I spent some time and spoke with the plaintiff's attorney to get several questions answered. (That was the only source of information. Both the court and the developer--the defendant in the litigation--referred all questions to the plaintiff's attorney.) Here's two answers to questions raised below...
- The settlement only applies to recreational facilities north of CR 466. At some time in the future, a similar negotiation and agreement will have to be reached regarding the facilities south of CR 466.
- The attorney explained that the amount negotiated to create a sinking fund for use in rehabilitating or even re-building the facilities in place north of CR 466 was done before any negotiation of fees for the class representatives and attorneys began. That is, any fees paid to the class representatives and attorneys does not reduce the amounts identified as necessary to be set aside for the continuing maintenance of the subject facilities in the future.