|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 4, 2008 15:51:00 GMT -5
Thanks for psoting - interesting reading ( and examples) - basically - 204 had a referendum approved in March 2006 for an amount they deemed sufficient to purchase the remainder of the land-- intent was to build a school hence the surveying etc -- land - a different price came back - we won the suit and backed out. Whose rights trump the others- right to walk away or right to expect payment and seek damages.
|
|
|
Post by specialneedsmom on Aug 4, 2008 16:30:51 GMT -5
That's the $64K question, Doc. Actually $64K wouldn't even put a dent in the legal fees.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 4, 2008 16:54:15 GMT -5
This is the hearing for the Motion to Dismiss - or the hearing to get this whole thing over with, regardless?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 4, 2008 20:18:57 GMT -5
well if Popejoy dismisses it...then it would be over...pending appeals by B
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 4, 2008 20:21:52 GMT -5
I seriously doubt Popejoy dismisses this case. Do you really think he will? If so, why?
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 4, 2008 20:44:28 GMT -5
I do for the reasons stated in the SD's Motion to dismiss. I feel they have the stronger case going. Secondly BB has the entire parcel, still intact to do with what they please, and I think they had much more of a hand in the "delays" than did the SD.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 4, 2008 20:57:50 GMT -5
I sincerely hope you are correct in your opinion wvhsparent. I don't want to see another dime wasted in taxpayer money on the BB parcel. We've (taxpayers) wasted millions pursuing this land while alienating a huge segment of the voting population needed to pass future referendum money our kids will need.
I think the most ominous part of the BB pending litigation is the PREIT deal fallout. I am not an attorney but work with a few very good ones with a specialty in retail real estate. I've forwarded the filings their way. It's their opinion that the PREIT fallout is going to be a serious issue for 204 in light of the fact 204 made an agreement to share certain necessities with the PREIT development off 75th.
It's easy to argue that Walmart and PREIT pulled out because of the economy, but actually might be difficult to prove since there was an agreement in place prior to 204 not going ahead with the parcel despite successfully condemning the land.
I hope they are wrong. Just sharing what I've been told.
ETA (disclaimer): The attorneys I've shared the information with have NO experience in ED cases. Just real estate specific to retail development. This is a unique case. That we all would admit.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 4, 2008 21:12:09 GMT -5
FYI The SD was not allowed to bring up that supposed agreement with PREIT during the condemnation trial in front of the jury without causing even more delays, and that was what damages mostly addressed IIRC. IMHO the BB's just got too greedy for their own good.
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 4, 2008 21:20:54 GMT -5
It doesn't matter that the SD couldn't bring up the shared agreement with PREIT during the condemnation trial.
I would think the reason they couldn't bring it up during the trial for condemnation is because it could possibly make a difference on the price per acre to a jury, no? Makes sense, shared agreement drives the price down, right? Just my speculation knowing retail development deals. That agreement is related to the overall cost of the land.
I think that is why the PREIT development fallout is the main argument for BB in terms of damages. Whether or not you or I agree with this strategy is moot, it's right on in terms of a smart legal strategy. That is my concern at this point. I'm very concerned that the the district might have to pay the damages related to the PREIT deal falling apart.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter that you and I think the BB crowd is greedy. The only thing that will matter is the law and legal precedent. Again, I hope I'm wrong. Also, I have to reread the district's Motion to dismiss. Its been a while. Wasn't that filed in June? Whatever happened to BB asking for Dr. Daeschner's deposition. That is where I left off.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Aug 5, 2008 21:10:34 GMT -5
Brodie and Brach will have until August 7 to reply to that pleading with arguments to be heard by the judge the Motion to Compel issues on August 14 at 9:30 a.m. The judge is expected to rule at that time or shortly thereafter. The motion to dismiss the separate lawsuit filed by Brodie is scheduled for argument on August 15 at 9:30 a.m.
So we should know soon if it is going to cost us
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 7, 2008 13:05:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Aug 7, 2008 22:20:59 GMT -5
mclovin......have you given this reply to your legal buddies yet?
What is their opinion now???
|
|
|
Post by mclovin on Aug 8, 2008 7:21:46 GMT -5
I haven't yet but will as soon as I see them. I'll be sure to let you know their opinion.
It took me a while to get through all 61 pages. That's a doozy of a read.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Aug 8, 2008 8:40:20 GMT -5
I haven't yet but will as soon as I see them. I'll be sure to let you know their opinion. It took me a while to get through all 61 pages. That's a doozy of a read. yeah, wvparent, if this is your definition of "real Good reading", you might want to look into starting a new hobby
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Aug 8, 2008 10:09:15 GMT -5
Yeah, I couldn't sleep last night so I clicked on that. I was out like a light by page 10!
|
|