A complaint of trespass against Roger Feura has been dismissed,
but McKean County President Judge John Cleland has upheld two other
complaints against him in the lawsuit over the building at 45 Main
St., Bradford.

In an order entered Friday in McKean County Court, Cleland ruled
that complaints of violating a deed condition and violating the
Pennsylvania Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act against Feura would
continue.

In order to dismiss a complaint based on a preliminary
objection, “… the court must be certain from the face of the
complaint the claims will not support recovery under any legal
theory,” Cleland explained in the order, “… preliminary objections
will be sustained and a complaint dismissed only in cases which are
clear and free from doubt.”

However, there are grounds to dismiss the trespass complaint
because Feura is the actual owner of the property, Cleland
ruled.

“Plaintiff Downtown Bradford Revitalization Corp. concedes the
validity of the third preliminary objection … because plaintiff is
not in actual possession of the property,” the judge wrote.

Cleland presided over a hearing in the matter Dec. 28 in which
Feura, through his attorney Gregory Zimmerman, asked to have the
three complaints dismissed in a preliminary objection.

The issues are part of a complaint in equity brought by the DBRC
against Feura and Chris and Michelle Angell, former owners of the
building at 45 Main St. The DBRC, as part of a contract entered
into in 2001 with the Angells, would sell the building to the
Angells but would retain first refusal rights if the Angells were
to cease doing business there or would decide to sell.

In 2004, a fire burned a significant portion of the Angells’
business. The couple decided to close down the business and put the
building up for sale.

The Angells maintain that the DBRC had been offered the building
multiple times and continuously refused to exercise their option.
The DBRC maintains that they wanted to exercise their option to buy
the building, but the Angells sold the building to Feura before the
DBRC could act.

The trespass complaint had alleged that since Feura took
possession of the building, he had “intentionally damaged and
injured the property.”

At the hearing before Cleland, Zimmerman pointed out that a case
for trespass cannot be made “unless one is in possession of the
property.” Feura owns the building – the DBRC does not.

In his order, Cleland agreed and dismissed the trespass
count.

The two counts that were upheld allege that Feura is bound by
the terms of the agreement between the Angells and the DBRC.

The complaint in equity alleges that Feura was aware of the deed
condition which offered the option of first refusal to the DBRC,
and violated it by purchasing the building before the DBRC could
act.

Henry states in the complaint that Feura purchased the building
with the knowledge of the encumbrance on the property, and took on
the property subject to that encumbrance.

It also alleges that Feura “colluded and conspired with the
Angells” to transfer the property to him without “tendering
reasonably equivalent value for the property and to purposefully
and intentionally hinder, delay and defraud the DBRC and the
Commonwealth and local governments,” according to the
complaint.