Saturday, May 18, 2024
41.0°F

Couple alleges decision bankrupted them

by Keith KINNAIRD<br
| March 21, 2009 9:00 PM

SANDPOINT — A couple is suing Bonner County claiming an adverse land-use decision has forced them into bankruptcy and onto public assistance.

David and Ingrid Allen seek unspecified damages, although an unsuccessful tort claim filed in the dispute sought $4.9 million from the county.

The Bonner County couple alleges in the pro se lawsuit that the county commission’s denial of the Cabinet Mountain Estates project, a six-lot planned unit development in the Rapid Lightning drainage, exceeded the board’s statutory authority and was an arbitrary decision.

Commission Chairman Joe Young and former Commissioner Todd Crossett voted to deny the project in 2007. The commissioners concluded the project was out of harmony with the surrounding neighborhood, according to court records.

Young and Crossett are named as defendants in the suit, as is the Bonner County Planning Department.

The county has no comment on the litigation, said Pamela Allen, the county’s director of risk management.

The couple alleges in the suit that it had a sale pending on the project and only needed the county commission’s sign-off on the preliminary plat to complete the transaction. The sale evaporated and the Allens lost the property to foreclosure, the suit said.

The Allens maintain their reputations were tarnished and they now live a “demeaning” and “impoverished lifestyle,” the suit said.

“For the first time in almost 30 years of marriage, we have had to get food stamps and welfare so we can feed our family and we stand to lose the home we currently live in,” the couple said in their suit.

The couple filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2007, according to documents filed in Idaho’s U.S. District Court. The filing listed more than $481,000 in liabilities.

The couple argues the county’s denial amounts to a Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act violation. The Allens further assert Bonner County Revised Code is unconstitutionally vague because the first subdivisions in any area adjacent to larger tracts could be construed as incompatible with their surroundings.