Tuesday, February 19, 2008

No Word From Permit Manager

No word from the City's permit
manager, but instead I've heard
from EWCP Inc.'s lawyer. I received
a letter and an Agreement of Purchase
and Sale in the mail today. The offer
was the same.

If the Seller rejects the Buyer's
original offer, why would the Buyer
continue to counter the Seller's
counter-offers with the same offer
that's been rejected by the Seller?

I spoke to the Buckingham agent
today, who said he wanted to speak
to me first before I looked at the
agreement because he anticipated
my rejection of the offer. He knows
I've rejected the same offer a number
of times already. He said that he wanted
to meet with lawyer#1 and myself so
we could resolve those items that have
caused the present impasse. I agreed. I
told him I wanted to meet with lawyer#1
first though. I'd get back to him. So
that's that for now.

Now for the lawyer's letter. He wrote
that every individual that sold their
property to EWCP Inc., did so with a
confidentiality clause for both the
purchase price and the expenses. So
what? Perhaps the individuals didn't
know any better about the purchase price,
that once the deed is registered with the
OLR on the closing date, the purchase price
is public.

And what about the appraisals? Since
the appraised value was not included
in the confidentiality clause, then
the individuals can disclose the
appraised value of the properties
The purchase price is the appraised
value plus 10%. So you just have to
ask the right question and if you get
the answer, add 10%. That'll give you
the purchase price. The other option
is to have a title search done.

The lawyer let me know that he is aware
of my blog and took issue with the dollar
amount I posted for the purchase of 2929
Riverside Drive East. In an earlier post
I wrote that I heard through the grapevine,
that the Revels received a total of $262,000.
The lawyer is claiming that the amount is
inacurrate and so is the breakdown between the
purchase price and expenses. Really? And
how can it be proved that it's inaccurate with
a confidentialty clause that prevents the
disclosure of the purchase price and expenses.
The $262,000 could very well be accurate info.
It sounds about right to me.

More on the letter later.

No comments: