2024-07-16 SDC - Email re Cease & Desist for Mechanics Liens & DeedsIhrke, Bill
From: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 1:01 PM
To: Ihrke, Bill
Subject: FW: Liens properly filed and allowable conversions recorded
FYI
CALIFORNIA
Jon McMillen 1 City Manager
City of La Quinta
78495 Calle Tampico 1 La Quinta, CA 92253
Ph. 760.777.7030
www.laquintaca.gov
www.playinlaquinta.com
From: Robert Green<robert@therobertgreencompany.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 16, 2024 at 12:45 PM
To: Jon McMillen <jmcmillen@laquintaca.gov>
Cc: Fred Schuster <fred@therobertgreencompany.com>
Subject: Liens properly filed and allowable conversions recorded
EXTERNAL: This message originated outside of the City of La Quinta. Please use proper judgement and caution when opening
attachments, clicking links or responding to requests for information.
Dear Jon:
As a follow up to our call yesterday, and in response to the letter we reviewed from the City Attorney, we have
clarified our position to you relative to the following points:
1. Mechanics Liens filed by Robert Green Residential ("RGR"):
a. RGR is a General Contractor under two different contracts to two different owners on the
project. The contracts are with: (a) SilverRock Luxury Residences, LLC, to build the Montage
Residences and, (b) SilverRock Lodging, LLC, to build the Montage Guestrooms.
b. RGR and its subcontractors are currently owed money by the above referenced owners and have
a right to lien the project to protect their interests and if necessary perfect their lien rights.
2. The Robert Green Company ("RGC") holds a series of Development Management Service Agreements
with the multiple owners of the project. It has provided services, manpower, expertise, equipment and
materials to the projects for which it has not been paid by the owners. Just as other consultants such as
Gensler Architects and BAR Architects, for instance, have, and are entitled to, file liens against the
projects, RGC has filed a lien, to ensure they protect their interests and are ultimately paid.
3. The City Attorneys letter alleges that with the filing of these liens, the parties are attempting to convert
equity to secured debt. This statement is completely inaccurate for the reasons stated above. The letter
alleges that the liens referenced above and the conversions of Preferred Equity instruments to Secured
1
Debt instruments are in contradiction of the MOU. Again, this is inaccurate. We find no provision in the
MOU that prohibits us from taking any of these actions.
4. Finally, the letter alleges that by converting preferred equity to subordinated secured debt, we are in
violation of the MOU. We disagree. Again, we find no provision in the MOU that prohibits us from
taking any of these actions. Keep in mind, we did the same with the Cypress preferred equity, whereby
we converted them to a 2nd TD position. All of the other preferred equity members investments act like
debt, with a stated maturity date, fixed rate of return, and once they are redeemed, they no longer hold
any equity position in the project. We ask ourselves whether the City would propose that we reverse the
transaction with Cypress as well.
Thank you for your consideration of these facts.
Robert
2