Mon 6 Apr 2026 11 29 47 0400 Re External Drive Shipping Information For Client File Reque 19D636A0 2¶

Brett,

I am writing to formally document serious concerns regarding your handling
of my case and to request clarification and production of outstanding
materials.

To be clear, I remain willing to resolve this matter consistent with what
was stated on the record at the May 2024 hearing—specifically, to reclaim
my land and address the drainage issues. However, I require time to conduct
a complete and accurate review of materials that were not previously
provided to me in a timely manner.

I am not refusing to engage in this matter; I am requesting the information
necessary to provide an informed and accurate response, as well as
sufficient time to review and confirm that all documents have been provided.

At the hearing, the Court referenced submission of a survey for approval.
It did not require, nor did I agree to, any waiver of my property rights,
municipal rights, or future claims related to ongoing water damage to my
property.

Despite this, a proposed order and related plat appear to have been
prepared and filed without my knowledge or approval, and without a
finalized written settlement agreement executed by me. The plat language
includes provisions that materially and indefinitely impact my property
rights, including future rights upon sale. I have consistently objected to
such language, and that objection has not changed and the language clause
was never removed.

Further, I was not informed at the time these filings or submissions were
made. As a result, I was deprived of the opportunity within the appropriate
timeframe to review, object, or revoke actions taken on my behalf.

I also requested that the variance route be explored, including the
potential implications and feasibility of that approach. That request was
not meaningfully addressed or evaluated, despite my understanding that it
was a preferred or viable option from the City of Brookhaven’s perspective.
This alternative was not fully communicated to me or pursued, and I was not
provided sufficient information to make an informed decision regarding that
option.

Additionally, there was a prolonged lapse in communication beginning in or
around July 2025 for approximately four months, followed by continued
failure to provide requested communications and records despite multiple
requests from December 2025 through February 2026.

These issues raise serious concerns, including but not limited to:

   - Failure to communicate material developments in my case
   - Preparation and filing submission of documents without my knowledge or
   authorization
   - Circulation or presentation of a document bearing my name and another
   party’s case number in a manner that creates the appearance of execution or
   approval where none was given
   - Failure to respond and provide my client file request and requested
   materials in a timely manner
   - Continued pressure to execute documents or agree to terms that extend
   beyond what was stated on the record, including provisions that materially
   impact my property rights and to which I have not consented, despite my
   stated objections.

Accordingly, please provide the following:

   - All phone logs, call records, and communication summaries for my matter
   - All materials previously requested in my December communication
   - The court filing certificates from January 2025 through March 2025

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not consent to any agreement, order, or
plat language that restricts my property rights or waives municipal or
legal recourse based on provisions I did not review and approve.

If these issues are not addressed, I will consider all available options,
including escalation to the appropriate regulatory authorities.

Please confirm receipt of this email and provide a timeline for production
of the requested materials.

Sarah

On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 5:32 PM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
wrote:

> Sarah,
>
>
>
> With regard to the March Order, you have all documents. The Order stemmed
> from the hearing, which you were present for, wherein the Judge said that
> we needed to submit an order to the Court to approve the plat
> reconfiguration to avoid the variance process which was Gaddy’s proposal
> and agreed to by all parties at the hearing. The Judge, as you know, was
> quite frustrated at the delay from Gaddy on the survey and frustrated with
> all parties – she heavily monitored the case. When the Judge demanded the
> Order, it was delivered and only included what was already agreed upon at
> the hearing.
>
>
>
> You were aware of the Order, as was your private counsel. With regard to
> “case closed”, I have explained that in length and provided the superior
> court rules regarding the same; this was not done by us or any other
> counsel – it was the Court. This case settled in May 2024 and remains
> outstanding due to the parties and any motion to enforce/motion for
> sanctions is not going to be well received by the Judge.
>
>
>
> The City Attorney redlines does