Judge to decide if Hungerford land lawsuit will continue
Lawyers for Orange County Public Schools argued before a judge Thursday morning for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed over the future of 100 acres of land that once housed the Robert Hungerford Normal and Industrial School, a historic Black educational facility in Eatonville.
The land was nearly sold to a developer who backed out in
March after residents spoke out against the plan to build housing that they feared would be too expensive for most people who have generations-deep roots in the community. They feared if the new housing was built, current residents could be priced out of their town.
When the sale fell through, the school board announced that it was no longer seeking a buyer and said the district would work with the town to determine how to proceed.
However, the school board has so far rejected the request for the land to be donated to the town so Eatonville’s residents and elected officials can determine its future alone. The district’s stance is that it would be illegal to donate the land, a position that legal experts who reviewed the law and policy at the Orlando Sentinel’s request say is not true.
The lawsuit was filed by attorneys with the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization, which is representing the Association to Preserve the Eatonville Community (PEC) and Bea Leach Hatler, the great-granddaughter of Robert Hungerford, for whom the school was named.
At the Thursday hearing, Chris Wilson, attorney for the school district, called on Judge Vincent Falcone III to dismiss the lawsuit. According to Wilson, the lawsuit is moot because there is no pending sale and no search for a buyer. Because of that, he said there was no controversy for the court to decide.
Wilson went on to criticize a 1950s deed restriction that was imposed when the Florida Supreme Court allowed the school board to purchase the land for well below market value against the will of Hatler’s grandmother, Constance Hungerford Fenske,
and a group of concerned parties including Mary McLeod Bethune.
Bethune, the legendary educator who founded Bethune Cookman University, offered up a plan to sit on the board and make Hungerford an affiliate institution for students who wanted to attend the university.
The deed restriction required that the land be used to educate Black children. Though OCPS has spent decades fighting to erode that requirement, Wilson argued that the restriction should have been considered voided when schools were legally desegregated and claimed that the only way to follow it now would be to operate a segregated school on the land, making the restriction “unenforceable.”
Wilson also questioned if it was appropriate for the lawsuit to be filed at all because, in his view, Hatler and the PEC had no standing to sue, as they would not be impacted more than the general public by any decisions made for the future of the land.
“They have not alleged that they have any rights under the deed,” Wilson told the judge. “They are not the trust. They are not the trustees. They are not beneficiaries of the trust. There is no reference to either plaintiff under the deed. There is no doubt as to their rights because they have none.”
SPLC attorney Kirsten Anderson argued that the PEC, run by Executive Director N.Y. Nathiri, has been working in the community to preserve its history for decades, has provided educational resources for the town’s children and has long been involved in helping to decide the future of the town. Anderson added that the importance of the Zora Neale Hurston National Museum of Fine Arts, operated by the PEC, has also been cemented in the town’s comprehensive plan that lays out priorities for Eatonville’s growth.
And though attorneys for OCPS said Hatler, an Oregon resident, has no standing to bring forth the suit either, Anderson emphasized that her family donated the land more than a century ago for the expressed purpose of providing educational opportunities for Black Eatonville residents.
She added that the family is so still significant to the land that, when a Winter Park development company was set to buy the property, the legal entity created to purchase the land was also named after the Hungerfords.
“She’s not just some member of the general public,” Anderson argued. “She is a descendant of the original donors of the land who dedicated its use for educational purposes since the 1800s. Their name, the Hungerford name, is still on the property.”
Anderson also argued that Wilson’s claim that there is no controversy because the land is not currently for sale is invalid because of the past actions taken by the school board.
“That is an argument that requires completely ignoring the past,” Anderson said. “We’re talking about more than 10 years of the school district entering into contracts. … They’ve spent a lot time trying to remove this use restriction for the purposes of selling it unencumbered. So the notion that because a developer walked away from a sale that they’re no longer going to pursue something that they have invested enormous time and resources in just doesn’t meet the test for mootness. The underlying case and controversy remains.”
Falcone did not make a ruling to determine if the case has standing to continue. He asked both attorneys to file additional documents laying out arguments for why the case should either continue or be dismissed. The deadline to submit the documents is Oct. 12 and the judge will make a decision sometime thereafter.
Nathiri, who attended the hearing, did not comment directly on the case or the court proceedings but she said she believes she has every right to fight for the Hungerford land despite the school district’s assertion that she does not.
“As a third-generation Eatonvillian, I very proud,” Nathiri said. “Eatonville is my hometown. … I grew up in Eatonville. No one has more right than I to talk about Eatonville, to express my love for Eatonville.”