|
May 22, 2003
|
Case No: CV-03-00722 -Decker v Stoneridge Property Owners Association
|
|
Idaho
Court
County of Bonner County
Branch: First Judicial District
|
Larry A. Decker and Rosanne E. Decker
Represented by: Paul William Vogel, P.A.
v.
Stoneridge Property Owners Association
Inc. an Idaho Nonprofit Corporation aka Lake Sans Souci Property Owners Association
Inc.
Represented by: Paul W. Daugharty with Rude, Jackson & Daugharty, LLP
|
Summary
This lawsuit is about challenging the legality of recorded amended governing documents, recovering attorney fees along with dues paid under protest, receiving court interpretation regarding Consent in Lieu of Votes as stated in the original Articles of Incorporation, receiving court interpretation regarding votes cast for an amended CC&Rs, asking for a ruling that our real property is not subject to either the new Articles of Incorporation or the new Master Declaration of Covenants.
|
|
Causes of Action: Petition for Declaratory Judgement
Complaint for Injunction
Complaint for Damages
Quiet Title
|
|
Judge: The Honorable Steve Verby
|
Current information/Final Decision
Complete Case History - CV-2003-0000722
First Judicial District Court – Bonner County
Complete Case History
CV-2003-0000722
Larry A. Decker, etal. vs. Stoneridge Property Owners Association Inc.
Hearings
From To Judge Type 2/23/2004 09:00 AM 2/27/2004 05:00 PM Verby, Steve Court Trial
Register of Actions
05/22/2003 NEWC New Case Filed
Civil Complaint, More Than $1000, No prior
Appearance
PETN Petition For Declaratoy Judgment
MISC Complaint For Injunction And Damages
SMIS Summons Issued
06/09/2003 MOTN Motion To Dismiss-p. Daugharty For Def's
No Prior Appearance
NOFH Notice of Hearing
HRSC Hearing Scheduled - To Dismiss
(06/25/2003)
06/23/2003 NOTC Notice of Withdrawal of Motion To Dismiss
HRVC Hearing Vacated – To Dismiss
07/08/2003 SMRT Summons Returned
AFFD Affidavit on Return of Service - Larry
Cunningham,Registered Agent
MISC For Stoneridge Property Owners 05/24/03
NOTC Notice Of Intent To Apply For Entry of Default
MISC Judgment
07/17/2003 ANSW Def's Answer To Petition For Declaratory Jdmt;
MISC Complaint For Injunction & Damages
7/30/2003 HRSC Hearing Scheduled (Status 9-10-2003 01:50 PM)
Notice of Hearing 9/10/2003 CTLG Hearing result for Status held on 09/10/2003
01:50 PM: Court Log - #03-775
INHD Hearing result for Status held on 9/10/2003
01:50 PM: Interim Hearing Held
10/30/2003 HRSC Hearing Scheduled (Court Trial 02/23/2004
09:00 AM)—5 day court trial
11/03/2003 HRSC Hearing Scheduled (Motion 12/31/2003 09:00 AM)
NOFH Notice of Hearing
11/03/2003 MOTN Motion To Bifurcate Proceedings
11/03/2003 MOTN Motion To Amend Pleadings |
|
Lawsuit Text
PAUL WILLIAM VOGEL, P.A.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. BOX 1828
SANDPOINT, ID 83864
PHONE (208) 263-6636
FAX (208) 265-6775
ISB NO. 2504
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BOUNDARY MAGISTRATE DIVISION
CASE NO. CV-03-00722
LARRY A. DECKER and ROSANNE E. DECKER, husband and wife,
Petitioner,
vs.
STONERIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
an Idaho Nonprofit Corporation aka LAKE SANS SOUCI PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Respondent.
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; COMPLAINT FOR
INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES
______________________________
The above-named petitioners, LARRY A. DECKER and ROSANNE E. DECKER, husband and wife, by and through their attorney, Paul William Vogel, P.A. as and for a cause of action against the STONERIGDE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., also known as the LAKE SANS SOUCI PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., state and allege as follows:
I.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Petitioners are residents of Bonner County, Idaho.
2. Respondent Corporation is an Idaho non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho. The registered agent for Respondent Corporation is Larry Cunningham. The address of the registered agent and the registered office of said corporation is 364 Stoneridge Road, Blanchard, Bonner County, Idaho 83804.
3. Petitioners own real property located in Bonner County, Idaho legally described as:
Lot 15B in Block 6, LAKE SANS SOUCI UNIT ONE, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Book 3 of Plats, Page 133, records of Bonner County, Idaho.
Petitioners acquired title to said property by virtue of a Warranty Deed wherein David E. Cassel, an unmarried person, was the Grantor and Petitioners herein were Grantees. Said Warranty Deed is dated October 5, 1999 and was recorded on October 8, 1999 as Instrument No. 553454, records of Bonner County, Idaho. A true and correct copy of said Warranty Deed is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
4. The Articles of Incorporation for Respondent utilizing the name of Lake Sans Souci Property Owners Association, Inc. were filed in the office of the Idaho Secretary of State on May 9, 1979.
5. Articles of Amendment were filed with the Idaho Secretary of State on September 5, 2002 changing the name of Respondent corporation from Lake Sans Souci Property Owners Association, Inc. to Stoneridge Property Owners Association, Inc.
6. Petitioners and Respondent are interested under certain written agreements that create and contain contractual obligations between the parties. Said written agreements include, but may not be limited to, the following:
A. Articles of Incorporation of Lake Sans Souci Property Owners Association, Inc. dated May 4, 1979. A true and correct copy of said Articles is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. Hereafter, this document shall be referred to as the "original Articles of Incorporation."
B. Revised and Restated Declaration of Reservations, Covenants, Agreements, Restrictions and Conditions Affecting the Real Property Subdivision Known as Lake Sans Souci - Units 1 and 2 recorded June 21, 1979 as Instrument No. 215684 records of Bonner County, Idaho. A true and accurate copy of said Covenants is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. Hereafter, this document will be referred to as the "original Declaration of Covenants."
C. Consent of Property Owner's in Lieu of Meeting dated May 3, 2002. A true and correct copy of said document is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. Note: Exhibit A referred to in this consent document relates to the actual Articles of Amendment, Exhibit E below.
D. Articles of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation of Lake Sans Souci Property Owner's Association, Inc. filed with the Idaho Secretary of State on May 20, 2002. A true and correct copy of said Articles of Amendment and the Articles of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation of Lake San (sic) Souci Property Owners Association, Inc. are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E.
E. Lake Sans Souci Property Owner's Association Annual Meeting Election Results/Certification dated June 1, 2002. A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F.
F. Articles of Amendment filed with the Idaho Secretary of State on September 5, 2002. A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit G.
G. Master Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Stoneridge Property Owners Association fka Lake Sans Souci - Units One and Two (An Expandable, Convertible and Mixed Use Project). Said document is dated July 30, 2002 and was recorded on July 30, 2002 as Instrument No. 605785, records of Bonner County, Idaho. A true and correct copy of said document is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit H. Hereafter this document is referred to as the "new Master Declaration of Covenants."
7. Petitioners maintain that the documents referred to in Exhibit E, F, G and H were adopted without lawful authority and thus it is Petitioners position that these documents purport to create contractual obligations between the parties.
8. The actions complained of herein against said Respondent were actions undertaken by Respondent through its Board of Directors.
9. The purpose of this Petition for Declaratory Judgment is to determine whether the Respondent Board of Directors has, contrary to the original Articles of Incorporation and the original Declaration of Covenants:
A. Amended the original Articles of Incorporation;
B. Replaced the original Declaration of Covenants with the new Master Declaration of Covenants dated June 1, 2002;
C. Amended the applicable Articles of Incorporation to change the name of the corporation from the Lake Sans Souci Property Owners Association Inc. to Stoneridge Property Owners Association, Inc.
10. Petitioners are entitled to recover attorney fees, under all causes of action set forth below pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 9. REMEDIES of the original Declaration of Covenants.
11. Petitioners are entitled to recover attorney fees, as to all causes of action set forth below, pursuant to the provisions of I.C. 12-121 in that Petitioners have demonstrated to Respondent the necessity to take certain remedial action, to wit: setting aside the amended Articles of Incorporation and the new Master Declaration of Covenants, but Respondents have, without just cause, refused to set aside and rescind said documents.
II.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
PETITION FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
1. Commencing on or about May, 2002 the Board of Directors sought to amend the original Articles of Incorporation previously filed with the Idaho Secretary of State on May 9, 1979.
2. Amendment of the original Articles of Incorporation is governed by Article X. Miscellaneous. Paragraph (5) of said section requires at least a two-thirds (2/3) vote to amend the Articles. The number of membership votes entitled to be cast is unclear and Petitioners desire, in addition to other relief sought herein, for this court to determine the number of membership votes entitled to be cast in any Homeowners Association Meeting.
3. Article V of the original Articles of Incorporation, relating to membership and voting rights, states, in paragraph 3. Multiple Ownership Interest., in part, that:
With respect to lots upon which a condominium is constructed the Owners Association of the condominium shall cast the votes attributable to such lots.
At all times complained of herein, to wit: those dates wherein Respondent attempted to certify certain election results, to wit: May 3, 2002; May 15, 2002; and, June 1, 2002, there was no legal or otherwise validly functioning Condominium Owners Association. Petitioners seek a judicial declaration as to whether owners of individual condominium units are entitled to vote under the Articles of Incorporation even though there is no functioning Homeowners Association and thus if said votes should be counted in support of the vote to amend the original Articles of Incorporation or whether, alternatively, no person or entity is entitled to cast said votes.
There are currently twelve condominium units located on Lots 1 through 13 of Block 26.
If the Court determines that the owners of condominiums can vote, notwithstanding the lack of a functioning Homeowner's Association, the Court is asked to specify which condominium unit owner is entitled to vote twice or wether, alternatively, the maximum number of votes that can be gleaned from these lots is twelve.
4. The Court is asked to determine if any Class B Memberships are still in effect.
5. The Court is asked to interpret the provisions of Paragraph 6 of Article X of the original Articles of Incorporation to determine if the consents obtained in writing on May 3, 2002 are valid. This section, relating to Consent in Lieu of Vote states, in part, that:
Unless the consent of all members whose memberships are appurtenant to the same lot are secured, the consent of none of such members shall be affected.
The Consent of Property Owners in Lieu of Meeting indicates that ninety (90) consent votes were obtained. Petitioners have reviewed said consents. Out of the ninety (90) consents obtained, eleven (11) consents were obtained from condominium owners but not voted through a Homeowners Association. Out of the remaining seventy-nine (79) consents, thirty-three (33) consents are signed by only one lot owner instead of both members to the marital community holding title to said lots.
Petitioners seek a judicial declaration as to whether these consents, signed by only one member of the marital community, are valid consents and thus should be counted in support of the vote to amend the original Articles of Incorporation or whether, alternatively, said consents are invalid and thus cannot be considered in support of the vote to amend the original Articles of Incorporation.
6. The consent tabulation, Exhibit D above, indicates that twenty-four (24) votes were counted from Block 26 although there are only thirteen (13) lots located within Block 26. The additional votes have been derived from first counting one vote for each lot and, thereafter, attributing eleven extra votes to condominium units A, B, and C even though said condominium units are located within Block 26 and even though one vote for each lot has already been counted.
7. Article 5.2 of the Declaration of Covenants, Exhibit C above, states, in part that:
A condominium owners association shall be a member of the association and shall have thirteen (13) votes in the association, which votes shall be exercised in the manner provided for in the By-Laws of the Condominium Owners Association.
8. The condominiums are located on Lots 1 through 13 of Block 26. Accordingly, Petitioners maintain that the maximum number of votes that can be obtained from Block 26 is determined as follows: a total of thirteen (13) votes for the thirteen lots devoted to condominium use. This reflects Petitioner's belief that, if said lots were devoted to single family residences there would be no more than thirteen votes extracted therefrom. Petitioner believes that the intent of the Declaration of Covenants is to allow no more than thirteen votes from said lots no matter how many condominium units may be constructed thereon.
9. Petitioners request the Court's Declaration as to whether certain votes obtained the required majority and, applying the concerns raised above to the particular votes taken, allege and state as follows:
A. Articles of Incorporation Vote. The Articles of Amendment filed with the Idaho Secretary of State on May 20, 2002 indicate that the number of members entitled to vote are two hundred fourteen (214) and that the number of members that voted for each amendment was one hundred forty-five (145). The questions for judicial resolution are as follows:
(1) How many membership votes can be cast?
(2) How many votes can be counted from Block 26?
(3) Can consent votes be counted when both title holders to real property do not sign the appropriate consent?
(4) Can votes from owners of condominium units be considered when there is no functioning condominium Homeowner's Association?
(5) Did the Respondent Board unlawfully count more than thirteen votes from Block 26?
B. June 1, 2002 Vote to Adopt the new Master Declaration of Covenants. One hundred twenty-seven (127) votes in favor of adoption were obtained. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of two hundred fourteen (214) votes would require at least one hundred forty-three (143) votes. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of two hundred and two (202) votes would require one hundred thirty-five (135) votes.
Exhibit F, the election results/certification indicates that one hundred twenty-seven (127) votes approved adoption of the new Master Declaration of Covenants. The Court is asked to declare that the new Master Declaration of Covenants did not pass and that as a result thereof that said document should be stricken from the records of Bonner County, Idaho.
C. June 1, 2002 Vote to Approve Sub-Associations. One hundred twenty-seven (127) votes in favor of Sub-Associations were obtained. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of two hundred fourteen (214) votes would require at least one hundred forty-three (143) votes. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of two hundred and two (202) votes would required one hundred thirty-five (135) votes.
Exhibit F, the Election Results/Certification indicates that one hundred twenty-seven (127) approved adoption of the ability to enter into a sub-association. The Court is asked to declare that the sub-association vote did not pass and as a result there the ability of the Homeowners Association to enter into sub-associations should be rescinded and, to the extent necessary, any documentation in support thereof recorded in the records of Bonner County should be stricken from said records.
III.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTION
1. The above-named Petitioners reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs I and II above as if fully set forth herein.
2. Petitioners have expended considerable time and effort reviewing the original Articles of Incorporation; the original Declaration of Covenants; the Consent of Property Owners in Lieu of Meeting (Exhibit D hereto); the Articles of Amendment (Exhibit B hereto); the Election Results/ Certification (Exhibit F hereto).
3. Based upon Petitioner's review of said documents and the voting records maintained by Respondent, Petitioners have advised Respondent that, in their opinion, the Respondent's efforts to amend the original Articles of Incorporation and to replace the original Declaration of Covenants with the new Master Declaration of Covenants were unsuccessful.
4. Petitioners have advised Respondent that they were without lawful authority to record the Articles of Amendment (Exhibit E hereto); that they were without lawful authority to file with the Idaho Secretary of State the Articles of Amendment (Exhibit G hereto); that they were without lawful authority to approve and record in the records of Bonner County, Idaho, the new Master Declaration (Exhibit H hereto).
5. The Respondent has refused to acknowledge that the Articles of Amendment (Exhibit E hereto) were filed with the Idaho Secretary of State without lawful authority.
The Respondent has refused to acknowledge that the Articles of Amendment (Exhibit G hereto) were filed with the Idaho Secretary of State without lawful authority.
6. The Respondent has acknowledged that the Master Declaration of Covenants was not lawfully adopted. Said acknowledgement is contained in a March 24, 2003 letter from Respondent's legal counsel, Paul W. Daugharty of Rude, Jackson & Daugharty, LLP to Charles Thompson, President of Respondent corporation.
7. On April 15, 2003 Petitioner's legal counsel wrote to Mr. Daugharty requesting corporate action to rescind the new Declaration of Covenants and strike said document from the records of Bonner County, Idaho. Respondent's corporation has not responded in any way whatsoever to this demand.
8. Adoption and recordation of the new Master Declaration of Covenants was a condition precedent to a conditional use permit issued by Bonner County on October 11, 2002 in Bonner County File No. C736-02 wherein CDS Stoneridge Associates-Land, L.C. is the Applicant. The Applicant, in that case, sought a conditional use permit for a large-scale Planned Unit Development. An accompanying subdivision application filed by Applicant contains Bonner County File No. S91-02.
9. Condition number 6, which must be met prior to issuance of the conditional use permit states as follows:
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be recorded for the PUD with the final plat, which shall be sufficient to enforce development requirements and responsibilities of the lot owners and which shall include the formation of a Homeowners' Association or corporate ownership responsible for the development, use and permanent maintenance of all common activities and facilities. Prior to issuance of the conditional use permit, the CC&Rs, shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the portion relating to the development requirements and responsibilities shall be approved by the Planning Director. This section, which shall not be subject to change by vote of the lot owners, shall address at the minimum the following:
a) Maintenance and operation of the storm water system.
b) Maintenance and use of the common area.
c) Maintenance of the road system.
d) Maintenance of the wetland areas.
e) Requirements to meet all applicable land use codes.
f) Requirements for individual lot stormwater/erosion control management.
g) Building setbacks.
h) Maintenance and operation of flood plain control features.
10. There are numerous and material changes between the original Articles of Incorporation and the Amended Articles of Incorporation. As an example of one significant change, the original Articles of Incorporation did not allow proxy voting at membership meetings. The Amended Articles of Incorporation do allow proxy voting at membership meetings.
11. There are numerous and material changes between the original Declaration of Covenants and the new Master Declaration of Covenants. An example of such change is that the original Declaration of Covenants was limited to the real property of Lake Sans Souci - Units One and Two. The new Master Declaration of Covenants applies to and subjects the owners of real property within Lake Sans Souci - Units One and Two to new Covenants that also apply to additional lands that were not subject to the original Covenants.
12. The new Master Declaration of Covenants will subject Petitioners to increased costs to maintain their real property ownership and membership in an applicable Homeowners Association. For example, the original Articles of Incorporation state, in part, at IV. Powers and Purposes:
1. Purposes and Powers. The Association is organized and shall be operated as a non-profit corporation for the purposes of maintaining and administering the common areas.
From the date of incorporation on May 9, 1979 until purported adoption of the new Declaration of Covenants, there were no common areas created pursuant to the terms of the original Articles of Incorporation and thus no expenses levied to maintain said areas.
Prior to July 30, 2002 there were no monthly dues assessed to Petitioners as a result of their membership in a Homeowners Association. Commencing on or about August 1, 2002, apparently pursuant to the provisions of the new Master Declaration of Covenants, Petitioners have been assessed two hundred thirty-four dollars ($234.00) per year as and for Homeowners dues.
13. Petitioners have no adequate remedy at law and unless the conduct of business pursuant to the new Articles of Incorporation and the new Master Declaration of Covenants is enjoined by this Court, Petitioners will suffer irreparable injury and damage in that title to their real property will be subject to the restrictions contained in said documents and that, as a result thereof, the Petitioners fair market value of their property will be lessened.
14. Alternatively, Petitioners are entitled to an injunctions, regardless as to whether they will suffer irreparable injury and damage on the basis that Paragraph 9. REMEDIES of the original Declaration of Covenants provides that any party benefiting from said Covenants may proceed in equity to prevent the occurrence, continuation or violation of any of said restrictions.
IV.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1. The above-named Petitioners reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs I, II, and III above as if fully set forth herein.
2. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Paragraph 9. REMEDIES of the original Declaration of Covenants.
3. Said Paragraph allows any party to whose benefit the covenants apply to proceed at law or in equity to prevent the occurrence, continuation or violation of any of the restrictions contained therein and, further, allows the recovery of damages.
Petitioners' damages include, but are not limited to the following:
A. All monies that have been paid to Respondent as and for Homeowners fees or dues pursuant to the authority purported to be granted to Respondent by the new Articles of Incorporation and/or the new Master Declaration of Covenants.
B. All expenses incurred by Petitioners in inspecting and photocopying corporate records relating to efforts of Respondent Board to amend the original Articles of Incorporation and the original Declaration of Covenants.
C. All attorney fees incurred by Petitioners in seeking legal counsel to review the actions of Respondent Board; communicate with Respondent Board; prepare, file and prosecute this lawsuit.
4. Petitioner have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial as a result of the actions of Respondent Board of Directors in adopting the new Articles of Incorporation and the new Master Declaration of Covenants.
5. The amount of Petitioners' damages exceed $10,000.00.
V.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
QUIET TITLE
1. The above-named Petitioners reallege the allegations set forth in Paragraphs I, II, III, and IV above as if fully set forth herein.
2. This action is brought pursuant to the provisions of I.C. 6-401 et. seq.
3. Respondent claims an interest in Petitioners' property arising out of the recordation, by Respondent, of the new Master Declaration of Covenants as Instrument No. 605785, records of Bonner County, Idaho on July 30, 2002.
4. Respondent claims an interest in Petitioners' property arising out of the filing with the Idaho Secretary of State on May 20, 2002 of the Articles of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation of Lake Sans Souci Property Owners Association, Inc.
5. The recordation and filing of said documents, purporting to subject title to Petitioners' real property to the terms and conditions of said documents, is adverse to the interests of Petitioners in their real property.
6. Petitioners should be entitled to recover the cost of their action pursuant to I.C. 6-402 unless the Respondent, in its answer, disclaims any interest or estate in Petitioner's property or, alternatively, allows Plaintiff to take judgment against Respondent without Respondent having first having filed an answer.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray for relief as follows:
1. For the Court to enter a Declaratory Judgment ruling on the validity, or lack thereof, of the efforts of Respondent Board to amend the original Articles of Incorporation and the original Declaration of Covenants.
2. For the issuance of a Preliminary Injunction pursuant to I.R.C.P. 65(e) if a request is subsequently made for a Preliminary Injunction; if not, than for an issuance of a Permanent Injunction prohibiting Respondent Board from conducting business pursuant to the authority purported to be granted to said Board by the Amended Articles of Incorporation and, or, the new Master Declaration of Covenants, provided that this Court rules, under Petitioners' first cause of Action, that the actions undertaken by the Respondent Board were without lawful authority.
3. For damages pursuant to Petitioners' Third Cause of Action in an amount to be determined at trial.
4. For entry of a Decree Quieting Title and specifically ruling that Petitioners' real property is not subject to either the new Articles of Incorporation or the new Master Declaration of Covenants.
5. For reasonable costs incurred by Petitioners in the bringing of this action under all counts.
6. For attorney fees pursuant to I.C. 12-121 and pursuant to the authority contain in the original Declaration of Covenants with regard to all causes of action brought by Petitioner.
7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable under the premises including the right to amend this Petition to add additional parties and additional causes of action upon further discovery.
8. To seek the right to amend this Petition to convert this action either into a class action or a derivative action should the need to arise.
Dated this ____ day of May, 2003.
__________________________ __________________________
LARRY A. DECKER ROSANNE E. Decker
Petitioner Petitioner
__________________________
PAUL WILLIAM VOGEL
Attorney for Petitioners
VERIFICATION
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss.
County of Bonner )
LARRY A. DECKER and ROSANNE E. Decker, husband and wife, being first duly sworn upon their oath, depose and say that they are the Petitioners in the above-entitled matter; that they have read the foregoing Petition for Declaratory Judgment and know the contents thereof and that the statements and allegations contained therein are true.
_____________________________ __________________________
LARRY A. DECKER ROSANNE E. Decker
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ____ day of May, 2003.
______________________________ Notary Public for Idaho
Residing at Sandpoint
My Commission Expires:
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
LARRY A. DECKER and ROSANNE E. DECKER, husband and wife, Petitioners herein, pursuant to I.R.C. 38(b) hereby demand a trial by jury on Petitioners' Third Cause of Action. Petitioners will not, at this time, stipulate to a jury consisting of any other number of persons less than twelve.
__________________________ __________________________
LARRY A. DECKER ROSANNE E. Decker
Petitioner Petitioner
|
|
| |
|
View Comments (9) | Post a comment |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
