You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup
Karla Reeves Sep 07 : 08:29
Vroom, Vroom. The Red Knights Motorcycle Club will be hosting a ride through Mountain Park on Sat, Sept 11. Best place to see all the bikes is at the pool parking lot - approximately 11:50AM.
Karla Reeves Sep 07 : 08:26
MPVFR will be holding a rememberance ceremony, Sat Sept 11, 7pm at Station 20.
Marvin Aug 02 : 18:26
Pool Hours for August 2010 11 am to 8 pm Fulton Co Schools Start August 23,2010 Pool Open (schooldays) 4Pm to 8pm 8Am to 4PM More Hours To Swim Pass Members Swim at Your Own Risk September Weekdays 4Pm to 8 Pm September weekend 4,5,6(Labor Day) 11 Am to 8 Pm September 7,8,9,10 4 Pm to 8 Pm September 11,12 11 Am to 8 Pm
Pool Closes Sunday, September 12, 2010
editor Oct 18 : 17:42
Members, Login to post a "milestone" in the Chatbox: happy birthday or anniversary, get well or welcome a new baby, or... The editor will post major announcements from time to time...
Registered Member #115 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:52AM {LOCATION}Posts: 71
In response to a comment by Grandma's Kid:
For those who may be interested, the defendants in the lake litigation have the following insurance:
Day Investments and Peachtree Residential – have insurance; according to Mountain Park’s experts they are responsible for about 20% of the silt problem. Mountain Park has offered to settle with these parties for something in the neighborhood of $525,000 (this was prior to the recent Settlement Conference), but the Settlement Conference was unsuccessful. The insurer has participated in the litigation settlement process, and wants to settle. The $525,000 number represents 20% (their proportionate liability) of the high-end estimate of lake clean-up costs.
Woomer Construction – has $100,000 of insurance and no other assets. Woomer is at best a minor defendant in the litigation, and they have some good defenses. Nevertheless, they have offered to settle to stop the litigation expense. (I think they have offered the full $100,000.)
Chatham Holdings and Lakeside at Ansley, LLC – no insurance; Lakeside at Ansley is Chatham’s single-purpose development entity, and since Lakeside at Ansley is complete now this entity has no assets. Chatham Holdings is insolvent (it holds 2 pieces of real estate with mortgages which exceed the current property values). Chatham's business has suffered dramatically from the current residential real estate crisis, and Chatham's financial situation is tenuous. (I have independent anedotal information which supports this, and this information was provided to the Mayor and Council 1-1/2 years ago.) Mountain Park’s experts place 80% of the liability with these entities.
This information was obtained through conversations directly with the attorneys for each entity, and not through any breach of "executive privilege." This is not confidential information. If any of this data is inaccurate, I encourage those involved with the lake litigation to correct any misstatements.
My read, for anyone who may be remotely interested, is that Mountain Park will have a very, very difficult (or impossible) time collecting from Chatham Holdings and/or Lakeside at Ansley. Even if we receive a judgment against these parties (they are responsible for 80% of the silt in Lake Garrett since 2000), we will spend years of additional litigation trying to collect on it. Heaven help us if we continue to pay the lawyers on an hourly basis through this process.
I have been outspoken about the imprudence of our current fee arrangement with Martin Shelton and his law firm. If you add these numbers up, they just don't make sense. We are approaching (or have exceeded) $1 million in legal and expert fees and expenses, and we are not going to collect that much from the business entities who have insurance and/or assets. I hope at the end of this tragic journey we remember who put us in this position, and the misrepresentations which were made to the community along the way.
We should also remember that the low-end estimate to clean up the silt ourselves is about $800,000 - less than our legal expenses so far.
Registered Member #339 Joined: Sat Jun 21 2008, 05:11AM {LOCATION}Posts: 16
George Menden says " I hope at the end of this tragic journey we remember who put us in this position, and the misrepresentations which were made to the community along the way."
Who did what, when and where in the past is not going to help us now....BUT, I attended some of the early meetings when Jim Wright was Mayor. Some of us questioned litigation but were told by Mr. Wright "That the train had already left the station." In otherwords, he was going forward no matter what. Allegedly Mr. Wright was also warned by the City Attorney at that time not to pay the lawyer doing the lake litigation an hourly fee. Basically the lawyer was given a blank check.
There's no way to go back and undo anything now, so we need to go forward.
Also, what do you expect the other parties attorneys to say? They are only going to paint the bleakest picture so we give up. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't.
If we do get a judgement holding Chatham Holdings and/or Lakeside at Ansley responsible and if they refuse to pay, liens can be placed on their holdings and properties. If the attorney we hired has any sense at all, I'm sure he'll take the appropriate steps to see to it that at some point we do get the money from the judgements.
I do think, as some have mentioned here, that the parties working with this attorney need to discuss his fees and make better arrangements that would be fair to us and his firm. Typically lawyers would get 60% of the Judgement, unless the parties agree to something else. And that 60% would be collect AFTER we won, and only if we won.
Registered Member #115 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:52AM {LOCATION}Posts: 71
A few quick comments:
- Decisions in the past are irrelevant as the Council decides where to go from here with the Lake Garrett litigation. The community should continue to ask that Council remain realistic and informed as they consider their current options and litigation strategy. The ability to collect from the defendants is an extremely relevant issue, as are the costs which we continue to incur on a monthly basis under the current fee arragement.
- The "attorney fee arrangement" is something that can be changed at any time. Clients renegotiate with lawyers all the time in complex litigation. The community has asked Council to change the arrangement with Martin Shelton and his firm. Thank you for your agreement that this issue needs immediate attention.
- You misunderstand the sophistication of complex, multi-tiered corporate structures and the difficulty of collecting on judgments and liens when the debtor is one of these entities. Lakeside at Ansley, LLC is a third or fourth-tier entity. Chatham Holdings has no assets which are lienable from a practical perspective. This process will take years and further litigation (cha-ching), and will further delay any (possible) recovery from Chatham (the 80% offender) in the lake litigation. We may be cleaning up Lake Garrett in, say, 2017...
- I am well aware of the perspective of the defendants' counsel in this matter. Facts are facts, however, and the list of parties with insurance, and those without, is a simple factual matter. I created this thread in respone to a comment/question from Grandma's Kid about the defendants' insurance. I was not asking for the defendants' litigation strategy when I picked up the phone and called their attorneys, and I had no authority to engage in settlement discussions. I have invited our City Council and Martin Shelton to correct any factual innacuracies so we might all have a clearer understanding of this issue which is so important to Mountain Park, and around which there has been so much unnecessary secrecy.
- And finally, a reminder that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." (George Santayana) I believe you have attributed to Mayor Wright a level of involvement in the initial litigation decisions which is inaccurate, but there will be time to disect all of that after the dust settles. It will be important in future elections to remember who got us into this mess.
agree with birdwatcher. george - see the old minutes. jim wright was involved with decisions. as far as i'm concerned, he led the charge. george - are you working with city council? did they authorize you to make calls for us? mayor and city council - should homeowners be calling other parties lawyers? glad to get info. but, seems strange to me that folks (other than those that are officially involved) are making calls like this.
Registered Member #115 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:52AM {LOCATION}Posts: 71
Not going to get involved in a finger pointing discussion about "original sin" until we know the litigation outcome. There were lots of decisions which are going to go under the microscope if the litigation train derails. Some of the original parties are still controlling litigation decisions.
The "insurance issue" is highly concerning, though. I put the info in the public domain because the question was asked in a previous post and I knew the answer.
The legal community is fairly small. The President of the Brookfield West Country Club is a client, their enviromental attorney is the son of a client, and their corporate lawyer rents space from me in my office. Answers to simple questions like, "who has insurance, and how much?" are not confidential and they are easy to obtain. 3 years and $1 million into the litigation (with almost no information provided to the community - those paying the bills - by the few who are managing the litigation), I decided it was time to find out where things actually stand. The only Cone-of-Silence in the Lake Garrett litigation has existed on our side of the case, separating the Council from the community.
The bigger question is: Does everyone on Council know as much about the Lake Garrett litigation as I do? These are our decision makers. If any of this information is "new information" to Council, we are in trouble.
Registered Member #118 Joined: Thu Mar 09 2006, 12:26PM {LOCATION}Posts: 186
BINGO... According to George Menden's post he's acquaintances and has business dealings with the opposing lawyers!!! And is discussing our case and lake litigation with them?!!!! How cozy. So I am taking what he said about the developers not having insurance and us not collecting and so on with a grain of salt.
As Grannybee asked... Who from Mountain Park City authorized George Menden to talk about our case with the opposing attorneys? Ummmm This is questionable and raises flags with me. Especially since allegedly George is threatening to sue the City of Mountain Park, the City Council and previous Mayor.
Registered Member #196 Joined: Wed Mar 21 2007, 11:02AM {LOCATION}Posts: 17
I have to respond to this:
First, George Menden is a fine man and a good neighbor. His reputation in this city has been under attack for the last several years. Why? Because he was brave enough to tell the truth.
And what did he get in return? Stop works on his new house and harassment. When the stop work orders went to a judge... nothing was ever found wrong with what he or his builder had done. Just a fluke? Not on your life, they fined and delayed his house 4 times, and all 4 times nothing wrong was found.
And reread his posts. His connections with the lake litigation team comes from the Brookfield West attorney and president... as clients who trust him with their personal legal issues. So if he is cozy with them, thank heavens, they are the only ones who have paid us and without a long drawn out fight. We have now had to use they money they gave the city to continue on with the other defendants.
Maybe if George had been "cozy", as you state, with the other attorney teams this lake case would be closed by now.
Why be so willing to shoot the messenger? Especially one who was brave enough to try and save the city.... save all of us... from an environmental attorney I believe truly wants to win the lake case as a moral victory and doesn't really care if we see the money returned to the city EVER. And doesn't care if he bankrupts Mountain Park in the process.
Thank you George. There are many more in this city besides me that appreciate all the personal time and effort you have given us.
Registered Member #115 Joined: Mon Mar 06 2006, 08:52AM {LOCATION}Posts: 71
This place really is crazy. From this point forward I will refrain from providing any further information - heaven forbid Cheerful Garrett, Grannybee or JK should have to deal with facts where the lake litigation is concerned. This is exactly the clear reasoning that got us here in the first place. Let's put them all on Council.
Registered Member #50 Joined: Sun Jul 31 2005, 06:42AM {LOCATION}Posts: 14
George Menden Has Guts. I mean real guts. He also has a Huge Heart. He sees the truth for what it is. He has been unfairly punished by this City. The Braswell Family Ruby, Nancy, and Jon are thrilled the Menden's Live Here. We want everybody to know this and we stand behind George and His family. George remember whatever you stand for someone aint going to like it. That does not mean that you do not stand for it. Thanks for standing. I am ashamed that a lot of us including myself let you stand alone to long. Thanks for your hard work. Jon Braswell Jon Wesley Braswell
Registered Member #309 Joined: Fri Mar 07 2008, 07:26AM {LOCATION}Posts: 18
Questions - or things I wonder about.........
- Is Mountain Park Forum the appropriate venue or method for any attorney or citizen to air this information vs. in a more appropriate setting such as sharing it privately with the executive committee or at a council meeting or discussing it with our city's Attorney?
- Doesn't George already have a pending lawsuit against the city?
- Is any one else surprised that an Attorney for the defense would be so willing to share such details about their own client? Wouldn't you be afraid in the context of private information shared between a client and their attorney that the defense attorneys might be overstepping their bounds in sharing this information with George? Even if that information isn't private, is that the type of information a defense attorney would typically share?
- Who's paying the many thousands of dollars to the defense attorneys if all of these companies are so broke?
- Why are the facts brought forward in this forum always favoring the defense's position?
Lake Litigation Insurance Information
