By Matt Kaminer
The legal struggle for management of House Mountain took a detour yesterday, as Judge David Carson opted to move the case to a jury trial.
In a ruling that proved unfruitful for both sides, Carson delivered a written opinion Wednesday that denied motions for summary judgment, citing the ambiguity of a contract between the state-run Virginia Outdoors Foundation and the Rockbridge Area Conservation Council that dictated the management of House Mountain, one of Rockbridge County’s most renowned landmarks. Carson is a judge in Roanoke City Circuit Court.
The agreement, which was signed in 1989 by both groups to help better preserve House Mountain, came after the RACC secured an option to purchase the reserve at the top of the mountain in the late 1980’s. The non-profit organization raised almost half of the $325,000 price through contributions before teaming up with the VOF, which paid off the remaining balance and took legal control of the land.
In a complaint filed in July of 2015, the RACC accused the VOF of illegally exiting the contract in 2013, subsequently forming the House Mountain Management Committee to oversee the 876-acre reserve. The VOF, however, contended that it was compliant with the contract in withdrawing because it notified the RACC of its plans within a 60-day period as the document required.
In deferring the case to a Rockbridge County jury, Carson asserted that the language of the contract could be interpreted in different ways, which created a “genuine dispute of material fact,” the judge wrote.
“Requiring both parties to agree was a check on the power of either, making sure that if any dispute or disagreement did arise, House Mountain would be protected and conserved in its natural state until an agreement was reached,” RACC’s attorney, Jared Jenkins, wrote in court filings.
In a statement issued Wednesday after the ruling, VOF Executive Director Brett Glymph said that the decision was “what we expected” and that the organization understands Carson’s judgment on the ambiguity of the contract.
“We feel there is more than enough evidence to support our position that the agreement expired in 2013,” Glymph said. “We look forward to resolving that issue once and for all so that we can get back to the important work of managing House Mountain for the public good.”
A trial date has not yet been set.