Laserfiche WebLink
are included in the pleading book, the ultimate landowner could be <br /> the LLC, the USFS or an unknown third party. The USFS has stated <br /> that if it agrees to acquire the land through an exchange, it does <br /> not want the improvements . Hence, reclamation would have to be <br /> conducted. on the other hand, if the LLC keeps the land, it has <br /> stated that it wants to retain the improvements . Consequently, <br /> reclamation would not be performed if the necessary documents are <br /> submitted to the Division. Since ownership of the property has not <br /> been determined, it is difficult to resolve this claim. In <br /> addition, there is an inherent conflict in MCR and the Trustee' s <br /> contract claims (claims 2, 3 , and 4) and this fifth claim for <br /> relief . In their contract claims, they allege that the Division is <br /> violating the liquidation plan by conducting certain reclamation <br /> tasks because the reclamation plan is incorporated into the <br /> liquidation plan and does not require these tasks . Taking these <br /> allegations as true, MCR and the Trustee argue that the reclamation <br /> plan is set and apparently cannot be amended except upon consent of <br /> all the creditors who are bound by the liquidation plan, i . e . , the <br /> contract . Yet, when it is to their benefit or the LLC' s benefit, <br /> they allege they want the reclamation plan changed. MCR and the <br /> Trustee cannot have it both ways . <br /> Possible resolution: The Division is willing to consider a <br /> change to the reclamation plan as long as it receives written <br /> assurances about which entity will be the landowner and that the <br /> landowner wants the structures to remain in place and releases the <br /> Division from any obligation to remove the structures and/or <br /> 19 <br />