The verdict is in ? the hotly-contested half-acre of parking property in downtown Oxford’s northeast quadrant is worth exactly $267,830.
That’s how much an Oakland Country Circuit Court jury unanimously determined the value to be after a two-day trial and nearly three hours of deliberation Sept. 24.
‘We won the case,? said Oxford Village attorney Bob Davis. ‘I think the jury did a good job and I think the number is accurate.?
For a little over six years, the Village of Oxford has been fighting with the Grove family, then the Knauf family, and finally the Grove family again over this property’s true value.
‘It’s great ? justice prevailed,? said village Manager Joe Young. ‘Our attorneys did a great job. The jury deliberated and (determined) a fair and just price for the property.?
Nathan Grove did not return a phone call seeking comments from him.
The village argued the property, which contains approximately 50 public parking spaces, was worth $205,000 based on the last appraisal it had conducted in 2006.
However, the Groves and Knaufs, both of whom used to own the land, maintained at various times over the years it was worth anywhere from $1 million to $1.8 million.
Davis noted the jury’s verdict indicates what it believed the ‘market value? was in July 2002 when the village condemned the land, which was owned by the Groves at the time.
‘That’s what the property was worth including all of its improvements, all of its potential, all of its zoning,? he said.
As a result of the jury’s verdict, the village must now pay the Groves $97,830 because the municipality already paid $170,000 for the property last year.
‘They’re the only defendant in the case,? Davis said.
However, the Grove family, which owns Grove’s True Value Hardware, no longer owns the property in question and hasn’t since spring 2006, when they sold the parking lot to the Knauf family for a purported $825,000, according to court documents.
The village received title to the property via a court order in summer 2007. In exchange, the Knaufs were paid the $170,000 the village and Downtown Development Authority had sitting in escrow since the whole legal battle began.
It would be up to the courts to decide how much more the village would have to pay to Knaufs.
In July, a three-member case evaluation panel appointed by the circuit court, awarded the Knaufs the sum of $425,000 for the property, which included interest and attorney fees.
But before the Knaufs could accept or reject the award, Circuit Court Judge Fred Mester issued an order declaring the Groves must be substituted for the Knaufs as the defendant in this case.
Mester declared the Knaufs couldn’t be the defendant because even though the family purportedly purchased the land from the Groves, the village has technically held title to it since it was condemned on July 10, 2002.
In June 2007, the Knaufs became the defendants in place of the Groves in this case and the legal challenge to the village’s argument of necessity for taking the property was dropped.
Under the law, when a challenge to the necessity for the taking is withdrawn, as it was in this case, or overturned, title to the property is presumed to date back to when it was condemned by the government.
Mester’s argument was basically the Groves could not sell property to the Knaufs in 2006 they technically had not owned since 2002.
So, the Groves became the defendant, again, and they rejected the case evaluation award, resulting in a jury trial.
A question that arises from the jury’s verdict is will the Groves have to pay the $97,830 award to the Knaufs since they were the most recent owner of the property on paper?
Davis said that’s something the two families would have to work out amongst themselves.
In addition to the $97,830, the village will also have to pay the Groves “interest and some form of an attorney fee” because the jury awarded them more than the village’s original good faith offer of $170,000 made back in 2002, according to Davis.
“However, on the other hand, the village accepted case evaluation and the Groves rejected it, which may impose costs and fees on the Groves,” Davis noted.
According to state law, if the party who rejected the case evaluators? award (i.e. the Groves) does not improve their position by 10 percent at trial, reasonable attorney fees and costs are taxable to the rejecting side.
In other words, the jury would have had to award the Groves at least $467,500 to avoid being sanctioned.
‘They certainly did not do that,? Davis said.
How much the Groves could have to pay and whether the money would be paid to the court or the village is unclear at this point.
‘Condemnation cases have a whole series of rules on how you calculate these things,? Davis said.
As of June 30, the village had spent $155,000 on its own legal bills during this six-year battle, which includes $20,000 from the DDA.