5.3. SR 02-08-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMGRANDUM TG; Councilmember Jerry Gumphrey FRGIVI: Peter Beck RE: Contacts with Ron Touchette Regarding LandCor Buildings in Otsego DATE; February 3, 2010 The following summary of my contacts with Ron Touchette was prepared from a review of my file. I'm sure the information is accurate, but it may be incomplete in that I may not have written notes of all of my contacts with Ron. I first spoke with Ron on November 3, 2009, Prior to this conversation ERMU staff had given me the background, including the amounts due on the LandCor Otsego accounts and a copy of the Court Grder appointing Rock Solid the receiver of the Main Street Gtsego Buildings, I called Ron at the staff s request to explain our analysis of responsibility for the delinquent accounts, During my conversation with Ron, I explained that I had reviewed the Receivership Grder, ERMU policies and Minnesota Statutes, and had discussed the situation with attorneys in the bankruptcy and creditors' rights department here at the law firm. I explained our analysis was that since there had been no change in ownership of the buildings, and the Receivership Grder directed the Receiver to pay prior obligations incurred at Mainstreet Otsego if deemed necessary for the continued operations of the property and its improvements, we believed that the Receiver had the obligation, on behalf of the owner, to pay the amounts due, Ron did not agree, and the conversation became fairly heated. At one point, he said he would take it to the District Court in Wright County and "make you look stupid," I told him several times that this was my analysis, but that I would be willing to review the issue with his lawyer, or the lawyers for the lenders, or anyone else who could provide me with any law or other authority which would lead to a different conclusion, By the end of the conversation, I thought Ron and I had agreed that he would put the amounts past due on deposit with ERMU while we continued to discuss whether the Receiver was required to pay these amounts. I stated again that if the lawyer for the Receiver or the lenders could show me that the Receiver should not have to pay these amounts, or if a Court ordered that we had no right to receive those amounts, we would return the deposit. 'ale further agreed, I thought, that he would deposit the amounts due under the ERMU customer deposit policy for service to be provided on a going forward basis. GRAY, PLANT, MDDTY, MDOTY & B~NN~TT, P.A. A FULL-S~RViC~ f.AW FIRM MINNPAPDLIS, MN ~ ST. CLDUD, MN ~ WA5HINGTON, DC WWW,GPMLAW.CDM