The Disgrace of Habitat For Humanity — Ed.

Attorneys from the UNC Center for Civil Rights and Habitat for Humanityfiled a lawsuit Friday over a deal in which property in Pinebluff wasbought out from under Habitat last year.*

They are suing the town, the mayor and council and town attorney, bothin their official capacity and personally, as well as the sellers andbuyers of the property.

The suit claims Mayor Earlene McLamb and the Town Board worked togetherto interfere with a contract Habitat had to buy land along Thunder Roadfor new homes, and that Town Attorney William Morgan helped them do it.

In addition to seeking actual damages, the plaintiffs want the court tomake an example of Pinebluff and award Habitat “without limitation,compensatory, consequential, exemplary and punitive damages in anamount to be determined at trial, plus interest, as allowed by law”plus costs and attorneys’ fees, documents filed Friday say.

The suit seeks treble damages and the property as well, asking for anorder for conveying the property to Habitat and an injunction orderingPine-bluff “to issue all necessary permits and make all necessaryzoning changes to allow” Habitat to construct “no fewer homes thanoriginally proposed.”

*NOTE: The demographic beneficiary’s of HFH are as follows:

50% Black
20% Asian
20% White
10% Everybody else

However, when racial stats are collected,  Hispanics are often addedinto the European American category, with results looking more like this:

50% Black
20% Asian
20% Hispanic
10% Everybody else

Habitat is represented by Dudley Humphrey, of Winston-Salem, and byJulius Chambers and two other attorneys from the University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill School of Law.

The suit asks the court to declare fair housing violations and asksthat all the defendants, “their agents, employees, and successors bepermanently enjoined from discriminating on the basis of racial andfamilial status” and be ordered to take “appropriate affirmativeactions to ensure that the activities complained of above are notengaged in again by them.”

All the defendants committed numerous violations of federal law, racediscrimination, acts of intimidation and coercion, and acted withmalice, the suit alleges.

It claims McLamb and the Town Board, with help from Morgan, interferedwith Habitat’s contract by inducing sellers Jackie, Brenda and ShaneUpchurch to breach it. It says Pinebluff officials deliberately delayedissuing a court-ordered conditional-use permit (CUP), “such delay beingpart of a plan and series of events to interfere” with Habitat’scontractual rights “and ensure that the Thunder Road Property was notsold” to Habitat.

The suit contends that the Upchurches breached their contract withHabitat and deceived Habitat by saying they would sell to Habitat andwould close on the property as soon as Pinebluff issued the CUP whilethey were actually negotiating a sale to others, and claims they mademisrepresentations and committed unfair and deceptive trade practicesin violation of state law.

It goes on to say that Pinebluff and all the others broke laws enactedjust after the Civil War by denying blacks “the same right to make andenforce contracts (and) the same right to hold property as is enjoyedby white citizens.”

Habitat for Humanity of the N.C. Sandhills is affiliated with Habitatfor Humanity International but is an independent nonprofitorganization. The local affiliate has been expected to challenge theThunder Road property deed in court if hopes for compromise failed.That is what has happened, according to the lead attorney in the cast.

“This lawsuit was a last resort after attempts to resolve thecontroversy with the parties failed,” Humphrey said in a telephoneinterview Friday.

Attempts to reach McLamb were unsuccessful.

Last year, while Habitat was working to clear a title question on thatland, others filed papers appearing to show they had bought it instead.Now Mary Unsworth, Jesse and Daneen Gore, Cecil Hammonds Jr., Michaeland Cynthia Thompson, Robert and Sharon Stevens are named as defendantsalong with Morgan, McLamb and town commissioners Jerry Williams, SharonFox, Susan Zoppi (individually as well as in their official capacity onthe board).

This latest battle comes on the heels of Habitat’s two-year ­strugglewith Pinebluff over a CUP that had ended with a victory for thenonprofit group when both a Superior Court judge and the state appealscourt decisions ordered town officials to issue the permit.

Papers filed with the register of deeds indicate buyers paid $550,000for the property. If Habitat is successful, it will have the landwithout having to pay for it along with whatever punitive and otherdamages are awarded.

The complaint was signed by Tim Dwyer, chairman of the board of Habitatfor Humanity of Moore County (now Habitat for Humanity of the N.C.Sandhills).

“Clearly, there has been a breach by the seller,” Dwyer said last yearas the now unsuccessful effort to find a peaceable solution was gettingstarted. “The gentleman we were dealing with turned around and sold itto this group of five even though we had a contract.”

The theory under which Habitat makes one complaint is called “tortiousinterference” — which is when a third party, knowing a contractexists, induces one of the parties to breach it.

“One of them attempted to buy a piece (of the tract) while (the CUPappeal) was still in court,” Dwyer said. “Clearly, this was an actionto block our development.”

Pinebluff’s town attorney had helped these new buyers try to get theproperty away from Habitat, according to his testimony in another courtcase last year. Morgan said he was acting for and being paid by thetown when he made telephone calls assisting the rival buyers.

Habitat met with representatives from the Center for Civil Rights atthe University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and now the center istaking an active part in the lawsuit.

Habitat tried to reach an agreement before going to court. Dwyer saidthey told neighboring property owners that Habitat would considerselling as much as half of it to them to create a land buffer.

“We even conveyed that to the town through their attorneys before the appeal was decided,” Dwyer said.

Source here

2009-05-25