Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Deed topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Van Buren County commission deadlocks on lien release for property owner
Summary
The Van Buren County Commission failed to approve a motion to accept $24,800 and release a lien on property owned by Barry Austin, leaving the dispute unresolved and prompting a special called meeting to reconsider the matter with a full commission.
Barry Austin, a local property owner and operator, urged the Van Buren County Commission to accept a payment and clear a county lien on property he has held and developed for years.
Austin told commissioners he had invested more than $1.5 million, employed nine full-time workers and had paid taxes on the property for more than five years. He said he would pay $24,800 to resolve the lien and asked the commission for a deed of correction to clear title.
County attorney Mr. Upchurch told the commission the lien was filed to “perfect the county’s position” and explained legal options. He said the warranty deed had been executed without a clear commission resolution authorizing the conveyance, which means the county mayor likely lacked the authority to pass title without legislative approval. Upchurch recommended either (a) the commission determine an amount Mr. Austin owes and then authorize a deed-of-correction, or (b) the county seek a declaratory judgment in Chancery Court to settle the dispute.
Jordan Delong moved to accept $24,800, release the lien and execute a deed of correction to give Austin a clean title. The motion proceeded to roll-call vote and failed on a 3–3 split: Michael Chandler voted No; Jordan Delong, Jerry Hickey and Michael Woodley voted Yes; Terry Hodges and Dale Cravens voted No. A majority of the full commission (six votes) is required to carry such an action; the motion therefore failed.
Commission discussion centered on procedural and historical questions: whether the deed had been executed properly, why an outside attorney prepared the deed, and whether the commission or a committee had previously approved use versus conveyance of the county-owned land. Commissioners and participants disagreed on the provenance and legal effect of a $51,700 figure that appears in the deed; Upchurch said the assessed tax value appears to have informed that amount, but added assessor values do not necessarily reflect fair market value.
After the failed vote commissioners agreed to schedule a special called meeting with additional commissioners present to revisit the request. Austin asked for a prompt re-vote; commissioners agreed to attempt a meeting roughly 10 days later and to permit remote participation where authorized by statute.
The commission did not take further action to remove Austin’s lien, and the dispute remains unresolved pending further commission consideration or court action.
