|
Post by warriorpride on May 13, 2008 22:53:38 GMT -5
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on May 13, 2008 23:19:39 GMT -5
The Amended Brodie Lawsuit filed on April 11 2008 explicitly states "103. Expert wintness retained by the Brodie Trust have opined in written reports that the abandonment during this market decline has indeed caused a direct loss to the Brodie Trust and Brach Estate of the $2,500,000 which cannot be recognized or mitigated elsewhere. The experts reports will be provided to the Court and opposing counsel." and ends with " WHEREFORE, the District prays this Court find that the District failure to abide by the terms of the SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT in that its acts in prosecuting and the second condemnation action and abandoning same after a determination by the Court and jury of just compensation has caused a loss to the owners in the amount of $2,500,000, of which the Brodie Trust is entitled to $1,250,000 thereof, and for interest thereon from the date of September 26, 2007, and for such further relief as the Court finds equitable and just." So, I am mystified - what $13M? I'm reading $2.5M for the loss in value due to the condemnation. What am I missing? Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 13, 2008 23:43:23 GMT -5
That's it!!!!!...It's the interest!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by title1parent on May 14, 2008 5:59:03 GMT -5
Brach trust wants $2.2M from D204 Brodie seeks $12 million
May 14, 2008
By Jennifer Golz jgolz@scn1.com
WHEATON -- The Brach trust says Indian Prairie School District 204 owes it $2.2 million plus damages for its portion of the property the district abandoned for a third high school.
Included in the total is about $1.5 million in attorney fees, $76,212 for document preparation and $24,750 for the Springfield lobbying firm hired to oppose the district's quick-take bill. That legislation would have allowed the school district to take immediate possession of the 55-acre parcel, at 75th Street and Commons Drive in Aurora, at a price to be set later by a jury.
The site is adjacent to 25-acres the district already owns that would have made for an 80-acre campus for the 3,000-seat Metea Valley High School district officials hoped to open in fall 2009.
But the quick-take measure was denied, and the district abandoned its plans for the land after a jury priced the Brach-Brodie site at $31 million - more than twice what school district officials had originally budgeted.
Last month the Brodie trust filed suit seeking a judge's order to require the district to purchase the land. If that fails, Brodie trust attorney Steve Helm said he intends to seek $12 million in damages for his client's share of the land.
While about $3 million of that represents attorney fees and witness costs associated with the condemnation case, the remaining is what Helm feels is compensation in price for what the land could have sold for in 2005, when the suit was filed, compared to today's real estate market.
Absent from Tuesday's court appearance, the Brodie trust has until May 27 to file its estimated damages.
All parties will return to court June 10, when a hearing date will be set for arguments on the damages being sought.
However, attorneys are working against the clock to get that hearing date before the month ends, as Circuit Court Judge Robert Kilander is set to retire from the bench in July. Kilander presided over pretrial motions, hearings and the jury trial last year in which the land price was set.
Rick Petesch, attorney for District 204, said it would be beneficial for all parties to continue the case in front of Kilander.
"He knows the history, and he knows the work the attorneys have put forth," he said.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on May 14, 2008 6:17:41 GMT -5
1) Did we know that BB had hired a lobbyist to oppose quick-take? This might be relevant, in some way. If quick-take had gone through, then we would have the land and BB would have their $. They basically shot themselves in the foot. Not sure why 204 should have to compensate BB for their own actions.
2) I know nothing about about, law, but as BB (or B) argues the "lost" value of the property since 2005, they were the ones that dragged the trial on for 1.5 years. Again, I don't see why we should be responsible for compensating them for their actions. And even if the property value is lower now, it's hard to imagine that it won't go up again in value - we just don't know when. In other words, any "damage" isn't permanent. I hope that's a relevant argument, as well.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on May 14, 2008 6:51:49 GMT -5
1) Did we know that BB had hired a lobbyist to oppose quick-take? This might be relevant, in some way. If quick-take had gone through, then we would have the land and BB would have their $. They basically shot themselves in the foot. Not sure why 204 should have to compensate BB for their own actions. 2) I know nothing about about, law, but as BB (or B) argues the "lost" value of the property since 2005, they were the ones that dragged the trial on for 1.5 years. Again, I don't see why we should be responsible for compensating them for their actions. And even if the property value is lower now, it's hard to imagine that it won't go up again in value - we just don't know when. In other words, any "damage" isn't permanent. I hope that's a relevant argument, as well. And what makes it even more interesting is that the "damages" have no legal precedent or statutory basis. A footnote on the Brodie filing says: "(footnote 5) The Brodie Trust informs the court that an order of abandonment has been entered in related case 2005 ED 79, and that the Eminent Domain Act provides for the abandoning condemnor to pay attorneys fees and custs incurred as a result of an abandonment. The Act is silent on the issue of consequential damages that occur as a result of the condemnation process, including the abandonment that occasionally occurs. The Brodie Trust will file its claim for fees and costs within the condemnation case which has been referred to as 2005 ED 79, but asserts that it is entitled to damages based upon the claims made in Counts III, V, VI and VII herein." This is where this becomes precedent setting - If the Court rules in Brodie's favor, that would change Eminent Domain case law for everyone dramatically. The backdrop is that their own appraisers convinced the jury as late as Sep 2007 that the property was worth $518K/acre - so did the price drop by almost $10M in 4 months between September and Feb 2008? The lawsuit says $2.5M - which is a number I can see as somewhat believable. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 14, 2008 8:34:29 GMT -5
"...the remaining is what Helm feels is compensation in price for what the land could have sold for in 2005, when the suit was filed, compared to today's real estate market."
The jury award, as I understand it, was determined as the value of the property in 2005.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on May 14, 2008 8:50:16 GMT -5
"...the remaining is what Helm feels is compensation in price for what the land could have sold for in 2005, when the suit was filed, compared to today's real estate market."The jury award, as I understand it, was determined as the value of the property in 2005. It was...but now they are claiming if they were able to sell it today...it would be a lot less......
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on May 14, 2008 9:16:18 GMT -5
"...the remaining is what Helm feels is compensation in price for what the land could have sold for in 2005, when the suit was filed, compared to today's real estate market."The jury award, as I understand it, was determined as the value of the property in 2005. It was...but now they are claiming if they were able to sell it today...it would be a lot less...... And my point is that this is temporary - all one has to do is look at how land price has gone up over the years - clearly a small drop now will not be sustained - especially a parcel of that size in a very popular/desirable area
|
|
|
Post by rural on May 14, 2008 9:26:09 GMT -5
This is exactly why I believe the judge will find them culpable for the length of the trial.
The greatest irony, IMO, is that had BB not fought the QT, there would be a good portion of the school already in progress on the site and the SD would have had to bite the bullet and pay up for BB.
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on May 14, 2008 9:46:34 GMT -5
It was...but now they are claiming if they were able to sell it today...it would be a lot less...... And my point is that this is temporary - all one has to do is look at how land price has gone up over the years - clearly a small drop now will not be sustained - especially a parcel of that size in a very popular/desirable area I am a bit confused. How do you feel about GIVING all this money to anyone and we have nothing to show for it. I don't know about you but if I choose to donate it is for charity funds. Seems that more time is being spent trying to justify that this is OK, but it is not. Money does not grow on trees as I just met a family that is moving since they anticipate the inability to remain in a district that makes decisions not in the best interest of our tax money. Although we can afford it, I respect and care about those that can't. Throwing away money is just not acceptable and we have our SB to thank at the end of the day. Atleast I can say that 2 SB members have personally owned that to me directly. Going forward I can only hope that they take a stand and make an impact on the rest.
|
|
|
Post by gatormom on May 14, 2008 12:36:30 GMT -5
And my point is that this is temporary - all one has to do is look at how land price has gone up over the years - clearly a small drop now will not be sustained - especially a parcel of that size in a very popular/desirable area I am a bit confused. How do you feel about GIVING all this money to anyone and we have nothing to show for it. I don't know about you but if I choose to donate it is for charity funds. Seems that more time is being spent trying to justify that this is OK, but it is not. Money does not grow on trees as I just met a family that is moving since they anticipate the inability to remain in a district that makes decisions not in the best interest of our tax money. Although we can afford it, I respect and care about those that can't. Throwing away money is just not acceptable and we have our SB to thank at the end of the day. Atleast I can say that 2 SB members have personally owned that to me directly. Going forward I can only hope that they take a stand and make an impact on the rest. I can answer only for myself. I am not happy that it took this much time and money for us to find out we cannot afford BB. On the other hand, PLAN B time. Thank goodness the district did find a piece of land where we can afford to build Metea, complete. I would have been rather upset if the district charged full speed ahead, purcahsed land we could not afford, and then came back and asked for more. That would have been very irresponsible.
|
|
|
Post by warriorpride on May 14, 2008 12:45:35 GMT -5
And my point is that this is temporary - all one has to do is look at how land price has gone up over the years - clearly a small drop now will not be sustained - especially a parcel of that size in a very popular/desirable area I am a bit confused. How do you feel about GIVING all this money to anyone and we have nothing to show for it. I don't know about you but if I choose to donate it is for charity funds. Seems that more time is being spent trying to justify that this is OK, but it is not. Money does not grow on trees as I just met a family that is moving since they anticipate the inability to remain in a district that makes decisions not in the best interest of our tax money. Although we can afford it, I respect and care about those that can't. Throwing away money is just not acceptable and we have our SB to thank at the end of the day. Atleast I can say that 2 SB members have personally owned that to me directly. Going forward I can only hope that they take a stand and make an impact on the rest. That's one way to look at it - I don't think that anyone is a fan of "giving away" money. But, in the end, the SB has chosen the route that they feel is best for the district, and should end up more fiscally responsible. And if you want to play the blame game, how about pointing some at BB? They have been far from cooperative. If they hadn't delayed the trial for so long, or fought quick-take, we'd be building on BB right now. Speaking of being confused, there's a few things that I'm confused about: - Why did BB hire a lobbyist to fight quick-take last year? Why would they be against quick-take if all they were allegedly interested in getting was the "fair value" of the land? The quick take would have resulted in them getting that "fair value". It sure seems like BB was interested in dragging things out as long as possible. Not sure why. Maybe they wanted to hedge their bets and hope that land values went up? Or maybe they just wanted to drag things on to rack up more legal fees? They sure weren't interested in expediting anything, or helping 204 in any way. - Why did Linda Holmes apparently get involved in putting pressure on MWGen to not sell their land to 204 despite publically saying that this was a "local matter"? And why did she publically say that she did nothing more than ask MWGen for some information, when apparently she was involved in the government pressure that was put on MWGen to not sell? - Why does nFUD continue to put out misinformation? The numbers that they continue to throw out can be considered nothing more than FUD, they are so misleading and clearly intended to scare people into supporting their misguided efforts. - Why does nFUD act like they are doing what the majority of the district wants? If they have 300-400 supporters (that seems to be the numbers stated for people that have donated to their misguided cause), why should this be considered a majority view? Clearly, given the amount of press coverage they've gotten, the flyers they've handed out, the emails, the website, the meetings, most of 204's residents know about them - 300 or 400 supporters? Clearly this is a vocal minority. - Why does very little of nFUDs website talk "about the kids", especially since that's their tagline? They currently proudly state on their website that "We won once. We'll win again. " - Maybe they view getting their minority view as a "win", but they don't really explain how that would benefit all of the children of 204. The need for the relief of crowding in MS and HS is clear, yet all we see are requests to "slow down", along with a "BB or nothing" lawsuit. How is this good for the children of 204? Many people were asking for a Plan B in the event that the BB price was too high. The SD is implementing plan B (C?) - it's addressing the needs of overcrowding relief. How is slowing down or stopping this progress good for the children of 204?
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on May 14, 2008 23:38:08 GMT -5
I am a bit confused. How do you feel about GIVING all this money to anyone and we have nothing to show for it. I don't know about you but if I choose to donate it is for charity funds. Seems that more time is being spent trying to justify that this is OK, but it is not. Money does not grow on trees as I just met a family that is moving since they anticipate the inability to remain in a district that makes decisions not in the best interest of our tax money. Although we can afford it, I respect and care about those that can't. Throwing away money is just not acceptable and we have our SB to thank at the end of the day. Atleast I can say that 2 SB members have personally owned that to me directly. Going forward I can only hope that they take a stand and make an impact on the rest. That's one way to look at it - I don't think that anyone is a fan of "giving away" money. But, in the end, the SB has chosen the route that they feel is best for the district, and should end up more fiscally responsible. And if you want to play the blame game, how about pointing some at BB? They have been far from cooperative. If they hadn't delayed the trial for so long, or fought quick-take, we'd be building on BB right now. Speaking of being confused, there's a few things that I'm confused about: - Why did BB hire a lobbyist to fight quick-take last year? Why would they be against quick-take if all they were allegedly interested in getting was the "fair value" of the land? The quick take would have resulted in them getting that "fair value". It sure seems like BB was interested in dragging things out as long as possible. Not sure why. Maybe they wanted to hedge their bets and hope that land values went up? Or maybe they just wanted to drag things on to rack up more legal fees? They sure weren't interested in expediting anything, or helping 204 in any way. - Why did Linda Holmes apparently get involved in putting pressure on MWGen to not sell their land to 204 despite publically saying that this was a "local matter"? And why did she publically say that she did nothing more than ask MWGen for some information, when apparently she was involved in the government pressure that was put on MWGen to not sell? - Why does nFUD continue to put out misinformation? The numbers that they continue to throw out can be considered nothing more than FUD, they are so misleading and clearly intended to scare people into supporting their misguided efforts. - Why does nFUD act like they are doing what the majority of the district wants? If they have 300-400 supporters (that seems to be the numbers stated for people that have donated to their misguided cause), why should this be considered a majority view? Clearly, given the amount of press coverage they've gotten, the flyers they've handed out, the emails, the website, the meetings, most of 204's residents know about them - 300 or 400 supporters? Clearly this is a vocal minority. - Why does very little of nFUDs website talk "about the kids", especially since that's their tagline? They currently proudly state on their website that "We won once. We'll win again. " - Maybe they view getting their minority view as a "win", but they don't really explain how that would benefit all of the children of 204. The need for the relief of crowding in MS and HS is clear, yet all we see are requests to "slow down", along with a "BB or nothing" lawsuit. How is this good for the children of 204? Many people were asking for a Plan B in the event that the BB price was too high. The SD is implementing plan B (C?) - it's addressing the needs of overcrowding relief. How is slowing down or stopping this progress good for the children of 204? Here we go again. I ask a question with a sincere curiosity and we are back to the Nfud mess. Must we always go back to this group.....geez. Thanks for your insight.
|
|
|
Post by 3woodgal on May 14, 2008 23:40:11 GMT -5
I am a bit confused. How do you feel about GIVING all this money to anyone and we have nothing to show for it. I don't know about you but if I choose to donate it is for charity funds. Seems that more time is being spent trying to justify that this is OK, but it is not. Money does not grow on trees as I just met a family that is moving since they anticipate the inability to remain in a district that makes decisions not in the best interest of our tax money. Although we can afford it, I respect and care about those that can't. Throwing away money is just not acceptable and we have our SB to thank at the end of the day. Atleast I can say that 2 SB members have personally owned that to me directly. Going forward I can only hope that they take a stand and make an impact on the rest. I can answer only for myself. I am not happy that it took this much time and money for us to find out we cannot afford BB. On the other hand, PLAN B time. Thank goodness the district did find a piece of land where we can afford to build Metea, complete. I would have been rather upset if the district charged full speed ahead, purcahsed land we could not afford, and then came back and asked for more. That would have been very irresponsible. I respect your opinion and can see some truth to what you are saying. But what puzzles me is that after paying out all these monies in damages coupled with building on AME, we could be at BB with original game plan for only a little bit more in the grand scheme. It is such a shame to be handing over such a large amount of money and nothing in return.....especially taxpayer dollars.
|
|