8/28/96 to 9/19/96

Airport Terms Defined - List of Key People

Other Sections
One (8/22/89 thru 4/19/94) - Two (6/10/96 only) - Four (thru 9/18/97)
Five (thru 8/10/98) - Six (thru 10/26/98) - Seven (thru 4/14/99)
Eight (thru 6/24/99) - Nine (thru 9/8/99) - Ten (second complaint)
Eleven (thru 12/27/99) - Twelve (thru 7/25/00) - Thirteen (thru 10/9/00)
Fourteen (thru 9/11/01) - Fifteen (thru 10/1/02) - Sixteen (thru 1/19/03)
Seventeen (to present)

*** 8/28/96 (32-34)
Letter from County Counsel (Tom Parker) to James McKeehan.
Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3
County may exercise 30 day cancellation of McKeehan lease if Steve conducts other than permitted activities. County has accumulated evidence of Steve's failure to properly carry out duties required, and carrying on unauthorized activities such as painting aircraft illegally. Problem created by Steve's actions from past correspondence and discussions with DOT. Lists complaints against Steve:

1) Paints entire aircraft,
2) Fails to direct parking of aircraft,
3) Fails to properly maintain picnic area and restrooms,
4) Has not submitted tie-down agreements,
5) Has charged nightly/transient fees for aircraft,
6) Has not submitted quarterly list of tiedown tenants or revenues
7) Has been using a portion of County's ramp not included in his lease,
8) Failed to report and repair navigational equipment such as runway lights and lenses, and
9) Has not provided copies of current business license.

County has decided Steve is an unacceptable sublessee and must be removed within 60 days.

*** 9/19/96 (35-47)
Letter from Freda Pechner to Lawrence Miles (law firm).
Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6
Page 7 - Page 8 - Page 9 - Page 10 - Page 11 - Page 12
Have received copy of notice to quit served to Steve C., purporting that he vacate leased premises. Your allegations are false and without merit. I addressed most of the issues over a year ago to Robert Ash (previous attorney). Request for financial information is not relevant.

1. Painting is part of Steve's business and does not violate any law or ordinance.

2. Steve informs campers and attendees as to parking procedures. County does not enforce them.

3. Picnic area and restrooms are maintained in excellent condition.

4. County has not given Steve tie-down agreement forms as Steve repeatedly requested and Steve is prohibited from printing his own.

5. Steve does not charge nightly or transient tie-down fees.

6. The only current tenants owing fees are Bill Pieper and John Loggia, who refuse to pay. Steve has so advised County numerous times.

7. Allegations are incorrect.

8. Steve reported problems with nav aids to County several times. Power to lights has been turned off by County for past 15 months. Steve cannot do repairs when lights cannot be turned on. County is required to furnish bulbs and has not done so.

9. Steve's business license has been filed with the County and an insurance certificate copy is being provided as recently requested.
Painting does not require written authorization and is not prohibited, so any action by your client to prohibit same is a violation of the lease by your client.
Steve does not store anything in areas excluded by the lease. If others do so, Steve has no control over it.
Your client's actions subject McKeehan to tort liability, etc.

[Copy of lease agreement attached.]

[The attached lease agreement is between Steve C. and James McKeehan. It is titled "Lease with Purchase Option". Later, you will see that McKeehan sued Steve and that one of the key elements in the suit was the lease.

Steve alleged that the lease was actually a lease purchase. He (Steve) had objected to the title on the document, but McKeehan had insisted that the lease form used was the only one available, and that the two of them (he and Steve) understood that it was actually a lease purchase agreement. Therefore Steve signed the agreement and proceeded to make improvements in the hangar amounting to about $30,000.

McKeehan swore that the lease was what it was titled to be, a lease with a purchase option, and he (McKeehan) had a right to take possession of the hangar in its improved state.

The court accepted McKeehan's version of the lease. This acceptance was based upon the title of the document. Steve lost this suit against him and McKeehan made a considerable profit.

However, if you look at the lease itself, you will see two paragraphs which were crossed out and initialed by both parties. Both describe what would occur should the lease expire. No other paragraphs addressing a lease expiration are found in the document.

Since the only paragraphs addressing a lease expiration were crossed out, it appears that the lease was not ever expected to expire, and that Steve was correct in his assertion that the document was intended to be a lease purchase.

Therefore, it appears that McKeehan should not have won his suit against Steve and therefore should not have been allowed to repossess the hangar that Steve had improved. You will see that McKeehan was later sued by Steve C., in part, for this action by McKeehan. This was one of the issues affecting the County when it agreed to settle out of court.

The County paid for McKeehan's legal defense in the subsequent action. This would appear to be a misuse of County funds.]