Laserfiche WebLink
ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: 7(8/14 <br />Office of <br />INDIAN RIVER COUNTY <br />ATTORNEY <br />Dylan Reingold, County Attorney <br />\iiilliam K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney <br />Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County Attorney <br />MEMORANDUM <br />TO: Board of County Commissioners <br />FROM: William K. DeBraal, Deputy CountyAttorney <br />6� <br />THROUGH: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Q f'' <br />DATE: July 1, 2014 X <br />SUBJECT: Resolution denouncing interest in SeaTurtle Lane in settlement of <br />the lawsuit of Mitchell vs. Brady and Indian River County <br />Sea Turtle Lane is the only street in the Surf Colony Subdivision that was platted over <br />60 years ago. In 2007, Indian River County was named as a party to a lawsuit involving <br />the Residents of Surf Colony Subdivision. Briefly stated, an adjoining land owner sued <br />the Surf Colony Subdivision property owners over the location of Sea Turtle Lane. The <br />County was brought into the lawsuit as the plaintiff claimed the County may have an <br />interest in Sea Turtle Lane by way of the plat dedication. The dedication reads as <br />follows: <br />"Dedication by Owner: We the undersigned, the owner of the tract of land comprising <br />SURF COLONY as shown on this plat hereby dedicate said plat and streets thereon as <br />described therein and an easement on, in, and under the rear feet of all Tots for the <br />location of sewers, poles, water pipes, drains, telephone and electric cables <br />(The Plat was not legible as to the areas left blank and the end of the dedication <br />sentence was also left blank due to being illegible.) <br />The County claimed this dedication was insufficient to attribute any sort of interest to the <br />County. The County has never asserted ownership of the right-of-way nor has it ever <br />maintained or repaired Sea Turtle Lane. <br />^PROVED FOR fit <br />t. <br />S.C.C. MEETING - RE GU, R_AGENDA <br />CO1!!°TY ATTORNEY <br />53 <br />