August 18 2016 Emails to Austin & Lawson to negotiate settlement

Neil,

Your response is interesting and correct... "You don't know what you are talking about" , I don't know anything about law, that is why I am asking for what is on the subject of this email.

As to what "fully cooperative" means, again I don't know, and have asked you to give me the law that gives you the authority so I may read it, and comply.

Threatening me with an eviction, is unusual, and again something I don't fully comprehend, is not eviction ultimate goal you pursue? Although I once thought, (by mistake), Chapter 7 would permit me to pay my obligations and keep this property it appears to me now that Chapter 7 it is strictly about liquidating and evicting.  

You say, "If you are not there and fully cooperative, we will not talk further." You began last Thursday by saying that you could not communicate with me, now you threaten to not communicate with me, that is ironic.

I will do all I can to cooperate, but you have failed to tell me what law or case gives you this right. I will therefore use common sense when you arrive.  

As to the portion of the statement where you say "If you are not there' , I did write this in the previous email, which still stands true.

You will find I am quite the reverse, I respond promptly, answer my own phone, and will be glad to meet you tomorrow.

I am more than glad to meet with you!!!. 

As we have established, I am in the dark about these proceedings. Any time I spend with you can only help shed some light.  

See you today, at 1:30 call me when your at the gate I will open it for you. 

Sincerely,

Claudio. 404 520 3333

On 2016-08-22 12:58, Gordon, Neil C. wrote:

You don't know what you are talking about and just make up what comes to mind.  If you are not there and fully cooperative, we will not talk further.  I will simply file an eviction motion with the court.  

Neil Gordon
Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2016, at 1:45 PM, "claudio@metroecho.com" <claudio@metroecho.com> wrote:

Neil,

      I am not assuming, only pointing out that there is an appearance of pressure upon you. 

Your boss is asking you keep him informed of this situation, what situation is that? 

You made this appointment first, without prior notification or consultation, under the cover of false accusations upon my character, why would you do that unless you are under pressure? 

"We are able to talk with him only when he initiates contact." 

"Richard, we have not been able to communicate with your client."

"have no way to contact him."

"Again, I cannot let the case drift while he avoids contact."

This is not true. It appears like you are under pressure, in a sudden rush, that is not to say you are.

4. Could you please detail for me when your attempts to call me were made? 

Please clear this up for me, for I could be mistaken with my records and then maybe I understand why you would proceed in this manner. 

You will find I am quite the reverse, I respond promptly, answer my own phone, and will be glad to meet you tomorrow.

On the other hand you are pressuring me. You make false derogatory accusations about me. You making appointments without first consulting me. You announce what is basically a break and enter storm trooper event with a locksmith. If I am not here I, nor my tenants get back in.

It looks more like you are coming on a fact finding mission, finding ways to go around due process.  

I have been a landlord since the seventies, at a time I would need to do a dispossessory every month, I was always cautious of any violations of a tenants rights.   

I humbly request you stop these actions scheduled for tomorrow, until Richard Valdejulli is able to respond or proper council can be retained.

I have been trying to speak with Victor Harrison, and he wont talk to me. Maybe tomorrow will be an opportunity to speak with the both of you about a better path forward.

 

Sincerely,    

Claudio Avendano 404 520 3333

 

You base this on a broad statement about your inability to have access to this location and         

 

 

On 2016-08-22 11:18, Gordon, Neil C. wrote:

You assume too much.  I didn't know about your email to Mr.  Harrison until after I had already spoken to the realtor and locksmith and agreed on tomorrow at 1:30 for the site inspection and walk-through.  The mortgage holder has an independent right to inspect its collateral so I contacted Mr. Harrison and invited him to join us. Please be there as agreed so we won't have to change the locks.  We will not enter or change the locks on your internal dwelling space but would like you to show it to us.  

 

The more you fight this the more likely Mr. Austin will be to just seek to foreclose and have you evicted.  This is a commercial (not residential) property and even for residential properties there is no realistic defense for you to such action.  Indeed, if Douglas County knew you were living there, they might take action independently to evict you as I recently learned had happened in another of my cases.  

 

You will likely have far more time in the property if I am selling it than if it is on a foreclosure track. 

 

I look forward to seeing you at the property tomorrow at 1:30 pm. 

 

Neil Gordon

 

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 22, 2016, at 8:39 AM, "claudio@metroecho.com" <claudio@metroecho.com> wrote:

Neil,

I enjoyed our conversation, lets continue to review options for the sale of Chile. I will try to get Richard Valdejulli, to initiate some sort of conversation with the creditors, since they will not speak with me.  

But, you have the authority to make these sales, and with the consent of Lawson and Austin maybe we could come to a resolution that is more reasonable to all involved.

While the debtor is in possession, do you have the authority to give unrestricted access to the property by a third party not approved by the court? In particular the creditors agent?

Could you please site for me the statute or case where this authority is expressed.

Your opinion on these facts or requests ...  
 
1. The creditors attorney, has  stated in court his intention of interfering with the lawful possession of my residence.  
2. Tenants are still in possession and no notifications have been sent.      
3. Phone records do not show any missed call from your number besides our call last Thursday.
4. Could you please detail for me when your attempts to call me were made? 
5. How long have you had my email address, and what emails have you sent to me, that I may not know of?
6. I have received only three emails from you, and only those last Thursday.
.

 
It appears that this rush to sell Liberty Road this comes from the email I sent to Lawson and Austin, last Thursday noon. It is that afternoon that you first call me and we speak. Only hours from that event, sounding very urgent, it appears like a lot of pressure came down on you because of my attempt to come to a solution with the creditors.

My email to them was only in the spirit of coming to a more effective solution to these troubles. Clearly, reasonable and more effective are not terms of interest, but should be.
 
There is a sense of hostility displayed by the creditors attorney that serves no point other that complicating an already complicated process.

Therefore you can understand why I would not wish to extend any rights further than those required by law.

As you know my Attorney has been having family issues, and has not been very timely or responsive. I am now handling this pro se with you.

As you suggested, I will file with the court the necessary paper work, so that the court is aware of this fact.

I humbly request you stop these actions scheduled for Tuesday, until Ricahard Valdejulli is able to respond or proper council can be retained.
 
 
Sincerely,
Claudio Avendano  404 520 333           

 

 

 

On 2016-08-18 14:32, Gordon, Neil C. wrote:

Richard, we have not been able to communicate with your client.  We call but get an answer that the voice box is full.  This has been true since you gave us permission to talk directly to him.   We are able to talk with him only when he initiates contact.  We have not heard from him lately and have no way to contact him.  Vic Harrison just sent me this email from debtor today. I am copying debtor at this email address in the hope that he receives and reads this.

 

We are unable to access the commercial property on Liberty Road.  We do not have a key. We will be meeting there Tuesday at about 1:30 p.m. with a locksmith and realtor. We will either be (a) changing the locks or (b) rekeying the premises to keep the locks the same but have additional keys issued.  The realtor and I both need keys.  If we have the locks changed, we will provide a key to the commercial tenant.  If the debtor is residing in the commercial property, he needs to be there at 1:30 p.m. so I can get him a new key.  Having said that, he should also be looking for a new residential location.  This is a commercial zoned property now owned by the bankruptcy estate.  He should not be using it as a residence.  Mr. Avendano can save the bankruptcy estate (and himself in a surplus situation) a great deal of money if he voluntarily provides keys to the property so we don't have to engage the locksmith. 

 

I also wanted Mr. Avendano to stay engaged with me so we could work together on the sale of the Chilean properties.  Again, I cannot let the case drift while he avoids contact.  These properties need to be sold, but by avoiding contact with me, I am unable to proceed in the manner he might have preferred.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Neil C. Gordon

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP

404-873-8596

neil.gordon@agg.com