- 36 -
ture of Ms. Signom does not appear on the July 6 document. No
other individual signed the July 6 document as a representative
of MHR Properties. Finally, although Mr. Signom sent the July 6
document to Mr. Packard, it was not sent to the University and
was never recorded. On the instant record, we find that the July
6 document did not effect a cancellation of either MHR Proper-
ties’ purchase option or MHR Properties’ leasehold interest as of
July 6, 1991, or as of any other date.
As for the July 22 document on which petitioners rely, on
July 22, 1991, Brother Ploeger signed that document, as well as
the July 22 St. Clair deed and the July 22 Ludlow deed, in
anticipation of finalizing and closing the draft property ex-
change agreement. After Brother Ploeger signed the July 22
document and those two deeds, he sent them to Mr. Packard and Mr.
Deas to be held in their custody and to be used only in the event
that the parties to the draft property exchange agreement final-
ized and closed that agreement. The University, Mr. Signom, and
Ms. Signom all anticipated that Mr. Signom and Ms. Signom would
sign the July 22 document on behalf of MHR Properties at the July
31 anticipated closing. However, shortly after Brother Ploeger
signed the July 22 document and sent it, along with the two deeds
that he signed on July 22, 1991, to Mr. Packard and to Mr. Deas,
Mr. Signom advised Mr. Deas that Ms. Signom would be unable to
attend the July 31 anticipated closing. At Mr. Signom’s request,
Mr. Deas mailed the July 22 document to Mr. Signom in order to
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011