Oral arguments scheduled in stockyards case
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
A date for oral arguments has been scheduled in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the civil case between the Union Stock Yards vs. the city of Hillsboro.
According to an entry from the court, oral arguments will be held Thursday, June 2 at 9:30 a.m. in Adams County Common Pleas Court. The hearing is being held in Adams County as court of appeals judges are not scheduled to sit in Highland County until November, according to the court.
This matter will be argued before presiding Judge Matthew W. McFarland, Judge Williams Harsha and Judge Roger Kline.
"Absolutely no continuances will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances," according to the court. "It is this court's policy to have an associate from your firm argue on your behalf if you have a pre-existing conflict with this date. If you are a sole practitioner and have a pre-existing conflict, we encourage you to discuss waiving oral argument with your counterpart. Ms. (Kathryn) Hapner (deputy law director for the city of Hillsboro) was sanctioned to 10 minutes per this court's Feb. 10 order."
A waiver of oral argument must be filed no later than 2 p.m. April 29 according to the court.
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. 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.
Tom Tepe, attorney for the Butlers, meanwhile, 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."
A date for oral arguments has been scheduled in the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the civil case between the Union Stock Yards vs. the city of Hillsboro.
According to an entry from the court, oral arguments will be held Thursday, June 3 at 9:30 a.m. in Adams County Common Pleas Court. The hearing is being held in Adams County as court of appeals judges are not scheduled to sit in Highland County until November, according to the court.
This matter will be argued before presiding Judge Matthew W. McFarland, Judge William Harsha and Judge Roger Kline.
"Absolutely no continuances will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances," according to the court. "It is this court's policy to have an associate from your firm argue on your behalf if you have a pre-existing conflict with this date. If you are a sole practitioner and have a pre-existing conflict, we encourage you to discuss waiving oral argument with your counterpart. Ms. (Kathryn) Hapner (deputy law director for the city of Hillsboro) was sanctioned to 10 minutes per this court's Feb. 10 order."
A waiver of oral argument must be filed no later than 2 p.m. April 29 according to the court.
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. 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.
Tom Tepe, attorney for the Butlers, meanwhile, 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]]