Judge may decide Parkside lawsuit Monday

At 9:30 a.m. Monday, Aug. 25, Judge Marlene Hyatt will take up a lawsuit brought by the Pack heirs against developer Stewart Coleman and Buncombe County over the piece of public parkland sold to Coleman by the county in 2006. Opponents of Coleman’s proposed Parkside project are promising to show up in force.

The lawsuit asserts that when George Pack donated the land to the county in 1900, the deed specified that it would remain in public use forever and, if ever sold, would revert to the family’s ownership. The county claims a later, second deed removed those stipulations. The Pack family’s attorney, Joe Ferikes, has asked for a summary judgment by Hyatt, which means the matter may be decided on Monday.

After a closed session on July 25, the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners announced they would delay any action on the issue until after the summary judgment. Coleman has contributed to the campaigns of both commissioner Bill Stanley and Chair Nathan Ramsey.

A release from the activist group Stop Parkside has urged opponents of the project to “Pack the Court.” The full release is below.

— David Forbes, staff writer

———————————————————————————————————————————

This Monday, August 25, starting at 9:30 a.m., the lawsuit brought by the descendants of George W. Pack against Buncombe County and Stewart Coleman alleging that the sale of the Parkside parcel should be overturned will be heard on the 7th floor of Buncombe County Courthouse before Judge Marlene Hyatt. The Packs’ attorney, Joe Ferikes, has asked for summary judgement in the case—and if Judge Hyatt rules in his favor on Monday, the now-infamous piece of parkland under the magnolia tree in front of Asheville’s City Hall will be returned to the people and the controversy will be ended.

If she rules any other way, we’ll need to pack City Hall on Tuesday to insist Council use eminent domain to get our parkland back.

Parkside opponents are strongly encouraged to attend the lawsuit hearing on Monday. Mr. Ferikes told Magnolia watchers Lady Passion and Clare Hanrahan today that the more of us pack the courtroom that day, the more likely it is the judge will decide to rule in the Packs’ favor then and there rather than take the “easy way out” and send the case to trial (which would probably not begin till November or December—after the county commissioners’ election).

Wear your “Save the Magnolia” tee-shirt or a “Stop Parkside” sticker! We’ll meet and rally under the Magnolia Tree at 9 a.m. Monday, then proceed to the courtroom; or you can come to the courthouse whenever you’re able (but seats may be scarce).

Ferikes is confident the law will be on his side. In fact, the county clearly had its own doubts about its right to sell the public parkland to a private developer, since it sold Parkside to Mr. Coleman under a non-warranty, or “quitclaim,” deed. Ferikes and other real-estate experts say this is the weakest form of deed—a kind of “buyer-beware” document that offers the purchaser no guarantee that the seller’s transfer of title is valid or free of encumbrances … and no money back should the sale be ruled invalid. It’s typically used only by family members transferring property among themselves. If Coleman were allowed to build Parkside, the individual buyers of its $900,000 condos would also be entitled to nothing more than flimsy quitclaim deeds on their homes.

We’ve also learned that the location of our present-day courthouse and City Hall is due to Pack’s condition in his 1901 deed that the land he gave the county would revert to his heirs if the county ever sold it or built a jail on it. A 1927 newspaper article archived in the Pack Memorial Library notes that officials determined that the Pack deed prevented them from putting the new buildings on the land he donated, so they built them on an annexed piece of property instead.

If the judge should rule against the Pack heirs’ plea for summary judgement, Parkside opponents will need to show up en masse at the City Council meeting at 5 p.m. the following day, Tuesday, August 26, to urge council to act swiftly to acquire the property through eminent domain. Thanks to the success of our petition drive and our resolute direct actions, council now probably has the votes to pass eminent domain on Parkside, inside sources tell us. But councilmembers will need their backbones reinforced by a large showing of citizens expressing their support for this needful use of government power to protect public property rights. Eminent domain would restore our public parkland to the public and compensate Mr. Coleman fairly and impartially (which is more than he would get if the court revokes his quitclaim deed).

###

 

SHARE

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

5 thoughts on “Judge may decide Parkside lawsuit Monday

  1. no, the judge may RULE on it tomorrow but I suspect it will be in the courts for years to come.

    thanks again to our county commissioners for creating this mess.

  2. Reality Check

    It will be very interesting to see the Judge’s ruling. The Pack family is powerful. Coleman is powerful. The County Commission is powerful. Is there any way this case can not be affected by all that local power? Maybe it depends on who the County Commission really wants to win. I can also smell may appeals down the road.

  3. nuvue

    The wording of the 01 deed seems pretty straightforward and I don’t know how you could interpret it any other way.
    Give Coleman back the paltry 380,00 or whatever and reclaim the land.
    I agree with RR, thanks commi- ishioners for giving away the land and boiling this pot…
    Maybe they will research a little better on future land deals….

  4. Reality Check

    We’re all on the same page. However, if the wording of the deed were that clear, we wouldn’t be here now. Real Estate law can be nasty and local politics can be nastier. I’m sure we all thought OJ was guilty too …

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.