Brookfield recently settled a pair of lawsuits with paving contractors, including a dispute that had its origins in 2003.

On April 11, village trustees voted unanimously to settle a lawsuit brought against Brookfield in 2010 by Swallow Construction Company related to a street paving project in the north Hollywood section of the village.

Since 2003, the village has resisted paying any more money to Swallow, which it alleged took two years more to complete the routine project than the contract called for. In February 2010 after years of wrangling with the village, Swallow filed a lawsuit seeking the balance of the money it said it was owed, $258,525, stating the village failed to administer the contract correctly.

The company settled for about half that amount. In exchange for Swallow dropping this and future suits against the village related to the 2003 project, Brookfield has agreed to pay the company $130,000.

During the past year, the village paid just over $20,000 in legal fees related to the lawsuit. That does not include any legal fees incurred prior to the 2010 lawsuit. Brookfield in 2004 was party to a lawsuit against Swallow Construction filed by a subcontractor on the job. That suit was settled in 2005.

In March, Brookfield trustees voted to settle one half of a lawsuit involving two other companies for work done on sidewalk and alley paving back in 2009.

On March 28 the village agreed to pay VCNA Prairie $20,000 to settle that company’s complaint that it had not been paid for cement it provided to King’s Point General Cement.

“The village ended up taking that assignment of [VCNA Prairie]’s claim against King’s Point, so Brookfield is suing [King’s Point] for that cost,” said Village Attorney Richard Ramello.

While VCNA Prairie’s claim has been resolved, Brookfield is now suing King’s Point for the $20,000 the village paid as a settlement, in addition to another $62,254 Brookfield says it overpaid to King’s Point.

Ramello has filed a request in court for King’s Point to admit it had been mistakenly overpaid. Ramello said what likely happened is that the village cut a check for payment but received another statement asking for payment, which it also paid.

“By the time they got the check, they may have sent out another dunning notice,” Ramello said. “They cashed both checks, but they never refunded the money.”

To date, the lawsuit involving VCNA and King’s Point has cost the village just over $23,000 in legal fees.