On May 1, 2026, the court entered an order granting MJ Management’s Motion for Summary Judgment in the case of MJ Management v. Korthuis, (Whatcom Cty. Sup. Ct. No. 25-2-02690-37). The decision entered by Whatcom Superior Court Judge, Lee Grochman, granted MJ Management’s request for a judgment requiring payment of unpaid Joint Maintenance Fees in the amount of $3,022.47, and directed MJ Management to bring a Motion for Attorney’s fees. Like the Court’s decision in the Kelly case, the Court rejected the Defendant’s various attempts to defend against MJ Management’s collection efforts on complicated and technical readings of the law and the Homestead PRD.  

At the hearing, attorney Matt Davis, for the Defendant, raised a number of last-minute affirmative defenses during oral argument, which the Court determined to be untimely.  In a similar way, the Court rejected Mr. Davis’s arguments that MJ Management lacked a basis for its attorney’s fees and costs. Those were authorized as part of Judge Grochmal’s final orders on Summary Judgment. 

“It seems that the various defendants and their counsel in these collection actions by homeowners that stopped paying during the Hillius case simply want to continue litigating that case, which ended almost two years ago,” stated Jeffrey Possinger, one of the attorneys for MJ Management in the Hillius trial in May 2024, and attorney for the law firm now leading collection actions on behalf of MJ Management. “We are now simply doing our part to help settle accounts consistent with Judge Freeman’s decision in Hillius,” he said. 

Attorney, Ian Ducey, from the law firm has represented MJ Management in its collection efforts and successfully argued the Motions for Summary Judgment in both the Kelly Case and the Korthuis Case.