PCMR v. Talisker Corp.: strong stand made against ‘occupation’
August 23, 2013
An attorney representing the Talisker Corporation side in its defense against a lawsuit filed by Park City Mountain Resort on Thursday submitted a memo to the judge in the case indicating that Talisker Corporation will not allow PCMR to remain on its land under the same circumstances as it has through the 1 1/2 years of litigation.
The letter, signed by attorney John Lund and addressed to Third District Court Judge Ryan Harris, is one of the most dramatic statements made by either side during the case. Lund’s broaching of the possibility of the Talisker Corporation side moving against PCMR’s presence on the firm’s land will almost certainly heighten the tension in what is already among the highest-profile legal cases in Park City’s modern era. The lawsuit centers on a lease dispute between the parties.
The five-page submittal to the judge, made three days after a PCMR attorney sent Harris its own highly charged memo (see accompanying article), claims the resort put an earlier date on a critical letter in 2011 that PCMR believed was notice to Talisker Corporation that it was extending its lease of the land. The resort leases much of its terrain from Talisker Corporation. The Lund letter says information received from the PCMR side under a subpoena establishes "that PCMR intentionally backdated" the letter.
"Moreover, apart from misleading the Court, PCMR has also exploited its backdated letter to prop up the appearance that it has been proceeding in good faith, and thereby managed to occupy our clients’ property, for more than two years after the expiration of the Leases. In view of PCMR’s conduct, our clients are no longer willing to allow that occupation to continue as is, and we are reviewing all our options in that regard," the letter says.
The letter outlines a brief timeline of the period around the date of the 2011 letter, claims the PCMR side has practiced deception in the case and mentions that statements made during the litigation "may even constitute obstruction of justice." It says the PCMR side attempted to "dupe our clients into believing the Leases had, in fact, been renewed . . . "
Lund said in the letter the information jeopardizes the points left of PCMR’s lawsuit. The judge earlier dismissed some of the lawsuit’s claims.
"These potential improprieties raise serious concerns about the conduct of PCMR and its counsel in this case, and they also expose as a sham PCMR’s remaining claims," Lund wrote.
The Lund letter, meanwhile, says Alan Sullivan, the lead PCMR attorney, in his earlier memo to the judge "conspicuously fails to offer any explanation whatsoever for the backdating that might refute the obvious inference of fraudulent intent."
The Thursday filing by the Talisker Corporation side also included an Aug. 7 letter from Lund to Sullivan. The letter to Sullivan describes what Lund refers to as "the secret backdating of a document to deceive" the Talisker Corporation side. It says providing the "letter to the Court on multiple occasions, knowing it was backdated, would be a deliberate attempt to defraud our client and the court."
"We need to understand exactly how and why the letter was backdated, who was involved, when they were involved and what they did," Lund wrote.
The letter to the judge requests Harris schedule a court date to discuss the information, saying "there is an abundance of questions that should be answered."