The Downtown Bradford Revitalization Corp. is suing the current
and former owners of a burned out building at 45 Main St., asking
for a judge to void a sales agreement transferring the property to
Roger Feura and to let them buy it instead.

The DBRC, represented by attorney Greg Henry, filed a complaint
in equity against Christopher and Michelle Angell and against Feura
on Oct. 3 in McKean County Court.

The complaint states that on June 1, 2001, the DBRC and the
Angells entered into an agreement for the transfer of the building
at 45 Main St. to the Angells for the amount of $20,000.

The building, which had been donated to the DBRC by Berg
Investors of Liverpool, N.Y., was sold with the agreement that
should the Angells “decide to sell the subject property or cease to
do business,” the DBRC would have an option to repurchase the
property. That option was to be in effect for a period of five
years – until Aug. 31, 2006.

The Angells were in business at that location until a fire in
August of 2004 caused an estimated $50,000 in damage.

On March 17, 2005, the Angells sent a letter to Chris Hauser and
the DBRC. In the letter, the Angells state they had made it
“abundantly clear to the DBRC the property at 45 Main St. has been
for sale for the past eight months. Diane DeWalt and the DBRC have
had ample opportunity to exercise their right to repurchase this
property,” the letter reads.

“This letter is the final notification we are selling the
property to another local business person. As per our written
agreement if the DBRC wishes to repurchase the property for $20,000
they must notify us immediately,” the letter states. “If and when
we sell the property to another party we will split any proceeds
with the DBRC.”

In a letter dated that same day, DeWalt, vice president of the
DBRC, says the DBRC does wish to “exercise its option of first
right of refusal” and states that a meeting was scheduled for March
23 to discuss and vote on the matter.

According to the suit, the letter was delivered by certified
mail to the Angells on March 21. It was faxed to their attorney,
Jay Paul Kahle, on March 17, Henry states in the suit.

On March 18, DeWalt and Jeff Andrews of the Bradford City Office
of Economic and Community Development met with Feura “and
acknowledged that he was familiar with (the DBRC’s option in) the
agreement.”

Henry explains that DeWalt spoke to Angell and Kahle on March
22, prior to the transfer of the building to Feura. “DeWalt
reiterated that the DBRC presently desired to repurchase the
property…,” the suit states.

Before the sale of the property closed, Hauser spoke to Feura’s
attorney, at that time Fred Gallup, and to Feura and advised them
of the agreement.

DeWalt spoke to Feura and Gallup and told them both of the
DBRC’s opposition to his purchase of the building, the suit
reads.

The transfer of the deed to Feura went through “at 4:16:07 p.m.
on the afternoon of March 22, 2005,” the suit reads – the day
before the DBRC was to meet to discuss and vote on the purchase of
the building.

“… the Angells and Feura … conspired and collaborated to record
the second deed before the DBRC’s meeting … in order to frustrate
and to defeat the DBRC’s” re-purchase of the building, the suit
states.

When the property was transferred, Feura listed the value as
worth $6,000 with the building on it and $50,000 without the
building.

The DBRC says the building had an assessed value of $227,100 and
a market value of $252,081. Neither Feura nor the Angells had
appealed the assessed value as of the time of the property
transfer, according to the suit.

In June, the DBRC through Henry contacted Feura and advised him
that they wanted to purchase the building from him for $20,000, as
was in the agreement with the Angells. They also referred to his
demolition application for the building and asked him to withdraw
it or they would consider legal action.

In August, Feura’s attorney, David Holland of Erie, contacted
Henry. He referred to the length of time the Angells had the
building up for sale and the lack of action on the part of the
DBRC.

Holland said that while the DBRC did contact the Angells, the
agency did not exercise their option to purchase the property. And
the DBRC met March 23 to discuss the matter, but did not contact
Feura until June 16.

“Following your June 16th letter, still nothing further
transpired and the reason for that is now apparent,” Holland wrote.
“Your client never had the funds to actually repurchase the subject
property until funds were borrowed from the City of Bradford in
mid-August of this year.

“Any attempt to now purchase the property is untimely,” Holland
wrote. He referred any further correspondence from the DBRC to him
rather than to Feura.

The allegations listed in the suit against the Angells are
breach of contract, violation of a deed condition and violation of
the Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

The DBRC is asking the court to set aside the transfer of the
property to Feura, to “compel the Angells to transfer the property
to it” or to enter a judgment against the Angells in excess of
$20,000 at the first two counts in the suit.

At the third count, the DBRC is asking the court to void the
transfer to Feura and to transfer the property to the DBRC; or to
award judgment to the DBRC against the Angells for “the fair market
value of the property minus the lesser of $20,000 or the market
value of the property as determined by the McKean County
Assessor.”

The DBRC is also seeking attorney’s fees.

Feura is being sued for intentional interference with
contractual relations, violating a deed condition and violating the
Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, as well as for
trespass.

“…since Feura took possession of the property on March 22, 2005,
he has intentionally damaged and injured the property,” the suit
reads. “…the upstairs windows and frames that were in place have
been removed. The window glass and frames lay smashed on the
upstairs floor.

“The pine wood wall paneling has been removed from the back
entrance foyer of the building. The drywall covering the ends of
the brick wall partitions has been damaged with a hammer or similar
tool.

“The ornate staircase newels have been removed and several
balusters are missing. The railings are broken off on both sides of
the staircase.”

The suit also alleges that Feura has failed to cover a hole in
the roof caused by the fire to prevent further damage to the
building.

“Feura is a trustee of the property and its condition for the
benefit of the DBRC,” the suit states.

At the first count, alleging interference with a contract, the
DBRC is seeking judgment against Feura for the value of the
property at the time of the transfer to him.

At the second count, alleging violation of a deed condition, the
DBRC is seeking the court to direct Feura to convey the property to
the DBRC; or to enter a judgment in its favor against Feura for the
fair market value of the property.

At the third count, alleging a fraudulent transfer, the DBRC is
asking the court to either set aside the transfer of the property
from the Angells to Feura, or to compel Feura to transfer it to the
DBRC; or to award judgment against Feura for the fair market value
of the property.

At the final count, the DBRC is asking for a judgment against
Feura “for a sum in excess of $20,000” along with interest and the
costs of the suit.

They are also requesting attorney’s fees at each count.