"Another lawsuit against code enforcement/ More lies & skullduggery from the gestapo housing police force."
13 Comments -
Show Original Post
Collapse comments
- Bob said...
*
**
***
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF RAMSEY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
APPEAL
of determination of
LEGISLATIVE
HEARING OFFICER
and
COMPLAINT AT LAW
for DAMAGES
Nancy C. Lazaryan,
Victoria C. Marchetti, and
Evelyn C. Wallace,
and “Other Similarly Situated Persons”
all proceeding in propria persona, in summo jure
Plaintiffs,
v.
The City of St. Paul, a municipal corporation
Mike Kalis, individually and as a code enforcement officer
for the City of St. Paul,
Steve Magner, individually and as a supervisor for the
City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
Robert (Bob) Kessler, individually and as director for
the City of St. Paul department of
Neighborhood Housing and Improvement,
ReMax Resources, of Stillwater, Minnesota,
Phad Rich, individually and as broker for ReMax Resources,
Thomas (Tom) Sawyer, individually and as agent for ReMax Resources,
Wells Fargo Mortgage, an Iowa corporation, doing business in the state of Minnesota,
Marcia Moermond, individually, and as Legislative Hearing officer for the City of St. Paul
Defendants Case type: Civil
Court file #______________
______________________________________________________________________________
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: Plaintiffs bring their Complaint at Law pursuant to the
authority of the Minnesota Constitution, whereby this district court has original jurisdiction to
hear this controversy, and Plaintiffs bring their Appeal of the St. Paul Legislative Hearing
Officer pursuant to 18.03 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code.
10:56 AM
Bob said...
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are the fee owner (Evelyn C. Wallace) and equitable interest owners (Nancy C.
Lazaryan and Victoria C. Marchetti) of property known as 1033 Colne St, located in the city of
Saint Paul, county of Ramsey, state of Minnesota. Victoria Marchetti is currently residing at said
property.
Evelyn C. Wallace purchased said property as an investment. Nancy C. Lazaryan is the
daughter of Wallace and Marchetti is the daughter of Lazaryan. Wallace purchased the property
at the end of May, 2007. Wallace purchased the property from Wells Fargo. The listing agent
for Wells Fargo was Thomas (Tom) Sawyer. Sawyer is an agent for ReMax Resources in
Stillwater, MN. Phad Rich is the broker/employer of Sawyer.
Sawyer represented the property by listing said property on the “MLS” (Multiple Listing
Service). In said listing, Sawyer included a “Truth in Sale of Housing” inspection report, dated
February 2, 2007. Said report indicated that the property was NOT a “Registered Vacant
Building”.
The sellers, Wells Fargo, required the buyer to hire the title company that the seller had
chosen. Said Title Company did not disclose that the property was a “Registered Vacant
Building.”
4
Wallace lives in Phoenix, AZ. Wallace had Lazaryan inspect the property with her
buyer’s agent, Shannon Lindstrom. Lazaryan and Lindstrom inspected the property, twice,
before the closing. At no time, when Lindstrom and Lazaryan inspected the property, was there
posted a placard that declared the house was a “Registered Vacant Building”.
The house was posted with a notice that the house had been “winterized”, meaning the
plumbing fixtures and traps had been filled with anti-freeze and the water service had been shutoff.
Lazaryan has, in the past, purchased several houses that had been “winterized” and
appreciated the steps taken so that the plumbing system would not be ruined by frozen, burst
pipes.
Marchetti moved into the house at 1033 Colne on or about June 1, 2007. Immediately,
Lazaryan and Wallace invested monies into what are considered “cosmetic” repairs to the
property. Lazaryan and Marchetti used their own labor in making these repairs.
On July 10, 2007, Defendant Mike Kalis approached Plaintiff Marchetti outside of the
house at 1033 Colne St. Kalis informed Marchetti that 1033 Colne St. was a “Registered Vacant
Building” and that Marchetti could not occupy the house. Marchetti called Lazaryan, and
Lazaryan then spoke with Kalis on the phone. Lazaryan told Kalis that they had not been
informed, prior to purchasing and occupying the property, that the house was a “Registered
Vacant Building”. Kalis informed Lazaryan that the “Truth in Sale of Housing” report indicated
that the house was a “Registered Vacant Building”. Under threat of the police removing her
from her home, Marchetti left the premises.
On July 11, 2007, Lazaryan went to the office of the “Neighborhood Housing and
Property Improvement”, on White Bear Avenue, and asked to see the file on 1033 Colne St.
5
Lazaryan copied the file, and noticed serious problems concerning the handling of the procedure
in which 1033 Colne St. was determined to be a “Registered Vacant Building”.
First, the only basis for the determination is an “Inspection Request” form dated May 23,
2006. This inspection request was made because there had been complaints, in May of 2006, of
tall grass and of debris in the driveway.
Second, the “Inspection Request” form, created by Mike Kalis states, “1 story wood
frame single family, house is vacant and secure, house is in fair shape roof needs some work,
elect. off, TG & W Owner Died.” (emphasis added)
Third, three days after making the May 23, 2007 “Inspection Request” document, on May
26, 2007, Defendant Kalis mailed a letter to the DEAD owner, stating, in part: “1033 Colne St is
a Registered Vacant Building that requires a Code Compliance Inspection….The Vacant
Building Registration Form and Registration Fee Must Be received By the Vacant Building
Program Before LIEP May Issue Permits.”
The file that Lazaryan copied on July 11, 2007 shows that this so-stated letter was
returned to Defendant Mike Kalis as undeliverable.
Defendant Kalis then sent another letter to the DEAD owner on June 26, 2006. Said
letter is noticing the DEAD owner that the fee for the vacant building at 1033 Colne is past due.
The June 26, 2006 letter was also returned to Defendant Kalis as undeliverable.
Fourth, the file on 1033 Colne St. is absent ANY housing and/or building code violations
being made against the property.
Fifth, the file on 1033 Colne St. is absent ANY notification being made to Wells Fargo,
the holder of the mortgage (and thereby an owner of equitable interest), by the Defendants Kalis
and the City of Saint Paul.
6
Upon reviewing the file on 1033 Colne, and making copies, Lazaryan, on July 11, 2007,
immediately drove to downtown Saint Paul to meet with Defendants Steve Magner and Robert
(Bob) Kessler. Lazaryan reviewed with Magner and Kessler the copies of the file of 1033 Colne
St. Lazaryan expressed her concerns about notice and due process. Magner informed Lazaryan
that the property had multiple housing/building violations. Lazaryan asked Magner to show
Lazaryan where, in the file, these violations existed. Magner and Kessler simply responded that
they could not assist Lazaryan.
Lazaryan then went to the office of Saint Paul City Council member Helgen. Lazaryan
met with Helgen and voiced her concerns about violations of due process. Lazaryan asked to
meet with the Saint Paul City Council. Helgen denied Lazaryan’s request and told Lazaryan to
file an appeal with the Legislative Hearing Officer.
Lazaryan then filed an appeal of the “Vacant Building Registration” with the city clerk of
Saint Paul, and scheduled an appeal to be made before Defendant Moermond, the Legislative
Hearing Officer. After filing her Appeal, Lazaryan contacted the buyer’s agent, Shannon
Lindstrom and asked Lindstrom to read the “Truth in Sale of Housing” report that was provided
by the seller, Defendants Wells Fargo and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer. The box for “Vacant
Building” was NOT checked.
Lazaryan then went back to the office of the City of St. Paul department of Neighborhood
Housing and Improvement, located on White Bear Avenue. Lazaryan asked for a “certified
copy” of the “Truth in Sale of Housing” report from the file of 1033 Colne St., stating that
Lazaryan’s records showed that “vacant building” was NOT checked.
7
The office staff said, “oh yes, the vacant building box was checked.” Defendant Kalis
was standing in the lobby next to Lazaryan and said, “No, give her the report that was NOT
checked.” Lazaryan then acquired a certified copy of the report, and the box next to vacant
building was not checked.
On July 24, 2007, Lazaryan appeared before Defendant Marcia Moermond, Legislative
Hearing Officer for the City of Saint Paul. Lazaryan went through the above stated problems
with the file concerning 1033 Colne St. Lazaryan stated the mortgage company had not been
noticed. Lazaryan asked what was the basis, under the ordinance for the “Registered Vacant
Building” status. Defendant Moermond stated, “It is right there, in your hand.” The “Inspection
Request” form dated May 23, 2006 was in Lazaryan’s hand. Lazaryan raised the document and
showed it to Defendant Moermond, stating, “Where on this document does it say anything about
multiple building or housing violations?” Defendant refused to answer and summarily denied
Lazaryan’s appeal.
On August 10, 2007, Lazaryan appeared before the Saint Paul City Council in an attempt
to convince the council to reverse the determination of Defendant Moermond. Lazaryan
reviewed the matters that had been presented to Moermond, including the violation of due
process, secured by the Minnesota and U.S. States constitutions. Lazaryan asked for the council
to look at the documents in the file for 1033 Colne St. The city council did not have the file on
1033 Colne St., as such, there was no evidence before the council. The Saint Paul City Council
denied Lazaryan’s request to reverse the determination of Defendant Moermond.
At said council meeting on August 1, 2007, Lazaryan made a request to the city clerk for
public documents, pursuant to the Minnesota Data Practices Act, and sought to review ALL files
of the “Registered Vacant Buildings” in the city of Saint Paul.
8
Lazaryan has since begun communication with the city clerk for Saint Paul, concerning
inspection of other similarly situated “registered vacant buildings”. This case has named “Other
Similarly Situated Persons” as Plaintiffs in this action. As evidence becomes available of
tortuous actions by the Defendants against “Other Similarly Situated Persons”, these so stated
persons will be enjoined as additional, named Plaintiffs.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. Defendant City of Saint Paul is a “charter city” as defined by Minnesota statutes.
2. Defendant City of Saint Paul has established a “legislative code” defining certain
functions of the government of the City of Saint Paul.
3. Chapter 43 of said legislative code concerns the matter of “vacant buildings” within the
City of Saint Paul.
4. In said Chapter 43, Sec. 43.02 “Definitions” states:
“(7) Vacant building: A building or portion of a building which is:
a. Unoccupied and unsecured;
b. Unoccupied and secured by other than normal means;
c. Unoccupied and a dangerous structure;
d. Unoccupied and condemned;
e. Unoccupied and has multiple housing or building code violations;
f. Condemned and illegally occupied; or
g. Unoccupied for a period of time over three hundred and sixty-five (365)
days and during which time the enforcement officer has issued an order to
correct nuisance conditions.
(8) Code violation: violations of any code adopted and/or enforce by the city,
which may include but not be limited to the St. Paul Legislative Code, codes
covering plumbing, electrical, mechanical or building construction, installation or
maintenance standards, zoning or fire codes.”
5. Chapter 43 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, Sec. 43.08 states, in part:
“Nothing is in this chapter shall be deemed to abolish or impair existing
remedies of the city authorized under Chapter 33, 34, 45 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code or Minnesota Statutes Section 463.15 through 463.26.”
(emphasis added)
9
6. M.S. Sec. 463. defines and proscribes the necessary steps for the Defendant City of Saint
Paul to take. See the law as follows:
“M.S Sec. 463.15 DEFINITIONS.
Subd. 3. Hazardous building or hazardous property. "Hazardous building or
hazardous property" means any building or property, which because of inadequate
maintenance, dilapidation, physical damage, unsanitary condition, or
abandonment, constitutes a fire hazard or a hazard to public safety or health.
Subd. 4. Owner, owner of record, and lien holder of record. "Owner," "owner
of record," and “lien holder of record" means a person having a right or interest
in property described in subdivision 3 and evidence of which is recorded in the
office of the county recorder or registrar of titles in the county in which the
property is situated.
M.S. Sec. 463.17 THE ORDER.
Subdivision 1. Contents. The order shall be in writing; recite the grounds
therefor; specify the necessary repairs, if any, and provide a reasonable time
for compliance; and shall state that a motion for summary enforcement of the
order will be made to the district court of the county in which the hazardous
building or property is situated unless corrective action is taken, or unless an
answer is filed within the time specified in section 463.18.
Subd. 2. Service. The order shall be served upon the owner of record, or the
owner's agent if an agent is in charge of the building or property, and upon the
occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien holders of record, in the
manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot
be found, the order shall be served upon the owner by posting it at the main
entrance to the building or, if there is no building, in a conspicuous place on the
property, and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the
municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county.
Subd. 3. Filing. A copy of the order with proof of service shall be filed with the
court administrator of district court of the county in which the hazardous building
or property is located not less than five days prior to the filing of a motion
pursuant to section 463.19 to enforce the order. At the time of filing such order
the municipality shall file for record with the county recorder or registrar of
titles a notice of the pendency of the proceeding, describing with reasonable
certainty the lands affected and the nature of the order. If the proceeding be
abandoned the municipality shall within ten days thereafter file with the county
recorder a notice to that effect.” (emphasis added)
7. The Saint Paul Legislative Code defines “Owner” in Chapter 43 as follows:
“Sec. 43.02 Definitions
(3) Owner. Those shown to be the owner or owners on the records of the Ramsey
County Department of Property Taxation, those identified as the owner or owners
on a vacant building registration form, holder of an unrecorded contract for deed,
10
a mortgagee or vendee in possession, a mortgagor or vendor in possession,
assignee of rents, receiver, executor. Trustee lessee, other person, firm or
corporation in control of the freehold of the premises or lesser state therein.”
(emphasis added)
8. In May of 2006, Defendants City of Saint Paul and Mike Kalis knew that the “owner”
had died. The record is clear that said Defendants did not contact the “other owners of record”,
specifically the mortgage owner of record, concerning the “Registered Vacant Building”
determination made by these Defendants.
9. The record is clear that Defendants City of Saint Paul, Mike Kalis, Steve Magner and
Bob Kessler failed to make a public record at the Ramsey County Recorder’s Office of the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination.
10. On May 23, 2006, Defendant Mike Kalis created the document entitled “Inspection
Request” on the property known as 1033 Colne St. (See Exhibit “A” Documents from
Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
11. In said document, Defendant Kalis states: “1 story wood frame single family, house is
vacant and secure, house is in fair shape roof needs some work, elect. off, TG & W Owner
Died.”
12. Defendant Kalis never issued any “Housing and/or Building” code violations on the
property known as 1033 Colne St.
13. On May 26, 2006 Defendant Kalis determined the property at 1033 Colne St. was a
“Registered Vacant Building”, and sent notice of his determination to the DEAD owner of the
property. (See Exhibit “A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative
Hearing Officer)
14. Said May 26, 2006 letter was returned to Defendant Kalis as undeliverable. (See Exhibit
“A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
11
15. On June 26, 2006 Defendant Kalis sent an additional letter to the DEAD owner stating
that the fee for the vacant building at 1033 Colne St. is past due. (See Exhibit “A” Documents
from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
16. Said June 26, 2006 letter was also returned to Defendant Kalis as undeliverable. (See
Exhibit “A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer)
17. Defendant Kalis never noticed the mortgage holder, an owner of the property at 1033
Colne St. of the “Registered Vacant Building” determination.
18. Defendant City of Saint Paul never filed a Notice with the Ramsey County Recorder of
the “Registered Vacant Building” determination on 1033 Colne St.
19. Defendant City of Saint Paul and Defendant Moermond failed to prove by evidence that
the City taken the steps proscribed by law to determine the property at 1033 Colne St. conformed
to the legal definition of a “Registered Vacant Building”.
20. Defendant City of Saint Paul failed to provide the Saint Paul City Council the record of
the file on the property at 1033 when Lazaryan appeared before council on August 1, 2007. Said
appearance by Lazaryan, was an attempt by Lazaryan to have said council remove the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination from the property.
21. On May 23, 2006 the building at 1033 was vacant and secure. The Owner had died.
There is nothing in the record that shows HOW long the building had been vacant.
22. Plaintiffs have invested substantial amounts of monies and labor into the property at 1033
Colne St. Said property was purchased, as an investment, to improve and to sell. Plaintiffs are
experiencing considerable financial losses because of the actions of the Defendants.
12
ARGUMENT
Based upon the above evidence, Plaintiffs bring before the court their Argument for
Appeal of the Saint Paul Legislative Hearing Officer, pursuant to Sec 18.03 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code. Following this argument Plaintiffs will raise their complaint against
Defendants for damages.
1. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler failed to follow the
proscribed law in making the determination that 1033 Colne St. would be put into the
status as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
The Legislative Code for the City of Saint Paul is clear. There must be multiple housing
and/or building code violations on a vacant building to determine the property is defined as
“Vacant”. Alternatively, there must be “nuisance violations” over a period of 365 days. In this
case there were TWO nuisance complaints prior to the property being determined “Vacant”. The
actual “summary abatements” did not occur until AFTER the building was deemed “Vacant”.
Thereby, Defendants failed to meet the legal criteria required to determine that the house
on 1033 Colne St. is a “Registered Vacant Building”.
2. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler failed to follow the
proscribed law in noticing the owners of record that 1033 Colne St. was put into the status
as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
Notice was NEVER sent to Wells Fargo, a mortgage holder, duly recorded with the
Ramsey County Recorder, and thereby an “owner” by definition. Wells Fargo received NO
notice of the nuisance complaints, determination that the property was a “Registered Vacant
Building”, or the “summary abatements”. (See Exhibit “A” Documents from Lazaryan’s appeal
to the St. Paul Legislative Hearing Officer, “Stamp-Activities” page)
As such, Defendants failure to properly notice the owners of the property, renders the
determination by the administrative agency null and void.
13
3. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler failed to follow the
proscribed law in noticing the public of the record that 1033 Colne St. was put into the
status as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
Notice was never recorded in the Ramsey County Recorders Office of ANY action that
was taken by the City of Saint Paul, against 1033 Colne St.
See the law as follows:
“Requirement of notice and fair opportunity to be heard is basic to administrative law.”
Chocolate Mfrs Assn. of U.S. v. Block, 755 F.2d 1096
Absent the required public notice, Plaintiffs were unaware of the Defendants
determination that the property was a “Registered Vacant Building”. As such, said
determination cannot be “used against” Plaintiffs, as they had no notice.
4. Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner and Kessler noncompliance with the
law establishes the determination that 1033 Colne St. is a “Registered Vacant Building”
was issued without authority of law, and is thereby void on its face.
The courts are well-settled that pubic officials must proceed in accordance with the law.
See as follows:
“The authority of public officers to proceed in a particular way and only upon specific
conditions as to such manners implies a duty to not proceed in any manner other that that
which is authorized by the law.” First Nat. Bank v. Flier, 107 Fla. 526, 148 So 204, 67
ALR 267.
“When the right to do a thing depends upon legislative authority, and the legislature has
failed to authorize it, or has forbidden it, no amount of acquiescence or consent or
approval of the doing of it by a ministerial officer can create a right to do the thing which
is unauthorized or forbidden.” Department of Insurance v. Church Members Relief Assoc.
217 Ind 58, 26 NE(2d) 51, 128 ALR 635.
“Administrative authorities are creatures of statute and have only such powers as the
statute confers on them. Their powers must be exercised in accordance with the statute
bestowing such powers, and they can act only in the mode prescribed by statute.” United
States ex. rel Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm. 252 US 178,
64 L ed 717, 40 S Ct 187.
“Agency action is ultra virus when agency has acted beyond scope of its defined
authority.” Kenda Rubber Indus. Co,, Ltd. v. U. S., 630 F. Supp. 354.
14
“Administrative actions taken in violation of statutory authorization or requirement are of
no effect.” U.S. v. Amdahl Corp., 786 F. 2d 387.
“Agencies must respect statutory limits on their discretion, and agency deviation from its
own regulations and procedures may justify judicial relief in case otherwise properly
before the court.” 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 551 et seq., 551(4), 553(a)(1), (b) (A,B), (c), Jean v.
Nelson, 727 F. 2d 957, rehearing denied 733 F.2d 908, certiorari granted 105 S.Ct. 563,
469 U.S. 1071, 83 Led.2d 504, affirmed 105 S. Ct. 2992, 472 U.S. 846, 86 L ed.2d 664.
Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Kessler and Magner all failed in their ministerial
duties to perform in accordance with the Saint Paul Legislative Code and the Minnesota Statutes.
The building at 1033 Colne St. did not meet the established criteria necessary to
designate the building as a “Registered Vacant Building.”
The so-stated above Defendants did not properly notice the owner(s) of the building of
ANY violations…nuisance, building or housing code violations.
There have NEVER been any building and/or housing code violations on the property
known as 1033 Colne St.
The so-stated above Defendants disregarded the law, and, without authority of law,
designated the property at 1033 Colne as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
As such, it is the duty of this court to remove the “Registered Vacant Building”
determination from the property known as 1033 Colne St., Saint Paul, Minnesota.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT AT LAW FOR DAMAGES
Plaintiffs incorporate the evidence and arguments in the foregoing “appeal” into this
Complaint at Law for Damages, and state as follows:
15
COUNT ONE
Defendants City of Saint Paul; Defendants Kalis, Magner and Kessler, in their capacity as agents
for the City of Saint Paul, and individually, did knowingly deprive Plaintiffs of their
constitutionally secured right to property when they unlawfully designated the property known as
1033 Colne St., Saint Paul, Minnesota, as a “Registered Vacant Building”.
COUNT TWO
Defendants City of Saint Paul; Defendants Kalis, Magner and Kessler, in their capacity as agents
for the City of Saint Paul, and individually, did knowingly violate their duty to properly notice
the owners of said property of their designation of “Registered Vacant Building”, and by their
failure to properly notice said owners, Plaintiffs have been deprived use and enjoyment of the
property, without due process of law.
COUNT THREE
Defendant City of Saint Paul, in their agent Defendant Kalis, as well as Defendant Kalis in his
individual capacity, after having knowingly failed to notice the owners of 1033 Colne of the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination, did threaten Plaintiff Victoria Marchetti and did
force her from the property, denying her full use and enjoyment of the property.
COUNT FOUR
Defendants Magner and Kessler, in their capacity as agents for Defendant City of Saint Paul, and
in their individual capacities, did violate Plaintiffs right of due process, secured by the Minnesota
and U.S. constitutions, when said Defendants asserted to Plaintiff Lazaryan, on July 11, 2007,
that the property at 1033 Colne St. had multiple housing/building code violations, when, in fact
no such violations existed. And, that based upon these false assertions, said Defendants refused
to retract the “Registered Vacant Building” determination on said property.
16
COUNT FIVE
Defendant Moermond, in her capacity as agent for the City of Saint Paul and in her individual
capacity, did violate Plaintiff Lazaryan’s due process rights, secured by the Minnesota and U.S.
constitutions, when Moermond, on July 24, 2007, falsely determined that the document
“Inspection Request” contained multiple building/housing violations.
COUNT SIX
Defendant Moermond, in her capacity as agent for the City of Saint Paul and in her individual
capacity, did violate Plaintiff Lazaryan’s due process rights, secured by the Minnesota and U.S.
constitutions, when Moermond, on July 24, 2007, denied Lazaryan’s appeal to remove the
“Registered Vacant Building” determination on 1033 Colne St.
COUNT SEVEN
Defendant City of Saint Paul failed to provide to the Saint Paul City Council the file on 1033
Colne St., when Plaintiff Lazaryan appeared before said council on August 1, 2007. Failure of
the Defendant to provide said file, to said council, violated the Plaintiff’s right of due process,
secured by the Minnesota and U.S. constitutions.
COUNT EIGHT
Defendants Wells Fargo, Phad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer failed in their responsibility,
under the law, to fully disclose to Plaintiffs any restrictions against the full use and enjoyment of
the property they sold to Plaintiff Evelyn Wallace, and that Plaintiffs Lazaryan and Marchetti
took possession of.
17
ARGUMENT
Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner, Kessler and Moermond have, by their
actions, systematically, individually and jointly deprived Plaintiffs of full use and enjoyment of
the property known as 1033 Colne St., Saint Paul, Minnesota.
As fully argued in Plaintiffs’ above Appeal, these so-stated Defendants have complete
disregard for the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the Minnesota Statutes and the Minnesota and U.S.
constitutions. Public officers who so flagrantly disregard the law and inflict injury and harm
upon the Citizens can be sued for the damages they cause. See the law as follows:
“If a public officer authorizes the doing of an act not within the scope of his authority, he
will be held liable.” Bailey v. New York, 3 Hill (NY) 531, 38 Am Dec 669, affirmed in 2
Denio 433.
“It is a general rule that good faith and absence of malice constitute no defense in an
action to hold a ministerial officer liable for damages caused by his nonfeasances or
misfeasances. Amy v. Supervisors (Amy v. Barkholder) 11 Wall. (US) 138, 20 L ed 101;
“for an officer is under a constant obligation to discharge the duties of his office, and it is
not necessary to show that his failure to act was willful or malicious, 95 Am St Rep 74.
“And this is likewise the rule in respect of officers with discretionary powers who have
exceeded their jurisdiction and have acted without authority of law.” Stiles v Lowell
(Stiles v. Morse) 233 Mass 174, 123 NE 615, 4 ALR 1365.
“The officers of the law, in the execution process, are obligated to know the requirements
of the law, and when they mistake them, whether through ignorance or design, and
anyone is harmed by their error, they must respond in damages.” Roger v. Marshal
(United States use of Rogers v. Conklin) 1 Wall. (US) 644, 17 L ed. 714.
It is a general rule that an officer---executive, administrative, quasi-judicial, ministerial,
or otherwise---who acts outside the scope of his jurisdiction and without authority of law
may thereby render himself amenable to personal liability in a civil lawsuit.” Cooper v.
O’Connor, 69 App DC 100, 99 F 2d 135, 118 ALR 1440; Chamberlain v. Clayton, 56
Iowa 331, 9 NW 237, 41 Am Rep 101.
“If he exceeds the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself by the plea
that he is a public agent acting under the color of his office”, Nelson v. Babcock, 188
Minn 584, 248 NW 49, 90 ALR 1472; “or that the damage was caused by an act done or
omitted under color of office, and not personally.” First Bank v. Flier, 107 Fla 526, 145
So 204, 87 ALR 267.
18
Defendants City of Saint Paul, Kalis, Magner, Kessler and Moermond all acted outside of
the scope of their jurisdiction, and thereby, without authority of law, when said Defendants
blatantly ignored the restraints placed upon them by the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the
Minnesota statutes and the Minnesota and U.S. constitutions. As such, as a matter of law, they
are liable to the Plaintiffs for the damages they caused.
Defendants Wells Fargo, Phad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer were required, as owner
of the property and agent sellers of the property, to fully disclose any problems the purchaser
would have in the full use and quiet enjoyment of the property that they sold. Had said
Defendants exercised due diligence and examined the records of the City of Saint Paul, they may
have found the “Registered Vacant Building” determination.
Instead, said Defendants presented to the Plaintiffs a “Truth in Sale of Housing”
document that stated, clearly, that the property at 1033 Colne St. was NOT a “Registered Vacant
Building.” It was upon the information contained within this document, that the Plaintiffs
purchased and occupied the property.
Defendants Wells Fargo, Phad Rich and Thomas (Tom) Sawyer committed fraud upon
the Plaintiffs by representing to the Plaintiffs that the property was NOT a “Registered Vacant
Building.”
Plaintiffs are 99% complete in the repairs to the property. Three potential buyers have
are no longer interested in the property, because of the “Registered Vacant Building” status. The
actions of the Defendants have severely damaged Plaintiffs, in that Plaintiffs are unable to
recover the monies invested in the property.
19
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs respectfully seek an Order from the court as follows:
1. Dismissing the agency determination that the property at 1033 Colne is a
“Registered Vacant Building”.
2. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count One
3. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Two
4. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Three
5. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Four
6. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Five
7. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Six
8. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Seven
9. Damages in excess of $50,000.00 for Count Eight
10. Punitive Damages in excess of $1,000,000.00 against Defendant City of St. Paul.
Plaintiffs rest.
August_____, 2007
_____________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, proceeding in propria person, in summo jure
10734 West Lake Road
Rice, MN 56367
____________________
Victoria C. Marchetti, proceeding in propria person, in summo jure
1033 Colne St.
Saint Paul, MN 55103
_______________________
Nancy C. Lazaryan, attorney-in-fact for Evelyn C. Wallace,
proceeding in propria person, in summo jure
9613 Glenside Court
Sun Lakes, AZ 85248
