Laserfiche WebLink
Gordon Hanna <br />April 4, 1997 <br />Page 2 <br />which is now The VanderMay Law Firm, and Mr. Doyle should be <br />treated as one entity for reestablishment claims purposes. As <br />such, I am submitting the first part of our application under the <br />name of VanderMay & Doyle and have included estimates which contain <br />both the firm's and Mr. Doyle's moving expenses. Prior to <br />submitting the second part of our application, I will look with <br />greater care at the question of whether the firm and Mr. Doyle <br />should be treated as separate claimants under the federal statute <br />and implementing regulations. If it appears to me that separate <br />claims are permissible, the second part of our application will <br />seek benefits solely on behalf of The VanderMay Law Firm. Because <br />the question of whether the County is dealing with one or two <br />entities does not affect the amount payable for direct moving <br />costs, we can defer resolution of this issue until a later time. <br />Indeed, depending upon the amount of the firm's reestablishment <br />expenses and Mr. Doyle's plans for the future, this question may <br />never arise. <br />Finally, as of this time, the contractor still expects our <br />space in the new building to be ready for occupancy prior to April <br />19, 1997. Thus, we continue to expect to vacate the leased <br />premises on or before that date. <br />Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Please <br />contact me if you have any questions or concerns. <br />Sincerely yours, <br />~117~~~~ ~C(~(~:~C~ ~~~t~ <br />~~~ <br />Maureen Callahan VanderMay <br />Attorney and Counselor at Law <br />MCV : j p <br />cc: Monty VanderMay <br />Daniel Doyle <br />File <br />