[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Advogado

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.

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?

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by rubicon

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?

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

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

[bimmertl]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

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

Didn't realize until now that if you aren't living in the "most perfect place in the world" you have to love it or leave it. No criticism accepted even if it's factual and warranted.

Apparently a condition of the "silent generation" striving for simplicity and conformity regardless of the circumstances.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

THE lawyers are protecting the CDD form of government which I like very much. The money is protecting our way of life here.

[mickey100]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

I agree. It's complex for a lot of people. Others have the mentality that the Developer can do no wrong, so don't want to face the facts that maybe something is wrong with this picture. I feel so fortunate we have the POA look out for our interests.

[janmcn]

According to published reports, the class-action lawsuit filed last March claims "the developer benefitted by illegally using the amenity fees as collateral to issue bonds for community expansion".

All residents of District 5 should plan on attending the POA meeting Tuesday to learn the details of this lawsuit.

[Rags123]

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.

[Cathy H]

Originally Posted by Rags123

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.

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.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Cathy H

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.

Why do you say that? HOW do you see a person as benevolent? What is it that you think the Morses should do????????

[TVMayor]

From the V' News...

Villages bonds earn A+, A ratings despite IRS, lawsuit concerns
September 15, 2014 By Marv Balousek

A lawsuit apparently has stopped efforts by the Sumter Landing Development District to refinance amenity and utility bonds.

In August, The Village Community Center Development District began the process of refinancing millions of dollars in bonds to take advantage of low interest rates. About $88.7 million of these bonds are expected to be sold this week.

But officials of the Sumter Landing District were advised recently that they could not move forward with a similar plan in the area south of County Road 466 due to the lawsuit.

Filed last March by attorney Carol Anderson, the class-action lawsuit claims that the developer benefiitted a decade ago by illegally using amenities fees as collateral to issue bonds for community expansion.

About a third of the current amenities fee budget is appropriated for the debt on about $65 million in bonds that were issued, according to the lawsuit, which claims that homeowners should not be responsible for this debt.

“Permitted uses do not include using subdivision amenities fees to finance a purchase of subdivision assets and thereby create an excessive bond debt,” the lawsuit complaint stated.

A response filed Sept. 12 by attorneys Stephen Johnson and Stephanie McCulloch asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit, calling it “frivilous.”

“There is simply not one factual allegation that the obligations of the developer in the plain language of the declarations were breached in any way,” the response stated.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include Community Development District 5 Supervisor and Property Owners Association Vice President Gerald Ferlisi as well as Thomas Burke and Susan Richmond. Defendants are the Sumter Landing District, The Villages of Lake-Sumter Inc. and developers Gary and Mark Morse.

“I have never filed a frivilous lawsuit,” said Anderson, the plaintiffs’ attorney. “They have a duty to be absolutely loyal to the plaintifs and correct these amenity-fee (problems).”

An earlier lawsuit brought by the Property Owners Association resulted in a 2007 settlement in which the developers agreed to pay $40 million over 13 years for repairs and improvements to recreation centers and other facilities in the area north of County Road 466. Gary Morse praised the settlement.

Filing the latest lawsuit was delayed in 2010 because of an Internal Revenue Service investigation into the use of tax-exempt bonds to finance development in The Villages.

n an agreement also signed by Sumter Landing District chairman Michael Berning, the same plaintiffs agreed then to hold off filing the lawsuit. The parties agreed they would extend the statutes of limitations on filing their claims.

Now, the IRS investigation is nearing a conclusion and the dispute could wind up in the courts. The agency has claimed the center district was not authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds because it did not qualify as a political subdivision under the law. A final IRS ruling is expected soon.

Despite the turmoil over the lawsuit and IRS probe, Fitch Ratings recently gave A and A+ ratings to bonds issued by the Villages Center Development District. This week’s bond sale will shift tax-exempt bonds to taxable bonds and could help alleviate the IRS concerns.

[TVMayor]

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.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by TVMayor

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.

Your position would make sense only if the new class action lawsuit has no basis. If it is as justified as the first class action lawsuit was, we owe Mr. Ferlisi a vote of thanks. However, because of the abysmal reporting by the Daily Sun, none of the posters to this thread, including myself, know whether or not this is the case. Rather than condemn or praise the Plaintiffs at this stage, I think that it would be wise for us to try to learn what is really going on. Hopefully, tonight, at the POA meeting, we can do so.

[janmcn]

Originally Posted by TVMayor

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.

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.

[TVMayor]

Originally Posted by janmcn

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.

So the residents in district one are paying for all the IRS legal cost and the residents of district five are paying zero. But at the same time we have common amenities.