County commission, board of zoning appeals target of two different lawsuits

By Charlene Sims

lcjeditor@icloud.com

MOUND CITY – The Linn County Commission has been spending more time in executive session for attorney-client privilege with County Counselor Jacklyn Paletta the last several weeks, likely because of two lawsuits in which the county, or county committee has been named as defendant.

The plaintiff in one case is the Tanglewood Lakes Owners’ Association (TLOA), which filed a lawsuit stemming from roads in the lake development being ruled public roads instead of private. That lawsuit was filed on behalf of the TLOA against the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Linn County on June 6, 2025 by J. Darcy Domoney.

The other case was filed on Sept. 24 by Jan Longenecker et al. (a group of 27 people) against the Linn County Board of Zoning Appeals. That lawsuit seeks an order finding the issuance and validation of the three building permits issued for the Sunshine Meadows subdivision was unlawful and unreasonable, reversing the decision of the board of zoning appeals and vacating the three building permits.

Foulston Siefkin LLP, one of the largest law firms in Kansas, has been hired to represent the county along with Paletta in both cases, according to information found on the Kansas District Court Public Access Portal.

The Tanglewood Case

In the Tanglewood case, Domoney asked in his petition that the Linn County Commission, declare the roads at Tanglewood Lakes private and owned by the TLOA.

On August 6, 2025, Scott Nehrbass from the law firm Foulston Siefkin, also asked that the roads at Tanglewood Lake be declared private roads, not owned by Linn County and that it is not the responsibility of the county to maintain and improve those roads.

In a joint motion filed by both attorneys on Nov. 13, 2025, both Domoney and Nehrbass moved the court for an order to change the judge in the case because the District Judge Andrea Purvis assigned to the case cannot afford the parties a fair trial.

Both attorneys requested that Purvis disqualify herself from this action and that the chief judge assign another judge to this action.

In affidavits, submitted on Dec. 5, both attorneys referred to the criminal case that Purvis had heard where it was determined that the roads were public.

Domoney proposed that Purvis would have to reverse her decision in the criminal case in order for her to rule the roads were private as both the TLOA and the county commissioners wanted. In his affidavit, Domoney stated that Purvis had said that the pleadings of both he and Nehrbass were not sufficient cause for her to reverse the prior decision on the criminal case.

Domoney ended his affidavit, “Based on the above (Purvis’ statement), I have cause to believe that a prejudice does exist that would prevent the parties from obtaining a fair and impartial trial.”

Nehrbass’ affidavit cited that Purvis may have prejudged this case based on the limited record and the different legal standards in the criminal case.

Nehrbass concluded his affidavit with, “I am worried that my client Linn County may thus be prejudiced and prevented from obtaining a fresh, fair and impartial examination of the full evidentiary record in this civil matter.”

On Dec. 18, Sixth Judicial District Chief Judge Amy Harth denied the motion for a change of judge.

“At its heart, this motion requests a change of judge as a result of what the parties anticipate Judge Purvis’ actions in the case will be, based on what she’s done in another case,” Harth wrote. “These affidavits have failed to demonstrate personal bias, prejudice or interest by Judge Purvis, nor have they demonstrated the parties cannot receive a fair and impartial trial.

“What they have shown is they disagree with her previous ruling in a case with completely separate parties.This is insufficient to support a motion to change judge under K.S.A. 20-311d. The motion for change of judge is denied.”

The Longenecker Case

Longenecker et al. filed petition on Sept. 24, 2025, contending that three building permits for Sunshine Meadows subdivision had been issued illegally. The plaintiffs are seeking an order finding the issuance and validation of building permits was unlawful and unreasonable, reversing the decision of the board of zoning appeals (BZA) and vacating the building permits.

A motion to dismiss was filed on Nov. 5 by Eric Turner with the Foulston Siefkin law firm. The motion stated that the plaintiffs’ petition should be dismissed because 1) plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal to the board of zoning appeals under the Linn County Zoning Regulations and thus lack standing to bring this action; 2) plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action because they are not aggrieved by the board of zoning appeal’s decision; and 3) the board’s decision was reasonable.

On Nov. 11, Patrick Hughes with the Adam Jones Law Firm, representing Longenecker, asked that the motion to dismiss be denied. He wrote that the motion to dismiss “improperly attempts to prompt an assessment of the merits now by (a) confusing the question of whether BZA should have heard the underlying appeal with the question of whether the Plaintiffs have

standing to judicial review of the BZA’s decision, (b) demanding an assessment of the

evidentiary basis for the allegations in the Petition which, taken as true, are sufficient to

establish standing, and (c) asking the court to assess on a motion to dismiss the core

question of the case: the lawfulness, and hence reasonableness, of the BZA’s

challenged decision. The motion should be denied.”

On Nov. 25, Turner for the board of zoning appeals replied in support of the motion to dismiss and concluded, “The Petition should be dismissed for lack of standing because (1) Plaintiffs fail to establish statutory standing because they haven’t pled facts or provided information to show they are aggrieved under K.S.A. 12-759(f), and because (2) Plaintiffs fail to establish traditional standing because they haven’t pled facts or provided any information to show they have suffered a cognizable injury.”

On Nov. 21, a hearing was scheduled for Dec. 17, at 3 p.m. at the District Court of Linn County. However, on Dec. 17 a notice was sent to all attorneys  that the hearing had been rescheduled for motion on Feb. 3, 2026 at 3 p.m. at the same location.