IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA Mary …media.al.com/spotnews/other/Riverchase...

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA

Randy Joel Harper and Mary Raines ) Harper, ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.: ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) JURY DEMAND Riverchase United Methodist Church, ) ) Defendant. ) )

COMPLAINT COME NOW Randy Joel Harper and Mary Raines Harper (hereinafter

collectively referred to as the “Harpers” or the “Plaintiffs”) to make and file this

Complaint as follows:

PARTIES

Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiffs Randy Joel Harper and Mary Raines Harper are, and at all

times relevant to this Complaint have been, (1) residents of Shelby County,

Alabama; (2) over the age of nineteen years; and (3) owners of the property which

is the subject matter of this suit, which is located at 777 Carl Raines Lake Road,

Hoover, in unincorporated Shelby County, Alabama (the “Harpers’ Property” or

the “Plaintiffs’ Property”).

ELECTRONICALLY FILED10/24/2012 12:01 AMCV-2012-900922.00

CIRCUIT COURT OFSHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA

MARY HARRIS, CLERK

2. The Harpers’ Property is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint

was, used as residential property.

3. The Harpers’ Property is located adjoining and immediately

topographically down-gradient from property reportedly owned by Riverchase

United Methodist Church (“RUMC”).

4. An approximately four-acre lake, referred to as Carl Raines Lake (also

referred to herein as the “Lake”), is located entirely on the Harpers’ Property. The

water of Carl Raines Lake is retained by an earthen dam also located on the

Harpers’ Property.

5. The Harpers are the sole riparian landowners around the Lake.

Defendants

6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Riverchase United Methodist

Church (hereinafter “RUMC”) is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was,

an incorporated entity located in Hoover, Shelby County, Alabama.

7. Defendants A, B, C, D, E and F (together with Defendants G-L below,

“fictitious party defendants”) participated in the construction or were otherwise

involved in the design and construction of the additions to the Church that are at

issue in this matter.

8. Defendants G, H, I, J, K and L (together with Defendants A-F above,

“fictitious party defendants”) participated in the construction or otherwise advised

Defendant RUMC or other defendants in this matter as consultants related to the

additions to the Church that are at issue in this matter.

9. Whenever it is alleged that a Defendant did anything, unless otherwise

specified, it is averred that the Defendant acted on behalf of all Defendants

collectively. In addition, unless otherwise specified, the use of the word

“Defendant” shall include all agents, subsidiaries, subcontractors, and other entities

involved with the events described herein.

NATURE OF THE CASE

10. Plaintiffs bring this action under Alabama law against the Defendant

for breach of contract, trespass, public nuisance, private nuisance, negligence,

negligence per se, conversion, conspiracy, wantonness, outrage, and injunctive

relief.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. This is a dispute involving wrongdoing and damages that occurred in

Shelby County, Alabama, involving the Harpers and RUMC, all of which are

located in Shelby County. The property described in this action is located in

Shelby County. The events described in this Complaint occurred primarily, if not

exclusively, within Shelby County. Thus, jurisdiction and venue of this action are

proper in Shelby County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12. Upon information and belief, Defendant RUMC is, and at all times

relevant to this Complaint was, the owner of all or a portion of a parcel or parcels

of property adjoining, immediately topographically upgradient, and across Carl

Raines Lake Road, from the Harpers’ Property (the “RUMC Site”).

13. Upon information and belief, the RUMC Site is, and at all times

relevant to this Complaint was, undergoing land clearing activities for and

construction of an expansion of the church facilities (the “Project”).

14. Upon information and belief, and at all times relevant to this

Complaint, Defendant RUMC contracted with various contractors to perform site

preparation, construction and landscaping work at the RUMC Site, which included

excavating, land clearing, grading, construction, landscaping, and other

construction-related activities.

15. Upon information and belief, Defendant RUMC or its agents cleared

in excess of 10 acres on the RUMC Site.

16. On or about May 10, 2010, Defendant RUMC went to City of Hoover

Planning & Zoning Commission for approval of the Project.

17. At the May 10, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting,

RUMC Administrator Stuart Garrette told the Commission that Defendant RUMC

would construct a detention pond on the RUMC Site to handle drainage issues

associated with the Project.

18. At the May 10, 2010 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Ben

Watson, RUMC’s engineer, proceeded to explain that the detention pond to be

constructed would be “fairly deep,” due to the grades expected onsite during

construction.

19. On or about May 17, 2010, the Plaintiffs met with Mr. Garrette, Mr.

Watson and RUMC Pastor Jim Savage to discuss the Plaintiffs’ concerns about the

potential for excess stormwater and runoff causing damage to their property and to

the Lake.

20. During an inspection of the Harpers’ Property earlier that day, Mr.

Watson had stated to Plaintiff Randy Harper that the Lake would be unable to

accommodate the amount of excess runoff to be generated by the RUMC Project,

and that a detention pond on the RUMC Site would be necessary to protect the

Lake.

21. At the May 17 meeting, Plaintiff Randy Harper notified RUMC of the

Harpers’ affection for their property and the Lake, and of their grave concerns

about the harm that the Project could cause to the Harper Property.

22. On or about June 7, 2010, RUMC appeared before the Hoover City

Council to obtain approval for the Project.

23. At the June 7 City Council meeting, Plaintiff Randy Harper publicly

expressed his concerns about the effect the Project would have on the Harpers’

Property and the Lake.

24. In response to Mr. Harper’s comments, Mr. Garrette indicated that

Mr. Watson’s statement to Mr. Harper on May 17th regarding the sufficiency of the

Harpers’ dam was meant to convey that the stormwater runoff entering the

Harpers’ pond prior to the beginning of construction was too much for the Lake to

handle.

25. Mr. Garrette further informed the Council that the detention pond

planned for construction on the RUMC Site would be sufficient to handle runoff

from the Project, and that it would allow the Church to construct its project without

interfering with the Harpers’ property.

26. Mr. Garrette further stated that Defendant RUMC would be required

by the City to ensure that the amount of stormwater entering onto the Harpers’

Property post-construction is no more than entered the property immediately pre-

construction.

27. City of Hoover Subdivision Regulations require that the rate of

stormwater flow onto neighboring properties cannot be increased due to

development. The regulations thus require that a detention pond or other

stormwater management structure on the RUMC Site hold any stormwater that

enters the site and discharge it at the same rate as was discharged prior to

development.

28. On June 9, 2010, Mr. Garrette wrote to the Plaintiffs indicating again

that RUMC’s engineer, Mr. Watson, believed that the Plaintiffs’ dam was

undersized, and that stormwater was a problem on the Harper Property before

construction even began on the RUMC Site.

29. At that time, the Plaintiffs had not had any significant problem with

fluctuating lake levels or excessive amounts of stormwater in the Lake.

30. On or about August 20, 2010, RUMC entered into a contract with

grading contractor C.E. Huffstutler Contracting, L.L.C. (“Huffstutler”), for all or a

portion of the construction project being undertaken by RUMC on the RUMC Site.

31. Shortly thereafter, Huffstutler lost his Alabama general contractor’s

license.

32. Upon information and belief, there had been significant problems with

a number of Huffstutler’s previous projects, which RUMC could have discovered

had it researched Huffstutler’s qualifications.

33. Chad Evans Huffstutler, owner of Huffstutler, has since been indicted

by a Shelby County grand jury for theft and possession of a forged instrument

related to the Project.

34. On August 12, 2010, Huffstutler obtained a National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management (ADEM) in Huffstutler’s name for the land clearing

and grading activities at the RUMC Site, which reportedly consisted of

approximately 11.9 acres.

35. Upon information and belief, ADEM deemed Huffstutler’s permit

registration complete and granted permit coverage in Huffstutler’s name on or

about November 8, 2010.

36. Upon information and belief, construction at the RUMC Site began

approximately the first week of October 2010, prior to the effective date of the

NPDES permit and before state law allowed clearing to commence. Huffstutler

began clearing and grading activities, but did not immediately construct the

planned detention pond.

37. The first significant rainfall in the area occurred on or about October

25, 2010. During and immediately following that rainfall event, the Harpers

witnessed massive amounts of sediment washing from the Church’s construction

site onto their property and into their pond. The Harpers also witnessed a drastic

increase in the amount of stormwater entering their property and the speed at

which it entered the Harper property and their pond.

38. As of October 25, 2010, the planned detention pond still had not been

constructed, although clearing and grading activities were well underway.

39. On or about October 25, 2010, the Harpers notified RUMC of the

damage done to their property.

40. On or about October 26, 2010, Mr. Garrette visited the Harper

property and inspected the damage.

41. Stormwater from the construction operations at the RUMC Site

continues to carry massive amounts of sediment from the RUMC Site through two

culverts underneath Carl Raines Lake Road onto the Harpers’ Property and into the

Lake.

42. A significant amount of debris from the RUMC Site is being

transported by stormwater into Carl Raines Lake, including but not limited to logs,

plant material, trash and other construction debris.

43. At some point, RUMC elected to terminate its contract with

Huffstutler, and informed Huffstutler not to enter upon the RUMC Site again.

44. If it was not already responsible for runoff from the RUMC Site,

RUMC assumed responsibility therefor immediately upon blocking Huffstutler

from accessing the RUMC Site to address the problem.

45. Upon information and belief, at RUMC’s request, NPDES permit

coverage was thereafter transferred into Defendant RUMC’s name.

46. Since that time, the Harpers have repeatedly requested that the Church

stop the flow of excessive amounts of stormwater, sediment, silt, rocks, gravel,

trash, and construction debris onto their property and into their pond.

47. On August 8, 2011, Defendant RUMC entered into an Agreement for

Remedial Work (hereinafter the “Agreement”) with the Plaintiffs requiring certain

steps be taken by Defendant RUMC to remediate the Harpers’ Property and the

Lake. A copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.

48. The steps necessary to remediate the Lake were to be dictated by

Southeastern Pond Management or another consultant agreeable to the parties.

49. Southeastern Pond Management recommended removal of the excess

sediment and debris from the Lake, along with other measures, the majority of

which were to be completed after the sediment and debris had been removed.

50. Pursuant to the Agreement, RUMC was required to provide the

Defendants within seven days of the date of the Agreement “with copies of the

results of any testing conducted on or about the RUMC Property and/or the Harper

Property related to water quality within the lake, pollutants or sediments contained

in stormwater leaving the RUMC Property, and stormwater flow from the RUMC

Property into the Lake (both prior to and during construction).” The Plaintiffs

were not provided with such test results until September 21, 2011.

51. The Agreement provided for the establishment of an escrow account

to pay for the remediation of the Harpers’ Property and the Lake, and required that

within two business days of each disbursement made from the account, copies of

the invoice(s) paid, along with copies of the checks tendered, were to be provided

to the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Although disbursements were made from the account

beginning in October 2011, no invoices or checks were provided to Plaintiffs’

counsel until September 10, 2012.

52. The Agreement further provided that remediation of the Lake was to

be concluded, except for re-establishment of a mature fish population, was to be

completed no later than March 1, 2012.

53. To date, RUMC has removed no sediment or debris from the Harpers’

Lake.

54. Plaintiff Mary Rains Harper’s family has owned the Harper Property

for more than 50 years, and she is intimately familiar with the property.

55. Upon information and belief, all or substantially all of the stormwater

runoff from the RUMC Site drains into the Harpers’ Lake.

56. The sediment-laden stormwater runoff from the RUMC Site has

polluted and continues to pollute Carl Raines Lake.

57. Upon information and belief, at the present time, the volume of

stormwater entering Carl Raines Lake has increased dramatically as a result of the

construction activities taking place on the RUMC Site.

58. Upon information and belief, prior to approximately January 2011,

there was no detention/retention pond on the RUMC Site to control the flow of

stormwater into Carl Raines Lake, thus violating the City Councils approval,

Hoover city ordinances, and ADEM’s regulations regarding stormwater runoff

control.

59. Upon information and belief, while a detention/retention pond has

now been constructed, it is not of sufficient size and/or design to control the flow

of stormwater from the RUMC Site into Carl Raines Lake nor to remove the

sediment from said stormwater, thus violating ADEM’s regulations regarding

stormwater runoff control.

60. The Harpers have never given permission for the Lake to be used as a

retention/detention pond for the stormwater runoff from the RUMC Site either

during or after construction.

61. Fish in the Lake have decreased significantly in size and are in

distress.

62. Prior to the damage inflicted by the RUMC Project, the Plaintiffs

spent many evenings sitting outside looking at the Lake, enjoying their

surroundings. They no longer find it enjoyable to look at the ugly, mud-filled

Lake.


spent thousands of hours fishing in the Lake, and used fish from the Lake as a

major food source. They are no longer able to catch fish from the Lake, or to rely

on the Lake as a food source.


routinely caught bream and bass from the Lake. Several of the bass weighed in

excess of nine (9) pounds, and some exceeded ten (10) pounds. The Lake and its

fish were source of pride for the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are no longer able to take

pride in the Lake or its trophy fish.


spent many hours in a boat floating on the Lake, enjoying the beauty of their

surroundings. They no longer find it enjoyable to spend time on the ugly, mud-

filled Lake.


spent many hours swimming in the Lake. They are no longer able to swim in the

Lake.


frequently invited friends and neighbors over to their home to fish, swim and enjoy

the Lake. They no longer feel comfortable inviting friends to swim or enjoy the

Lake, and friends have been unable to enjoy fishing in the Lake.

68. The Harpers have the legal right to uninterrupted use of and

undiminished water quality in the Lake.

69. Upon information and belief, the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management has conducted numerous inspections of the RUMC

Site, and has found that RUMC and its contractors are not complying with state

environmental requirements for the control of stormwater from the Project.

70. The Defendant’s continued discharge of stormwater containing

sediment and other pollutants from the RUMC Site into Carl Raines Lake in the

Harpers’ Property shows a complete reckless and wanton disregard for the Harpers

and the Harpers’ Property, as well as for the safety of the Harpers, the Harpers’

Property, and downstream property owners.

COUNT I Breach of Contract

71. Plaintiffs adopt, allege, and incorporate herein by reference all of the

averments and allegations set for in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

72. Defendant RUMC has failed to fulfill its obligations under the

Agreement with the Harpers.

73. The Harpers are entitled to compensatory damages as described

above, as well as their attorneys’ fees and costs associated with enforcing the

Agreement.

COUNT II Trespass

74. Plaintiffs adopt, allege, and incorporate herein by reference all of the

averments and allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth

herein.

75. Release of the above-referenced sediment, silt, rocks, gravel, trash and

debris from the RUMC Site, carried by stormwater onto the Harpers’ Property, as

well as the release of excessive amounts of stormwater onto the Harper Property,

have caused the actual, unauthorized and wrongful invasion and trespass by these

substances onto the Harpers’ Property. This unauthorized and wrongful invasion

has caused the Harpers’ Property to suffer a loss of value, and has interfered with

the Harpers’ rightful possession, enjoyment and use of their property.

76. The deposition of the above-referenced substances onto the Harpers’

Property has resulted in the reduction of lake depth in some areas and harm to the

previously healthy fish population, constituting a continuous trespass onto the

Harpers’ Property.

77. Defendant knew or should have known that the substances had been

and/or would be discharged from the RUMC Site, and further knew or should have

known that the natural and foreseeable consequences of said discharge could

and/or would be that such substances would enter and trespass onto the Harpers’

Property and create a serious risk of damage to such property.

78. Despite said knowledge, Defendant deliberately, willfully, wantonly,

and with gross and reckless disregard for the rights of the Harpers, engaged in

land-clearing and construction activities and failed to take the necessary actions to

prevent the impingement and trespass of said substances onto the Harpers’

Property. Defendant’s failure to take such actions necessary to prevent said

trespass has resulted in damage to the Harpers’ Property.

79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and omissions in

causing and allowing the unauthorized substances to enter and trespass on the

Harpers’ Property, the use and value of the Harpers’ Property for current and

future economic purposes has materially and substantially decreased.



Harpers’ Property, the Harpers’ enjoyment of their property has materially and

substantially decreased.



Harpers’ Property, the Harpers have suffered and continue to suffer injury to their

property, deprivation of the reasonable use and value of their property, and other

damages.

82. The Harpers have also suffered loss to their personal property and

mental suffering.

83. This trespass was perpetrated in a rude, wanton, reckless, and

insulting manner, or was accompanied by circumstances of fraud, malice,

oppression, or aggravation, or even gross negligence.

84. The Harpers are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages as

described above.

COUNT III Public Nuisance

85. The Harpers adopt, allege, and incorporate herein by reference all of

the averments and allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

86. The water both above and below the ground are held by the State in an

irrevocable trust for the benefit of the public.

87. The Harpers are among the beneficiaries of that irrevocable trust.

88. The contamination of surface water in the area of and surrounding the

Harpers’ Property with the sediment, trash and/or other debris released by the

Defendant wrongfully damaged trust assets for an improper, private purpose.

89. The contamination of the surface water in the area surrounding the

Harpers’ Property proximately caused the Harpers’ injuries.

90. The Harpers have standing to pursue an action against the Defendant

for public nuisance because of their unique, close proximity to the RUMC Site and

because the Harpers have suffered and continue to suffer injuries.


described above.

COUNT IV Private Nuisance

92. The Harpers adopt, allege and incorporate herein by reference all of


forth herein.

93. The contamination of the surface water of the area surrounding the

Harpers’ Property with the sediment, trash and/or other debris released by the

Defendant constitutes a private nuisance depriving the Harpers of the enjoyment

and use of their property.

94. The contamination of the surface water in the area surrounding the

Harpers’ Property proximately caused the Harpers’ injuries.

95. Release of the above-referenced pollutants by Defendant carried by

stormwater onto the Harpers’ Property has worked to interfere with the enjoyment

of said property, regardless of whether the release was intentional, unintentional or

negligent.

96. Defendant knew or should have known that sediment and other debris

had been and/or would be discharged from the RUMC Site, and further knew or

should have known that the natural and foreseeable consequences of said discharge

was that said substances could and/or would enter onto the Harpers’ Property and

interfere with Harpers’ use and enjoyment of said property.

97. Despite said knowledge, Defendant deliberately, willfully, wantonly,

and with gross and reckless disregard for the rights of the Harpers engaged in

construction activities which included substantial land clearing in a sloped area,

and repeatedly and continuously failed to take the necessary actions to prevent the

discharge of pollutants onto the Harpers’ Property from the RUMC Site. Failure to

take such actions necessary to prevent said discharges by Defendant has resulted in

damage to the Harpers’ Property.

98. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions by

Defendant in causing and allowing the unauthorized substances to enter the

Harpers’ Property, the use and value of the Harpers’ Property for current and

future economic purposes has materially and substantially decreased.


causing and allowing the discharge of pollutants onto the Harpers’ property, the

Harpers’ enjoyment of their property has materially and substantially decreased.

100. Defendant’s acts that have allowed and are continuing to allow the

release of sediment and other substances with the stormwater onto the Harpers’

Property were accompanied by malice, insult or physical injury.

101. The Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages as

described above.

COUNT V Negligence/Wantonness



forth herein.

103. The Defendant and its employees, agents, officers and representatives

owed a duty of care to the Harpers from the commencement of construction

operations at the RUMC Site and continuing through the present.

104. Defendant breached the duty of care that it owed to the Harpers.

105. As a proximate and foreseeable consequence of the breach of the duty

of care owed to the Harpers, the Harpers suffered the injuries described above.


described above.

COUNT VI Negligent/Wanton Hiring and/or Retention



forth herein.

108. Defendant RUMC owed a duty to Plaintiffs to hire and/or retain

reputable, responsible and capable contractors to perform the work upgradient of

Plaintiffs’ property in a good and workmanlike manner, including but not limited

to Fictitious Defendants A-L.

109. Defendant RUMC breached its duties to Plaintiff by negligently,

willfully, and/or wantonly failing to properly investigate contractors and/or

knowingly hiring contractors who were incapable of performing or unlikely to

perform the work in a manner which would avoid damage to the Plaintiffs’

property.

110. As a proximate result of these breaches of duty, Plaintiffs have been

damaged.

COUNT VII Conversion



forth herein.

112. The fish living and growing in Carl Raines Lake are considered the

personal property of the Harpers.

113. The Defendant discharged significant amounts of sediment and other

substances into Carl Raines Lake from the RUMC Site as a result of land clearing

and excavation operations.

114. These significant amounts of sediment and other pollutants discharged

by the Defendant into Carl Raines Lake from the RUMC Site have caused the

killing or injuring of a significant number of fish in Carl Rains Lake.

115. Defendant knew or should have known that these substances had been

and/or would be discharged from the RUMC Site, and further knew or should have

known that the natural and foreseeable consequences of said discharge was that

said substances could and/or would enter onto the Harpers’ Property and kill or

injure fish in Carl Raines Lake.

116. Despite said knowledge, Defendant deliberately, willfully, wantonly

and with gross and reckless disregard for the rights of the Harpers engaged in

construction activities which included substantial land clearing in a sloped area and

repeatedly and continuously failed to take the necessary actions to prevent the

discharge of sais substances onto the Harpers’ Property from the RUMC Site.

Failure to take such actions necessary to prevent said discharges by Defendant has

resulted in damage to the Harpers’ personal property — namely, the fish in Carl

Raines Lake.

117. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions by

Defendant in causing and allowing the unauthorized substances to enter the

Harpers’ Property, fish in Carl Raines Lake have been injured and/or killed.


causing and allowing the discharge of pollutants onto the Harpers’ property, the

Defendant converted said fish to its own use and deprived the Harpers of their

personal property.

119. Defendant’s acts that have allowed and are continuing to allow the

release of sediment and other pollutants with the stormwater onto the Harpers’

Property which killed or injured fish were accompanied by malice, insult or

physical injury.

120. Defendant’s acts also resulting the use of the Harpers’ Lake as

Defendant’s sedimentation pond without the Harpers’ consent, thus converting it to

Defendant’s use.

121. The Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages as

described above.

COUNT VIII Negligence Per Se



forth herein.

123. The Defendant and its employees, agents, officers and representatives

owed a duty of care to the Harpers from the commencement of construction

operations at the RUMC Site and continuing through the present.

124. Defendant breached the duty of care that it owed to the Harpers.

125. The actions of the Defendant, its employees, agents, officers, and

representatives constituted violations of laws intended to protect the Harpers, as

described above.

126. As a proximate and foreseeable consequence of the breach of the duty

of care owed by the Defendant, the Harper suffered the injuries described above.


described above.

COUNT IX WANTONNESS


the averments and allegations set for in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set

forth herein.

159. Defendant failed to properly and completely prevent the above-

described sediment and other substances from discharging onto the Harpers’

Property. That failure constituted a breach of Defendant’s duty to the Harpers.

160. As proximate consequences of that breach of duty, the Harpers have

incurred and will incur monetary expenses, suffered and will suffer mental

anguish, physical pain and suffering, and suffered impairment to the value of their

personal property and real property.

161. The actions of the Defendant were done in a wanton manner.

162. The wanton actions of the Defendant were such as to permit and

indeed require the imposition of punitive damages to punish this Defendant and to

deter others similarly situated from such conduct in the future.

163. Defendant’s intentional, willful and wanton acts and omissions as set

forth above have caused and permitted sediment, trash and other debris on and into

the Harpers Property, specifically Carl Raines Lake. Defendant’s intentional,

willful and wanton acts have caused continuing damage to the Harpers’ Property.

164. Defendant knew or should have known that stormwater discharges

from the construction activities at the RUMC Site would have a reasonable

potential to be a significant contributor of trash and pollutants, especially silt, clay

and sand, to Carl Raines Lake on the Harpers’ Property.

165. Defendant knew or should have known that the carrying out of

construction activities on the RUMC Site without correctly installed, adequately

maintained, properly located, and appropriately designed engineering controls,

practices, procedures, schedules of activities, and other effective management

practices to prevent or reduce the reasonably foreseeable and substantial discharge

of stormwater containing trash and sediment onto downgradient properties would

cause silt- and sediment-laden stormwater to flow through the culverts under Carl

Raines Lake Road, to enter and trespass onto the Harpers’ Property, and to create a

serious risk of damage to such property. Despite said knowledge, Defendant

deliberately, willfully, wantonly and with gross and reckless disregard for the

rights of the Harpers, failed to take the necessary actions to prevent the trespass of

contaminants onto the Harpers’ Property.

166. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional, willful

and/or wanton acts, the Harpers’ Property, including but not limited to Carl Raines

Lake, has been invaded by trash, silt, clay, and sand.

167. As a result of the invasion of the Harpers’ Property, the use and value

of the Harpers’ Property for current and future economic purposes has been

materially and substantially decreased. To return Carl Raines Lake to the

condition it was in prior to the Defendant’s trespass onto the Harpers’ Property, the

Harpers will incur lake restoration costs such as sediment excavation, fish re-

stocking, and fertilization. Additionally, the Harpers’ possession, use and

enjoyment of their Property have been seriously, substantially and wrongfully

interfered with.


described above.

COUNT X Conspiracy



forth herein.

159. The Defendant conspired with various consultants and others to

commit the acts described above.


described above.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment as follows:

A. Damages for diminution in the market value of the Harpers’ Property;

B. Damages for loss of use, loss of rental value, inconvenience, annoyance and damages for the cost, plus interest, as may be incurred by the Harpers in connection with restoring Carl Raines Lake because of damage resulting from Defendant’s conduct;

C. Damages for loss of use of the fish and damages to the fish in Carl Raines Lake;

D. Damages for pain and mental suffering;

E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

F. Attorneys’ fees and costs of suit;

G. Damages for mental anguish;

H. Compensatory damages in an amount to be assessed by the jury as just and proper;

I. Punitive damages in an amount to be assessed by the jury as just and proper, justified by the intentional, willful and wanton actions of the Defendant; and

J. Such other and further relief to which the Harpers may be justly

entitled and as the Court deems just and proper.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY.

Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2012.

Rebecca Wright Pritchett (ASB-5146-T83R) [email protected] Counsel for Plaintiffs

PRITCHETT ENVIRONMENTAL & PROPERTY LAW, LLC

3205 Lorna Road, Suite 101 Birmingham, Alabama 35216 Phone: (205) 824-9092 Fax: (205) 824-8092

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA Mary …media.al.com/spotnews/other/Riverchase...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA Mary …media.al.com/spotnews/other/Riverchase...