2 Fayette County blaze locations under dispute |

2 Fayette County blaze locations under dispute

The causes of two fires that occurred 23 minutes apart at a barn and lumber yard in Fayette County on Sunday remain under investigation while court records show the owners are involved in a family feud involving the properties.

The first fire broke out at 1:42 a.m. at a barn at 359 Imel Road in Saltlick Township, said Trooper Russell Freed, an assistant deputy fire marshal with state police at Uniontown. The second was called in at 2:05 a.m. at Nicholson’s lumber yard on Indian Creek Valley Road in nearby Springfield Township.

No one was hurt in either blaze. Freed yesterday said the causes of both fires remain under investigation.

Civil court records unrelated to the fires indicate the barn is on property owned by Kenneth Nicholson Jr. The records indicate Nicholson and his father, Kenneth Nicholson Sr., of 111 Hawkins Hollow Road, Normalville, are battling over an alleged $700,000 debt and pieces of farming equipment.

In August, Nicholson Sr., who owns the lumber yard property, filed two civil lawsuits against his son.

In the first, the father is seeking to recover $700,000 from Nicholson Jr., who according to court records had operated a sawmill business on his father’s property. According to the filing, Nicholson Jr. borrowed the money in March 2001. Terms of the agreement called for Nicholson Jr. to make full or partial payment on the loan to his father “at any time for any reason,” according to the lawsuit.

In court papers filed by his attorney, Nicholson Jr. denies the allegations. He indicates his father “has not demanded payment in writing in accordance” with the agreement. In addition, Nicholson Jr. indicates he entered into the $700,000 agreement with the stipulation his father was retiring and would transfer his property to him.

In addition, Nicholson Jr. indicates in a counterclaim that his father was supposed to have retired from the sawmill business in 2001, but instead used the business’ line of credit through 2007 to spend “exorbitant amounts of money.” Nicholson Jr. had to repay those loans, according to the counterclaim.

In the second lawsuit, Nicholson Sr. alleges his son is in possession of $107,500 worth of his equipment and livestock. Nicholson Sr. alleged the horses and equipment are at his son’s residence on Imel Road.

In court papers, Nicholson Jr. acknowledged that his father owns some of the disputed equipment and one of the horses.

In a counterclaim, he alleges his father is in wrongful possession of livestock and equipment that he owns. In addition, Nicholson Jr. alleges his father owes him $419,400 in horse-boarding fees. According to the court papers, Nicholson Jr. boarded up to 30 of his father’s horses at a time on his Imel Road property between 2006 and 2010.

In a third lawsuit filed in October, Nicholson Jr. wanted a judge to order his father to allow him onto the sawmill property. According to the filing, Nicholson Jr. had been operating the sawmill on his father’s property for a number of years until his father locked him out.

In addition, Nicholson Jr. alleged his father had removed equipment from the sawmill site, as well as logs that Nicholson Jr. had stored there and steel and other materials.

On Oct. 27, Judge Steve Leskinen issued an order prohibiting Nicholson Sr. from selling the sawmill property or removing equipment from the site.

Nicholson Jr. and his attorney, Rich Bower of Connellsville, declined comment. Nicholson Sr. and his attorney, David Reiss of Connellsville, did not return phone calls seeking comment.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.