Opinion ID: 2629946
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Lawsuit and the District Court's Decision

Text: [¶ 34] In August 2002, Meima filed a complaint against Broemmel (individually and as trustee of the Northern Commercial Trust Dated July 24, 2001) and Broemmel's wife [19] seeking to quiet title to the Torrington house in Meima. Meima claimed that he was the owner of the house and that Broemmel had no interest in the property based on Meima's (as well as his predecessors') actual, open, notorious, visible, exclusive and continuous possession of the property for a period of ten (10) years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of this action. He further sought such further relief as to th[e] court appears just and equitable in the premises. [¶ 35] In his answer to Meima's complaint, Broemmel claimed an interest in the Torrington house and denied that Meima had an interest in the house. Broemmel counterclaimed against Meima, asserting that: (a) Broemmel, as Trustee of the Northern Commercial Trust dated July 24, 2001, owned the property and that Meima resided on the property as a lessee; (b) that Meima and Broemmel entered into a type of Promissory Note, Lease Purchase Agreement (the July 25, 2001, Addendum to Promissory Note); (c) that Meima was delinquent in his rental payments and had not reduced the amount of the promissory note; and (d) that Broemmel was owed $185,817.91 as well as expenses, including taxes, insurance, assessments, rent, and the $10,000.00 profit. [¶ 36] Meima answered Broemmel's counterclaims, and included additional factual representations and claims against Broemmel seeking a permanent injunction enjoining Broemmel from transferring the Torrington house and Meima's personal property, and declaratory relief based on economic duress, undue influence, and unconscionability regarding the terms of the Lease/Purchase Agreement, Promissory Note, Addendum to Promissory Note and Mortgage. Broemmel then filed a brief answer to Meima's new claims. [¶ 37] The district court held a bench trial in October 2003. Meima and Broemmel were the only witnesses who testified during the trial. The district court issued a lengthy, detailed decision letter in April 2004, which letter included the following findings: (a) The district court aptly noted that this case presents a good example of why attorneys should be consulted before business agreements are finalized. (b) The district court deemed all pleadings amended to conform to the evidence. (c) Meima had been in a difficult divorce in California, and wanted to conduct business without his ex-wife being able to track or locate his assets. (d) Meima and Broemmel verbally initiated two business deals encompassing vague terms and contradictory documents. They ultimately reached two agreements: one for the Torrington house purchase and another for Broemmel's investment in the Baltic properties. The parties presented disputes regarding each agreement at trial, requiring the district court to ascertain the terms, and meaning, of each agreement. Each party ultimately construed those vague terms to their advantage and attempted to persuade the Court that the agreements, whether verbal or written, entirely favored each side. (e) Neither of the primary parties appeared particularly credible but Meima's testimony especially lacked credibility. [20]