Wed 2 Jul 2025 18 10 37 0400 Re Closed Court Case 3 17 25 197Cd312 2¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Category | Attorney Misconduct > Brett Ledermeier |
| Confidence | high |
| Reason | [sonnet] Zeeman confronting Ledermeier about Gaddy surveyor and unauthorized actions |
| Original File | wed_2_jul_2025_18_10_37_-0400_re_closed_court_case_3_17_25_197cd312_2.eml |
| File Type | EML |
| Source | gmail-export |
Email¶
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| From | Sarah Zeeman <szeeman@gmail.com> |
| To | Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com> |
| CC | Tania Tuttle <ttuttle@mmatllaw.com> |
| Subject | Re: Closed Court Case 3/17/25 |
| Date | Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:10:37 -0400 |
Email Body
*Brett - What did Gaddy say today?*
* Where is the signed and updated topography report? *
*This is your responsibility, not the policyholders'.*
So, the Opposing counsel went around you, the title policyholder's lawyer,
who had purchased the survey and emailed Gaddy without your knowledge. Then
you waited a month, and *you completely omitted that it was the opposing
party that did this when you partially** brought up that a cantilever** was
added*, and only did this as it was the day you submitted it ,closing the
case without my knowledge*. *
*Brett, you didn't respond to or address the title holder's confusion when
you submitted this. *
https://prnt.sc/iJXo5RPZ-iwT
*How is this fiduciary?*
On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 4:47 PM Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
wrote:
> Sarah,
>
>
>
> As you are aware, I have not ignored any requests; you are copied on the
> emails that date back to February. Further, I did not have Gaddy do the
> revision or site visit; opposing counsel emailed Gaddy directly and the
> correction was so that it was accurate. Further, the cantilever has no
> impact on the boundary line.
>
>
>
> Finally, as previously stated, I did not file a case disposition form in
> your case. The Order states that the case is administratively stayed.
> Further, please see the below Uniform Superior Court Rule which,
> presumably, is why the Court filed a case disposition form. With our order
> stating that the case was administratively stayed, we did not submit a case
> disposition form; the clerk or staff attorney must have per the superior
> court rule. The case is settled and any motion to enforce the settlement
> can still be filed; this is a non-issue for the matter given the settlement
> agreement. I am hopeful that this email will put these concerns to rest. If
> you have other concerns, please reach out to Jeff to ask for any clarifying
> information.
>
>
>
> *Rule 39.2.3. Civil Case Disposition Form*
>
>
>
> Any order disposing of a civil action presented for consideration to a
> judge by any attorney or party shall be accompanied by a completed civil
> case disposition form. If the order is prepared or reframed by the court,
> the court shall cause the civil case disposition form to be completed or
> corrected, if necessary. The civil case disposition form shall be sent to
> the clerk along with the relevant order to become part of the file for the
> case. The clerk shall require any attorney or party filing a voluntary
> dismissal or settlement of a civil action to complete a civil case
> disposition form. The form shall become part of the file for the case.
> The clerk shall use the specific type of disposition found on the completed
> civil case disposition form to enter the specific type of disposition upon
> the civil docket of the court, unless it appears to the satisfaction of the
> clerk by an inspection of the order that the type of disposition has been
> recorded in error. If the wrong type of disposition has been recorded, the
> clerk shall correct the civil case disposition form and enter the correct
> type of disposition upon the civil docket of the court.
>
>
>
> *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:* Tuesday, July 1, 2025 8:00 AM
> *To:* Brett Ledermeier <bledermeier@mmatllaw.com>
> *Cc:* Tania Tuttle <ttuttle@mmatllaw.com>
> *Subject:* Re: Closed Court Case 3/17/25
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Brett - call Gaddys cell he wants to hear from you.
>
>
>
> He might want more money?
>
>
>
> You blantantly* ignored the policy holders request for months* - looking
> forward to you representing the policy holder since it is your fudicary
> responsibility verses telling the holder to do your job that hasn't been
> done.
>
>
>
> You made GADDY do the Sweatmans alteration and a new site visit when you
> knowningly closed my case incorrectly THE NEXT DAY?? and then in writing
> tried to put the blame on the court clerks saying they didn't tell anyone?
>
>
>
> Your name is all over it
>
>
>
>
>
>
Attachments¶
image001.jpg (image/jpeg, 4 KB)
image002.png (image/png, 1 MB)
