When they bought their rural Ogilvie home in early 2003, Laurie and Larry Barber were tricked into paying $35,000 more total and $464 more per month than they’d agreed to, according to a lawsuit they’ve filed.

The Barbers also claim the previous owners, David and Kathleen Schuster, didn’t disclose the existence of a methamphetamine lab located on the property when they sold it.

The Schusters, however, say they weren’t aware of the meth lab, and say the Barbers signed an indemnity agreement, making their entire lawsuit baseless.

The Barbers have also sued Future Financial, the company who arranged the contract-for-deed purchase of the property from the Schusters, and Future Financial Employees John Thomsen and Ed Schuster.

Future Financial is based in the Twin Cities area.

The lawsuit specifically claims fraud, unjust enrichment, violation of a statute that prevents contaminating a well and not disclosing the meth chemical contamination of the site.

The lawsuit alleges the following: Roth told the Barbers he was the owner of the property, and Thomsen said he could get a conventional loan for the Barbers that would have payments of no more than $700 per month.

Thomsen, however, didn’t finish the loan application in the time he said he would, but he gave the Barbers the keys to the property and told them they could move in. However, when they got there, the Barbers found no heat or water was hooked up. They were unable to reach Roth.

After a month, the Barbers still hadn’t heard anything more on their loan application for the property, so a lease was drawn up with $1,200 per month payments. Laurie Barber questioned this, as she’d said she couldn’t afford more than $700, but Roth told her not to worry, that the mortgage payments would be $700.

At the end of March the Barbers still hadn’t heard anything more about the loan, so did some investigating and found that it was the Schusters and not Roth who owned the property.

When Laurie Barber contacted the Schusters, they told her they hadn’t given permission for the property to be sold for $180,000, the price Roth had agreed to sell it to them at.

Finally, on May 9, the Barbers entered into a contract for deed with the Schusters. Roth drafted the paperwork, and gave the Barbers a page stating the cost would be $180,000 and monthly payments would be $736. The Barbers signed this agreement, as did the Schusters.

After this, the Schusters said they wanted the contract typed. Roth took the signed contract and returned with a file folder with documents for the Barbers and another with documents for the Schusters.

Roth and the Schusters all said they were late for appointments and had to leave in a hurry. After they left Laurie Barber re-read the contract, and found the purchase price had been raised to $215,000, and that the monthly payments were now $1,200.

The Barbers say Roth, Thomsen and the Schusters were also aware of the property’s previous use as a methamphetamine lab and that it had never been cleaned up, but didn’t disclose those things.

The Barbers later started to get sick, and they blame the meth chemicals for that. On the advice of their doctor, they moved out in April of this year.

In addition, the Barbers claim in their lawsuit that the Schusters knew the septic system hadn’t passed an inspection, but didn’t tell the Barbers about it. They also say the well was tested and failed, so the Schusters had bleach and other chemicals poured down the well so the well would pass, which it did five days after the first test.

In their response, the Schusters admit Roth drafted the paperwork for the contract, but say they aren’t aware of the copy Roth provided to the Barbers. They also deny leaving the signing in a hurry. They say they were unaware of the property’s previous use as a meth lab.

The Schusters say they did have bleach and other chemicals poured into the well, and said they did so because Roth told them to.

Finally, the Schusters say that the Barbers entered into a mutual release and indemnification agreement by which the contract for deed was rescinded and say that agreement prevents them from bringing the suit. They’re claiming the Barbers’ suit is a breach of contract and an abuse of the legal process.

Article © Anywhere Communications All Rights Reserved