 |
Minor Files Claim Against CW, Alleges Hidden Damage to Property, Buried Hazardous DebrisBy Desiree Parker Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Minor filed his claim against CW Friday afternoon, alleging the foundation intentionally concealed long-term water and mold damage to the home and alleging CW didn’t disclose that it had buried debris on the property that is releasing a toxic substance. Minor is seeking attorney’s fees and damages, or a refund of his purchase cost plus related costs. Colonial Williamsburg refutes Minor’s claims and is ready to hash the matter out in court. According to court documents, a 2003 assessment report of the property while it was owned by CW notes more than 50 instances of moisture and mold problems in about 18 different rooms of the main house. The documents say that CW received preliminary cost estimates to renovate the mansion that were in the millions of dollars. Court documents allege that “CWF never identified the cause of the interior water damage at any time prior to the sale of Carter’s Grove,” and that CW “represented to roofing inspectors prior to the sale that there were no known active leaks in the roof,” though Minor claims that there were known leaks. According to CW spokesman Tom Shrout, while the property was closed to tourists from 2002 through 2007, “Any condition that was observed by Colonial Williamsburg staff was repaired and surfaces were repainted, returning them to their normal appearance. “All the work Colonial Williamsburg performed in the mansion at Carter’s Grove was done in the context of first repairing completely any moisture damage found. This approach is standard for Colonial Williamsburg and in preservation work at historic sites across the nation.” CW got together a team of specialists to maintain the mansion and property, says Shrout, and “The Foundation continued to monitor temperature and humidity levels in the mansion and routinely performed remedial work as necessary. “The Foundation paid special attention to interior woodwork and plaster walls because the combination of high humidity and temperature in the Mid-Atlantic region can result in deterioration of interior surfaces, particularly in an 18th century structure.” He says the allegations “are completely unfounded and will be vigorously defended in court by the Foundation.” Court documents also claim that Minor noticed areas of sinking soil on the property about 200 feet in front of the mansion, which he excavated. Minor claims the excavation uncovered asphalt and debris. Minor believes the debris is from the former Reception Center at Carter's Grove and its parking lot, which were demolished before the sale of the property. The court documents Minor filed indicate he also discovered “numerous piles of asphalt and concrete debris as well as other debris containing hazardous substances” along a road on the property. Minor hired an environmental consultant who found high levels of the heavy metal selenium, at concentrations close to 100 times the natural concentration typically found in the area. The high levels of selenium mean environmental remediation is needed, according to Minor. According to Shrout, “An environmental study performed on the property in 2006 did not identify any environmental hazards. When the reception center was demolished in 2007, the contractor removed all debris as required by the contract.” As for the other debris on the property, Shrout says, “a number of years prior to the sale, materials suitable for road repairs that contained clay, gravel and asphalt were safely stored in plain view adjacent to an unpaved road on the property. “There is no basis for a claim that the Foundation buried hazardous debris at Carter’s Grove.” Minor says the purchase price of the property exceeded the value at the time of the sale, and he says he will incur substantial cost to find and fix the cause of the water damage and to remove the mold. “Persistent mold is an unacceptable health hazard to Mr. Minor’s family,” according to documents, and needs to be fixed before the family can live in the mansion. He also says the debris removal will be expensive, and he wants the court to cover the associated costs plus damages to possibly include CW giving Minor his money back. He is also asking the court to stop CW’s claim against Carter’s Grove LLC for the final payments on the note. CW and Minor are due in court on July 7 for a status conference. |
|
Carter’s Grove owner Halsey Minor has moved forward with his threat to file a legal claim against Colonial Williamsburg, alleging CW failed to disclose damage to the property before its sale and also buried toxic debris near the mansion.
Copyright © 2010-2011 WY Daily. Davis Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Website by Web-tactics
Website by Web-tactics
Comments
Importantly, I also agree with you and others CW has not performed up to its stated mission as a curator of 18th C properties and to its legal obligations as set forth in the Carter's Grove title for restoration and curation in perpetuity. To restate Kate Chases comment CW should have never let CG go - a statement I wholeheartedly agree. In fact to support you and others contention on this issue I have provided possible legal defenses to reestablish CW's curation of the property.
The fact that the Grove is 2 1/2 miles down the road is an unarguable fact and a fact that makes it problematic for continued curation by CW or anyone else due to two things - money and lack of sufficient visitors to support its restoration and curation.
Your statement that CG is just as important as CW has little relevance on the relationship of either and both to the public. Moreover, I had never said anything like what you now attribute to me as a statement of any perceived importance of one over the other and if legal issue between us I would demand a retraction of your inaccurate attributions.
Lee Hall and Endview struggled but have managed to become thriving historical structure all without support from CW. I for the life of me can't understand why a similar solution can't be found for the Grove. Such a solution would get CW and Minor out of our collective hair and put the Grove back on the map for the public.
Nor do I find any sense or connectivity to CW in your comment that "kids are kids and will find their own interest" as contributing anything to the issue at hand. CW clearly must consider children when making any value added assessment of activities for CW sites. Here I think you merely attempting to skirt the issue of the appropriate venue for curatorial responsibility of WT
My opinion and its just my opinion is that just having a 17th C site in the Tidewater area in your backyard doesn't automatically make it a CW obligation. Though I would take it from your comments, it is your point of view you do not agree. Perhaps CW should be burdened with every "historical property" wanting for curation between the Grove and Duck of Gloucester and beyond.
Since you failed to respond point by point to the bulk of my responses from which you extensively quote, I must assume that you now agree with everything else but my opinion of the curation of WT?
With Carter's Grove, one has to consider just how wide a net can CW cast in its curation of historical properties. Can CW successfully extend its resources beyond its main attraction on Duke of Gloucester St? Carter's Grove unfortunately seems beyond the capacity of CW's support.
I am not happy with the abdication of the curatorial responsibilitie s that CW attempted to pass on to Minor while at the same time liquidating nearly half of the original plantation just before its sale to Minor. The original plantation was once almost 1300 acres by the time it passed into CW's possession it comprised 937 acres.
Here I am curious just how much money CW raised from the sale of the land fronting Highway 60. The sale of something like 437 acres probably would have raised enough capital to restore the Grove and put some money into a trust to meet annual expenses. Instead, that money has probably found its way back to a Duke of Gloucester project. I find that at the very least not in the spirit of the original agreement of the sale in the 1960's and perhaps a fraudulent conversion.
When the Grove was sold to CW in the early '60's, [here I speak as a visitor to the Grove before its acquisition by CW] I too thought and had every hope and expectation that CW and the Rockefeller Trusts would hold up their end of the bargain. The bargain was specifically set forth in the title conveying the property to CW in the mid 1960's.
I mentioned earlier that the title specified that CW, as a not for profit organization, agreed to restore and maintain the Grove in perpetuity. Here I wonder if CW ever considered that ownership of the Grove would turn into a continuing loss in perpetuity, one that even the CW trusts could not afford. This situation turned ownership of the Grove from a not for profit organization into a perpetual for loss ownership for CW.
Unbelievable he has gotten away with so many other sham lawsuits. Oh and who is representing Minor? Whichever law firm is representing Minor is surely the object of scorn and ridicule the world over. DLA Piper already fled Minor due to non payment. At this point anyone willing to represent this "bad boy" is beneath contempt.