The Burlington Hill Truth 2013








  857 TINAS COMA LANE PENDING LITIGATION
E-MAIL SENT TO THE REALTOR/LISTING AGENT AND THE PURPORTED OWNERS/SELLER ON MARCH 8, 2017; EXCERPTS AS FOLLOWS:

    "Regarding the 857 Tinas Coma Lane ongoing litigation with QLS the trustee for the purported beneficiary, subpoenas to compel, and to produce records, along with scheduled depositions to Nationstar, US Bank Trustee, and QLS, are being scheduled and sent out. Through these actions will confirm that QLS’s appointment was invalid, therefore invalidating or voiding the recording of the March 1, 2017 trustee's deed."

In a recent conversation with Mr. Prombo, he stated that, he and his wife, believe that they are an aggrieved party, and are suffering a financial loss, from being deprived the use of the Tinas Coma Lane easement. They don’t understand how the City of Burlington could have approved, and granted a permit to allow the encroachment and/or construction of the 857 Tinas Coma Lane home, within the Tinas Coma Lane’s 30 foot wide easement. 

The Prombo’s believe they have a legal right to use the Tinas Coma Lane easement, for the sole purpose of accessing their lot, especially with the fact that the recorded address references 811 Tinas Coma Lane, not 811 Hillcrest Drive. 

They have recently obtained bids to determine the costs that they would entail if they were left in having to construct a driveway utilizing Hillcrest Drive, instead of Tinas Coma Lane, and the bids are all coming in north of $150,000.00. 

Finally, the Prombo’s have recently stated, that they have presented these legal issues to several land use attorneys, and that two of the land use attorneys stated adamantly, that because the intended meaning of the words in the Tinas Coma Plat document, that is recorded with the Skagit County Auditor’s Office, is obscure, and conjecture is needed to determine the sense in which they have been used; mixed interpretation occurs. Therefore, concluding that these matters may require potential litigation, to sort them out before an innocent third party becomes involved. When an innocent third party becomes involved in the transaction, the loss must fall on those whose carelessness, and neglect, have occasioned this loss.