724 Bryant St. Tortious Interference Synopsis

Legal

Plaintiff

The Seven Key Elements for a Meritorious Tortious 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 Technology 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.

Joette Farrand

3490 Bean Creek Rd

Scotts Valley, Ca 95066 2.22.2034

Response to Stevens 2nd 30-Day Notice

Hanna Law Offices

John Hanna

Dear Mr. Hanna,

This letter is in response to your 2nd 30-Day Notice. I expressly forbid Mr. Stevens or you or your agents onto my property where I just planted flowers, for my anticipated Open House, because both of you are ignoring standing California Law, specifically:

“Under well settled California law plaintiffs’ causes of action…. Provisions of section 338, subdivision 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which require that ‘An action for trespass upon or injury to real property’ must be brought within three years after the accrual of the cause of action.”

All construction on the permitted pipes and electrical conduit that are between the existing fence and my driveway were completed in 2000. That statute of limitations expired twenty years ago, in 2003. Therefore, Mr. Stevens does not have any standing to destroy this Historic Fence in the first place, for any reason.

For me to grant you, Mr. Stevens or your agents access to my property: Since Mr. Stevens is challenging the “Status Quo”, without a “Plan”, it is Mr. Stevens’s responsibility to explain why California Laws do not apply to him, specifically:

1. Does the 3-year Statute of Limitations: CA: section 338b, Section 2 apply?

If not, Why not? Please Explain.

2. Does Implied Easement, apply, since the fence has been there for a century?

If not, Why not? Please Explain.

3. Do Proscriptive Easements apply to this 724 / 730 Historic fence?

If not, Why not? Please Explain.

4. Is a Court Order required to terminate an existing easement?

If not, Why not? Please Explain.

5. Do “Self Help” statutes provide the fence protection without due process?

If not, Why not? Please Explain.

Mr. Stevens and you are well aware that I cannot list my property for sale until this “Fence Dispute” is settled, because this dispute would force an unwarranted discount on the true location value of my house and prevent a bidding war, which is usual in the Silicon Valley, especially for this particular property.

In point of fact, this is why Mr. Stevens waited 23 years to attack me. He could have said something when he was doing his due diligence when he bought the house and saw the open trench with the pipes and electrical conduit. This is the whole reason you are coercing me, at this very time, into a Plan that does not even exist, because I am trapped.

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, whoever 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

Mr. John Hanna

Hanna Law Offices

Joette Farrand

3490 Bean Creek Rd

Scotts Valley, Ca 95066 3.8.2024

Request for a Letter of Agreement

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 Torti ous Interference.

3. 1-page synopsis:

“The Seven Key Elements for a Meritorious Tortious 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

Joette Farrand

3490 Bean Creek Rd

Scotts Valley, Ca 95066 3.18.2024

Mr. John Hanna

Hanna Law Offices

525 Middlefield Rd. Suite 210

Menlo Park, Ca. 94025

Dear Mr. Hanna,

This letter is a “Follow Up” Request for a Letter of Agreement.

Last week, I sent the attached Letter of Agreement, by Fed Ex. I have attached a digital version, here, as well.

Our Real Estate Agent, Adriana Trenev, 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.

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

Can you please explain the status of this Letter of Agreement, so that my real estate agent can prepare the disclosure statement, so that Mr. Stevens position is well represented?

So that I can finally sell my house. Thank You.

Attached:

Previous Request for Letter of Agreement

Joette Ferrand

50-year Owner of 724 Bryant Street

Joette Farrand

3490 Bean Creek Rd

Scotts Valley, Ca 95066 3.24.2024

Mr. John Hanna

Hanna Law Offices

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

Dear Mr. Hanna,

This letter is the 3rd Request for a “Letter of Agreement”.

It has been six weeks, since you sent the 2nd “30-Day Notice” to me, 2/9/24.

It has been a month, since I responded to your 2nd “30-Day Notice”, asking why the California Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to Mr. Stevens. As of the date of this letter, I have not received an “explanation” from you that justifies Mr. Stevens actions.

Two weeks ago, I sent via FedEx, a signed and witnessed “Letter of Agreement”. A digital copy was provided with the last two requests As of the date of this letter, I have not received any response or the “Letter of Agreement” signed by Mr. and Mrs. Stevens from you.

As both Mr. Stevens and you are well aware that I cannot sell my house until this “fence dispute” is resolved, your assistance to facilitate this sale would be appreciated.

Can you please explain the status of your “explanation” to justify Mr. Stevens actions as well as the “Letter of Agreement”? My real estate agent wants to prepare the disclosure statement, that represents Mr. Stevens position accurately, so that I can finally sell my house.

Thank You.

Attached:

Joette Farrand

50-year Owner of 724 Bryant Street

1st & 2nd Requests for Letter of Agreement

Cc: Adriana Trenev

Elisa Vargas Aguilera

Robert Ferrand

Chris Stevens