Bellingham, WA

Following a hearing on Friday, October 16, 2026, in Whatcom County Superior Court, the court granted MJ Management’s Motions for Summary Judgment in two collection actions brought against Homestead homeowners Scott Hillius and Mark Miedema. The judgments cover amounts owed to MJ Management during the period in which it operated under a Management and Lease Agreement with 18 Paradise, LP, the former owner of the Homestead Golf Course.

Both Hillius and Miedema, represented by K. David Andersson, raised a number of defenses that the court rejected. Specifically, in Hillius’s case, the defendant failed to provide any evidence to refute MJ Management’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court entered orders in both cases and granted MJ Management’s request to bring motions for attorney’s fees.

Both successful motions were argued by attorney Ian Ducey, an associate attorney at Possinger Law Group. The court agreed that there was ample evidence to establish that 18 Paradise’s assignment to MJ Management of the right to collect joint maintenance fees also included the authority to pursue legal action to collect those fees. This assignment was subsequently affirmed by 18 Paradise’s successor in interest, IMM Capital Advisors.

Both Hillius and Miedema are class representatives in the Hillius v. 18 Paradise litigation and have, to date, refused to pay any joint maintenance fees associated with Homestead since the litigation began. Attorneys K. David Andersson and Matthew Davis, who represent parties in the Hillius litigation, have also represented nonpaying Homestead homeowners in collection actions while simultaneously representing certain class members who claim they are owed refunds for overpayments.

“These differing positions create a very odd situation as these cases proceed,” says attorney Jeffrey Possinger. “But here, the court got this right as to nonpaying homeowners.”

Judge David Freeman’s order in the Hillius litigation, entered on September 11, 2024, found the Sixth and Seventh Amendments void but affirmed that the previously imposed $36.00 monthly joint maintenance fee was proper and owing. Possinger Law Group represents MJ Management in its efforts to collect the amounts that remain unpaid pursuant to Judge Freeman’s order.

“Judge Grochmal’s decision today clears the way for collecting the remaining amounts owing by nonpaying Homestead homeowners, including the right to collect attorney’s fees from those who choose to fight,” Possinger added.

Motions for attorney’s fees in the Hillius and Miedema cases are expected to be filed in the coming days.

Case Update (10/20/2026)

On October 20, 2026, attorney David K. Andersson filed two Motions for Reconsideration of Judge Grochmal’s October 16 decisions in the Hillius case (WCSC #26-2-00712-37) and the Miedema case (WCSC #26-2-00713-37). The following day, October 21, 2026, the court denied both motions.

In its decision on the Hillius case, the court stated, in part:

“18 Paradise assigned all of its right, title and interest in and to the Declarant Rights to IMM Capital Advisors, Inc., on September 26, 2025. Before that time, 18 Paradise had already assigned some Declarant Rights to MJ Management, as determined by Judge Freeman in his Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on Remaining Claims, filed September 11, 2024 in Hillius v. 18 Paradise, 20-2-00701-37. Subsequently, IMM acknowledged, in writing via the Declaration of Sugn Han filed in this case on September 28, 2026, that at the time of the Assignment of Declarant Rights from 18 Paradise to IMM, 18 Paradise had already assigned certain declarant rights to MJ Management, and IMM acknowledged that it would not be collecting outstanding dues from January 2018 – May 2023. This Court on October 16, 2026, found that this acknowledgement was sufficient to find that the verbal assignment of rights to MJ Management for that time period was valid despite the lack of writing, because IMM acknowledged that it would not have the authority to collect dues for that time period, and because 18 Paradise assigned all of its remaining declarant rights, as of September 26, 2025, to IMM and would therefore not have the right to collect. RCW 4.08.080, Unifund CCR Partners v. Sunde, 163 Wash. App. 473 (2011).

Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider is denied without Reply or oral argument per WCCR 59.”

In its decision on the Miedema case, the court stated, in part:

“This matter is related to the case of MJ Management v. Scott Hillius (26-2-000712-37. MJ Management is represented by the same attorney in both cases, and the Defendants are both represented by the same attorney.”

The court further explained that no additional action was necessary in Miedema’s case because there was no pending motion to dismiss. The court noted that, had such a motion been pending, it likely would have been denied for the same reasons the court denied Hillius’s motion to dismiss that day.

Both Hillius and Miedema subsequently filed identical Motions for Reconsideration of the court’s October 16, 2026, ruling. The court denied Hillius’s Motion for Reconsideration on the merits. The court denied Miedema’s Motion for Reconsideration because no decision had been made on the issue in his case and, therefore, there was nothing to reconsider.

About Possinger Law Group, PLLC

Founded in 2001, Possinger Law Group is a boutique law firm dedicated to providing exceptional service to small and medium-sized businesses and the individuals who own them. Clients facing serious challenges turn to Possinger Law Group for trusted advice and advocacy, particularly when navigating high-conflict situations and complex legal matters. In litigation, Possinger Law Group works closely with clients to resolve disputes effectively and, when necessary, advocates aggressively on their behalf in court.

Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management throughout the trial in the Hillius v. 18 Paradise litigation and continues to represent MJ Management in its efforts to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees.

= = = = =

References:

Order Granting Summary Judgment (Scott Hillius) (TBD)

Order Granting Summary Judgment (Mark Miedema) (TBD)

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Hillius)

Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration (Miedema)