Collapsed buildings clouded in arguments|[11/28/07]
Published 12:00 am Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Nearly two years after two Clay Street buildings imploded, attorneys for a bevy of the parties with interests in the case made it to a courtroom where Judge Isadore Patrick was asked to make rulings on questions that even when decided won’t determine the future of the rubble and structural remnants on the site.
Patrick took under advisement:
* An argument by the City of Vicksburg that the owners, Preston and Mary Reuther, waited too long to appeal a city decision to deny a demolition permit for damaged structures at 707 and 709 Clay, directly north of Trustmark National Bank.
* A plea by Assurance Company of America, which sold a builder’s risk policy to the Reuthers, to be dismissed as a third-party defendant in the case because the chancery judge who ordered the firm into the case later asserted the court lacked jurisdiction.
The multistory masonry buildings at 711 and 713 Clay dating to 1860 collapsed on Jan. 25, 2006. Workers inside clearing the space for a planned conversion into an antique mall said they heard creaking and fled, escaping just as the structures crashed.
Since that day, actions have been filed in at least three courts, but have been transferred and transferred again.
Each of the two affected buildings on Clay has two addresses.
The Reuthers, who moved to Vicksburg and purchased several buildings to rehabilitate and operate, initially planned to rebuild. Later, however, the city stopped site clearing, saying permits had not been sought or obtained. Later, when the Reuthers asked to demolish and clear the site, the city took the position the remaining buildings were historic and should be preserved.
Associate City Attorney Bobby Robinson told Patrick that under state law the Reuthers should have appealed directly to Warren County Circuit Court within 10 days after the city vote to uphold a decision by the Board of Architectural Review to deny the demolition permit. Phil Buffington, representing the Reuthers, countered that the vote was not final because city officials had asked the Reuthers to come back with more information.
On the facts of the case, Buffington said an expert estimated stabilizing the two standing buildings would cost upward of $300,000. The Reuthers and their attorney are also fighting the city’s attempt to contract for the stabilization of the buildings and assess the cost against the owners as a tax lien.
Ned Currie, arguing for Assurance, asked that if the company’s motion to be removed as a third party is denied, the case be severed, so that a decision on the insurance claim of the Reuthers’ and the fourth party in the case, DCH Realty, which holds a mortgage on the property, not be tied up with arguments with the City of Vicksburg over the fate of the two remaining buildings.
Lawyers for the other parties opposed the motion by Assurance, arguing that making two cases out of one would complicate matters and impede “judicial expedience” in the matter.
Buffington and lawyers for the City of Vicksburg argued the implications of the city’s motion for partial judgment. Buffington argued that the February 2006 vote by the Board of Mayor and Aldermen upholding the decision by the advisory board was not clear, since during the board meeting the mayor asked the Reuthers to return with more information at a later date.
Patrick gave no indication when he might rule on the requests.