Financial- Vandermay Law Firm (Previous Tenant)

Home Browse Search

THE VANDERMAY LAW FIRM 698 12'~ Street Southeast, Suite 240 Sa1em, Oregon 97301 , .~M_ _______ 9~ LEE A. MEADOWCROFT MONTY K. VANDERMAY STEVEN R. WALLS LI WEI September 8, 1998 Mr. Roger TELEPHONE (503) 588-8053 & Associates W. Canyon Lane, Suite 4Q5 3, OR 97225 ~.~ `~4~`,4 ~ 9 FAX (5(~~.5$8-3624 Re: C'ourthouse Sauaze Reloc~tion Benefits Claim Dear Mr. Hanna: ~~ OF COUNSEL: DALE D. LIBERTY, SR. S~ Thank you for your prompt response to our application for relocation benefits in connection with the above-referenced project. I address each of your concerns in turn. With respect to our $5,993.33 claim for actual direct loss of tangible personal property, I am surprised by your suggestion that we have incorrectly 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. Beney'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. Berrey, 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 pursued through condemnation or other processes related to the acquisition of the building by the County. Because Mr. Berrey was acting as the County's agent for the purpose of advising displaced persons with respect to their claims for relocation benefits, it was reasonable for us to rely on our deali.ngs 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 doing so in light of our reasonable reliance on these prior representations.' ' Putting aside our reliance on the County's prior actions in ttus matter and considering the merits of your posirion, we are assuming that it was not your intent to claim that the Apvraisal Terminol~g}! and Handbook upon which you rely is determinative in this instance.