Recordpub.com - Judge: No liens on old Kent hotel Contempt fines may still stand, but who can collect is unclear

By Matt Fredmonsky
Record-Courier staff writer
One case may be nearing a close, but the owner of the old Kent hotel and the city of Kent are likely to continue their court battle over the vacant downtown landmark.
Acting Portage County Common Pleas Judge Joseph Kainrad ruled Wednesday that neither the city, nor the county, has any lien on the hotel property at the corner of DePeyster and East Main streets.
“If anything, it is dormant,” Kainrad said describing past liens. “And that extinguishes any lien, although it does not extinguish any judgment, which was only against (the former owner), as I understand it.”
Ten years ago, Kainrad entered a judgment in the case in which the building’s former owner, Joseph Bujack, agreed to make certain repairs and improvements to the structure and bring it into compliance with Kent’s health, safety and building codes. In 2002 and 2003, Kainrad found Bujack in contempt of court for failing to abide by the agreement.
Those contempt findings led to the imposition of fines and judgments amounting to approximately $428,000, according to court records.
Bujack died in 2005. The hotel site currently is owned by Gregg Vilk, Kent Hotel LLC.
At Wednesday’s hearing, the city asked Kainrad to rule on a motion it filed in September seeking transfer of interest in the fines to the city and naming Kent as the proper party to enforce the contempt judgments.
Eric Fink, Kent’s assistant law director, said Vilk agreed to take responsibility for those judgments in court shortly after he took ownership in February 2004.
Vilk’s attorney, Stephen Potter, said the city tried unsuccessfully in 2008 to renew judgment liens on the building, but the court overruled that attempt in March. Potter said the city never had authority to claim a stake in the judgments or file a lien, which, by definition, is the right to property as security for a debt.
Though Potter did say liens could only be exclusively filed by a representative of the court, if there were any current liens.
“I scratch my head as to why we’re here at all,” Potter said. “Every several months the city of Kent files another motion styling it differently against my client. This is just so many different bites at the apple, and the rules specifically prohibit that.
“If they didn’t like it, then they appeal the (March) order,” he said. “That’s the process that had to go forward. It didn’t go forward. This case is done, once and for all.”
Kainrad asked Potter to prepare a court order stating no liens exist on the property and that the fines are dormant because they were imposed on Bujack.
But the situation has not been fully resolved.
In October 2008, Vilk filed a separate case against the city, which remains open, claiming their attempts to collect on the judgment amounts clouded the property’s title and prevented him from selling it or obtaining financing for its redevelopment. That case is set for a mediation conference in February.
During the hearing, Fink said the city maintains its position that Vilk has acknowledged full responsibility for all the judgment orders placed against Bujack and, therefore, should act accordingly.
“By extending the defendant’s logic in this matter, it would appear they’re saying the fines of $108,000 and $320,000 should simply be discharged because no one has the authority to execute on that,” he said.
Dan Smith, Kent’s economic development director, said the city viewed Kainrad’s ruling as eliminating any liens on the property but not the existing judgment amounts.
Smith said the city’s law department is determining if a motion should be made in the case to address the outstanding judgment.

8.	Posted by Reality Check December 3, 2009
	the headline is a bit misleading and not consistent with judge kainrad's order but that's how they draw us in and sell a few more papers. fact is judge kainrad ordered that kent hotel llc /defendant is not responsible for the fines or part of the judgment because the contempt fines were imposed against the previous owner (bujack) personally. not kent hotel, llc/defendant and not against any specific property. if someone (identified as portage county) would like to collect the contempt fines they would have to go after bujack which is no longer a viable option. meaning the judgment is DORMANT. the previous liens filed by the city of kent against the hotel property and then ordered to be removed by the portage county court back in 2008/2009 (while under the ownership of kent hotel, llc/defendant) were never legal or valid liens. under ohio law that is considered fraudulent and slanderous if the city knowling understood it could/would harm and/or violated the property owners' rights. in my opinion, the city of kent filed those liens knowing they had no authority or jurisdiction with the intent to harm and eliminate the owner's possibility to obtain tenants, buyer or financing. dan smith's article comments where he is speaking on behalf of the city of kent seem suspicious & wreckless considering he was in attendance (during business hours within the court room but not party to the plaintiff) throughout the trial but aparently did not comprehend judge kainrad's order which was openly discussed & ordered without any misunderstanding by plaintiff or defendant. the city of kent did not have a lien against the property prior to entering the court room because the liens were ordered to be removed during a precious hearing in from of judge pittman which is another error in coment by dan smith. someone let the city of kent know the city of kent is not entitled, authorized or has any interest with of the bujack contempt judgment and/or fines. The only pending & open ligation is the suit filed in 2008 by kent hotel, llc (plaintiff) suing the city of kent (defendant) for slander of title!

3.	Posted by Dose of Reality December 3, 2009
	It's obvious the city of kent has succeeded to muscle and choke hold this property from future development or benefit while turning their interest & efforts into a personal agenda without any regard for property rights or the publics best interest. This administration along with council's absolute support has acted more like wealthy mobsters than public servants/officials. Unfortuntently, the city of kent does not have a majority of decisions makers within that process the knowledge, experience, understanding, ability or willingness to make good practical business and/or legal decisions. Who is really pulling the strings at city hall? Who is going to be held accountable for the public risks & damages if their errors can not be swept under the rug! My initial guess is council will ultimately place the blame on Eric Fink. That's why Jim Silver hired and that's why Jim Silver sets the table for the case, convinces council/administration to approve his actions but always finds a way out of the court room leaving a rookie to tread water without a life preserver in the middle of the ocean. The second person to the block is Dan Smith. Considering Gary Locke is smart enough to keep his neck of the chopping block while maintaining his priority and vision towards retirement with the past two directors (Mike Weddle & Charley Bowman) forced to resign or terminated. Both of these individuals had their hands tied by the current city manager but forgot more than Dan Smith will ever know when it comes to economic development. This department is an absolute joke and discredit to the community. Just take a look at the past 30 to 40 years of economic development. Yes, Gary Locke has been there for the ride and Jack Crew's (city of kent /small business person of the year) has held their hands. Back to the topic; I believe council & the administration have been intentionally misled by the current law director for so long that council & administration actually believe they are acting in the best interest of the public without limiting or damaging the property owner's rights. As I remember, the contempt fines were imposed against Joseph Bujack and not against any property by the county court even Jim Silver stated back in early 2009 as testimony "the city of kent recently discovered the city of kent did not have the authority or right to file any lien against the property which was improperly prepared by the former law director" in addition to the over whelming amount of evidence from the property owner's counsel supporting the court decision and the current law director's statement. Council truly needs to be much more diligent and start holding these characters/individuals accountable. Enough is enough and change is necessary!

2.	Posted by Dose of Reality December 3, 2009
	It's obvious the city of kent has succeeded to muscle and choke hold this property from future development or benefit while turning their interest & efforts into a personal agenda without any regard for property rights or the publics best interest. This administration along with council's absolute support has acted more like wealthy mobsters than public servants/officials. Unfortuntently, the city of kent does not have a majority of decisions makers within that process the knowledge, experience, understanding, ability or willingness to make good practical business and/or legal decisions. Who is really pulling the strings at city hall? Who is going to be held accountable for the public risks & damages if their errors can not be swept under the rug! My initial guess is council will ultimately place the blame on Eric Fink. That's why Jim Silver hired and that's why Jim Silver sets the table for the case, convinces council/administration to approve his actions but always finds a way out of the court room leaving a rookie to tread water without a life preserver in the middle of the ocean. The second person to the block is Dan Smith. Considering Gary Locke is smart enough to keep his neck of the chopping block while maintaining his priority and vision towards retirement with the past two directors (Mike Weddle & Charley Bowman) forced to resign or terminated. Both of these individuals had their hands tied by the current city manager but forgot more than Dan Smith will ever know when it comes to economic development. This department is an absolute joke and discredit to the community. Just take a look at the past 30 to 40 years of economic development. Yes, Gary Locke has been there for the ride and Jack Crew's (city of kent /small business person of the year) has held their hands. Back to the topic; I believe council & the administration have been intentionally misled by the current law director for so long that council & administration actually believe they are acting in the best interest of the public without limiting or damaging the property owner's rights. As I remember, the contempt fines were imposed against Joseph Bujack and not against any property by the county court even Jim Silver stated back in early 2009 as testimony "the city of kent recently discovered the city of kent did not have the authority or right to file any lien against the property which was improperly prepared by the former law director" in addition to the over whelming amount of evidence from the property owner's counsel supporting the court decision and the current law director's statement. Council truly needs to be much more diligent and start holding these characters/individuals accountable. Enough is enough and change is necessary!