1979-07-02_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

superimpose their attenuated basis for making a claim of actual notice for the Eagle River Trust. Both these contentions are contrary to the undisputed facts as revealed in the record. Brush Creek and Eagle River Company, and the Eagle River 1978 Trust are indisputably two totally different entities (see e.g. Chester Goldman Affidavit, paragraphs 9-11) . The fact that one man, Chester M. Goldman, happens to hold some interest in both of the separate entities cannot be, though it appears to be the sole basis for Plaintiffs ' contention, the basis for creating constructive notice upon the Eagle River Trust when the Brush Creek and Eagle River Company has received notice. As demonstrated by the Affidavit of Mr. Goldman (Chester Goldman Affidavit, paragraph 9) , not less than 20 other persons or entities unrelated to him, who are not beneficiaries of the Eagle River Trust own interest -n the Brush Creek and Eagle River Companies. Thus , the fact that the Brush Creek Company shared with the Eagle Trust the post office box in Eagle County, Colorado, in no way demonstrates commonality in interest or knowledge between the two entities , but rather simply demonstrates that as a matter of convenience two entities, with substantial out-of- state interests , sought to expedite receipt of mail . That Mr. Goldman may have been informed during the second week of February, 1979 by Mr. Stemwedel in a telephone conversation that the Nottingham application had been filed, does certainly not constitute the advanced notice (i . e. under the statute that notice should have been received five weeks prior to that conver- sation) , nor does it constitute the informed notice (i . e. the elements of §34-32-113 (10) (c) were not supplied) , that the Plaintiff Trust was entitled to by law. Further, for the Defendant to state that Nottingham' s application "was a matter which Mr. Goldman had already learned by reading a legal notice in -9-