The ultimate fate of the Confederate monument on the Daviess County Courthouse is still undetermined. With the question of its relocation still not having been answered, now there’s an extra layer to the issue as a lawsuit has been filed over ownership of the monument.
The Kentucky Division of the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) filed a lawsuit against Daviess County Fiscal Court over ownership rights last week. Additionally, the suit seeks a judgement ordering Fiscal Court to return ownership of the statue to the UDC and that it not be relocated to another site.
According to the suit, the Daviess County Confederate Association partnered with the John C. Breckenridge Chapter 306 Daughters of the Confederacy (later named the UDC) to raise $3,500 to bring the Owensboro Confederate Memorial to fruition.
The suit claims that Chapter 306 was the entity responsible for commissioning and erecting the statue, which was dedicated at a ceremony held at the Daviess County Courthouse in 1900.
Though Chapter 306 dissolved in 1970, the legal complaint says that the chapter’s assets were transferred to the Kentucky UDC.
In August 2020, Fiscal Court voted unanimously to have the monument relocated to another site. A Monument Relocation Committee composed of five individuals later proposed to have the monument moved to either the Owensboro Museum of Fine Art or the Owensboro Museum of Science and History.
However, city officials have expressed concern about placing the statue on city grounds.
County Attorney Claud Porter said the county will file a response to this lawsuit, saying the UDC’s only claim of ownership is “that they raised funds and asked that the county accept placement on the courthouse lawn.”
Porter, who has maintained that the statue belongs to the county, said the UDC’s claims lack legal or factual basis.
The UDC’s attorney, Nick Goetz, said otherwise. He said Fiscal Court revoked the longstanding agreement between the UDC and county by voting to have the statue removed from the grounds.
Goetz said he hasn’t seen any proof of ownership from the county, and that he doesn’t believe the property was ever transferred over to the county.
A resolution was drafted last year saying the monument belonged to the UDC, but it was never acted on and the vote about relocating the monument was postponed at the time.
Goetz said he doesn’t understand why the county would want to claim ownership of the statue and put the burden of having to relocate it on its shoulders.
“Why would they want to spend money on moving it?” he asked. “Before they even started the Monument Relocation Committee, the UDC was saying they’d take the property. In doing some research on this case, it’s a pretty common argument that when you have a licensed agreement over 100 years old, it’s intended to be forever. This was intended to be a permanent installation because, at that time, it was intended to be a permanent licensed agreement.”
The documents of ownership provided to Goetz by the county include an insurance agreement that states the county is insured for “fine arts” on the property, including statues. However, Goetz said he doesn’t believe that shows proof of ownership.
A temporary restraining order to prohibit any action on relocating the monument was also included in the suit against the county. Goetz said that’s because the argument pertaining to the statue’s relocation only started less than a year ago, so the UDC was well within the statute of limitations to prevent it from being moved until the matter is settled.
