When the architecture firm, Rosemann Associates, sued St. Louis Restoration over the $54 million renovation of the Chemical Building downtown on Jan. 29., it was a matter of formalities, according to Scott Rosemann, chief operating officer, and structural engineering director.
“We did conduct architectural design services for the project over the course of several months and have outstanding invoices,” Rosemann told the St. Louis Record. “The project, at least as we designed it, at this time is not moving forward and Missouri lien law requires that an official lawsuit be filed in order to preserve lien rights for the future.”
As previously reported, the 17-story Chemical Building, located at 721 Olive St., has been largely vacant except for a jewelry company and developer Restoration St. Louis still owes Rosemann some $160,000 out of a $192,029 total.
“Our designs were mostly completed,” Rosemann said. “I think they had not yet been fully approved for a permit from the city building department. So, there may or may not be some work that was left at that time.”
Other defendants named in the complaint include not only St. Louis Restoration but also Morgan Communities and Premier Bank of Ohio.
“The ownership entity that we contracted with had a bunch of different people involved,” said Rosemann. “The terms of the settlement agreement have payment provisions and as soon as those are finished, we will drop the action against everyone.”
Rosemann declined to comment further on Morgan Communities, which is allegedly affiliated with Morgan Management. According to the Department of Justice, former top executives of Morgan Management, including Todd and Kevin Morgan, conspired to commit bank fraud in 2019.
“As it pertains to the lawsuit, we really only filed because of the time frames involved,” he said. “We are not pursuing any other legal action against them.”
St. Louis Business Journals reported that the lawsuit, filed in St. Louis Circuit Court, does not disclose when remaining payments are due.
“We have reached a settlement agreement with ownership and they have had thus far met all of their obligations on that settlement agreement but the timeframe of the settlement agreement extended beyond the statutory deadlines for filing the lawsuit,” Rosemann added.