Judge Denies Mahaska County’s Request To Dismiss Case
Legal documents were filed in Mahaska County District Court by Pella and Oskaloosa to force Mahaska County to once again participate in the 28E agreement for a regional airport.
Oskaloosa, Iowa – The lawsuit being presented by the City of Pella and the City of Oskaloosa will continue, after 8th Judicial District Judge Lucy Gamon denied the request from Mahaska County to dismiss.
Gamon said that the plaintiffs [Pella, Oskaloosa] gave fair notice to Mahaska County “of the factual incidents giving rise to the Petition and the specific nature of the Plaintiffs’ claims and relief sought. Further, the Court can conceive of a set of facts which would entitle Plaintiffs to recover on the legal claims asserted. Thus, this Petition clearly survives Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
The December 8th meeting between the parties in the case was the first in-court action in the dispute between Mahaska County and the two cities over a 28E agreement to build a regional airport.
The Petition to force Mahaska County to once again participate in the 28E agreement was filed on August 22nd, 2017, with the motion to dismiss filed by the county on October 2, 2017. The cities then filed their resistance on October 20th, 2017.
Mahaska County Supervisors Mark Doland and Mark Groenendyk carved out $50,000 from the county budget to pay attorney fees in this case.
The cities of Pella and Oskaloosa filed the Petition after Mahaska County unilaterally left the 28E agreement, without the approval of the other parties involved. “The Mahaska County Board of Supervisors has now passed three separate resolutions attempting to unilaterally withdraw from its obligations under the Agreement,” said court documents. “The cities of Pella and Oskaloosa have passed counter resolutions asserting that Mahaska County has no right to unilaterally withdraw from the Agreement.”
The Petition from the cities is not asking for monetary damages or compensation.
In August of 2017, the cities of Pella and Oskaloosa filed a 94-page document with the Mahaska County District Court to make Mahaska County once again participate in the 28E agreement for a regional airport.
The first count of the court filing requests for declaratory judgment regarding the validity of the agreement. It states that the Agreement was validly executed in accordance with Iowa law, including Iowa Code Chapter 28E.
The plaintiffs (Pella and Oskaloosa) state that “Mahaska does not have the power or authority to unilaterally amend or terminate the Agreement and that any such modification requires approval of all of the parties to the Agreement.”
Count two of the document outlines a breach of contract, saying that “Pella, Oskaloosa, and Mahaska were legally capable of contracting for the joint acquisition, construction, and operation of a regional airport facility have done so pursuant to Iowa law.
“Mahaska has breached the Agreement by wrongfully and in bad faith attempting to unilaterally amend or terminate the Agreement, and/or by repudiating its obligations therein. This is particularly evidenced by Mahaska’s prior admissions that the agreement is binding and requires unanimous consent to modify or terminate it.”
“Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment against the Defendant, Mahaska County, Iowa, and to require it to perform its obligations as stated in the Agreement, to award common law attorneys’ fees, and such other relief and remedies as may be just and equitable under the circumstances.”
Daniel Gonnerman, attorney for Mahaska County, pled his side during the hearing. “The motion to dismiss is based on the fact that in the defendants, or it is the defendant’s position that, at this point, there’s nothing the county has done to breach the agreement that was in effect for the purpose of this motion to dismiss,” said Gonnerman.
Gonnerman said the lawsuit is based upon the decision by the board of supervisors to leave the 28E agreement. “The defendant’s position is that, even if that action is null and void, there’s been nothing that the airport authority, that’s been created as a result of the 28E agreement, has asked the board to do that they have not performed.”
“Basically there’s no harm that’s resulted from any action that’s occurred so far,” added Gonnerman. “It’s the county’s position that the lawsuit is premature because the airport authority has not asked the board of supervisors to perform any act or take any action in support of the 28E agreement.”
Daniel Gonnerman, attorney for Mahaska County, told Oskaloosa News after the hearing. “I believe, before the plaintiffs can file a lawsuit they have to be harmed in some way, which means that the airport authority would have had to ask the supervisors to do something in particular before they can claim they suffered any damages as a result of that.”
Gonnerman said examples of harm could be refusing to close a road or being asked to use eminent domain power and refuse to do so. “None of those things have happened yet, at this point.”
Gonnerman’s advice to the board of supervisors to lead to them departing the 28E agreement, stating the agreement was ambiguous or interpreted in two ways.
“One of which is that would allow the individual entities to withdraw from it [28E]. The other one is that it would require unanimous consent from all three parties. That specificity is missing from the 28E agreement in my opinion,” added Gonnerman. “They could have easily said, all entities must agree, and that word is missing.”
