|
Harris, Celeste
<br /> From: Jim Peckert[JEP@KEHART.COM]
<br /> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 1:22 PM
<br /> To: Harris, Celeste I
<br /> January 25, 2012
<br /> Dear Ms. Harris: �
<br /> Following our telephone discussion of this morning, I reviewed some records to refresh my recollection about a
<br /> real estate transaction ("RET") between the City of Decatur, an Illinois municipal corporation (the City"), and my
<br /> parents/clients, Wayne E Peckert and Rubye E. Peckert(collectively referred to herein as "my Parents").
<br /> On or about July 11, 2002, I participated in a telephone conversation with John Couter, Esquire, then legal counsel
<br /> for the City. That telephone conversation was followed by a letter, dated July 11, 2002, wherein I recounted our telephone
<br /> conversation and the possible purchase by my Parents of certain real estate owned by the City. The subject real estate
<br /> was legally defined as the North 3.01 (+/-) acres of the East'/2 of the West %z of the Northwest(NW) '/4 of Section 34,
<br /> Township 17 North, Range 3 East(the "Real Estate"). The Real Estate lies to the immediate south of real estate owned
<br /> presently (and then) by my Parents. Though likely not an issue presently, when my Parents and the City were involved in
<br /> negotiations, (then) members of the City Council raised inquiries about whether the Real Estate included lake frontage,
<br /> and the answer to said inquiry is negative. As you noted in our telephone conversation, the Real Estate was included as
<br /> the northernmost portion of real property, acquired by the City from the United States Corps of Engineers (the "Corps"),
<br /> �following the abandonment of the Lake Springer Project by the Corps, which (larger tract of the) real property currently is
<br /> used to base the dredging barge used in dredging Basin 6 of Lake Decatur.
<br /> - In my July 11, 2002 correspondence to Mr. Couter, I noted my understanding that he intended to share my letter
<br /> with Mr. Keith Alexander of the City for any questions, comments or concerns. Though I have no doubt that Mr. Couter
<br /> shared my correspondence with Mr. Alexander, I lack evidence of any action taken by Mr. Couter with my July 11, 2002
<br /> correspondence after tender thereof to Mr. Couter.
<br /> By correspondence, dated July 9, 2003 (directed to your attention), I submitted a "bid" for my Parents to purchase
<br /> the Real Estate from the City in exchange for payment to the City in the amount of Fifteen Thousand Dollars
<br /> ($15,0OO.OQ). I presume that this"bid" was the document then considered by the City Council.
<br /> By letter, dated August 11, 2003, I reported the status of the negotiations between the City and my Parents, and I
<br /> informed Mr. Couter that my Parents intended to obtain a title insurance policy commitment as well as a survey of the
<br /> Real Estate. The idea was to separate the Real Estate from other City-owned land (located to the immediate south of the
<br /> �eal Estate)with a (straight as possible) boundary line running (generally) east and west. Soon thereafter, we obtained
<br /> infofmation that resulted in termination of further discussions between the City and my Parents.
<br /> . Though I do not recall specifically, I believe that the title insurance company informed us that the City was barred
<br /> from selling the Real Estate, because the deed from the Corps to the City included a reversionary interest which caused
<br /> title to the Real Estate to revert to the Corps should the City sell the same. In other words, the Corps deeded the Real
<br /> Estate (together with the larger tract) to the City but prohibited the City form disposing of such property to any person
<br /> other than the Corps. After receiving such information, Mr. Couter and I spoke by telephone to ensure that each of us
<br /> possessed the same information. During that discussion, Mr. Couter informed my Parents (through me) that the City
<br /> Fould not convey the Real Estate to my Parents (or anyone else). Prior to this discussion, (I understood)the City had
<br /> approved the sale of the Real Estate to my Parents in accordance with the then-existing agreement between the City and
<br /> my Parents, which approval followed my submission of the aforementioned July 9, 2003 bid.
<br /> The "final" correspondence on the issue (of which I am aware) is my letter to Mr. Couter of January 28, 2004,
<br /> wherein I recounted the history of the discussions and the reasons for the City's inability to convey the Real Estate to my
<br /> Parents. Though the City's inability to convey the Real Estate miqht have constituted a breach of agreement by the City, I
<br /> included in my January 28, 2004 correspondence an express statement waiving any such claim (to the extent one might
<br /> have existed). Thus, following January 28, 2004, the City and my Parents"went their separate ways" and deemed the
<br /> matter terminated.
<br /> 1
<br />
|