Sep 21, 2006 By Christine Haines 4 min read

District Attorney Nancy Vernon is seeking not only fines but also a jail sentence in the battle against blight in Brownsville, but it will be more than a month before testimony will resume in the case. More than two hours of testimony were heard Wednesday before Fayette County Common Pleas Judge Steve Leskinen in property owner Ernest Liggett’s appeal of a conviction before Magisterial District Judge Ronald Haggerty. Leskinen had other matters scheduled for the afternoon, so the case was tentatively continued until Oct. 26.

“I’m seeking more than financial penalties. This has gone on long enough,” Vernon said. “I will be seeking and asking for a period of incarceration.”

Vernon said since the building code violations are misdemeanors, the maximum sentence is 90 days in jail plus fines.

“The borough needs the properties either repaired or demolished. The borough needs the fines and the people of Brownsville need to know that individuals are not going to get away with ignoring the building code. I will be happy to finally get one of these cases litigated through the courts,” Vernon said.

The case involves 11 properties in and around the downtown area. Don Baugh, the code enforcement officer for the downtown area under the Brownsville Revitalization Initiative for a Great Hometown Tomorrow (BRIGHT), testified about the building maintenance violations at the properties. The citations were issued in November 2005 based on a notice of violation sent in September 2005. During that period none of the corrections required had been made, Baugh said.

Portions of two citations were withdrawn because corrections have been made since the citations were issued.

“Even though the violation existed when the citation was issued you are withdrawing it because it has been subsequently cured?” Leskinen clarified with Melinda Dellarose, the Brownsville Borough solicitor.

Liggett’s attorney, Lee Grimm, attempted to have all of the citations dismissed prior to the start of the hearing since Common Pleas Judge Ralph Warman recently dismissed another case Liggett had appealed involving the same properties. Leskinen said that since the citations were issued on different dates and under the ordinance each day of a violation constitutes a new violation, the double jeopardy issue did not apply.

Grimm also questioned how the code enforcement officer determined the ownership of the buildings and whether he checked the deeds before or after sending out the citations.

“Does it matter when he looked at the deed? If he looked at the Web site and the information was subsequently proved right, does it matter when he looked at it?” Leskinen said.

Baugh said he has generally found the county Web site to be accurate regarding ownership information.

“I pulled up the ownership records of 129 properties and they were all correct. Sometimes the photos don’t match, but I’ve never had a problem with ownership,” Baugh testified.

Of the 11 properties cited, seven are owned by Manor Investments LTD, three are owned by Alpha Financial Mortgage Corp. and one is listed as being owned by Ernest and Marilyn Liggett. Grimm raised questioned whether Baugh filed citations against Liggett or against the corporations.

Baugh said his intent was to serve the corporations.

“The code states I will notify the person responsible,” Baugh said.

Leskinen said that when the hearing continues in October, he wants to see the legal authority the commonwealth is using to indicate that Liggett is the person responsible for the properties. Following the hearing Vernon produced a compliance affidavit signed by Ernest and Marilyn Liggett in 2002 in which they acknowledge also being known as Manor Investments.

Leskinen said he also needs clarification from Haggerty’s office, since transcripts of the original case before Haggerty do not note the corporate ownership of the cited properties.

“Technical defects do not result in a dismissal,” Leskinen said.