RIPLEY, Ohio — The Ripley Boat Club and Ripley Lions Club have asked the Brown County Court not to dismiss their complaint against the Village of Ripley in a recent filing.
On Oct. 18, the Boat Club and Lions Club filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief over property in Ripley, Ohio.
According to exhibits filed with the complaint, there were multiple lease agreements and extensions signed and executed.
According to the filing, both non-profits requested that the court, “issue a declaration of the rights and obligations of the various parties pursuant to a lease agreement involving real property owned by defendant and subject to lease with the Ripley Boat Club, and as assigned by the Ripley Boat Club to the Ripley Lions Club.”
The non-profits further asked the Brown County Court for two requests that included a “preliminary and permanent injunction and enjoining defendant from taking action in violation of plaintiffs’ rights under the lease agreement, and any assignments. Grant plaintiffs all other relief to which they may be entitled herein, including their costs and attorney fees.”
The Village of Ripley filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on Nov. 4.
In the motion, the Village made the argument that the non-profits did not hold a lease that was valid or competitively bid or advertised in the newspaper.
In a newly filed response on Nov. 15 by The Ripley Boat Club, it stated that the “Defendant is making a rather ironic argument that it, on multiple occasions, entered into these contracts yet failed to obey and follow the basic requirements under Ohio law with respect to all of these agreements.”
The response further expressed;
“Plaintiffs made the reasonable inference that Defendant knew and understood its legal and contractual obligations in these transactions.”
According to the response, it stated that the complaint is sufficient and that the Village of Ripley “is asking this Court to go beyond the Complaint and find additional facts not yet established.”
“As stated above, the reasonable inference to be drawn from these allegations would be that Defendant obeyed and carried out its legal obligations in dealing with Plaintiffs. Whether Defendant failed to follow the law, and the legal import of Defendant’s omissions are matters inappropriate for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,” the filed response said.
The Boat Club’s response concluded that the matter of whether the Village will receive a multi-million federal grant for riverfront development does not have bearing “on the sufficiency of the claims alleged.”
In a second filed response by The Ripley Lions Club, it argued that the assigned lease between itself and the Village of Ripley is valid and enforceable.
“The lease assignment executed in 1986 and documented in exhibits attached to the Plaintiff’s Complaint satisfies the requirements for a valid and enforceable lease assignment. The terms of the original 1959 lease permitted such assignments, which were legally executed by representatives of all involved parties. This assignment has allowed continuous use by the Plaintiffs for nearly four decades,” the filed response stated.
Another argument in the motion to dismiss from the Village of Ripley was that there was not full compliance with the Ohio Revised Code 721.03 in competitive bidding and newspaper advertising.
“It must be shown whether these procedural requirements were indeed applicable to the extensions or renewals at issue. The Council’s approval of the lease agreements in open session suggests compliance with the statutory requirements,” the filed response said.
The response from The Ripley Lions Club further expressed;
“The Defendant should be estopped from challenging the validity of the lease agreements at this stage, given the longstanding recognitions of the agreements by both the Village and contiguous public entities. The Ripley Lions Club has relied on these agreements for its operations, undertaken significant improvements to the property and engaged in community beneficial activities all of which were facilitated by the consistent renewal and affirmation of the lease agreements. Furthermore, per the assigned documents and long-standing use, no proper competitive bid process was demonstrative that the rules of R.C. 721.03 were prioritized.”
In its conclusion, the Lions Club response stated its assigned lease remains valid and enforceable.