Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Pamiko's Legal Struggles Continue

Post by the Hawthorne Hawkman, "Pamiko Rail" photo from the Hillside Chronicles blog.

Paul Koenig and his Pamiko Properties LLC are apparently still wrangling out differences with the powers that be in court.  I was given information that Pamiko and the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County still have issues to settle in Minnesota tax court.  Thanks to the government shutdown, the tax court website is not in operation and I can't even access the registrar of actions.  But the case number for Pamiko Properties LLC v. Hennepin County is 27–CV–09–13258.  From the rudimentary information passed my way, it appears as if Koenig is challenging the amount he owes on property taxes.  But the case summary does state that...

..."Respondent Hennepin County (“the County”) brings a Motion for Partial Dismissal of this action alleging that Petitioner has failed to comply with this Court's Order dated February 8, 2011, requiring Petitioner to arrange inspections of the 47 parcels at issue on or before March 23, 2011. The County asserts that Petitioner has not ar-ranged any inspections since the Court's Order and now seeks dismissal with respect to the uninspected parcels."

Furthermore,

"The County claims that it was able to inspect only 10 of the active parcels on or before November 30, 2010. In December of 2010, the County filed a motion to compel inspection of the other 47 active parcels. By Order dated February 8, 2011, this Court granted the County's motion and ordered Petitioner to arrange inspections on or before March 23, 2011. The County claims that to date, Petitioner has not arranged any additional inspections of the subject properties."

And here's where it gets interesting:

"Petitioner contends that because the properties were foreclosed on by advertisement, with the properties going back to the bank after the expiration of the redemption period without redemption by Petitioner, he is currently legally unable to assist in the inspections." (emphasis mine)

Bear in mind that the Summary Judgment in which Pamiko was smacked down was not executed until February 16, 2011.  So it appears as if Paul Koenig was telling one court "Oh no, you can't foreclose on these properties because I redeemed them for $6.42."  And then he was telling another court, "Sorry fellas.  I'd love to help you get access to these houses to evaluate them, but you see, the big bank foreclosed on little me and a funny thing happened to me on the way to the bank.  I didn't redeem them from foreclosure.  But gosh, I'd really like to help you out here."

To be fair, the first case documented on this blog covered six properties.  The current Minnesota tax case covers forty-seven parcels.  And Koenig owned more than 53 houses at one point.  So there's a chance that the properties in question are completely unrelated in these two court proceedings.  I doubt it though.

So far the partial information I have indicates that the county tried to get the case at least partially dismissed and was unable to do so.  There is almost certainly more to the story, which will be uncovered through web searches or review of the physical documents once the state shutdown is lifted.

5 comments:

  1. Well last I checked, the day after redemption is over you can no longer legally access the property as it is owned by the bank. Duh!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You seem to be hung up on the same few landlords, when these are never the guys that the Strib writes about.
    Why are you so off the right track?
    Are you a solution to problems? or just a loudmouth?
    What are YOU doing to actually correct these landlord problems?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon 12:21, the point isn't whether Pamiko or another Koenig LLC owns the properties (although given the maneuvers he's tried, it's possible he's succeeded in retaining a few). The question at hand is whether he was telling one judge that he or one of his LLC's was the legal owner of certain properties while using the foreclosures as a means to duck his responsibilities in front of another judge.

    Anon 6:50, as I recall, the Star Tribune has written about both Paul Koenig and Mahmood Khan. I've written about other landlords here as well, but focus on the ones who are causing problems that I and other neighbors encounter. Furthermore, if the Strib has a landlord covered, then I don't need to write about him or her.

    If you think I'm off of the right track, feel free to describe what that looks like to you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry if this is a duplicate comment, my server in Afghanistan is being twitchy. Again.

    If Jeff is hung up on the wrong landlords, pray tell which are the right ones to focus on? And provide some details about their blighted properties?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did not submit the anon comments above but, your (Jeff) response got me to thinking of others you have written about and others you have not.
    One comment I remember seeing not too long ago had claimed to have linked tj waconia to another landlord who had a lot of properties in north. I don't remember the name they came up with but, that comment caught my attention when it started out by saying something close to: Oh jeff you owe me big time for this, or close to it. I expected to see something come from it. Or maybe I missed something said about it after?

    ReplyDelete