A recent court case has drawn attention due to its intricate details involving real estate transactions and legal interpretations. The matter involved Defendants Compass Minnesota, LLC (“Compass”) and Daniel Philip Hollerman (“Hollerman”)—collectively known as “Defendants”—who filed a Motion to Dismiss a complaint. Plaintiffs Preston Byron Knapp and Michelle Nichole Knapp (“the Knapps” or “Plaintiffs”) filed several motions, including a Motion to Compel Communication with their Attorney-in-Fact, Brandon Joe Williams, and Motions for Default Judgment against both Hollerman and Compass.
Court’s Decision
After a thorough review of all submissions, the Court decided to:
Grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint: The Court found that Plaintiffs did not present a plausible case of breach of contract or fiduciary duties. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint.
Deny Plaintiffs’ Motions: The Court denied all of Plaintiffs’ motions, including those for Default Judgment and the Motion to Compel Communication with their Attorney-in-Fact.
Background of the Case
The Plaintiffs’ complaint stemmed from a dispute over a real property transaction. They accused the Defendants of breaching their contract and fiduciary duties by not adhering to the instructions of Brandon Joe Williams, their designated attorney-in-fact. Williams was supposed to ensure the exchange of collateral securities for Federal Reserve Notes, which were to be placed in escrow.
The Defendants countered that the Plaintiffs’ allegations lacked a factual basis and that there was no legal obligation to communicate with Williams.
Detailed Case Background
Parties Involved: The Knapps reside in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and engaged Hollerman, an agent for Compass, to sell their current home and purchase a new one.
Agreements: Multiple contracts were executed, including a buyer representation contract, a listing contract for their home, a purchase agreement for a new property, and a sale agreement for their existing home.
Legal Proceedings
Motion to Dismiss: The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Plaintiffs failed to provide a plausible claim of contract or fiduciary duty breaches.
Motions for Default Judgment: The Plaintiffs filed for default judgments against Hollerman and Compass, claiming they failed to respond to the complaint within the required time.
Motion to Compel Communication: Plaintiffs sought to compel the Defendants to communicate with Williams, despite his lack of legal licensure.
Court’s Analysis and Rulings
Motion to Dismiss: The Court agreed with the Defendants, noting that the Plaintiffs did not adequately demonstrate how the contracts were breached. The contracts did not qualify as collateral securities, and the Defendants were not obligated to treat them as negotiable instruments.
Motions for Default Judgment: The Court found that the Plaintiffs did not properly serve the Defendants, invalidating their basis for default judgments.
Motion to Compel Communication: The Court emphasized that while Plaintiffs could designate an attorney-in-fact, this did not authorize a non-lawyer to practice law. The Court refused to mandate the Defendants to engage with Williams, thereby avoiding any participation in unauthorized legal practice.
Conclusion
Not only did these sovereign citizen methods not work in court, but plaintiffs were also ordered to pay legal fees of over $27K in attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred to defend this action.
Court fees were the result of “attempting to decipher Plaintiffs’ variation of the “redemption” scheme argument, and responding to Plaintiffs’ baseless motions was a time-consuming endeavor but commensurate to the task. Preparing a response to the complaint was made more difficult by the manner with which Plaintiffs framed their legal claims against Hollerman, coupled with their insistence that Hollerman converse with their “attorney-in-fact” Brandon Joe Williams. Despite counsel’s efforts to point out to Plaintiffs that their claims, and repeated demands to communicate with Mr. Williams, had no legal merit, Plaintiffs refused to relent. Then, in their briefing, Plaintiffs for the first time conceded they were not seeking certain claims against Hollerman that had no legal basis. Despite this concession, Plaintiffs still refused to dismiss their baseless claims, and continued to demand Hollerman communicate with Brandon Joe Williams.”
The court also noted that it “takes judicial notice that Brandon Joe Williams is the principal of “Williams & WILLIAMS Law Group,” (“WWLG”) an entity that concedes that it engages in the unlicensed practice of law as a matter of course.”
Reference case records: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68339268/knapp-v-compass-minnesota-llc/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc