|
|
Monday, November 29, 2004
Judge denies
Market Pointe bond
BY MITCH BEAUMONT
Times
Managing Editor
A ruling by Sarpy County District Court Judge George Thompson last
Friday destined the Market Pointe lawsuit for either appellate
court or the Nebraska Supreme Court, whoever picks up the case
first.
Shortly after Thompson ruled several weeks ago that the 74-acre
commercial development could proceed, attorneys for the city of
Papillion, the developer and landowner filed motions requesting
the plaintiffs put up a $7.4 million, bond to cover losses that
could be incurred during the appeals process.
Thompson ruled Friday that, because the lawsuit is now being
appealed to the appellate court level by the 11 plaintiffs, he
didn’t have jurisdiction to determine if a bond is appropriate.
The city’ requested a $3.6 million bond for its potential losses,
the developer, the R.H. Johnson Company, requested $2.8 million,
and the landowner requested $1 million. Steve Delaney, the
attorney representing the developer, said he expects to appeal the
bond ruling to the appeals court.
“We asked for it once, we’ll ask for it again,” he said. “There’s
no reason not to.”
lrv Epstein, attorney for the landowner, said he also expects to
appeal the ruling. Papillion City Attorney Mike Schirber said his
decision to appeal depends on what the City Council wants him to
do,
Briefs from the plaintiffs and defendants are due at the appellate
level by Feb. 17, said Bill Gast, lead attorney for the 11
Hickory Hill neighbors. Before the appeals court can schedule a
hearing, he said, the Nebraska Supreme Court could decide to skip
the appellate level and take the case itself.
“Since this has the potential to be a landmark rezoning
decision that will control Nebraska law for all time, I
wouldn’t be surprised if the Supreme Court said, ‘Let’s not waste
the time, let’s do it now,” Gast said after Thompson’s
ruling last week. “There’s a lot at stake for both parties, so why
spend all the time? I fully expect the Nebraska Supreme Court to
do that.”
If Judge Thompson had granted the defendant’s request for a bond,
Gast said it would have equated to a, “legal nothing.”
“It’s against the state constitution, and it’s absolutely not
included in the appeal bond statute,” Gast said.
“For all those reasons, if he had granted their motion, it would
have been a nothing. Nobody would have posted a bond, and the
appeal would have gone on, because he had no authority to enforce
it.”
Gast called the defendant’s bond motions harassment and an,
“anti-American thing to do.”
“The degree to which they showed desperation with these bond
motions reveals just how concerned they are. I think they know
this judge’s ruling will not stand the test of an appeal, and we
agree,” Gast said. “It was a bluff. What did Arnold
Schwarzenegger say in that movie ‘Twins’? What’s the first rule in
a crisis situation? When you bluff, you must be prepared to have
your bluff called. They weren’t prepared for that.”
|
