×

Trailer case tossed out of court

ESCANABA — A claim by Former Delta Conservation District CEO Rory Mattson arguing the Conservation District owes him $4,000 for his portion of a jointly-owned dump trailer has been thrown out of small claims court.

“Under Michigan law, ‘…the state, a political subdivision of the state, or any other government agency shall not be a party to any action in the small claims division.’ see MCL 600.8424(3) Accordingly, if the District is (a) ‘political subdivision of the state’ or a governmental agency, then Plaintiff’s claim against the District should not have been filed in the small claims division of the District Court, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide it,” Delta County District Court Judge Steve Parks, who also oversees small claims, wrote in a judgement sent to Mattson and the Conservation District Oct. 23.

The judgement was received by the district Monday.

According to testimony given in open court and documents entered into evidence during the roughly six-hour hearing on the matter on Oct. 16, the district, Mattson, and the county entered into a verbal agreement to purchase the $6,000 dump trailer from a friend of Mattson in January of 2016. The purchase was intended to be an even split between the two parties, with each entity and Mattson contributing $2,000.

According to Mattson, his $2,000 portion was 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, and three days later, on Sept. 5, he wrote a personal check to the district for an additional $2,000.

Mattson said the second payment was used to credit $1,000 to the conservation district and $1,000 to the county, bringing the district and the county’s portions to $1,000 each and his total ownership stake in the trailer to $4,000.

“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 is that the initial $2,000 payment never happened. According to testimony and documents presented by Conservation District Board Member Joe Kaplan, 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 been composed of $4,000 from the conservation district and $2,000 from the county.

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

Despite not ruling on the case, Parks noted in his judgement that parts of the testimony and evidence provided raised concerns about the district’s management under Mattson’s leadership.

“After hearing the testimony and reviewing the exhibits, the Court has a number of concerns arising out of the purchase of the trailer, including, but not limited to, possible conflicts of interest, unusual bookkeeping practices, lack of oversight, and the unchecked discretionary spending of public monies,” Parks wrote.

Mattson retired from the district at the end of last year.

Starting at $2.99/week.

Subscribe Today