By Wayne Allen
December 1, 2013
PDT Staff Writer
It has been more than a year since the Lawrence-Scioto County Solid Waste Management District (LSSWMD) cut ties with the Ironton-Lawrence County Community Action Organization (CAO).
Caught in the middle of what appears to be a messy divorce between the two organizations is the question of who owns vehicles that the staff of the LSSWMD were driving at the time of separation.
The vehicles include, a 2008 GMC “Savana Pass Van 3500,” a 2006 GMC Envoy, a Leonard open utility trailer, a 2008 Pontiac G6 and a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox.
Since the dispute began, information and documents have been gathered from both sides trying to seek a resolution to the issue.
Unable to come to a resolution, in March, Assistant Scioto County Prosecutor Danielle Parker filed a complaint for declaratory judgment on behalf of the LSSWMD.
After continued gridlock, a pretrial has been scheduled in Lawrence County Common Pleas Court for Dec. 11.
In April the case had been assigned to Lawrence County Judge William Cooper.
LSSWMD is asking for a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $230,255.59 and any amount in excess that is deemed appropriate by the court as reimbursement for any and all over payment made by Plaintiff for compensation to defendants, for the time provided and expenses incurred up to the termination date.
Within the document, there are six claims for relief.
LSSWMD is also asking for a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $84,134.49 as reimbursement for any and all funds paid by plaintiff for the purchase of the vehicles.
In April, the CAO responded to the claim filed against them by the LSSWMD.
In their response and counterclaim, CAO goes through each of the claims made by LSSWMD and responds to the court.
CAO states they are the owner of the vehicles in questions and the plaintiff (LSSWMD) is wrongfully detaining the vehicles and trailers.
CAO, states they are entitled to possession of the vehicles and trailers, or if such vehicles and trailers cannot be recovered, they are entitled to the present value of $58,250.
CAO said the termination of their agreement effective Nov. 9, 2012 the plaintiff (LSSWMD) owes the pro-rated compensation to them in the amount of $32,108.64.
CAO states it has performed all of the conditions on its part, but the plaintiff has refused to pay the balance of the compensation due.
CAO is asking they be granted judgment against the plaintiff (LSSWMD) for attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined at a trial of this matter.
Under all of the claims CAO, is asking the court to dismiss LSSWMD’s claims and they be granted judgment against plaintiff for interest; costs for this action; and for such other and further relief as may be just and necessary.
For more information about the LSSWMD visit www.lsswmd.org.
Wayne Allen may be reached at 740-353-3101, ext. 228, or email@example.com. For breaking news, follow Wayne on Twitter @WayneallenPDT.