My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/29/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
6/29/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:02:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/29/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
M <br />M <br />take that letter to the settlement meeting. Attorney Reynolds is <br />also requesting that the Board authorize him to settle the cross- <br />claim against Mr. Scurlock for attorney's fees if Mr. Scurlock <br />agrees to drop any potential claims he has against the County. If <br />Mr. Scurlock, upon advice of his counsel, chooses not to, then the <br />matter could come back for further negotiation on that point or to <br />trial. <br />Attorney Reynolds confirmed that we could take Mr. Scurlock to <br />trial, and as he had advised earlier, we would take over in essence <br />the role of Prince where we would then begin our digging process to <br />find out if there is an indemnification or basis for that claim. <br />Again, as Attorney Collins has pointed out, there is the fact that <br />a settlement between Prince and Scurlock does open up that question <br />about Mr. Scurlock's legal fees. We need to discuss that now, and <br />make a decision now. We need to be aware that if we settle this, <br />Mr. Scurlock's attorney's fees could be a potential claim back <br />against the County. Attorney Reynolds stated that his position on <br />this would be that his attorney's fees should be minimal up to this <br />point due to the defense of the County by himself in representing <br />all of the Commissioners in their official capacity. That defense <br />has inured to the benefit of Commissioner Scurlock to the point <br />that his attorney, Robert Stone, has been able to take a less <br />active role in his defense and his billing rate for this particular <br />claim probably would be minimal at this point. Attorney Reynolds <br />felt it is in everyone's best interest to settle this case now. <br />Chairman Eggert asked if Attorney Reynolds had filed a cross- <br />claim for attorney's fees against Prince or any other party other <br />than Mr. Scurlock. <br />Attorney Reynolds advised that he did file a cross-claim in <br />the answer asking for attorney's fees back against Prince primarily <br />on the theory that if the courts held they're entitled to <br />attorney's fees, we should be as well. However, it is not a formal <br />counter -claim per se. In addition, we did follow the cross-claim <br />19 <br />300K '0 <br />F", C L ej <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.