Laserfiche WebLink
1 ary 22. One 1 the parties, the Brush A and Eagle River <br /> 2 Company. The person who received it was Robert Stemwedel . <br /> 3Unidentifed: What was the date? <br /> 4MH: January 22nd. <br /> 5r4H: He didn' t notice an Eagle River Trust, but Robert Stemwedel <br /> 6 who was representing the Eagle River Trust on February 16 was <br /> 7 aware . . . . notice to an attorney and that constitutes notice <br /> g to the other whether or not . . . . <br /> 9RW: In other words, you' re saying that the Brush Creek was in <br /> 10 fact not the owner and that' s the evidence that we have <br /> 11 verbally from you and we have no written evidence of it, so <br /> 12 on. <br /> 13Unidentified: Owner of what, this land here? <br /> 143: I don' t know what if Brush Creek happens to own some contigu- <br /> 15 ous land or not but I do know that our client has land and my <br /> 16 understanding is that northwest and south, northwest and <br /> 17 east lands, that touch that affected land are all now owned <br /> 18 by Eagle River Trust. Perhaps your blueprints reflect Brush <br /> 19 Creek as the owner of some of those lands that Eagle River <br /> 20 now owns, but as of October, the lands were conveyed with <br /> 21 much of Brush Creeks' lands were conveyed to Eagle River. I <br /> 22 don' t believe that Brush Creek no longer has any kind of <br /> 23 ownership interest in the contiguous land there. I may be <br /> 24 mistaken, but I don' t believe they do. <br /> 25RW: Would you address your next point of concern. <br /> 26G: Alright, well there' s a notice problem which is clearly a <br /> 27 strong legal problem here. There subsequent problems we have <br /> 28 and then we haven' t had very much time that we feel we' re <br /> 29 entitled to, to review the application, but very quickly in <br /> -21- <br />