A state Supreme Court hearing will be held April 9 to hear arguments why the 2022 sale of the Hotel Lenhart should not be voided.

Further submissions in the case are due from attorneys by April 2, according to the Order to Show Cause signed by state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon.

Two lawsuits were filed last week related to the sale. The Johnston family has filed a lawsuit asking Hanlon to nullify the $3.5 million sale because sale conditions – namely a mortgage – haven’t been met yet. On May 5, 2023, the Johnstons said they had not been notified if the Currys had satisfied the contingencies in the sale agreement, prompting a letter requesting an update. On May 25, a second letter was sent requesting an update and indicating the Johnstons would set a 30-day “time is of the essence” closing date if no response was received.

William and Jill Curry, according to court documents, made a new offer of $3 million in mortgage financing and $500,000 in seller financing. The Johnstons rejected that condition and, under the letter they sent in May 2023, declared the sale void.

“Despite the plaintiffs’ clear and unambiguous declaration that they were declaring a contract null and void, the plaintiffs continued in good faith thereafter in attempts to negotiate a new contract with new financing terms with the defendants,” the Johnstons’ lawsuit states. “However, the parties were ultimately unable to agree upon any terms, and on January 19, 2024, counsel for the plaintiffs wrote to counsel for the defendants, stating inconclusively that they were not interested in engaging in any further negotiations.”

A second lawsuit filed last week by the Currys seeks to have Hanlon enforce the sale contract signed by the Johnstons and the Currys. The disagreement comes in the parties’ view of whether or not the 2022 contract was followed. While the Johnstons say the terms of the sale wasn’t met on time, the Currys say they have lived up to their end of the contract and are asking state Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon to require the sale to proceed.

“Plaintiffs have substantially performed all of their contractual obligations and are ready, willing and able to perform their remaining obligations under the contract of sale,” the Currys state in their court filing. “Upon information and belief, defendants are able to convey the premises and complete their obligations as set forth in the contract of sale. Defendants now refuse and have continued to refuse to complete the contract of sale and convey the premises to the plaintiffs, without just cause and despite the demands of the plaintiffs that they do so.”