Snowden v. City of Wilmore
2013 Ky. App. LEXIS 9
| Ky. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Snowden owns Roseglade Farm in Jessamine County; annexation and zoning issues arose related to Forest Creek and a planned New Urbanism development.
- Snowden claimed oral promises by City Attorney Gullette and City officials to amend the PUD ordinance in exchange for dismissal of two lawsuits.
- Agreed orders dismissed Snowden’s Forest Creek annexation and related suits in 2009; the City referred the PUD amendment to the Planning Commission but did not pass the amendment.
- Snowden filed this suit in 2010 alleging breach of contract, promissory and other torts, and improper inducement based on the alleged oral agreement.
- Trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, holding no binding contract existed and no authority to bind the City to pass the amendment; recusal motion was denied.
- Snowden appeals asserting error in both the recusal ruling and the contract/tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City and Snowden formed a binding contract | Snowden: oral promises bound the City to pass the PUD amendment | City: no written contract; only referral to Commission; no guaranteed passage | No binding contract; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the trial judge should have recused | Snowden: close professional ties between judge and Gullette require recusal | No actual bias shown; disqualification not required | Recusal not required; affirmed |
| Whether Snowden's remaining claims survive without a binding contract | Snowden: tort/fraud theories supported by representations | Gullette lacked authority to bind City; no contract | Claims dismissed for lack of contractual basis and authority; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381 (Ky. App. 2002) (contract formation requires offer, acceptance, consideration; writings may form settlement)
- James v. Wilson, 95 S.W.3d 875 (Ky. App. 2002) (de novo review of contract interpretation on motions to dismiss)
- City of Princeton v. Princeton Electric Light & Power Co., 179 S.W.2d 1079 (Ky. 1915) (municipal contracts must follow statutory procedures; officers’ authority matters)
- Louisville Civil Service Bd. v. Blair, 711 S.W.2d 181 (Ky. 1986) (city officials’ authority to bind city; core authority rules)
- Diehl Pump & Supply Co. v. City of Louisville?, 246 S.W.2d 585 (Ky. 1952) (contract formation with municipalities; know rights and powers)
- City of Greenup v. Public Service Commission, 182 S.W.3d 535 (Ky. App. 2005) (agency authority limits binding contracts)
- Webb v. Commonwealth, 904 S.W.2d 226 (Ky. 1995) (recusal standard; impartiality reasonably questioned)
- Sommers v. Commonwealth, 843 S.W.2d 879 (Ky. 1992) (recusal and bias standards; abuse of discretion)