Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-90 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 96-90 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO COVER THE LEGAL AND WITNESS FEES REGARDING THE STANBERRY LAWSUIT AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the Board of Directors hereby authorizes the transfer of funds from the Unreserved Fund Balance to cover the legal, and witness fees regarding the Stanberry lawsuit. . I. , • , 4.'Section 2°, = The Board of Directors 'hereby approves the budget adjustment in the amount of $26,100.00. A copy of the budget adjustment, authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" -and made a part'hereof. P3 4 PASSED AND'APPROVED thio 19th day of June s • ✓• `€.': - t Yr^"`, ATTEST: WI _BY -7.. L2h/u � ea -'-% 'City Call y --.7' 4. APPROVED: By: Mayor , 1990. E30VNVN LZIO rt rt 4 S c. xa o o y m xt.G .3 K Y•C r N M aPr3 N anma ,3 • X N O ID rt 0 rK aZ mW m •11 (D 7 K CO H DI o = H N G N x • K 0 m M n P t In y ID r rt Co0 rt (ID to In m 0. K m a0 I G F a m Y• a O 0 m V3 0 K • rt O 0 M a GrtmY• rpH. tK Nm M ttr 7 v v t7 (D a rt K P93 ▪ H H Hrt N Y• a 1< m m m m GGmG (DrtmM• W "� iI �l n Iv w ro Z 113 0 ..'� ' mrtWrat M •d rex Hi (D I • ^A t9 rt M (D (D O G ' K Hi C (10 CY CO rt H t11 peniaseaun PROJECT OR ITEM DELETED TebaO Ianoo of spuna NO Zt £ n n H 0 m yl b roc or O y H tof O 0 H asn 301330 Z300HR 2 00'008-T-000-0PS li3BNNN ZNDODDV Unreserved Fund Balance 37ZIZ ZNDODOV JUSTIFICATION OF THIS INCREASE: sea& TebaZ 20; spun3 PROJECT OR ITEM REQUESTED 0 m m 1/40 ke O Nv3A lawny z 10 t O O m• O < •a Ci .-4 > z Ln a > 1-1 o N 3 O z m Z tD n O z Z H H H r m Ln N N 0 H s)(IOM OTTRTid aalsanb3N asvu N z 0 m N• uRvofi oMI)IIDb3H PC NOIZVHBO3NI LNII000V IN -YEAR SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET:REQUEST 123AV3 30 AZIO sysuvxuy_ ' 3'I' • JAMES N. McCORD ATTORNEY AT LAW Walker -Stone House 207 West Center Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 TO: Fayetteville Board of Directors FROM: James N. McCord, Attorney at Law DATE: April 16, 1990 RE: q6--- 1501) 6- (501) 442-8846 Ernest Stanberry and Carol Stanberry v. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Washington County Circuit Court No. CIV 87-208 In the above referenced inverse condemnation case, plaintiffs' sought to recover $600,000.00 in damages from the City of Fayetteville for the periodic discharge of raw sewage and sewage odors onto their lands for approximately 20 years. Following a three day jury trial which began April 10, 1990, before Circuit Judge Kim Smith, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs for $260,000.00. The trial court refused to give several jury instructions requested by the City. This may constitute reversible error. Although the City pled the statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to the inverse condemnation claim, the court refused to instruct the jury on this defense. The Court also refused to instruct the jury that the plaintiffs must prove their land has been permanently damaged. In a similar case where the statute of limitations was pled as a defense, the Supreme Court held: ""'It seems well settled that in an action for damages for permanent injury to real estate caused by continuing salt water pollution the limitation begins to run at the time when it becomes obvious when a permanent injury has been suffered."' There are, therefore, two fact questions for the jury to decide: (a) whether the damage was permanent, and (b) if so, when did it become, or should it have become obvious to appellees. . . " City of Springdale v. Weathers, 239 Ark. 535, 390 S.W.2d 125 (1965). Dr. Stanberry testified that the lake on his property was permanently polluted by a discharge of raw sewage which occurred in March, 1984. He testified that the lakewas not polluted prior to this discharge. The Supreme Court has ruled that a single sewage overflow does not entitle a landowner to monetary damages. • RE: Ernest Stanberry and Carol Stanberry V. City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, Washington County Circuit Court No. CIV 87-208 April 16, 1990 Page 2 City of Fort Smith v. Anderson, 241 Ark. 824, 410 S.W.2d 597 (1967). The court refused the City's requested instruction on this rule of law. In overruling the City's requested jury instructions, the court cited a recent Supreme Court decision holding that a continuing trespass or nuisance can ripen into inverse condemnation. Robinson v. City of Ashdown, 301 Ark. 226, S.W.2d (1990). In my opinion, Robinson did not overrule City of Springdale v. Weathers, supra. At trial, the landowners' environmental engineer admitted he had not taken and tested water samples or sedimentation samples from the Stanberry pond. Over objections by the City, he testified that he believed AIDS virus and hepatitis bacteria from City sewage could be present in the Stanberry pond. This testimony could very well have inflamed the jury. The Fayetteville Board of Directors should determine whether to instruct this office to appeal the jury's verdict. Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date judgment is entered. Interest on the judgment will accrue at the rate of ten percent per annum from the date of entry. The City can post a supersedeas bond to stay enforcement of the judgment pending a decision on appeal. In past cases, the court has allowed the City to pledge certificates of deposit as security for a supersedeas bond. Cost of an appeal is estimated at less than $10,000.00. Plaintiffs are seeking prejudgment interest which could result in a total judgment of over $325,000.00. The City will contend that plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest because they never had to surrender possession of their property. In Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Musivick Cigar & Beverage Co., 231 Ark. 265, 329 S.W.2d 173 (1959) the Supreme Court ruled that interest on damages for the taking of property in an eminentdomain proceeding runs from the date of surrender of possession of the property .sought to the date of payment. In Foster v. Arkansas State Highway Commission, 263 Ark. 62, 562 S.W.2d 298 (1978), the court ruled that a junkyard owner was not entitled to interest on the just compensation award where he had not surrendered possession of the junkyard as of the trial date. cc: Mr. Scott Linebaugh, Acting City Manager Mr. Jerry Rose, City Attorney