1 claim allowed in house that was mistakenly demolished in Little Rock

Judge tosses part of suit against LR

This vacant house on South Harrison Street in Little Rock was supposed to be demolished in 2012 by a contractor hired by the city, but the home next door (right) was mistakingly torn down. The razed home’s owners have sued the city and the contractor.
This vacant house on South Harrison Street in Little Rock was supposed to be demolished in 2012 by a contractor hired by the city, but the home next door (right) was mistakingly torn down. The razed home’s owners have sued the city and the contractor.

A couple whose unoccupied house was mistakenly demolished by a city contractor can pursue its lawsuit against Little Rock on certain grounds, a judge ruled Friday.

photo

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

A map showing the location of the demolished house.

Jessie and Gwendolyn Vernon, through their attorney, have claimed both negligence and inverse condemnation by the city and Youngblood Excavation and Demolition LLC.

The Youngblood company was operating as an agent of the city when it demolished the Vernons' house at 2800 S. Harrison St. instead of the home next door the city had contracted the company to demolish, at 2804 S. Harrison St.

The Vernons filed a lawsuit against the city and the demolition company in 2015 alleging their negligence and a taking of the couple's property without compensation, known as inverse condemnation.

The city filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing a state law that says cities are immune from liability in any case of negligence. The city also argued that it had not participated in inverse condemnation.

Judge Wendell Griffen granted the motion to dismiss in part in regard to the negligence claim against the city, recognizing Little Rock's immunity under state law. But he said the inverse-condemnation claim against the city could continue.

Separate defendant Youngblood Excavation and Demolition was not a part of Friday's hearing on the city's motion to dismiss.

"The notion of inverse condemnation and eminent domain, of which it is based on, is based on an old notion that, 'My stuff is my stuff and you can't have it unless I give it to you, and you can't take my stuff just because you are government, and you can't take my stuff by sending someone else to take my stuff and say that you didn't because somebody else took my stuff," Griffen said when issuing his order from the bench.

[EMAIL UPDATES: Get free breaking news alerts, daily newsletters with top headlines delivered to your inbox]

"To the extent the Vernons have alleged facts that the city of Little Rock, acting in its own regard and by the actions of its agent Youngblood, engaged in conduct that resulted in the demolition of a house on their property, that conduct, that allegation is sufficient under our pleading rules to assert cause of action," Griffen said.

The Vernons did not live in the dwelling when it was demolished in August 2012. The house had been declared a nuisance by the city and had drawn several citations for code violations.

There was a red sign on the house when contractors showed up that declared it unsafe/vacant. Next door at 2804 S. Harrison, there was a larger sign declaring that property would be demolished.

The Vernons said the city's policy of contacting utility companies and having the power turned off at the property next door ahead of the demolition contributed to the confusion that resulted in the improper razing of their house.

City officials said at the time of the demolition that Youngblood Excavation and Demolition did not follow a city policy that states a code officer must be on site to confirm the address and take pictures before a contractor begins demolition.

Youngblood was barred from doing any more demolition work with the city.

In 2013, the contractor's attorney, Mark Riable, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that in his view, the Vernons benefited from the demolition.

"He has a house he bought for $2,000 that was not in good shape," Riable said at the time. "He never does any repair work to it. He receives a notice from the city saying he either needs to get a permit and start the work or make arrangements to tear it down. He does neither. Mr. Vernon is going to have to prove his damages; that's how this would work in court. He had a dangerous house that needed to be demolished that he had not paid for. From a damages standpoint, I don't think he was damaged at all by having it torn down. ... If anything, he saved some cost."

City documents show the Vernons' property was in violation of several city ordinances and codes involving damaged floors, damaged ceilings, unsafe electrical fixtures, broken windows and doors, damage to the roof overhang and was said to be a nuisance to the neighborhood.

The city sent Jessie Vernon a certified letter in May 2012 telling him he had 15 days to start repairs or begin tearing down the house, otherwise it would be placed on a demolition list to be approved by the city Board of Directors.

According to a 2013 Democrat-Gazette article, the city offered Vernon a different house to make up for the loss, but he told the city board that he wanted to be paid in cash for the damage to his property.

"Pay me the money, and I'll be through with it," he said at the time.

The Vernons' attorney, Joe Denton, said Friday that he's pleased Griffen ruled that the inverse-condemnation claim against the city could proceed. He plans to seek more discovery documents and schedule depositions and a trial date in the case.

Metro on 01/14/2017

Upcoming Events