The Shannondale Road Association's lawsuit to improve the subdivision's rutted roads has hit a legal pothole. Charles Town, West Virginia, Jefferson County Circuit Judge Christopher Wilkes has ruled that the road association cannot sue the other property residents through a class action lawsuit. The Shannondale Road Association filed the lawsuit in March, seeking to take over the maintenance of more than 70 miles of roads in the rural, mountainous subdivision that began as a gated weekend retreat with cabins. Over the decades, Shannondale has grown into one of the largest communities in Jefferson County, but many of the properties still are required to pay only about $20.00 a year in road maintenance fees. If the Shannondale Road Association had been successful, it would have been able to increase the road maintenance fees and come up with plans to improve the roads. The roads have deteriorated to the point that many are impassable to all but four wheel drive vehicles and some mortgage lenders are refusing to approve home purchases. In his July 24, 1997 court ruling, Wilkes said the road association would have to file a lawsuit against each property owner, which the association says would cost it too much money. Any reasonable person would question the judge's reasoning behind his decision. Instead of one lawsuit, we now have 2500 separate lawsuits. The learned judge is very effectively clogging up the court system? Shannondale has more than 2500 property owners scattered throughout the United States and several nations, association officials said. Association President Robert Warren said Tuesday that the group is working with an attorney to see what other action can be taken. Let's see, do we sue 2500 times with one attorney or do we sue 2500 times with 2500 different attorneys. Warren said his neighbors aren't mad at him for trying to take legal action against them. "It's an agreeable disagreement," he said. "We'll still work to find some way to improve our roads. Our goal is to have safe and adequate roads." This story is typical of the double talk coming from America's court system. The courts continuously complain about a backlog of cases and not enough time and resources to handle all the cases. The U. S. Supreme Court would like to limit the right to appeal, even when a biased judge decides a case without a jury. The above situation shows that the court's real desire is to complicate and arrange lawsuits most favorable to attorney's bank accounts. Judges and lawyers work hand in hand to perpetuate a very lucrative monopoly that is dominated by a good-ole boy's network. Lawyering Monopoly Related Stories Lawyers Convince Court to Shut Down Paralegals

Back to Contents

No legal advice is given on this Website or Webpage
Send comments to American Injustice
Copyright © 1997, 1998 & 1999 by American Injustice, Inc. All rights reserved
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.