My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
6/29/1992
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1992
>
6/29/1992
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 11:02:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
06/29/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
M <br />07 <br />our liability as the County would be only vicarious. Therefore, <br />Commissioner Scurlock would owe us attorney's fees for defending <br />this action, and he would owe us indemnification or contribution <br />based upon his individual acts. Then we have a third separate <br />count under Fla. Statute 111°.07 relative to whether or not the <br />individual acted in his individual capacity or his official <br />capacity. Essentially, that cuts both ways. Commissioner <br />Scurlock, at this point and time, has not filed a claim back <br />against the County for his attorney's fees, but potentially, he <br />could do so. Attorney Reynolds stated that he isn't saying that it <br />is a viable claim, but at least the argument could be made. With <br />regard to the individual claim against Mr. Scurlock, he felt we <br />should settle everything and walk away. <br />Attorney Lyman Reynolds stated that he has not found <br />throughout the exhaustive research and discovery in this case by <br />Prince any evidence of a conflict of interest existing on the day <br />and time of the vote. We have third party statements relative to <br />representation by Mr. Scurlock as to his relationship; we have the <br />Ocoee project; we have what he (Reynolds) characterized to the <br />court as braggadocios statements to this Commission, to individual <br />members of the County staff and to individual Commissioners about <br />Mr. Scurlock's alleged relationship with Guettler. However, under <br />the law, he has found no evidence that a relationship existed <br />whereby Mr. Scurlock would be individually rewarded or remunerated <br />for the award of this contract. His recommendation to the Board <br />would be to resolve it all. Mr. Scurlock would pay his attorney <br />fees and we would pay our attorney fees. Remembering that <br />indemnification and contribution are only a derivative claim, if <br />Prince settles, and if Guettler settles this case, and we are only <br />left with a derivative claim against Mr. Scurlock, we then as <br />Indian River County would take over in essence the burden of proof <br />from Prince to prove that this relationship in fact existed and the <br />most that you could hope for would be recouping all or a portion of <br />V] <br />BOOK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.