Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 1 4
c;aS9z;¤4- ¤V.0¤3a4-¤0s ¤¤¤um9¤t413- 1 6 F¤¤e¤1zx18x200 6 ¤=·ag91¤f3

—. R E. 1 v a is
Snell @t We I ilrner , . _ . ·
_ I-LE PHOEbiE(.ARL'{ONA
LAWCFFICES '
Q-nc Arizona Centex- eryyugx QQ-U EQFKIQEY TUC$ON,.»\iLlZON.·\
enema, Arizona asce-1.2202 1 °· “*”° WM wm wl
taomszecce _ " "‘ "“ " ’
Fra: (602) sez-emo M, ,_,x,,Cm_Uw
www:swla·a·.com
V ‘ i DRIVER. COLORADO
“Z;.}§;‘3§§;2..$S£ZZj82‘62” rcbmry 23, 2004
via counmrz .
VIA FACSIMILE
I on A. Titus ‘
Titus, Brueckner & Berry, RC. I _
7373 North Scottsdale Road, Suite B-252
Scottsdale, Arizona 85253
Re: R. Hancock ‘ “ _
. A Dear lon: _ ] I A
It amazes me the positions you are willing to posit on behalf of your client. And it’s
unfortunate. You used to be a fine and balanced counselor.
But, to the issues. First, there is no earn out due. In fact, based upon a preliminary _
analysis, Greg should owe Meritage over a million dollars for 2003 (unfortunately, we didn't 0
structure the earn out with a specific give-back provision, but there are always other ways to
pursue damages). In fact, the performance of Hancock has been a disappointment, and yes,
beginning when Greg was ther_e. (And, please, stop with the sob stories about the very wealthy
Hancock family. Their conduct has been nothing short of outrageous and your characterization .
of their "plight" is amateurish.) »
Second, as to the $90,000, we trust you mean the payment arising out of the Suns
contract dispute. It is due, by its terms, when and if an earn out payment is due... which is
never. However, since Meritage owes an accounting to your client by the end of March, we had
anticipated paying it then and not taking the position it would never be due because no earn out
is due. It seems we should revisit this position and not pay it all. (Isn’t that exactly what Greg
would do in this situation?).
Note, too, that the payment has nothing to do with the License Agreement (or Master
Agreement). Indeed, it was a gift if I have ever seen one-—characterized as a bonus for a
reduction in the Suns contract our client never assumed anyway! lust another payment to try to
make peace with Greg, a peace that never seems to come. ‘
lon, your letter was successful in one respect: This is the last straw. Meritage views this
as a clear attempt to interfere with itsbusiness, as an anticipatory breach of critical agreements,
andas an attempt, quite hankly, at extortion, by your clients and you personally.) Your clients
have until the end of today, Monday at 5:00 p.m., torwithdraw their threats, drop the use of the
Case 2:04-cv—00384—ROS Document 413-16 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 2 of 3

Snell &`¢i/ilnrer g
-;—— L.L.E ——-——— _ - _ ; ·
Ion A. Titus U 0
February 23, 2004 C
Page 2
Hancock name, drop the BLM] issue (there is no way Meritage can transfer management of such I
critical projects to such an unstable situation), and agree that they will adhere to their Y‘
agreements. This needs to be in writing, signed by them, not you, and faxed to Larry Seay at
Meritage. They are not going to like the alternative. Neither are you. Q
‘ Very truly yours,
S `
/ I b I
/ Ste 6 .'Pidg€01’1 ‘
SDP;1d1e 1
cc: Steve Hilton _ ` _ - ’
John Landon `
Larry Seay .
Dan Goldiine
Case 2:04-cv—00384—ROS Document 413-16 Filed 12/18/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 413-16

Filed 12/18/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 413-16

Filed 12/18/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00384-ROS

Document 413-16

Filed 12/18/2006

Page 3 of 3