IBJNews

Paoli Peaks wins big in battle with landlord over logging

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The owners of the Paoli Peaks ski resort have prevailed in a battle with their landlord, who had sought to squeeze additional revenue out of the 68-acre property by launching a logging operation.

The ski resort, which controls the southern Indiana property under a 100-year lease from the late 1970s, argued in court filings that cutting trees would violate its lease and jeopardize its business.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard L. Young in a ruling Thursday ordered a trust that owns the land to pay Missouri-based Paoli Peaks Inc. $85,222.50 for attorney's fees. The judgment follows a ruling in April that blocked the landlords from logging on the property.

Co-trustees Philip D. Weeks, Sally P. Stouse and Vann A. Weeks—heirs to Charles Weeks, who signed the original lease—showed up at the property in June 2011 and informed the general manager that they intended to begin a logging operation, court filings show.

Paoli Peaks filed suit in July 2011. The company called three witnesses including a snowmaking expert who testified that the facility's trees are vital for protecting the snow from sun and wind and to "satisfy the customers' expectation of skiing in a natural environment."

Only one witness, Philip Weeks, testified for the defendant. Under cross examination, Weeks admitted that the family intended to log the property despite the fact the lease did not grant them the right to do so, Judge Young noted in his decision.

"The court finds that Defendants asserted both before and after the litigation commenced, frivolous, unreasonable, and groundless claims and defenses, despite ample opportunities to withdraw them," Young wrote. "Defendants’ actions resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of the time and resources of the court and of Plaintiff.

The judgment amount represents more than one year's rent, which is based on operating revenue and averages about $50,000 per year.

Paoli Peaks is about 90 miles south of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT