By Bobby Bordelon\r\n\r\nNearly $200,000 worth of work is at the center of a civil case between The Greenbrier Hotel Corporation and Welding Inc. in the Greenbrier County Circuit Court. In a Tuesday, September 22 hearing, the court denied a motion that would have immediately brought the case to an end, requiring the Greenbrier Hotel Corporation to pay the amount Welding Inc. alleges it is owed.\r\n\r\nWelding Inc., represented by attorney Kelly Morgan, filed a motion for the immediate resolution to the case under a summary judgment in February of this year, but the case has been delayed due to several factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic. The motion for summary judgment asserted that Welding Inc. and CSX Hotels Inc. entered into a contract on July 25, 2008, that would ultimately cost, after the approval of several change orders, $998,930.\r\n\r\n\u201cThis was supposed to be a one-year project which was a tear down of a water storage tank and a replacement with a one million gallon water storage tank for the sole and private use of The Greenbrier resort,\u201d Morgan explained. \u201c\u2026 Completely separate from White Sulphur Springs.\u201d\r\n\r\nAccording to the document, work began in September of 2008 and was completed in July 2009. During this time, however, CSX declared bankruptcy and The Greenbrier was sold, through stock purchases, to the Justice Family Group. Before the sale, CSX paid $800,136, leaving $198,794. An inability to collect the amount, Morgan said, was the reason for filing the lawsuit in 2018.\r\n\r\n\u201cWelding Inc. is not in the business of filing lawsuits against the remaining amount on contracts for which they performed work,\u201d Morgan said. \u201cIt was a final resort to file this action. The officers and the personnel at The Greenbrier Resort were firmly aware of this going on.\u201d\r\n\r\nIn a recent hearing in the Circuit Court, it was determined that the Greenbrier Hotel Corporation would be the correct entity to name in the suit. However, Morgan explained that in filings since that time, this appeared to be in dispute.\r\n\r\n\u201cRepresentations that have been made after have not been consistent with that hearing. I've been very frustrated. \u2026 In that meeting \u2026 there were several other defendants that I was willing to bring into bring the right one. I was willing to say here, today, which is the property entity and I was willing to dismiss any other entity \u2026 and maintain against the proper one.\u201d\r\n\r\nDefense attorney Christopher Schroeck responded that the Greenbrier Hotel Corporation was the correct entity and that references to the Justice Family Group might have been accidentally left in a filed response or could have been in the document for another reason.\r\n\r\n\u201cThe issues are \u2026 one, whether there was a valid contract, two, whether there was performance on thee contract and, three, what was paid, if anything,\u201d said Schroeck. \u201cThese are the issues that are an issue of disputed material fact.\u201d\r\n\r\nMorgan pushed back against this.\r\n\r\n\u201cHonestly I don't see any of those as being disputed in this case based on the documents, based on the bankruptcy proceedings,\u201d Morgan said. \u201cThis project was ongoing during the purchase of The Greenbrier by the Justice Family Group. \u2026 It's very disingenuous. We got the property party, we've done it again, and these are just games. They're delay tactics, quite honestly. I feel like it's a waste of everyone's time to address whether there's a valid contract.\u201d\r\n\r\nShrek disagreed, asserting that the parties were not yet in agreement and more evidence, in paper work and potential depositions of those that signed the contracts or worked on the project, was needed.\r\n\r\n\u201cThis case is not appropriate for summary judgment because you don't really have much in terms of admissible evidence,\u201d said Schroeck. \u201c\u2026 Plaintiff is entitled to believe plaintiff has a strong case, and plaintiff is entitled to pursue that case, but what plaintiff is not entitled to do is skip the part where they prove the case.\u201d\r\n\r\nDent asserted that the case would follow all the proper procedures under the law, but also emphasized the need to prioritize the case by the parties and move it to resolution.\r\n\r\n\u201cI will assure you that in this court you will be entitled to what is allowable action,\u201d Dent said. \u201cWhat you will not be entitled to is drag your feet like you have in the request and in submitting your responses.\u201d\r\n\r\nAlthough motion for summary judgment was denied, but Dent acknowledged the possibility of another request for it after the discovery process has been completed. A hearing was set for the further review of the case.