Having read all the posts, I’ll summarize some of them and then state where I think we’re at:
• A number of posters in this thread have started to ask whether a lawsuit should be initiated against the 32 plaintiffs?
• While the 32 plaintiffs have lost the first round, they are reported to be continuing on appeal (very disconcerting)
• Most would agree that lawsuits like the Schwarz case are not appealed unless the attorneys see a pot of money at the end. TOTV poster “Wavy Chips” estimates $3million and counting …
• The RLGs were, according to some, initially a target and included in the suit, but later ruled out of bounds, although perhaps only temporarily. (there is some dispute if the RLGs were simply being described or were actually a target per se. Poster “Blueash” says the court rejected claims against them)
• No one knew anything about this issue until the surprise announcement of LLLC’s closure, but realistically, no prudent business (i.e. Developer) is going to announce the particulars of an ongoing lawsuit (i.e. that’s water over the dam.)
• The LLLC is likely gone, and not to return, although volunteer efforts to reconstruct parts of it (using Rec Centers, Churches etc) will probably be made.
• But, the real remaining issue is countering any potential future legal threats against the RLGs, Clubs etc and what constitutes the heart of The Villages’ lifestyle
• The actions of the 32 plaintiffs, regardless of their motivation, has already resulted in significant harm and financial loss to 120,000 residents of TV (ironically enough, plaintiffs included), but seemingly with the potential for much more unless checked.
--Some posters on this board who are contemplating buying in / moving to TV have expressed concern and are now possibly looking elsewhere to retire. Basically, the plaintiffs’ action has now created a noticeable market uncertainty.
--The plaintiffs’ lawsuit has already degraded TV’s lifestyle given it resulted in the loss of LLLC
--However, should the RLGs be successfully attacked, that would mean a major loss, both lifestyle and financial, for the entire community. It would unquestionably impact the market value of all homes in TV in way impossible to currently predict. The impact could potentially be in the range of 10-20%. (to repeat I’m not saying the RLGs will be attacked, but if they were, it would be ugly)
• Related to this latter point, there was an interesting post on another TV forum I noticed, and that I include here because of the opinion expressed:
--“I sent the lawsuit and all the comments with my questions to a family member and thought a couple of comments might be helpful. "Our firm gets almost as many calls from retirees as the most litigious group, prisoners, because they too have a lot of time." His advice to those concerned that the plaintiffs’ lawyers are supposedly saying 'this is not over' and may "spread" to reccenters, etc...."better lawyer up". “
• Given the extensive activist background (per “John W’s post #106) of the chief plaintiff, the track record as best can be pieced together on the boards, an apparent inclination to litigation, and also that the roots of this action goes back a number of years, it’s improbable this is going to be settled by sweet reason alone.
• In sum, a number of posters worry or say the RLG’s are the target, while others say, in effect, we’re safe. I don’t think we can take the risk and simply hope for the best.
Thus, I come to the reluctant conclusion that we have no choice but to seek our own proactive legal protection, given the potential stakes involved. The community would need to pitch in and fund it (GoFundMe accounts or whatever). Perhaps the old football adage applies in this instance: offense is the best defense?
The best course forward is still TBD … maybe a retired lawyer with a track record who lives here, or the HOA or POA could take the leadership role? (The POA would probably have the most credibility.) But, it now seems prudent to start marshaling legal forces of our own in whatever manner is deemed best. There is also the issue for our lawyers to consider of what, if any, legal exposure the 32 plaintiffs may now have, or could have in the future.
.
|