Copperken--I think you are misunderstanding the question. I know that the first and second are two separate and distinct lenders, and as such have two separate and distinct notes, and liens. I understand that. What I don't understand is how, if the second (Josh Romney and crew) modified their note to extend the term until January 2010, were they able to file a notice of default. A notice of default implies breach of contract. How could CPRK be in breach if the term was restated as January 2010 (the modified term of the note). So my question is, if there was no breach, and the term was extended, why did they file the notice? It doesn't make sense. There is no innuendo. It is an honest question. The reason I am asking is purely out of interest. I didn't ask anything about subordination, I understand how all of that works. Hopefully that clarifies the question. My guess is that there are other terms to the modified note that CPRK was in breach of. The only other explanation is that the note was never modified as stated in a former PR. Does anyone know for sure?
