June 28, 2007 issue
League Liability Insurance, Not League of Municipalities, Paying for Sugar Mountain Appeal
Story by Bernadette Cahill
Mayor Dennis Lacey and David Lane, Manager of the Village of Sugar Mountain, stated in the last two weeks that the League of Municipalities will pay for the village’s appeal in the long-running annexation case against Sugar Mountain, but David Lane confirmed Tuesday that this is not the case. He said it is the liability insurance of the League of Municipalities that is going to pay for the appeal.
Lane refused to comment whether it was error, confusion or lack of clarity that led to his and the Mayor’s original statements, and would provide no information on why the League of Municipalities’ liability insurance is involved. Instead, he read the village’s official statement on the recent judgment in the matter.
Presiding Superior Court Judge, the Honorable James U. Downs, handed his judgment in the case down May 21, overturning four annexation ordinances the Village of Sugar Mountain passed December 20, 2005.
The village had 30 days from May 23—the day the judgment was filed with Avery County Clerk of Court—to file an appeal. The village filed its Notice of Appeal on Monday, June 18—the day before the village council voted to appeal the judgment.
The village’s statement said, “On behalf of the Village of Sugar Mountain, we are disappointed in the recent ruling in this annexation case. We believe that the judgment contained many conclusions which are contrary to the evidence presented at trial and contrary to the manner in which the village conducted this process. Throughout this annexation process we acted in good faith and in the best interests of the village and the community. As a result, we have appealed the judgment to the North Carolina Court of Appeal.”
“This is what the attorneys have told us to say and from this point on, that is all I am going to say,” said Lane.
Andrew Romanet, Jr., the League of Municipalities’ general counsel, had confirmed Monday that the League is not paying for Sugar Mountain’s appeal. Earlier, Romanet had expressed surprise at the claim that the League would pay. “You’ve got me. I’m not aware of this. Maybe they think we will go into court and file a brief for them, but as far as paying, we don’t do that,” he said.
Romanet explained that there is a pooled insurance available from the League of Municipalities, but stated, “That’s not the League paying for it. The League administers the insurance.”
“Sometimes something might trigger the liability insurance,” Romanet said, citing, as an example, “some violation of civil rights,” but he did not know enough about the case to comment any further.
Paragraph 82 of the original complaint that local attorney David R. Paletta filed challenging the annexations stated that the petitioners would “suffer material injury as a result of Respondent’s violation of their right to the Equal Protection of the Law.” Paragraph 85 of the original complaint also stated that the petitioners would “suffer material injury due to Respondent’s violation of their right to Due Process of Law.”
Paletta filed the original legal complaint on behalf of Bettie, Melissa and the Norwood Family Limited Partnership; Sugar View Real Estate Investors; Manning and Martha Gambrell; Donnie and Cathy Iverson; and Kathleen Bunnells.
The petitioners formed a non-profit corporation, Citizens Against Sugar Mountain Annexation (CASMA), to fight the village’s proposals, with Jim Heaton as president. Heaton’s property is not part of the annexations but he has been active in his neighbors’ fight since his property was part of an abortive Sugar Mountain annexation proposal in 2003.
Heaton last week, in response to the statements of Lacey and Lane, expressed anger that the League of Municipalities would take an active role in the appeal, but said Wednesday, “It is very interesting that the League of Municipalities is not actually paying for Sugar Mountain’s appeal, but the League’s insurance pool (is paying) and (that) something has triggered the liability insurance to pay. My question is, what has taken place that would trigger the liability insurance to pay for this appeal? The people have a right to know what has taken place. And what other surprises are we in store for?”
In addition to the appeal, the petitioners in the case are also concerned about the village’s charter, from which Sugar Mountain derives the right to annex and to make extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) regulations. ETJ gives a municipality the authority to plan and regulate development in areas immediately outside its corporate limits and this was not affected by the judgment.
Community Interest
News & Notes
Events
Arts & Entertainment
