Anthony Ostlund represents housing development company in a juried trial
"Trying cases in a small town against the “locals” is always a challenge. In this case, the deck was definitely stacked against us. However, careful attention to all of the legal issues gave us credibility with the judge; and careful attention to the trial presentation resulted in a jury verdict for our client." --Norman J. Baer
Our client, Illinois Three, was an affordable housing development company that contracted to purchase a tax-credit financed, multi-family housing project in Hastings, Nebraska. Illinois Three paid for the project but Arbor Development failed to deliver clean title, choosing instead to wrap the project into a concocted foreclosure action.
Hastings is a small town. Opposing counsel was the local prosecutor well known and well respected by the judge and prospective jurors. Illinois Three was an out-of-state organization with no connections in Hastings other than a failed effort to buy a multi-family housing project that had a poor reputation in town. Our approach was to make sure every legal “i” was dotted and every “t” was crossed at the same time that we presented our corporate client as an individual that the judge and jury could relate to.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of our client. The judge denied the post-trial motions -- while saying that he did not agree with the jury’s verdict, he could find no fault with the trial proceedings. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict. The Nebraska Supreme Court denied the petition for further review even though Arbor Development hired a retired Supreme Court justice to represent it on the appeal.
Illinois Three LLC v. Arbor Development Company, et al.
District of Adams County, State of Nebraska;
Nebraska Court of Appeals;
Nebraska Supreme Court