[Advogado]

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I'm not sure I agree with the "not yet" potential impact, and seriously doubt there will ever be any impact, no more than there was in the "Dreidame" suit and settlement.

The "stuff" in business is real, and the number of zeros in any business situation is relative to the number of zeros in the entire transaction. Suffice to say, what may seem astronomical to a single homeowner is not necessarily the same when dealing at the scale of this development. And how often it happens is indeed relative to the experience of people in transactions this size.

As far as a real estate agent's disclosure requirement, again, to disclose what? The fact that the local government entity is involved in a regulatory dispute with the federal government? If that were true, then each real estate agent would have to get a list from the state, county, city (as in Lady Lake), and CDD of every ongoing dispute and lawsuit (e.g., slip and fall, auto accident, police brutality claim, false arrest, employee harassment, etc.) and receive from counsel from each side the potential liability faced by each party, as taxes, insurance rates, etc. for them may fluctuate due to the litigation. I don't know of a single agent or broker who has ever solicited or received such a list from any civil entity of all of its potential or pending litigation, and disclosed to any client that the results may have some downstream fiscal (or other) impact on the client.

So, what we still seem to have here is a sort of "cry wolf" scenario, with no one able to quantify in any manner what, if any, impact may occur on any buyer, seller or current property owner. There's a lot of "what if" going on, but most of it isn't even "best guess."

If the intent of the "what if" guesses is to scare the developer into reacting in some panicked fashion for fear of lost sales, somehow I doubt that will happen. They seem too professional to fall into that trap. If the intent is to scare elderly people with claims that there may be unexpected major hits on fixed-income personal finances, or that they may not be able to sell a house, then shame on those who act that way.

If once the matter is cleared by the parties directly involved, that any property owner or group of property owners believe they have suffered any sort of reimbursable loss, the method to seek such compensation is known to all. Until then, the line between "seeking/sharing knowledge" and "rumor spreading" should be recognized and respected.

SteveZ: I think that the question here is materiality. At issue is such a large potential liability for the VCCDD that it could jeopardize the future of our amenities. This is not a routine "slip and fall, auto accident, police brutality claim, false arrest, employee harassment, etc." case. It is the potential magnitude of the VCCDD liability, and the real possibility of its being incurred, that in my view should be a concern to all of us.

I have never seen any government document containing the kind of scathing language in the IRS letter to the VCCDD. Have you read the letter from the IRS to the VCCDD? Something extraordinary is going on here, and I don't like where it seems to be heading.