More than five months since the Red Carpet Inn and Fanta Suites was first ordered to be demolished, the hotel still stands as a legal battle over the demolition continues.
The city of Greenwood first filed an order for the demolition of the hotel, 1117 E. Main St., on March 17. However, the hotel has not yet been demolished as a judge granted the hotel’s request for a stay of the demolition order in April.
Bill Barrett, an attorney for the city of Greenwood, declined to comment Tuesday on the status of the city’s civil case, citing the pending proceedings. Tony Paganelli, an attorney for the hotel, said on Tuesday that his client had no comment on the pending litigation.
City officials argue the hotel is unsafe, and cited the city’s unsafe building laws in the demolition order. An inspection of the hotel in January showed that there were unsanitary and unsafe conditions inside the hotel. While some progress had been made to correcting the conditions, a lot of work was still needed, officials said at the time.
On April 25, the city’s Advisory Plan Commission held a hearing on the demolition order. After hearing testimony from both the city’s and hotel’s attorneys, the commission unanimously upheld it.
However, the hotel has disagreed with the city’s characterizations of the hotel’s conditions and the demolition order. Attorneys for the hotel filed a petition on April 20 asking a judge to review the order and to stay it.
In the petition for judicial review, hotel attorneys said Ahmed Mubarak, the hotel owner, would suffer “irreparable harm” if the structures on the properties were demolished. They also alleged that the commission failed to consider evidence that the property doesn’t violate unsafe build laws and that the city was trying to do an end run around the judicial process.
Johnson County Superior Court 1 Judge Kevin Barton granted the hotel’s request for judicial review and issued a stay on the order on April 22. Since then, the hotel has remained standing as the civil proceedings continue.
The hotel’s petition for judicial review and the stay were initially in Superior Court 1, however, in May that case was consolidated with the city’s other case against the hotel being heard in Superior Court 4.
In the initial Superior Court 4 case, the city filed an injunction to force the hotel to be vacated last November. Superior Court 4 Judge Marla Clark would rule in December that employees who live at the hotel had to vacate the property.
In January, the hotel filed a counterclaim against the city, denying many of officials’ claims and accusing them of deliberately acting to damage the hotel. In March, the city denied most of the allegations made in the counterclaim. They then asked Clark to make a summary judgment — a judgment entered against one party without a full trial — on the counterclaim and rule against the hotel.
Since then, the hotel has filed for extensions so they can have more time to respond to the city’s filings — all of which have been granted.
Following the consolidation of the cases, the city’s attorneys filed motions on June 3 to dismiss the city and the plan commission from the judicial review matter, saying the hotel failed to proper procedures in the matter and the plan commission was technically not a party to the matter. They also filed a motion to vacate the stay preventing the demolition of the hotel.
The hotel’s attorneys would respond a few days later, saying the city was incorrect and that the plan commission was a party. They also said the court was “apparently satisfied” that proper procedures had been followed since the stay had been issued by a judge, the filings show.
After this, more time extensions were requested by the hotel so they could have more time to respond to the city’s request for a summary judgment.
On Aug. 4, city attorneys asked for a hearing to take place so they could discuss the outstanding motions in the case, except the motion for summary judgment. Clark granted this request on Aug. 7, setting a hearing for Sept. 19.
In the request for a hearing, city attorneys also mention the hotel’s possible response to the hearing: a purchase agreement between the owners of the hotel and a third party, Great Lakes Properties LLC. If the agreement was signed, ownership of the hotel could be transferred, the filing shows.
However, regardless of what happen’s with the agreement, city officials plan to continue with the enforcement of the demolition order and the razing of buildings on the property. This is something the city’s attorneys have also mentioned to Great Lakes Properties’ attorneys, the filing says.
On Aug. 15, attorneys for the hotel again asked more to respond to the motion for a summary judgment. Among the reasons cited for the request was the purchase agreement to transfer ownership of the property, which was signed on April 19. The closing was originally set for July 31, however, because of a health emergency, it was rescheduled for this past Thursday, according to the filing.
If the closing occurs and Mubarak sells the hotel, the anticipated sale could potentially “resolve, change, and/or narrow all of the parties’ claims in the pending litigation,” the filing shows. The status of the agreement, nor the closing, was not available on Tuesday.
The same day, the city filed an unopposed motion for a continuance on the hearing while also asking for an attorney conference via telephone. City attorneys had a conflict with the time of the Sept. 19 hearing. Additionally, attorneys for Great Lakes Properties were asked about scheduling but hadn’t yet responded, the filing shows.
The hotel’s request for more time, and the city’s request for the telephone hearing were granted. The telephone hearing is set for Sept. 12.
