1979-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

• Permit No: M1978352
• IBM Index Class Name: Enforcement
• Doc Date: 7/2/1979
• Doc Name: PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 79-CV-1633
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

connection with the Nottingham application and the law firm
of Lamm & Schader has been the sole firm retained by the
Eagle River 1978 Trust to represent its interest in this •
matter. Mr. Stemwedel was involved in some unrelated real
estate transactions concerning the Eagle River 1978 Trust
which were essentially concluded in September, 1978 .
Defendants contention that Mr. Stemwedel represented
the trust "in connection with numerous wide-ranging real estate
transactions and other legal matters" is totally false specula-
tion which is totally unsupported by any evidence in or outside
of the record.
It is important to note that Mr. Stemwedel would be
in a conflict of interest situation regarding actions he may
have undertaken for the Brush Creek and Eagle River Company
and the Eagle River 1978 Trust and any initial actions which
he may have undertaken, prior to recognizing his conflict,
with regard to the Trust interests in the Eagle Pit operation
cannot be considered authorized. (Plaintiff' s Memo Brief, pages 11-12) .
Further, it is important to reiterate that none of
the evidentiary elements necessary to be established to create
actual notice upon the trust were established (See Plaintiff ' s
Memorandum Brief, pages 17 and 18) with any evidence.
For all the reasons above, the Board' s finding of
notice is contrary to statutory and constitutional requirements
and is unsupported by any competent evidence. No statutory
notice was accomplished, actual notice is inadequate, and it was
nonetheless not established.
IV. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons set forth above and in Plaintiff ' s
Memorandum Brief, Plaintiff ' s Eagle River 1978 Trust respect-
fully request that the Court deny Defendant ' s Motion for
-11-