6/29/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M to approve this letter. Apparently, any monetary negotiations that are being agreed to by the other parties are not a part of that. Attorney Reynolds explained that the Board only is voting to authorize the Chairman to send this letter if the case settles; if it doesn't settle, this doesn't go anywhere. Attorney Collins was a little concerned because saying that if the case goes forward, this letter goes nowhere, could be construed as an admission against interest by the County if the case does not settle. Attorney Reynolds advised that Prince's letter is only for purposes of settlement and any discussions or documentation under the rules of evidence associated with settlement discussions are not admissible in court. Attorney Collins noted that Prince is speaking for the other plaintiff, Dennis Smith, and should the case settle, if would be settled as to Dennis Smith vs. Indian River County as well. _ Attorney Reynolds stated that is absolutely correct. Attorney Collins felt he had to advise the Board of County Commissioners that the reason he felt Mr. Scurlock should not participate in the vote whereby the County Commission decides whether or not to enter into this settlement agreement is that by settling, the settlement could inure to the benefit of Mr. Scurlock in that he has the potential claim for attorney's fees against the County in the future. The settlement could leave him an opportunity to claim against the County, and he believed Mr. Scurlock should not vote on it as it could be to his own benefit. That's the nature of the voting conflict he felt Mr. Scurlock should declare. Attorney Reynolds stated that is the basis upon which he is making the recommendation to the Board. At this time his recommendation is for Mr. Scurlock to walk away and the County to walk away; we've had attorney's fees, he's had attorney's fees and participated in whatever manner with regard to the resolution of 17 BOOK G" JUN 91992