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.