High School Football

© Copyright 2012 Progressive Communications. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed, without the expressed permission of Progressive Communications.

· Return to top

Sections:
Local   Sports   Classifieds   Obituaries   Weather
Online:
Search   Site Map   Posting Policy   Privacy Policy   E-edition   Contact Us   Staff
Services:
Subscribe   Purchase Photos   Advertise
Submit:
Events   Anniversary   Engagement Form   Wedding   Suggest a story   Roll Call   Clubs   4-H   Vacation   Recipe   Problems
Social:
Twitter   Facebook   YouTube

© Progressive Communications Corporation.

Phone: (740) 397 5333 or 1-800-772-5333 (Toll Free in Ohio)

Pullins’ lawsuit dismissed

MOUNT VERNON — Kathryn Pullins’ most recent lawsuit against the Apple Valley Property Owners Association was dismissed in its entirety on Wednesday.

Pullins, through her attorney husband Scott Pullins, had filed suit against the AVPOA for her unlawful dismissal from the board of directors. Also listed in the suit were charges including improper sale of property, denial of records, false statements, unauthorized borrowing and election fraud. Pullins claims the board acted with reckless disregard for the best interests of the corporation, and all board members, both jointly and seperately, are liable to the corporation for $25,000.

At one point, Pullins motioned to have presiding judge Otho Eyster disqualified from hearing the case. One of the charges Pullins made against Eyster was her belief that the judge filed a disciplinary grievance against her husband “because the judge thinks that [Scott Pullins] may challenge the judge in an upcoming primary election.” Chief Justice Thomas Moyer denied the motion and Eyster remained presiding judge.

Eyster ruled that Pullins failed to meet the pre-suit demands required by Civil Rule 23.1. This rule states that an “action may not be maintained if it appears that the plaintiff does not fairly and adequately represent the interest of the shareholders.”

A motion by the defendants to recover their attorney fees was also denied.

Advertisement

 

Sponsored Links