HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 15 1989 Pleadings filed by both sides in Snell lawsuit against city, per Kanarek's orderSebastian Sun Week of December 15,1989
Pleadings filed by both sides in Snell lawsuit against city, per Kanarek's order
By Glenn McLaren
Sun staff reporter
Attorneys for both sides in the
lawsuit involving Sebastian resident
Burt Snell versus the Sebastian City
Council have filed the necessary
pleadings in circuit court as called for
by Judge Paul Kanarek in his Nov. 28
decision.
Burney Carter, Snell's attorney,
filed an amended pleading on the
suit's first count, which asks for a
declaratory judgement concerning
expenditures from the airport fund for
legO fees.
In the suit, Snell contends that
payments .made to Attorney Eliot
Cutler to draft the ordinances ap-
proved in the March referendum were
improper.
On his amended pleadings for the
first count of the suit, Carter stated
that the changes and additions made
"... wilt satisfy the statutory require-
ments for such actions."
Nick Tsamoutales, attorney repre-
senting the city of Sebastian, filed the
city's answer to the second count of
Snell's suit, which calls for an injunc-
tion against further spending from the
airport fund and for the city.to repay
the more $106,000 already taken out
of the fund to pay Cutler.
In his answer to the court,
Tsamoutales claims "The expendi-
tures from the airport fund were legal
and proper and within the authority of
the Defendants and, thus, not subject
to any injunction by the court."
Another of Tsamoutales' defenses
states that granting the injunctive
relief Snell is asking for would.vio-
late Florida statutes pertaining to
local governmental finances.
Tsamoutales also maintains that
the injunction would be aviolation of
the separation of power doctrine.
This defense is similar to one used
by the city and upheld by Kanarek in
dismissing the third count of the suit,
Snell's request for the issuance of a
writ of mandamus that would have
compelled the city to enact a noise
ordinance at Sebastian Municipal
Airport that fulfilled the require-
ments set forth in the charter amend-
ment passed by the March referen-
dum.
Carter, however, filed a motion for
re -hearing' the writ of mandamus
petition based on his contention that
the court can and should "... require
that some action be taken by the
Defendants. in performance of their
duty to pass an ordinance as required
by the referendum."
Also related to the third count was
the city's submitting of evidence de-
tailing its incorporation of the charter
amendment into the city charter.
Kanarek had stated in his
decision that he did not see
evidence that the amendmeni
put in place.
The city provided the ci
documentation showing tha
essary agencies had been
with the amendment and tIL
charter had been updated.
According to City Manager Robb
McClary, both sides now have 10 days
to review the newest pleadings and
respond to the court.