We saw the unit, and we decided to take it. We informed the employee of Croix Management, Lisa Corgard who showed us the unit that we require a refrigerator and we even put it on the move-in checklist. 26 days after move in, we still had no refrigerator. Croix Management tried to state that they were not required to provide a refrigerator, and that appliances were like furniture, and many tenants bring their own! They actually tried to sell that BS! The law (Forest Lake city ordinance) specifically required them to provide a refrigerator. We (a family with 3 small children) had to live for a month without a refrigerator, and threaten to put rent into escrow before they finally lived up to the most basic of their duties.

To backtrack a moment (as it becomes important later), when signing the lease I noticed that although the top of the contract clearly stated "Croix Management", that the landlord was identified in the lease as "Benjamin Townhomes". However, the address for Benjamin Townhomes was identical to the address for Croix Management. I inquired with the employee of Croix Management, Lisa Corgard, who signed the lease on behalf of "Benjamin Townhomes". She told me in no uncertain terms that Croix Management was the landlord, and that the name "Benjamin Townhomes" was to just keep the properties straight. We never had any form of contact nor any contract with the actual property owner, who lived n California. We were never informed of his name or any information about him whatsoever. His name appears nowhere on the lease. Every check was sent to Benjamin Townhomes, at Croix Management's address. Every single check was deposited into Croix Management's bank account, stamped with Croix Management's very own deposit stamp. There can be no question that Croix Management was the company doing business as Benjamin Townhomes, there is no other "company" involved.

I will skip the year of bad experiences during our lease, and focus on the wrap-up. Croix Management decided to not renew our lease, citing complaints about our dog. The dog is a companion animal for our disabled son on the advice of his doctor. These complaints were that there were dog urine stains on the lawn, defecation left on the lawn, and barking. The dog has hardly barked 10 times in her life, she is like furniture. The allegation about defecation was completely baseless as well, our boys picked it up every single day without exception, many times more than once a day. The stains on the lawn were the only true accusation, but not avoidable since we had about 10 feet of lawn, and the townhouse association requires that your dog urinate only on your own property. Dog urine kills grass, it is part and parcel of owning a dog, especially a female Labrador, and they are required to make reasonable accommodation. It was the responsibility of the townhouse association to replace grass and do lawn maintenance, not us. In short, there non-renewal of our lease was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. I wish that was the biggest problem and that it just ended there, but it gets much worse.

In Minnesota the law requires that a landlord return either the damage deposit, or an accurate accounting of exactly what was kept and why. If they do not do so within 21 days of the end of tenancy, they have to return not only what they kept, but an amount equal to it as a punitive measure against the landlord. We provided them our forwarding address, they did not respond until 6 weeks later, violating the law and becoming responsible to pay us double our damage deposit. We did finally receive an invoice of "repairs", stating that not only were they keeping the $1100 damage deposit, but that we owed them $3456 in additional damages! They placed this amount with a collection agency, who in turn placed this as a debt on our credit. Not only did we know the law was on our side, we knew their claims of damage were entirely bogus. We had no choice but to sue them to protect our credit.

We went to conciliation court. The judge stated that we failed to prove that we provided our forwarding address, even though we had a certified receipt from the letter we sent them. The address was clearly on the receipt, and it was on the envelope itself, and contained in a letter along with the keys. The judge found for the defendant, even though they could not produce a single receipt for these alleged "repairs". Our claim was dismissed, and their counterclaim of $3456 was granted!!

We removed the case to district court. During the interim, the property went into foreclosure. We had received a notice of foreclosure on the door shortly after the notice of non-renewal was issued. The sheriff's sale was scheduled for October 2009, we moved out in mid-September 2009. The property was not rented out again from the time we vacated to the foreclosure by the bank. When the bank reclaimed possession and sold the property, we went over to the property to talk with him. We discovered that absolutely none of the repairs Croix claimed to have done were actually done! They claimed to have ripped out and replaced all the carpet, re-plastered the walls, and that they repainted the unit. Between the security deposit and the claim against us, they fraudulently claimed $4556 in repairs, filed a collection attempt for $3456 and claimed in court for repairs they simply never did! Aside from the owner being able to confirm the work was not done, we have pictures showing it was never done.

So, now knowing that they could not claim they did the repairs, Croix switched tactics. After stating they did the repairs, after stating that we owed them $3456, after filing a counter-claim in court and testifying under oath that they did the repairs, they claimed that they were in fact NOT the landlords, and that the property owner, who lived in California and never had any contractual relationship with us whatsoever, was the proper party to sue! They pointed at "Benjamin Townhomes" saying that it was merely an allegation that Croix Management was the landlord!

The court bought it! In defense of the court, my lawyer was incompetent and failed to provide the ample evidence in our possession that Croix and "Benjamin Townhomes" were in fact the same company, and that Croix Management, doing business as Benjamin Townhomes, made the claim against us in the first place, proving that they DID have the security deposit, and that they were in fact the landlords! The lawyer I had up until the motion to dismiss left the law firm right after the motion hearing.

I was then assigned a lawyer who immediately took the letter requesting permission to file a motion for reconsideration (the rules in MN are a little odd) that conformed with the MN rules of civil procedure when I composed it and provided it to him. He put it on his firm's letterhead, made some changes to the format, and in doing so made it exceed the two page maximum length required by MN rules of civil procedure. I will be filing a complaint regarding the lawyers, the law firm, and the judges involved as well.

I have indisputable evidence of all of this, that Croix Management IS Benjamin Townhomes, that Croix Management controlled the security deposit, and that Croix Management committed blatant fraud in their stealing of our damage deposit by claiming repairs that were never done. We are hoping to find a lawyer who can handle the appeal. If anyone reading this can help at all, any and all help is appreciated.

Don't let this happen to you!!!!