|
Post by gatormom on Sept 3, 2008 12:07:17 GMT -5
Rumor has it the motion to dismiss was heard today, motion was granted.
I have heard we are down to one lawsuit and that would be how much of t $5 million in legal fees do we still owe.
Can anyone confirm this?
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 3, 2008 12:36:03 GMT -5
Rumor has it the motion to dismiss was heard today, motion was granted. I have heard we are down to one lawsuit and that would be how much of t $5 million in legal fees do we still owe. Can anyone confirm this? great news - so much for the $11M to $26M that thrown out there as a scare tactic
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Sept 3, 2008 14:42:19 GMT -5
Checked the court system...nothing listed yet, but there usually is a delay in updates. I'll check again tomorrow...and post what I can.
|
|
|
Post by southsidesignmaker on Sept 3, 2008 17:40:54 GMT -5
Sorry about the previous post I am trying to learn to post correctly, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 3, 2008 17:47:17 GMT -5
You're right...it was a scare tactic because it was truly scary. As with Popejoy's decision on NSFOC, just because a ruling went a certain way doesn't mean there was no merit.
How would you like it if some entity began eminent domain proceedings on your house during the height of the real estate boom, then lowballed you on the amount they would pay, then walked away when they were told the true value by a jury, and by the time it was over the market was in the toilet? I think you would find it hard to believe it was all legal.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on Sept 3, 2008 18:20:35 GMT -5
You're right...it was a scare tactic because it was truly scary. As with Popejoy's decision on NSFOC, just because a ruling went a certain way doesn't mean there was no merit. How would you like it if some entity began eminent domain proceedings on your house during the height of the real estate boom, then lowballed you on the amount they would pay, then walked away when they were told the true value by a jury, and by the time it was over the market was in the toilet? I think you would find it hard to believe it was all legal. The SD and their lawyer's stance was that they were within their legal rights to do what they did, which is why they were comfortable with proceeding with the AME purchase & the construction of MV. In the case of the BB lawyers (or at least one of the B's), since they have proven to be, at a minimum, uncooperative (and, I still don't understand why they paid a lobbyisyt to fight quick-take), and possibly even a bit greedy towards 204, I don't feel too sorry for them. They (or at least one of them) seemed more interested in dragging things out as long as possible (with one theory being that they just wanted to rack up billable hours). In the scenario that you lay out (taking my house & then deciding not to purchase it), would I be unhappy? Yes. Would I be surprised it was legal? Probably, but if a lawyer told me that was the law, then I guess I'd just be mad at the law just as much as the entity. However, if your scenario included me dragging out the court hearings for many months (while the bubble was bursting), and hiring a lobbyist to fight quick-take, then, in the end, I might have had to look in the mirror to place some of the blame. The apples-to-oranges part of this scenario is, to me, that taking someone's house is different than taking an estate's farmland. The BB lawyers were in no hurry to sell to 204, so they can wait things out longer now, until lands sales increase again. Who knows, maybe they're happy that they still have a job managing the property.
|
|
|
Post by gatordog on Sept 3, 2008 18:21:05 GMT -5
.... How would you like it if some entity began eminent domain proceedings on your house during the height of the real estate boom, then lowballed you on the amount they would pay, then walked away when they were told the true value by a jury, and by the time it was over the market was in the toilet? I think you would find it hard to believe it was all legal. If I kept my property, which is what I wanted to do in the first place, I would accept that. Of course it doesnt matter if "I find it hard to believe it was legal", what matters is what the law says.
|
|
|
Post by eb204 on Sept 3, 2008 18:29:22 GMT -5
This is great news. Hopefully, the remaining lawsuit won't even reach the $5M that was apparently budgeted/expected for this one.
|
|
|
Post by asmodeus on Sept 3, 2008 19:37:49 GMT -5
I would love to find this out myself some day.
|
|
|
Post by justvote on Sept 3, 2008 21:29:32 GMT -5
I would love to find this out myself some day. I guess hindsight is 20/20 - if they knew then what they know today, they may not have fought so hard. But then again, if they are truly only about the "billable hours" as we all suspect that they are, then they may have known exactly what they were doing back then as they do today.
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Sept 4, 2008 5:10:37 GMT -5
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=232378&src=76Judge's ruling 'narrows battlefield' in District 204 court caseBy Justin Kmitch | Daily Herald StaffContact writerPublished: 9/4/2008 12:10 AMSend To: A DuPage County circuit judge has "narrowed the battlefield" in the legal tussle between the Brodie trust and Indian Prairie Unit District 204. Judge Kenneth Popejoy Wednesday dismissed claims by the Brodie trust that it 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 school district to pay if it purchased the property. The district, which includes portions of Naperville, Aurora, Bolingbrook and Plainfield, owns 25 acres of the Brach-Brodie site at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora, and intended to purchase an additional 55 acres for the 3,000-student Metea Valley High School. Those plans fell through last 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 abandoned its pursuit of the Brach-Brodie land and instead bought a site along Eola Road for $19 million. Popejoy also dismissed the trust's claim that it is owed damages due to the loss of a $40.2 million contract it had with the Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust. That group planned to purchase 71 additional acres at the site with the understanding it would work out issues such as shared stormwater detention and sewer and water facilities with District 204. In his ruling, Popejoy stated he believed the claims belong attached to the current condemnation case being heard by Associate Judge Dorothy French. In the condemnation case, the trust is attempting to recover costs, expenses and attorneys fees it spent to defend the district's condemnation of the lot. "This ruling has real meaning," school district attorney Michael Scotti said. "If they want to continue to come after us for those claims. they'll have to do it in the condemnation case. I believe they'll have a difficult time doing that so late in the game." Trust attorney Steve Helm disagreed, saying he intends to go before French as soon as possible to have the claims added to the original suit. "It's really just a matter of consolidating the cases before we move forward," Helm said. "Judge Popejoy said he thinks our claims belong there, so that's where we'll file them."
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on Sept 4, 2008 5:21:52 GMT -5
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/1144105,2_1_AU04_BRACH_S1.article Judge tosses out claim against Indian PrairieSeptember 4, 2008 By Tim Waldorf twaldorf@scn1.com Two down, one to go. DuPage County Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Popejoy Wednesday dismissed the Brodie Trust's demand that the Indian Prairie School District purchase a 55-acre parcel along 75th Street in Aurora, owned by the Brach and Brodie trusts. The School District had been planning to buy the property as a site for the new Metea Valley High School. But the district abandoned that effort after a jury determined the property would cost $31 million. The district had expected to pay roughly half that amount for the parcel. In its lawsuit, the Brodie Trust argued that after a 2005 condemnation suit in which the district bought 25 acres from the Brach-Brodie trusts, the two parties agreed the district would purchase the property at the price determined by a jury in the condemnation suit if voters approved a referendum for the third high school. The trust argued that the district repeatedly said during its successful referendum campaign -- and during the condemnation suit -- that it would purchase the balance of the Brach-Brodie property and build Metea on the land. In dismissing the trust's case, Popejoy ruled that this argument should be made as part of the ongoing condemnation lawsuit in which both the Brach and Brodie trusts are seeking reimbursement for the expenses they incurred because of it. Steve Helm, the Brodie Trust's attorney, said Wednesday he will now make this argument in that case. As expected, Popejoy's ruling pleased Rick Petesch, the attorney representing Indian Prairie. "It's great because we've narrowed it down," he said. "People were worried that we had all of these lawsuits pending, but one by one they have been dismissed." On May 29, Popejoy threw out a lawsuit filed in March by Neighborhood Schools for Our Children. The group of parents sought to block Indian Prairie from building Metea at any site other than the Brach-Brodie property. The school now is under construction on land along Eola Road in Aurora.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Sept 4, 2008 6:41:16 GMT -5
Too bad judges can't run for the open SB seat. He'd have my vote. I really like this guy. No fuss, no BS.
|
|
|
Post by JWH on Sept 4, 2008 7:11:14 GMT -5
This is great news. The final check cut to BB is going to be way less than everyone expected. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay less than some doomsayer predictions of late.
|
|
|
Post by majorianthrax on Sept 4, 2008 7:54:58 GMT -5
This is great news. Those slimeballs from BB aren't going to screw #204 like they had hoped. I can't help but wonder if some of the individuals upset with how the boundries turned out are secretly disappointed at not having more ammunition against the SB.
|
|