Stites & Harbison, PLLC

Stites & Harbison attorneys represent clients regionally and locally in matters ranging from foreclosure and mechanics liens to federal relocation law. These litigators have developed particularly strong practices in eminent domain, land title defense, planning and zoning and litigation involving the preservation of historic properties.

Experience

• Martingale, LLC v. City of Louisville, 361 F.3d 297 (6th Cir. 2004), petition for reh'r denied, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7789 (6th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 453 (2004) and 151 S.W.3d 829 (Ky. App. 2004), motion for discretionary review denied, 2005 Ky. LEXIS 106 (Ky. 2005), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 955 (2005). In a case which could give rise to multiple law school exam questions, the firm successfully represented the City of Louisville concerning its right to condemn a bridge (or at least the portion thereof which sits in Kentucky) which spans the Ohio River but which connects to neither Kentucky nor Indiana. After prevailing regarding the City's right to condemn in state court and successfully defeating a federal action challenging the City's right to condemn, the City prevailed in the Kentucky Court of Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in addition to successfully defending against a motion for discretionary review to the Kentucky Supreme Court, a petition for rehearing to the 6th Circuit, and two petitions for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. The firm is currently representing the City in the valuation portion of the condemnation proceeding.
• The expansion of Louisville International Airport. The firm has represented the Louisville Regional Airport Authority in an expansion that required the acquisition of three residential neighborhoods and over 100 parcels of real estate owned by businesses. Members of the Real Estate and Land Use Litigation Team participated in all phases of these acquisitions, including trials establishing the fair market value of properties which could not be acquired voluntarily. Team members were also responsible for all litigation involving the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act. Notable representations on this project include:
• The Kroger Co. v. Regional Airport Auth. of Louisville and Jefferson County, 286 F.3d 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2002). Kroger challenged the Authority's determination regarding certain expenses claimed by Kroger under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act ("URAA") in connection with the Authority's acquisition of its property in connection with the Louisville Airport Improvement Program. The U.S. District Court affirmed the denial of Kroger's request for reimbursement for the items in question and Kroger appealed. In a published opinion establishing that the "abuse of discretion" standard applies to appeals relating to relocation benefits under the URAA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit affirmed the Authority's denial of the expenses in question.
• Welding & Therapy Service, Inc. v. Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County and James DeLong, General Manager, U.S. District Court, W.D. Ky. Welding & Therapy filed a complaint seeking review, pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, of the Authority's determination regarding Welding & Therapy's claim for reimbursement under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act for expenses allegedly arising out of the Authority's acquisition of a portion of Welding & Therapy's property in connection with the Louisville Airport Improvement Program. Welding and Therapy's complaint also made a Section 1983 claim, alleging the Authority deprived Welding & Therapy of "...its rights under federal law." The Authority obtained dismissal of the Section 1983 count in 2003 and judgment on the Administrative Procedures Act claim in 2004.
• The team also represents individuals and businesses which are the targets of condemnation actions. The firm recently succeeded in resolving one such matter in which our client received $1.2 million as compensation for the loss of business property the state had valued at $175,000.
• Land Title Defense. The firm represents title insurance companies regionally in defending their insureds. Recent cases include:
• Attempted recovery of over $2 million dollars lost due to the loan fraud committed by a closing agent.
• Resolution of a number of claims of loan fraud involving a closing agent who improperly recorded documents, forged commitments and committed large scale fraud on the lender involved and on the title insurer.
• Representation of financial institutions in resolving issues of the priority of various liens in foreclosure actions, to enforce subordination agreements and to determine the interests of title holders when an ownership interest is not properly determined at a closing.
• Planning and Zoning. The firm represents a wide range of clients in planning and zoning matters throughout its practice area. In addition to representing developers and property owners, team members also represent organizations, citizens groups and individuals interested in "smart growth" issues.
• Foreclosure. In conjunction with members of the firm's Creditors' Rights and Real Estate Practice Groups, team members represent lenders in foreclosure actions throughout the region. Typical situations have involved shopping centers, hotels, apartment complexes and office buildings.

For more information

•  Robert W. Griffith (502) 681-0422