Posted on 03/13/2006 5:58:52 PM PST by FortRumbull
Mitchell family sues Greenport over land acquisition
By Julie Lane
How did Greenport Village acquire a parcel of land from a dead woman by eminent domain? That's what Kay Mitchell of Pepper Pike, Ohio, wants to know.
Ms. Mitchell is the daughter of Evelyn Amer, the owner of record of a small Front Street property, according to documents obtained by The Suffolk Times yesterday from the Suffolk County Clerk's office. The 25-by-100-foot wedge of real estate, where the Sand Crab Restaurant once stood, is now home to the old schoolhouse and the blacksmith shop, placed on the site by the village.
Mayor Dave Kapell announced in September 2002 that the village planned to acquire the site by eminent domain.
According to court records, the village commenced an action in State Supreme Court in November 2002 to acquire title to the property under the eminent domain law. An order vesting title to the property in the Incorporated Village of Greenport was entered in State Supreme Court in February 2003. The order was entered in default because Ms. Amer failed to appear and answer the petition.
That's because she'd been dead nearly a year when the action was commenced, her daughter said. The village's petition commencing the action in November 2002 was never served on her mother, who died in January 2002, she said, or on the estate, of which Ms. Mitchell is the sole heir and executrix.
The court's file in the eminent domain proceeding contains an affidavit of service, sworn by a Barbara Burden and notarized by former village attorney Matthew Pachman, states the petition was served on Evelyn Amer by first-class mail addressed to her residence in Ohio on Dec. 24, 2002.
Ms. Mitchell contends that she had no knowledge of any attempt by the village to gain title to the property until recently. Not only has the estate never received any remuneration for the property from the village, she says, but she's even been paying property taxes on the parcel. In fact, both town and village tax records show Ms. Amer as the owner of record.
Ms. Mitchell has now brought her own action in State Supreme Court, obtaining an order to show cause why the February 2003 default judgment should not be vacated. Ms. Mitchell wants a trial on the matter. A hearing on the show cause order is set for March 27 in Central Islip.
Village attorney Joseph Prokop declined to comment on Ms. Mitchell's action. "The matter is being reviewed by my office," he said Monday.
Mr. Pachman, the former village attorney who brought the eminent domain proceeding in state court, also declined comment, saying he needs time to review his file.
Mayor Kapell didn't respond to e-mails asking questions about the suit.
When Ms. Mitchell learned of the eminent domain proceeding in the past few months, she also learned that the village was supposed to have paid $55,000 for the property, she said. But Ms. Mitchell said an assessment of the property done in 1984 showed that it was valued at $115,000.
"Since when did property in Suffolk County go down in value?" she asked.
Ms. Mitchell wants to know where the $55,000 purchase price came from. "How could [the mayor] possibly have negotiated with my mother?" she asked. "He must be having seances in the graveyard."
Now the village owes the estate rent, Ms. Mitchell said. She calculates the amount due to be $108,000 based on a rate of $3,000 per month, plus interest. And now, even if the village offered to pay market price for the land, she wouldn't accept it, she said.
"I won't accept it and I want my rent. You're either going to pay up or get out," she said.
Ms. Mitchell's feelings about the village and her mother's property run deep. There's a history there, she notes. Years ago, when buildings on the property were taken down by the village, all the contents were lost, Ms. Mitchell said. One of the buildings contained antiques that belonged to her mother that she said she is "heartbroken" to have lost.
Tim Kelly contributed to the reporting of this story. Monday March 13, 2006
© 2006 Times-Review Newspapers
Go get 'em, Lady!
Bet those "antiques" are going to be worth anywhere from $1 to $16 million.
This is actually not a Kelo type situation, since the government actually IS using the land for a (feeble) public purpose, rather than giving it to a third party for gentrification of tax increases.
The daughter actually stands a decent chance of getting more money, but the lawyers will eat away at that, which is why the towns don't offer fair value. Most people would rather get what they can right away, rather than get (maybe) the full amount, only to have to pay the lawyer the difference.
This looks like a crooked local politics deal, taking advantage of the property owner being dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.