Court of Appeals hears stockyards case
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A panel of judges from Ohio's Fourth District Court of appeals heard oral arguments June 3 in the ongoing appeals case regarding the property purchase dispute between the city of Hillsboro and the owners of the Union Stock Yards.
At one point during the proceedings, a judge asked counsel for the city if they felt it was permissible to "string people along" regarding property purchases.
The matter was argued before presiding Judge Matthew W. McFarland, Judge William Harsha and Judge Roger Kline in Adams County Common Pleas Court. The hearing was held in Adams County, according to the court, because the judges are not scheduled to be in Highland County until November.
The city was represented by deputy law director Kathryn Hapner and the stockyards was represented by attorney Tom Tepe.
Union Stock Yards owners Bill and Janet Butler sued the city in 2008, following Hillsboro City Council’s passage of an emergency resolution on Oct. 2, 2007, which authorized Mayor Dick Zink to purchase the stockyards property for no more than $325,000.
Hapner told the court that because the city law director had not signed the pending real estate purchase agreement between the city and the stockyards that by statute, the sale could not go through.
"Even if the contract had been signed by everybody else, without that certification, it's void," Hapner said.
Judge Harsha asked Hapner, "Can the city string people along - and I'm not saying that's exactly what happened in this case, that's not my point. When we make a ruling it has precedential value for cases on down the road. So I am concerned about ... are we saying that cities can go ahead and do everything you need to do except ..."
"Sign it?" Hapner interjected.
"Except sign this one little thing here and you're protected because you can't be sued for estoppel?" Harsha said. "What kind of policy is that?"
Hapner said that the city had not strung along the stockyards owners, and that the events in question took place in a three-month period.
"I understand that Mr. Butler felt there was a contract and I understand why he thinks that," Hapner said. "We're not talking about a city stringing along for months or years. This was a very short time period from October to December (2007). We have the facts that we have and we have the law that we have. I don't think there was any bad faith on the city of Hillsboro. They simply needed to build a fire department, that purchase didn't work out, they built somewhere else."
Tepe said that estoppel - contract laws regarding if a party changes it mind on a promise before acting that the promise can be enforced even if there were no contracts - should apply to governmental agencies.
"I submit to you that you cannot sit back, no matter if you are a municipality, or the state of Ohio or in fact the the federal government, promissory estoppel applies to governmental agencies," Tepe said. "If it does not then we're all in trouble."
Upon reviewing the arguments heard June 3, the judges will issue a decision on the appeal at some point in the future.
Bill Butler was in attendance during the hearing, as were Hillsboro Mayor Dick Zink and Hillsboro Safety and Service Director Ralph Holt.
Following the proceedings, Hapner told The Highland County Press - the only media in attendance during the arguments - that she felt the city had made a strong case and she hoped the judges agreed.
Tepe declined to comment.
An appraisal report the city later had conducted valued the 1.53 acres of property at $185,000.
In a June 13, 2009 decision in Highland County Common Pleas Court, visiting Judge John Martin ruled in favor of the Butlers and ordered the city to pay $140,000 in damages to the Butlers. On June 19, 2009, Hillsboro City Council voted to have Hapner file an appeal of Martin’s decision with the Fourth District Court of Appeals.
Tepe filed a motion for pre- and post-judgment interest to be paid to the Butlers by the city. Last month, Martin filed an entry granting pre- and post-judgment interest in favor of the Butlers.
Martin said "The court finds that interest for judgments as calculated by the tax commissioner, pursuant to Revised Code 4503.47 (also see Ohio Revised Code Section 319.19) for the year 2008 is 8 percent. The rate of interest for the year 2009 is 5 percent. The court furthermore finds that the monthly calculations and the rate of interest on judgments for the year of 2008, the interest rate is .67 percent. For the year 2009, the interest rate is .42 percent.
The court having rendered a verdict in the sum of $140,000 ..., it is hereby ordered that the amount of interest due from Feb. 7, 2008 through Nov. 23, 2009, is $15,680.21, a total judgment through Nov. 23, 2009, of $156,880.21. Further interest {will} be determined at a later date.”
In his memorandum, Martin said, “As indicated by the affidavit submitted by plaintiff, the defendant made no effort toward settlement of this matter. Such being the status of this lawsuit, the court finds it appropriate to grant plaintiff’s motion as to both forms of interest."
[[In-content Ad]]