On March 18, 2026, the court entered an order granting MJ Management’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of MJ Management v. Kelly, (Whatcom Count Sup. Ct. No. 25-2-02688-37). The decision entered by Judge Jennifer Slattery, both granted MJ Management’s request for a judgment requiring payment of unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees by the Defendant but also resolved a number of legal questions that remained unanswered by the court over the last few years. The decision established MJ Management’s right to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees during the time that MJ Management operated at Homestead under its Management and Lease Agreement, as well as its right to attorney’s fees and costs. Equally important was the court’s sound rejection of various defenses that had been raised by Kelly’s legal counsel, which had been communicated to Homestead homeowners in the months following the decision in years-long Hillius v. 18 Paradise litigation. A copy of the Motion can be found at the bottom of this article. 

The Defendant, Kelly, was represented by attorneys Matthew Davis and K. David Andersson, the same attorneys that had represented class members in the Hillius litigation. For over a year since the entry of final orders in that case, several of the class representatives and their counsel had raised objections to MJ Management’s right to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees and continued to encourage homeowners to refuse to pay the amounts they owned. The Court’s decision in MJ Management v. Kelly soundly rejected these arguments and clears the way to MJ Management’s collection of the remaining amounts owing along with a right to its attorney’s fees and costs under the Homestead CC&Rs. 

The Motion for Summary Judgment was argued before Judge Slattery on February 202, 2026, by attorney Ian Ducey from Possinger Law Group for MJ Management, and attorney Matthew Davis on behalf of Defendant, Kelly, with a large number of Homestead residents watching via Zoom. 

In its decision, the Court noted that “no evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact was provided by [the] Defendant.” And went on to rule that “…[o]wners of units within the Island Green Commons Condominium are subject to the Homestead [CC&Rs]…”  

The Court ruled that the Condominium and its units were “residential platted area[s]” subject to the CC&Rs…,” soundly rejected the arguments raised by Kelly’s counsel. During oral argument, attorney Matthew Davis also conceded that the other condominiums located within Homestead PRD were covered by the Homestead CC&Rs. “Their argument here was the same ‘stealth legal theory’ that the Plaintiffs had previously attempted to bring into the Hillius trial but which was dismissed by the trial judge.” stated attorney, Jeffrey Possinger, who represented MJ Management in the Hillius litigation. “It is satisfying to have this issued finally resolved and finally put to bed.”  

Most significant in the Court’s order was the determination that 18 Paradise had assigned the right to collect Joint Maintenance Fees to MJ Management from January 1, 2018 to May 31, 2023, and was authorized to collect unpaid balances incurred by Homestead homeowners during that time period. The court’s order granted MJ Management’s right to collect attorney’s fees and costs and directed MJ Management to bring a declaration for attorney’s fees within 14 days of the court’s order. 

Possinger Law Group represented MJ Management in the Hillis v. 18 Paradise litigation through the trial and has continued to represent MJ Management in its efforts to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees. 

CASE UPDATES (05/05/2026)

Since the entry of the Court’s decision on March 18, 2025, there have been numerous case developments.

Motion for Reconsideration Denied. 

Following the entry of the decision on summary judgment, Defendant’s counsel brought a Motion for Reconsideration, essentially rearguing the same positions that the Court had previously rejected, and raising some issues based on Defendant’s counsel having taken the time to read some of the earlier court filings more closely. All of these arguments to reverse the Court’s decision in the favor of MJ Management were ultimately unpersuasive and Judge Slattery denied the motion.  A copy of the Order denying Kelly’s Motion for Reconsideration is available below.

MJ Management Awarded Attorneys Fees and Costs. 

While Kelly’s Motion for Reconsideration was pending, MJ Management brought its motion for attorney’s fees and costs as directed by the Court. A day after denying Kelly’s Motion for Reconsideration, the Court granted MJ Management’s request for attorney’s fees and costs over Plaintiff’s counsel’s objections.  Kelly’s objections were essentially attempts to re-argue the previously failed arguments from the Motion for Summary Judgment, which were soundly repudiated by the decision to deny reconsideration.  

In the end, the Court awarded MJ Management $3,780.09 for unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees and $20,052.56 in attorney’s fees and costs. The Court ordered that fees and costs be paid in the next 30 days. Even though Kelly and her counsel vigorously argued that “the legal system could not function if it charge almost five time the amount in controversy to resolve disputes,” MJ Management pointed out that this concern is a significant factor in why contracts contain fee shifting provisions, and that “parties must evaluate whether a breach is worth the risk if they must pay the prevailing parties’ fees,” and the Court agreed and awarded MJ Management’s fees and costs. 

MJ Management Continues Winning Streak in Korthuis Case. 

While the various issues in the Kelly case were pending, MJ Management has continued to move forward with another companion case: MJ Management v. Korthuis, Whatcom Cty. Sup. Ct. #25-2-02690-37. On May 1, 2026, Whatcom County Superior Court Judge, Lee Grochmal, granted MJ Management’s Motion for Summary Judgment on similar facts to those in Kelly. The Defendant in that raised many of the same defenses that were raised in Kelly, and like the case in Kelly the Court rejected those arguments and decided in favor of MJ Management in its attempts to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees. More information on the Korthuis case can be found here.

Attorney, Ian Ducey, from Possinger Law Group, successfully argued for MJ Management’s Motions for Summary Judgment in both the Kelly and Korthuis cases. 

Possinger Law Group Posts FAQs 

In response to what appears to be a significant amount of confusion and misinformation circulating within the Homestead community, Possinger Law Group recently posted some FAQ’s in the hopes of bringing some clarity to MJ Management’s efforts to collect unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees.  

“Relying on legal advice that you get from ‘the Internet’ is always a risky strategy,” says Jeffrey Possinger, attorney at Possinger Law Group.  “As well-intentioned as many Homestead homeowners may be in their beliefs about collection efforts following the Court’s decisions in the Hillius case, unfortunately for many of them they have been misinformed, and in some cases are simply wrong.” The recently posted FAQs clarify the role that Possinger Law Group plays in connection with MJ Management’s collection efforts, the Court’s decision in Hillius and the obligation for some homeowners still to pay unpaid amounts, and other information that should be useful to Homestead homeowners. Possinger Law Group’s Homestead FAQ page can be found here. 

= = = = =

References:

2026-03-18_ORD_MSJ Granted

2026-04-24_ORD_Granting Attorneys Fees