Financial- Vandermay Law Firm (Previous Tenant)

Home Browse Search

~.~~: ~~ ' ,,~,; ~~..: THE VANDERMAY LAW FIRM 698 12"' Street Southeast, Suite 240 Salem, Oregon 97301 ~ --------------------------- LLE A. MEADOWCROFT MONTY K. VANDERMAY • STEVEN R. WALLS OF COUNSEL: LI WEI TELEPHONE (503) 588-8053 FAX (503) 588-3624 DALE D. LIBERTY, SR. ~ ~ T~~ September 8, 1998 ~~~ Mr. Roger Hanna Hanna, McEldowney & Associates 8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 405 Portland, OR 97225 Re: Courthouse S~uare Relocation Benefits Claim Dear Mr. Hanna: Thank you for your prompt response to our application for relocation benefits in connection witli the above-referenced project. I address each of your concerns in turn. With re.spect to our $5,993.33 claim for actual direct loss of tangible personal property, I am surprised by your suggestion that we have incorrectiy characterized the property at issue as personal as opposed to real property. Prior to our displacement from the Court Street location, I met with Mr. Dan Berrey and his counsel at some length concerning what would constitute a compensable claim for relocation benefits. Additionally, I toured our Court Street offices with Mr. Berrey's assistant at around the time of our move out of that facility. During that tour, I expressly explained to Mr. Berrey's assistant that because they were not moveable, we would be seeking compensation for the loss of the reception station and the bookcases. At no point did Mr. BerrPy, his counsel, or his assistant indicate that such items should be treated as real property. Moreover, at no point did any of these persons indicate that our claim for compensation for the loss of these items should be pnrsued through condemnation or other ~roces~es re1~tP~ r~ t1:e acqui~ition of the building ~y t~e Cc,u~ty. Bzcause Mr. Beney was acting as the County's agent for the purpose of advising displaced persons with respect to their claiins for relocation benefits, it was reasonable for us to rely on our dealings with him and his associates in the preparation of our claim. If the County now changes its position with respect to how this $5,993.33 loss should be treated, we will assert before an appropriate tribunal our position that the County is estopped from daing so in light of our reasonable reliance on these prior representations.' ' ' Putting aside our reliance on the County's prior actions in this matter and considering the merits of your position, we are assuming that it was not your i~tent to claim that the Apbraisal Terminology and Handbook upon which you rely is determinative in this instance.