PDT Staff Writer
The Ironton Lawrence County Community Action Organization (CAO) on Friday responded to the claim filed in Lawrence County Common Please Court against them by the Lawrence Scioto Solid Waste Management District (LSSWMD).
In November of 2012, LSSWMD cut ties with CAO and moved operations to Scioto County.
In the transition, a dispute arose between the agencies regarding the ownership of vehicles formerly operated by the district and some funds.
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 LSSWMD filed documents in March with the Lawrence County Common Please Court asking for a declaratory judgment.
The case has been assigned to Judge William Cooper.
In the 17-page complaint for declaratory judgment it names Ironton and Lawrence County Area Community Action, Board of Directors Chairman Dale Burchman and D.R. Gossett Executive Director of the Ironton and Lawrence County Area Community Action Organization, as defendants.
Within the document there are six claims for relief. The first claim deals with the vehicles in question, a 2008 GMC “Savana Pass Van 35000”, a 2006 GMC Envoy, a 2010 limited edition Econo Hauler utility trailer, a Leonard open utility trailer, a 2008 Pontiac G6 and a 2012 Chevrolet Equinox.
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 overpayment made by Plaintiff for compensation to Defendants, for the time provided and expenses incurred up to the termination date.
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 their response and counterclaim, CAO goes through each of the claims made by LSSWMD and responds to the court.
Of the six claims made by LSSWMD, CAO states in Claim 1 they are the owner of the vehicles in questions and the plaintiff (LSSWMD) is wrongfully detaining the vehicles and trailers.
Also in Claim 1, 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.
As to Claim 2, 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.
As to Claim 3, 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.
As exhibits to the documents, CAO and their attorneys provided copies of titles to the vehicles in question.
Wayne Allen may be reached at 740-353-3101, ext. 228, or email@example.com. For breaking news, follow Wayne on Twitter @WayneallenPDT.