03/19/2013AP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioners March 13, 2013 -- Page Three This raises the questions of whether the Board is willing to revoke all or part of Resolution 2008-043, or do anything with respect to the fines/liens, as part of a settlement of the lawsuits above DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS. As stated, Resolution 2008-043 was adopted somewhat as a formality. Based on events which had occurred since 1888, based on the private easement in favor of other lot owners, and based on the 20 foot public and private road easement in Mensing's 1990 deed (which matched up with the County's 20 foot easement over the adjoining Lot 19), it is arguable that Resolution 2008-043 was duplicative and not necessary. While the County Attorney is confident that Resolution 2008-043 is legally valid, the County Attorney is not opposed to a revocation of the resolution as to that part of the Subject Strip which is adjacent to Mensing's Lot 15, if it will result in a conclusion to the lawsuits listed above. Thus, the County Attorney would recommend that the Board revoke Resolution 2008-043 as it relates to that portion of the Subject Strip which is adjacent to Mensing's Lot 15, on the condition that (a)the revocation would take place only in conjunction with an actual reverse mortgage closing, and (b) Mensing would deliver a general release and stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, thereby bringing the litigation and any other claims to an end. As for the CEB and environmental liens, reverse mortgage regulations apparently require that they be paid off—at least, that is what is stated in the reverse mortgage consultant's letter. Thus, it is up to Mensing to either pay them off, or offer to pay a reduced amount in connection with correction of the violations (to the best of the County Attorney's knowledge, the violations still exist). The County Attorney does note that the County cannot foreclose the liens against Lot 15, because it is Mensing's homestead. Also, if the reverse mortgage refinances the 2000 Mortgage, it is likely that the reverse mortgage would have the same priority as the 2000 Mortgage—meaning that the reverse mortgage would still have priority over the 2000 and 2009 CEB liens and the 2010 environmental lien. The County Attorney is not opposed to delivering a letter to a reverse mortgage lender stating these matters, subject to the same conditions set forth above — namely, that the letter would be delivered only in conjunction with an actual loan closing, and Mensing would deliver a general release and stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuits. Several final matters should be noted. First, while Mensing and the reverse mortgage consultant are focused on Resolution 2008-043 and the CEB and environmental liens, the County Attorney believes that there are numerous other obstacles, unrelated to the resolution and the liens, which will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Mensing to obtain a reverse mortgage. Not the least of these is the 20 foot strip along the northwesterly side of Lot 15 for "public and private roads,"which was reserved in the 1990 deed when Mensing acquired the property, and the code and environmental violations which continue to exist on the property. F:L4-,nerDndalGen—I B C CAgenda,i9emosafensing 05(Pending Cases).doc 246