Disclaimer | Site Map | Home Page | Contact Us
This letter is in file at Building & Zoning in Park County. It is public record. This and other letters can be found in the file on NorthStar. The file is available to anyone who wishes to see it. In some places spacing has been added for readability. Misspelled words were not corrected. Reference numbers were bolded for easier spotting. The content has not been altered.

We have included links documenting her many lies. She is attempting to refute the combines testimony of several others. As is her way, she lies, she lies, and then she lies some more. Notice that she is never at fault or ever does anything wrong.

 

 

February 12, 2000

James Belyeu
Park County Building Department
Box 517
Fairplay, CO 80440

RE: Your letter of February 8th, 2000

Dear Jim.

        I received your letter, I have reviewed that same letter, and I offer this to you as my response. I have had an enormous amount of communication with Mr. Thomas and Mr. Naredo since the beginning of this project, so rather than address the entire situation, I will address the letter specifically. My actual response is lengthy, but I will attempt to stay brief.

        In the form of background only, and not in response to the actual letter, we are currently in the midst of a legal battle with several of the indivuals and companies listed in this letter so I understand that they have a 'bone to pick' with me since they stand to lose a substantial amount of money. It doesn't excuse their behavior, it only explains it. Unfortunately, I don't have much sympathy for them. Blue Rose Homes, along with several sub-contractors that this office has fired for incompetance, has (for reasons of capitalism and competition) elected to try and put this company (me) out of business. Of course this is not an unfounded claim, and I would be happy to elaborate if you choose.

        I think it would be easier to address each item that resembles a 'complaint' by number, and then list my response to the number. To write an essay explaining would take several pages, and I know that you have a limited amount of time available. There are certain points in this story that involve truth, such as certain dates and names, but the majority of the story is a little twisted, so I will try to keep it clear. I have including even the points that don't involve building and zoning immediately, after the contractor issues, in an attempt to cover all of the points.

Here is what I consider to be the 'contractor related' issues per the letter:
  1. The alleged incident about the tongue breaking on C-470 and crashing the house to the road causing massive damage, and my alleged refusal to send the home back to the factory as 'rejected'.
  2. The story about half of the home in the ditch on the way to the site.
  3. The alleged 3-4 inch gaps between walls and ceilings.
  4. The claim issue with the freight company.
  5. Accounting of the project.
  6. The home 'sitting' for weeks before being set.
  7. The 'poorly joined' home.
  8. My alleged admission that it was a bad set, along with my refusal to correct it.
  9. The claim that I did not visit the site during 'this period' and the alleged corroboration by the set crew.
10. The claim that the skirting crew's bid was too low(?), and that they rushed with their work.
11. The claim that there was a failure to install the waterproofing material in a timely manner.
12. The claim that improper materials were used to secure the waterproofing materials.
13. The idea that the 'monsoon rains' appeared in July, instead of during the spring.
14. The claim that the hole left open for the well pump installer was left open in error.
15. The claim that the moisture in the crawlspace was a result of the hole in front of the home, which was called an 'error'.
16. The claim that any time during the project there was standing water underneath the home.
17. The alleged delay in re-installing the plastic.
18. The claim that I somehow coerced your office into waiving the waterproofing inspection.
19. The Jefferson Realty issue with regard to what is claimed to be 'poor work'.
20. The factory repairman's claim of 'negligence on my part'.
21. The claim that there was any damage to the foundation of the home from any source.
22. The comment that included the 'if this place could be salvaged' when speaking with a contractor.
Initialed in bottom
right corner
1 of 5 BR

 

 

~ page 2 of 5 pages ~

23. The un-finished ends of the home.
24. The idea that they got 'second string' crews because of the distance.
25. The claim that Blus Rose Homes was required to correct code issues with the home.
26. Their claim that I insisted on installing the 'wrong' carpet, as well as the claim that the interior crew that did the work was instructed by me to use the carpeting as a 'drop cloth'.
27. Their claim of 'going through four sets of interior crews, and beging charged for having them repeat the work over and over again'.
      28. The claim that 'I blamed' your offices for their project.
29. The claim that the state electrical inspector has an issue.
30. The claim that the plumbing inspector has an issue.
31. The claim that your inspector has labeled either myself, or my office as a whole the 'joke of the office'.

        The personal attacks I will not address but will list here so you are aware of what I am considering 'personal' and what I am considering 'contractor related'. Their claims of lies, deceit, etc., etc., will be addressed in the litigation agianst them that follows. Please let me know if you'd like to be kept up to date on that issue. I understand their 'personal' (or at least contractor related) issues to be:

1. The warranties supplied, as well as their validity.
2. The letters filled with 'lies and deceit.'
3. The claim that we go through sub-contractors on a 'steady basis'.
4. The 'full refund' claim from the sub-contractor.
5. The 45-120 day completion time guarantee.
6. The next claim is very extensive, but rather than re-type it, I will simply address it further on.
7. The Colorado Manufactured Homes Association, Conseco Finance, and the local attorney complaints.
8. The next page contains a lot of complaints that I think (from your standpoint) are irrelevant. I will address them if you like.
      9. The problem with the fax transmissions during August.
10. I will explain the 'complicated process' by which Blue Rose has involved themselves in a serious legal issue with us.
11. I am unable to have an issue with the 'documentation' that you were supplied as I was not supplied with any documentation.
12. The claim claim that I was concerned about rumors that may be true and addressed it with the homeowner.
13. The 'five other homeowners (couples)' that are involved with these claims.
14. The rest of the letter will, unfortunately, require an essay answer.

        Based upon the above list(s) of issues, here is my response to each - listed by the number that they relate to. Please note that I did not address any of the items that I consider to be 'personal'.

1. The tongue on the home broke (per the factory as well as the trucking company) while still on the factory grounds. The home did not come crashing to the road. There was no 'massive damage' to the home.
2. The home was not damaged, therefore, there was no need to return it to the factory as 'rejected' for damages. The factory representative came to the site within two days to inspect the 'damages' and found no more than standard transport damage.
3. The truck driver had a problem getting around the corner in the subdivision. Had the house actually gone in the ditch, it would have taken equipment to get it out. We placed another driver in the truck and it was driven to the site. The homeowners watched, and will have no choice but to agree when under oath.
\ 4. The claim of 3 to 4 inch gaps between walls and ceilings upon arrivial is unfounded. I have a videotape of the interior of the home prior to any work being done.
5. I filed a claim with the freight company to help with paying for the other driver (who charged). The freight company paid a claim to the factory for the repair of the tongue while still at the plant.
6. The homeowner was supplied with an accounting of the project periodically, but anytime a request was made, the papers were sent. I have the certified mail receipts.
7. The home did not sit for weeks. The factory requested (demanded) that we allow the home to settle some prior to being set and leveled in case there was a problem with the tongue issue. Of course I have documentation of both the request as well as the dates.
8. The home was not poorly jointed, but this enters into a 'he said - she said' event, which is not productive for any of us. I will forward the documentation from the factory explaining that the set is properly joined if you choose.
Initialed in bottom
right corner
2 of 5 BR

 

 

~ page 3 of 5 pages ~

9. Doesn't even make sense.
10. I have extensive documentation to prove that I was at the site for each step of this project. I had always considered myself fortunate to have some crews that don't require much 'babysitting', so I don't feel that I needed to be there the entire time. I don't belive that's reasonable, nor do I believe that you think it is required.
11. The skirting crew didn't rush their work. I was at the site, met with the homeowner, and arranged for the skirting crew to rent another nail gun in Fairplay in an attempt to speed up the project. They were nearly through and coming back for yet another day made no sense when if we rented another tool they would be complete today. I have the bid on file if you want to see it. I don't know if the homeowner included the accounting breakdown, but it may be helpful if you want to see it.
12. As I stated above, the day was nearly done when the crew finished with the wood portion of the foundation. They did indeed need to return to do the waterproofing, but it wasn't a week, it was a few days, which caused no damage.
13. The plastic waterproofing materials are routinely (and correctly) installed using a staple gun and standard heavy duty staples. FYI only, I can name you several manufactured home dealers who use NO waterproofing materials and find nothing wrong with that. We choose to use the waterproofing, because I believe it makes for a nicer finished project.
14. I would be happy to supply you with the weather reports, but you were there. The 'monsoons' began in the spring, NOT July. This is a critical issue, since mud was such a major factor in this project. The backhoe that did the original site work got stuck in the mud. The concrete trucks got stuck in the mud, the crew that pumped the concrete got stuck in the mid. All of this happened well before July. I don't even believe that I need to explain this to you, since you experienced the same rain related problems.
15. The well was on-site when the project began. When we back-filled the foundation, we left the trench open (it may appeared to be a 'hole' to the homeowner, but it was a trench) for the pump installer. Please understand the issue that mud plays with trying to get a boom truck down a steep driveway. We had to wait, but filling the trench and digging it back out (involving travel time for a backhoe times two) made no sense when we were only talking about a short period of time. It was not a management error.
16. The footers were backfilled with materials that were on site at the time. Everything was mud, and it dried to the point of being 'manageable', but there was moisture in it. We put plastic on the ground while the home was being set and leveled, but the plastic was pulled afterwards to allow the ground to fully dry. This leads me to number 17 regarding the standing water.
17. At no time during the project, including the backfill period and actual rain days, was there standing water - of any depth - under that home.
18. When the home was backfilled, it was backfilled 48" on the average. The bobcat compacted the fill to the best of his ability, but the reality is that the dirt settled and took with it the plastic - even though it was properly installed. We dug the backfill out, re-installed the plastic, and rebackfilled the project to correct the issue. There was no delay in re-installing. Only the time that it took for the dirt to settle and rip the plastic. We corrcted it almost immediately.
19. I don't think I need to explain an issue that you are so well aware of. I did not coerce anybody, including you or Greg, into 'waiving' the waterproofing inspection. There was no waterproofing inspection, and technically no waterproofing requirement. I explained to you then, as I will re-explain now, that we routinely waterproof, we will continue to waterproof, and if you choose to, you may inspect at any time. The work is good. I have nothing to hide.
20. I feel this is 'hearsay' and I will address this directly with Jefferson Real Estate rather than accuse unnecessarily.
21. Again, I have requested a
written statement from the factory representative, as I am from every individual involved with this project, and I would be happy to supply you with the statement. The verbal report that I have is that the claim was never made. The written report should prove that.
22. There are several of these next line items that are connected to an individual that I hired to do work on the project, not knowing at the time what his motive was in seeking work (malicious). When I found out, I immediately fired him. He had already told the homeowner that he could see that the foundation was sliding down the hill, he could see that the concrete 'pads' had shifted from their original positions, and that the home was 'falling' off the foundation. First of all, the foundation of 12" below grade, solid concrete, and continuous ribbons. It is impossible to 'slide' as well as impossible for the continuous
Initialed in bottom
right corner
3 of 5 BR

 

 

~ page 4 of 5 pages ~

ribbons to shift. They are not 'pads' as he suggested to the homeowner. The homeowner knows this, since they saw the foundation footers prior to the home being set. I don't understand why they have developed selective amnesia, but the facts speak for themselves.
23. This claim is from the same individual noted above. He was an interior worker who as it turns out was working for a competitor. It was purely capitalist move on his part to discredit me. The conversation that the homeowner noted never actually took place. I outline the work that actually needed to be done with the sub-contractor, assuming that he would do it. By the end of the fourth or fifth day, when it became clear that his motive was not working but slandering, I fired him. It was hostile and heated, and there is a February trail date for the assult charges. I will keep you posted on the outcome if you wish. No work was done, so I sent another crew in to replace him.
24. The ends of the home were connected, but not finished. At the time, the homeowner was interested in having log siding installed. It didn't make sense to side the ends twice. If you're interested, I have the written documentation from the homeowners regarding one week wanting siding, and the next week not, then wanting it again. I didn't proceed with the siding until I was sure they actually wanted it.
25. The second string comment is ridiculous. Please look at my 1099's for 1999 and see who got the best crews. No question about the people (with the exception of the interior person I got fooled by) that worked on the project. They were the best.
26. The Blue Rose issue is very complicated at best. I won't even attempt to make you understand it. I am requesting from you, though, a list of the code issues that your office noted on the project. The fact is that the only thing left to do on this home when Blue Rose began their sabatoge of me and this company was the interior kitchen cabinetry and the carpeting. In reality, the carpeting could have been done much sooner, but the homeowner kept changing their minds about the actual carpet to be installed. Of course, this is documented too, and you would be welcome to any of it.
27. When this project began, the homeowner was purchasing berber style carpet and selling the factory provided carpet. Then they weren't going to live in the home and instead had decided to sell the home so that wrote me and requested that we install the factory carpet and save money. Then they stopped the carpet installer while he was laying out the factory carpet and sent him away because they wanted the berber carpet. The carpet installer was as confused as we were. The idea of the interior crew using the brand new carpet as a drop cloth, and then claiming it was my idea is ludicrous.
28. This statement is twisted, and with a little straightening makes sense. The first crew was hired from Woodland Park to do the job. They went to the site with me and we discussed the work that needed to be done. They went back the following day to begin, and the homeowner approached to explain that they wanted extensive interior remodeling done. The interior crew was not hired to do remodeling of this home and they were confused. I explained that they were to finish the interior and we would secure a framing crew for any remodeling that was to be done. The homeowner obviously didn't agree, since they 'ran them off' (sub-contractor's words). I explained to the sub-contractor the importance of completing this job, and he agreed to go back. Coincidentally they had a family emergency and were unable to return for several weeks. I haven't hired that crew again, but I'm not sure if I blame them for having a 'family emergency' considering the working conditions. The second crew that the individual named in issue numbers 22 and 23 - enough said about him. The third crew was the set crew while they were there completing some outside finish work. They only did some rough drywall work until the actual crew that completed the work could get on-site. Please try and understand that in the middle of summer these crews aren't exactly begging for work. It's difficult to replace somebody on a moments notice. The crew that completed the work also did the major remodel inside the home. Their work was beautiful and they charged for it. The first and second crews didn't charge anything and the set crew charged only for the work done, which the actual crew deducted from their bill. This would be the crew that allegedly used the carpeting as a drop cloth. They never claimed that they were instructed by me to do so, and after they apologized for being sloppy, agreed to have the carpeting cleaned at their expense. There was very little actual mess, since the carpet installer had not laid it all out yet. No work was repeated or double paid.
29. I don't understand what I could possibly have 'blamed' your office for in regard to this project.??
30. I have a call into the electrical inspector, since I have never spoken to him regarding this project, and have not had a cross word with him ever. I can provide you with his statement if you wish.
31. The plumbing inspector had an issue with the fact that the mechanical engineer pulled the permit for the plumbing hook up, yet only did the gas. We pulled another permit for the water and septic. There was an
Initialed in bottom
right corner
4 of 5 BR

 

 

~ page 5 of 5 pages ~

issue with the connection under the house (the installer used two 22 ½ angles instead of the required 45) which was corrected by the installer. The reinspect was scheduled to take place about the time that Blue Rose Homes got involved with the project, so I have no idea whether or not it took place, or what the outcome was. I will be getting a statement from Bob Gallegos too, since I understand that I also have a problem with him??? 32. and last but not least, your inspector, who has (allegedly) labeled either myself, my office, or possibly both, as the 'joke of the office'. Of course, I will be requiring a statement from him regarding that statement, as well as from you if that is the case. I believe a statement like that is unprofessional, unfounded, and hurtful to say the least. I'm sure you can understand that I would like to get to the bottom of a comment like that. I didn't realize that we had a problem. We've (I've) done a lot of projects in your area, and for the most part they go very smoothly. We've had a few issues, some with inspector misunderstandings, and some with miscommunications by subs, and nothing that I would think would warrent a comment like that.

        I told you that I have chosen not to address the personal attacks, but I would like you to understand that I have spoken at length with the Colorado Manufactured Housing Association, the Attorney General for the State of Colorado, Champion Homes, Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, as well as our attorney and the general consenus is that we have done everything possible to exceed industry standards, and we have done everything possible to make this homeowner happy, and nothing has worked. The representative as the CMHA even went so far as to note that after conversation with the homeowner, she didn't believe that we would be able to do anything to make them happy. She did tell me though, that we've already done more than we should have done, and well more than any other dealer would have done, and to complete only what you would complete for any other homeowner, obtain the CO, and move on. I should have done it, but my last conversation with the homeowner was a pleasant conversation, during which they explained that they had been approached Kendra O'Neil, who claimed to be a representative of the factory (not true), and who informed them that we had taken their money and bought a villa in Mexico (please. Give me a break.....). They asked me if I would please not quit on them, and would instead help them get the factory repairs done as well as complete the home for them. I agreed, but Kendra O'Neil used her influence as an attorney to sway their opinion of me. I elected not to pursue the project, and considering the fact that it was essentially completed, I walked away from it. The documents will verify this. It will come out in court. The claims regarding the five other homeowners is puzzling, since I don't know who could possibly be in that position except for projects that are not yet completed. If you can shed some light on that subject, I would appreciate it, otherwise I will ignore the accusation as 'unfounded'.

        I will be demanding of Blue Rose Homes as complete list of items they 'corrected' on the project, as well as the code issues they found. If you have that list, I would appriciate a copy. They would have had their Certificate of Occupancy in December if they had left things alone. They were nearly done.

        I understand your problem. When you receive a complaint you have to address it. I hope that I've responded satisfactorly. If you have any questions, I would appriciate a call. If you have any belief that I have mismanaged this project, that I misappropriated any funds, that I have intentionally or deliberately violated any codes or procedures, or that I have caused this homeowner any grief, I would appriciate a hearing in your office at your earliest convenience.
Thanks for your time Jim. Sorry that this letter is so long, but there was a lot to respond to. have a great day!

Very sincerely,

Signature of Barbara Robbins
Barbara Robbins

cc: M James Zendejas, attorney
    Teller County Building Department

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

NorthStar Victims

Victims Index | Karen & Mike | Alex & Rick | Robert & Jeannie Seales | Anne & John Hart | Dave Addis | Judy Bray | Joe Debaun | Ted Dura | Rui Haagen

John & Dawn Hart | Marianne & Bob | Ron McNeel | Troy Nelson | Amy & Justin Shafran | Martin Sloan | Bill Snow | Tom & Lynette Woods