My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-11-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M2006010
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Minerals
>
M2006010
>
2010-11-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - M2006010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 4:26:38 PM
Creation date
11/16/2010 8:15:22 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M2006010
IBM Index Class Name
GENERAL DOCUMENTS
Doc Date
11/9/2010
Doc Name
Complaint Letter
From
Freida A. and Edward C. Schneider
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
Gen. Correspondence
Email Name
JLE
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ASTRELLA & RICE PC <br />AIPToRNEY9 AT I,AW <br />February 7, 2009 <br />Max I. Exline, Esq. <br />520 West 9" Street <br />Pueblo, CO 81003 <br />Frank E. Ruybalid, Esq. <br />134 W. Main Street, Suite 35 <br />Trinidad, CO 81082 <br />Re: Schneider v. MS Forest et al. <br />Las Animas County District Court, Case No, 07 CV 123 <br />Gentlemen: <br />t apologize for not getting back to you in a formal sense earlier. However, certain <br />client health issues, the breadth of the proposed easement provided by Mr. Ruybalid and <br />the discovery of certain matters related to MS Forest, and the investigation thereof, caused <br />the delay. <br />On Monday, February 9, 2009, 1 will submit a notice to set for trial. As currently <br />postured, I do not think we can settle the above matter. Factors giving rise to this <br />conclusion are as follows: <br />1. Although the proposed changes to the draft settlement agreement by <br />Mr. Ruybalid were acceptable, the breadth of the proposed easement <br />was not; <br />2. The breadth of the proposed easement rendered certain material <br />terms of the draft settlement agreement unworkable; and <br />3. Finally, and very substantively, developments relating to MS Forest, <br />which were not disclosed by Mr. Canda, would apparently cause any <br />present form of agreement to fail for lack of consideration. As you <br />know, a material consideration in the proposed settlement was the <br />payment of substantial consideration based upon the operations of <br />MS Forest. That presupposes actual operations on the Feister <br />property and the ability of MS Forest to pay monies to th Sc ?e ers. <br />In this regard, the existence of Jefferson County District Court Case <br />1801 BPo.kDNN,.\Y Suriz 1600 <br />DENWER GO 80202 <br />303 292 9021 c:u 303 296 0347 <br />http:/.???•x•H•.astreltala?v.com
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.