Jury trial sought over timber case.

The owners of a 43-acre parcel adjacent to the Whaleback Natural Area in Leland Township have filed a lawsuit against the Leelanau Conservancy in response to a suit the land preservation group filed against them.

Fred Jr. and Janet Roth, through their attorney Donald J. Molosky of Petoskey, filed a complaint and demand for a jury trial against the Conservancy on Thursday, April 17 in 13th Circuit Court. Molosky also filed a motion to dismiss the Conservancy’s lawsuit against the couple.

The Conservancy on March 13 filed suit in Circuit Court against the Roths and Lonnie Sparks, owner of a timber company in Kalamazoo, to stop Sparks from cutting select trees on the 43-acre parcel that surrounds an access way into the Whaleback Natural Area. Conservancy officials objected to a planned harvest of trees on the parcel, which they claimed violated the conservation easement agreement between the property owners and the land preservation group.

The Roth’s suit alleges misconduct by the Conservancy for violating terms of the conservation easement, further contending that Conservancy officials or their representatives may only enter the property at reasonable times and may not interfere with the Roth’s enjoyment of the land. The suit also contends the Conservancy has no right to permit others to enter the property for purposes unrelated to the conservation easement, and the general public is not allowed on the property.

In addition, the suit alleges the Conservancy has made false statements and representations that it owns the property. Also alleged: fraudulent and innocent misrepresentation; interference with business relations; termination of the easement agreement and quiet title; trespass; defamation; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Speaking from their seasonal residence in Scottsdale, Ariz., Tuesday, Janet Roth said the Conservancy’s suit was very aggressive, and she and her husband felt they had to respond in like fashion.

“Their suit was unnecessary. Since they sued us, it is our obligation to do the same because they have slandered us with (an Enterprise) article and their lawsuit,” she said. Roth said they were also upset that the article stated the couple declined to comment on the suit. She said they were never contacted by the newspaper. In fact, the Enterprise contacted the Roths for comment, but received a return call too late to be included in that week’s edition.

“All they want to see is their rights protected,” Molosky said. “The Conservancy jumped the gun with their lawsuit.”

Molosky said a conservation easement agreement established in 1996 allows the family to harvest trees from the parcel as long as there is a forest management plan on file to guide the harvest. The Roths had registered forester Richard Cooper put together a forest management plan and it was approved by both sides in January 1997.

Molosky said the only approval the Conservancy had a right to under the agreement was the forest management plan. “That was the only approval they got,” he said.

The lawsuit and Molosky said Conservancy officials never directly contacted the Roths about their concerns with the planned timber harvest. He also alleges the Conservancy had no right to contact the logging contractor and that after contacting Sparks, he allegedly told Conservancy officials he would not do anything on the property until issues related to the easement were settled.

Since filing its lawsuit in March, the Conservancy has removed Sparks from the suit after he asked for his money back from the Roths and terminated the contract.

Conservancy executive director Brian Price said yesterday he is still hopeful the two sides can settle their differences over the matter outside of the courtroom.

“We’re open to a resolution on this matter,” he said.

Molosky said Tuesday the Roths are simply seeking to protect their property rights. “This has caused quite a stir in the community, and the Roths want to see their rights protected,” he said.