Quote:
Originally Posted by Advogado
At the risk of being repititious, it is not Gary Morse who is paying the attorneys in this case. It is, in essence, us. Our amenity fees are being used to defend transactions that resulted in huge profits to the Developer. If the IRS is correct, those profits were illegimately earned at the expense of the US taxpayers, who subsidized the bonds sold to pay the Developer those profits.
|
Advogado: I don't quite understand how ämenity fees"can be used to finance a legal action. I thought amenity fees were used to pay for well----our amenities. In the Notice to Proposed Issues filed by the IRS made some serious allegations as to purchase of the buildings the central district as paid to the developer and the cash flow of the amenity streams. I do not know if the IRS withdrew those allegations or if they are true. I let the courts decide the facts of those allegations. However it would appear that this transaction falls on the acts of commission or ommission by those direct parties to the agreement and for that reason I wonder why it didn't trigger coverage under an insurance policy to defend this matter. Perhaps by its nature or allegations an insurer has already rejected the matter. It really concerns me that amenities contract can be twisted to cover litigation matters especially when residents had no knowledge or control.