Document Overview
SC 9th Circuit Common Pleas Case number: 2025-CP-10-05095Filing Date: December 3, 2025
Document: Memorandum Regarding Probate Records, Ownership Interest, and Material Valuation Relating to Jonathan S. Altman and SAC 181, LLC
Document Type: Memorandum regarding probate records, beneficial ownership, and asset valuation relating to Jonathan S. Altman and SAC 181, LLC
What's here: Argues that probate filings identify Altman as a beneficiary with an interest in SAC 181 and that the LLC’s property was materially undervalued in probate compared with comparable sales and rental-income estimates. Requests judicial notice and discusses alleged implications for veil piercing, judicial estoppel, unclean hands, alleged tenant retaliation, and valuation-related misrepresentation.
Exhibits: 8 exhibit series including probate inventory and settlement records, Samuel Altman’s will,
the Redfin listing's historical price data, comparable-property sales, property valuation analysis,
Homeownership Initiative Commission records, and a three-part systems analysis.
Read it now
Executive Summary
James C. McNeil, pro se, filed this memorandum for plaintiffs McNeil and Meaghan Poyer in their action against SAC 181, LLC, Meridian Residential Group, and related defendants. It submits probate records to assert that Jonathan S. Altman is a beneficial owner of SAC 181 through the Samuel H. Altman estate and that the estate materially undervalued the LLC’s interest in 181 Gordon Street.
Plaintiffs contend the valuation discrepancy, subsequent rent increases and alleged renoviction support claims of retaliation, bad faith, misrepresentation, veil piercing, judicial estoppel, and unclean hands. The memorandum asks the court to take judicial notice of identified probate records, public real-estate data, and Altman’s public housing-advocacy role.
Legal Significance
Plaintiffs supplement the record with probate and real-estate materials intended to show that Jonathan S. Altman holds a beneficial interest in SAC 181, LLC through Samuel Altman’s estate and therefore may have a financial connection to the defendant landlord. They contend that the estate’s sworn valuation of a 33% LLC interest at roughly $83,000 conflicts materially with comparable sales, rental income, and later listing prices, placing alleged undervaluation, credibility, and possible asset shielding at issue.
The memorandum seeks judicial notice of probate records, public property data, and Altman’s housing-advocacy role, and argues those materials support discovery, veil piercing, judicial estoppel, unclean hands, and bad-faith or retaliation theories. It expressly does not yet allege that Jonathan Altman directed the day-to-day conduct challenged in the complaint, but reserves the right to add individual decision-makers if discovery supplies supporting evidence.