[Life is full of unpleasant realities. How is this for an example, at many levels? I couldn't resist putting a copy here. I had to restrain. It could have been written with such venom and irony. Alas, not an exercise but the real thing.]
RESPONSE TO RULING
I am pleased the court has asked Mrs. Kleissnerova to pay her share for work done on sealing the foundation of the building at 561 Lazenska. I believe this ruling is fair and reasonable if it includes plus interest, court costs, and legal fees.
In the other matter of Mrs. Kleissnerova not paying her share of work done to repair and replace the septic system, I do not agree.
INTRODUCTION
At issue seems to be Mrs. Kleissnerova's claim she had no knowledge of what went on and was not properly informed. I know she had up-to-the minute knowledge of the septic system and other problems and the opportunity to participate fully in all discussions about the building. She chose not to share knowledge she had, not to be accessible for any discussions among owners, and not to work with other owners.
A careful review of the court records, witness testimonies, and documentation submitted should persuade the court that the foundation and septic work was necessary and Mrs. Kleissnerova knew work was necessary. To refute Mrs. Kleissnerova's latest claims, I would have the court consider the following.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
1. From the first month I took possession of the flat I paid for and invested money in, Mrs. Kleissnerova informed Pavla Lukasikova, my life partner, to contact her by certified letter one month in advance to talk with her about anything. She then said she would check her schedule and inform Pavla by return certified letter. I repeat, an exchange of certified letters about anything.
I ask the court how normal business can be conducted reasonably under this restriction between neighbors and owners? This is just the beginning of Mrs. Kleissnerova's unwillingness to cooperate.
2. Mrs. Kleissnerova has a history of not cooperating and paying her bills. Already the court has decided that she needed to pay the roofer when she contested paying her share. Plus, the court already knows that in at least two instances, she did not pick up certified letters from other owners concerning work all other owners agreed to do.
As a point of information for the court, the present owner of my flat is selling because she has had difficulties getting Mrs. Kleissnerova to pay her share of building expenses. The court can confirm this if there is any doubt.
3. When Pavla and I were putting in a new bathroom, I saw sewage from the other flats descend to the old septic tank. How is this possible? It leaked out of the broken pipe and flowed under the building and into my flat. It also flowed out of the septic tank and into the garden. The contractor I had for remodeling my flat can confirm this. And I have already submitted testimony.
When we discovered this problem, the four of us, I, Pavla, our contractor, and one of his employees went to Mrs. Kleissnerova's apartment to inform her and gain her approval for any necessary work. She opened the door and told us she did not care about any pichoveny we had to report and slammed the door. Each of us can confirm this.
How can repairs and maintenance be performed if this is the treatment neighbors and workmen receive when trying to solve emergencies for a building?
4. Did Mrs. Kleissnerova know about the septic problem? She knew because when Realbyt was managing the property for the town, they scheduled work to be done on the septic system. This work was not performed because Realbyt said Mrs. Kleissnerova did not want it done. Thus, Mrs. Kleissnerova knew of the septic problem before the emergency situation we uncovered.
The court can ask Mrs. Kleissnerova to submit documentation as to when the septic was built, inspected, and repaired as well as why she asked Realbyt and the town not to repair it. Records before our ownership of regular maintenance to the septic such as regularly emptying it can also be informative.
I believe the records of Realbyt and the town will show neglect and Mrs. Kleissnerova's role in that neglect. I have also submitted photos of the foundation and crumbling septic system to the court. I took the photos. The court can again review the photos showing the decayed septic wall and sewage leaking into the garden.
I believe the court does not have to do any additional research with Realbyt. We have enough evidence for Mrs. Kleissnerova's neglect in this matter. Let me continue.
As a point of information, Pavla has not submitted bills I paid for the building to have the defective septic tank emptied. I paid these bills because Pavla was coordinating daily work of the contractor for my flat. They told Pavla and Pavla translated for me concerning problems the other contractor was having. We worked with both the building contractor and my own because calling an owners' meeting to have such a bill approved beforehand would prolong all the work being done.
5. Mrs. Kleissnerova knew about the septic and other building problems because the supervisor for the foundation contractor, Mr. Svoboda, talked with her almost daily and had coffee with her in her flat. At these meetings he detailed for her what was going on. Mr. Svoboda can confirm this.
6. Mrs. Kleissnerova knew about the septic and other problems because she attended an owners' meeting on April 17, 2005 after the major work was done. At that meeting, all matters were reviewed with her. We repeated that we had tried to contact her to attend all previous meetings. And Pavla asked Mrs. Kleissnerova to pay the invoice I prepared for her share of the work on the foundation and the septic system. She said she would not pay. She gave no reason. Here she participated in the meeting but refused to sign the meeting minutes. These minutes are in the record and can be confirmed by those present as well as the statement in the minutes that Mrs. Kleissnerova refused to sign the minutes.
7. Mrs. Kleissnerova knew about the septic and other problems because she called all the relevant offices to have the work of the building contractors inspected as it was being done. Mr. Medek can confirm this as can the offices she called.
Let this point be made here. Mrs. Kleissnerova did not ask me or the other owners to authorize her to call for different inspections of work being done on the building.
If her intent was to stop all work on the building, my flat included, she could not because all work was done properly and was necessary.
8. Mrs. Kleissnerova knew about the work being done in my flat to get it ready for me, Pavla, and Martina, Pavla's daughter, to occupy. She called all the relevant offices to have my work inspected and approved.
Mrs. Kleissnerova also reported an error to the water company as to how many people were living in our flat. She did this after being told in April 2005 that there were three, not four, occupants.
Let this point be made here. I did not authorize Mrs. Kleissnerova to call different offices for Pavla or me. The private work I authorized and paid for was my business, not a matter for other owners. And if it was her responsibility to report to the water company for Pavla and other owners, she did so against facts and specific instructions. You may review the minutes again of the April meeting.
The point of this history so far is that Mrs. Kleissnerova knew what the building problems were in the past and knew what was needed as it was discovered and discussed. Her claim that she was not given immediate notice of urgency in the matter of the septic system is false. Four people can confirm this. And she actively participated in the work being done by calling for inspections and regularly talking with the building contractor.
9. As to formal notice and invitation to meetings to discuss the building, I put up notices in the building before meetings and upcoming inconveniences because of work scheduled. Pavla and other owners sent Mrs. Kleissnerova SMS messages giving her notice of meetings in advance inviting her to attend. On the days of the meetings, one of us called her each time and knocked on her door to have her attend. We also sent SMS messages saying we were beginning the meetings. We did not receive answers. We each can confirm this, and the certified letters above, the ones she did not pick up at the post office, should be mentioned here again.
Periodically Mrs. Kleissnerova would contact Pavla by SMS to ask that she stop work on our flat and to otherwise tell Pavla what she thought of her. Thus, we know she could communicate with by SMS if she wanted to.
10. In addition to these points, Mrs. Kleissnerova's continuing this legal process shows the court it is dealing with someone who has a history of not cooperating, avoiding, delaying, and not paying. The court is also dealing with a person who behaves alone in her own interests without consulting or considering others, denying or conveniently forgetting who was living in the building at the time. Mrs. Kleissnerova's courtroom behavior and testimony also confirm a pattern of behavior which includes personal attacks.
CONCLUSION
I respectfully remind the court we not asking Mrs. Kleissnerova to pay anything unreasonable. We only ask that she pay her fair share plus interest, legal fees, and court costs for the trouble we have taken to make her building dry and have a toilet she can flush plus bath or shower she can take without her own effluent polluting the garden and the flat below.
I ask the court to look briefly at the accusation that Pavla repaired and replaced the septic system for our own convenience. Mrs. Kleissnerova has accused Pavla of this in the past. What group of building owners would agree to ignore sewage running under their building and into the garden and one of the flats?
Finally, we saved Mrs. Kleissnerova time and expense and great inconvenience. Pavla worked on behalf of all owners, including Mrs. Kleissnerova, and we loaned her money so that she could continue to enjoy her dry home and the civilized conveniences of clean water and proper removal of waste water.
Pavla tried to communicate with her as did the other owners, but she failed and avoided us. We did not fail her. We took responsibility because she would not. Pavla and I now want that money back plus interest and costs for collection. All of it.
This is the civil and right thing for her to do now. We ask the court to impress on Mrs. Kleissnerova to look at her own behavior and what all know she knew. She made it impossible for others to deal with her despite their formal and informal efforts. Her unwillingness to work with other owners and join them to solve problems they shared together should stop. The court has the opportunity to decide what is right and reasonable. Pavla and I should not pay for what is rightfully Mrs. Kleissnerova's responsibility.
Stop her from continuing to hide and avoid responsibility and rule in favor of the claim against her. Mrs. Kleissnerova should pay all of her building expenses Pavla and I had to pay to occupy our flat and ensure others they could do the same. It would be fair and reasonable to tell Mrs. Kleissnerova to pay without delay.
