2115 E GRAND AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

'Y" - o�cil Claims Commi� -- Grant K. Weed, City Attomey's.Office �i Iwll�� Llls D o•*� August 22, 1978 AUG ^ � 197� •��«T CLAIM FOR DAMAGES OF cirr or �v�nc�ll�r�� iryGTOH METROPOLITAN CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. �' UN�'ll OFFICE : �t� \. , ' FAC'R1AL SACKGROUND (� ' �;i Pursuant to the normal bidding and contract procedure, Metropolitan Construction ,J, ,�� Company and the City signed an agreement on September 12, 1977, for $2,174 to demolish and clear a building located at 2115 East Grs d. The construction company iulfilled all the necessary prerequisites to begin performance of the contract. On November 1, 19?7, the construction crews, trucks, and equipment were transported to the joo site only to find that the house was occupied by tenants. As a reswt, tf,e construction company was �nable to perform the contract at that time. The reasons for the house being occupied are complex. During the period of t:me when the City was proceeding to declare insafe and also attempting to obtain a demolition order by the City Coincil, the assumed legal owner was indergoing bankruptcy proceedings. S�bsequeni to the order by Coimcil instructing th�e City to demolish the building, notices were sent only to the occupant of the house. The City fi:es show no record of sending notice to the legal owner. After the first attempted demolition, the several parties who had ownership interests in the property requested that the City delay the demolition imtil March of 1978. During that interim period.the occupants of the house made efforts to bring the residence up to code. By the time the second demolition date came about, the house was in such a condition that made it reasonably safe for occupancy. Therefore, the contractual agreement to demolish was never performed, and as a result, the contractor asks iur damages of $735.69 for out-of- pocket costs and lost profits. ANALYSIS Several doctrines of a�ntraci law may relate to this factual situation. The key question seems to be whether the City had a responsibility to insurF that the house vas vacated and the legxl owners were notified prior to the demolition. While it is �lear that the occupants did receive notice of the demolition (see attached letter of November 3, 1977), it is �clear as to whether or not the actual legal owner rzceived proper notification. it is a�guable that the owner of the house has the responsibility of seeing that the occupants are vacated prior to a demolition. However, because it is unclear as to wFiether the proper notice was given to the owner of the tiouse, some responsibility wnuld seem to rest with the City in initiating an eviction. Even though the City did not formally assume the responsibility oi vacating the 'iouse, it is reasonable to as�,ume that the contractor relied to its detriment by assuming that the house would be vacated when they arrived at the scene to begin d�molition. " ' ------- ----------- I---------------------------------------------------------