YOUR AD HERE »

Developer sues Wilkinson

Sarah S. Chung

The development firm that joined up with Smuggler Mountain landownerWilk Wilkinson to develop his landholdings is now suing Wilkinsonfor breach of contract.North Star Developers Limited Liability Corp. filed a lawsuitWednesday in Pitkin County District Court against Wilkinson andother Smuggler landowners for breaching North Star’s purchasecontract. In addition to Wilkinson, plaintiffs named in the suit includeTulasi Wilkinson, Jaya Wilkinson, Marjory L. Kephart and FidelityTrust.Last October, North Star entered into an agreement with the jointproperty owners for an option to purchase 240 acres on Smuggler.North Star is a Colorado company that is primarily in the businessof purchasing and developing property.Wilkinson, who has been thwarted for years in his attempts toget a development application for Smuggler approved in PitkinCounty, linked up with North Star in hopes the company could pushthrough a development plan for the landholdings. Smuggler Mountainflanks Aspen to the east.According to North Star’s lawsuit, Wilkinson and his associatesmisrepresented that they “owned all of the property that was thesubject of the contract, as well as the road through it … suchwarranties and representations were false and were known to thedefendants to be false.”Wilkinson has long contended he owns Smuggler Mountain Road, whichbisects his landholdings, based on historical documents datingback to the last century. Pitkin County has declared it a publicroad.Attorney Jim True, North Star’s local attorney, confirmed thatownership of Smuggler Mountain Road is “an aspect” of the lawsuit,as is the development company’s belief that part of the land coveredin the contract is not owned by the Wilkinsons, Kephart or FidelityTrust.The suit seeks “general, special, and punitive damages.” No specificmonetary claim has been made by North Star, said True. The development company is claiming loss of opportunity, lostprofits, and “special damages that are the natural and probableconsequence of the defendants’ breach of contract.”