I spoke with the plaintiff's attorney at some length this afternoon. She was very open and answered all my questions at length and with no attempt to parse words or be evasive in any way. She and the plaintiffs have entered into a confidentiality agreement with the developer, but that did not interfere with my gathering of what I thought was important information. Here's a summary of the major points of our conversation.[br]
- The five plaintiffs, all associated with the Property Owner's Association (POA), have been in discussions regarding various issues in The Villages for some time, apparently more than a year.
[br]
- A couple of the major issues they were attempting to get action on from the developer were the absence of any sort of sinking fund to pay for future rehabilitation or replacement of facilities which the developer had sold to the CVCCD as well as the widening of the golf cart paths north of CR 466. While some progress was made, the discussions finally reached a point where the developer's representative, former CVCCD Supervisor Pete Wahl, advised the group that nothing was going to be done to address certain of their concerns and they'd have to hire a lawyer to proceed any further on discussion of those issues. Apparently, the five principal "resident's representatives" from the POA decided that they would do just that.
[br]
- Once the five plaintiffs engaged counsel, their list of issues expanded somewhat and the discussions with the developer's representatives and lawyers became more regular and serious. While a lawsuit was certainly threatened by the plaintiffs, discussions continued for many months with no formal legal action actually being initiated. With the assistance of the five plaintiffs, all of whom were residents of The Villages and knowledgeable about the issues, plaintiff's counsel was able to organize a body of evidence that would almost certainly prevail should a lawsuit actually be filed and go to trial. The discussions then began to take the form of negotiating a settlement of the many issues identified by the plaintiffs.
[br]
- In the midst of these discussions the "straw vote" regarding the ongoing management of recreational facilities and programs was placed on the ballot of the 2006 local and county elections. Villages residents expressed a desire to have residents manage recreation programs and facilities rather than the developer although the plurality of the vote was very thin and inconsistent across the several districts in the Villages. But after some discussion and further negotiation, the Resident's Advisory Committee (RAC) was formally organized by an ordinance passed by the CVCDD board. That committee has been active in advising the CVCCD management and the Recreation Department for several months now.
[br]
- Plaintiff's counsel advised the five plaintiffs that proceeding with a lawsuit on their issues would require a major personal commitment of time and could result in considerable financial risk to them personally. They were advised regarding the amount of work and time which would be required to assemble sufficient evidence to prevail in a negotiation or lawsuit against the developer. They were also advised of some fairly significant financial risks they would be exposed to should they decide to proceed. They agreed to continue.
[br]
- Both the developer and the plaintiffs continued their negotiations without any transparency to the public thru press releases, articles, letters or any other form of explanation of what was happening. This was done with considerable forethought and purposefully on the part of both counterparties to the discussions. The motivation of the developer not to have the issues publicly discussed is obvious. The plaintiffs decided to continue their negotiations/discussions in almost complete confidentiality and anonymity for the purpose of maintaining a non-confrontational negotiating relationship with the developer. They were making progress and believed that taking their arguments "public" would make their relationship with the developer more confrontational and materially reduce his willingness to continue negotiations towards a settlement.
[br]
- As the body of evidence assembled by the plaintiffs became obvious to the developer, the discussions morphed into the negotiation of both the form and amount of a settlement. The plaintiffs continued to be firm in their demands and the developer was responsive both because of the body of evidence that had been assembled to support the plaintiff's claims and demands, but also because the developer was consistent in his stated intention to continue to play a major role in the operation of The Villages even after the final residential build-out was completed. The developer and his family consistently said that The Villages was such an integral part of their family history that they would never leave the management of the lifestyle that they had created to someone else.
[br]
- The negotiations regarding the plaintiff's issues were substantially completed sometime last fall. The major issues where agreements were reached were: the amount and timing of the formation of a sinking fund for use in funding any necessary future rehabilitation or replacement of facilities which had been sold to the CVCCD in the future; an agreement and schedule for widening the golf cart paths north of CR 466; how recreation facilities and programs would be managed with resident input; and a few other less significant issues such as golf tee times used by the developer for marketing, etc. Once an agreement was reached, it became apparent that to properly implement it, a "class" of plaintiffs would have to be formed to in essence be the recipient of the benefits negotiated by the five plaintiffs. That became the basis of both the class action lawsuit and proposed settlement, all of which was rolled up into one legal proceeding. That lawsuit was filed in December, 2007. The settlement currently being adjudicated affects only residents north of CR 466. But both parties have agreed that a similar settlement will be negotiated for residents south of CR 466 in the future. The plaintiffs are hopeful that the scheduled meeting with the judge in March will result in final adjudication of the formation of the class and the settlement.
[br]
- The RAC will be replaced by the AAC once the case is adjudicated. The intent of both parties to the litigation is that the membership of the RAC be elected by the residents. Accomplishing that objective won't be easy given the fact that The Villages is spread over three separate counties. But the litigants have at least two plans for accomplishing that objective. The AAC will operate essentially the same way as has the RAC, advising the CVCCD board and Recreation Department on the desires and needs of residents. It's not clear whether the authority of the new AAC will be supported by the force of law, but the developer has agreed to accept and implement duely authorized RAC recommendations with few exceptions. So it is now clear that the existing management of Villages recreation facilities and programs will continue on an essentially unchanged basis.
[br]
- On the issue of the fees prescribed by the proposed settlement, the plaintiff's attorney made the following observations: Neither legal fees or fees paid to the plaintiffs for their work in assembling rhe necessary evidence, negotiating the settlement and forming the class were discussed until after the negotiations regarding additional financial payments by the developer were completed. Only then were legal fees and plaintiff's fees negotiated. Plaintiff's counsel stressed that none of the fees being paid the attorneys or the plaintiffs reduces the amount of financial settlement by the developer in any way. The legal fees are well within the range of normal fees paid to counsel in class action litigations. As far as the $300,000 proposed payment to the five plaintiffs, their attorney observed that without their willingness to expend significant amounts of time and effort to assemble the necessary body of evidence and negotiate a settlement as well as assume not insignificant financial risks, there would be no settlement that benefits all residents of The Villages.
[br]
As far as the current state of play of the formation of a residents class and the proposed settlement, personally I feel quite bit better about the situation. I certainly can't opine on the adequacy of the financial settlement. I can only assume that the five plaintiffs were knowledgeable and complete in their analysis of the situation and negotiated an amount that will be adequate for the purposes identified by the settlement. I also feel somewhat better that the developer and his management team, who in my opinion have done a magnificent job in creating the community that we have all chosen to live in, intends to remain in that role indefinitely. There are no guarantees of that for sure, but just that type of statement provides some comfort, to me a least.
Of further importance, learning of the process that was followed has eliminated the enmity I initially felt for the five residents who chose to proceed on this odyssey when they could have otherwise simply enjoyed golf and swimming.
I hope this final posting resolves the questions that I posed in starting this thread in the first place.
Knowledge is Power.