From: Attorney Pisanchyn
Sent: Friday, December 6, 2024 3:16 PM
To: Olyphant1@comcast.net
Subject: Screenshot 2024-12-06 at 3.09.30 PM

 

CJ. 

My client’s understanding is these posts are the property line. Further, he has evidence for the past 6 months the property in the pictures has been stored there. Please accept this email as a right to know request for any written or oral information about agreement of the borough to allow the owner of that building next store to allow its property to be stored on borough property while putting up parking barricades not allowing anyone else to use it. 

 

Also, please do not move anything from the property other than non borough property or do anything to change the property while the sale is pending without notice and consent by the buyer. My client is starting to believe the borough is single him out. 

 

Thanks in advance and if you would like to talk about this issue, feel free to call me on my cell at 5703574384. Thanks and have a great day. 

Attached photo sent with email

 

Excuse errors produced/sent from Iphone

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

The Pisanchyn Law Firm

Excellent Attorneys

Ph: 1800-444-5309

Fax: 570-346-9455

Email: attorney@pisanchyn.com

www.PisanchynLawFirm.com

 

It is our pledge that we will represent you skillfully, compassionately and most of all aggressively and never charge you a fee until we win your case.

From: Olyphant1@comcast.net <Olyphant1@comcast.net>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2024 3:04 PM
To: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>
Subject: RE: View recent photos

 

Dear Mr. Pisanchyn:

 

There are so many inaccuracies in your three (3) emails that you sent to me regarding the Lot owned by the Borough of Olyphant located at 105-109 Delaware Avenue, Olyphant PA that I will only address here the major corrections:

 

(1) There is no property being "stored" on the subject Lot. No permission has been give to anyone to store property. I have offered to explain this issue to Mr. Dennin at our meeting.

(2) Mr. Dennin never asked me to store property on the subject Lot; he did assert, which I of course disputed, that he now owns the concrete blocks which are located on the subject Lot and owned by the Borough of Olyphant; Mr. Dennin then asked that I remove the blocks immediately, which I declined to do at this point.

(3) I don't know what "posts" you are referring to as indicating the property line of the subject Lot but I did mention to you and to Mr. Dennin that the Borough had a survey performed.

(4) I also told you that in my legal opinion there is, as of this date, no "new buyer" of the subject Lot as you maintain and I also informed you that the parties have not yet had the opportunity to enter into a Sales Agreement for the subject Lot which would set forth the terms and conditions of sale.

(5) Your last email is the first time I have been informed of a deck being built on the subject Lot.

Based upon the above, the additional inaccuracies not set forth here, and in view of your threats to sue the Borough of Olyphant it will be my course of action to maintain the status quo until at least a Sales Agreement in concluded between the parties and/or a more rational understanding of these matters is recognized. 

 

C.J. Mustacchio, Esquire

 

From: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 3:16 PM
To: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>; mdennin@live.com
Subject: Sales Agreement-105-109 Delaware St

 

Michael Pisanchyn

Michael Dennin

 

Attached is the Sales Agreement for the sale of the above-referenced Property. Please contact me as to when we can meet to execute the same or make two (2) copies and send both signed copies back to me for the Borough Officials to execute and I will send you a fully executed counterpart.Time is of the essence.

 

CJ Mustacchio

 

From: Attorney Pisanchyn
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:29 AM
To: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Sales Agreement-105-109 Delaware St

 

Be advised that until all non-borough property is off the land under contract with the highest bidder, nothing further can occur concerning purchasing the land. The winning bidder is beginning to believe that you and the Borough are doing this intentionally in hopes to have the sale fall through. Be advised that if the Borough does this, there certainly will be litigation as a result of the Borough’s actions and inactions.

 

Further, the winning bidder is not going to rush around last minute to get this done. As such, I respectfully suggest that all non-Borough property be removed within the next day or two. As of today, there is still a dumpster and garbage cans on the property. Once these are removed, please let me know and I will relay this to the winning bidder who will inspect the property.  Once it is demonstrated good and clear marketable title with no non-Borough property is on it, then a date and time 30 days after can be arranged for the check to be given to the borough and at the same time a signed deed provided to the buyer as per the resolution. In the meantime, please send over the proposed deed.

 

Thanks in advance and we will not be begging for the above to occur (non-Borough property to be removed, deed sent)  so please do so timely. This should be sent to Council as its now been over 10 days since a formal letter was sent alerting Council to the non-Borough property with no action being taken.

Excuse errors produced/sent from Iphone

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

The Pisanchyn Law Firm

Excellent Attorneys

Ph: 1800-444-5309

Fax: 570-346-9455

Email: attorney@pisanchyn.com

www.PisanchynLawFirm.com

It is our pledge that we will represent you skillfully, compassionately and most of all aggressively and never charge you a fee until we win your case.

 

From: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2024 3:06 PM
To: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>
Subject: RE: Sales Agreement-105-109 Delaware St

Mr. Pisanchyn:

 

This is in response to your email correspondence dated 12/16/2024.

To be clear, the property known as 105-109 Delaware Avenue, Olyphant, PA 18447 (Premises) is not under contract with your client as you attempt to set forth in your email above-referenced. You have not entered into a Sales Agreement regarding the Premises as is required for the conveyance of land under the Law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As a consequence of your failure to execute a Sales Agreement you have not acquired any rights in the Premises, not any equitable interest and certainty not any legal interest. In fact I take the content of your email as a refusal to enter into the required Sales Agreement. On two (2) different occasions I have sent to you a standard Sales Agreement which contains standard provisions consistent with the standard of legal practice in the Commonwealth and locally. Finally, I hereby state the total disagreement of the Borough of Olyphant with your assertions and/or proposals as contained in the balance of your 12/16/2024 email. Please be guided accordingly, time is of the essence.

 

C.J. Mustacchio, Esquire

Olyphant Borough Solicitor

 

 

From: Attorney Pisanchyn
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 8:00 AM
To: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Sales Agreement-105-109 Delaware St

 

Dear Borough Solicitor and Council:

 

First, I hope all is well and both you and your families are having a happy holiday season. Next, I am now in receipt of the email dated December 17, 2024. In that regard, please allow me to set for the history of this matter.

 

An article printed in The Times-Tribune on or about July 5, 2024, reported, “Olyphant Borough and Basalyga are currently negotiating a potential sale of a lot next to OTOWN at 105 Delaware Ave., ..” In fact Council President was quoted and stated Olyphant recently renovated its nearby Queen City Station, which Baldan said was in part because of Basalyga possibly acquiring the pocket park site.” https://www.thetimes-tribune.com/2024/07/05/john-basalyga-to-buy-otown-bar-grill-in-olyphant/ As a result of that article, the Pisanchyn Law Firm sent an email to you and Council with several concerns including:  The borough never provided notice that the pocket park was no longer being pursued; The borough never provided notice that the land located at 105 Delaware Avenue was for sale, when the sale would occur and where the sale would take place (to assure everyone had a fair opportunity to purchase the property and the borough could receive the maximum sale price to benefit the borough); The borough never provided notice that borough council was negotiating the sale of borough property with a private citizen; (See The Times-Tribune article quoting council President Jimmy Baldwin as stating, “Basalyga approached the borough about buying the land at a council work session about two months ago); Presumably, as a result of the email the Pisanchyn Law Firm sent, Council then passed a Resolution which stated the terms and conditions of the sale which included a public auction.

 

My client believes that coincidences can occur but after six or seven in a row it seems more than happenstance. Curiously, my client noted that only once the new buyer purchased O-Town

 

a) the plans for the pocket park immediately changed to selling the property which it is our understanding was Led by Councilman Michael Abda;

b) Council was quoted as negotiating with Basaglia and in fact renovated the Queen City Station because Basaglia was acquiring the pocket park site;

c) at this time Basaglia began to store his property on the site including a dumpster and 10 large garbage cans while every other Olyphant Tax Payer was excluded from using the property;

d) then a week or so before the auction it was noted a deck was being built which clearly extended by about five feet over the property line;

e) even more odd, the deck immediately stopped being built once a different bidder then Queen City Tavern won the bid;

f) it was recently learned that the owner of the deck that was being built is owned by the nephew of Councilmen Abda who is his Uncle.

 

If these coincidence were not enough there is more.

 

g) After the auction, Basaglia was directly quoted as stating “The land probably is worth maybe $10,000, that’s it,” he said. “When it got to $100,000, I’m like, ‘Alright, honestly, I’m going to keep bidding. I’m going to drive the number up…” as specifically reported by the Times, “Basalyga said he intentionally drove up the price of the property when bidding exceeded $100,000 knowing the proceeds would go to the borough.”

 

This gives the winning bidder great concern as it is hoped that there wasn’t a quid pro qou that the Borough may have had wherein the Borough allowed the property to be stored and in turn the bid was driven up. This is especially in light of you, C.J., stating the “Borough has an agreement with John where he is allowed to keep that property there.” Please answer the simple question---is/was there an agreement to allow the property to be stored and continued to be stored there?

 

Even more so an email was sent to you and Council about 10 days ago requesting the non-borough property be removed from the lot so the winning bidder can purchase the lot.You would think this would be a simple issue and the Borough would just say yes we will have the property removed---well you would be mistaken.

 

Despite pictures being sent to you and pictures being in the Times clearly demonstrating non-Borough property is on the lot which is being sold, and knowing Mr. Shigo the code enforcement officer was at the property, no action has been taken concerning the dumpster and garbage cans which still remain on the property. In light of the losing bidder stating the property is only worth $10,000 and no more than $100,000 and the winning bidder paying $130,000 you would think the Borough would be delighted and doing everything possible to get the additional money for the benefit of the tax-payers. Nope, you would be wrong—instead you and Council refuse to have the deck and the Basaglia property removed presumably because you are going to try to cause issues with the sale. We know council has a survey, we know the code enforcement officer has stated the deck is over the property line and from a review of the pictures, even as published in the Times, the dumpster and large garbage cans are further on the property then the deck without any enforcement whatsoever.

 

Then even more coincidental, despite the tax-payers potentially getting at between $30,000 (if worth 100 like losing bidder stated) or $120,000(if land only worth 10 like was stated) you and Council instead of working with the winning bidder to buy the property are now trying to say there is “no contract.” This is crazy because even a first year law student would know that in order to have a contract there must be an offer –see the Borough’s Resolution—an acceptance—see the winning bid and then consideration—see the $7,200 the winning bidder paid to the Borough.

Speaking of that, it is either incompetence or even more nefarious that within the Sales Agreement the Borough proposed there is no accounting for the money paid by the winning bidder—coincidence? We know what is not coincidence is the fact that the Resolution the Borough and presumably you drafted states absolutely nothing about entering into a sales agreement. Now after the Borough does not like and has been targeting the winning bidder, you and Council want to add additional terms and conditions into the sale in hopes of submarining the purchase. You as an attorney clearly know that adding additional term and conditions for a contract that has already been entered into is not proper. There seems to many coincidences to be coincidental and is beginning to verge on corruption.

 

It is truly a shame this letter has to be sent to both you and Council as in normal course the property would just have been requested to be removed by the Borough and this is what makes it so odd. The questions posed in the Newspaper 10 days ago still stands –1) Does/Did the Borough or you have an agreement concerning allowing the property to remain on Borough property and 2) is this property going to be moved? The winning bidder who DOES have a contract with the Borough as per the terms and conditions of the Resolution, would like to close on the property 30 days after an inspection shows no non-borough property is on the land. We ask you and the Borough stop with the actions and inactions precluding this sale, stop targeting the winning bidder and stop playing games. As such, and as previously requested, please send over a proposed deed and let us know when the property is moved so an inspection can be completed to show free/clear title and a closing set to exchange the deed and check.  

 

Excuse errors produced/sent from Iphone

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

The Pisanchyn Law Firm

Excellent Attorneys

Ph: 1800-444-5309

Fax: 570-346-9455

Email: attorney@pisanchyn.com

www.PisanchynLawFirm.com

It is our pledge that we will represent you skillfully, compassionately and most of all aggressively and never charge you a fee until we win your case.

From: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 1:28 PM
To: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>
Subject: RE: Sales Agreement-105-109 Delaware St

 

Mr. Pisanchyn:

          C. J. Mustacchio, Esquire

 

From: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>
Subject: Borough Lot @ 105-109 Delaware Avenue,Olyphant PA

 

Mr. Pisanchyn:

 

Upon the review of the property survey completed by the Borough of Olyphant and upon a further on-site examination of the property itself it has come to the attention of the Borough that further encroachments may be present. The deck of the Queen City Tavern, which has been present long before the purchase by the Borough, appears to protrude out over the subject property and the deck support posts may also be over the property line. The Borough does not know how long the deck has been in its present location. A stop work order was issued to NAB Holdings, LLC (Barrett Property) to eliminate this encroachment. Although this information is provided to you as it became known to the Borough of Olyphant this does not excuse your continued duty to do your due diligence in all matters relevant to the to the purchase of the Lot in question by your client.

 

C.J. Mustacchio, Esquire 

 

 

From: Attorney Pisanchyn
Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2024 1:49 PM
To: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Borough Lot @ 105-109 Delaware Avenue, Olyphant PA

 

Both you and Council are unbelievable. I on behalf of the winning bidder have been sending email concerning the many issues with the property for now well over 20 days. See the attached email sending pictures concerning the very posts your email of 12/26/24 of 20 day before. Despite us sending at least four emails with pictures, you and the Borough have done little to nothing to move this process along. In fact, it took over 14 days for you to have the garbage cans and dumpsters removed from the property. As of today, the post and the other deck which it owned by Councilmen Abda’s Nephew is still on the property. Further, the Borough clearly had a survey completed and are you trying to tell me that this surveyor didn’t advised the Borough that there was property built on the land it owned. That too is unbelievable. I don’t expect an answer other than “you dispute what’s in this email since you cannot even answer if Council had an agreement to allow the garbage cans and dumpster of Queen City to be on the land for months.

 

As we have advised you and the Borough since the bid was won, the Buyer is willing and able to close on the property as was defined in the Resolution. Despite this, you continually try to add new terms to the sale including term like “time is of the essence” that were never in the resolution or part of any agreement. In one of your email of 12/20/24, you state that “The public auction does not act as a substitute or waiver of the public law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which requires that a contract for the sale of land be set forth in writing.” Interestingly, you do not site to any legal authority for this proposition—in fact, if the Borough wanted the winning auction to sign a sales agreement, it would have stated simply when the winning bidder wins they will enter into a sales agreement with the Borough and xyz are the terms. As you are fully aware, the Resolution never stated this and in fact either you or the Borough are inappropriately trying to add terms and conditions into the agreement.

 

Your email dated the same date states “No extension of the December 30, 2024 closing date and time will be granted by the Borough …” This too is unbelievable in light of several factors including 1) the winning bidder is and has been ready to close and advised they would give a check once the deed was provided to them to review and also all non-borough property is removed. This doesn’t seem like a big ask.

 

2) there still is a huge deck on the property from Councilmen Abda’s nephew and also now from Queen City tavern; and

 

3) you being quoted in the Times when the property was initially won by the bidder was “The borough will now prepare a deed, and Dennin could conduct a title search, though the borough did a title search for the property before buying it, Mustacchio said. The sale is supposed to be settled by Dec. 30, though it could be extended, he said.”

 

Now all of a sudden the Borough is sending emails stating that the sale will not be extended despite it being the Borough who is preventing the sale because it cannot give free, clear and non-encroached title. No one ever would purchase property with multiple other persons having structures on the property they were going to purchase—you’re an attorney and you well know that. So again, the winning bidder implores both you and the Borough to do the right thing, a) stop playing games, b) get the non-borough structures of the property my client has a contract with and you are currently holding thousands of dollars of and c) extend the sale until the Borough can sell the property free and clear with the structures off the property. As stated in numerous emails now, the buyer is ready to close and provide a check to pay in full, it is the Borough or you that his holding this sale up.

 

This is now the 6th email that has had to be sent to you and the Borough. It is abundantly clear now that you and the Borough are targeting and harassing the winning bidder. You both are driving up his legal fees by playing games as demonstrated by the attached emails. You are doing everything in your power to submarine this sale despite, even the losing bidder stating, the Borough will be getting over $30,000 more than the property is worth.

 

You and Council are do everything in your power to prevent the winning bidder from purchasing the property and to try to rebid it. You are very close to if not at the point litigation will ensue. After six emails, sending pictures of the issues almost nothing has been addressed by you or Council. Please be advised all of the above and especially that the winning bidder is ready and willing to close. As requested on three occasions, send over a proposed deed, get the non-borough property off the land and extend the sale date to 30 days after the non-borough property is removed---this isn’t too hard except for you and council making it. Unbelievable

 

Excuse errors produced/sent from Iphone

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

The Pisanchyn Law Firm

Excellent Attorneys

Ph: 1800-444-5309

Fax: 570-346-9455

Email: attorney@pisanchyn.com

www.PisanchynLawFirm.com

 

It is our pledge that we will represent you skillfully, compassionately and most of all aggressively and never charge you a fee until we win your case.

 

 

From: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, December 27, 2024 11:49 AM
To: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>
Subject: 105-109 Delaware Ave. Lot

 

In view of the discovery of an encroachment of the Queen City Tavern Building on and above the subject premises above-mentioned the following is submitted by the Borough of Olyphant (Borough) for consideration in an effort to resolve the encroachment issues:

 

    (1) At this point it is assumed that any encroachments of the Barrett Building (Barrett) will be removed consistent with the stop work order already issued by the Borough. If these encroachments are not resolved in a timely manner by Barrett the Borough will use all available authority to remove the same.

    (2) Regarding the Queen City Tavern Building (Queen City) Encroachment it has been determined that the Borough has in its possession a building renovation plan submitted in the year 2000 by a predecessor in title to the current Owner of Queen City; said plan showing the existence of the deck encroachment in question. Further record examination is ongoing however based upon the documentation it may not be possible to remove said encroachment as the current owner may have a claim of right which if asserted as an adverse possession it could serve as a basis for the continuance of the encroachment.

    (3) The execution of a standard Sales Agreement between the parties is now even more important in view of the Queen City Encroachment and also in order to provide possible methods or solutions to resolve these issues.

    (4) The date for your client to execute a revised Sales Agreement and deliver the same to the Borough to be set at January 6, 2025 by 12:00 Noon. Subsequent to the delivery of an executed Sales Agreement by your client the Borough will extend the closing date for additional period(s) until it is determined by the Borough if the Queen City Encroachment Issue can be resolved by one (1) of the methods to be set forth in the revised Sales Agreement as follows:

  (A) The Buyer does not desire to purchase the property subject to the Queen City Encroachment and the $1000.00 down payment to be made by the BUYER under the Sales Agreement shall be promptly returned to Buyer and the Agreement shall then become void and the SELLER and BUYER shall be released of any further liability hereunder, or (B) The Buyer will buy the property however to due to the Queen City Encroachment the purchase price would be adjusted downward by $2,106.00 calculated by determining the per cent of the area of encroachment in comparison to the area of the lot based upon the $130,000.00 sales price. (Queen City Encroachment is comprised of 1.62% of the entire lot area). If this option is elected the Buyer would then be responsible for attempting to resolve the Queen City Encrochment if he desired.

 

C.J. Mustacchio, Esquire

 

 

 

 

From: Attorney
Sent: Friday, January 3, 2025 4:13 PM
To: C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 105-109 Delaware Ave. Lot

 

And yours and Council is directed to the email dated today. Please be sure they get a copy and also advise if Councilmen Abda will be participating in any meeting on the issue or vote. Thanks in advance. 

 

Sent from iPhone so please excuse errors

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

The Pisanchyn Law Firm

Excellent Attorneys 

Ph: 800-444-5309

Fax: 570-346-9455

Email: attorney@pisanchyn.com

www.pisanchyn.com

 

It is our pledge that we will represent you skillfully, compassionately and most of all aggressively and never charge you a fee until we win your case.

  

 

On Jan 3, 2025, at 4:06 PM, C.J. Mustacchio <olyphant1@comcast.net> wrote:

 Mr. Pisanchyn:

 

You attention is again directed to my email dated December 27, 2024.

 

C.J. Mustacchio, Esquire

 

On 01/03/2025 9:13 AM EST Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com> wrote:

 

  Dear CJ:

 First, I hope all is well and both you and Council has had a great holiday season so far. Next, I am responding to your email dated December 27, 2024. First, I do note that in your previous emails you (you/your throughout this email refers to both you and Council) had stated that the buyer should do their due diligence concerning the property. This later seemed odd when you were quoted in the Newspaper stating on behalf of the Borough “This really wasn’t a survey done for that (Delaware Avenue) lot,” he said. “That’s why we really didn’t pay attention to it,” concerning a survey the Borough clearly had which they would or should have been notified of the JBas encroachment. Can you advise when the Borough first became aware of the Queen City encroachment and if the surveyor told the Borough about this previously? (Is this unreasonable to request?)  In related matters, sending an email on December 27 giving 3 business days to respond to a proposal is completely and unequivocally unreasonable especially when these pillars were inquired about on December 6, 2024 by me for the highest bidder. I would hope Council agrees? (Is this unreasonable to request?)

 

Then reading the Newspaper it would seem that you are acting as the attorney for Jbas Reality or Queen City when you were quoted as stating, 

“the borough offered the price reduction after seeing plans submitted in 2000 that showed the deck was already there 24-plus years ago.” Then stating, “There’s a major question as to whether or not (Basalyga) can be required to remove that encroachment,” he said Basalyga could have a claim to keep the deck as an adverse possession, according to Mustacchio.

This is crazy since your job as a Solicitor and Borough Manager (I am not commenting on if there is a conflict) is to make sure Olyphant and its property is protected. Here you are seemingly giving legal advice to a Business owner through your public comments instead of sending a letter requesting the Queen City property be removed.

Did you send a letter, because with your seemingly very friendly relationship with Mr. Basaglia and Queen City, maybe they would agree to remove it so Olyphant, as Basaglia has stated, can get the additional $30,000 more than the property was worth? So simply was a letter even sent and what was the response? (Is this unreasonable to request?) Even more, you and the Borough have still not provided the information concerning the building permit you publically comment on to the Newspaper to the highest bidder to evaluate and obviously we ask you do so and stop stalling. Can Council please do so immediately? (Is this unreasonable to request?)

Then instead of calling me to discuss the matter, you make unreasonable ridiculous offers to reduce the value of the property by some absurd formula you created in your head as opposed to seeing what would work for the highest bidder when it is the Borough who is causing the delay and sale to not go through. We find this odd especially in light of your quote in the Newspaper (when last article you stated you could not comment because of pending litigation) “This is a standard practice for proceeding with a real estate sale,” he said. “If you’re not satisfied with the title and you don’t want to purchase it with an adjustment taking subject to whatever you’re complaining about, you walk away from the deal.” First, this is not standard practice and it is apparent you and Council are doing everything you can to increase the costs to the highest bidder for attorney’s fees by making me send numerous emails and also you both trying to make Mr. Dennin “walk away from the deal.” Your and Council’s pattern in regard to discriminating and retaliating and other actions and inactions against Mr. Dennin is well documented in these emails.

You also had previously wrote that it is the law of the Commonwealth to have a sales agreement. It is our position this statement is incorrect, however, if you provide me authority for this proposition then Mr. Dennin has stated he would then execute a sales agreement which would be consistent with the Resolution but will not agree to any other new terms and conditions such as but not limited to you continually trying to add a release clause for you and the Borough concerning liability. Please immediately provide this authority for consideration? (Is this unreasonable to request?)

 

Also, we believe a reasonable proposal is to have the Borough remove all the non-Borough property (there is still decking on Councilmen Abda’s nephew’s property that has to be removed and also these decks in light of the property line should not be able to be rebuilt—please confirm both these via email to me) and once this is done, then within 30 days the highest bidder will pay the money and close on the property. (Is this unreasonable to request? Because it is imperative that all of these questions be answered by your and Council self-imposed deadline for Mr. Dennin to due his due diligence as you have requested----in that regard, can you also have Council advise what is the big hurry and time of the essence on its part when it is the Borough causing the issues and delays not the purchaser?)

 

As I am sure you are aware Title 42 Section 5527.1 (f)(2) states concerning adverse possession:

 

(f) (Nonapplicability).--This section shall not apply to real property that is:(2) owned by the United States, the Commonwealth, a local government.

 

In the Newspaper, seemingly advocating for the property who may assert adverse possession, you state this may not apply. Can you please send to me the authority you rely upon? Is it best for you to be making these public comments when you are supposed to be representing the Borough who someone may bring an adverse possession claim against? Don’t you believe its best to have the additional property remain with Olyphant so there is no issues and the sale where Olyphant gets over $30,000 more than the property is worth, even according to your friend Basaligia, is what is best for Olyphant? All reasonable questions we would like answers to?

 

Regardless, it would seem the best course of action and what the highest bidder is requesting is that the Borough send to Queen City or the property owners who still have their property encroaching the property the highest bidder intends on buying (this includes the other deck that is still up on Councilmen Abda’s nephew’s building that is non-permitted under Borough code)

 

1)    a letter requesting they remove the property. (Is this unreasonable to request?) Should they agree it’s over and the property can close.

2)    If not then we would ask the Borough to move forward to have the Court remove the property with the highest bidder being a party in interest to interplead in the matter since in light of your statements, we have grave concerns with whose side you may be on. . (Is this unreasonable to request?)

 

If need be, then once the Court would decides if the property is to remain with the Borough, then Mr. Dennin will close on the property within 30 days if he chooses after knowing what would occur on this issue. This is only fair as he did not cause this issue, and is not interested in buying a headache. He would consider entering into a reasonable sales agreement concerning this consistent with the Resolution and this email once we receive authority from you that it is required under the law of the Commonwealth as you previously represented.

 

Currently, Mr. Dennin has a contract with the Borough for the property in light of several factors, a) the Resolution is an offer, b) he has accepted it at the auction by being the highest bidder and c) you have and are still currently retaining over $7,000 of his money which has not been accounted for by you and he is sustaining damage of loss of use and interest/investment potential while you and the Borough continue to play these games. This is addition to the now 7 or 8 lengthy email that I have been required to send. We ask you both stop, be reasonable and do what is necessary to remove the non-borough property and encroachments so he or his Corporation can purchase the property and the Olyphant Tax-payers not loose over $30,000 of money they can use to reduce taxes or other much needed projects.

 Mr. Dennin has not caused any delay or issues and is an innocent person who has done nothing but be the highest bidder over-paying for the property. You would think you would be happy and grateful. Instead, the Borough’s continues to try to submarine him by adding terms like “time is of the essence,” (which can you let us know why all of a sudden with these many issues you/Council insist on non-extending this matter so the parties can ease tension and try to come to an agreement) which is very concerning in light of the Borough also saying do your “due diligence.” Due  diligence can’t be done in three business days. Then through reading the Newspaper we read “If Dennin does not execute and deliver a sales agreement for the property by noon Monday, Mustacchio anticipates adding it to the agenda for borough council’s meeting Tuesday, where council could decide what action to take next, Mustacchio said.”

This is even more crazy and seems intentional because you and the Borough know I the highest bidder’s attorney celebrates Christmas eve and Christmas (like many other Borough residence since there is a church on East Lackawanna Avenue of the same faith) on January 6 and 7 the same days you and the Borough have apparently set Deadlines and for a meeting to discuss these matters. Be advised that Mr. Dennin’s attorney is unavailable for those days due to the holiday and these deadlines and meetings needs to be postponed so he can have his represented present to make a record. Please answer the questions posed herein and they are material to the highest bidder’s “due diligence” and trying to amicably resolve this/these issues.

As always, we thank you ahead of time for your anticipated cooperation and kind considerations in all of these regards. May you and Councils families have a happy holiday season and if any of them celebrate Russian Orthodox Christmas, may it be merry.

 Mike

Sent from iphone so excuse errors

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

From: Attorney <attorney@pisanchyn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2025 1:54 PM
To: Olyphant1@comcast.net
Subject:

 

Please see photos of the property as recent as 130pm 1/7/25 showing the deck from both councilmen Abda’ nephew’s property and Jbas Queen City property along with the trash, trash cans and dumpster still on the property.

 

Also, the highest bidder is ready and willing to close when these are removed. As per our last email we have tried to resolve any issues but it seems the Borough and you are hell-bent on refusing to sell it to him. This is predictable as you can see from the email chains between the Borough.

 

Last, please accept this email as a spoliation request to be sure that every member of council (we likely will be including each one personally since we believe they are acting and have acted outside there scope of duties as council) notify their cell phone carriers to save and not destroy any texts or data whatsoever between themselves, you as borough manager, solicitors or personally as well as anything concerning Anthony Barret, Nick Davitt (person who built the deck 4 feet over the property line a few days before the auction and as soon as Jbas didn’t win the bid stopped finishing the deck) or Jbas reality, John Basaglia or any of their representatives  

 

If litigation ensues we will be likely sending subpoenas shortly for this information. Also, once suit is filed we would like to schedule depositions of every member of council as well as you personally, as Borough Manager and Solicitor, and also the surveyor who surveyed the property as well as John Basaglia.  You and the Borough refuse to answer the questions the highest bidder has posed for over a month now and he intends on obtaining the answers to the serious questions posed.

 

We will work with your schedule but did want to give you advanced notice. Again, most importantly take immediate steps to preserve all and any potential evidence including emails, text, all data, personal and business cell phones meeting minutes, work session minutes, all communication between council or its members concerning the land at issue and the like including the conversations and issues before the first letter was sent by the Pisanchyn Law Firm when the Times reported the property would be sold to JBas and the fountain in Olyphant was installed partially in light of him obtaining the property

 

The highest bidder believes what you are doing borders on corruption and he intends to pursue all and any legal recourse in light of you refusing to answer any question posed to you and council and also refusing to identify any terms or conditions in the resolution he has failed to follow. We have given the Borough too numerous emails to count and the opportunity to do the right thing, fix the issue and sell the property to the highest bidder. We have already heard that you and Council are angry about the stories in the newspaper and now are spitefully going to do everything possible to not sell the property to the highest bidder. It is also shameful you refuse to continue to meeting to discuss the matter when I have advised you it is my Christmas today and cannot attend the meeting. Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Sent from iPhone so please excuse errors

Michael J. Pisanchyn Jr., Esquire

The Pisanchyn Law Firm

Excellent Attorneys 

Ph: 800-444-5309

Fax: 570-346-9455

Email: attorney@pisanchyn.com

www.pisanchyn.com

 

 

 

 

Description: D:\MPisanchyn\Desktop\1-7-25-d.jpgDescription: D:\MPisanchyn\Desktop\1-7-25 e.jpg