[nitakk]

Nothing in the paper again today, although I spoke with the Sun's photog at the rally yesterday morning. I guess they think if they ignore this long enough, we will give up - the arrogance and disregard for us is shameful.

[Peachie]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

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!

.

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.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS

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.

Very nice text book example, however, who are the implied parties to this contract and how do you know the contract was breached creating an estoppel?????????

The more I hear about this issue the more I am convinced that something else is going on and the wall placement is justified.

The faux excuses of the wall preventing people access amounts mostly to I want it my way or the highway rationalizations and it is creating unnecessary bad publicity for The Villages. In that I respectively ask those people who do not live in The Villages from fueling the fires

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

[buggyone]

Originally Posted by rubicon

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

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

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Peachie

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.

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.

[JeffAVEWS]

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.

[NoMoSno]

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

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?...

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by Peachie

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.

As far as I believe they are all public. There maybe some private roads in the Villages but for the most part all the roads are public.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by JeffAVEWS

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.

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

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by buggyone

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

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?...

His well paid attorneys aren't fairing too well in the IRS case either.

[JeffAVEWS]

Rubicon, thank you for the compliment. The internet is a wonderful thing! As I said in the post it's fodder for the lawyers, that's why they get big bucks! I just think there is grounds for the argument.

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by ttown

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.

The portion just there at Wal-Mart over Progress Energy's property as I understand it will remain open and most likely be improved. Wal-Mart and progress Energy are working out the details. Once the other construction is done there will be no more bumpy dirt path to travel.

[rp001]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

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

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..

[Steve9930]

Originally Posted by rp001

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..

LOL, Democracy at its finest........

[PLedoux]

As of this morning, The Villages has blocked access to the cut through that Life Family Practice opened to allow carts to come through their property. The fence is back up.