Who sells the land?

Alexis Barker
NLJ News Editor
 
A parcel of land located adjacent to Weston County Health Services deeded to the Weston County Hospital District by the county, in 2005 according to County Clerk Becky Hadlock, is now the center of an ownership debacle. Weston County Health Services has been approached about selling the land to an unknown commercial entity. 
The commissioners have proposed a meeting with the hospital board to discuss the potential land transaction and the right of reverter. 
On Jan. 7, Weston County Attorney Alex Berger first approached the commissioners about releasing the rights of reverter on the property for the hospital district so the district could sell the land to the unknown business. 
Berger said that he had received a letter from the Jim Peck, the hospital district’s attorney, stating that because of the way the quitclaim deed, according to Legalzoom.com, a quitclaim deed conveys a seller’s interest in a property to a buyer, meaning that the seller who owns the property can give a quitclaim deed to a buyer and thereby transfer the seller’s entire interest in that property to the buyer, was written, the hospital isn’t allowed to sell any piece of the land that was deeded to the district by the county. He proposed that the commissioners waive the right of reverter, which is a future interest created by the grantor, and Berger said he could see no legal reason why the county would not do so. 
Commissioner Marty Ertman said that the commissioners who wrote the quitclaim deed that way must have done so for a reason. She said that the reason was that if the land was not used for a heliport, then ownership would return to the county. Commissioner Tracy Hunt then suggested that the county and the hospital district should be able to work together to benefit both entities if the land were sold. 
On Feb. 4, Berger returned to the commissioners, after visiting with Peck, and reported that the hospital remains convinced that the property was given to the hospital district for the benefit of the district and so is not inclined to give it back to county to sell to the buyer. He said that the hospital district, according to Peck, is more than willing to give a percentage of the money to the county or a set dollar amount if the property is sold. 
“The only thing they are asking is that the buyer have one point of contact, the hospital board, so there are not too many chefs in the kitchen,” Berger said. 
County chairman Ed Wagoner said that as long as the percentage is 100%, then he has no problems with the sale. 
“I have a lot of problems, but I don’t know what they are yet,” Hunt said. 
Commissioner Tony Barton said that without knowing who the purchaser is he would hate to put a wrench in the potential for new jobs and business in town. 
“I am willing to take that into consideration,” Barton said. “I wouldn’t be opposed to a 50-50 split.” 
Ertman said that it shouldn’t matter who is selling the property and that all the purchaser wants is the land. The purchaser wouldn’t care if it were the county or the hospital selling the land, she said. 
“If we dig our heels in and so does the hospital board and no one sells, that is my concern,” Barton said.
Hunt pointed out that the property is not being used and that this business obviously sees potential in the location. Although he later stated that the only one he would see as “digging in their heels” is the hospital board because no one on the commission is suggesting that the property not be sold. 
Hunt suggested that the commission invite the hospital board in to discuss the land and potential sale. The commissioners asked whether the discussion could be held in executive session. Berger said that they could find a way to fit the discussion into the executive session laws under the open meetings laws.