Site Map | Main Page | Contact Us
This was submitted to the Court March 1, 2004, by Barbara Robbins. It rambles on and is basically unsupported by facts, documents, or proper citations. The Court rejected her arguments. Note she blames everyone else for what has happened without any supporting documents or facts. We were provided with very poor copies by Babs (intentionally you think?) and we hope we have correctly presented the motion here since it was hard to read. Additionally, although she has been into court many times, she single-spaced her pleadings instead of abiding by Court rules which stipulate double-spaced pleadings.

Case No. 01 CV 120

DISTRICT COURT, PARK COUTY, COLORADO
Court Address: 300 4th Street
                Post Office Box 190
                Fairplay, CO 80440
Phone Number: 719-836-2940

Plaintiff / Counterclaim Defendant:
Northstar Companies International, LLC
Northstar Design & Construction, LLC dba
Northstar Homes Sales
Northstar Construction

v.

Michael Thomas Meadors
Karen Dudnikov


MOTION TO DENY ENTERING JUDGMENT
AGAINST BARBARA ROBBINS INDIVIDUALLY


                COMES NOW Barbara A. Robbins, an an individual, pro se, who is not included in the above captioned case as Plaintiff or Counterclaim Defendant, and who offers the following as grounds why the judgment in the above captioned case, against the entities listed above, should not be entered against Barbara A. Robbins, individually. As grounds wherefore, said individual, Barbara A. Robbins would state and aver as follows:

BACKGROUND

        1. The Court's file will reflect that the filing of a complaint on behalf of the corporate Plaintiff commenced this action.

        2. Barbara A. Robbins signed the Complaint as a member of the Limited Liability Company Plaintiff, hereafter sometimes referred to as the 'corporate entity' Plaintiff.

        3. The Complaint filed by the corporate entity Plaintiff was filed in the County Court of Park County to defend a lien filed as a response to the failure of the Defendants to pay the amount owed under contract.

        4. The complaint could be properly filed in County Court because the dollar value did not exceed the County Court limitation.

        5. The complaint could be properly filed in County Court by a corporate entity, pro se.

        6. The complaint could properly be defended pro se by the corporate entity in County Court.

GOOD FAITH BELIEF IN THE PROPER FORMATION OF THE CORPORATION/LLC

        1. Northstar Design & Construction, LLC's Operating Agreement and Articles of Organization as a Colorado Limited Liability Company were prepared and filed in May 1996.

        2. Corrporate entity Plaintiff had presumptive authority and good faith belief that they were operating under a properly filed and correct limited liability company organization.

        3. Northstar Design & Construction, LLC was required to re-file with the Secretary of State because of a clerical error, in April of 2001.

        a. The original filing of the Limited Liability Company Articles of Organization was made in May of 1996 along with three other Limited Liability Company filings.

        b. All four of the Limite Liability Company filings were returned to the corporate office of record of the limited liability companies in Woodland Park.

        c. Three of the four filings were returned filed, even though the incorrect suffix was used instead of the more correct 'LLC' and were sent back 'Filed' by the Secretary of State's office.

        d. The fourth filing, Northstar Design & Construction, LLC, was returned for correction because of the erroneously used suffix, and was not filed or corrected by the Secretary of State's office.

        e. Office staff of the corporate entity Plaintiff filed the documents from the Secretary of State. along with the Operating Agreements, without carefully reviewing them.

        f. It is reasonable to assumethat the office staff that did the filing had no reason to deliberately or maliciously overlook the error, and would be more proper, in fact, to believe that they were filed in good faith, assuming that they were correct and complete.

        g. Implied good faith authority to act as limited liability company is correct in this situation, because given the simplicity of the correction, a reasonable person would believe that if the error were discovered, it would have been corrected.

        h. Based on the good faith assumption of proper filings, Federal indentification numbers were secured for all of the above-filrd corporate entities as Limited Liability Companies.

        i. Federal Form 1065 and Colorado form 106 were filed for each of the corportae entities for each year of operation, as duly authorized Limited Liability Companies.

        j. Corporate enity Plaintiff filed for, and obtained, all proper licensing and insurance required for operation as a duly authorized Colorad Limited Liabilty Company.

        4. Corporate enity Plaintiff had been formed in accordance with Colorado law, and had a good faith belief that said corporate entity was correctly filed and legal, and it acted in accordance with that good faith belief.

        5. Corporate entity Plaintiff fully believed that it had the authority to act as a Limited Liability Company, even though that authority turned out to be presumptive authority.

        a. Presumptive authority (implied authority)is properly used here, because the corporate entity Plaintiff had no reason to presume that an omission or error had occurred in the proper filing and organizing of said corporate entity Plaintiff based upon the other corporate entities bring successfully filed in the same manner, at the same time,; and,

        b. Presumptive authority and apparent authority are properly used here because corporate entity Plaintiff prepared and filed all documents required of all limited liability companies, including but not limited to, Federal tax retuens, State tax returns, insurance policies and subsequent insurance audits, and bank accounts, for all corporate entities - including corporate entity Plaintiff, with no indication than an oversight or omission had occurred - for a period not less than five years.

PARTNERSHIP IS THE CORRECT 'DEFAULT' ENTITY

        6. In the event of an improperly formed and/or executed limited liability company, the correct enity to default to is NOT an individual, but rather is a partnership.

        7. A Colorado partnership has the full authority to practice their trade or business in the state of Colorado, without benefit of legal filing, and while it may lack the liability limitations afforded by an LLC or corporation, it is legally able to file court proceedings and liens.

        8. No business activities, contracts, agreements, or legal claimes were ever prepared, presented, or entered into by or on behalf of Barbara A. Robbins, as an individual.

        9. All business activities, contracts, agreements, or legal claimes were prepared, presented, entered into, and defended by the corporation entity Plaintiff at all times.

DEFENSE DENIED BY DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL

        10. Defendant's attorney knew that the corporate entity Plaintiff was a bona fide corporate entity, evidenced by the Motion for Entry of Default, signed by Defendant's (sic) attorney on May 23rd, 2002, (well after he had discovered the clerical error in April of 2001) quoted here in part: (Defendant's [sic] attorney was apparently reminding the courts [sic] that the bona fide corporation entity Plaintiff was not able to defend itself without an attorney, and pointed out that the member who signed the Complaint is not an attorney) (beging quote)

        1. The Plaintiffs have identified themselves as corporations.
        2. No attorney has entered on behlf of said Plaintiffs.
        3. The Complaint of Plaintiffs and the Answer to the Counterclaims were both filed by Barbara A. Robbins, an individual who is not a member of the Bar of the State of Colorado nor authorized to practice law. (end quote)

        11. Even though Plaintiff did not have sufficient cash flow with which to secure an attorney to collect on the unpaid contract and subsequently filed lien, Plaintiff, as a corporate entiry, was able to proceed in County Court without an attorney.

        12. Defendant's (sic) attorney had full understanding of the fact that the corporate entity Plaintiff would be unable to legally defend itself without benefit of an attorney if the case were moved to District Court.

        13. The above captioned case was moved to District Court of Park County, which effectively denied corporate entity Plaintiff the right to proceed with the suit, or to defend against any counterclaim, pro se.

        14. Order of Default, and subsequent default judgment was granted by this Honorable Court as a result of:

        a. Corporate entity Plaintiff's inability to present any facts supporting the original claim without benefit of an attorney; and,

        b. Corporate entity Plaintiff's inability or to (sic) present any defense against any counterclaim without benefir of an attorney; and,

        c. Corporate entity Plaintiff's inability to afford said attorney.

DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED

        15. Justice favors full disclosure of fact, and this case was not decided after benefit of full disclosure of the facts in the case, rather by default.

        16. No justice will be served by entering the aforementioned judgment against Barbara A. Robbins, individually, because said judgment isa default judgment, and Barbara A. Robbins, an individual, did not fail to perform (See the MEMORANDUM attached)

        a. (Definition for clarity): Default, n. The omission of failure to perform a legal or contractual duty.

        17. In is unconscionable that the Defendant's (sic) attorney be allowed to knowingly misrepresent a crucial material fact to this case (namely: the incomplete filing of the LLC) to effectively eleiminate any constructive defense by the corporate entity Plaintiff; and then subsequently be allowed to consider that same corporate entiy Plaintiff as an individual when that suits them better.

PIERCING CORPORATE VEIL NOT PROPER IN THIS CASE

        18. Piercing the corportae veil is appropriate in cases where serious wrongdoing will escape prosecution because of the corporation

        19. It is unconscionable to consider entering said judgment against this individual when, given the chance to present the facts, no reasonable jury would find any merit in the Defendant's (sic) counterclaim, so the likelihood exists that no judgment would have been entered against said corporate entity laintiff in the first place.

        20. It is unconscionable and unconstitutional to deny this individual, Barbara A. Robbins, the right to defend herself against any and all charges.

        21. To enter a default judgment against Barbara A. Robbins, individually, in this case when no wrongdoing has been shown will be to effectively deny her the constitutional right to due process, and therefore a defense.

        WHEREFORE, Barbara A. Robbins prays that after a careful review of the facts of this case, that this Honorable Court deny the Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiffs motion to enter judgment against Barbara A. Robbins, individually.

Respectfully submitted this 25th day of February, 2004.

Signed Barbara A. Robbins

Note: this was filed March 1, 2004, with the Court.

Home Page | NorthStar | Grand West | Rocky Mountain | Summit Crest | Teller County | Park County | Cease And Desist | Lawsuits | Site Map

Barbara Robbins | Doug Robbins | Kevin Marks | Monica Wasden | George Asbury | Sherry Beeler | Craig Davis | Steve Hoskins | James Zendejas, Esq | Contact Us