Subtitled "WHAT HAPPENED TO THIRTY DAYS NOTICE OR HUMAN DECENCY AND MORAL CONSIDERATION ?

The purpose of this writing is to create awareness and hopefully bring that public opinion and awareness to press for a professional mediation to bring a solution to this over-inflated legal issue.

This awareness effort is supported by fellow disabled veterans and volunteers.

These veterans have fought for your freedom-
Now they are supporting a fellow veteran.
Please lend your support.
Tell your friends and neighbors.
Join the team effort.
Please pass the information to your friends and neighbors.
We will succeed together.


A donation fund to pay veteran expenses has been established.
Donations in any amount can be sent to –

Moral Justice,
PO Box 7121,
Rochester, MN 55903

Veteran Hotline - Emails can be sent to Moral-Justice@charter.net

We are open to your comments, questions and suggestions.

………………………………………………………………………………………….

How could a bent fender cause the loss of a job and disintegrate a life's savings?

Or this article could be called, WHAT HAPPENED TO 30 DAYS NOTICE?

The problem grew from a molehill into a mountain due to lack of common sense and courtesy for our fellow man. Americans often rush to hire a lawyer. They rush right past the free and common sense solution of just plain open communication on their way to hire an attorney to resolve conflicts as if the results of the attorney will be so much better. Probably not better; but certainly more expensive.

………………………………………………………………………


How could a bent fender cause the loss of a job and disintegrate a life's savings?

Here is how the events unfolded.

Since 2005 a disabled veteran rented space in a shed to repair cars and resell them as a way to supplement his income. Not ordinary cars, but rare vintage cars made in the 40's and 50's and early60's, collectible and desirable cars of high value. Restoring and selling these cars was the passion and livelihood of a disabled veteran. He suffers from PTSD and the trauma of war. The work on the cars was a way to enjoy life, make some income and alleviate the symptoms of PTSD. The veteran was injured and decorated during the Viet Nam War. He works hard on the cars and has invested a lot of money and time in their restorations. In fact all of his life's savings is tied up in his inventory of cars.

The veteran rented shed space from Walter and Joan Prigge of Byron, MN since 2005. In the middle of the summer of 2007 he noticed a dent in the fender of one car. The dent was the source of the ensuing legal battle as will be explained here. The dented fender is the molehill which became a mountain of legal expenses and possibly the end of a veteran’s life’s savings.

In the summer of 2007 when the damage was found, the veteran asked Walt about the damage. Walt said he did not know anything about the dent. The veteran asked him if he would ask other renters and find out who made the dent so he could speak to the person responsible and negotiate the cost of the repair. In the fall of 2007 the veteran asked Walt the same question again. Walt gave the same answer; he said he did not know anything about the dent. The veteran said to Walt, “the shed is always locked and only you and I have keys. Someone must know something”. Walt said he would ask his wife, Joan. In the spring of 2008 the veteran came to pay the rent on the day it was due and again asked Walt about the damage. And again Walt said that he did not know. The veteran asked if Walt had asked his wife as he said he would. Walt’s wife, Joan Prigge had access to Walter's key for the lock on the shed. Walt did not say that he had asked his wife; he replied by saying that he would reduce the rent by $100.00 to cover the damage repair. The damage appeared to be much more than $100.00. So it was then agreed that the veteran would get estimates and Walt would pay accordingly. It was not clear if Walter was taking the responsibility for someone else or if he was taking the responsibility for the damage personally.

It was later proven by deposition and under sworn testimony that Joan Prigge admitted that she was a witness to the damage incident and Walter may have made the $100.00 dollar offer based on that knowledge.

During the discussion of who damaged the fender - the veteran was writing the rent check. Walter stopped him. Walter wanted to trade the rent payment for the cost of the repairs. So the veteran did not pay the rent that day, the day it was due, but took the car for estimates. The veteran went to three body shops to get the estimates for Walt to review. The lowest of the three estimates would be a just settlement.

The postponement of the payment of rent was Walter's idea. Walter wanted to trade the rent money for the cost of the damage repair. Three weeks after that agreement was made, Walter had the remaining inventory of vehicles towed to an impound lot and later, when questioned, Walter later claimed the rent was late. That was the reason he gave for his decision to tow and impound the vehicles which now is the basis for the court action. Walter had made a breach of the contract to barter rent for repair.

If Walter had a problem with the rent payment or regretted his offer to barter rent for repair, he could have called the veteran, said he changed his mind and made a new deal. He could have waited for the veteran to return from the trip to Phoenix and discussed the matter. He could have changed the lock on the shed and kept all the cars locked away until the matter was resolved. He could have written a note to the veteran. He could have been considerate. He knew the veteran was away for the entire month. He could have filed in small claims court. He could have done a lot of things differently than he did. But what he did was exercise what most people would see as the worst choice - the choice of last resort. By using the choice of last resort as his first choice, Walter created the start of a legal battle. Perhaps Walter regrets his decision to use the last resort first to resolve such a small problem, but what Walter did next really botched things up for the veteran.

The veteran owner was in a hurry to have the damaged car repaired and prepared for sale. The veteran was anxious for the sales to happen because he was nearly out of money and the economy was looking uncertain. The veteran wanted to sell all of the cars he had before the economy went into free fall. There is no market for expensive collector cars in a bad economy.

Two days after the agreement was made to trade rent for repair, the veteran mailed the three body shop estimates to Walt for his review. Then the veteran went to Arizona for his grandson's birthday. The veteran told Walt in person and in writing that he would be gone for the entire month.

It is interesting to note the amount of rent due to Walter Prigge was $500.00 and the lowest estimate to repair the fender was $500.00. A perfect wash. Good idea Walter had to trade rent for repair. It would have worked beautifully. But it didn't work at all.

When the veteran returned from Arizona he was expecting to meet with Walt to discuss the final amount to complete the barter agreement. Instead he was shocked to find all of his cars missing from the shed and the lock had been changed on Walter Prigge's shed.

Without any warning, Walter had decided to hire a towing company and have the entire inventory of the veteran's cars towed to town and impounded. Why? What was the rush? The veteran was due back from Phoenix in just a week. Walter later claimed his reason for towing was that the rent had not been paid. It is true that the rent had not been paid, but it would have been paid had Walter not preferred to barter the rent for the damage. So when the towing was executed, the rent was three weeks overdue because Walter postponed the payment. The veteran was due back from Phoenix in a week. Walter and the veteran were scheduled to discuss the exact amount of the rent to trade for the damaged fender. Walt had the three estimates from the body shops.

What had happened? Why did Walter choose to breach the contract to berter rent for repair. Walt had initiated the contract to barter. There were no conversations or communication since the agreement was made to barter rent for repair until the veteran met Walt at the now empty shed.

Walter knew this veteran. He had rented to him for over two years. Walt knew he would pay the rent. He always paid the rent. He paid on the spot each time Walt asked him to pay. The veteran never knew when Walt would ask so he always kept his check book with him, in case he would see Walt and Walt would ask. If Walt sent a written statement (which he did three times) the veteran always sent Walter a check always within 14 days. Walter had just started to send written bills at the request of the veteran. The schedule and timing of the rent payments had become erratic and confusing so the veteran asked for a written bill so he could keep track more easily.

The rental periods on the statements changed with each bill. That was confusing. The veteran asked Walter to give a complete accounting of the history of the rents that had been paid so everyone could know where the rent stood, but Walter never produced any records so things went along as usual until the dent in the fender.

Walter never showed his bookkeeping to the veteran. The veteran asked several times. Walter grew a little more agitated with each request, so the issue was dropped. Walter's bookkeeping was erratic at best and perhaps non-existent. Walter did provide a few written bills after the requests for the history of payments, but the statements were difficult to understand. The statements were hand written on small pieces of paper. The dates of the rental periods kept changing. For example, the bills once stated the rental period to be from May to September on one, then another stated April to November. Regardless of the errors, the veteran always paid within 14days.

So why the towing? What happened to 30 days notice? Why the breach of contract?

If Walter wanted the cars out of his shed he could have phoned the veteran owner and asked him to move them out. He could have given the normal thirty days notice. That sounds pretty normal and reasonable.

Normal and reasonable. Normal and reasonable this is NOT. That is the problem with this entire conflict. It started with a falsehood followed by an unnecessary and extraordinary and possibly malicious act and became a mountain of legal crap.

What would most people do? What would you do? What would you expect from a landlord that you trusted?

Walter could have changed the lock on the shed and kept the cars all locked away until the rent issue was resolved. Walter did change the lock after he had the cars towed out of the building.

Walter never mentioned that he felt the rent was late when he offered to pay for the damaged fender. He was in face to face conversation with the veteran and could have mentioned that he felt the rent was off-schedule. He could have, but he didn't. He just said he wanted to trade rent for damage repair. He made a barter agreement.

During the three weeks after the agreement to trade rent for repair, something happened. While the veteran was in Arizona something drastic happened. Walt changed his mind. Walt decided to tow the veteran's cars out of the locked shed and have them put into a different shed in a town 3 miles away. Perhaps the thought of paying for the damaged fender weighed too heavily. Walter will not say. One can only guess.

On the last bill that Walter mailed to the veteran Walter had written the message, "the cars need to be rearranged". This bill arrived just prior to the discussion about trading the rent for the damaged fender. If the rent had been untimely Walter could have written something about the rent on the statement or discussed it in person during the discussion of the damage repair. Three weeks after the discussion of the damage repair Walter had the cars towed and impounded. Walter later claimed he had the cars all towed to impound because the rent was extremely late and chronically late. Well, that is hard to understand and appears to be a fabrication. It may be that Walter did not want to pay for the damage and had the cars towed as a way to get out of paying. Anyway, it was a rash thing to do. And Walter did not pay and has not yet paid for the damage to the fender.

Walter "rearranged the cars" alright... rearranged... right to the impound lot. When the cars were found missing from the shed, it was a huge shock to the veteran owner. The veteran asked Walter over and over why he did this, what had gone wrong, what had caused this action. Walt never answered. Walter just said, "We're done".

Walt made the agreement to barter on the 1st of the month - towed the cars on the 27th of the month - then sent a certified letter to the veteran to notify to the towing. He sent the notice of the towing on the day of the towing. The certified letter was received on the 2nd of the following month, more than a week later. Great notice. What happened to 30 days? What happened to common human courtesy?

Walter told the veteran to come to the storage shed on Saturday morning, the 7th of June 2008. The veteran had returned from Arizona on the 1st of June. Walter and the veteran could have met on Monday, the 2nd or Tuesday, the 3rd or Wednesday, the 4th or Thursday, the 5th or Friday, the 6th or anytime day or night, but Walter wanted the meeting on Saturday, the 7th of June at 9:00 AM.

At that meeting Walter made the veteran pay the full $500.00 - the amount due before the offer to barter - plus Walter demanded an additional $200.00 - a total of $700.00 - (no deduction for the damage as he offered a month prior) plus an extra $100.00 for the three weeks that passed since he made the offer to barter for the damage. Walter also made the veteran sign a document to release Walter from all responsibility for any damage to the cars.

It is not clear how Walter figured the rent at $700.00 when only a month earlier the rent due was $500.00. We will leave that for now and move on.

Only after Walter had the cash in hand and the signed release did he tell the veteran where his cars had been taken. Walt said that "Byron Auto Repair had towed the cars, but their office was closed for the weekend". He said that he would authorize the release of the cars and the veteran could get them on the following Monday, the 9th of June 2008. Why did he schedule the Saturday meeting when he knew their office was closed? If the meeting had been earlier in the week their office would have been open.

Walter failed to mention that he was leaving that weekend for Europe. He was planning to stay for a month with his daughter in Austria. Perhaps Walter requested the meeting on Saturday knowing that he was leaving that weekend and would be out of the country for the next month and could just leave the veteran and the problems of the towing company behind.

On Monday, the 9th of June 2008, the veteran called Byron Auto Repair to make certain his cars were there and safe. At that time there were frequent and severe hail storms that were damaging shingles on houses in the area. Well, the cars were there. They were safe inside a building, but Walt had not given the O.K. to release them. The veteran could not get his cars out of storage.

The veteran called Walter’s home several times that day and the next leaving messages for Walt to make good the release of the vehicles. No one ever answered. Walter’s daughter called the next day to say that her father and mother had gone to Europe for a month. Walter had breached another contract. He aggreed to release the vehicles and he failed to keep his word.

The vehicles were forced to stay in the impound until Walter returned and could give the O.K. to release them. It seems that Walter wanted control of the cars until he was paid the $700.00 (not the previous amount of $500.00) and had the signed release before he O.K.'d the release of the cars. He got everything he wanted, but he did not give the O.K. Seems that after being paid, he lost interest. Maybe he was just busy preparing to leave the country. Too bad he did not call for the meeting earlier in the week and this juggernaut of a problem could have been avoided.

When Walter returned from Europe and spoke to the veteran about the cost of the storage, the bill was over $10,000.00. Walt considered for the next three weeks possibly reestablishing his landlord - tenant relationship with the veteran, but at a big increase of monthly rate. Finally, Walter said he did not want to renew or continue renting to the veteran.

The veteran had all of his life's savings tied up in the cars and the repairs and he had not figured on the extra $500.00 cost to repair the fender damage. The veteran could not pay the $10,000 dollars of charges for the towing and storage. And he did not feel he should. Walter, after all, had been the one who ordered the towing. He should be the one to pay the bill. Walt said he was not going to pay any of the storage or the towing bill.

The veteran was in need of a sale, but he was short on money. The fender was being fixed. The other cars were ready to sell and the buyers were lined up and waiting to buy them. The veteran could not deliver any of the other cars. They were locked up. They were in the impound. Jeff Kasten, the owner of the towing company would not release even one of the cars so it could be sold to pay the charges that accumulated while Walt was away on vacation in Europe.

Walt refused to pay any of the charges for towing and storage. Walt also reneged on his agreement to pay the fender damage as he volunteered to do earlier.

Now the problem was more than the dented fender. The problem was who was responsible for the towing and storage charges that were mounting up at $250.00 dollars per day. The veteran could not pay. He could never be able to pay. The charges were mounting up at $7,500.00 per month. Remember Jeff Kasten would not release even one car without cash in hand for the entire amount of the charges. Walt refused to take any responsibility for the charges. This is the CATCH-22 situation. Perhaps it was engineered, perhaps it was accidental. But it happened. Nobody would give in.

The veteran made several offers to let everybody just walk away. Even hired a lawyer to send Walter Prigge and Jeff Kasten a letter offering everyone to just walk away and call it a BIG mistake.

Walter Prigge and Jeff Kasten both refused the offer.

In the litigation that followed, Walter and Joan Prigge admitted under oath in sworn testimony that one of them had been present when the fender was damaged. They knew about the damaged fender and how it happened. They had not been honest. Nor did they pay for the fender. They just hired an attorney. The attorney is trying to get control of all the vehicles to be able to sell them at a Sheriff's auction.

The Prigges and Jeff Kasten joined forces and hired one attorney to represent them both. This is seen as unusual even by the judge. If Jeff Kasten doesn't get his money from somebody, he would turn to Walt Prigge for payment. Walt, after all, hired Byron Auto Repair to do the towing.

Had the Prigge’s been forthright in admitting knowledge of the damage and had Walter spoken of his problem with the rent payments or if Walter would have provided a history of the rental periods and his records of the payments or if Walter would have chosen a more sensible way to resolve these issues, then the problem with the towing company could have been totally avoided. There did not have to be any towing. There should have been open and frank conversation.

Instead, attorneys were hired and depositions taken and legal papers were filed and charges were made and the towing company threatened to auction the cars to pay for their bill for towing and storage.

Walter Prigge and Jeff Kasten, owner of Byron Auto Repair, joined together and hired an attorney, Chris Nelson of the Dunlap Seeger Law Firm, to gain legal control of the cars so they could be sold at auction to satisfy the charges.

The veteran asked both Prigge and Kasten to mediate and negotiate a way out for the veteran. Both Prigge and Kasten refused. The veteran asked that the storage fees be reduced from the astronomical amount of $7,500.00 dollars per month. Jeff Kasten of Byron Auto Repair refused to negotiate. Both Prigge and Kasten have advantaged themselves by the situation. The veteran is left with nothing, but attorney’s bills to pay.

This could be seen as malice or as punitive or as greed, but it cannot be seen as morality or justice or just plain good common sense.

The veteran ran out of money and credit with his attorney and was left with no alternative but to represent himself in court. Court is a bad idea, and representing yourself is a worse idea. The veteran had no choice. Prigge and Kasten hired Chris Nelson of the prestigious Dunlap and Seeger Law Firm to get an order from the court that would allow them to sell the cars at a sheriff's sale.

Legal maneuvering has led to notice from the attorney, Chris Nelson, that efforts are underway to gain authorization to proceed with a sheriff’s sale of the vehicles and the proceeds will go to the Byron Auto Repair Company.

This is how you lose your life's savings and your income due to a dented fender.

Here is where things stand today...

The veteran paid the cost of the fender repair. The veteran is currently denied access to his inventory of vehicles which represent his life's savings. He is out of a job. He is without income from the sales of his inventory. He has spent everything he had and more on attorneys. He is suffering from depression.

Walt Prigge gained $700.00 of rent money ($200.00more than the original $500.00 that was due). Walt Prigge escaped his agreement to barter for the damaged fender. Walt Prigge has dodged his lack of action to release the vehicles from the tow yard. All done with a single phone call and a trip to Europe.

Jeff Kasten (Byron Auto Repair) continues to charge $7,500.00 per month or $250.00 per day for storing the vehicles and the clock is still running day after day and week after week. With months and months worth of those ill-gotten gains, he may soon be able to pay off the mortgage on his new house and his new buildings and buy a new bigger tow truck or he may be able to retire in luxury depending how much he has to pay his expensive, O.J. Simpson-Dream-Team-Type-Lawyer to help get control of the disabled veteran's inventory of vehicles which represent his life's savings. Seems like an inheritance or winning the lottery. What do you imagine his real costs are in the whole deal? Maybe $100 or $200 dollars to drive the truck back and forth from the Prigge farm to Byron.

The only hope now is that public opinion and moral consciousness may come to bear on the individuals involved before the veteran's home goes into foreclosure.

The veteran searched out a licensed professional mediator. The mediator has contacted both Walter Prigge and Jeff Kasten as well as their attorney Chris Nelson with an offer to hold mediation. Prigge and Kasten have refused. Perhaps they can be persuaded with the support and urging of their friends and neighbors or by their own guilt. It does seem like the right thing to do. Talk openly and get this BIG mistake resolved. No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Letting the veteran's cars get sold at a sheriff's auction would be a BIGGER mistake. JUST PLAIN WRONG. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of Prigge and Kasten, and even their attorney Nelson to put things right. This may be a perfect example of the lack of morality when right and wrong are defined by the law.

Another question... Will Jeff Kasten collect the towing fees and storage cost from Walt Prigge if the veteran is pronounced not-guilty of the charges? Hmmmmm... They are sharing the attorney expenses. They will stand together in the courtroom.

Watch for news of the auction. And watch the Television news. The Minneapolis station KSTP and local stations are waiting to report on this debacle of justice as it unfolds.

That is how a dented fender can cost you your job and your life's savings.

A farmer got bent-out-of-shape over a bent fender.

Legal manipulation of the legal system kept O.J. out of jail . . . once.

.....................................................................................

The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What's Right
by Thane Rosenbaum (2004, 354 pages)

Thane Rosenbaum, lawyer, law professor and novelist, explores the paradox that we are both fascinated and repulsed by our legal system. While we expect justice to be done, the legal system willfully ignores basic moral criteria. As a result the justice system undermines truth, perpetuates secrets and lies, prevents victims from telling their stories, promotes adversarial enmity over community repair, and fails to equate legal duty with moral responsibility. Legal outcomes that make sense to lawyers and judges feel simply wrong to most people and enrage others. Many view the law as overly logical, technical, narrow, bureaucratic and insensitive to basic human emotions and moral principles. Rosenbaum explores our longing for moral justice using examples from literature and feature films.

Rosenbaum claims to attempt to teach his law students how to enter their chosen profession with a deeper spiritual and moral awareness of what the law lacks. As a novelist, he claims that with all its obsessive insularity and narrowness, its pretense that all that matters is what takes place under oath, the law misses the emotional back-story, the suppressed part of every lawsuit. It relies too much on logic and not enough on compassion. The institution of law defines itself as an arbiter of legal disputes, and not a dispenser of moral lessons or seeker of truths. It thrives on an adversarial process that only takes prisoners and leaves little room for peace. Legal facts override the moral dimensions of emotional and literal truth. Procedural correctness becomes more important than establishing the truth. Legal ethics has more to do with legal correctness than moral values. Courts pick winners and losers in a zero sum game that fails to resolve emotional distress. The irreconcilable split between the legal and the moral shatters the public's faith in the law.

The novelist Rosenbaum states that the process of the law keeps one from telling their story coherently. Evidence rules truncate and rob stories of their meaning. For one who has suffered pain or loss, the telling of their story is an important aspect of healing, and the court does not provide this outlet. There is a basic incompatibility between grief and monetary damages. When the legal system shuts itself off from the story, it cannot do moral justice. In accepting plea bargaining, we have bargained away the sanctity of the truth for the certainty of jail sentences. The proliferation of settlements prior to trial have robbed the legal process of its therapeutic healing potential of bringing together the community in the search of the truth and the moral lessons that are learned from those truths. A settlement is tantamount to an entirely lawful, economically efficient bribe. Perjury is probably the most under-prosecuted crime in America.
We are trained by lawyers never to admit guilt or apologize. In Japan, when an airplane crash occurs, the president of an airline will go to the homes of each of the families who suffered loss and virtually beg for forgiveness. In many cases this is more redemptive than monetary damages. We risk being punished if we go to someone else's aid. The law cannot compel one to become virtuous. We are all better off when virtue exists in the general population, and we are worse off when it is absent. As the Southern writer, Ala Tate, has written: "The religious unity of intellect and emotion, of reason and instinct, is the sole technique for the realization of values."
Great moralists from Dante to Kierkegaard have warned us that the law cannot be the final arbiter of the good in society. There is a level deeper than the law from which we draw our values. It is the level of the spiritual, religious, or transcendent. It is where in our innermost quite times, we listen to what the good truly can be. It goes far beyond procedures and precedents. We must each discover our own inner strength, stability and emotional maturity. Perhaps Rosenbaum is asking us to place too much weight on the law and not take enough responsibility for our own lives.

Once he has made his valid point, the book seems to continue longer than necessary, becoming preachy without resolution. The book is more visionary than practical, and lawyers will be annoyed at the author's superior tone. Provoking lawyers is clearly the book's point.
It is difficult to understand from a practical standpoint how the court system can also be expected to provide emotional healing. Should courtrooms serve as public forums for aggrieved parties cathartically to tell their stories rather than pursue monetary settlements?

Nevertheless, the book provides a mirror into which a middle-aged, burnt-out lawyer can examine himself and recognize once again the potential of what the law could be.