Dec. 31, 2001
 
 A suit claiming the the Canal Place Authority failed to negotiate for the purchase of the Cumberland Electric property in downtown Cumberland was filed recently in Allegany County’s circuit court.
 
 The Authority purchased the property in question for $1,025,000 at a public auction held November 14. The state of Maryland had appraised the property’s value at $2.1 million in June of 2000, according to the suit filed.
 
 The property in question consists of a little over 3 acres of land, a 30,489 sq. ft. steel frame commercial building and a 100-space asphalt parking lot.
 
 The business known as Cumberland Electric failed in May of 2001, and in October a civil action was filed to foreclose on the property on behalf of First United National Bank & Trust, which held the mortgage. The mortgage stood at $592,736.88, and the Small Business Administration also had a claim against the property for $486,957.98. In all, total indebtedness secured by the property exceeded $1.7 million, records show.
 
 In the suit, the plaintiff, Canal Place Investors LLC, a limited liability company created by the owners of Cumberland Electric, claims that the Canal Place Authority made it known as early as 1995 that it intended to purchase the land owned by the plaintiff in downtown Cumberland.
 
 In June 2000, state authorities contacted the owners of Cumberland Electric to arrange to have the property appraised in anticipation of that purchase. In early 2001, Cumberland Electric owners asked when the purchase of the property would begin, as Cumberland Electric faced financial problems. The Canal Place Authority indicated that it had no idea when funding for the purchase would become available. The business failed in May of that year.
 
 In the suit, Cumberland Electric’s owners assert that, according to state code, the Authority is to first attempt to acquire property through negotiation and purchase. If it cannot acquire property through negotiation and purchase, it may exercise its powers of condemnation. The Authority at no time attempted to negotiate for the purchase of the property in question, the suit claims, in spite of the availability of funds to do so.
 
 The suit also alleges that because it was publicly known that the property in question was to be purchased for the Canal Place project, the property was essentially unmarketable; the owners stood little to no chance of selling to a private entity to avoid foreclosure.
 
 In the suit’s words, “The Authority’s failure to perform its statutory duty and its representations concerning the lack of funding were made in bad faith, deceived the owner and violated the public trust and confidence reposed in the Authority.”
 
 It is requested that the sale of the property be restrained.
 
 In response, State Attorney General Joseph Curran and two assistant attorneys general, representing the Canal Place Authority, filed to have the suit dismissed, claiming that the Authority has no duty to negotiate to purchase property, and that the Authority is entitled to purchase property via public auction under Maryland Code.
 
 The plaintiff is requesting that the case be heard by a jury.