ESCANABA — The Delta Conservation District and Former Conservation District CEO Rory Mattson were in court Wednesday, hashing out how much — if anything — Mattson should be paid to buy out his portion of a dump trailer that was allegedly purchased by Mattson, the district, and Delta County in January of 2016.

According to Mattson, the initial purchase of the dump trailer was a three-way, even split, with each entity paying $2,000 towards the $6,000 trailer purchase and Mattson’s portion being subtracted from a bonus he was paid for 2015. Then, in September of 2022, the district board asked Mattson to sell a number of items, including the trailer add three days later, on Sept. 5, he wrote a personal check to the district for an additional $2,000.

The second payment was used to credit $1,000 to the conservation district and $1,000 to the county. Mattson says this brings the district and the county’s portions to $1,000 each and his total ownership stake in the trailer to $4,000. He is suing the district in small claims court for these funds to be returned to him.

“I’m still willing — but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere — to pay the final $2,000, and that would have to go $1,000 to the county; $1,000 to the conservation district. And that’s what I had originally offered to do, but it’s not going well, so I’ve been trying to do that, it’s not going anywhere, so I have $4,000 in something that basically isn’t owned by anybody,” said Mattson.

The district’s position, however, is that the initial $2,000 payment never happened. According to testimony and documents presented by Conservation District Board Member Joe Kaplan Wednesday, the $6,500 incentive bonus given to Mattson for 2015 was fully-applied to an IRA investment account. If true, the initial buy-in would have composed of $4,000 from the conservation district and $2,000 from the county.

Mattson’s 2022 payment, which is documented in the district’s accounting system, instead brings the district’s portion to $3,000, Rory’s to $2,000, and the county’s to $1,000.

Kaplan raised a number of concerns about the payment from 2022, including that the check itself said “Buy Partnership Trailer” in the memo line, as if it were payment for the entirety of the trailer.

“His $2,000 investment, clearly he intended to drive away with that — well, (the trailer) was already on his property. And that would have been the end of the story, and I have other exhibits here that I think demonstrate that.

In my opinion something nefarious happened,” said Kaplan.

Kaplan further argued that a number of publicly made statements from Mattson claiming that each entity owned $2,000, that he was willing to pay $4,000 to buy out the other parties, the fact the 2022 payment was never publicly mentioned in these discussions, and an exit form filed upon his resignation that included a handwritten note initialed by Mattson saying “1/3 trailer still owned by Rory. Also 1/3 by District, 1/3 by county” may have been a cover for Mattson’s lack of initial investment.

Mattson denied the allegation, saying the “1/3” was supposed to represent the number of parties invested and not the proportions of their investment. He also said he had stuck with the initial $2,000 equal portions and offered to pay $4,000 when discussing payment because the actual values were confusing and difficult to follow.

“It was so confusing and I wish I would have now. Hindsight’s better, but I always went back to the original because, you heard it and you’ve seen it in the minutes from the county board, my board, the previous board, $2,000, $2,000, $2,000,” he said.

Kaplan said that the district cannot sell the trailer because it is not in possession of a valid title, the trailer was never registered and it is still in the name of the seller, a friend of Mattson who hunts with him. Mattson has said that the trailer was not registered because the Secretary of State’s Office did not know how to register a trailer registered to two governmental entities and a private party. He said Wednesday that the SOS had provided him with a municipal license plate that allowed the trailer to be moved.

A photocopy of the title submitted into evidence did not name the county as a party to the trailer’s ownership, listing only Mattson and the district. Kaplan testified that a photocopy was the only copy of the title in the district’s possession.

If the conservation district were in possession of a valid title and were able to register the trailer, Kaplan said the district would attempt to sell the trailer for a minimum of $6,000 and pay each party their relative amount. Mattson was uninterested in the proposal as a way to settle the dispute, as the two parties differed on what the relative amounts would be.

While there were no attorneys present Wednesday — as is typical for small claims court — both parties were allowed to call witnesses and give testimony of their own. Mattson had initially filed for nine witnesses but only called four of them:

— Jack Herrick, former conservation district treasurer who co-owns property with Mattson.

— Steve Wery, who served as the parks manager under Mattson while the conservation district managed the county’s parks system. Now that the county is once again operating the parks in-house, Wery is a county employee in the same role.

— Dave Moyle, former county commissioner who served as the county board chair in January when the board voted to sell its stake in the trailer for $2,000.

— Mike Segorski, current conservation district board chair.

Kaplan called only two witnesses:

— Christine Williams, Kaplan’s wife, who worked in IT and data retrieval prior to her retirement and has been volunteering her technical services to the district.

— Segorski, who only briefly returned to the stand for the conservation district.

Over the course of the roughly six-hour hearing, Mattson and Kaplan testified, presented documents as evidence, called and questioned witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses and each other. Delta County District Court Judge Steve Parks, who also oversees small claims, also asked questions of witnesses and worked to keep the conversation focused on the trailer and not other grievances the two parties had.

At the end of the hearing, Parks said he needed time to review the exhibits submitted as evidence before he could make a final ruling on the case.

“I need to look through theses documents more thoroughly. I don’t look through these before a trial because I don’t know if they’re going to be admitted,” he said.

The conservation district and Mattson will be notified by the court when Parks is prepared to issue a verbal judgement. If Parks instead opts to issue a written judgement, both parties will be notified and the judgement will be sent by mail.