COX CASTLE Cox,CasUe& �ichulsonLLP
�� 31?I �lichclson Drice.Suite 200
N � � ������ Irvine.Califomia 92612-5678
P: 9i9.260A600 F:9-09.260.4699
Cath���I. Moses
949160.4629
C�tose,rri coccastle.com
Filc No. 100�39
March 14. 202'_
VIA EIVIAIL
Karl Berger
Hensley Law Group
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite �00
Burbank, California 91505
kbcr�er a�henslevlawQroup.com
Re: Settlement Communication (Pri�ileeed & Inadmissible For Anv Purpose; Cal. Evid. Code § 1152 et seq.; Fed. R. Evid. 408)
Dear Karl:
As ��ou hnow, our Firm represents 1991 Jacquely�n S. Connolly Revocable I.iving Trust, which is the successor-in-interest to Anna E. Smith. ���ho was "Grantor" under a Grant Deed dated June 18, 1967 ("Grant Deed"), and an "Option Agreement and Use of Existing Dri�e�cay;' dated June 14, 1967, involvine the Ciry of Bellflower('`Grantee" or '`Ci[�").
As we stated in our December 23, 2021 letter to the City, under the above referenced agreements. our client has a right to purchase the property owned by� the City for $56.000 because the property is no longer being used only as a parking lot or for streets or highways for the general public. Instead, a concrete structure has been built on the lot. Our client is entided to exercise its option: has been read�� and willing to perform (induding paying such amount immediately) and has demanded that the City cause the sale of the property immediately.
The City does not deny. nor could it deny,that the structure has been built on the lot.
Yet, as of today's date, the City has not performed as required. Our Firm, on behalf of Grantor, has asked on multiple occasions to discuss these tnatters ���ith the Citys counsel, to no a��ail.
Instead, counsel stated on February 22, 2022, that the City was "open to considering a proposal from [Grantor] to acquire the propetty".
To be clear, and to the extent the City is refercing to the lot at issue, our client is not obligated to make any such "offer'. Instead, the Cit}� has been, and is no�c, required to transfer it to our client_ for$56,000.
�c�i�c.coscastle.com Los Angeles Orange Count�� j San Francis'eo
Karl Hensley
March 14, 2022
Privileged/Settlement Communieation
Our client has waited long enough for the City to comply with its obligations, and while it has tried to acoid litigation until this point. it is prepared to file a complaint to enforce its rights. Flowever, in a last attempt to avoid a lawsuit, and seek a prompt informal resolution, our client is willing to offer to sell the building in front of the lot, which is located at 9818 Artesia, and allow the City to purchase all of our client's rights and interests in the lot (so that the City would own both the building and lot, witl�out any option/repurchase right or interest in the lot), for a total of$I,500,000. Closing would occur within 60 days of a signed term sheet.
If the City is not interested in purchasing the building from our client, then we demand that the Ciry comply with its obligation to allow our client to repurchase the lot for $56.000.
We ask for the Ciry's written response to our clienCs offer by no later than March 29, 2022, so that we can evaluate next steps promptly. We also remain available for a phone call to discuss these matters. ]f we do not hear from the City by March 29, we will assume that to mean that the City is not interested in this compromise.
This letter constitutes an inadmissible settlement commm�ication which cannot be used for any purpose under CaL Evidence Code section 1 I�2, Fed. R. E�id. 408, and any other applicable privilege or law.
Sincerely.
Cox_ Castle &Nicholson LLP
Cathy T. oses
100449\14599743