2009-05-20_REVISION - M1980246 (4)

Home Browse Search

05/20/2009 15:42 FAX [a 010/011 Chartes C. Powers - Attorney at Law, L.L.C- 0200 W. Lodge Drive P. O. Box 1273 i. South Fork, Colorado, S 1154 1742 rY? (Phone,) 719-873-1740 (Fax) 19873- cc owersatlaw a hottnail.com March 28, 2008 Michael Chapman, Esq. 150 E. 9"' Street, Suite 400 Durango, Colorado 81301 Re: Zellitti Properties and Hooker Construction Dear Mr- Chapman. As you know I have been rctained by Wilma Zellitti, managing partner, to represent Zellitti Properties regarding its interest as tenant-in-common in certain property in La Plata County. It is my understanding you represent Hocker Construction, LLP. You called me, and we discussed the situation at considerable length, Your initial concern when you. called was to determine whether Wilma Zellitti would sign the permitting papers for a new gravel pit at the property, I reiterated Zellitti Properties' demand that a written lease be entered with Hockey Construction for that company's continued use of Zellitti Properties's interest in the property, and royalty payments are made directly to her. You claimed surprise at this request, and you were very firm in your insistence that A&s, Zellitti had not previously expressed directly or through her attorney or agent a desire to have a written lease between Ilocker and Zellitti Properties. I pointed out Zellitti properties, attorney wrote regarding this in November 2006 shortly after the meeting you claim Mrs. Zellitti affirmed the existing lease between Hocker and Anthony Zellitti. You claimed unequivocally that Marla Underell, Esq. never in your dealing with her expressed Zellitti Properties' demand for a written lease with Hoc' kca pr tli -payments for her interest go directly tb Zell tti Who erties. After -- reviewing the file last night. I found at least four letters or a-mails directly to your client or to his attorney, three of which were directed to you, where this demand was made clearly in writing- I conclude fi•om this that you are not being candid with me or more importantly Zellitti properties. You agree that Hocker -did not know of Zellitti properties interest in the property prior to the meeting in late 2006 at the premises. You also admit, prior to the lease under which your client claims a right to mine the property that the deal was always verbal. Thus, it is clear that the written lease does not bind Zell itti Properties, and the only deal that exists is a continuation of the verbal arrangement that predated that agreement. In addition, a review of the correspondence shows that Hocker or its agents have been representing that the old pit was alrnost,complete for some time, and diflF'ering.time frames have been given- It is clear this has been nothiWg more than a ruse on yolLr Client'S part to delay honestly and legitimately dealing with Zellitti Properties as a legitimate owner of the property while taking their property for .docker`s own purposes. You client's correspondence indiea es the lease would not be necessary until the old pit is finished, implying a new lease would be