Road meeting Saturday, March 2, 9:30 am at the Northwest Library

From: Tony Simpson

Note that Section1 sets the annual fee at $100.00 for improved lots and $25.00 for unimproved lots and Section 6 provides that the fees can only be increased or decreased by a vote of Sixty (60%) percent of said lot owners who signed and consented to this agreement…

I’m not a lawyer but it seems to me that if they cannot prove that 60% of the lot owners approved increasing the fees any lien filed for any amount above the $100.00 annual fee would be invalid possibly fraudulent. Note again that the agreement requires 60% of the landowners who signed the agreement not 60% of those present at one or their meetings

From: Tony Simpson

This road maintenance agreement that's getting used to file liens dates back to 1988-89. I remember when I was a trustee one of the old members told me the reason the restrictions had a 20 year duration was because perpetual agreements were not enforceable in Missouri and this agreement sure looks like it's written as a with no expiration date.

I've been surfing around and found the opinion below.

I also found some information on easement deeds that are required to be filed in the county where the any easement is granted...like a road easement...like the deed that the association would have to file with the county if the bank gave them the roads not to mention that the association would have to pay property tax on the roads.

When I find the time I'm going to send an email to JC to see if the association has a deed to the roads and if they are paying the tax...with the new roads I'd say they have over 20 acres at 10 k per acre.

Perpetual agreements don’t get a lotta love

To analyze the issue, you have to keep in mind that courts don’t exactly love perpetual agreements. According to the District Court, “Missouri courts generally do not favor perpetual contracts. However, they will enforce perpetual contracts where the terms of the contract expressly state or clearly implicate that the parties intended the contract to be perpetual.” [citations omitted]

The Eighth Circuit expanded on this rule in its opinion:

Missouri courts are prone to hold against the theory that a contract confers a perpetuity of right or imposes a perpetuity of obligation. The [Missouri] Supreme Court has made clear that, to be enforceable, a contract which purports to run in perpetuity must be adamantly clear that this is the parties’ intent. Missouri courts will only construe a contract to impose an obligation in perpetuity when the language of the agreement compels that construction, such that the parties’ intention that the contract’s duration is for life … is clearly expressed in unequivocal terms. [citations and internal quotations omitted]

From: A Rivermont resident that feels there is no legal rights for anything in Rivermont.

Rivermont website, I received in the mail today a large business envelop of documents telling us all the items that have transpired on the survey, meeting vote on survey issues, which did not get anywhere near approval and which the letter states have been dropped. It also included the County assessment of taking over the maintenance of Rivermont Trail of which was denied by the county with a score of 48 - 58 points out of a possible 100. To be approved it would have been a score of 72 out of the 100 points. The biggest reasons were surface pavement quality, narrow pavement, and safety concerns. Of the later they stated there were numerous trees immediately adjacent to the edge of the road that create a hazard to drivers.

On the subject of the Survey in the cover page it states the following: A survey of all residents, including Rivermont 8, was presented to evaluate the general interest in establishing restrictions, and/or taking necessary action to legally commit all property owners to road maintenance. Only 23 surveys were submitted. The opinion was split 50/50, so these topics will not be pursued. (To me this statement tells me they have no legal action that can be taken).

With that being said "yes" they filled a Lien on my property along with 7 others in the subdivision. In the financial statement they say they paid out $220.00 dollars to the county for filing the liens. On my statement for the billing of what I owe and for this years assessment they charged us $34.20 for filing the liens.

It also states Belgrade Bank is not living up to their agreement to get the new owners to sign the Road Agreement. They (Belgrade) have paid a total of $3000.00 for 2017 & 2018. They have scheduled another Voting meeting for March 2 @ 9:30 am at the Northwest Library. This brings you up to date as to what is going on in Rivermont Subdivision.

From: Tony Simpson
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2018
Subject: Jefferson County road evaluation

If you read the specs and compare them to what's here, the thought that they would ever take these roads was a pipe dream.

I do know that when I was on the P&Z Commission, developers had 2 options either build the roads to county specs and dedicate them to the county if/when the county elected to accept the roads or build them however the developer chose and declare they were private and not subject to county control. In either case the developer had to incorporate restrictions which had to have road maintenance provisions. I don't know what happens to the maintenance fees if JC takes over the roads.

I don't know the specifics of any of the roads they've taken but I doubt they've taken any as bad as ours i'm sure you can get the info if you contact them. If you're not satisfied with the response write to our councilman,Jim Terry, he's a nice guy and very good about responding.

Rivermont has never been much of a public road; We need the police and fire access, we no longer have school buses and if we put up a gate it's possible the mail would no longer be delivered and the boxes would have to be located at the entrances as is the case in many private subdivisions.

We got by pretty well on 50 to 100 bucks a year for many years until these groups started threatening everyone and helping themselves to the money and people like this jan at Rockhaven and the riding place moved in and started businesses that brought more and more people using the roads who pay for the services of these businesses but pay absolutely nothing to maintain the roads. In all of the past years businesses were not permitted here but now the people who own the businesses like this Jan are trustees and want to control the subdivision and the subdivision's funds.

Anyway I still think that the key is to get Scotsdale involved. It looks to me like the so-called trustees don't like that idea much as if scotsdale took us in they would lose control of the money which would be a very good idea.

I'd appreciate your posting this of your site and the email I sent you about patching the potholes. Fixing them isn't rocket science and it's a whole lot cheaper than giving $5700 bucks to some contractor for nothing like they did. I checked at Lowes regarding buying more cold patch it was $5.59 for a 50 lb bag but the price is up right now so we decided to wait until it drops to buy more.

I also sent a long email to Jim O'Leary and referred him to your site for more background. I really hope we can get him interested in this matter. He is a very and i mean very aggressive lawyer. He never let's or backs off. He won a ten million dollar verdict in JC for a guy I know who got hurt on the job and he got a very nice settlement for us a few years ago.

One final thing; What do you think about contacting one or more of the TV stations. They like to advertise that they will go after the scammers and the people who take advantage of the poor citizens? We've got one retired trustee who wrote dozens of threatening letters, got the entire subdivision in a lawsuit without our knowledge and wrote thousands in checks to himself. This guy's got something like 38 case entries on mo case net 35 of which he is the defendant and his successor who sent all of us a letter praising him has something like 12 cases on mo cases net and these people are handling the money. Kind of like putting a drug dealer in charge of the pharmacy. I think something like this that's been going on for years and now under these new trustees isn't getting better it's getting worse would make a great public interest story.

Happy New Year

From: Tony Simpson
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018, 3:48:51 PM CST
Subject: Fwd: Patching potholes on Rivermont

This is how we can get our road repaired without the threats, intimidation and extortion.

If you don't like the roads condition.

1. Get off of your butt and get out your wallet.
2. Go to any supplier that sells cold patch.
3. Buy the cold patch.
4. Take it to the potholes and follow the instructions.

I've posted some photo's of my wife and I repairing some potholes. Something we've been doing for many years along with maintaining the shoulders and drainage ditches that front our property.

Don't wait for these so-called trustees to take your money and give you little or nothing in return. Some of you have been giving the trustees money for years and we've got terrible roads and no one knows where the money went. I only know that over the years some of the so called trustees have a history of playing it kind of fast and loose with other peoples money. Check them out on Missouri Case Net search by litigant name and then decide if you want to give your money to someone who has been sued many times for non payment of bills and loans.

   50 pound bag of Cold patch at LOWES $11.97

Thinking of filing a lien against your neigbor for Christmas?

You might want to read this first;    click here

Ensure that your claim is a valid claim as the so-called debtor may sue you in court of law for filing an invalid lien against his real estate. This means you would be required to pay a minimum of $5,000 to the so-called debtor for his inconvenience. Take a look at the statutes in the resource section of this article for details.

This letter was received by a long time Rivermont resident threatning that a lien will be file on his home;   click here to read

The following letter was also included;

Please find attached a Registered Mail Lien document that was received. How can a group that has no legal rights do this? Has anybody else received these?

What about the new areas of Rivermont Ranch subdivisions, why would they not be included in any Road Maintenance? They use our roads too. What will happen when people buy the available land from Belgrade, will they not be part of Rivermont but still use the roads?

What about documents that document Land & Road ownership to the new Bank owners, Piepers owned the majority of the land and roads and control of all things involved in Rivermont. They sold the majority interest to Gunflahr and those rights transferred to them. When Belgrade purchased the majority ownership of Rivermont they inherited Piepers control of the land and the roads.

What is to be done with this? How can they say they are going to do this Lien when they do not have the control? A Single Landowners voice.

From: Tony Simpson
To: jkrlsmith@gmx.com
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018, 2:06:52 PM CDT
Subject: Survey Response

We’re sending this in response to our so-called survey which appears to be yet another of the co-called trustee’s attempts to con the residents of this subdivision.

We concur with Ginny & Ellis Ameiss:

1. No

2. No

The natural thought when one considers the term trustee is trust, honesty, integrity but over the past 30 years since the expiration of the Rivermont Ranch Covenants and restrictions and my term as a legally seated Trustee, I have witnessed very little of either. In fact what I’ve witnessed could easily be called cons, scams, lies, theft, threats, mail fraud and attempted extortion. I’m not personally acquainted with Mr. Sparks or Mr. Walker and would never impugn their good names or reputations on the basis of their associations but I am familiar with you, Ms. Smith or at least your threatening letters and your public court records and Ms. Stocking by her words and actions and hold the opinion that I would never trust or want my good name associated with either of you.

The rivermontranch.com website has received almost 1000 hits since it was opened and it has opened many doors. For years, residents here have voiced their concerns as to the activities, actions, honesty and integrity of some trustees. I am encouraging the site to compile a list of those who would like to see those actions investigated and since your friend Mr. Rutherford ran his operation and sent his demands for money from Florida and wrote checks to himself for over $4600.00 from Florida that crossing of state lines might just make it a federal issue. So you might just get your wish to take the matter to court but it might not be the one you’re hoping for.

Tony Simpson

On 9/11/2018 2:41 PM, Ellis Ameiss wrote:

This is a old letter I sent but it's still valid..

April 3, 2002

Nancy Belt
4872 Twin Ridge Trail
House Springs, MO
63051-2039

On the advise of our attorney, we did not, nor will we, sign your "Road Agreement". I am returning your rude "Notice of Delinquency" along with the promise that, until your attitude improves, I will no longer provide the voluntary gift that I have provided in the past.

We do not recognize your committee as having any authority to send us invoices for any reason and if you continue to defame our reputation by implying that we are in arrears for a debt, I will turn this matter over to my attorney for a possible libel suit.

Ellis Ameiss

On 9/10/2018 11:58 AM, Tony Simpson wrote:

I had a conversation with our neighbor who lives at the end of rivermont trail in the newly developed area. He received one of he letters from judy smith then contacted our so-called trustee jan stocking, she told him to disregard it as the new areas which are a part of the overall rivermont ranch subdivision and connected to the road system were not included. I don't think I'm misunderstanding these statutes when I think that they provide an all or nothing format that they cannot pick and choose the people who are to be involved if they take this matter to court

So now they they think they can exclude 48 lots the owners of which are now or will be using the roads from their takeover scheme. If anyone is wondering about the honesty of this group this might help them decide if this is a money grabbing scam or not.

On 9/6/2018 11:58 AM, Tony Simpson wrote:

I've got a few suggestions:

1. Stop the lying and the threats and treat us like your neighbors not the share croppers living on your land. We signed nothing. We owe you nothing. If you want to ask us for a voluntary contribution please do so in a respectable manner not a demand for money or else like they do with every one of the so called assessment notices

2. Form a Neighborhood Improvement District per the state statutes

3. Ask Scotsdale to annex the entire subdivision. It would greatly increase the revenue they get from the state tax sharing and they might give us a share of it to maintain the roads. The bank would have to conform to any laws that were passed and we'd have a vote on all of those that were put on a ballot. We discussed this with them years ago and they were very receptive to the idea.


What is a NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT(NID) - click here to read more
letter from Missouri Department of Economic Development about NID - click here to read

1. Establish Subdivision?
2. Establish a legal road agreement?
3. What happened to apply for county road maintenance? We have been informed that application has been made, the answer is expected in mid September. The county will document what must be done to qualify.
4. Who owns the road? Seems like we need to determine that before going forward..
5. If Belgrade State Bank owns the road, they should be maintaining it. If not they should pay a connection fee to add more traffic to the road.
6. How about volunteers - that's how it was done in the past, volunteer or pay...
7. Have we talked to Scotsdale? They offered before...
8. Neighborhood Improvement District - see letter below
9. Many people live here, what are their suggestions?
   If you have suggestions or comments please e-mail them, we will publish them here for everyone to consider.
   
   Click here to E-mail Rivermont

Interested in getting Charter Cable?
Internet (200MBPS), Charter TV and Charter Phone?
If there is enough interest, we can petition Charter to run cable. Let us know with an e-mail.
Click here to e-mail Rivermont

RS18070 A Request for a Zone change for parcel 07-3.0-05.0-022., located in Rivermont Ranch Subdivision, off Burgan Grove Road, House Springs, in High Ridge Township and Council District #7, from Single-Family Residential (R-40) Zone District to Large Lot Residential (LR-2) Zone District.

Big sign on Burgan. I heard it's something like 46 acres that will handle about 20 homes on 2 acre lots. It will put a bit more traffic on the road and a lot more sewage in the ground all of them are on private systems. I don't remember what the break point where that have to get DNR approval and install central sewer and water systems is anymore but you can bet the county will ignore it if possible

It's on the Jefferson county web site under the P&Z notice for the Aug 9 meeting. If you look at the map on the last 2 pages the access will be into trails end so all you folks up there had better get ready for some more traffic. I'm sure there will be access to Burgan grove but the majority of the land is adjacent to trails end

Defendants Rivermont and Rutherford knew that the calculation of assessments in the Statement submitted to U.S. Title was arbitrary, incorrect and/or not supported by any authority of the Declarations and/or Road Agreement or other recorded documents.
Click to view PDF document




Additional history from Trustee and County Planning Commissioner July 31, 2011
Click to Read Letter



Rivermont Ranch expired covenants DEC 27, 1967
the "roads, playgrounds, beaches...are owned by Gravois Land Company"
Click to view PDF document




Gravois Land Company is dissolved. Oct 6, 1971
assets are turned over to the stock holders (The Piepers)
Click to view PDF document




Piepers refuse to renew Rivermont Restrictions. Sept 4, 1987
Click to view PDF document




Proposed restrictions April 2, 1989
Click to view PDF document




Piepers sell Rivermont to Gunflahr Land Company Jan 7, 2002
Including 14 Acres of roads.
Click to view PDF document




Trustee report Jan 4, 2003
Gunflahr proposes restrictions, Scotsdale makes offer to Annex.
Click to view PDF document




Restriction discussions with Piepers go nowhere
Click to view PDF document




Sheehan & Davis attorneys propose road agreement June 30, 1988
"Understand that such will only bind the signatories thereto but I believe that the greater majority...."
Click to view PDF document




Belgrade State Bank says, "the bank does NOT own the roads in Rivermont ranch." July 3, 2018
We have asked the Bank to provide documentation to show the transfer of the 14 acres of roads.



Conclusion

• The current "road association" has no legal standing.
• Ownership of the Rivermont's roads is disputed at this time.
• The best choice for the future is for Jefferson County to takeover road maintenance.