--- In AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com, "wernerapnj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> The ASSUMPTION that the "development rights" were properly
>protected under the bankruptcy is where the problem is. The City
>had always
> maintained that Carrabetta had defaulted and thus no longer had
>those
> rights.
> A challange to the issue was made but the City was weak and non-
> performing in litigating.
The City wasn't weak, it's argument was. Do your really think the
Bankruptcy Judge would let one creditor (Asbury Park) take back the
whole asset without Carabetta's other creditors getting something?
It doesn't work that way. The City had no chance of just getting
the rights back and walking away. No chance.
Besides, they were trying to declare default AFTER the filing, which
as I put in my last post isn't allowed because of the automatic
Bankruptcy stay.
> Part of the recent settlement was that the City had to withdraw
>its claim that there were no rights to transfer. That's HOW the
>rights were
> able to be transfered 'clean'.
The City gave the sleeve's off its vest. The Bankruptcy Court
doesn't need the City's consent to clear the title - the Court
decree clears it automatically by operation of law. If the City
consented it was for speed and convenience to bring forth the
inevitable, which is very common in that situation.
> Under the the State's offer carrabetta would have been bought out.
>The
> Attorney Generals office would have litigated on the City's behalf
>and
> the rights transfered to the City.
>
> The City was weak, did not take a strong stand, did not want the
> State's help and took the quick way out.
Your analysis is wrong because the City would have no say in the
matter at all. As I stated in my last post the State (or anyone
else for that matter) only had to convince the Bankruptcy Trustee
that the deal was good, and he in turn would put it before the Judge
for approval. It wasn't up to the City. They could be heard on the
matter, but they couldn't make the decision - that is left to the
sole discretion of the Bankruptcy Trustee and the Judge. You can't
blame the City for anyone's deal falling through because it was
never up to them.
> In doing so they also violated
> land use law by entering into an agreement that violated the
>existing
> zoning for the area.
> A federal bankruptcy court has no jurisdiction over local land
>use, yet that is the explaination given (the MOU) for selling
>public assets,
> 3000 condos, eminent domain, etc, etc,
This is incorrect. Not only does the Bankruptcy Judge have
jurisdiction, once the Petition in Bankruptcy is filed, jurisdiction
is exclusive to the Bankruptcy Court because of the automatic Stay
of all proceedings.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AsburyPark/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
