Originally Posted by Advogado (Post 938552)

I agree with what you say, particularly the need for residents to try to stay informed on this new class-action lawsuit. I feel that the Daily Sun should be ashamed at its burying the story until now.

However, I want to point out that the first class-action lawsuit documents are a matter of public record. There have been frequent posts in this forum by members alleging that they have been sealed. This is simply not true. There is a link to information at poa4us.org. Villagers are not informed about it for two reasons: First, most are not particularly interested. Second, the Daily Sun has under-reported the story and the articles that have appeared have given the Developer's spin.

As to your concern about whether the $43 million settlement was enough to compensate Villagers for the damages they incurred from the Developer's actions, only time will tell. But so far, things seem to be working out okay. The one thing that is clear is that an additional $43 million, that without the first class-action lawsuit would have been in the Developer's pocket, is now available for amenities. We owe the plaintiffs a vote of thanks for that.

Likewise, information on the current class-action lawsuit is a matter of public record: https://www2.myfloridacounty.com/ccm...722f197914ea10
But to actually see the documents, it apparently is necessary to go to the court house since we are not going to get any real information from the Daily Sun. I am certain that somebody will bring this new lawsuit up at the POA meeting tomorrow night, and, hopefully, we will get some enlightenment there. Maybe we can ask the POA to publish a copy of the complaint and answer on its website, since few of us are inclined to make a trip to the courthouse to see them.

Originally Posted by rubicon (Post 938725)

Advogardo: You have a reasoned mind. I suspect and with good cause that there is more to all of this than meets the eye. However as I have repeatedly stated bottom line for me is we need to have the parties get to the store because these unsettled issues are well unsettling, distracting and just plain hurtful.

I can tell you that my questioning of the Amenities Lawsuit is done with knowledge of the nature lawsuit. If the Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc first offered $43 million there was more to be had and a more experienced negotiator would have counter demanded. Enough said.

What has me baffled is where are the irate residents who marched to have the developer "tear down that wall "but remain silent concerning these legal disputes why are they not out with their protest signs, chants and talking to the local papers?

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 938757)

IMO, residents are not out protesting because these lawsuits seem like such complicated issues, and purposely so. It is easy to understand a wall, but when one starts talking about bonds, many eyes glaze over.

I, for one, am outraged that our amenity fees are being used to protect the developer's bottom line. Ms Tutt is supposed to report monthly on the amount of money being paid to the attorney. I haven't seen a report for almost a year. Where is it written that this practice is allowed?

This is almost the perfect storm, where the victims get to pay the ransom.

Originally Posted by graciegirl (Post 938760)

If this isn't the most perfect place in the world to live, then it is very easy to sell and make a profit.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 938757)

IMO, residents are not out protesting because these lawsuits seem like such complicated issues, and purposely so. It is easy to understand a wall, but when one starts talking about bonds, many eyes glaze over.

I, for one, am outraged that our amenity fees are being used to protect the developer's bottom line. Ms Tutt is supposed to report monthly on the amount of money being paid to the attorney. I haven't seen a report for almost a year. Where is it written that this practice is allowed?

This is almost the perfect storm, where the victims get to pay the ransom.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 938757)

IMO, residents are not out protesting because these lawsuits seem like such complicated issues, and purposely so. It is easy to understand a wall, but when one starts talking about bonds, many eyes glaze over.

I, for one, am outraged that our amenity fees are being used to protect the developer's bottom line. Ms Tutt is supposed to report monthly on the amount of money being paid to the attorney. I haven't seen a report for almost a year. Where is it written that this practice is allowed?

This is almost the perfect storm, where the victims get to pay the ransom.

Originally Posted by Rags123 (Post 938890)

I hope this question is not ignored...I ask in all sincerity and with an upfront admitting that I do not understand it completely. It is very complex and everyone says that. Most articles on the details say it is a very gray area.

I have two questions and do not read anything into these questions...after reading what you folks who have intimately followed this, ......this is what I honestly want to know...

1. In all the years this dispute has been going on, has there been any adverse results in any area of The Villages ? To the amenities or to the homeowners ?

2. I hear a lot about the amenity fee being used to pay lawyers and hoping someone can supply some sort of link so I can see that in print. Not questioning it, but can find nothing at all on that other than a few posts on here.


Thanks to anyone who can answer.

Originally Posted by Cathy H (Post 938897)

After the $43 million suit was settled (without trial) we saw many upgrade and restoration projects get underway using those funds. The developer was gone from the area involved since all his homes were sold, so why would anyone believe the developer would have come back to do these upgrades for free? He is not known to be benevolent.

Originally Posted by TVMayor (Post 939089)

The way I look at it we the residents have a management department called CDD that oversees among other things maintenance of all that is not privately owned including amenities. This is financed using the amenity fees I pay monthly.

We now have a lawsuit stared by three people (plaintiffs). One of the three is Community Development District 5 Supervisor and Property Owners Association Vice President Gerald Ferlisi. He is a member of the CDD that I pay amenity fees to and he is Vice President of the POA I pay membership to.

As a result of his actions the CDD will spend my amenity fees for attorneys to fight the lawsuit and the POA that represents the residents has a VP that has a lawsuit against the residents he represents. (It is against the residents because they are paying the legal fees.)

I do not think Gerald Ferlisi is fit to represent me in the CDD or the POA, he should resign.

Originally Posted by TVMayor (Post 939089)

The way I look at it we the residents have a management department called CDD that oversees among other things maintenance of all that is not privately owned including amenities. This is financed using the amenity fees I pay monthly.

We now have a lawsuit stared by three people (plaintiffs). One of the three is Community Development District 5 Supervisor and Property Owners Association Vice President Gerald Ferlisi. He is a member of the CDD that I pay amenity fees to and he is Vice President of the POA I pay membership to.

As a result of his actions the CDD will spend my amenity fees for attorneys to fight the lawsuit and the POA that represents the residents has a VP that has a lawsuit against the residents he represents. (It is against the residents because they are paying the legal fees.)

I do not think Gerald Ferlisi is fit to represent me in the CDD or the POA, he should resign.

Originally Posted by janmcn (Post 939171)

Mr Gerald Ferlisi does not represent you unless you live in District 5. It is up to the residents of District 5 whether Mr Ferlisi is re-elected.

If you live in Rio Grande, as your address shows, your amenity fee will not be spent for attorneys to fight the lawsuit.

Where is the outrage over the almost one million dollars of amenity fees that have been spent since 2008 trying to protect the developer's bottom line?

Attending the POA meeting is the best opportunity to get accurate information.