Laserfiche WebLink
19 <br /> <br /> The overall conduct underlying Defendants’ transaction shows subterfuge and a design to <br />circumvent residents’ right. First, Defendants concealed their Letter Agreement and ensured that <br />LG Partnership would not “provide information” or “cooperate with” others, including residents, <br />“with respect to any sale or other disposition of the Lowry Grove Assets.” Second, Defendants <br />withheld notice of Continental’s plans to close Lowry Grove until April 26—a date falling (a) <br />more than two months after the Letter Agreement’s execution and performance, (b) just before <br />Defendants executed the Purchase Agreement and began to perform under the second Inspection <br />Period, and (c) only 48 days before Defendants’ closing such that Defendants would claim they <br />had no ability to engage Aeon’s offer because they were obligated to close the next business day. <br />Third, Defendants wrongly claimed that the residents’ acceptance was deficient because it did <br />not comply with their planned closing date and because they doubted Aeon “had the ability to <br />obtain funding.” Park owners and developers should be disallowed from acting to subvert or <br />circumvent park residents’ effective exercise of the right. <br />E. To Prevent Harm to Lowry Grove Residents and the State, and Deter Future <br />Violations, Defendants Should be Subject to Injunctive Relief Preventing Park <br />Closure (In Addition to Other Remedies) Under § 8.31, Subd. 3a. <br />The remedies available to private claimants under § 8.31 are available to Plaintiffs— <br />against all parties who participated in the transaction. See supra section 1.B. Continental and <br />The Village—which by their July 17 motion do not seek dismissal as parties—are subject to <br />injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs preventing Defendants from closing the park and <br />displacing residents. Compl. ¶¶ 38-40. Such relief would not affect “marketability of title” <br />because The Village would be free to sell the property without future encumbrance or cloud on <br />title (so long as they followed § 327C.095). The required presence of knowledge and complicity <br />by The Village ensures there would be no uncertainty in title for other purchased property around <br />27-CV-16-9809 Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court <br />8/5/2016 8:53:55 AM <br />Hennepin County, MN