Last updated: January 09. 2014 3:21PM - 417 Views
By - tallen@civitasmedia.com - 740-353-3101



Story Tools:

Font Size:

Social Media:

Wayne Allen


PDT Staff Writer


On Wednesday, legal council for the Lawrence-Scioto County Solid Waste Management District (LSSWMD) and the Ironton-Lawrence County Community Action Organization (CAO) met in Lawrence County Common Pleas Court to hold a pretrial hearing on an upcoming hearing.


It has been more than a year since LSSWMD cut ties with the 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.


“We had the pre-trial today (Wednesday) and they are going to set it (the case) for jury trial sometime in September, but more likely October,” said Danielle Parker, assistant Scioto County prosecutor. “In the mean time I think we are going to mutually agree on a mediator and possibly try to mediate the matter.”


She said both parties will have to mutually agree on the mediator and a price that will be split between the two parties.


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 of 2013, Parker filed a complaint for declaratory judgment on behalf of the LSSWMD.


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 of 2013, 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 also 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. They also stated they have 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.


Wayne Allen may be reached at 740-353-3101, ext. 228, or tallen@civitasmedia.com. For breaking news, follow Wayne on Twitter @WayneallenPDT.

Comments
comments powered by Disqus


Featured Businesses


Poll



Mortgage Minute