STAPLETON, L.L.C., SHILLALAH DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., AND SHILLALAH MOUNTAIN RESORT AND GOLF CLUB, L.L.C. v. BINGHAM RECLAMATION CORPORATION
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: JULY 20, 2001; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2000-CA-001816-MR
STAPLETON, L.L.C.,
SHILLALAH DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., AND
SHILLALAH MOUNTAIN RESORT AND GOLF CLUB, L.L.C.
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM BELL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JAMES L. BOWLING, JR., JUDGE
ACTION NO. 00-CI-00086
BINGHAM RECLAMATION CORPORATION
APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JOHNSON, MILLER, AND SCHRODER, JUDGES.
MILLER, JUDGE:
Stapleton, L.L.C., Shillalah Development, L.L.C.,
and Shillalah Mountain Resort and Golf Club, L.L.C. bring this
appeal from a “Final Judgment and Order of Sale” entered in the
Bell Circuit Court on July 7, 2000.
We affirm.
It appears from the record that appellants undertook to
develop a golf course and accompanying airport, and a housing
community, including condominiums, upon a large tract of land in
Bell County, Kentucky.
The total project encompassed
approximately 2,000 acres.
Apparently, because they were not
residents of Bell County, Appellants operated through a local
agent, J. Christopher Gibbs.
Gibbs contracted with Bingham
Reclamation Corporation (Bingham) to perform work on the
development.
The work consisted largely of road construction.
For some reason, checks payable to Bingham were not honored by
the bank.
On February 2, 2000, Bingham filed a mechanic's and
materialmen's lien to protect its interest.
Statutes (KRS) 376.010 et. seq.
Kentucky Revised
On February 23, 2000, the
instant action to foreclose the lien was filed.
It resulted in
the judgment and order of sale from which this appeal is
prosecuted.
Although appellants' brief is deficient in several
respects, we attempt to ascertain their arguments on this appeal.
Appellants' first arguments seem to be that the property owned by
Stapleton, L.L.C. should not have been subjected to the lien as
Bingham provided no enhancement to this property.
If there were
enhancement, it was not provided pursuant to direct contact with
Stapleton.
376.010.
Stapleton, as owner, was entitled to notice under KRS
The circuit court answered these assertions by
concluding that the entire development consisted of 2,000 acres
and that all of same was subject to the lien.
The circuit court
further concluded that appellants' agent, Gibbs, dealt directly
with Stapleton.
We find no basis for disturbing this decision.
The second argument raised by appellants surrounds the
billing which Bingham rendered for his services.
This, of
course, presented a factual issue, which the circuit court
determined adversely to appellants.
without a jury.
This matter was tried
Our review of the factual determination is under
-2-
the clearly erroneous rule set forth in Ky. R. Civ. P. (CR)
52.01.
We do not believe the circuit court's approval of the
billing submitted by Bingham was clearly erroneous inasmuch as
there is substantial evidence to support the claim.
Evidence is
deemed substantial:
[W]hen taken alone or in the light of all the
evidence it has sufficient probative value to
induce conviction in the minds of reasonable
men.
Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, Ky., 481 S.W.2d 298,
308 (1972), citing Blankenship v. Lloyd Blankenship Coal Company,
Inc., Ky., 463 S.W.2d 62 (1970).
In conclusion, we are of the opinion the circuit court
was correct in concluding that the development was a single
project of 2,000 acres encompassing the property of Stapleton,
L.L.C., and that appellants were jointly and severally liable to
Bingham for the indebtedness asserted.
The amount of the claim
was adequately supported by the testimony of Bingham that he had
completed the road work on the project according to his bids and
contract and actually performed an excess amount of work.
This
testimony was confirmed by the testimony of William Parsons, a
licensed engineer and land surveyor.
Upon the whole of the case, we find no error.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Bell
Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
-3-
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
Maxie Higgason
Corbin, Kentucky
Gerald L. Greene
Pineville, Kentucky
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.