724 Bryant Request for Letter of Agreement

Joette Farrand

3490 Bean Creek Rd

Scotts Valley, Ca 95066 3.8.2024

Request for a Letter of Agreement

Mr. John Hanna

Hanna Law Offices

525 Middlefield Rd. Suite 210 Menlo Park, Ca. 94025

Dear Mr. Hanna,

This letter is a Request for a Letter of Agreement.

It has now been 30-Days, since you sent me the 2nd “30-Day Notice”. On February 22, 2024, I responded to that notice and requested an explanation why California Code of Civil Procedure laws to DO NOT apply to Mr. Stevens.

Specifically: 1. Statute of Limitations, 2. Implied Easement, 3. Proscriptive Easements, 4. Court Order requirement, 5. “Self Help” statutes: that obviously all do apply and protect this Historic 724 / 730 Bryant Street fence.

As of the date of this letter, you have NOT responded. May I draw your attention to the fact; that the longer the 724 Bryant Street House is kept off the market, because of this “fence dispute”, only reinforces the “Coercion” Claim and increases Mr. Stevens Financial Liability. I say this because…….

My partner, Robert Ferrand, is a first person witness to the events over the last 9 months and he has a different perspective. To be able to succinctly explain this case to Contingency Plaintiffs’ Attorneys, that he has worked with in the past, he has prepared:

1. “120-year Timeline” that Proves Statute of Limitations

2. A “9-month Timeline” that Proves Torturous Interference.

3. 1-page synopsis:

“The Seven Key Elements for a Meritorious Torturous Interference Case – All Checked”.

I have attached this Timeline and Synopsis for your review, so that you can determine for yourself, whether my partner’s view is in fact “meritorious”. If you conclude that these “Seven Key Elements” do have merit, Mr. Stevens may wish another path. To provide that path, I have attached a Letter of Agreement that is an elegant solution, whereby Mr. Stevens states his position for the record and to the new owner.

I think this is a good solution for everyone, win/win To that end, I have provided a signed and witnessed copy of th is agreement. Please have Mr. and Mrs. Stevens sign and witness and the “Fence Dispute is Resolved”.

And I can finally sell my house. Thank You.

Joette Ferrand 50-year Owner of 724 Bryant Street

Christopher & Jana Stevens & Joette Farrand

Letter of Agreement 3/8/2024

This Letter of Agreement is intended to be provided to potential buyers, in the legally required “724 Bryant Street Disclosure Statement” as part of the “Due Diligence” phase of the sale process. The following points detail where we are in agreement :

1. Mr. Stevens wishes to replace the 120-year-old common old growth redwood fence between 724 / 730 Bryant Street with a New Fence.

2. Mr. Stevens wishes to place the new fence on the property line noted in Mr. Stevens “2011 Property Survey”.

3. Mr. Stevens acknowledges that there are permitted water/drainage pipes, electrical conduit and gas lines buried in the ground at the exact same location as Mr. Stevens proposed new fence.

4. Mr. Steven acknowledges that he does not, currently, have a “Fence Plan” that conforms to the Palo Alto Fence Code.

5. Mr. Stevens acknowledges that he does not have any legal standing to remove or replace the original existing Historic 724 / 730 Bryant Street fence, without the owner of 724 Bryant Street agreement.

6. Mr. Stevens would like to build a new fence with the agreement of the new owner of 724 Bryant Street, wh oever that may be.

THEREFORE: IN THE INTEREST OF FUTURE GOOD NEIGHBOR RELATIONS:

7. Mr. Stevens agrees that the new owner, who is buying 724 Bryant Street is “FREE and CLEAR” with NO LEGAL obligations to Mr. Stevens, with respect to this proposed new 724 /730 Bryant Street fence.

8. Joette Farrand agrees to take No Legal Action against Christopher Stevens.

signed____________________________________ Christopher Stevens date

_ owner of 730 Bryant Street

signed____________________________________ Jana Stevens

date _ owner of 730 Bryant Street

signed____________________________________ Witness

date

_ Name

signed____________________________________ Joette Farrand

date

_ owner of 724 Bryant Street

signed____________________________________ Witness date _ Robert Ferrand

The Seven Key Elements for a Meritorious Torturous Interference Case – All Checked

Supporting Documentation: 120-year Timeline Proves Statute of Limitations. 9-month Timeline Proves Torturous Interference.

1.Plaintiff had a prospective economic advantage: Location, Location, Location. (see map)

This house is a half mile from Stanford University, 2 blocks from Whole Foods, 2 blocks from University Ave and 50 Restaurants, one half block from the Heritage Park and the New Palo Alto Technol ogy Museum. In a Red-Hot Silicon Valley Real Estate Market, Joette has a reasonable basis to expect a well -deserved profit, after owning the house for 50 years

2. Defendant knew of the plaintiff's advantage: Mr. Stevens actually watched Joette restore the 724 cottage, himself, when he bought 730 Bryant St. in 1998 Mr. Stevens owns 14 Properties. Since he also owns the adjacent 730 Bryant Street property, as well, which is twice the size of 724. Mr. Stevens fully understands the value of both properties, which is why he has trapped Joette.

3.Defendant intentionally interfered: Mr. Stevens waited 23 years to spring this intentional attack on Joette, only days after Joette posted a for-sale sign. so that Joette would be trapped. Instead of hiring an Architect to create a “Plan”, Mr. Stevens hired an Attorney to coerce Joette into a “Plan”, that does not really exist. Or she cannot sell her house. This is the definition of Coercion.

4.Improper means: This attack on Joette, over the last 9 months, should never have taken place, as the 3-year Statute of Limitations ran out in 2003. Mr. Stevens has ignored the 3-year statute of limitations and the various Implied easements, in order to force Joette to agree to “Plan” that does not actually exist. Mr. Stevens’s two separate “30-day Notices” are direct evidence of Coercion. Joette would not agree to such an agreement to destroy the Historic fence were it not for this specific threat: that she could not sell her house because of the fence dispute. This is Coercion.

5.Causation: The Real Estate Agent has been clear. “We cannot put the house on the market until the “fence dispute” is resolved” If the house were to be put on the market, with the “unresolved fence dispute” it would a. force a significant discount, or b. prevent a bidding war, for a house that is worth, multiples of the asking price in this fantastic location This is Coercion.

6.Damages: This house is a one-of-kind, last of its class with modern upgrades. In the usual bidding wars in the Silicon Valley, this house could sell for double, maybe triple the asking price of $3.7. A few months ago, there was an All Cash, (As Is), offer for the asking price $3.7M. This offer was declined because the house was not, yet, on the market, because of this fence dispute. The longer this house remains off the market reinforces the claim of Coercion.

7.Pain and Suffering: Over these months, Joette has been deteriorating, ever so slowly. She keeps repeating, “I can’t take it.” On a number of occasions, has taken Lorazepam to stabilize her mood. Last month, it was serious enough, that Robert filed a “Report of Elder Abuse” with the Santa Cruz Adult Protection Services. Joette has been in bed for the last 2 weeks.