43
Austintown schools want clear title to middle school land
By Kalea Hall
austintown
The Austintown school district wants a judgment confirming its title to the former Austintown Middle School land at 5800 Mahoning Ave.
A complaint was filed this week in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court by the district’s law firm, Walter | Haverfield LLP of Cleveland. It is assigned to Judge John Durkin.
The school district took title to the property in 1924. A warranty deed granting the land to the district from John Fitch and his wife, Alice, was written in 1915, but not recorded until 1924.
A quitclaim deed lists as grantors Minta F. Goode, Walter S. Goode, Stella G. King, Fred G. King, J.H. Fitch Jr. and Pearl S. Fitch. This deed “specifically reserves in the conveyance any right of reversion of title to the premises which would vest in the original grantors or their heirs by reason of the fact that the premises ceases to be used for school purposes only,” according to the complaint. In other words, the site had to be used for educational purposes.
One of the heir descendants listed as a defendant by the district, Dr. Nancy King of Elmira, N.Y., said she had not seen the filing and could not comment.
Despite the clause in the quitclaim deed, the district listed the property for sale in 2005.
“The sale of premises could not be consummated because the reversionary language in the quitclaim deed created a potential cloud on the title that either made title uninsurable or otherwise unduly restricted the alienability of the premises,” the complaint says.
The school district was unable to sell the property in 2005 to two local developers because underground fuel storage tanks were a concern. A purchase agreement in 2013 with another development corporation was rescinded for an unspecified reason.
The district is asking the court to find “the Board of Education of the Austintown Local School District as the owner in fee simple of that property and the defendants, collectively and individually, have no enforceable interest in the property.”
The district also asked “for the judgment declaring the quitclaim deed’s reversionary clause, together with the use restriction, are unenforceable and that the Board of Education of Austintown Local School District owns and holds the aforementioned real property in fee simple, free and clear of any claim of the defendants.”
The district also asks for costs and attorney fees.
Kathy Mock, school board president, would not comment beyond a statement: “This is the right thing to do for the district including the students and taxpayers we serve,” she wrote. “The proceeds of an eventual sale of the former AMS property will provide a number of benefits to our district. We are hopeful that the process will move efficiently so that, consistent with our mission statement, we can continue our tradition of excellence in education and forward-looking focus on providing state-of-the-art progressive and challenging learning opportunities to our community.”
The district said in its court action that the potential heirs to the property “have not preserved and kept effective their revisionary interest” in the property, and the district has marketable record title to the property.
“The reversionary interest created in the quitclaim deed is of no force and effect and the claims of the defendants [heirs] are without merit,” the filing states.
It also states that “an actual controversy has arisen” because the district claims it owns the property, and the heirs contend their interest in the property as a result of the reversionary clause.