4723 MERMONT PL 2016-01-01 MF Import

Page 2 To: Mary Barton . July 11, 1990 xC� n� m�S 3) That you assume all liability for the work on the wall y y� in writing; and rx y �H 4) That you acknowledge ownership of the wall. K � � H� Apparently Gil Davis said that he would think about it y H , and/or that that was £ine, but in any event, he and/or you caused y x� the beams to be installed without any of the conditions having � p� been met. At this point, the Ervines and I view that as a o H d trespass onto the Ervine property. �m g At one point during one of the canversations that Gerry had with Gil Davis, there was eome surprise expressed that you owned a 3� the wall. I would suggest that you con�act Gerry Ervine £or the r H y necessary documents showing that that wall is yours and alwaya � y has been your predecessors in title. H C] C7 N �t, The purpose of this letter is to expedite a solution to the z y� problem. The problem that is seen is one of the walls tumbling y o�n over causing damage to the Ervine property and potential personal injury to Gerry, hi.s wife and their children. It is believed that it is just a matter of time until that wall collapses . As you may be aware ac an abutting property owner, you owe a primary duty to tlie Ervines to laterally support any construction and/or fill or other stressful activities occurring on your �` property so a.; to not allow damage to the Ervine p:operty or �� trespass onto the Ervine property. To the extent that any damage to the Ervine property or injury to any individual on the Ervine property or con;.in�ed trespass occurs or is allowed to continue �"" "� to exist, the Ervinec obviously will be damaged and will seek �°'r► recourse for that damage. In reviewing this matter� it occurs to me that the only �� appropriate solution would be to remove the wall, and build a new one or to install a satisfactory lateral support assuring no collapse and/or injury and trespasc. The Ervines are willing to � '�) cooperate with you so that you may accomplish that. In fact, that was the inten� and purpose of Gerry Ervine indicating that support beams could be placed against the wali on the conditions � indicated believing that it would only be temporary until another �� wall or a satisfactory alternative solution could be reached. � Clearly if any damage ensues or injury occurs, the Ervines �-'� will look to you for reimbursement of any loss . Because of what appears to be L-he eminent danger of the wall and the existing and reoccurring trespass occasioned by the " placement of the beams onto the Ervine property, I have advised tne Ervi.nes unless this matter can be resolved within fourteen ;