notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District
notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District
notebook - Southwest Florida Water Management District
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>,