My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council Work Session - 12/07/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council Work Session
>
2010
>
Agenda - Council Work Session - 12/07/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/18/2025 2:50:18 PM
Creation date
12/2/2010 4:25:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Date
12/07/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Tim Himmer <br />Subject: FW: Variolite <br />From: William Goodrich [mailto:bgood @anokalaw.com] <br />Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 5 :30 PM <br />To: Kurt Ulrich; Tim Himmer <br />Cc: Brian Olson; Diana Lund <br />Subject: RE: Variolite <br />I discussed this issue with Tim this am and since then have done some additional research on this issue. <br />The standard Minnesota Purchase Agreement form does provide for disclosure if there is pending or authorized <br />public improvement project which is to be specially assessed. Also, the Purchase Agreement form requires the <br />Seller to disclose any notices from any governmental authority concerning any eminent domain, condemnation <br />special taxing district or rezoning proceedings. <br />In addition, Minn. Stat. 513.55 requires Residential Sellers to disclose any material facts of which seller are <br />aware that could adversely and significantly affect: (1) an ordinary buyer's use and enjoyment of the property; <br />or (2) any intended use of the property of which the seller is aware. I assume that a buyer could argue that the <br />comprehensive plan transportation road designation, if know by the seller should be disclosed. To date there is <br />no case law on this specific issue. <br />Contrasted with the above statutory disclosure requirement, is the City's statutory obligation to prepare and <br />develop a comprehensive plan per Minn. Stat. 873.859 and specifically subd. 3 which requires a transportation <br />plan "—describing, designating and scheduling the location, extent, function and capacity of existing and <br />proposed local public and private transportation services and facilities;" <br />Based on the above, it is unclear to me if a Seller needs to disclose the comprehensive plan designation to a <br />potential buyer and the effect of such a disclosure. I could contact the League of Cities for their insight on this <br />issue. <br />What is clear to me however is that the City should not be giving legal advice to Sellers /Buyers on what their <br />legal disclosure obligations are. They should be advised to contact their respective advisors for such advice. <br />Let me know if you want me to research this matter in further detail. <br />William K. Goodrieh <br />I3ANTMLL and 0001MUCH, P.L.e. <br />2140 Fourth ikN me North <br />tlnolm, \IN : 6303 <br />Phone: (7(13) 121 -5121 <br />Fax: (7 413) VI 1 213 <br />E- niidl: b'oodGi>,anohialii.��.<ona <br />CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNCATION: E -mails from this firm normally contain confidential and privileged material, and are for the <br />sole use of the intended recipient. Use or distribution by an unintended recipient is prohibited, and may be a violation of law. If you <br />believe that you recieved this e -mail in error, please do not read this e -mail or any attached items. Please delete the e -mail and all <br />attachments, including any copies thereof, and inform the sender that you have deleted the e -mail, all attachments and any copies <br />thereof, Thank you. <br />From: Tim Himmer <br />Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:50 PM <br />To: 'Bill Goodrich' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.