Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS (Post 724899)

I'll post this again, I still think there is easement there! This should by fodder for the POA's lawyers.

Easement by estoppel

When a property owner misrepresents the existence of an easement while selling a property and does not include an express easement in the deed to the buyer, the court may step in and create an easement. Easements by estoppel generally look to any promises not made in writing, any money spent by the benefiting party in reliance on the representations of the burdened party. If the court finds that the buyer acted in good faith and relied on the seller's promises, the court will create an easement by estoppel.

For example: Ray sells land to Joe on the promise that Joe can use Ray's driveway and bridge to the main road at anytime, but Ray does not include the easement in the deed to the land. Joe, deciding that the land is now worth the price, builds a house and connects a garage to Ray's driveway. If Ray (or his successors) later decides to gate off the driveway and prevents Joe (or Joe's successors) from accessing the driveway, a court would likely find an easement by estoppel.

Because Joe purchased the land assuming that there would be access to the bridge and the driveway and Joe then paid for a house and a connection, Joe can be said to rely on Ray's promise of an easement. Ray materially misrepresented the facts to Joe. In order to preserve equity, the court will likely find an easement by estoppel.

On the other hand, if Ray had offered access to the bridge and driveway after selling Joe the land, there may not be an easement by estoppel. In this instance, it is merely inconvenient if Ray revokes access to the driveway. Joe did not purchase the land and build the house in reliance on access to the driveway and bridge. Joe will need to find a separate theory to justify an easement.

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 724907)

Some villagers seem to forget that when the Developer moved the Wellness Center he did not ask permission nor did he give advance notice. Residents who used the indoor pool petition to stop the move, that is retain use of the pool. Obviously that issue died even with support of the POA.

For the past 7 years I have heard nothing but glowing reports about his holiness the Developer. For all those same years I have simply said he is a business man and as such I did take issue on the way he conducted some of that business. In that same vein then don't you believe that a guy capable of building The villages would do what was legally required to erect a wall?

The issue relating to golf carts on 441 leaves me cold. Heck I don't feel comfortable on 441 in my Cross Over let alone a golf cart. there have been some very serious accidents in this area (cars, bikes pedestrians).

Also the poster that pointed to the fact that it is a dirt trail vis a vis concrete is on to something.

I believe if people settled down they find that this situation is not as serious as they believe. Life is all about adapting and that is what is required here and since necessity is the mother of invention people will adapt

The wall may well provide many benefits for villagers they just have to give it a chance

The cart paths in The Villages are private and paid for by our amenities, etc. villagers welcome outsiders but many want them to come in from the front door. Keep in mind what the car paths look like in prime season bumper to bumper so 500 outsider golf carts here and 500 there adds up
to serious over runs.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 724624)

Maybe they're irritated by the perception propagated by many of the people adjacent to the property which was trespassed, that they are the ONLY people with special needs, requirements and transportation in The Villages and the only people deserving of special arrangements. It would make our lives so much easier down by 466A to make holes in many fenced areas of The Villages to access facilities in an illegal way so we could give our cars away and have a 5 minute ride to work or shop in stores.

It is a hardship, no doubt, to the people who used the shortcut on a regular basis. But what's amazing here is that when talking to different people over the years that lived in this area, they expressed hope that the hole in The Villages wouldn't be closed. People knew it was a possibility but were willing to take the risk. And that opening hasn't been like that for 20 years, there was a gate there for carding; hmmm..... wonder how many times that gate was damaged so people could enter The Villages property without passes and The Villages stopped repairing it because of this. The opening was only to allow Villagers into the Villages medical businesses, period, NO FURTHER.

Now the Morse's are contending with businesses building adjacent to their property that are advising people, "you will have access to The Villages". Large pieces of property are waiting development in this area which could be more dense residential living.

I believe shortly Spruce Creek residents will be allowed to cross 441/27 in golf carts and this will also supply them direct access into The Villages residential areas. Spruce Creek is gated and we can't access them without getting in a car or street legal and driving there. Stonecrest is also walled up tighter than a drum for entering but their residents are advising us that we'd better let them use our community paths and bridges or else.... Really?

The liability and implications of The Villages allowing access to non-Villagers through that terrible trail, I would think, are huge. It was a short-cut that has been removed and rather than blame The Villages, why not take a look at the neighboring property owner who brought this upon you. He could get busy and build some highway bridges with his money to make life easier for all of us. It's not up to the Morse's to provide private access to The Villages for surrounding developments.

This "dictator" garbage gets a little old, this is an enclosed community and a gap has been repaired.

Most of all, remember many of us in The Villages struggle with issues that make everyday living difficult. Problems don't start and end at the Historic section. Advising the rest of The Villagers to stay out of it and to suck it up because the Historic section should have special treatment over the rest of The Villagers is divisive.

I feel the wall should stand at this point, it's time to close the hole. I wish the wall could be placed at the end of the medical complex so people could easily access those facilities. Perhaps if all the raging and ranting were directed at finding a solution for transportation to the stores and back, people would less frightened and more hopeful. And I do hope good remedies are found for another life change.

Originally Posted by ellie123 (Post 724934)

Where is there a Lowes on 466? Also, do you really think the majority of people living in Orange Blossom want to drive their carts all the way up there?

Originally Posted by gocubsgo (Post 724593)

I wrote to the TV stations last night. That seemed to do some good. All we can hope for is the negative publicity and maybe a surrender?

Anyone working for TVillages can't comment for fear of losing their jobs. How sad...

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 724948)

I've never talked to someone from Stonecrest or Spruc Creek South that demanded the Villages allow them access to Village's facilities. Those communities are differently managed compared to the Villages. Spruc Creek South and Stonecrest are privately owned by the residents and the developer completely. No tax dollars are used for any info structure. If there is a problem with the roads these people pay to have them repaired directly. There are no public roads in these facilities. This is why access is so tight. Also I believe the Golf Course and restaurant are open to the public if they care to use them within these facilities.

Originally Posted by chuckinca (Post 724999)

Cart travel from Stonecrest to Spanish Springs and Lake Sumpter Landing could be done using the dirt (aka sand) and paved trails with approval of all owners/public roads from Walmart to the now blocked cart access to Paradise Drive and from there on public streets and the cart bridge over 441/27, a public highway. Use of Villages owned intermodal paths is not required and not an issue concerning access to Paradise Drive - a public roadway.

Blocking public access to public roadways is illegal as noted in the prior noted order by the Town of Lady Lake to remove the cart gate at the access to Paradise drive and the requirement that all Villages gates can be opened by a push button on the gate.

Mr Morse: TAKE DOWN YOUR ILLEGAL WALL!

.

Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS (Post 724899)

I'll post this again, I still think there is easement there! This should by fodder for the POA's lawyers.

Easement by estoppel

When a property owner misrepresents the existence of an easement while selling a property and does not include an express easement in the deed to the buyer, the court may step in and create an easement. Easements by estoppel generally look to any promises not made in writing, any money spent by the benefiting party in reliance on the representations of the burdened party. If the court finds that the buyer acted in good faith and relied on the seller's promises, the court will create an easement by estoppel.

For example: Ray sells land to Joe on the promise that Joe can use Ray's driveway and bridge to the main road at anytime, but Ray does not include the easement in the deed to the land. Joe, deciding that the land is now worth the price, builds a house and connects a garage to Ray's driveway. If Ray (or his successors) later decides to gate off the driveway and prevents Joe (or Joe's successors) from accessing the driveway, a court would likely find an easement by estoppel.

Because Joe purchased the land assuming that there would be access to the bridge and the driveway and Joe then paid for a house and a connection, Joe can be said to rely on Ray's promise of an easement. Ray materially misrepresented the facts to Joe. In order to preserve equity, the court will likely find an easement by estoppel.

On the other hand, if Ray had offered access to the bridge and driveway after selling Joe the land, there may not be an easement by estoppel. In this instance, it is merely inconvenient if Ray revokes access to the driveway. Joe did not purchase the land and build the house in reliance on access to the driveway and bridge. Joe will need to find a separate theory to justify an easement.

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 725039)

The more I hear about this issue the more I am convinced that something else is going on and the wall placement is justified.
Again I believe the Developer is an excellent businessman and if anyone thinks he would be foolish enough to leave himself exposed, well there is this bridge in Brooklyn

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 724991)

Steve, I fully understand why those two subdivisions are private but the cart paths in The Villages are not built and maintained with tax dollars either, they are private also.

This quote below is from this thread and is what makes me think that there are Stonecrest residents who planned their travel by using the private pathways in The Villages. Village residents have not been granted reciprocity by Stonecrest to use their streets.

The quote: "While we do not live in the villages. We do most of our grocery shopping ,dining out, go to the farmers market, purchase from the venders at the squares, and purchase from the various retailers in the villages. With the golf cart access blocked we will no longer be able to help support theses business. While we will miss the villages it will be at the expense of the businesses in the villages. We are sure there are a great number of people living here that feel the same way." End of quote.


Surely Stonecrest residents understand why the Morse's may not want to subsidize their lifestyle and travel on our private paths anymore than Stonecrest residents want to subsidize Villagers using their streets.

Originally Posted by buggyone (Post 725042)

Absolutely right. Also, do not forget that the Developer has an excellent team of well-paid attorneys if there would be any legal challenges.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 725025)

Chuckinca, I could be wrong but isn't the cement path from the medical complex to the streets private and also the blacktop path from the street all the way over to the bridge private also? Is the bridge public or private? I think it's pretty much the way the rest of The Villages operates.

Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS (Post 725046)

Let’s consider this. The owner of the property established a right-of-way; He made improvements, paved it and installed lighting, for the sole purpose of providing access for foot, bicycle, or golf cart passage thru his property. He maintained the access, made repairs to the lights and landscaped the property. He also erected a gate to limit that access, but was ordered to remove the gate because it blocked a public street. If the Town of Lady Lake had legal standing to require the removal of the gate, they have the same authority to require the removal of the wall.

Originally Posted by buggyone (Post 725042)

Absolutely right. Also, do not forget that the Developer has an excellent team of well-paid attorneys if there would be any legal challenges.

Originally Posted by NoMoSno (Post 725049)

His well paid attorneys didn't fair to well in this case:
Villages settles lawsuit, will fund $40 million in recreation upgrades

Revenge for the historic side?...

Originally Posted by ttown (Post 725021)

Good question. The path was paved with pavers and well landscaped. The grass along the sides was mowed.Who payed for it?
Anytime people from Stonecrest, Spruce Creek, Water Oak, Harbor Hills ,etc, want to get to Village facilities they can hop in a car.
The only unpaved section of the whole trip to Lowes was a small section just before entering the road to the stores. From Aldis to Walmart was also not paved.

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 725054)

Now lets see is they have the will power to go against big money?

Originally Posted by rp001 (Post 725060)

He, Morse, would just change out the city's elected officials, just as he did in Sumter county..Raise them, train them, finance them, then get them elected..

Originally Posted by NoMoSno (Post 725049)

His well paid attorneys didn't fair to well in this case:
Villages settles lawsuit, will fund $40 million in recreation upgrades

Revenge for the historic side?...

Originally Posted by Steve9930 (Post 725044)

I read the post about the individual that will no longer be making purchases because the entrance was closed. A little bit of frustration between the lines. The bottom line is all the cart paths in the Villages are not engineered to only allow Village Residents. Whether the wall is up or down really makes little difference. They are all mostly accessible. From what I read in other post seems to indicate that since this path connects to a public road it is not legal to restrict access. Well most of the paths within the Villages all connect to legal roads so they are all in the same boat so to speak. Since that is the case I'm wondering why the Villagers have to pay for all the cart paths. Seems like it should be the counties responsibility and maintained with tax dollars. As for access into StoneCrest via Golf Cart you can do exactly that if you go to the front gate and enter that way. There is no restriction from going to the restaurant or the Golf course.

Originally Posted by njbchbum (Post 724793)

thanx chuck/spk - i was aware of the spruce creek authorization but not aware that there is anything in the works for stonecrest residents to have a crossing also.

Originally Posted by Peachie (Post 725085)

I think you just made the case for The Villages, Steve. The cart paths in The Villages are exactly that... just for Village residents. There is a sense out there from surrounding residences outside The Villages that we should all move over, non-Villagers are entitled to use our private paths too. Stonecrest is welcome to come to our restaurants and shops and we're happy they can drive in and do that, the only requirement is that they use the public roads to do so. This may explain why the Morse's enclosed that, "hole in The Villages wall". (Yes, I know it was a fence piece that was placed there.)

Originally Posted by oot (Post 725111)

I know the Stonecrest issue upsets some residents of the Villages, but I don't think that was the reason the wall went up. If that was the case, it would have gone up long ago.

I never had issue with Mr. Morse. I thought he was a great businessman and some of the things which were done could have been for business reasons (like closing of the country club restaurants - although disappointing). To goal to make money is one of the reasons people get into business. He built a wonderful place to live!

But - the lack of communication from his team regarding the reasons why they placed the wall up to the residents was a poor decision on his part. I understand why people are upset and they have the right to be. My biggest fear is what will be next.....