VICKBURG, MI (WKZO AM/FM) – An ugly public battle between Kalamazoo County and an extended local family over a prime piece of lakefront property has gone to settlement talks, but there is apparently a third side to the story.
The land sits on Gourdneck Lake inside Prairie View Park. The county has wanted it for 60 years but agreed with the original owners to wait until they had all passed. Part of the family is now fighting to keep it, while other members have just now stepped forward, siding with the county.
Loraine Talanda Goetting says a deal is a deal, and her parents Edmund and Dorothy Talanda were unwavering to their dying day that they were honor bound to abide by that agreement.
She says they were grateful to the county of letting them stay there as long as they did, but she claims her sister misled the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners by telling them the deal is no longer valid.
Her husband Mark Goetting says it’s not just the land. He says the County has issued dozens of keys to the family so they can get to the property, and it’s a big liability and security problem.
The Goettings say the other side of the family’s high-priced attorney and public relations firms have unfairly tried to portray the county as the bad guys, and that’s why they have stepped forward.
They both say it has torn their huge extended family apart, triggering legal action and threats of violence from other family members.
The land has been appraised at over $280,000. The county is offering $310,000.
Rather than initiate condemnation proceedings, the Kalamazoo County Board of Commissioners has asked the attorneys to sit down one more time to try and reach a settlement and will revisit the issue at their May 5, 2022 meeting.
(reporting from John McNeill)
Well, the Commissioners, a/k/a The Enablers, probably want to build some beautiful new homes for the alleged “homeless”, who always want more and more “free” stuff. Why would they work, stop doing drugs, etc. when they know the Commission will provide them with whatever they want!
Here is the judge’s most recent summary of the case. You can decide.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE PROBATE COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF KENT
In the matter of:
EDMUND TALANDA DOROTHY TALANDA
File No. 20-207551-TV
20-207552-TV
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ /
MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION BEFORE THE HONORABLE DAVID M. MURKOWSKI
Grand Rapids, Michigan – Friday, April 23, 2021
2 MR. MULLETT: Your Honor, I’ve just got one quick
3 statement here. We’ve heard the arguments of Mr. Levine and
4 the arguments of Mr. Schipper here. We think the best
5 evidence here is the contract language itself. If the parties
6 wanted to allow interfamily transfers to the heirs , then the
7 parties would have included language to allow interfamily
8 transfers to the heirs. Instead, they put a — provision in
9 it prohibits any kind of transfers or assignments to any
10 person that’s not one of the 10 signatories. And the 10
11 signatories here, Your Honor , do not include any heirs.
12 THE COURT: Is that it?
13 MR. MULLETT: That’s it, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Give me just a
15 minute.
16 Well, I will say that in my 15 years on the bench, I
17 don’t think I have seen family members, or extended family
18 members, dislike each other so much, be so litigious with each
19 other , — conspire with and against each other over the course
20 of several decades here.
21 This case comes to fruition — originally as five
22 couples buy property , and then a county park is formed, and
23 then the County of Kalamazoo files a condemnation action.
24 There is a settlement agreement dated in January of
25 1963 where Kalamazoo County is the first part, and the second
1 part are 10 individuals .
2 In that settlement agreement where the condemnation
3 action was filed, the settlemen t agreement includes that the
4 county dismiss its suit for condemnation, that the family will
5 not rent or assign to any person who is not a party in the
6 second part, which the Court defines as the 10 people to the
7 contract of the second party, and that Kalamazoo will have the
8 first option to purchase the property.
9 In 1963, then, the — the parties — the second -
10 of the second part transfer their property to joint tenants
11 with rights of survivorship.
12 Then, in 1986, there’s another deal struck agreeing
13 that upon the death of the last survivor, ownerships then will
14 be divided into four equal shares. The county is not included
15 in the drafted option.
16 In 2002, the property gets transferred again from
17 I believe joint tenants back to a tenancy in common. The
18 Johnsons convey their interest via a quit claim deed and sit
19 on the deed, or pocket the deed, also in 2002.
20 The Talandas, I believe, quit claim their interest
21 to a trust and the deed is not recorded in 2019.
22 At some point, Dr. Talanda posts a memo to his trust
23 in 2004 saying we will, of course, honor the agreement with
24 the county.
25 The families are — when I say the families, I will
1 — I should say the Johnsons and Talandas, are so concerned
2 about, I think, breaking the rules, that their indemnification
3 agreements — or breaking the contract, or violating the
4 contract, signed indemnification agreements because of the
5 concerns that the transfers are illegal.
6 There’s a letter — Talanda letter to the Johnson
7 that — the Talandas tell the Johnsons they were bound to
8 honor the 1963 agreement and they are not to transfer the
9 property except to original owners.
10 At one point, Dr. Talanda, I believe, says the
11 county will control the outcome of the cottage upon the death
12 of the last original owner.
13 The Johnsons record their deed in 2011. They don’t
14 — I don’ t believe they tell the Talandas or the County of
15 Kalamazoo.
16 The attorney for the Talandas, Michelle Marquardt,
17 sends an opinion letter saying that the transfer is invalid,
18 if not fraudulent.
19 Dr. Talanda dies on or about March 24 of 2019.
20 At one point, the county asked to honor the
21 agreement.
22 I believe the Levine firm pens the letter saying
23 that the property will not be transferred . And there’s a
24 proposal about transferring it to an LLC.
25 Then, in 2019, or late in 2019, after negotiations
1 between the members of the Talanda family, there is a
2 settlement agreemen t to transfer the Talan da property to
3 certain members of the Talanda family: Ms. Fath, and, I
4 believe, Mr. Talanda, Ed Talanda, Jr., and a couple of other
5 individuals. Again, the county was not noticed.
6 It finally comes to the Court that there is this
7 agreement with Kalamazoo County. The — this Court made a
8 ruling that we — I was going to honor the media tion — or the
9 mediated settlement. The Court did not enter that order after
10 it coming to light that Kalamazoo County shou ld be — or is a
11 necessary party, and the Court allows them to intervene.
12 And about the same time in 2019, I believe the
13 Johnsons sue in Kalamazoo Circuit Court, and I believe the
14 Talandas join the suit. I think there are two co-trustees. I
15 think it’s both Ms. Brennan and Ms. Fath. That case is simply
16 dismissed without entry of any settlement. It’s simply
17 dismissed.
18 Then, per the agreement or settlement between the
19 two factions within the Talanda family, there’s a third-party
20 trustee appointed in Kalamazoo County. The county was not
21 invited to that meeting either. And because of the
22 appointment of Mr. Waalkes, these interests, unfortunately for
23 me, get transferred to the Kent County Probate Court because
24 venue and administration, or location of administration,
25 determine proper venue. The records of the trust are here.
1 And the case is moved here and I inherited this case.
2 And to have the Court, or any other Court,
3 understand the litigious nature of this court — this court
4 received this case when the case was settled. And I am now on
5 my twelfth volume of this case after settlement.
6 Part of the settlement was to allow , I believe, Mr.
7 Talanda, Ms. Fath, and Ms. Potts to receive this property for
8 a valued amount of $60,000. That amount was a negotiated
9 amount, apparently, and obviously, because of the litigation
10 hanging over that property. And, again, of course, those
11 settlement negotiations and mediation did not involve the
12 County of Kalamazoo.
13 Sometime in late November, mid to late November of
14 2020, the county served notice to exercise that option that’s
15 included in the 1963 agreement in paragraph 8.
16 And then, ultimately, the County of Kalamazoo files
17 a motion for summary disposition under (C)(10).
18 In reviewing a motion for summary disposition
19 brought under MCR 2.116 (C)(10), a trial court considers
20 affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, documentary
21 evidence filed in the action or submitted by the parties in
22 light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The
23 trial court may grant the motion for summary disposition under
24 MCR 2.116(C)(10) if the documentary evidence show that there
25 is no genuine issue in respect to any material fact, and the
1 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,
2 Neubacher v. Globe furniture Re ntals, 205 Mich . App. 418.
3 Never has so much time and so much money been spent
4 on now fighting a contract that now is argued doesn’t exist or
5 is faulty.
6 The Court finds that there is a contract. There is
7 consideration for the contract. The consideration was that
8 dismissal of the condemnation lawsuit in 1963. I t prohibits
9 transfers to persons who are not parties of the second part .
10 And that , in this court, is defined as those 10 individuals.
11 As I look at the — definition of assign , in law, is
12 to transfer property from one to another .
13 The settlement agreement defines and limits the
14 parties of the second part to the original 10 signatories.
15 It’s plan and explicit. And it says they may not assign the
16 property, meaning they may not transfer that property to
17 anyone except in between the original 10 owners.
18 The Court reads the, I think, unambiguous portions
19 of the agreement as saying if there is any assignment or
20 attempt to transfer that property, there is a trigger for the
21 county to bid on that property.
22 This didn’t start as a [sic] arm’s-length dealing of
23 a purchased property. This was a settlement agreement to
24 settle a condemnation action that then secured the opportunity
25 or option of the county, if it was going to be transferred or
1 assigned beyond the original 10 owners, for the county to have
2 the right to then make a purchase offer on that property.
3 I don’t find the term to be vague . It’s obviously
4 from the parties’ behavior that there is a contract. They
5 understood that there was a contract and they’ve spent decades
6 trying to get around the contract by — by conspiring with and
7 against each other.
8 There’s no question that Edmund Talanda
9 expressed his desire that the terms of the settlement
10 agreement would be honored by attaching his memo, in 2004, to
11 his trust agreement. As he stated, it’s always been our
12 intent to honor the Circuit Court of Kalamazoo’ s County order
13 of 1963 which states that we shall not assign or sell the
14 property without giving the county the first right of refusal.
15 The transfer from trust to the settlement, that the
16 Court ultimate did not agree, I believe, triggers the option
17 of the county to purchase the property.
18 Further establishing that there was a contract, and
19 Mr. Mullet cited some of these, there has been either use or
20 attempted use of pocket deeds. There has [sic] been
21 indemnification agreements acknowledging the contract, and if
22 it goes south that they would indemnify each other. There are
23 memos from — Dr. Talandas own attorney. That was Ms.
24 Marquardt — that said that she thought the transfer was
25 illegal and may be fraudulent. The letter, and, of course,
1 the — the — there isn’t an attorney is not an
2 attorney/client privilege. She sends that letter also to
3 Annette Brennan. But that letter by Ms. Marquardt says we
4 believe that any deed to any children is a breach of the
s agreement.
Paragraph goes on: “Certainly the county has a
6 legal argument that such deed to children is invalid, if not
7 fraudulent.” It says: ”If the family seeks to clarify, this
8 would be — require a court petition which would be lengthy
9 and costly.”
10 Mr. Levine himself states that this will all
11 come to to head when the last person dies, which makes the
12 sense that makes sense in that the original 10 parties agreed
13 that they will not assign the property. And so, either by
14 early assignment or death of the last party of the second
15 part, the offer goes to the county, and that that is not
16 ambiguous.
17 Court finds a reasonable time to be the length of a
18 person’s life.
19 There’s no provision in the 1963 agreement allowing
20 the transfers to heirs or a trust. It says they can’t assign
21 the property. And with the — death of the last signature of
22 the party of the second part, that’s not an abandonment of any
23 claim, that’s the triggering of the county’s right to purchase
24 the property .
25 I think at one point — Dr. Talanda also states that
1 transferring the property to the Talandas and Johnsons as
2 tenants in common breached their promise to the County of
3 Kalamazoo.
4 So, of course, under (C)(10), I consider extrinsic,
5 or other, documentary evidence. And it’s clear that there was
6 a contract and the that Dr. Talanda understood the — the
7 components of that contract.
8 There’ s no ambiguity where the — it cannot be -
9 the terms cannot be reconciled, or the term has more than one
10 meaning.
11 The condemnation suit was dismissed.
12 The parties agreed not to assign the property, which
13 means transfer in any way. And it also gives the county that
14 first of — right to purchase the property. The document
15 does not say that the property has to be sold to another
16 individual before that option is triggered . It is the
17 assignment of the property.
18 So, with that, I don’t find — Court will grant the
19 motion, rather, for summary disposition under (C)(10) finding
20 that the contract exists. There is consideration for the
21 contract or the settlement. And that was that the family got
22 to use that property until one or two things happened, and
23 then, if one of those — if one of those two things happened ,
24 the option is triggered for the county to purchase the
25 property . The Court does not find that a lack of a figure is
1 fatal to the agreement. They just simply have the first
2 right. And if they don’ t come to an agreement, they don’t
3 come to an agreement.
4 I find it interesting that all parties know that,
5 regardless of how I rule today, that the county always had the
6 option for condemnation.
7 The Court does find also that, again, the life of
8 the parties being a reasonable amount of time to enforce that
9 property — property right. The time or performance for that
10 is ascertainable .
11 Well, the motion of the County of Kalamazoo is
12 granted . Court will now — will not allow transfer to the
13 Talandas. The — there has been an assignment, or an attempt
14 at assignment, and the last person holding — the last party
15 to the party of the second part of the contract is deceased.
16 So, now, the property must be offered to the county — or the
17 property of the Talandas must be offered to the County of
18 Kalamazoo, and if there is no agreement, I believe the County
19 of Kalamazoo has other avenues to secure the property through
20 condemnation.
21 All right, Mr . Mullett. You’re going to be drafting
22 an order to comply with the Court’s ruling.
These quotes are from Judge Murkowski’s ruling on the court case.
4 Well, I will say that in my 15 years on the bench, I
5 don’t think I have seen family members, or extended family
6 members, dislike each other so much, be so litigious with each
7 other, — conspire with and against each other over the course
8 of several decades here.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the Johnsons and Talandas, are so concerned
2 about, I think, breaking the rules, that their indemnification
3 agreements — or breaking the contract, or violating the
4 contract, signed indemnification agreements because of the
5 concerns that the transfers are illegal.
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
19 The attorney for the Talandas, Michelle Marquardt,
20 sends an opinion letter saying that the transfer is invalid,
21 if not fraudulent.
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
It’s obviously
4 from the parties’ behavior that there is a contract. They
5 understood that there was a contract and they’ve spent decades
6 trying to get around the contract by — by conspiring with and
7 against each other.
8 There’s no question that Edmund Talanda expressed his desire that the terms of the settlement agreement would be honored by attaching his memo, in 2004, to
9 his trust agreement. As he stated, it’s always been our
10 intent to honor the Circuit Court of Kalamazoo’ s County order
11 of 1963
……………………………………………………………………..
There are
21 memos from — Dr. Talandas own attorney. That was Ms.
22 Marquardt — that said that she thought the transfer was
23 illegal and may be fraudulent.
…………………………………………………………………..
But that letter by Ms. Marquardt says we
4 believe that any deed to any children is a breach of the
agreement. Paragraph goes on: “Certainly the county has a
6 legal argument that such deed to children is invalid, if not
7 fraudulent.”
……………………………………………………………………….
25 I think at one point — Dr. Talanda also states that
1 transferring the property to the Talandas and Johnsons as
2 tenants in common breached their promise to the County of
3 Kalamazoo.
…………………………………………………………………….
4 I find it interesting that all parties know that,
5 regardless of how I rule today, that the county always had the
6 option for condemnation.
………………………………………………………………..
11 Wel l, the motion of the County of Kalamazoo is
12 granted. Court will now — will not allow transfer to the
13 Talandas. The — there has been an assignment, or an attempt
14 at assignment, and the last person holding — the last party
15 to the party of the second part of the contract is deceased.
16 So, now, the property must be offered to the county — or the
17 property of the Talandas must be offered
18 to the County of Kalamazoo, and if there is no agreement, I believe the County
19 of Kalamazoo has other avenues to secure the property through condemnation.
Here are excerpts of the judge’s summary on how some family members tried to dishonor the contract with the county.
These quotes are from Judge Murkowski’s ruling on the court case. His full summary is attached..
4 Well, I will say that in my 15 years on the bench, I
5 don’t think I have seen family members, or extended family
6 members, dislike each other so much, be so litigious with each
7 other, — conspire with and against each other over the course
8 of several decades here.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
the Johnsons and Talandas, are so concerned
2 about, I think, breaking the rules, that their indemnification
3 agreements — or breaking the contract, or violating the
4 contract, signed indemnification agreements because of the
5 concerns that the transfers are illegal.
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””’
19 The attorney for the Talandas, Michelle Marquardt,
20 sends an opinion letter saying that the transfer is invalid,
21 if not fraudulent.
””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
It’s obviously
4 from the parties’ behavior that there is a contract. They
5 understood that there was a contract and they’ve spent decades
6 trying to get around the contract by — by conspiring with and
7 against each other.
8 There’s no question that Edmund Talanda expressed his desire that the terms of the settlement agreement would be honored by attaching his memo, in 2004, to
9 his trust agreement. As he stated, it’s always been our
10 intent to honor the Circuit Court of Kalamazoo’ s County order
11 of 1963
……………………………………………………………………..
There are
21 memos from — Dr. Talandas own attorney. That was Ms.
22 Marquardt — that said that she thought the transfer was
23 illegal and may be fraudulent.
…………………………………………………………………..
But that letter by Ms. Marquardt says we
4 believe that any deed to any children is a breach of the
agreement. Paragraph goes on: “Certainly the county has a
6 legal argument that such deed to children is invalid, if not
7 fraudulent.”
……………………………………………………………………….
25 I think at one point — Dr. Talanda also states that
1 transferring the property to the Talandas and Johnsons as
2 tenants in common breached their promise to the County of
3 Kalamazoo.
…………………………………………………………………….
4 I find it interesting that all parties know that,
5 regardless of how I rule today, that the county always had the
6 option for condemnation.
………………………………………………………………..
11 Wel l, the motion of the County of Kalamazoo is
12 granted. Court will now — will not allow transfer to the
13 Talandas. The — there has been an assignment, or an attempt
14 at assignment, and the last person holding — the last party
15 to the party of the second part of the contract is deceased.
16 So, now, the property must be offered to the county — or the
17 property of the Talandas must be offered
18 to the County of Kalamazoo, and if there is no agreement, I believe the County
19 of Kalamazoo has other avenues to secure the property through condemnation.