Skip to content

Thu 19 Jun 2025 18 46 32 0400 Re Fw Sweatman V. Zeeman 21Cv9795 1978A5F5 2

Field Value
Category Settlement > Correspondence
Confidence high
Reason [sonnet] Client emailing attorney about settlement agreement terms and plat
Original File thu_19_jun_2025_18_46_32_-0400_re_fw_sweatman_v._zeeman_21cv9795_1978a5f5_2.eml
File Type EML
Source gmail-export
thu_19_jun_2025_18_46_32_-0400_re_fw_sweatman_v._zeeman_21cv9795_1978a5f5_2.eml

Email

Header Value
From Sarah Zeeman <szeeman@gmail.com>
To Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
CC Jeff Banks <jeffsbanks@hotmail.com>, Tania Tuttle <ttuttle@mmatllaw.com>
Subject Re: FW: Sweatman v. Zeeman, 21cv9795
Date Thu, 19 Jun 2025 18:46:32 -0400
Email Body
He needs to Move the fence

You are not following the exact words of the transcript and you keep lying
to me … ie the cantilever was a flat out lie that I just learned about. -
help me understand how that is fiduciary??



On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 6:19 PM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
wrote:

> For clarity, the Court Order uses “settlement agreement” as a
> non-capitalized, non-defined term; it is used in the general sense to
> indicate that the Judge is aware the parties have reached a resolution as
> it was read into the transcript at court. It is not referring to any
> specific settlement agreement and the settlement agreement draft was never
> sent to the Court. What we are doing with the settlement agreement draft is
> to memorialize the agreement all parties reached. We needed the Court Order
> in order to effectuate the settlement due to the non-conformities and to
> expedite the City/County approval of the plat as strongly suggested by
> Gaddy which you were aware of. This is the same as someone filing a “Notice
> of Settlement” which stays a case pending the parties memorializing their
> agreement into a written document. Formal settlement agreements aren’t
> reviewed by the Judge unless there has been a breach and someone files a
> motion to enforce.
>
>
>
> In our case, the Judge was aware of the potential, complex issues with the
> variance appeal and time frame to resolve the case. A Judge is not going to
> take the case off of a calendar unless there is a document indicating the
> parties settled, which is what this is.
>
>
>
> The Court only reviewed this Order and the attached plat.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if you need further clarity.
>
>
>
> *Brett Michael-Schiff Ledermeier*
> *Senior Associate, Real Estate Litigation*
>
>
> *Mailing:  850 Windy Hill Road | Unit 1762 |
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/850+Windy+Hill+Road+%7C+Unit+1762+%7C+Smyrna,+GA+30081?entry=gmail&source=g> Smyrna,
> GA 30081
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/850+Windy+Hill+Road+%7C+Unit+1762+%7C+Smyrna,+GA+30081?entry=gmail&source=g>*
>
> 11625 Rainwater Drive
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/11625+Rainwater+Drive++%7C++Ste+125+%7C++Alpharetta,+Ga+30009?entry=gmail&source=g>
>  |
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/11625+Rainwater+Drive++%7C++Ste+125+%7C++Alpharetta,+Ga+30009?entry=gmail&source=g>
>  Ste 125
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/11625+Rainwater+Drive++%7C++Ste+125+%7C++Alpharetta,+Ga+30009?entry=gmail&source=g>
>  |
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/11625+Rainwater+Drive++%7C++Ste+125+%7C++Alpharetta,+Ga+30009?entry=gmail&source=g>
> Alpharetta, Ga 30009
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/11625+Rainwater+Drive++%7C++Ste+125+%7C++Alpharetta,+Ga+30009?entry=gmail&source=g>
> 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:* Thursday, June 19, 2025 5:56 PM
> *To:* Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> *Cc:* Jeff Banks <jeffsbanks@hotmail.com>; Tania Tuttle <
> ttuttle@mmatllaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: FW: Sweatman v. Zeeman, 21cv9795
>
>
>
> Odyssey has it listed as closed.
>
>
>
> I spoke to the court because you never said anything ever to me- they
> confirmed it was closed and not on the judges docket.
>
>
>
> I have zero protection from the court - and per the transcript’s exact
> words you have decided not to follow.
>
>
>
> He needs to move the fence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 5:52 PM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> wrote:
>
> Sarah,
>
>
>
> The Judge reviewed the plat and we settled in court. The Judge was
> demanding the Order with the plat attached. Also, the case is
> administratively closed which was done by the Judge; this is not closed. We
> have no control over how the Court manages a case. Per the hearing, which
> you attended, they demanded that we meet the various deadlines and, upon
> receipt of the plat, stated that the case would be administratively closed
> pending final settlement. This does not impact any motion to enforce
> settlement or other filings which may be applicable.
>
>
>
> *Brett Michael-Schiff Ledermeier*
> *Senior Associate, Real Estate Litigation*
>
>
> *Mailing:  **850 Windy Hill Road | Unit 1762 |*
> <https://www.google.com/ma

Attachments

image001.jpg (image/jpeg, 4 KB)

image001.jpg

image003.jpg (image/jpeg, 7 KB)

image003.jpg

image002.png (image/png, 3 KB)

image002.png

Download Original (.eml)