Ravines Legal Opinion

I have said it before. We have elected people who have no morals, no conscience, no honor. From local to Washington.

How can a judge say a duly signed document it not valid?  Easy, he/or she (politically correct writing) just does not have to follow the law. Now the people have to take it to the State Supreme Court. This will cost them a lot of money. Then to the Supreme Court in Washington. More money.

 If either court finds in favor of the people I think that the judge and developer should pay 10 times the damages including the cost of litigation. The judge should loose their judgeship and loose their license to practice law for being unable to protect the people by upholding the law.

Ah but I dream and like to write fairy tales.

Those who give up freedom for security have neither 

OneMann;

And the 3 minute rule is up to the discretion of the chair. But it seems to me the only people that get to talk for more than 3 minutes are those that are in favor.

They already know that they are going to get to speak for more than 3 minutes before they get there. You can tell by how well they have prepared their presentation. The rest have to get up there thinking they have 3 minutes and hope they get more.

And then the BOCC wonders why people don't like them? Mike, I hope you win your district, but I have to question your sanity for wanting to step in to that snake pit. 

MikeH

Finder, I understand the necessity for a time limit in some situations.  For instance, if 400 people show up to speak against a shady, lobbyist-driven universal garbage collection fiasco, you can't just turn them loose with a microphone in their hands.  Some common sense has to enter the equation and, frankly, that's one commodity the Board of County Commissioners seems woefully short of at times.

When it comes to actual fairness, though, the three-minute time limit for public comments or citizen rebuttal to a particular topic flat-out sucks.

Let's use Marsha as an example.  She is more than just another citizen wishes to voice her objection to some more of Clay County's poorly-planned and -managed growth.  She has vested interests, financially, contractually and personally, in the future of The Ravines.

The developer or lawyer/trustee or bankrupt entrepreneur or their representatives (whose vested interests are limited to financial) will have no set time limit to explain to the County Commission why it can't do a damn thing to stop what's going on.

And when it's Marsha's turn to explain why the BCC should be looking for ways to stop The Ravines from becoming just another neighborhood stuck in its own traffic jam, she will get 180 seconds.  She's asked for more, but that'll be up to Chairman George Bush to decide.  (Unless, of course, it could be one of the meetings where he passes the gavel to someone else as part of his Chairman for a Day program.  I can picture the gleeful look on his face as he tosses that decision to someone else.)

Maybe after this year's elections, there will be at least one County Commissioner who sees the inequity of the current public comment policies and suggest some changes that incorporate common sense and honor the BCC's lip service to listening to its constituents.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

Finder and OneMann

I remember well many times the commissioners have let the clock run past the Holy 3 minute time limit...One example--a fellow developer pal (a close FOC on several advisory committees) was allowed to speak for over seven minutes. At the same meeting, a citizen was cut off and prevented from finishing her last sentence because the 3 minute rule was selectively enforced.

Finder, you probably weren't here then, but OneMann will remember when a commissioner closed the meeting entirely and had a citizen surrounded by security--all before 30 seconds of his 3 minutes were up (And no, he was not making a personal attack.).

Another time, in 2005-2006, a commissioner called a citizen "A liar"--all on camera at the conclusion of the citizen's 3 minute public comment time. (The commissioner made a public apology at the next BCC meeting.)

Hopefully, Marsha will be able to speak more than the 3 minutes allowed to us common folk, as she has requested. I'll remain optimistic for that happening, Marsha, and try and not let my memory focus on the time in August that 3 dozen people were not allowed to speak before the PC at all---The excuse given was the PC Chairman --a 14 year veteran on the PC--- at the time was "confused".

I was once told by my own personal Counsel that an Attorney never asks a question where the answer is not already known.  In sending that email to the BCC I posed more then a few questions to them and in response now have the County Attorney and at least one member of the BCC on the hook for what they've said.  The Countys position via their Attorney is now made clear to all Citizens. 

If anyone thinks for a moment that this is the last word they are seriously mistaken.  Interpertations of laws have inspired many precedents, and this is not the first time in the State, or in the Country where situations like this have existed. We are not without anything further in our arsenal and that will be made apparent at the BCC meeting next week. 

For the County Attorney to essentially say that the Covenants & Restrictions are not worth the paper they are printed on is a serious mistake.  He didn't use those words but that was the message in saying it's a private contract they have nothing to do with is untrue. The backlash that this would cause, if true would make a good many people change their minds about buying into such things.  I am however saying it is not true.  The County benefits and puts their own requirements into these PUDs and their Declarations, you cannot have it both ways.  You cannot use a piece of paper when it suits you and ignore it otherwise and that is basically what they're claiming they have a right to do.  They're not above the law, and neither is that Trustee who carries his PERSONAL Attorney with him wherever he goes.   

If the BCC attempts to void or ignore these restrictions then they could be responsible for the uprising and disbandment of every PUD in the county, imagine that mess.  

I personally will probably not speak at the meeting.  I tend to tell people how the cow eats the cabbage without mincing words so I don't have the demeanor for this.  Here in the blogs I can take my time and reel in my thoughts to a more palatable offering.  My request to the BCC was for my Husband to be put on the Agenda.  He's not just a homeowner but an expert in his field, you would think they would have welcome expert testimony.  If it was good enough for Congress it should be good enough for the Clay County Board of Commissioners.

It's just too bad their meetings are always held in the middle of the work day, but that is probably on purpose.  Perhaps we need a letter writing campaign to the BCC to have their meetings when the majority of the Public is free to attend, after all, we're paying their salaries.  Most of the time the boss gets to dictate when the employee works. 

Glad you didn't let the County Attorney's hold 'em down theory of the county's responsibilities get you down.  I knew your red-headed stubbornness, if nothing else, would keep you in this fight.  Should've known you had a stack of more facts on your side, too.

I look forward to you keeping us informed.  I, as do many other Clay County residents, have personal financial investments in The Ravines.  I figure there's still at least $20 worth of my once-stroked golf balls from 20 years ago still hidden somewhere not near wherever I was aiming at the time.

Michael S. Mann

michaelsmann@comcast.net

I can almost understand that the covenant and restrictions are a contract between the seller and the buyer of property and therefore the County is not a party in that contract.  Then I consider, why does it have to be filed with the County if the County is not a party?  A contract between my lender and me must also be filed with the County.  A lien will be filed with the County if I do not meet that agreement with my lender.

What about this Chapter in the Florida Statutes in regard to homeowner associations? 

720.305  Obligations of members; remedies at law or in equity; levy of fines and suspension of use rights; failure to fill sufficient number of vacancies on board of directors to constitute a quorum; appointment of receiver upon petition of any member.-- (1)  Each member and the member's tenants, guests, and invitees, and each association, are governed by, and must comply with, this chapter, the governing documents of the community, and the rules of the association.  Actions at law or in equity, or both, to redress alleged failure or refusal to comply with these provisions may be brought by the association or by any member against: (a)  The association; (b)  A member; (c)  Any director or officer of an association who willfully and knowingly fails to comply with these provisions; and (d)  Any tenants, guests, or invitees occupying a parcel or using the common areas.

The prevailing party in any such litigation is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs. A member prevailing in an action between the association and the member under this section, in addition to recovering his or her reasonable attorney's fees, may recover additional amounts as determined by the court to be necessary to reimburse the member for his or her share of assessments levied by the association to fund its expenses of the litigation. This relief does not exclude other remedies provided by law. This section does not deprive any person of any other available right or remedy.  

In regard to filing:

695.11  Instruments deemed to be recorded from time of filing.--All instruments which are authorized or required to be recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of any county in the State of Florida, and which are to be recorded in the "Official Records" as provided for under s. 28.222, and which are filed for recording on or after the effective date of this act, shall be deemed to have been officially accepted by the said officer, and officially recorded, at the time she or he affixed thereon the consecutive official register numbers required under s. 28.222, and at such time shall be notice to all persons. The sequence of such official numbers shall determine the priority of recordation. An instrument bearing the lower number in the then-current series of numbers shall have priority over any instrument bearing a higher number in the same series.  

Filing something with the County is notice to all persons that there are deed restrictions on the property and every effort has been made to make any prospective buyer aware of those restrictions.  The County would not pay for any other party to file suit against someone violating any document filed with the County but it should have some obligation to honor what is recorded and not in effect, be a party to or vehicle to the violation.

County Goverment can say Covenants & Restrictions are a private contract that they don't have to contend with.  The only reason they were ever classified as a "contract" was in order for the Civil Court System to be able to rule over them. 

They can say they have no obligation, they can even choose to ignore it, and vote against us. All that means is that this will move into Civil Court where they will not prevail and the taxpayers will be footing the bill because the Law provides for compensatory damages and court costs in this situation. 

The one good thing in all this is if the BCC doesn't act right, it will move a great many people off the fence about the Hometown Democracy Amendment.