a bastardized version of what it once was. It has suffered from fires which gutted the second and third levels, necessitating that the same be completely remodeled so 5
that these levels are more like a hotel than what Mr. Healy built. In addition, the Property now has vinyl siding and windows, not the original siding or windows that would have existed when it was built in the 1800s. Significant original portions of the structure are simply gone and do not exist anymore. In short, and as can be seen from the photographs and reports attached to the Affidavit of Michael Crow, the Property has had significant makeovers since it was originally constructed such that the Property is not even close to what it once was. Furthermore, the Property has been a rooming house for decades and thus has suffered from the wear and tear of numerous tenants living there as well as significant remodeling which converted the Property into a rooming house in the first place. 3. The Likelihood that One Party or the Other Will Prevail. The third criterion for consideration is the likelihood that the movant will prevail. With respect to this criterion, Plaintiff fails to discuss any facts, let alone facts which are indisputable, that would illustrate to the Court that the City of Minneapolis was incorrect to grant a demolition permit. The mere fact that T.P. Healy designed/built the Property is not conclusive. There is no law or facts asserted that would make such a fact conclusive. City staff who have studied the Property concluded several times over for various reasons, including the reason that much of the Property has been reconstructed, that the Property is not historic. 2 City staff, and ultimately the City Council, then ultimately concluded that even if the Property has historical value, there are other valid reasons consistent with the Citys criteria to grant the demolition permit. Plaintiffs moving paperwork does nothing to dispute the Citys determinations, let alone illustrate how the City has somehow grievously erred in its determinations. Consequently, Plaintiff has not carried
2 Although City Staff determined several times over that the Property was not historic, the Plaintiff in this matter, with the assistance of a city council person who supported Plaintiff, was able to convince the political powers that existed at the time that the Property was historic. In other words, various votes on the Property which took place in 2013 went against the recommendations of City Staff. For other reasons though, the City has now approved the demolition permit. 6
its burden to demonstrate that it is likely to succeed on the merits. 4. Public Policy. Although there may be policies which favor the preservation of certain historical properties, those policies have already been weighed by the City of Minneapolis with respect to this Property. And there is a certainly a public policy that favors economic freedom and the rights of parties to freely sell/convey their real estate and conduct activities on the real estate within the law. Again, the City of Minneapolis has already weighed all of the evidence concerning this Property and determined that the issuance of a demolition permit is warranted. 5. Administrative Burdens. There are no unusual administrative burdens which would seemingly be a significant factor here. IV. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has not specifically demonstrated to the Court the likelihood that it will succeed on the merits on this litigation. And Defendants, in contrast to Plaintiff, are the only party here that stands to suffer real economic harm if a TRO were granted. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiffs request for a TRO. 3
MEYER & NJUS, P.A.
DATED: May 5, 2014 By: Stephen M. Harris (#0264179) 1100 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 341-2181
3 If, for whatever reason, the Court were to grant a TRO, Plaintiff should be required to post a bond in the minimum amount of $200,000, which is the difference between the $600,000 purchase agreement that Defendants have with a developer and a purported offer from Plaintiff (or persons associated with Plaintiff) to purchase the Property for $400,000. It should be noted that the seriousness of the $400,000 offer is of some question since it was conveyed shortly before the City Council was to hear and rule upon the demolition permit. 7
Douglas D. Brunelle and Renee C. Brunelle v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Green Tree Servicing, Merscorp, Bank of America, Northwest Trustee Services
GOT NEW CENTURY? WIN FOR HOMEOWNER! READ JUDGE SEABRIGHT'S DECISION HERE!! AND COMPLAINT ETC. no evidence that plaintiff was validly assigned the Mortgage and Note. Deutsche had no standing. Fraudulent Assignment.