Agenda - Council - 02/24/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

February 24, 1981 HICKEN lB GEDDE ~,TTORNEYS AT L~,W William K. Goodrich, Ramsey City Attorney 211 East Main Street Anoka, MN 55303 Dear Mr. Goodrich: Please be advised that the undersigned represents David J. Mickelson in an action for dissolution of marriage. Mr. Miekelson has shown to me today a copy of the unapproved minutes of the meeting of the Ramsey City Council on February 10, 1981. It appears from these minutes that a motion brought by Mr. Cox on behalf of Betty Mickelson, my client's wife, to physically move a building located at ~her" residence to a location at Gateway North Industrial Park was granted at the meeting. Please be advised that my client had no prior knowledge or notice of this proceeding and was not present at the aforementioned meeting. Mr. Mickelson is presently a party to an action for dissolution of marriage. This proceeding is pending and is not final. In his petition for dissolution of marriage, Mr. Mickelson has requested that the homestead of the parties located at 16101 Ramsey Boulevard N.W. be awarded to himself. In this context of this legal proceedings, ~homestead~ means all buildings and personal property located at 16101 Ramsey Boulevard N.W. Since the dissolution action is still pending before the court, all property owned by the parties, including the ~homestead" remains joint property. You should also know that, in the temporary order of the court dated October 23, 1980, a copy of which I am attaching to this letter, Mr. Miekelson was given the full use of the ~shed" (the ~building" referred to in your minutes), until further order of the court. From the foregoing, it should be clear that the residence at 16101 Ramsey Boulevard N.W., together with all buildings located thereon is not the sole property of Betty Mickelson. Indeed the court may well award the entirety of the homestead property, including the ,~uilding" to Mr. Mickelson in its final judgment. As you are mo~t likely aware, Mr. Mickelson's business is operated out of the "building". The moving of his business to another location would constitute a substantial hardship to him at this time, and such a moving is strongly objected to. It appears to me that Mrs. Mickelson is seeking to do by indirection through the actions of the Ramsey City Council what she cannot do by direction through the court, namely; effecting the disposition of joint marital property. I might add that the location at Gateway North Industrial Park to which Mrs. Mickelson seeks removal of this building is a location in which neither Mr. or Mrs. Mickelson have any kind of a legal interest. The purp0~e of this letter is to demand that the action of February 10, 1981, mentioned