Dempsey, Roberts & Smith, LTD. on behalf of Green Energy Nevada, LLC. (GEN) has filed in the Eleventh District Court, a verified complaint against Mineral County and its board of county commissioners after numerous extensions were given by the county in late 2014 and early 2015 in regards to the purchase of the land that formerly housed Babbitt.
GEN cited that the relationship between the county and their company was “supposed to bring monetary profit to GEN and economic benefits, jobs and businesses to Mineral County.”
Alluding that GEN performed under the purchase agreement set forth by Mineral County, the complaint goes on to state, that GEN was fully prepared to complete the purchase of the real property and that GEN had invested capital and resources to establish a pilot program to train employees and develop processes to be utilized in an organic poultry operation located on the old Babbitt land.
GEN also stated that “Mineral County Economic Development Authority wooed GEN to locate its development projects in Mineral County, Nevada and the Mineral County Commission enticed GEN to locate its projects in the county” offering the acreage at less than appraised value, as an incentive.
In their plans, GEN proposed to Mineral County Commissioners that they would obtain the property for commercial and residential development which included projects such as a hotel, shopping mall, travel center and organic poultry farm.
Shelley Hartmann, director of Mineral County Economic Development Authority, was contacted and would not give comment regarding the complaint.
The paperwork filed through the Mineral County Clerk’s office on Aug. 12, 2015 states that in May of 2014, Mineral County entered into a development agreement, agreeing to terms and conditions on the property. In June of that same year, the two would enter into the purchase agreement, for sale of the land, subject to both parties’ development agreement.
Mineral County would agree to sell GEN approximately 328 acres of real property for the price of $646,255.34.
According to the complaint filed, GEN alleges that Mineral County was aware of a U.S. Economic Development Administration grant on the said land and that through a “Covenant of Purpose, Use and Ownership”, the county would not “lease, transfer, convey, mortgage or hypothecate” the property without the consent of the U.S. Economic Development Administration.
GEN would state that Mineral County represented that the title to the land was free of all encumbrances, except reservation in patents, reservations, easements, restrictions, rights-of-way, convenants, interests of record and covenants running with the land as was described in the development agreement.
After numerous extension granted by Mineral County, GEN cites refers to the commissioners ”refusal to cooperate with the process of closing escrow and failed to provide required documentation and information necessary to complete the sale of the property to GEN.”
GEN claims that they sent emails and placed numerous telephone calls to Mineral County Commission agents “particularly Mark Nixon” regarding Mineral County’s failure to provide necessary documents to close escrow on the property. Besides sending Nixon, they have also claimed to send demands in November of 2014, December of 2014 and January of 2015 to fulfill the obligations and on June 22, 2015, Dempsey, Roberts & Smith, LTD. sent an unaudited claim on behalf of GEN requesting payment for damages or Mineral County perform under the purchase agreement and development agreement.
In their January 2015 commissioner meeting, Commissioner Jerrie Tipton would begin the discussion about terminating relations with GEN by saying, “I’m at the point – whatever the appraisal was, is now two years old. I would make a motion that we would just simply notify those folks and say, “Look, for whatever reason, we can’t consummate this deal. We’ve spent too much time and energy trying to get off the dime and so we are done.”
This came after continuous extensions were granted to GEN by Mineral County.
Besides breach of contract, GEN is also asking for a favorable judgment to be rendered in their favor under the following pretenses: promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraudulent concealment; negligent misrepresentation; intentional misrepresentation and attorneys’ fees and costs. The company is asking for reasonable compensatory and consequential damages in “an amount to be proven at trial” and other and further relief as the court finds significant.
District Attorney Sean Rowe was asked for comment on this pending complaint. He said, “No comment.”
Rowe did agenized the item for the Sept. 16 Board of County Commissioner meeting.
If is currently unknown how those who attended the classes conducted by GEN representatives feel about the rebirth of the chicken farm and/or pending lawsuit in Mineral County after receiving no compensation for time spent in the classroom or fostering experimental chicks in October of 2014.
After the many setbacks and extensions, Cichowlaz would state before voting yes to cutting ties with GEN, “If they [GEN] want to come back, we will entertain it. They can come back to us.”