[Pturner]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Just a minor correction: While the POA supported the class-action suit against the Developer, the POA, itself, did not bring the suit, as you stated. The class-action suit was actually brought by individual residents who are active in the POA. For a list of plaintiffs, go to http://www.thevillagesfl.us/classactionsettlement.htm

The reason for this, I would think, is that the POA is merely a voluntary-membership organization and not a "standard" homeowners' association with mandatory membership and the power to assess fees. Consequently, the POA probably doesn't have standing to sue the Developer on behalf of all residents.

While this may sound like I'm splitting hairs, the distinction may become important if we have another major issue arising out of the actions of the Developer. I.e., although, in such a case, we will have POA support, we will again need interested individual residents who are willing to take the initiative and devote the time and effort to stand up for all of us.

Incidentally, the fact that membership in, and financial support of, the POA is voluntary has enabled the Developer to weaken its clout by subsidizing the VHA, which the Developer clearly has in his pocket.

Actually, the distinction is quite important. Thank you kindly for correcting the record.

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by cabo35

Gracie....you have touched upon a subject that I have been reluctant to comment on for some time. It's kind of a sacred cow that has had little scrutiny and as usual, my personal assessment can be somewhat abstract in such matters.

It is seldom mentioned when the $39,800,000 settlement is bandied about by those that use it to support their position, that the actual settlement is spread out over 13 years. While the yearly sum is still remarkable, it somehow diminishes the wallop of the $39 million dollar figure. The attorney fees were negotiated and settled at $6,700,000 dollars and the original individual residents "settled" at $300,000 presumably to be shared by them.

As these sums of money are the product of a settlement, in my mind it raises haunting questions.

Why did the developer settle relatively quickly? Did he get a better deal than he had anticipated? In real dollars the settlement comes to a little over $3 million a year from the developer. Chump change for him as his antagonists frequently suggest.

What incentive did the class action filers have to hold out for a bigger award? I believe they are all good people, but, could the prospect of a $300,000 score, cloud judgement and induce a settlement when a holdout would have been more beneficial to all Villagers? As a large class of Villagers would be impacted by the settlement, did they have an opportunity to endorse or ratify the settlement? I don't know.

I didn't notice any awards for actuarial studies. A public disclosure on the finances in issue, to the rest of the "class" seems like it would be interesting and important. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps such studies were included in the $6,700,000 legal fees. I don't know.

If the developer put $6,700,000 dollars on the table for lawyer fees, could that hasten an early settlement in the developers favor. I haven't heard an argument from many here that he isn't devious or shrewd. There are 8760 +/- hours in a year. How many years would it take a $300 dollar an hour lawyer...working 7 days a week....24 hours a day....365 days a year to reach $6,700,000? That's a lot of billable hours. My point is simple....what incentive would attorneys have to hold out for say....$6 million a year instead of $3 million? I don't know.

In fairness to the litigants, they took the risk in filing and invested the time and stress of going through the process. Do you suppose the developer knew that when he offered the settlement? I don't know.

While the settlement is frequently posted and quoted in this forum and some papers, this citation from the settlement is seldom referenced:

The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations or on the denials, or other defenses made by the Defendants. However, the parties entered into negotiations in connection with the alleged insufficiency of the Reserve and Replacement account and other matters and have entered into a preliminary settlement agreement.

I reiterate that I believe the litigants are all good people who took on a just and noble cause. I appreciate the success they achieved. I am concerned about a system of resolution that does not consider all those that are affected by a "settlement". It creates a cautious, skeptical distrust when those that have the power to settle, have a financial interest in negotiated outcomes. In that regard, I believe the "settlement" paradigm is flawed. I don't know?

Have a good evening in The Villages.

Cabo35,

While my knowledge of the facts surrounding the settlement is not complete, after discussions with several of the plaintiffs and reading other available documents, I am convinced that the plaintiffs sincerely felt, and still feel, that the $40,000,000-over-13-years was the very best that they were going to be able to obtain. Remember that the Developer's going-in position was zero.

You are absolutely right that the present value of $40,000,000 spread over 13 years is considerably less than $40,000,000 in current dollars, the present value depending on what discount rate you use. In my posts, I have just used $40,000,000, which is the approximate total dollar amount of the settlement and is the number generally used in discussions of the matter.

Will it be enough, you ask? A very good question, and one that greatly concerns me too. I think that the answer is, only time will tell. For example, it is my understanding that, during the negotiations, the Developer did not reveal to the plaintiffs the existence of the then-not-publicized and now-still-pending IRS investigation. There certainly is no mention of it in the Settlement Agreement or news accounts of the settlement. An unfavorable outcome of that investigation would almost certainly render the settlement totally inadequate.

However, if subsequent developments or actions by the Developer render the settlement amount inadequate, I suspect that, despite the release that was given as part of the settlement, we residents will be able to institute a new class action suit to ensure that we get what the Developer promised us-- the amenities.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by cabo35

Gracie....you have touched upon a subject that I have been reluctant to comment on for some time. It's kind of a sacred cow that has had little scrutiny and as usual, my personal assessment can be somewhat abstract in such matters.

It is seldom mentioned when the $39,800,000 settlement is bandied about by those that use it to support their position, that the actual settlement is spread out over 13 years. While the yearly sum is still remarkable, it somehow diminishes the wallop of the $39 million dollar figure. The attorney fees were negotiated and settled at $6,700,000 dollars and the original individual residents "settled" at $300,000 presumably to be shared by them.

As these sums of money are the product of a settlement, in my mind it raises haunting questions.

Why did the developer settle relatively quickly? Did he get a better deal than he had anticipated? In real dollars the settlement comes to a little over $3 million a year from the developer. Chump change for him as his antagonists frequently suggest.

What incentive did the class action filers have to hold out for a bigger award? I believe they are all good people, but, could the prospect of a $300,000 score, cloud judgement and induce a settlement when a holdout would have been more beneficial to all Villagers? As a large class of Villagers would be impacted by the settlement, did they have an opportunity to endorse or ratify the settlement? I don't know.

I didn't notice any awards for actuarial studies. A public disclosure on the finances in issue, to the rest of the "class" seems like it would be interesting and important. Maybe I missed it. Perhaps such studies were included in the $6,700,000 legal fees. I don't know.

If the developer put $6,700,000 dollars on the table for lawyer fees, could that hasten an early settlement in the developers favor. I haven't heard an argument from many here that he isn't devious or shrewd. There are 8760 +/- hours in a year. How many years would it take a $300 dollar an hour lawyer...working 7 days a week....24 hours a day....365 days a year to reach $6,700,000? That's a lot of billable hours. My point is simple....what incentive would attorneys have to hold out for say....$6 million a year instead of $3 million? I don't know.

In fairness to the litigants, they took the risk in filing and invested the time and stress of going through the process. Do you suppose the developer knew that when he offered the settlement? I don't know.

While the settlement is frequently posted and quoted in this forum and some papers, this citation from the settlement is seldom referenced:

The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' allegations or on the denials, or other defenses made by the Defendants. However, the parties entered into negotiations in connection with the alleged insufficiency of the Reserve and Replacement account and other matters and have entered into a preliminary settlement agreement.

I reiterate that I believe the litigants are all good people who took on a just and noble cause. I appreciate the success they achieved. I am concerned about a system of resolution that does not consider all those that are affected by a "settlement". It creates a cautious, skeptical distrust when those that have the power to settle, have a financial interest in negotiated outcomes. In that regard, I believe the "settlement" paradigm is flawed. I don't know?

Have a good evening in The Villages.

Would the five individual plaintiffs risked having to bear the entire expense for the attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees and expenses, plus court costs, had they not settled? If so, it's hard to fault with them for settling.

If they risked their personal money while all other north-side Villagers risked nothing, how could it possibly be fair for the other Villagers to decide whether the individual plaintiff's settled or whether these individuals continued to risk a fortune of their own money on the possibility of endless delays and filings and pleadings and appeals? I must be misunderstanding this. Could someone enlighten me?

As for the offer of $6.7 million in attorneys fees to settle, that does seem outrageous. It's no wonder if the attorney recommended settlement! It almost sounds like an offer by the defendants to buy off the plaintiff's attorney. What am I misunderstanding?

[Advogado]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Would the five individual plaintiffs risked having to bear the entire expense for the attorneys', accountants' and experts' fees and expenses, plus court costs, had they not settled? If so, it's hard to fault with them for settling.

If they risked their personal money while all other north-side Villagers risked nothing, how could it possibly be fair for the other Villagers to decide whether the individual plaintiff's settled or whether these individuals continued to risk a fortune of their own money on the possibility of endless delays and filings and pleadings and appeals? I must be misunderstanding this. Could someone enlighten me?

As for the offer of $6.7 million in attorneys fees to settle, that does seem outrageous. It's no wonder if the attorney recommended settlement! It almost sounds like an offer by the defendants to buy off the plaintiff's attorney. What am I misunderstanding?

Based on what I know about the case, I don't find the $6.7 million outrageous, considering the complexity of the case, the amount of the recovery, and the uncertainty of any recovery whatsoever. In fact, the plaintiffs had a terrible time finding any lawyers who would even touch the case. If you think that the facts surrounding the case weren't complex and didn't take a tremendous amount of work, try plowing through the IRS documents analyzing the dealings between the Developer and the Villages Center Community Development District regarding the pricing and sale of the amenity facilities-- the same set of facts that underlay the class-action lawsuit. Then, think about how hard it would be to develop and analyze those facts if you didn't have the powers and resources of the IRS.

In any event, I think that our real concern ought not to be the amount of the attorney fees or the amount of the award to the individual plaintiffs. Those issues are really of no practical importance at this point. Instead, the our real concern: Will the $40,000,000-over-13-years be enough to keep the amenities system going? See my earlier post for my take on that question.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by Advogado

Based on what I know about the case, I don't find the $6.7 million outrageous, considering the complexity of the case, the amount of the recovery, and the uncertainty of any recovery whatsoever. In fact, the plaintiffs had a terrible time finding any lawyers who would even touch the case. If you think that the facts surrounding the case weren't complex and didn't take a tremendous amount of work, try plowing through the IRS documents analyzing the dealings between the Developer and the Villages Center Community Development District regarding the pricing and sale of the amenity facilities-- the same set of facts that underlay the class-action lawsuit. Then, think about how hard it would be to develop and analyze those facts if you didn't have the powers and resources of the IRS.

In any event, I think that our real concern ought not to be the amount of the attorney fees or the amount of the award to the individual plaintiffs. Those issues are really of no practical importance at this point. Instead, the our real concern: Will the $40,000,000-over-13-years be enough to keep the amenities system going? See my earlier post for my take on that question.

Agreed. The attorneys fees could well have been that much or more had the case moved forward through all the courts to conclusion. It just struck me as excessive considering a quick settlement. I don't question the wisdom of settling though. It's easy to for folks to plead, "go for broke" when it's other people's money on the line.

[same]

Do I understand this correctly? ...The lawyers got $6.7 million NOW. The POA board members got $300,000 NOW. ...We get $40 million dollars in 13 years. ...Who approved this "settlement"?

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by same

Do I understand this correctly? ...The lawyers got $6.7 million NOW. The POA board members got $300,000 NOW. ...We get $40 million dollars in 13 years. ...Who approved this "settlement"?

Same, if I understand it correctly, the people who filed the lawsuit (the plaintiffs), along with the defendants, settled the lawsuit. Is this correct?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by same

Do I understand this correctly? ...The lawyers got $6.7 million NOW. The POA board members got $300,000 NOW. ...We get $40 million dollars in 13 years. ...Who approved this "settlement"?

My opinion is, and I am not educated in the law of the land and I haven't ever been sued or have never sued anybody...

It appears that these five people, although I think Joe Gorman was the president of the POA at the time were not acting on the behalf of the POA but brought suit on their own, and as a result they did personally financially benefit. If they had lost the suit, would they have lost money? Do some lawyers take suits that say they won't be paid at all unless they win?

I believe that financial benefit wasn't the reason for the suit, 50K isn't that much money and I am NOT trying to be facetious.

Were any of those people who brought suit lawyers themselves? It seems very risky to do what they had done.

The POA is a very good watchdog and I do so like the language of the publication MUCH better now that there is a new editor. It sounds much more like a journalist is writing it rather than a p**sed off person.

I read the current POA newsletter the other day and found myself enjoying the read and looked up the address to send a check to join. I like what I am reading and I am comfortable with the goals. The new president sounds like a winner and I read that they are getting a lot of new members which to me is not surprising.

This place gets better all of the time.

We wouldn't know any of this stuff without TOTV.

[ceejay]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

This place gets better all of the time.

We wouldn't know any of this stuff without TOTV.

Thank God we have this particular venue to educate all of us!

Gracie...do you ever sleep?

[Avista]

Originally Posted by Xavier

I've changed my avatar for today in honor of all you have endured. I lost my Mom to breast cancer in January. As you can see we both have a special buddy to help us through the hard times.

Xavier

We sure DO have that special buddy, don't we?

[Avista]

"My disappointment with Moffitt is that an oncologist will not be on staff there. At least that's what I have been told."

One thought on this: Moffitt has so many oncologists--and they are all specialized. For instance, I had a certain type of Breast Cancer. My oncologist was not only specialized in Breast Cancer, but my particular type of Breast Cancer.

[rubicon]

Cabo31,PTurnerAdvogado,Graciegirl If you will recall the 3/18/08 POA meeting was called in haste because many POA members demanded information concerning the settlement after they learned of the individual settlements and the large attorney fee. Neither the Daily Sun, Village Voice or POA Bulletin disclosed any information about those settlements. The decision to hide those setlements from the membership was not a wise one. Secondly $6.7 million for 15 months work is nice work if you can get it but the reasons cited in a previous post were the same cited by a celebrated plaintiff attorney from Jacksonville hired by the Developer to justify the settlement and accompaning fees. Can you imagine one attorney vouching for the work of another attorney. We will never know what the true recovery could have been because those making the decision apparently took the first and only offer. Secondly the case was not complex as it was my understanding that it was the garden variety breach of contract case. Finally the chances of recovery were good because you had a David v Goliath case and juries love to reward the little people. Even a neophyte like me understands the lure people have for the underdog. Its the American way.

If the individual plaintiffs, who were all on the POA Board believed they were taking all the risks they should have had a meeting before settling to explain the situation and get feed back from the membership and asked if they wanted to contribute to the cause. Irrespective of wha was done in the past the membership should have been give a last chance to have input on a lawsuit that would have a lasting effect on their financial situations. It would have been viewed as a good faith effort by the POA leadership It may be that this was not a class action suit but the POA characterized it that way to the membership. And we have to ask why then if it wasn't a class action did the Daily Sun Village voice and POA Bulletin place a notice to residents north of 466 that if they wanted to opt out they had x number of days to file a claim? The mere fact that this was done has meaning and its action misleading to many. Beside which the POA consistently remind the membership that the lawsuit was done on their behalf

I had always suspected that the Developer had some pressing reason for settling and with news of the IRS Bond issue that question was answered for me. I am surprised that an attorney worth $6.7 million didn't pick up on the fact that something in the background was causing the Developer to suddently want to settle this case. Put another way many attorneys would have suspected they had the defense on the run and picked at the situation a bit before settling. I mean isn't that what attorneys do?

We don't know what was contained in the confidentiality agreement? But common sense tells us that the Developer and his band of legal minds would have made an attempt to add a covenant not to sue clause so that never again could he be sued by the POA. I say this because all you have to do is take a look around this vast complex called The Villages and it doesn't take much imagination to see the number of contracts made hundreds and hundreds of times over to protect the Developer's interests. Perhaps I am wrong here but again it would have been prudent for the POA leadership to have been more open about this settlement proposal and the potential benefits and costs and thus protect their backs.

The fact that the people involved in the lawsuit and the people who had the interests of the membership of the POA were its leaders placed them in a very bad light. It was the attorney's duty to alert these plaintiffs of that fact and that is why disclosure before settling was so important and needed.
The questioning was predictable because once again the 3/18/08 meeting was held to explain those individual settlements which by the way was never really addressed. The POA attorney response was "some very nice attorneys from the Developer came to see us....."

Perhaps the POA may have missed a golden opportunity with this lawsuit. We will never know? And that is the point. I do appreciate what the POA was attempting to do and I do not desire to second guess but the fact remains that the manner in which the settlement took place and the fact that disclosure of the individuals settlements was not made but revealed by at least two outside sources did not bode well for many people. And like so many other issues the POA could have and should have acted bolder and at the time of settlement been more open. In otherwords perhaps a meeting like the one held 3/18/08 should have been conducted before the documenta were signed and finalized?

Because most of us never have or never will see any of the settlement documents we can only go by what we experienced. But the failure to disclose individual settlements was factual and that I believe is what mostly created the uproar

[graciegirl]

Guess not.

[rubicon]

In reviewing my previous post I note that I made mention that "The decision to hide.....was not a wise one." That is an assumption and hence may not be correct. what I meant to say was that the unintentional failure to disclose individual settlements created the need to publicly address the issue.
We don't know what we don't know and we willnever know???