Sat 1 Feb 2025 12 17 27 0500 Re No To 4 Ft Stakes 194C2847 2¶

Brett, you are the title attorney for this case.
Can you please answer my questions?

Mandatory per who/what, and can YOU show me?
It is redundant; the drainage clause already covers this - look at the
survey, and you will see it.

*Where did it come from? Please explain. *

On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 12:11 PM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
wrote:

> The plat is prepared by Gaddy based on the legal requirements for a plat.
> He can provide an overview and the authorities on plat preparation.
>
> *Brett Michael-Schiff Ledermeier*
> 11625 Rainwater Drive  |  Ste 125   |   Alpharetta, Ga 30009
> Direct:  404.365.4564
>
> Main: 770.200.7000
>
> bledermeier@mmatllaw.com
>
>
>
> [image: Image]
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> No attorney-client relationship exists by virtue of this communication in
> absence of an engagement letter or fee contract. In addition, unless you
> are in the To: or CC: line of this email, you are not an intended
> recipient. The information accompanying this email transmission may
> contain confidential or legally privileged information meant for ONLY
> the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> reliance upon the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this email in error, please delete this email and notify the
> sender immediately.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Sarah Zeeman <szeeman@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 1, 2025 12:02:52 PM
> *To:* Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> *Cc:* Jeff Banks <jeffsbanks@hotmail.com>; Tania Tuttle <
> ttuttle@mmatllaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: No to 4 ft stakes.
>
> Mandatory per what and can you show me?
> It is redundant; the drainage clause already covers this.
>
> *Where did it come from? *
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2025 at 11:51 AM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> If they need to reissue one, they can do that. Most times, the check is
> still fine. Also, is the indemnification paragraph the only comment on the
> plat? I thought you had additional concerns? The indemnification paragraph
> is mandatory; Gaddy can discuss it in further detail. I am still waiting on
> his confirmation for 4PM on Monday and will send an update as soon as I
> hear from him. If you have other comments on the plat, I need them to send
> to opposing counsel.
>
>
>
> *Brett Michael-Schiff Ledermeier*
> *Senior Associate, Real Estate Litigation*
>
>
> *Mailing:  850 Windy Hill Road | Unit 1762 | Smyrna, GA 30081*
>
> 11625 Rainwater Drive  |  Ste 125   |   Alpharetta, Ga 30009
> Direct:  404.365.4564
>
> Main: 770.200.7000
>
> bledermeier@mmatllaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> No attorney-client relationship exists by virtue of this communication in
> absence of an engagement letter or fee contract. In addition, unless you
> are in the To: or CC: line of this email, you are not an intended
> recipient. The information accompanying this email transmission may
> contain confidential or legally privileged information meant for ONLY
> the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or
> reliance upon the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. If you
> receive this email in error, please delete this email and notify the
> sender immediately.
>
>
>
> *From:* Sarah Zeeman <szeeman@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 1, 2025 11:03 AM
> *To:* Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> *Cc:* Jeff Banks <jeffsbanks@hotmail.com>; Tania Tuttle <
> ttuttle@mmatllaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: No to 4 ft stakes.
>
>
>
> Brett,
>
>
>
> The attached check is now void,...  link: https://prnt.sc/n6oEjRaNiya8
>
> Please advise.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 4:49 PM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sarah,
>
>
>
> I cannot discuss coverage regarding the depositions; that is a question
> that must be directed to Marimar. As for the settlement, we received the
> check from opposing counsel and are holding it. This check is not in an
> interest-bearing account and we can’t release it until the settlement
> agreement is executed.
>
>
>
> With regard to the meeting with Gaddy, we only have until Monday, per the
> Judge’s Order, to meet with him and finalize the survey. This must be a top
> priority. The Judge indicated that counsel must meet with him, but I
> presumed you would also like to be present at the meeting which is why I
> asked for dates/times that work for you.
>
>
>
> On that note, we have discussed the survey over several phone calls, and
> you indicated that you would send a highlighted/noted copy of the survey
> with any questions/concerns you may have. Can you please provide it at your
> earliest convenience. Further, as explained on our calls, the
> indemnification language is standard and required on all new plats. I know
> you have raised this as a concern, and objected to the same,