07.09.2014 Views

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

STYLE/CASE NO. COURT ATTORNEY ACTION DESCRIPTION/STATUS<br />

In December 2011, the <strong>District</strong>’s counsel served a formal proposal<br />

for settlement for $10,000.00, which will entitle the <strong>District</strong> to an<br />

award of attorney’s fees if Blount ultimately receives a judgment<br />

that is 25% less than the amount of the settlement proposal (i.e.,<br />

$7,500.00), or less. In late July 2012, Plaintiff accepted settlement<br />

from the <strong>District</strong>’s insurance carrier. On July 31, 2012, Plaintiff’s<br />

counsel filed a notice of settlement. Case dismissed and<br />

resolved.<br />

19<br />

Bradshaw, Chester<br />

J. and Charles E.<br />

Strange, Jr., v.<br />

SWFWMD/Case<br />

No. 2011 CA 4011<br />

Branch Banking<br />

and Trust Co v.<br />

Krueger, Joseph<br />

M., et al./Case No.<br />

2010 CA 001200<br />

Maguire, Raymer<br />

F., III and<br />

5 th Judicial Circuit,<br />

Citrus County<br />

5 th Judicial Circuit,<br />

Sumter County<br />

10th Judicial Circuit,<br />

Highlands County<br />

J. Ward Complaint for Declaratory Relief On October 19, 2011, the <strong>District</strong> was served with a Complaint for<br />

Declaratory Relief. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks declaratory relief<br />

against the <strong>District</strong> on grounds the <strong>District</strong> owns certain real<br />

property identified as the Potts Preserve and Flying Eagle ranches.<br />

The specific relief sought consists of a declaration that portions of<br />

the properties are sovereignty lands, rather than being subject to<br />

<strong>District</strong> ownership, and an order requiring the <strong>District</strong> to remove all<br />

fences, signs, and barriers on sovereignty lands in Potts Preserve<br />

and Flying Eagle. On December 14, 2011 the <strong>District</strong> filed a motion<br />

to dismiss the complaint. On April 20, 2012, a hearing was held on<br />

the <strong>District</strong>’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the <strong>District</strong>’s<br />

motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on June<br />

4, 2012, adding DEP as a defendant in the case. The <strong>District</strong> filed<br />

a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 27, 2012, and<br />

DEP filed a motion to dismiss shortly thereafter. The <strong>District</strong> and<br />

DEP’s motions to dismiss are currently pending.<br />

J. Ward Foreclosure complaint against<br />

Joseph M. Krueger, Joanne<br />

Suggs Krueger, et al., against<br />

whom the <strong>District</strong> has a judgment<br />

with regard to an enforcement<br />

action<br />

J. Ward Suit seeking declaratory judgment<br />

re tax certificates<br />

17<br />

This is a foreclosure proceeding relating to the Suggs ERP<br />

enforcement matter (see detailed description in “Appeals” section<br />

below). Joseph Krueger was a former owner of one of the<br />

properties on the Suggs master parcel. On October 8, 2010, this<br />

foreclosure proceeding was filed by the lender holding the note on<br />

that particular property. The <strong>District</strong> is named as a defendant only<br />

because it recorded a final judgment placing a lien against the<br />

subject property. The <strong>District</strong>’s interest in the property is<br />

subordinate to the foreclosing lender’s interest. The <strong>District</strong> filed an<br />

answer to the complaint on October 26, 2010. On December 3,<br />

2011, the court issued an order to show cause as to why the case<br />

should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. By order dated<br />

January 27, 2012, the plaintiff is required to appear before the court<br />

on April 4, 2012, to show cause as to why the case should not be<br />

dismissed. The plaintiff canceled the hearing on its motion for<br />

summary judgment, and has initiated discussions with the <strong>District</strong><br />

regarding settlement. The plaintiff is currently contemplating<br />

settlement options.<br />

On November 3, 2010, the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint<br />

suing several governmental defendants, including the <strong>District</strong>,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!