KWH Mystery Continues ...
The Exhibits to the long complaint have arrived (see the September 3 posting for the general problem).
Exhibit 20 states that BKC granted a 50% interest in real property to Cady and Kellison on September 30, 1997. Exhibit 21 transfers the property to the respective trusts on the same day.
Exhibit 9 indicates that 60 S. Lassen is assessed at $178,235 so selling it for $29,800 would probably be questioned by the Assessor.
Exhibit 10 clearly indicates that the Cady's document was notarized on June 30, 2005. You will also note that this transaction is for the entire property, not 50%. You can't sell 100% unless you own 100%.
Exhibit 11 clearly indicates that the Kellisons sold their 1/2 interest in 60 S. Lassen to the Cadys. This document was completed (notarized) on June 29, 2005. The fact that it was recorded after that date is not relevant.
Exhibits 12 and 16 are from the County Recorder, not Assessor. The Assessor's Office simply accessed this information from the County Recorder (clearly indicated). The Assessor, as he explained during the budget hearings, is swamped with work so recordings are not immediately updated in the Assessor's records.
Based upon Exhibits 10 and 11, 60 S. Lassen probably should have been listed as a purchase/sale on the 700 Form. The 700 Form is for recording economic transactions in the preceding 12 months.
Exhibit 17 ignores the instructions for 700 Form, Schedule B which states that you are not required to report: a residence, such as a home or vacation cabin, used exclusively as a personal residence. Are these properties not contiguous with Mr. Cady's principal residence?
Exhibit 24, addresses a partnership from 1989, Exhibit 25, a partnership from 1990, and Exhibit 26 indicates a fictitious business name from Jan 1999. Probably long gone.
Exhibits 2 a - f are interesting. They list the names of Frank Cady, PC and Jaimee Richey, PC. Exhibit 2 g lists the name Jaimee A. Richey, A Professional Corporation. The stated proof that a Professional Corporation never existed resides at Exhibit 1 c, which addresses a request about "Frank Decker Cady Professional Corporation", and Exhibit 1d, which addresses a request about "Jaimee Amanda Richey, a Professional Corporation". The problem is that Exhibits 1 c & 1 d do not match the names claimed on the letter head. Wal-Mart is not Wall-Mart.
I really don't know the facts about all of these exhibits but reading them didn't permit me to come to the same interpretation that KWH arrived at.
Little wonder the complaint ended up in the circular file.
Exhibit 20 states that BKC granted a 50% interest in real property to Cady and Kellison on September 30, 1997. Exhibit 21 transfers the property to the respective trusts on the same day.
Exhibit 9 indicates that 60 S. Lassen is assessed at $178,235 so selling it for $29,800 would probably be questioned by the Assessor.
Exhibit 10 clearly indicates that the Cady's document was notarized on June 30, 2005. You will also note that this transaction is for the entire property, not 50%. You can't sell 100% unless you own 100%.
Exhibit 11 clearly indicates that the Kellisons sold their 1/2 interest in 60 S. Lassen to the Cadys. This document was completed (notarized) on June 29, 2005. The fact that it was recorded after that date is not relevant.
Exhibits 12 and 16 are from the County Recorder, not Assessor. The Assessor's Office simply accessed this information from the County Recorder (clearly indicated). The Assessor, as he explained during the budget hearings, is swamped with work so recordings are not immediately updated in the Assessor's records.
Based upon Exhibits 10 and 11, 60 S. Lassen probably should have been listed as a purchase/sale on the 700 Form. The 700 Form is for recording economic transactions in the preceding 12 months.
Exhibit 17 ignores the instructions for 700 Form, Schedule B which states that you are not required to report: a residence, such as a home or vacation cabin, used exclusively as a personal residence. Are these properties not contiguous with Mr. Cady's principal residence?
Exhibit 24, addresses a partnership from 1989, Exhibit 25, a partnership from 1990, and Exhibit 26 indicates a fictitious business name from Jan 1999. Probably long gone.
Exhibits 2 a - f are interesting. They list the names of Frank Cady, PC and Jaimee Richey, PC. Exhibit 2 g lists the name Jaimee A. Richey, A Professional Corporation. The stated proof that a Professional Corporation never existed resides at Exhibit 1 c, which addresses a request about "Frank Decker Cady Professional Corporation", and Exhibit 1d, which addresses a request about "Jaimee Amanda Richey, a Professional Corporation". The problem is that Exhibits 1 c & 1 d do not match the names claimed on the letter head. Wal-Mart is not Wall-Mart.
I really don't know the facts about all of these exhibits but reading them didn't permit me to come to the same interpretation that KWH arrived at.
Little wonder the complaint ended up in the circular file.
<< Home