Return-Path: Delivered-To: craig@dapaero.com Received: from gator4254.hostgator.com by gator4254.hostgator.com with LMTP id uNjaESgWT2iRVAQAcizydQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:51:20 -0500 Return-path: Envelope-to: craig@dapaero.com Delivery-date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:51:20 -0500 Received: from sonic310-14.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com ([74.6.135.124]:35759) by gator4254.hostgator.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.98.1) (envelope-from ) id 1uQsRr-00000001BzP-35RP for craig@dapaero.com; Sun, 15 Jun 2025 13:51:20 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aol.com; s=a2048; t=1750013468; bh=6laI7yn+v34WtP3p3s2yqv1ljxyY5+/RoNnj/pswHJc=; h=Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=RSE9XSyFoHQSiUmfEWCPR/bxmXaf5JdOwTInPAejEx8pnMXOl7PkRMFCkg/iqaVXuKOZg8z9eeeiE9xbwMEGiWZJuf4k7aDQGkmHx6eZ23YgD3weA9jbhHge2uXDOCLDDIMlqFNFJ/A78lOjrAjJgbVlVWmAx3PRRE7KTBbdf0yJAlfyTgpxkkGVDvVgdINRw+loPRqWA2d2P3ixzrjq8roUMIuCxtiYDeua4y5l9lUG4aYzTtZJhFl18QLaIQuakjT7ohtlbc72l+/aX3aC4OWNnE/zjdFe+PNC2ojAMot1d5e+rtPJ51QiiQZyP0wSUWd7UxT3JrheT9JD2QH40A== X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1750013468; bh=xsIhgJIOabMoPJQVlwtVWRdnkCsQt4kf+MbguskBQV8=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Date:From:Subject:To:From:Subject; b=KJwwT8t13FaPiou9+mP4FMTFv2mbchlJgJdVOvVI8n+fGPFKuhRN5os2gdVwjqadiqiMAi25eIRKEfq7Y+AwPFAvLVnWEw0qfBLeQm6q/1+PUxRAQxVgiAIR33knhkpszsyZoHbuzxpgqJ2bEUPAcEHsS3b8ZRfbOh68oWB4vsGiH52I6XspAPN/NS353sVx45fO4RPaMcaK3KjLJaCf1GFA3Qr9iMpYUfZQ5eFeD0XJ5sLQFp+ykhta/eENTq8A9FUMGcoCw4HFIUOfOVz3fbyNhxItB2sqNZaPwsj2J0/KhSw4PyxuDX8bO4okcGUkz2hhmckNZ/2MGkk9+mtUeQ== X-YMail-OSG: oTN64j0VM1nCb.Xc4qykOtj74HY0zoz8DV8C8Pv0SJiDnnm20VVpgqfsCB0hiLt HNW7CEG63ZlNyZb6fJQC3z2wW_BOXJ5DfRxy8fZbGKfeSMsUEO61cG7ZniUW0.xngYwUn_1cKKUX 3.wHQrKWERoEggmCs_h55pR82sugMHOkfwp_D0f1eaerfyjSNQEPHNKSqxtd0dW_.Imi6XF7sY2O t0rhUo.nMxgpTNgABgtVXIQcUhZjPFdhgGr_ycQG2kog47n9HzM15iqDh5bw5teVWNtKh19_f7.7 G062IYM4Pi2WSKIN8nurmXI7KDUSyevxIFFTHvmOfV0rx.1.C7Q45NuBMFghHCVMK.XFVcArtUhY SI1rhWDqIFtkIUUL4C1YDDnkQNffvqwV_olF3maVP0YciUXbouFH4SXBf7dujuibTa8ouwUc0a.4 0V6Zp0ECex_.O_Mf3rTP8eiMHgZraTfiANU2lxq251agtlh_0h3xqreQ0666iLEAU4moyPRG_Si0 XdUZS7WrvIBiEawGLhKJD0hIS7zvgtYUQDon0NAfRxnYvWKecjoVSlhA22S23QhOQ01p78mSUXrY Rihk5_dltgH7ETh5t1loF3gF6z2CTLKAnF6._E8S5cs63CJ9C9_uffrc.TADXh4pErk6GXrSLyAy jVoagaKQaUKo486ejaAS5nMHEjAvB.hJVvFBkOHavcozYrp8vwlGw_HoGf6CqlHjR0XyUNKIG6PJ htnXsxFBl6OrCBJP1Wn7OqIw85ZOoFAObQsUhER2lNj1LOauOOOQjabrGEdwP5wldN.r9Uk6VsUE VdVKDCYolutfY8VqMx1c.PedMcB4mbME7RyMxf050zUhTWB06mEBWyGfhLbH2YroolZpcV3JA2gA BC6aJ5z4lVtuLNt9Pu3SyOMsKHt8sQmQd5lA8.10_JHCb5.kGWFneOYDQi4A1fPdtdRG3rfXRvEb yxMr35XjDaohn64reOwkEjnbBahbzlfZgi3zuD5bkIi5Dg5Dt0a.twsm_7qLiwZPG8Og8Nvh6wZD USIl3wToiMKwve6b3dXuHzFIfgswgCw1SAARclg9zGimWhoqhu6P4qkluTLDrQWg1oDL_W.BXz7k zcx0JYH.p8sLuy86Ro1QT7hJ3hlMR4RncAdyoyPMl9ymjIUSdgI8Qo874iadXpTsZzjpOnmR92dJ OpPn.2EaXXMrdIdPuC84FIHTmcAlcreO6tHMit1C_f_eonU_KKMWnLwjTpdXd_O.TNDgmPe_tYAE 717yuBKo2SjlsblixEiwdQMRF9sexiVw_VEi45Po3o2tEJNE8eNI2zu1RlI0.JCj1jwQu0Lkz1cH InaeiyfbzSNQPeyBNBThpVWL.z0wxvPW36BytCuFFT2iKKz9c_b2dlxfjErGOrc.f0RW8GIDrjaw Ia3VAhnMuNDNFzF9fXCQVQrIBQbcTvLLFhnvCsoyS40TGKy2fU0om_6l3.SN_.041eHXSFHrLPh7 VGOVWbYE_cBqmghnO.Pmha9w9XAzGQDMcVAAfLvKlm01iejZglNcgP509kIQh9qnZ18qRdRbTLjA q8_QAqYmOB7neqwhiyS132T40azq_oDDhjxU4HPwY3FRe_o8ZJzO0OW_QBkCYI89ihfO34X8cFpg Z0_DXL2smpKPaFiHTndmgCaA549dLVh9OVuOICwqysQTJMBUnwatVcAQIRVc.BAEv7wcjjU17CTG X_Q6f4xXp8djPjEa4qrdbzwCrmX3d5iOU3Akfoy2ddKvxofL_diG5U8wH5X7IYCOCkI4nLMqHyXw Ez65znKjjkkTxf8p137b_FosQyoUUj7AdQZvj.7L4dMJmly8kkBIdpWvUAahxJ8J9msvSCjLHOBg rKwt1ngOW0BJHNYljKHztEv1DexEOPfDswGYTFKewFfb1f20ywvb2Gthn3XFlFnZKkYyWcUfR_AI K5H7AobQtHdB8ohY19vKAzTArRQr13JB5USucDf09Dq6puDvEBBcziNpk3RQReEd075wzGrmAvqK JtKh3.szb7ZDeh.eVia0PnjkzrE3J1oRwM3p.MyCnaiaZR90kxBnl5fCR3511sMKGX1hSBNmV_Eb ikvYGYm68NE3_Trf95CDdyEKiZr7Q9449lK9FywJMHD5I_lG1bn7U.OEvcE387oX33Y6KaCm6LUk 5wtLhcRc3_49PyVLwknCVoJ8MjV6jT9DLOqiM5YL8Pa7Ku4HSK0V80hcaLC5qDLyhsMdmQftgsmg mz8lJvR_LEfvMquyLN55q2ah7eUSHGCnBtXOW14dA1DI- X-Sonic-MF: X-Sonic-ID: a1e11369-68cf-442d-b147-a87276f09b5e Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic310.consmr.mail.bf2.yahoo.com with HTTP; Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:51:08 +0000 Received: by hermes--production-ne1-9495dc4d7-c2sv8 (Yahoo Inc. Hermes SMTP Server) with ESMTPA ID fab79bc9a7d28dab90ef84c3f8aed5d0; Sun, 15 Jun 2025 18:51:04 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------Q6leabGOQNEJGckHX6dmMi9a" Message-ID: <9e82e43f-b80c-49d1-8d77-ebe898aee9f7@aol.com> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2025 11:51:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird From: Curtis Andrews Subject: Fwd: property line adjustment To: steve@sackmannlaw.com Cc: Michael Andersen , "c >> DAP AERO" References: <3f944523-087c-4e53-9adb-8ecabadd10e2@aol.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <3f944523-087c-4e53-9adb-8ecabadd10e2@aol.com> X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.24021 mail.backend.jedi.jws.acl:role.jedi.acl.token.atz.jws.hermes.aol Content-Length: 20043 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 X-Spam-Score: -38 X-Spam-Bar: --- X-Spam-Flag: NO This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------Q6leabGOQNEJGckHX6dmMi9a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hello Nicole: Since this email three months ago, the last paragraph on the survey pin has been resolved and we all agree we are using the same boundary line adjustment drawing. As to the second to last paragraph on the reasoning of this whole quit claiming process,  Sackmann law off is assuring us that this process is correct and necessary to get the boundary line drawing that we all agree to filed,  so we don't need to rehash that. The title search produced the Exception #10 AFN 290150 that retains the industrial value of this land for Andrews addressing the third to last paragraph. So that just leaves my concern that in reality,  Andrews is not quit claiming our rights to the future industrial development on any of this land until the year 2090. I am requesting the quit claim documents include reference to the boundary line adjustment drawing to provide clarity of the overall intent of the quit claims, and That the quit claims granted by Andrews  refer to the Agreement Establishing Covenants.....  as an exception to the Andrews Quit claim to Andersen. If this is acceptable, please send us a draft so we  can review and then we can meet to discuss. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: property line adjustment Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:35:34 -0700 From: Curtis Andrews To: steve@sackmannlaw.com CC: Michael Andersen , c >> DAP AERO property line adjustment Hello Nicole; To make efficient use of our meeting on Monday concerning the Andrews/Anderson property line adjustment, I provide the following: I assume we are all using the updated "Record survey for boundary line adjustment Clyde Andrews" drawing.  I have just sheet 2 of 2 of an unsigned, unrecorded  version that has a 'request and site visit' dated Dec 2021.  If this is the drawing we are using, then we are in agreement as to what Mike purchased from Clyde back in 2008 which is defined on the drawing as 'Revised lot 4 short plat 32-05-04 containing 35.29 acres'.  This survey drawing should be referenced or included in this paperwork as it clearly shows  the intent these quit claim documents are trying to accomplish. I am not a surveyor, but the legal descriptions in the quit claims generally look correct.  In summary Clyde sold parts of three lots to Mike so he could complete his irrigation circle. The arc of the circle created four slivers of land labeled by the surveyor C-1 through C-4.   The 22,778sf in C-2 was sold to Mike,  8sf in C-1 and 935sf in C-4 were not sold, and 2342sf in C -3 was a sliver of FU70 at the beginning of the arc that Anderson traded to Andrews. This property was sold to Mike Anderson, B-17 llc,  on a contract.  Two years ago Mike paid off the mortgage and we have been trying get this boundary line adjustment drawing recorded.   We agree on the drawing, and have no disagreements getting it filed, but i am concerned on the confusing approach of the  quitclaims in that we are both quit claiming on land we do not own.    It may be technically acceptable, but confusing none the less. But in addition to the normal boundary line adjustment process, my main concern with these quitclaim documents is that in fact , the _Andrews are not quit claiming all of our interest in any this land.   We sold this land to Mike at farm ground price to complete his irrigation circle.   The sale granted  Anderson the right to own and farm the land, but not sell or develop it for industry.   In the future, when this land is sold for industrial development or any building is constructed taking it out of crop production, then the difference between the then agriculture land value, and the then industrial use land value at Bruce is to be paid to Andrews._  Depending on what happens with the future industrial development of the Bruce area, this could be a substantial amount for the 35 acres and we  do not want our decedents (Cal Anderson and Katelyn Andrews) to be arguing over our lack of clarity because of these quitclaim documents. Likewise, Mike is not quit claiming all interest in lot 4 short plat 32-04-04. Andrews agreed to give Anderson a 60' easement (as indicated on the short plat of lot 4 short plat 32-04-04) so future industry can construct an access road through this parcel to serve the industrial use of the land under the circle.   The easement was granted because the access is needed for the circle land to have industrial value.  So when any of the land under the circle transitions away from crop production and the increase to industrial value of the 35.3 acres is paid to Andrews, then the industry builds the road and utilities (at no cost to Andrews) from Booker road through lot 4 to serve the industry. I have some technical questions and clarifications,  but since we are each paying half of the Sackmann Law office invoice to get the boundary line adjustment drawing filed, Steve is representing both Anderson and Andrews, therefore, Sackman Law Office is assuring us that the legal jargon in these quitclaims fulfills the intent of the boundary line adjustment drawing. Since it appears the original 2008 sale paperwork is a mess, we need Steve to confirm that the contract for the deferred industrial payment was finalized and recorded properly back in 2008.  Once we work through these questions, we can finalize the documents and Bonnie will sign for herself and for Clyde as the Personal Representative of his estate. The following questions can be explained on Monday: I am unclear what we or Brian Miller did wrong in the original sales contract, such that Andrews now has to quitclaim to ourselves land that we never sold to Anderson and to quitclaim to Mike land we never owned (FU 70).  At this point, there is no value in finding fault, but we need to learn what went wrong. As to the quitclaim documents, why does page one of each not list all three lots for which the attached pages are quit claiming?    On the Andrews to Andrews quit claim why do we need to quitclaim our land to ourselves?  Why is the 'portion of lot 4 short plat 32-05-05' which is in a different lot, not described as a new parcel C?     Why is Andrews quit claiming farm unit 70 to Anderson; which makes one think FU 70 is involved with this sale and obligated for the future industrial payment; which it is not. One item on the actual land survey that we need to figure out; When the snow melted, I noticed a new survey pin between slivers of land C-3 and C-4 that is not where we thought it should be. If this is the pin that is suppose to be 28.6 feet east of the original property corner at the white post, this new pin is actually 35.5 feet, making the circle property 6' smaller than expected. ( I think the 28.6' lath and pin is next to the steel fence post in the dirt bank.)I am not sure what other points on the survey were pinned, so i did not check any others, just happen to notice this one by the shop that i don't think matches the drawing. See you Tomorrow at 2 thanks -- Thank You Curtis Andrews 1336 E Oak St. Othello WA 99344 andrewscc@aol.com 509 346 8108 --------------Q6leabGOQNEJGckHX6dmMi9a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Hello Nicole:

Since this email three months ago, the last paragraph on the survey pin has been resolved and we all agree we are using the same boundary line adjustment drawing. 

As to the second to last paragraph on the reasoning of this whole quit claiming process,  Sackmann law off is assuring us that this process is correct and necessary to get the boundary line drawing that we all agree to filed,  so we don't need to rehash that.

The title search produced the Exception #10 AFN 290150 that retains the industrial value of this land for Andrews addressing the third to last paragraph.  

So that just leaves my concern that in reality,  Andrews is not quit claiming our rights to the future industrial development on any of this land until the year 2090. 

I am requesting the quit claim documents include reference to the boundary line adjustment drawing to provide clarity of the overall intent of the quit claims, and 

That the quit claims granted by Andrews  refer to the Agreement Establishing Covenants.....  as an exception to the Andrews Quit claim to Andersen.

If this is acceptable, please send us a draft so we  can review and then we can meet to discuss.   

 



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: property line adjustment
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 17:35:34 -0700
From: Curtis Andrews <andrewscc@aol.com>
To: steve@sackmannlaw.com
CC: Michael Andersen <michael8136@gmail.com>, c >> DAP AERO <craig@dapaero.com>


property line adjustment


Hello Nicole;

To make efficient use of our meeting on Monday concerning the Andrews/Anderson property line adjustment, I provide the following:

I assume we are all using the updated "Record survey for boundary line adjustment Clyde Andrews" drawing.  I have just sheet 2 of 2 of an unsigned, unrecorded  version that has a 'request and site visit' dated Dec 2021.  If this is the drawing we are using, then we are in agreement as to what Mike purchased from Clyde back in 2008 which is defined on the drawing as 'Revised lot 4 short plat 32-05-04 containing 35.29 acres'.  This survey drawing should be referenced or included in this paperwork as it clearly shows  the intent these quit claim documents are trying to accomplish.    

I am not a surveyor, but the legal descriptions in the quit claims generally look correct.  In summary Clyde sold parts of three lots to Mike so he could complete his irrigation circle. The arc of the circle created four slivers of land labeled by the surveyor C-1 through C-4.   The 22,778sf in C-2 was sold to Mike,  8sf in C-1 and 935sf in C-4 were not sold, and 2342sf in C -3 was a sliver of FU70 at the beginning of the arc that Anderson traded to Andrews.

This property was sold to Mike Anderson, B-17 llc,  on a contract.  Two years ago Mike paid off the mortgage and we have been trying get this boundary line adjustment drawing recorded.   We agree on the drawing, and have no disagreements getting it filed, but i am concerned on the confusing approach of the  quitclaims in that we are both quit claiming on land we do not own.    It may be technically acceptable, but confusing none the less.

But in addition to the normal boundary line adjustment process, my main concern with these quitclaim documents is that in fact , the  Andrews are not quit claiming all of our interest in any this land.   We sold this land to Mike at farm ground price to complete his irrigation circle.   The sale granted  Anderson the right to own and farm the land, but not sell or develop it for industry.   In the future, when this land is sold for industrial development or any building is constructed taking it out of crop production, then the difference between the then agriculture land value, and the then industrial use land value at Bruce is to be paid to Andrews.  Depending on what happens with the future industrial development of the Bruce area, this could be a substantial amount for the 35 acres and we  do not want our decedents (Cal Anderson and Katelyn Andrews) to be arguing over our lack of clarity because of these quitclaim documents. 

Likewise, Mike is not quit claiming all interest in lot 4 short plat 32-04-04.  Andrews agreed to give Anderson a 60' easement (as indicated on the short plat of lot 4 short plat 32-04-04) so future industry can construct an access road through this parcel to serve the industrial use of the land under the circle.   The easement was granted because the access is needed for the circle land to have industrial value.  So when any of the land under the circle transitions away from crop production and the increase to industrial value of the 35.3 acres is paid to Andrews, then the industry builds the road and utilities (at no cost to Andrews) from Booker road through lot 4 to serve the industry.

I have some technical questions and clarifications,  but since we are each paying half of the Sackmann Law office invoice to get the boundary line adjustment drawing filed, Steve is representing both Anderson and Andrews, therefore, Sackman Law Office is assuring us that the legal jargon in these quitclaims fulfills the intent of the boundary line adjustment drawing.  Since it appears the original 2008 sale paperwork is a mess, we need Steve to confirm that the contract for the deferred industrial payment was finalized and recorded properly back in 2008.  Once we work through these questions, we can finalize the documents and Bonnie will sign for herself and for Clyde as the Personal Representative of his estate.

The following questions can be explained on Monday:  I am unclear what we or Brian Miller did wrong in the original sales contract, such that Andrews now has to quitclaim to ourselves land that we never sold to Anderson and to quitclaim to Mike land we never owned (FU 70).  At this point, there is no value in finding fault, but we need to learn what went wrong.  As to the quitclaim documents, why does page one of each not list all three lots for which the attached pages are quit claiming?    On the Andrews to Andrews quit claim why do we need to quitclaim our land to ourselves?  Why is the 'portion of lot 4 short plat 32-05-05' which is in a different lot, not described as a new parcel C?     Why is Andrews quit claiming farm unit 70 to Anderson; which makes one think FU 70 is involved with this sale and obligated for the future industrial payment; which it is not.   

One item on the actual land survey that we need to figure out; When the snow melted, I noticed a new survey pin between slivers of land C-3 and C-4 that is not where we thought it should be.  If this is the pin that is suppose to be 28.6 feet east of the original property corner at the white post, this new pin is actually 35.5 feet, making the circle property 6'  smaller than expected.  ( I think the 28.6' lath and pin is next to the steel fence post in the dirt bank.) I am not sure what other points on the survey were pinned, so i did not check any others, just happen to notice this one by the shop that i don't think matches the drawing.   

See you Tomorrow at 2


thanks    


-- 
Thank You

Curtis Andrews
1336 E Oak St. 
Othello WA 99344
andrewscc@aol.com
509 346 8108
--------------Q6leabGOQNEJGckHX6dmMi9a--