My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/24/1989
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1989
>
10/24/1989
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2023 10:26:28 AM
Creation date
6/16/2015 8:09:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
10/24/1989
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
60
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
OCT24189 <br />n00K 78 PAGE 26i <br />In view of the above factors, I believe Mr. Candler and <br />Associates Management Group, Inc.'s offer to settle the case <br />for $12,500 less than full value should they prevail at <br />trial would be in the best interest of all parties. I <br />recommend approval of the proposed settlement of $36,000 to <br />Associates Management Group, Inc. and $11,000 to .Smith, <br />O'Haire, Quinn & Garris for attorney's fees and costs. <br />Attorney Collins explained the controlling case law in <br />regard to requiring such a dedication. He felt it probably would <br />have to be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court to prove the <br />benefit to public interest, and when we have an easement but no <br />parking at the end of the easement so that people would either <br />have to trespass on private property or park illegally on A -1-A, <br />The personally did not feel.we have a good enough case to say we <br />were substantially advancing government interest, which is the <br />test. In view of the fact that he felt our chances of prevailing <br />are less than 50%, Attorney Collins did feel what is offered is <br />fair and recommended acceptance of the settlement proposed above. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked whether "substantial benefit" <br />refers to immediate or long term substantial benefit. <br />Attorney Collins advised that the exact term is "substan- <br />tially advancing legitimate government interest," and he felt it <br />would be tough to show that when there is no parking for anyone <br />to utilize the easement. <br />Commissioner Scurlock noted this possibly could benefit the <br />people from the Council on Aging, or kids in the Recreation <br />programs, who conceivably could be transported right to the <br />beach. <br />Attorney Collins agreed we could advance that argument, but <br />he believed the courts would consider it attenuated. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the formula for establishing the <br />attorneys' fees. Attorney Collins felt the fees they are asking <br />are quite reasonable in view of the complexity of the case. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised the Board that he felt even less <br />sanguine regarding our chances of winning this case than Attorney <br />Collins; in fact, he felt we have a sure loser. <br />48 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.