|
Post by title1parent on Jun 19, 2008 6:00:04 GMT -5
Dist. 204 looks to cut fees for attorneys in lawsuit
By Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald Staff Published: 6/18/2008 5:50 PM | Updated: 6/18/2008 8:22 PM
Indian Prairie Unit District 204 has asked a judge to dismiss more than $5.2 million in attorneys fees being sought by the Brach-Brodie property owners.
Additionally, the district is asking for hearings to be held to determine a reasonable amount of fees the district should be responsible for as a result of the recent failed condemnation suit brought by the district.
The district, which includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield, already owns 25 acres of the Brach-Brodie site at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora and intended to purchase an additional 55 acres of the property for the 3,000-student Metea Valley High School.
Those plans fell through in September, however, when a jury set the price of the land at $31 million -- about $17 million more than the district anticipated.
The district later decided to abandon its pursuit of the Brach-Brodie land and instead bought a site along Eola Road for $16.5 million.
According to the motions filed late Tuesday, the district is asking for claims up to $3 million to be stricken from those made by the Brodie Trust and $2.2 million from the Brach Trust.
The district also is challenging whether the trusts are eligible to be reimbursed for legislative lobbying aimed at preventing the condemnation.
District attorneys were unavailable Wednesday. Brodie Trust attorney Steve Helm acknowledged receiving the motions Wednesday morning but said he wouldn't be reviewing them until later this week.
"They told us they would be filing those motions to strike so we knew they were coming," Helm said. "I just don't know what all they're challenging yet."
Meanwhile, another circuit judge is expected to rule in August whether the Brodie Trust should be compensated for a reduction in value of its 55-acre parcel and the alleged $2.5 million in damages to the adjacent land a jury had ordered the district to pay if it purchased the property.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 6:20:41 GMT -5
Indian Prairie counters claims of damage costs
June 19, 2008 The Beacon
By Tim Waldorf
The back-and-forth courtroom bargaining in the Brach-Brodie condemnation battle continued this week with the Indian Prairie School District countering the trusts' claim the district owes them more than $5 million in fees and damages.
Indian Prairie filed a motion Tuesday to strike roughly $3 million from the costs being sought for reimbursement by the Brach-Brodie trusts as a result of the district's decision to abandon its effort to condemn the 55 trust-owned acres upon which it originally wanted to build Metea Valley High School.
Among the costs the district is asking the court to strike:
• $7,905 in fees associated with the Brodie trust's "participation in telephone calls with Tall Grass residents and Shawn Collins, an attorney who sued the district unsuccessfully on behalf of the Neighborhood Schools for Our Children organization."
• $53,756 charged by the Brach trust as fees incurred during the Brodie trust's litigation of its motion to dismiss, which the Brach trust never joined.
• $82,326 in costs related to the sale and development of the property sought for condemnation.
• $116,487 in fees incurred before Indian Prairie filed the condemnation case.
• $198,176 in "fees for pursuing fees" -- in other words, costs associated with seeking these damages.
• $293,813 spent on lobbyists in response to the district's efforts to acquire "quick-take powers."
• $695,388 in both "fees for trust administration" and "awards for trustee compensation."
But the district is also contesting the validity of all of the roughly $5 million in fees it is being asked to reimburse because attorneys and expert witnesses secured by the trusts used "block billing" rather than a "task-based billing" approach that would allow their charges to be scrutinized for "reasonableness."
Similarly, the district is asserting the fees they're being asked to repay are "bloated" because both the Brach and Brodie trusts, who "held the same interests in the same parcel," hired "separate legal teams." The district claims those teams failed to cooperate in defense of the condemnation suit, and thereby "more than doubled the reasonable expense of defending this action."
Also, the Brodie trust has filed suit seeking a judge's order to require the school district to purchase the originally intended site for the high school. If that fails, the Brodie trust attorney intends to seek $12 million in damages, while the Brach trust is set to seek an undisclosed amount.
But Rick Petesch, attorney for the school district, said "there's nothing in the statutes that allows these damages."
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 6:23:48 GMT -5
Excuse me. They want us to pay this? I suggest billing NSFOC for this.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Jun 19, 2008 6:54:42 GMT -5
Excuse me. They want us to pay this? I suggest billing NSFOC for this. So let me get this straight. Till this moment, I thought NSFOC and the BB lawsuits were independent - one from a citizens group, and one by the target of an Eminent Domain action by the school. This tells me that the NSFOC was actually collaborating with BB lawyers to sue the District! Till now, I was discounting rumors that there were people actually cheering for BB hoping that they would take the District to the cleaners so they could say "I told you so", but this is stomach churning to see factual evidence that they were actually working together towards that end! How any citizen of this district can openly support the district being sued boggles my mind. This is absolutely revolting! Any sympathy I had for the NSFOC and their cause just evaporated into thin air. Cheers.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 7:27:42 GMT -5
In my mind the main objective all along was to screw the SB for "screwing" them; revenge! To see the trust try to bill us for it really pisses me off. I have said all along that the focers were suing themselves (and us) but to see it on paper makes it worse (not to mention the maybe $50,000 or so spent on SD atty's to defend the sh*tsuit).
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Jun 19, 2008 7:31:36 GMT -5
And I have an email from Linda Holmes confirming she was contacted by this "group of residents" and urged to get involved with the MidwestGen land deal.
Wonder what other avenues were attempted by the Nfudders?
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 7:36:59 GMT -5
At a focer meeting I attended SC mentioned he was in touch with the trust atty's - I NEVER dreamed we'd be billed for it! Healing, schmealing - it's going to be hard to get past this. I don't think the focers EVER looked at the big picture - it was always all about them getting their toy back.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 7:45:20 GMT -5
At a focer meeting I attended SC mentioned he was in touch with the trust atty's - I NEVER dreamed we'd be billed for it! Healing, schmealing - it's going to be hard to get past this. I don't think the focers EVER looked at the big picture - it was always all about them getting their toy back. I agree. Hard to get past the "we only did what we thought was right" when we the taxpayers get to pay for it on several fronts. Always thought the lawsuits and press releases of NSFOC and BB were timed rather well. Lets get the public outraged by the potential costs and here we have absolute proof that they were working together. Sickening. Bill NSFOC for this.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 8:33:24 GMT -5
Talk about conspiracy theories...
Does anyone have a transcript of what was actually discussed on the phone calls or is there just speculation?
Does anyone have a transcript of what Holmes said to MWGEN? It was asked earlier, but no one responded.
Contact with does not mean working together.
|
|
sushi
Master Member
Posts: 767
|
Post by sushi on Jun 19, 2008 8:37:58 GMT -5
The question was asked to SC - Does the focer lawsuit help the BB lawsuit - the answer was possibly, we are comparing notes. Not a direct quote, but you get the gist. Parent was at the meeting too and heard it.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Jun 19, 2008 8:38:12 GMT -5
...Also, the Brodie trust has filed suit seeking a judge's order to require the school district to purchase the originally intended site for the high school... This lawsuit is still hanging around? I understand it's different parties & for different reasons, but if Popejoy said that he can't force 204 to purchase BB, can another judge force the purchase? I've heard the 204 attorneys state that the SD is within its legal rights to drop the condemnation, but I don't recall hearing Brodie's explanation as to the legal basis for this lawsuit. I always thought that the timing of this lawsuit smelled fishy, as it was at the time that nsfoc was working on their lawsuit, generating publicity & doing their fund-raising. With the confirmation that BB and nsfoc were in communication, this makes me think even moreso that the Brodie lawsuit is just as frivolous as nsfoc's, and was possibly planned in conjunction with nsfoc's lawsuit in order to generate public pressure to purchase BB.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 8:41:16 GMT -5
...Also, the Brodie trust has filed suit seeking a judge's order to require the school district to purchase the originally intended site for the high school... This lawsuit is still hanging around? I understand it's different parties & for different reasons, but if Popejoy said that he can't force 204 to purchase BB, can another judge force the purchase? I've heard the 204 attorneys state that the SD is within its legal rights to drop the condemnation, but I don't recall hearing Brodie's explanation as to the legal basis for this lawsuit. I always thought that the timing of this lawsuit smelled fishy, as it was at the time that nsfoc was working on their lawsuit, generating publicity & doing their fund-raising. With the confirmation that BB and nsfoc were in communication, this makes me think even moreso that the Brodie lawsuit is just as frivolous as nsfoc's, and was possibly planned in conjunction with nsfoc's lawsuit in order to generate public pressure to purchase BB. The difference being that BB has legal standing to collect monies spent for its defense with regards to the condemnation suit. So, technically it's not 'frivolous'.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 8:42:33 GMT -5
The question was asked to SC - Does the focer lawsuit help the BB lawsuit - the answer was possibly, we are comparing notes. Not a direct quote, but you get the gist. Parent was at the meeting too and heard it. There's information sharing and then there's cooperative strategy planning. Which do you know for sure transpired?
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on Jun 19, 2008 8:45:20 GMT -5
The question was asked to SC - Does the focer lawsuit help the BB lawsuit - the answer was possibly, we are comparing notes. Not a direct quote, but you get the gist. Parent was at the meeting too and heard it. There's information sharing and then there's cooperative strategy planning. Which do you know for sure transpired? At this point it doesn't really matter, IMO. What does matter is that the district is being charged for it, absolutely absurd. It is interesting that they chose to bill the district and not NSFOC. ETA: It does though prove that NSFOC was far-reaching in their efforts to force the district to purchase land they could not afford.
|
|
|
Post by Arch on Jun 19, 2008 8:57:22 GMT -5
There's information sharing and then there's cooperative strategy planning. Which do you know for sure transpired? At this point it doesn't really matter, IMO. What does matter is that the district is being charged for it, absolutely absurd. It is interesting that they chose to bill the district and not NSFOC. ETA: It does though prove that NSFOC was far-reaching in their efforts to force the district to purchase land they could not afford. Due to timing, I think it's silly BB is trying to charge the district because the case was over in Sep 2007 As for them being far reaching in their efforts, I believe they purposely chose to stop very short of what they could have reached for.
|
|