Trial pending over changes at Seasons

SANDPOINT — A woman who backed out of the purchase of a $1 million condominium at The Seasons at Sandpoint is suing the project's developers for allegedly misrepresenting the project's security and density.

Veronica Raczkowski of Huntington Beach, Calif., is suing BVG Sandpoint Ltd. to recover a $156,000 down payment on the unit she planned to buy. She claims the company told her a security gate at the waterfront development's entrance was a permanent fixture. She also maintains BVG Sandpoint had a duty to inform her of plans to double the density within one of the condo complexes, according to the civil complaint.

Counsel for BVG Sandpoint filed an answer to the complaint denying the allegations, court records show.

Raczkowski, according to her suit, visited the development in 2005 and was told that the security gate was permanent and meant to keep the development private.

She also viewed future development plans for an adjacent building, which was to contain units of comparable size and cost.

Raczkowski entered into an agreement to purchase a unit, but discovered before the deal closed that the gate was removed. BVG Sandpoint was party to a 2004 agreement with the city which forbid the installation of a gate across Seasons Avenue, a public right of way, without permission from the city.

Raczkowski also learned that plans for the adjacent complex had been modified to make room for 32 units priced to sell for a fraction of the cost she had committed to, the suit alleges.

"These changes are a complete deviation from what the development was intended to be when we agreed to purchase our unit; therefore, these material changes have an adverse effect on the entire project, including our unit," Raczkowski said in a 2007 letter to the developers.

Raczkowski's counsel, Sandpoint attorneys Brent Featherston and Stephen Snedden, accuse BVG of breach of contract, misrepresentation and unjust enrichment because the company refused to refund the down payment.

BVG's Coeur d'Alene attorney, Bruce Anderson, denies the bulk of the allegations lodged by the plaintiffs.

Anderson contends the gate was installed strictly during construction of the development for safety and security reasons, and denies it was ever represented as a permanent feature. Anderson admits the adjacent building was modified to accommodate 32 units, but denies the change had a material effect on the plaintiff's rights or the value of her unit.

A trial date in the case is pending.