FRANKLIN
The United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Franklin man — running for mayor — against the City.

Kenneth L. Sanford, who late last month announced his candidacy, declined to comment on the suit at this time.

According to court documents, Sanford had his Chevy Tahoe confiscated by the City on May 15, 2014, for taxes due on his property. On Dec. 4, Sanford moved the Southampton County Circuit Court to forbid the City of Franklin from proceeding with the public auction of his home, which took place five days later.

In the analysis the court stated, “The court finds that the evidence shows that the defendant has had amble opportunity for ‘due process.’ The City of Franklin gave Sanford multiple opportunities to pay the taxes owed on the subject property, and also offered him the opportunity to enter into a payment plan to pay the taxes on a schedule. Sanford refused to pay any amount requested and at no time entered into a payment schedule with the city. He instead argued that he was a disabled veteran and was exempt from the tax. The only evidence to that effect presented at the previous hearing was a letter from the Veterans Administration showing the defendant was rated at a 10 percent disability, which is not sufficient to warrant an exemption from the payment of real estate taxes.”

Sanford then filed a lawsuit against the City of Franklin on Dec. 2, 2015. He made the following claims:

• Plaintiff alleges he owed delinquent real estate taxes to the City of Franklin and that as a result it seized and sold his house, without due process that the sale constitutes a “taking” without just compensation. In association with the sale of the house he complains that photographs were taken and advertised on the Internet of the house; and also complains that employees of a private contractor “trespassed” on his property in some fashion.

• Plaintiff alleges he owed delinquent personal property taxes to the City of Franklin and as a result the City “confiscated” his Chevy Tahoe. In association with the “confiscation” the Plaintiff seemingly complains that the City conspired to deprive him of his property without Due Process, that it was an unlawful search and seizure, and also the City committed fraud by failing to give him a receipt for taxes paid by the vehicle’s lien holder.

• Plaintiff appears to claim that the City is in violation of the Americans with Disability Act by not granting him a Real Estate Tax Exemption and also not granting him the exemption is a violation of due process, the obligation of contracts, that it constitutes a “taking” and is discriminatory.

• Plaintiff also claims publishing his name online notifying the public the City was selling his real property was defamatory.

• It appears Plaintiff claims the deed given to the purchaser of his real estate was “fabricated” and the auction was illegally conducted and as a result he is appealing an unlawful detainer action, which was the purchaser of the real property was forced to bring against him to Circuit Court for the Southampton County.

On Dec. 28, the United States District Court Eastern District of Virginia ruled to dismiss the lawsuit.

The court documents state, “It is clear from the Plaintiff’s filings that he failed to pay personal and real property taxes because he perceived that he was due an exemption. This issue has been litigated to the Circuit Court for Southampton County, appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court and denied. Plaintiff was then subject to an unlawful detainer action by the purchaser of the real property which he also appealed. The instant action is a last-minute attempt to avoid the consequences of the legal process that the actively participated in, at entry level of Virginia Court. Plaintiff has neither articulated a cause of action under any theory nor any reason why this court has jurisdiction to stay valid state court actions.”

On Jan. 20 this year, Sanford appealed this motion of dismissal. However, on Feb. 12, the court dismissed his appeal on the count that he failed to “allege facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

He has 30 days to forward a written notice of appeal for the dismissal order.