6. HRA SR 03-05-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1010 WEST ST. GERMAIN STREET ROBERT J. WALTER SUITE 500 ATTORNEY ST. CLOUD, MN 56301 DIRECT DIAL: (320) 202-5336 ~ ! MAIN: (320) 252-4414 ROBERT.WALTER@GPMLAW.COM FAX: (320) 252-4482 BO RD C E R T I F I E D Real Property Specialist VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL adeckert@ci.elk-river.mn.us February 13, 2012 MS ANNIE B DECKERT DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 13065 ORONO PARKWAY ELK RIVER MN 55330 Re: Shared Well Agreement/HRA Building Dear Ms. Deckert: I have had an opportunity to review the Wall Agreement, dated December 22, 2006, and your email to my partner, Peter Beck, dated February 7, 2012. The Wall Agreement was set up in order to clarify the obligations for "Common Wall"between the First National Bank building and Robecks (Elk River Meats). Historically, it appears that there were some prior agreements in 1923 and 1955. This Wall Agreement voids and supersedes those prior agreements. It appears that the parties were not able to determine whether or not there was one common structure that served as a wall for both of the buildings, or whether each of the buildings had a separate wall that was adjacent to each other and provided the support for that building. This Wall Agreement covers both the party wall scenario and the separate wall scenario. The Wall Agreement indicates that each one of the parcel owners is granting an easement to the other to allow each parcel to maintain separate walls on the other party's parcel, which they refer to as Separate Walls. The Wall Agreement also grants easements to each parcel for any wall that is, in effect, a support wall for both structures, which they refer to as Party Walls. The agreement indicates that each party is solely responsible for all costs and expenses associated with the repair and maintenance of any Separate Wall that party owns. The agreement indicates that each party is responsible for one-half of the cost of all reasonable maintenance and repair to any Party Wall. The agreement indicates that in the event the building is destroyed or damaged to the extent that its worth is less than 50% of the assessed value, then the building and Separate Wall supporting that building would have to be removed. In the event that the supporting wall of the building is a Party Wall, then the Party Wall is to remain and the party removing the damaged building is responsible for ensuring that any portion of the Party Wall left exposed be weather protected. The question you raised is contained in Article I, Section 7, Damage to and Repair of Common Walls and Weatherproofing. This section prohibits any party from removing a Party Wall or the other party's GP:3120880v4 GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY, MOOTY & BENNETT, P.A. A FULL-SERVICE LAW FIRM MINNEAPOLIS, MN ST. CLOUD, MN WASHINGTON, DC WWW.GPMLAW.COM