Talk of The Villages Florida - Explain the lawsuit

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)

- The Villages, Florida, General Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/)

- - Explain the lawsuit (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-general-discussion-73/explain-lawsuit-126699/)

Explain the lawsuit

Can someone, more intelligent than me, please give us an explanation in simple english the pending lawsuit mentioned in today's Sun against just about all, and it's impact on the bond refinance? What is the "transfer" the lawsuit is referring
too?

See that story on the Local Front page.

I have followed this bond issue from its inception and secured the filings by the IRS to understand their list of complaints. I strongly suggest that people should read for themselves the IRS filings and the circumstances of negotiations between Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc and the District. This latest class action suit followed by District 5 probably stems from the initial IRS complaints. since this is a class action suit residents affected should be given a copy of the complaint and/or a detailed written explanation as to the allegations involved in this suit. We should also be advised as to how this lawsuit is being financed?

If my opinions are incorrect then someone with legal authority needs to come forward and finally open this IRS bond issue in its entirety to get it aired out once and for all so that we can determine the truth and finally solutions

I opine other can decide

We don't get the paper. Would appreciate hearing about what this lawsuit is. Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 937120)

We don't get the paper. Would appreciate hearing about what this lawsuit is. Thanks.

The Villages IRS Problem

It sounds like it has something to do with alleged irregularities with purchases through bonds in District 5. They really do not give much in the way of details probably because it is in litigation. They name the parties, lawyers, etc. but do not say much more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 937128)

Why does this lawsuit only pertain to alleged irregularities with purchases through bonds in District 5? Has the developer turned over to the district all the amenities in District 5?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 937103)

See that story on the Local Front page.

I did and it doesn't say squat, except the refinance will not be available and it will cost the vcdd "millions"!

I do not think this has anything to do with the IRS lawsuit. It seems that it is a lawsuit by these three people against TV. TV is causing it a frivolous lawsuit because there is nothing they can sue about.

Forget the IRS in this lawsuit.

Z

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickey100 (Post 937120)

We don't get the paper. Would appreciate hearing about what this lawsuit is. Thanks.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/i...ps4e4882d7.jpg

From August 6, 2014

Quote:

VCCDD, AAC hoping to refinance bonds to lock in lower interest rates
August 6, 2014 By Marv Balousek
The Village Center Community Development District is moving swiftly to refinance millions of dollars in utility and amenity bonds before interest rates rise.
The district board voted Wednesday to proceed with bond refinancing as early as Sept. 8. The board also approved several resolutions to speed the process by retaining its current financial advisers, who are familiar with The Villages financial structure.
Earlier in the day, the Amenity Authority Committee also agreed to begin looking into refinancing bonds in hopes of locking in a lower interest rate.
�We have an aggressive timetable we have put together,� said District Manager Janet Tutt.
Besides saving money on interest rates, the move also could help with the district�s long-running dispute with the Internal Revenue Service by converting older tax-exempt bonds to taxable bonds.
�The reason for this quite simply is we have incredibly low interest rates,� said Supervisor Gary Moyer, who made the motion to begin the refinancing process.
The bonds were issued to pay for utilities such as sewer and water lines as well as amenities that include pools and recreation centers. Refinancing the bonds would mean that holders of the current bonds would be paid off and new bonds would be sold.
Elaine Dreidame, president of the Property Owners Association, said refinancing now is a good move.
�This would be a step ahead of the game,� she said. �I think it�s definitely the right thing to do.�
Moving tax-exempt bonds to taxable bonds would strike at the heart of the district�s dispute with the IRS.
The agency has challenged about $426 million in tax-exempt bonds issued by the district between November 1993 and June 2004. Those proceeds were used for commercial development in the Spanish Springs area.
The IRS has said those bonds could not be tax-exempt because the district�s board is chosen by landowners and not by voters. The district�s attorney has accused the agency of changing the rules after the bonds were issued.
The IRS is expected to make a final ruling in the case soon and, if the agency rules against the district, the fight could move to the courts.
A settlement proposed in 2009 would have required the district to recall the remaining tax-exempt 30-year bonds and issue them again as taxable bonds. The cost of reissuing them would have been paid by amenity fees from homeowners living north of County Road 466 unless Bond Counsel or another party were found culpable.
That settlement was rejected, but the district effectively would be doing the same thing now by refinancing the tax-exempt bonds as taxable ones without the cost of a recall.
�I can�t frankly see this coming to a conclusion in the near future,� Moyer said of the IRS dispute.
But he said it�s important to move quickly on refinancing the bonds so the district can capture the current favorable interest rates.
�We have to recognize there is a lot of work that has to be done in a very short period of time,� he said.

The lowering of the interest rates paid on the bonds would have saved the homeowners money because the money used to pay the interest comes out of our amenity fees.

I am no attorney but in my opinion I think it would have been more financially prudent to wait till after the lower rate bonds were issued to make a stink.

Possible political theatre

There is a possibility that this is political action by a lawless IRS designed to tie down or intimidate Morse; a big political player on the other side of the aisle. Certainly the IRS under this Justice Department has earned no benefit of the doubt against such speculation.

If so, the whole issue should start winding down over the next couple years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnd (Post 937729)

I have a couple of observations:

1. This lawsuit is obviously extremely important to Villagers. It was initiated in March. Why is the Daily Sun only now reporting its existence, and in such a cryptic manner as to make it impossible for readers to understand the issues and implications? (It is reminiscent of the Daily Sun's treatment of the IRS investigation.) Also note that the article only quotes the Developer's side of the story. It would have been a simple matter to send a reporter out to interview the plaintiffs. Note that the Plaintiff's attorney is the same one who represented the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit that recovered $43 million from the Developer for the benefit of The Villagers, so I would not be quick to conclude that this lawsuit has no basis.

2. It will be worthwhile attending the POA meeting this Tuesday evening, where we can probably get an explanation as to what the lawsuit involves-- since we are not going to get it from the Daily Sun.

I am very skeptical about this. THE SAME PEOPLE???? Talk about cryptic, I could never understand why the "other" lawsuit was brought.

I am not a fan of the POA. I would gladly join a new organization if one were formed. AND I trust the Daily Sun.

The previous $43 million lawsuit (which the developer lost, BTW) was due to shortchanging the districts on maintenance and replacement funds for all the facilities transferred to them by the developer. At that time, all of Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (not sure about the Lake County district) were involved but nothing south of CR 466 was involved. This sounds like similar shenanigans were discovered/suspected/alleged in District 5 - which is now pretty much turned over by the Developer to the residents - and they are seeking their share of the money. If I recall, the original lawsuit was initially classified as frivolous by the Developers lawyers yet they lost to the tune of $43 million and it led to the formation of the AAC. That doesn't sound so frivolous to me. I do hope we get a clearer explanation of the suit Tuesday at the POA meeting - I will be there.