Updates on Abundant Life Bldg (Tulsa Club moved to its own thread)

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Well Wrinkle, sounds like Carl Morony listened to you.  He has retained a lawyer and is seeking dismissal of the default judgement.  I, for one, hope he has somemerit to his arguement and finds a way to restore the building or sell it to someone who can.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2102304&db=Tulsa

Perhaps you cited the wrong link, but that one's for the City of Tulsa suing him to take his building because he hasn't paid the $1000/day fines.

Even Ad Valorem deliquencies have a three-year right of redemption. Want to know why? It's so people have a chance when up against government hacks who want to steal your property.

no, just scroll down and read.  The default judgement was stayed, then they came back and filed a motion to dismiss the default judgement back on the 23rd.  I'm not sure how they were able to file that so late, but whatever....the court system around here is really wonky.

[cannon_fodder]

The default was not stayed... execution on the default was stayed.  That is always the case.  Also, you can file to vacate a default whenever you want.  Whether it will be granted or not...

I was at the courthouse this morning, had I known I would love to see a copy of the petition to vacate and see why the 3 forms of service were not effective (mail, publish and personal).

[DowntownNow]

Found the filing for the vacation of the default.  Seems there's logic to the request. If he in fact has a plan for now either selling or renovating the property why stop him?  But more than that, why hasnt anyone else stepped up and rehabed other buildings in the area that are in just as desperate a need?  I dont think its fair to target one or two properties when there are dozens in just as bad if not worse shape.  

VERIFIED PETITION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Defendant C.J. Morony hereby petitions the Court, pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1031(2), for an Order vacating the Default Judgment entered against Defendant on October 24, 2008.  In support, Defendant states as follows:
1.   On October 24, 2008, this Court entered a Default Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, the City Of Tulsa, and against the Defendant, C.J. Morony, for an amount not presently known by Defendant.
2.   Defendant is a resident of California, and may properly be served in California.
3.   Plaintiff has failed to obtain service upon Defendant other than by publication.  Defendant has not been served with a summons in this action, and has never seen any publication of the summons.  See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Carl Morony (December 19, 2008).  Defendant first became aware of this action in December, 2008, when a friend notified him of a news article that appeared in the Tulsa World newspaper.
4.   On October 23, 2008, one day prior to obtaining the Default Judgment, Plaintiff filed a purported proof of service upon a tenant of a property owned by Defendant.  However, service upon a tenant is not effective service upon the property owner.  12 O.S. § 2004(C)(1).  The Court should disregard this purported service.
5.   On September 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed proof of service by publication.  Where service was effected only by publication, the Court shall vacate a resulting default judgment upon the affidavit of the movant stating that the movant had no actual notice:

     A party against whom a default judgment or order has been rendered, without other service than by publication in a newspaper, may, at any time within three (3) years after the filing of the judgment or order, have the judgment or order set aside in the manner prescribed in Sections 1031.1 and 1033 of this title. Before the judgment or order is set aside, the applicant shall notify the adverse party of the intention to make an application and shall file a full answer to the petition, pay all costs if the court requires them to be paid, and satisfy the court by affidavit or other evidence that during the pendency of the action the applicant had no actual notice thereof in time to appear in court and make a defense.

6.   Attached as Exhibit A is the Affidavit Of C.J. Morony, wherein Mr. Morony attests that he had no actual notice of these proceedings or have his opportunity to appear and make a defense.
7.   The Plaintiff is using this Default Judgment in an attempt to obtain Defendant’s real property against the will of Defendant.  On December 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action against Defendant.  See City of Tulsa v. C.J. Morony, et al., Tulsa County District Court, CJ-2008-8939.  It is fundamental that a citizen should not be denied his real property without the opportunity to be heard.  See e.g. Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 7.
8.   The Supreme Court of Oklahoma views default judgments with disfavor and has an affirmative policy of affording “every party to an action a fair opportunity to present his side of a cause.”  Burroughs v. Bob Martin Corp., 536 P.2d 339, 342 (Okla.1975).  As the Supreme Court has held:

It is the policy of the law to afford every party to an action a fair opportunity to present his side of a cause..... [A]n order vacating judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion. Such discretion should always be exercised to promote the ends of justice, and a much stronger showing of abuse of discretion must be made where a judgment has been set aside than where it has been refused.

Midkiff v. Luckey, 1966 OK 49, 412 P.2d 175, 177 (emphasis added);  see also, Pryor v. Mid-West Investigations & Process Serving, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 22, 999 P.2d 452, 453-455 (recognizing the discretion of the trial court to vacate a default judgment “to allow Defendant to have its day in court”); see also, Schepp v. Hess, 1989 OK 28, 770 P.2d 34.
9.   The Court has the discretion to vacate this Default Judgment.  Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1031.1(B); see also, Pryor, 999 P.2d at 453-455; Nguyen v. Kuzmicki, 2000 OK CIV APP 105, 12 P.3d 489, 490-91.  

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court vacate the Default Judgment of October 24, 2008, and allow Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Petition.

[carltonplace]

Maybe he will sell it to be able to pay the city back all of the fees he amassed.

[TheArtist]

Hopefully whoever gets it will try to restore it as much as possible and keep its deco heritage. It truly is one of Tulsas most important historic and deco treasures. I had seen this one pic of some columns inside the building once but didnt save it. Looked like they were a silver metal covered in a riot of deco designs. Stunning.

Here are a few pics I have found and enhanced a bit in photoshop so they can be seen better. None show those neat columns though.











Sad to see this community let such an important treasure be torn up, ruined and vandalized.

 by forgottentulsa on flikr

[inteller]

i want to find that ****ing "bebop" and throw his/her donkey under a train.

That hack turd is responsible for most of the grafitti around tulsa.  Nothing but a punk tagger....not a REAL artist.  This town doesnt have any REAL grafitti artists.

[EricP]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

i want to find that ****ing "bebop" and throw his/her donkey under a train.

That hack turd is responsible for most of the grafitti around tulsa.  Nothing but a punk tagger....not a REAL artist.  This town doesnt have any REAL grafitti artists.

Yeah, you know here and there I wouldn't mind some actual nice graffiti in place of those tags What's a brotha gotta do to get some real graffiti downtown?

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

This town doesnt have any REAL grafitti artists.

What about his guy?
http://www.eratikone.com/

[groundhog]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Found the filing for the vacation of the default.  Seems there's logic to the request. If he in fact has a plan for now either selling or renovating the property why stop him?  But more than that, why hasnt anyone else stepped up and rehabed other buildings in the area that are in just as desperate a need?  I dont think its fair to target one or two properties when there are dozens in just as bad if not worse shape.  

DowntownNow:  Thanks for posting this.  Did you have to type it out yourself? If not, where did you find a copy that was in text format? Are you his attorney?

Also, what makes you think that he has any "plan for now either selling or renovating the property"?  I don't understand where you are getting this statement from as we've heard absolutely nothing from this non-resident owner regarding any plan for rehabbing or selling.  

Additionally, I think you are mistaken about your statement that no one else has stepped up and rehabbed other buildings in the area.  You have to look no further than accross the shared alley to the Philtower (literally next door to the Tulsa Club) to see the siginificant mixed-use rehabilitation project that River City Development has recently completed.

The Artist:  Where did you find those wonderful pictures?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Found the filing for the vacation of the default.  Seems there's logic to the request. If he in fact has a plan for now either selling or renovating the property why stop him?  But more than that, why hasnt anyone else stepped up and rehabed other buildings in the area that are in just as desperate a need?  I dont think its fair to target one or two properties when there are dozens in just as bad if not worse shape.  

Not even taking into account the importance of the Tulsa Club as a building. It is the single worst maintained building downtown. The “owner” has done nothing to protect or maintain the building.

The Towercade building right across the street would be a good example of an empty but secured and cared for building. For years I parked at the Tulsa Auto Hotel and walked by the Tulsa Club building every day and the building was almost never secured. The homeless sleep in the building almost every night. As a comparison I never saw anyone inside the Towercade except for people doing maintenance to the building.

Your statement that “there are dozens in just as bad if not worse shape” in the area is just plain false. There aren’t “dozens” of large empty buildings in all of downtown and none of them are maintained or secured as poorly as the Tulsa Club. That graffiti for example has been on the building for years now. We as a community have spend hundreds of millions of dollars to improve downtown, weather or not you agree with that expenditure, the appearance and condition of the Tulsa Club building harms that investment.

[TheArtist]

The pics are from the Beryl Ford collection. Sorry I should have put that on there.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

i want to find that ****ing "bebop" and throw his/her donkey under a train.

That hack turd is responsible for most of the grafitti around tulsa.  Nothing but a punk tagger....not a REAL artist.  This town doesnt have any REAL grafitti artists.

Yep, plain tagging is stupid and ugly. If you're going to deface property, at least make it look good and prove you're not a moron. I've seen some pretty good looking graffiti in Fayetteville. You'd think Tulsa could do better on that front.

[wordherder]

For a while there was some goober who used really unattractive graffiti to protest what he/she saw as the destruction of downtown.  So you're going to protest destruction... with destruction of your own?  Nice work.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who wouldn't ming graffiti so much if it were halfway attractive.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by DowntownNow

Found the filing for the vacation of the default.  Seems there's logic to the request. If he in fact has a plan for now either selling or renovating the property why stop him?  But more than that, why hasnt anyone else stepped up and rehabed other buildings in the area that are in just as desperate a need?  I dont think its fair to target one or two properties when there are dozens in just as bad if not worse shape.  

VERIFIED PETITION TO VACATE DEFAULT JUDGMENT
AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Defendant C.J. Morony hereby petitions the Court, pursuant to 12 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1031(2), for an Order vacating the Default Judgment entered against Defendant on October 24, 2008.  In support, Defendant states as follows:
1.   On October 24, 2008, this Court entered a Default Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, the City Of Tulsa, and against the Defendant, C.J. Morony, for an amount not presently known by Defendant.
2.   Defendant is a resident of California, and may properly be served in California.
3.   Plaintiff has failed to obtain service upon Defendant other than by publication.  Defendant has not been served with a summons in this action, and has never seen any publication of the summons.  See Exhibit A, Affidavit of Carl Morony (December 19, 2008).  Defendant first became aware of this action in December, 2008, when a friend notified him of a news article that appeared in the Tulsa World newspaper.
4.   On October 23, 2008, one day prior to obtaining the Default Judgment, Plaintiff filed a purported proof of service upon a tenant of a property owned by Defendant.  However, service upon a tenant is not effective service upon the property owner.  12 O.S. § 2004(C)(1).  The Court should disregard this purported service.
5.   On September 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed proof of service by publication.  Where service was effected only by publication, the Court shall vacate a resulting default judgment upon the affidavit of the movant stating that the movant had no actual notice:

     A party against whom a default judgment or order has been rendered, without other service than by publication in a newspaper, may, at any time within three (3) years after the filing of the judgment or order, have the judgment or order set aside in the manner prescribed in Sections 1031.1 and 1033 of this title. Before the judgment or order is set aside, the applicant shall notify the adverse party of the intention to make an application and shall file a full answer to the petition, pay all costs if the court requires them to be paid, and satisfy the court by affidavit or other evidence that during the pendency of the action the applicant had no actual notice thereof in time to appear in court and make a defense.

6.   Attached as Exhibit A is the Affidavit Of C.J. Morony, wherein Mr. Morony attests that he had no actual notice of these proceedings or have his opportunity to appear and make a defense.
7.   The Plaintiff is using this Default Judgment in an attempt to obtain Defendant’s real property against the will of Defendant.  On December 22, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a foreclosure action against Defendant.  See City of Tulsa v. C.J. Morony, et al., Tulsa County District Court, CJ-2008-8939.  It is fundamental that a citizen should not be denied his real property without the opportunity to be heard.  See e.g. Okla. Const. Art. 2, § 7.
8.   The Supreme Court of Oklahoma views default judgments with disfavor and has an affirmative policy of affording “every party to an action a fair opportunity to present his side of a cause.”  Burroughs v. Bob Martin Corp., 536 P.2d 339, 342 (Okla.1975).  As the Supreme Court has held:

It is the policy of the law to afford every party to an action a fair opportunity to present his side of a cause..... [A]n order vacating judgment will not be disturbed on appeal unless it clearly appears that the trial court has abused its discretion. Such discretion should always be exercised to promote the ends of justice, and a much stronger showing of abuse of discretion must be made where a judgment has been set aside than where it has been refused.

Midkiff v. Luckey, 1966 OK 49, 412 P.2d 175, 177 (emphasis added);  see also, Pryor v. Mid-West Investigations & Process Serving, Inc., 2000 OK CIV APP 22, 999 P.2d 452, 453-455 (recognizing the discretion of the trial court to vacate a default judgment “to allow Defendant to have its day in court”); see also, Schepp v. Hess, 1989 OK 28, 770 P.2d 34.
9.   The Court has the discretion to vacate this Default Judgment.  Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1031.1(B); see also, Pryor, 999 P.2d at 453-455; Nguyen v. Kuzmicki, 2000 OK CIV APP 105, 12 P.3d 489, 490-91.  

WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court vacate the Default Judgment of October 24, 2008, and allow Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the Petition.

Just as weaselly as I suspected....probably posted notice on the front door of the place, mailed a certified copy to the same address and published in a "widely circulated local newspaper" for a week while never actually contacting the man.

...anything required to steal this property.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Just as weaselly as I suspected....probably posted notice on the front door of the place, mailed a certified copy to the same address and published in a "widely circulated local newspaper" for a week while never actually contacting the man.

...anything required to steal this property.

Morony knew. They never served anything certified to him because he hid but he knew. They talked to people who represent him and he comes to Tulsa on a regular basis.