Mumio said:

luv4u said:

According to the source posted in this thread http://prince.org/msg/7/430379 it is false.

But my source isn't TMZ, it's a legitimate affidavit filed in the court system.

See that twitter source ...............

luv4u said:

Mumio said:

But my source isn't TMZ, it's a legitimate affidavit filed in the court system.

See that twitter source ...............

I did see the Twitter source...but what's false about the statement, that PP is to be sold or that the family is fighting about it? Like I said, the source is a court document, an affidavit...it's not just gossip and 7801 Audubon Rd is listed as real estate to be sold.

Militant said:

Mumio said:

https://twitter.com/Londe...r%5Eauthor

luv4u said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.

Thanks babynoz

Militant said:

Mumio said:

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.

Thanks babynoz

No prob....this judge takes forever to make his rulings. He is erring on the side of caution, dotting his i's and crossing his t's.

Militant said:

rogifan said:

laurarichardson said:

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...

The way that I read the property court document is that Exhibit A is a list of properties owned by Prince, not that they all will be sold.

FlyOnTheWall said:

tmo1965 said:

babynoz said:

YaThink said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...

For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with. The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE. Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.

I'm getting that same feeling YaThink. Bremer Trust was only given, what six months? They appointed Londell and Koppelman to supposedly monetize his music assets, but I have yet to see any evidence of any such activity. When are they going to begin selling remasters and reissues? The estate taxes are due in January, for Chrissakes. I hate to say it, and I hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to think the fix is in...

morningsong said:

babynoz said:

Its only an affidavit in support of Bremer's request to sell some or all of the properties listed in the attached exhibit and PP is on the list, meaning that Bremer could opt to sell it if the judge signs their proposed order, which he has not done. The judge could modify their order or even draft his own.

Londell and co can either address this by filing a motion in opposition and request a hearing or as I suspect from Londell's twitter comment, they can negotiate a resolution privately.

No denying it's included in the exhibit though.

So technically everything is still up in the air?

Yes.

Any of the parties can file motions, make requests and submit exhibits but nothing happens unless the judge signs an order. Bremer has submitted an affivavit with an exhibit attached and a proposed order that hasn't been signed.

PP is among the properties listed in Bremer's exhibit but apparently Londell ain't having it.

YaThink said:

tmo1965 said:

The way that I read the property court document is that Exhibit A is a list of properties owned by Prince, not that they all will be sold.

The bigger issue is the bank seeking pre approval to sell any or all of the listed properties. Which includes Paisley.

Pre-approval seems to give them cart blanche and PP even appearing on the list at all is worrisome.

I'm going to read the pleadings again.

babynoz said:

YaThink said:

tmo1965 said: The bigger issue is the bank seeking pre approval to sell any or all of the listed properties. Which includes Paisley.

Pre-approval seems to give them cart blanche and PP even appearing on the list at all is worrisome.

I'm going to read the pleadings again.

In the grand scheme of things, Londell's tweets mean zilch.

FlyOnTheWall said:

YaThink said:

FlyOnTheWall said: For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with. The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE. Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.

I'm getting that same feeling YaThink. Bremer Trust was only given, what six months? They appointed Londell and Koppelman to supposedly monetize his music assets, but I have yet to see any evidence of any such activity. When are they going to begin selling remasters and reissues? The estate taxes are due in January, for Chrissakes. I hate to say it, and I hope I'm wrong, but I'm starting to think the fix is in...

Perhaps when we see Londell and Koppelman's billable hours, we will have some idea of what they are doing in the realm of monetizing P's music assets. Le sigh...

bump for sub

FlyOnTheWall said:

babynoz said:

Pre-approval seems to give them cart blanche and PP even appearing on the list at all is worrisome.

I'm going to read the pleadings again.

In the grand scheme of things, Londell's tweets mean zilch.

Glad other people seem concerned about this too.

YaThink said:

FlyOnTheWall said:

Does anyone know what Londell and Koppelman are doing with regard to monetizing Prince's vast music catalogue? It's been weeks since they were appointed and I have yet to see any evidence of movement on their part, other than vague tweets from Londell. Moreover, are they working on an inventory of the vault? I sure hope Londell can be trusted...

For the record, the only folks who know are them, Bremer Bank Special administrators, Bremers lawyers, and whomever they are striking deals with. The way I see it, they are taking a plum (Prince's estate) and turning it into a prune (sucking it dry) - and until they run out of their allocated time, can only be approved and/or rejected by the court - which is RARE. Much is misunderstood by those following the story, because lies have been mixed cleverly with truth to form a 'smoke and mirrors' view.

rogifan said:

I looked up some of these addresses on Google street view and three of them (Red Fox Circle addresses) are houses in a nice residential area. I wonder who lives in those houses? I'll have to walk over there some day and check them out.

If I put addresses in www.whitepages.com, I almost always get a name to go with them.

[Edited 8/5/16 23:17pm]

I saw the tweets but as an attorney, here's how I read the affidavit (using direct language from the document). They're looking for advance approval to immediately begin to list and market the properties on Exhibit A which they currently anticipate will be sold to take advantage of the current market and allow sufficient time for preparation and sale. They've already done due diligence on the properties (including appraisals) and they've done due diligence and selected agents/brokers to sell those properties. The costs of repair and ongoing maintenance are such that carrying these properties are not in the Estate's best interests. They've already shared this information with counsel for the interested parties. They've redacted the names of the agents/brokers they've selected because that would be detrimental to the Estate in negotiating listing agreements.

I’d be interested to see if someone agrees/disagrees with me on this point: I see a conflict in the language of Paragraph 6 which says the properties they are currently anticipating will be sold, and their appraised values, are listed on Exhibit A. In Paragraph 12, however, it says that the public disclosure of the appraisals would hamper the agents ability to negotiate favorable sales terms.

On Exhibit A, the heading reads “Estimated Market Values” (and not appraised values as stated in Paragraph 6). It says they need the $$ to pay taxes and the ongoing administrating expenses.

I’ve not read any of the other legal agreements - Tyka Nelson is listed as the petitioner. Is she listed as petitioner on other documents?

Jessica55 said: