Coalgate Industrial Authority files lawsuit against Joe Eaves business

On June 16, 2022, the Coalgate Industrial Development Authority (CIDA) filed a lawsuit against Joe Eaves at 114 W. Ohio. The lawsuit alleges that Eaves remains wrongfully in possession of the property, that he owes $7,000 in rent, and that CIDA has demanded he vacate the premises but he refuses to do so.

Eaves denies the CIDA allegations. He denies that he is wrongfully in possession of the property, that CIDA is entitled to possession, that he owes CIDA $7,000 rent, that CIDA has made any demand on him to vacate the property, and further denies that CIDA has made any demand on him to pay the allegedly owed rental monies.

On June 30, Eaves filed a counterclaim against CIDA. The counterclaim alleges that CIDA listed the property for sale by public auction with bids to be submitted and sealed and that he submitted a bid for the property on or about September 2021.

The counterclaim goes on to say that on or about October 6, 2021, Eaves was informed by an agent for CIDA that he was the winning bidder on the property and that CIDA would be preparing the closing documents to finalize the sale.

The counterclaim states that Eaves had been leasing the property from CIDA prior to the sale agreement and that he was already in physical possession at the time he was notified he was the successful bidder. When he was advised he was the winning bidder, he began making modifications and improvements to the property that cost him in excess of $10,000.

The counterclaim also states that as of the date the counterclaim was filed, Eaves had —Eaves files counterclaim

not been notified by CIDA or anyone on CIDA’S behalf that the necessary closing documents to be prepared by CIDA were ready for Eaves’ review or approval.

Eaves alleges that CIDA breached the contract by refusing and/or failing to close on the sale of the property and that he has suffered a loss as a result of CIDA’s failure to perform on the contract.

In summary, the counterclaim asks the Court for a money judgment against CIDA for breach of contract in an amount in excess of $10,000, to enter an order for the specific performance of the contract ordering the sale of the property to Eaves, attorney fees and costs, and other relief the Court deems just and proper.

On July 28, CIDA filed a petition stating that Eaves had an agreement to lease the property from October 2020 through November 2021 for $1,000 per month. That subsequent to that time, CIDA agreed to sell the property to Eaves for the total consideration of $78,000 and that a contract was drafted, which was not signed by Eaves.

Eaves paid CIDA money for rent, the petition states, a closing was never conducted transferring title to Eaves, and Eaves has never signed a mortgage. Eaves, the petition alleges, never paid the balance of any monies owed to CIDA, and the contract terms were never complied with by Eaves, who “never even signed the contract to agree to the terms and conditions.”

The petition asks for an order from the Court, finding that no contract was ever entered into between CIDA and Eaves and that Eaves is wrongfully in possession of CIDA’s real estate, and ejecting or evicting Eaves from the property.

The petition further states that should the Court find that partial performance is made by Eaves even though no written contract exists pursuant to the Statute of Frauds, that Eaves has thereafter breached such terms and conditions of such contract by not paying the full sales price. Such failure of Eaves to pay for the real estate according to the terms and conditions of the contract he attempts to enforce, means that he has defaulted under the terms and conditions of the contract and should be declared in default, totaling the sum of $71,000 to CIDA according to the terms and conditions of the contract and ordering Eaves to pay attorney fees, interest, and all other relief the Court deems reasonable, just, necessary and equitable.

In conclusion, the petition states that the “Statute of Frauds has not been complied with in this case and is a total bar to (Eaves) attempting to assert ownership of the property. (Eaves) should be evicted or ejected from the property if ownership is proved for failure to pay according to the terms and conditions of the contract or failure to sign and utilize the contract.”

Court records do not show any scheduled court proceedings.