Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
This is my Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Seeking Punitive Damages against WaterSound, Watercolor, Lilienthal, Matteson, Joule and Voelker
Citation preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 09CA002021v.
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Florida CorporationDAVID LILIENTHAL, individuallyand as Director,MARY JOULE, SANDRA MATTESON,RONALD VOELKER,WATERCOLOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.JOHN DOE and JANE DOE
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
TO ADD A CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WITH SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND
PROFFER OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiff moves under section 768.72, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.190 (f) to amend his second amended complaint to add a claim for punitive
damages against Defendants WaterSound Beach Community Association, Inc.
(WaterSound), David Lilienthal (David), Mary Joule (Mary), Sandra Matteson (Sandy),
Ronald Voelker (Ron), and Watercolor Community Association, Inc. (Watercolor), and
states as follows:
1. WaterSound and Watercolor are each governed by clear and specific rules
that have been duly recorded with the Walton County Clerk of Court. Those rules are the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Watercolor (Exhibit A) and WaterSound
1
(Exhibit B).
2. The activities of Watercolor and WaterSound are controlled by those
Covenants. Mary and Sandy were agents for both Watercolor and WaterSound, and their
actions were delineated by those Covenants. Sandy is a Community Association Manager
specially and duly licensed under Florida Statute Chapter 468, Part VIII, and Rule 61-20
and 61-E14 of the Florida Administrative Code to uphold Florida Statute and the
Covenants. David was a Director for the Board of WaterSound, and his role and
activities were controlled by WaterSound’s Covenants as well as a Fiduciary Duty
defined by Florida Statute 720.303(1). Further, David is a Realtor specially and duly
licensed under Florida Statute 475 and Rule 61-J2 who has special knowledge of
Covenants and Restrictions in Florida. Ron is a Florida licensed surveyor, and his
activities are governed by the WaterSound Covenants and Florida’s Land Surveying and
Mapping Statute, Chapter 472. Carroll was a member of WaterSound, and was legally
protected from the actions of WaterSound, Sandy, Mary, David and Ron. Carroll was
also a licensed contractor, Watercolor resident and resident of the great State of Florida
thereby also guaranteed protection under Florida Law and the Covenants of Watercolor.
3. The activities of all Defendants were the proximate cause of damages to
Carroll, and were explicitly and purposefully founded on breaches of WaterSound’s
Covenants, Watercolor’s Covenants and Florida’s Statutes. WaterSound and Watercolor
wrote and recorded their Covenants, and each of the individual Defendants acknowledges
personal knowledge of the Covenant’s.
4. All of the Defendants have a heightened and professional understanding of
the laws and covenants they breached.
2
5. Since at least 2007, the Defendants have relentlessly and systematically
engaged in tactics to damage Carroll. Each of the Defendants is guilty of intentional
misconduct or gross negligence, and must be held liable for punitive damages.
6. Each of the Defendants had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of their
conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to Carroll would result and,
despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct which indeed
resulted in damage to Carroll.
7. Each of the Defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it
constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of Carroll.
8. WaterSound and Watercolor are liable for punitive damages for the
conduct of its agents or employees, because its agents are guilty of intentional
misconduct or gross negligence, and Watercolor and WaterSound actively and knowingly
participated in the conduct, and their officers, directors and managers knowingly
condoned, ratified and consented to the conduct, and they also engaged in conduct that
constituted gross negligence that contributed to the loss and damages suffered by Carroll.
WHEREFORE Carroll respectfully requests the Court grant this Motion for Leave
to Amend his Second Amended Complaint to include a Claim for Punitive Damages and
deem Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (Exhibit C) as filed upon the Court’s granting
of Plaintiff’s Motion.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
9. To amend his Complaint to state a claim for punitive damages, Carroll
need demonstrate only that a “reasonable basis” for such damages exists in the record.
Punitive damages act as a punishment to deter wrongful conduct and “to vindicate
3
wrongs arising from antisocial behavior. The incentive to bring actions for punitive
damages is favored because it has been determined to be the most satisfactory way to
correct evil-doing in areas not covered by the criminal law.” Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
v. Janssens, 463 So. 2d 242, 247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (citations omitted). Carroll seeks to
amend his Second Amended Complaint to state a claim for punitive damages pursuant to
section 768.72, Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f). In
pertinent part, §768.72(1) provides:
In any civil action, no claim for punitive damages shall be permitted
unless there is a reasonable showing by evidence in the record or proffered
by the claimant which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of
such damages. The claimant may move to amend her or his complaint to
assert a claim for punitive damages as allowed by the rules of civil
procedure.
Rule 1.190(f) states: “A motion for leave to amend a pleading to assert a claim for
punitive damages shall make a reasonable showing, by evidence in the record or evidence
to be proffered by the claimant, that provides a reasonable basis for recovery of such
damages.”
Thus, in order to plead a claim for punitive damages, Plaintiff need only provide
the Court with a showing of a “reasonable basis” for the recovery of such damages. See
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). “[A]n evidentiary hearing
where witnesses testify and evidence is offered and scrutinized under the pertinent
evidentiary rules, as in a trial, is neither contemplated nor mandated by the statute in
order to determine whether a reasonable basis has been established to plead punitive
4
damages.” Estate of Despain v. Avante Group, Inc., 900 So. 2d 637, 642 (Fla. 5th DCA
2005). Plaintiff may establish the reasonable basis for punitive damages by proffer, which
“is merely a representation of what evidence the [party] proposes to present and is not
actual evidence.” Id. (quoting Grim v. State, 841 So. 2d 455, 462 (Fla. 2003)). “[T]he
standard that applies to determine whether a reasonable basis has been shown to plead a
claim for punitive damages should be similar to the standard that is applied to determine
whether a complaint states a cause of action.” Id. at 644. The proffer, therefore, is
reviewed in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and accepted as true. Id. (citing Sobi
v. Fairfield Resorts, Inc., 846 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)).
Pursuant to section 768.72(2), Mary, David, Ron and Sandy may be held liable for
punitive damages based upon clear and convincing evidence of intentional misconduct or
gross negligence. “Intentional misconduct” means that the defendant had actual
knowledge of the wrongfulness of the conduct and the high probability that injury or
damage to the claimant would result and, despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued
that course of conduct, resulting in injury or damage.” § 768.72(2)(a). “Gross negligence”
means that the defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it constituted a
conscious disregard or indifference to the life, safety, or rights of persons exposed to such
conduct.” § 768.72(2)(b).
To impose punitive damages against WaterSound and Watercolor, the
requirements of section 768.72(2) must be satisfied, as well as one of the following: (a)
The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity actively and knowingly
participated in such conduct; (b) The officers, directors, or managers of the employer,
principal, corporation, or other legal entity knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to
5
such conduct; or (c) The employer, principal, corporation, or other legal entity engaged in
conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to the loss, damages, or
injury suffered by the claimant. §768.72(3). In this case, both Watercolor and
WaterSound’s acts satisfy these requirements.
Furthermore, this Court has already found that Carroll has sufficiently pleaded
causes of action for:
A. Fraud against Ron, Mary, David, Sandy, WaterSound and Lilienthal
B. Libel against Watercolor, WaterSound, Mary, Ron, Sandy and David
C. Negligent Retention against WaterSound
D. Civil Conspiracy against Watercolor, WaterSound and Ron
E. Slander against Ron, David, Mary, Sandy, Watercolor and WaterSound
F. Negligence against WaterSound, Sandy, Ron, David and Mary
Each of these claims is based on essential elements of purposeful, knowingly or
negligently committing wrongful acts which caused harm or damages to Carroll.
Carroll does not have to prove any of the above in order to amend his Complaint;
Carroll need only provide a reasonable basis for the recovery of punitive damages in the
form of a proffer of evidence. As demonstrated below, Carroll’s proffer of evidence
satisfies both subsections (2) and (3) of §768.72. Therefore, the Court should grant
Carroll’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended Complaint to add a claim for
punitive damages.
Carroll’s proffer of evidence, presented below, provides a reasonable basis for his
recovery of punitive damages. In summary, the evidence presented by Carroll
demonstrates the Defendants systematically engaged in intentional or grossly negligent
6
conduct that interfered with Carroll’s ability to care for his family, destroyed Carroll’s
extremely successful businesses which took years of sacrifice and hard work to establish,
damaged Carroll’s property, destroyed Carroll’s life’s savings, and ultimately caused
Carroll to suffer amputations to his hand in front of his wife and 7 year old daughter.
The Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, malicious and in reckless disregard
for Carroll. These allegations are sufficient to state a cause of action for punitive
damages.
Proffer of Evidence
In support of his Motion for Leave to Amend his Second Amended Complaint to
include a claim for punitive damages, Carroll makes the following proffer of evidence,
which is based on the discovery conducted in this case and will be demonstrated by
witness testimony and documentary evidence at trial:
Since at least 2007, the Defendants have relentlessly and systematically engaged
in tactics to damage Carroll. Each of the Defendants is guilty of intentional misconduct
or gross negligence, and must be held liable for punitive damages.
Each of the Defendants had actual knowledge of the wrongfulness of their
conduct and the high probability that injury or damage to Carroll would result and,
despite that knowledge, intentionally pursued that course of conduct which indeed
resulted in damage to Carroll.
Each of the Defendant’s conduct was so reckless or wanting in care that it
constituted a conscious disregard or indifference to the rights of Carroll.
7
1. Defendant Mary intentionally, and with reckless disregard for the
covenants and the law, made repeated and prolonged misstatements of material
facts in order to induce Carroll to act, or refrain from acting, on them. Each and
every time Carroll became suspicious and sought to get the truth, Mary
compounded on her falsehoods. All the while, Mary was under the mandate of
WaterSound and Watercolor’s Covenants. Mary was trained for her job, read the
Covenants yet acted in opposition to her mandate. Mary did so to exact harm on
Carroll. Mary succeeded in damaging Carroll.
o Mary concealed damaging communications regarding Carroll, even after
receiving several §720.303 requests (Exhibit D):
Q Did Sandra Matteson tell you to delete
emails regarding my company or myself?
A Never.
Q Did she tell you to produce them all and
copy them on paper somehow?
A Yes.
Q And where did they go?
A We gave them all to Tracy.
Q Tracy Regan?
A (Witness indicating in the affirmative.) Q When did you start doing that?
A Well, we did that back in whenever this
was all going on.
8
Q As early as 2007 when you first started --
A No, not 2007. 2008.
Q If you would, just take a look at that
letter there. I think there's an email to you in
there. Are you familiar with that?
A It looks like you wrote it to me.
Q Did you forward that email to Tracy Regan?
I see her name at the very top. I didn't know.
A Yeah. It says from Mary Carol Joule on
May 22nd, 2008 to Tracy Regan, Subject, Lot 1 and
But this is broken again here, too, so I don't
know if that's another one or chain or what.
Q Did I ask you to turn over correspondence
from any of my customers?
A I guess it looks like so.
Q Why didn't you turn over that document
that we just looked at to me?
A I have no idea.
Q Did you feel you didn't have to?
A I don't know.
o Mary knew WaterSound had Covenants that controlled her activity and
knew where to go to review them:
Q Mary, do you know that WaterSound Beach
has restrictive covenants?9
A Yes.
Q Have you ever read them before?
A A few parts.
Q Where does WaterSound keep their
restrictive covenants so that you can read them?
A They're in the individual managers' -- the
individual HOA offices, and I think there's a set at
our office.
o Mary testified to acting completely contrary to the Covenants. Her
misconduct was intentional and grossly negligent:
Q When did you order the survey for Lot 24?
A It was in '08, February or March of '08.
Q Was it free?
A No, it was $200.
Q Who gave you permission to spend $200
ordering a survey?
A Sandy Matteson did.
Q Did she have the authority to do that?
A Yes.
Q And who gave her that authority?
A I guess it's her position.
Q Did you check and make sure that she had
the authority to do that?
10
A No.
Q And why not?
A I just didn't. Well, because in the
covenants like you just said, they can do whatever
they want to do. We can go on anyone's property.
They can do anything they want.
Q That's a different question, but we'll go
ahead and finish out before lunch with that, I
guess. The covenants said that you have permission
to go on any lot that you wanted to?
A Yes. We can go in and inspect any house,
do anything that we feel necessary.
o Mary aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to take at least one of
Carroll’s jobs, violating Florida Law:
Q Let me just ask you a question. If CJB
Construction was unlicensed in Florida, was it
proper under the DRB to let them take over the Kaye
job?
A I guess it would be.
Q It would be okay?
A No, it would not be okay.
Q Would that be fair to Chambers Street
Builders if the community helped or it aided CJB
11
Construction by taking over one of my jobs?
A Well, how did we aid them?
Q Didn't you say you had to give them a
letter so they could re-permit?
A Yeah, but that's not really aiding them,
is it?
Q Sounds like a pretty big help to me.
Could they have permitted that job without your
letter?
A No.
o Mary aided David Lilienthal, son of her co-defendant, to violate the height
regulations (Exhibit E) and then lied to cover it up:
Q Do you know where Phase I, Lot 14 is in
WaterSound Beach?
A Phase I, Lot 14. Yes. Another house that
David Lilienthal, Jr. built.
Q Is that house gray and black or something
like that?
A It was painted. It was approved. It was
done before my time.
Q Did you approve the final on that? Was
that house final while you worked there?
A And it was blue. It wasn't green. And it
12
was -- yes, I think I did do the final on that
house, but it was started and under construction,
almost complete before I started working there.
Q How do you know that, that house wasn't
taller than 50 feet?
A I can -- it's not.
Q How do you know? Did you check to see if
that house was taller than 50 feet?
A No.
Q Why not?
MR. GEORGE: Just so I'm clear. Are you
asking her if she personally performed a survey
to see if it was taller than 50 feet?
MR. CARROLL: I'm asking her if she
checked in any way to see if that house was
taller than 50 feet?
A No, it's not. It's -- just looking at
that house, it's not. But, no, I did not physically
measure that house.
Q Do you know if the plans that were
approved for that house said that the house was
taller than 50 feet?
A They did not say that.
Q How do you know?
13
A Cause I know they didn't.
Q Did you look at the plans to determine
that, or did you look at the house?
A I looked at the plans.
o Mary covertly ordered Lilienthal’s surveyor, co-defendant Ron, to perform
a special purpose survey of Carroll’s property to determine the height of Carroll’s
building. The covenants require advance notice to Carroll and permission from Carroll.
Q Did you call me before you called Voelker
and tell me that you were ordering a survey?
A No.
Q And why not?
A I don't know.
Q What made you think that Lot 24 was taller
than 50 feet?
A I don't know.
Q Did you review the plans for Lot 24 to
determine whether or not it was taller than 50 feet?
A Yes.
Q And did the plans say that Lot 24 was
taller than 50 feet?
A No. The plans said it was not taller. It
was right at, I think within two inches.
14
o Mary doesn’t understand basic construction mathematics. Despite this,
Mary advised her bosses that Carroll’s tower would exceed the height limit when the
tower roof framing was complete. Mary acted with gross negligence:
Q Do you know whether or not there's an
ordinance in Walton County that says the tallest
building is 50 feet?
A I know that that's their -- Walton
County's code is 50 feet.
Q Do you know how they measure the 50 feet?
A From the median of the roof.
Q And what's the median of the roof?
A Halfway up.
Q Halfway -- where is the starting point to
that, and where is the finishing point of that?
A I don't know exactly how it reads. I
would just assume it's probably 3 feet up.
Q When we talk about the median, would that
be from the eave to the ridge?
A No. I'd think from the top plate to the
ridge.
Q You do?
A Yeah.
Q What makes you think that?
A Just for -- why would it be from the eave?15
What if your eave is 2 feet long versus 12 inches?
What difference does it matter.
Q Would the number change if it was the top
plate to the ridge versus the eave to the ridge?
A I don't know. I'd have to think about
that. Is that a trick question?
Q Is the eave lower than the top plate?
A Yes. Not always, but in your case it is,
I think.
Q On Lot 24, the rafter tails are lower than
the top plate?
A Yes. In your case it is. In most cases
it is.
Q Did you ever try and calculate the median
point of the roof at Lot 24?
A I think we might have measured it.
Q Is there any way that you can do that by
looking at the architectural plans?
A Just by scaling your plans.
Q If you know what the roof pitch is, is
there any way to do it?
A Yes, I think -- yes, you can.
Q What does 6 and 12 mean?
16
A It means if you're going up vertical 12
inches, it would be -- how do I say this right -- it
would be -- it's the steepness of it.
Q The steepness.
A So it would be a 6/12. So you go up -- I
forgot how you do it, what the combination is,
formula is.
Q Do you know if 6 and 12 means --
A It's 6/12.
Q -- for every 12 inches that you run, you
rise 6 inches, or do you think it means for every
6 inches you run, you rise 12 inches. Do you know?
A God, I don't know. I think it goes every
12 inches.
Q Every 12 inches of run, then you rise 6
inches?
A Yeah, I think. It's a steep roof, a 6/12
roof is.
Q What's a steeper roof, a 6 and 12 or a 12
and 12?
A A 12 and 12, which is just about straight
up and down. Or a 14/12 is, you know, it goes like
this (indicating).
Q Well, what is a 12 and 12 roof? How would
17
you describes a 12 and 12? Does it run 12 and rise
12?
A You go -- you go out 12 inches and then go
straight up at an angle. I don't know. You know,
this makes me sound stupid. I don't know. I used
to know this. I haven't worked with this stuff, so
I don't know. It's been a long time.-----
Q That's great. Thanks. Does Lot 24,
according to Voelker's second survey there where he
adjusted the number, is Lot 24 built too tall for
the Walton County ordinance?
A I don't know.
Q You don't?
A I don't know.
o Mary would selectively enforce the rules. On one hand she went out of
her way to fabricate a charge against Carroll by saying his tower was too tall, in violation
of the covenants and required to be torn down, and at the same time she would cover up
the same, but true violation for her friends. She acted maliciously and intentionally to
cause harm to Carroll:
Q What's the maximum ridge height for a
second story in WaterSound Beach?
A I think it's 35, but there's the 2-foot
variance for the chimney chase. That's what you18
were looking at was the chimney.
Q I was just looking at the ridge height.
Do you know what the ridge height of Matt Savoie's
house is?
A His drawings were approved at 36 and 9 and
7/8ths. And the DRB has the authority to approve
anything they want, so it was approved.
Q Who told you that?
A I just know that they can approve anything
they want.
Q Do you think Matt Savoie called you and
told you that, or do you think the DRB told you
that?
A I'm just telling you, he had approved
plans, and that's what it was approved at, and that
was the answer we gave you.
Q Let's look at Page 2 and just ask you to
read that. Who wrote that letter to you?
A I don't even remember getting this, but I
guess I did get it.
Q I'm just wondering who wrote that letter
to you?
A Tim Reese.
19
Q Does Tim Reese sit on the design review
board?
A Yes, he does.
Q Does it say that he approved the plans?
A No. He never did review the plans.
2. Defendant Sandy intentionally, and with reckless disregard for the
covenants and the law, made repeated and prolonged misstatements of material
facts in order to induce Carroll to act, or refrain from acting, on them. Each and
every time Carroll became suspicious and sought to get the truth, Sandy
compounded on her falsehoods. All the while, Sandy was under the mandate of
WaterSound and Watercolor’s Covenants. Sandy was trained for her job, read the
Covenants yet acted in opposition to her mandate. Sandy did so to exact harm on
Carroll. Sandy succeeded in damaging Carroll.
o Sandy concealed damaging communications regarding Carroll, even after
receiving several §720.303 requests (Exhibit D), and then directed others under her
control to conceal communications (Exhibit F).
o Sandy instructed her staff to post unapproved Board of Director minutes to
an unsecured site on the world wide web. Those minutes defamed Carroll.
o Sandy read and understood the Covenants for WaterSound and
Watercolor:
Q Did you ever read the covenants for
WaterSound?
20
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you read them completely?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you read the amendments to them, the
different things that were filed that amended the
covenants?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you understand them?
A I believe so.
o Sandy knew the Covenants mandate that the Owner and Contractor be
notified in writing before any person retains an expert to inspect any structure within
WaterSound:
10.8 Right to Notice of Design or Construction Claims.
No Person shall retain an expert for the purpose of inspecting the design or
construction of any structures or improvements within WaterSound in connection
with or in anticipation of any potential or pending claim, demand, or litigation
involving such design or construction unless Declarant and any Builder involved in
the design or construction have been first notified in writing and given an
opportunity to meet with the property Owner and conduct an inspection.
o Sandy ordered Mary to order a special survey for Carroll’s tower without
notice to Carroll. (From the deposition of Mary)
Q Did you order that survey because you felt
like it or did you order it because someone told you
to?21
A Someone told me to.
Q Who told you to order it?
A Doesn't it say right there Sandy did?
Q Is that true? Did Sandra Matteson tell
you to order a survey from Voelker?
A Yes.
(From the deposition of Sandy)
Q Why didn't the board or you call me and
ask me about this before you did this?
A Because we didn't -- because you need to
see how we viewed it. We viewed it as a potential
problem.---
Q Was there already a claim or was it just a
potential claim that this --
A It was a potential claim.
o Sandy told Carroll the Board asked for a survey of Carroll’s tower on their
own initiative the day after the May 23, 2008 Board of Director’s meeting (Exhibit G).
Q Got you. That meeting was held May 23rd,
and I think that you said that the next day you
asked Mary Joule to obtain that survey?
A Yes, sir.
o The survey was dated for a week prior to the May 23 Board of Directors
Meeting (Exhibit H).
22
(Deposition of surveyor Ronald Voelker)
Q Okay. Thanks. You know what I didn’t do,
I couldn’t read back on Plaintiff’s Exhibit Number
2, what date did that phone call come in?
A I can’t say when the phone call came in,
but the date that we took out the job looks to be
5/14/08.
o Sandy deliberately disobeyed the Covenants by covertly ordering Voelker
to survey Carroll’s tower, mislead Carroll so he’d think the Board ordered the survey,
concealed her plan by removing the tower height discussion from the agenda, did not
disclose Carroll’s real survey to the Board, and continued her misstatements by saying the
Voelker survey was not shown to the Board:
Q So you brought that survey to the board of
directors' meeting because someone asked you to
bring it. Who asked you to bring it?
A I guess when we got it that was the
intent, right?
Q Do you think Tracy Regan asked you to
bring it there?
A No, it was probably Sandy.
Q Sandy, the same as Sandra Matteson?
A Yes.
23
o Sandy acted as a conduit between the WaterSound and Watercolor Board
of Directors, along with Mary Joule, Tracy Regan, Mary Rosenheim and Bridget Precise
to commit frauds against Carroll.
o Sandy took Carroll’s company off the approved builder’s list without
cause to deliberately damage Carroll and falsified records to cover it up (Exhibit I).
A There were some violations at WaterColor
that John had gone through some -- actually, I'm not
sure that he was removed, but I know there were some
violations of houses that were completed that did
not -- were not built per the plan, but I do not --
Q Was there a problem at WaterColor where
John Carroll or Chambers Street Builders owed the
association money?
A Yes, yes.
Q And was it a rule of the association that
if they were owed money by an approved builder and
they didn't get paid, the approved builder was
removed from the approved builder list?
A That is true. John Carroll and some other
builders at the same time.
Q And did that actually happen in the
case --
A Yes.
Q -- of WaterColor?24
A Yes. There were some monies owed by a
number of builders, and they were removed from the
builder -- approved builder program.
o Sandy read the Covenants, understood the Covenants, but still aided the
Board to act as the Covenants Committee which is a breach of the Covenants and Florida
Statute. Sandy is guilty of intentional misconduct or gross negligence, and must be held
liable for punitive damages:
Q Who are the members of the WaterSound's
covenants committee?
A WaterSound's covenants committee?
Q Yeah.
A Typically would be the board of directors.
Q Is that permitted under the covenants and
restrictions for WaterSound?
A I don't think it's precluded.
From the Covenants
5.2 Covenants Committee.
The Board shall appoint a Covenants Committee consisting of at least three members. The Covenants Committee members shall be Members of the Association who are not directors, officers, or employees of the Association or the spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister of a director, officer, or employee. Acting in accordance with the provisions of the Declaration, these By-Laws, and any Board resolutions, the Covenants Committee shall be the Association’s hearing tribunal and shall conduct all hearings held pursuant to section 3.24. The Board may not impose a fine without a majority vote of the Covenants Committee.
From § 720.305 (2) (a)
25
A fine or suspension may not be imposed without at least 14 days’ notice to the person sought to be fined or suspended and an opportunity for a hearing before a committee of at least three members appointed by the board who are not officers, directors, or employees of the association, or the spouse, parent, child, brother, or sister of an officer, director, or employee.
o Sandy targeted Carroll and his businesses then instructed the Board of
Directors to issue an improper, and illegal, fine or benefited assessment against Lot 24.
She did so deliberately or with gross negligence:
Q Okay. So it says, in accordance with the
by-laws, that they can be done.
A Well, I believe when they say in
accordance with the by-laws, it means that you would
have to have a duly called meeting. The board of
directors instructed to go ahead and send letters
out to each one of you that you will have a $1,000
impact on each one of the houses that are not
completed, and that's exactly what we did.
Q And that's to cover costs incurred by the
association?
A No, it's to -- it's to encourage the owner
and the builder to complete the house which is now
impacting the community as it is not substantially
completed nor completed on time.
Q How do you calculate that it's worth
$1,000 per month?
A There was a lot of discussion on that with26
the board of directors, but the feeling was that the
fair and responsible number was $1,000 a month.
They didn't want to arbitrarily pick a higher
number, but they felt like they needed to make an
impact to encourage the builder or the owner to
finish the house. The $1,000 fee, it was arbitrary…
o WaterSound had no Covenants Committee as required by the Covenants
and the law yet Sandy instructed the Board of Directors and Tracy Regan to fine Lot 24
$1,000 per month without an opportunity for a hearing. Sandy did so intentionally:
A And I believe each of one of you had
received something in writing prior to the start of
that fine.
Q Did that letter that we received say that
we had a right to a hearing?
A No. What it said was that there was a
fine being imposed of $1,000 per month. It told you
the date it was going to start and talked about the
fact that how long the house had been under
construction.
o Witness testimony and other evidence will show that Sandy deliberately
sought to impose an unjust lien against Lot 24 to damage Carroll. Sandy knew what she
was doing, knew it was against the Covenants and the law, but used her position to guide
a covert and illegal conspiracy against Carroll to damage him.
27
Q If you would just familiarize yourself
with that, and I wanted to see if the board allowed
to be the covenants committee.
A The board shall appoint a covenants
committee consisting of at least three members. The
covenants committee members shall be members of the
association who are not directors, officers or
employees of the association, spouses, parent,
child, brother or sister of a director or officer or
employee.
Q Does it say the board can act as the
covenants committee or can't act as the covenants
committee?
A I would tell you that it reads that says that it probably -- it says that they're not
directors, officers or employees. So it would
eliminate the management company. It would
eliminate the directors.
Q What about the last sentence in there,
that 5.2 there, the board?
A The board may not impose a fine without a
majority vote of the covenants committee.
Q So what I'm trying to find out is the same
thing I've always been trying to find out is does
28
WaterSound have a covenants committee, and is the
board of directors allowed to take the place of the
covenants committee?
A I would tell you, John, that at the time
the board functioned as the covenants committee.
Q You've been CAM licensed for awhile?
A Yes, sir.
3. Defendant David intentionally, and with reckless disregard for the
covenants and the law, made repeated and prolonged misstatements of material
facts in order to induce Carroll to act, or refrain from acting, on them. David’s son
was his partner in real estate and Carroll’s direct competitor in WaterSound and
Watercolor. Each and every time Carroll became suspicious and sought to get the
truth, David compounded on his falsehoods. All the while, David was under the
mandate of WaterSound and Watercolor’s Covenants. David was trained for his
job, had special knowledge of real estate law, read the Covenants yet acted in
opposition to his mandate. David did so to exact harm on Carroll. David succeeded
in damaging Carroll.
o David and his son David were partners in WaterSound real estate. David’s
son is a WaterSound and Watercolor builder. Carroll was a direct competitor.
Q Are you familiar with a property known as
Lot 20, WaterSound Bridges, Phase II?
A I am.
Q Did you or your companies ever own that
29
property?
A My companies. Shell Holdings owned that
property, and I'm part of that.
Q Is Shell Holdings an LLC?
A It is.
Q Who are the members in that?
A My son, my daughter and me.
Q Is it your son Robert David, the builder?
A He would be the same one.
o Carroll was successfully competing with David’s son, and earned
$675,000 in 2007 while directly competing with David and his son (Exhibit J).
o David and his son were experiencing hundreds of thousands of dollars in
losses while unsuccessfully trying to compete with Carroll.
Q How much did y'all buy that property for?
A I don't remember.
Q Let me see here. Is this a sheet from the
property appraiser's office accurate as to that?
A I can't say that it is or it isn't. I
don't know. I'd have to look at the records, my
records.
Q I'm going to just mark this whole stack as
one and then this will be the last thing we can
really talk about. This is going to be Plaintiff's
Exhibit 6. It says on here that in September of30
2004 --
A John, I believe that's accurate, but
working with you, I'm not sure that it is. I'm not
comfortable with anything you hand me if you want to
know the truth.
Q I understand. That's fair.
A And I -- I would say that that's probably
accurate, but I don't trust you enough to say that
without pulling it up myself.
Q That's a good idea.
A I tell you, with you it is.
Q It looks like, according to this, that
Robert, David and Rob bought this lot for $900,000
from someone named Richard Atkins -- Richard and
Barbara Atkins. Do you think y'all paid $900,000
for that property?
A That sounds right.
Q And then did you sell that property?
A It has been sold.
Q How much did it sell for?
A I have no idea.
Q Were you the owner when it sold?
A I was one of the owners.
31
Q Did you own it out right or did you have a
mortgage?
A We had a mortgage.
Q Do you think the sale price was above the
mortgage amount or below the mortgages amount?
A Below.
Q Did you have to write a check at closing?
A No. I did not.
Q Did anyone write a check at closing?
A I have no idea. I don't know if David did
or not.
Q Do you know how much the mortgage was?
A No.
Q Do you think that property sold for
$275,000?
A I don't know. I said that already. I
don't know. And changing the way you ask me a
question doesn't change my answer.
Q Here's one here I was going to ask about.
Being you're familiar with WaterSound and the
Beaches especially, have you ever -- do you know
where 9 Creek Bridge Way is?
A What's the lot number?
Q Lot 1, WaterSound Bridges, Phase I.
32
A Yes, I do.
Q Were you the real estate agent who
brokered that sale to your son? It looks like it
was in 2004.
A Very possibly.
Q Well, let's just --
A He's bought some from other people, too.
Q It says in there that your son bought it
for 315,000 in 2004.
A Okay.
Q But then it says more recently that it was
returned to the bank for 1,425,000.
A Okay.
Q And then the bank sold it to someone else
for a million dollars.
A Okay.
Q How did your son sell it to a bank?
A You would have to ask my son I would
imagine, John.
Q He's scheduled for depositions too. I
will.
A Good. Talk to him. I can't answer for
somebody else. You know that.
33
Q Do you know what a short sale is?
A Oh, yeah, I do.
Q Do you know anything about them or do you
refer those kind of deals to someone else?
A I deal with attorneys on that.
Q Did you help your son at all on this
transaction?
A Uh-uh (indicating in the negative).
Q Not at all?
A That's a no.
Q There's a property here. It's called Lot
1, WaterSound Beach, Phase II. It doesn't have a
physical address.
A I know where it is.
Q You do?
A And I sold it to him as an agent for St.
Joe.
Q That's what I was going to ask you --
A I was an agent for Joe.
Q Did St. Joe give you discounts?
A No.
Q Not even --
A No is the answer.
Q Okay. Well, let's look at these numbers
34
here. It says that you bought it for 306,000 but
sold it for 217,000.
o David read the Covenants for WaterSound and understood them. David
was a licensed Realtor and had above average knowledge about Covenants:
Q Do you know what restrictive covenants
are? I have to ask because I have to ask.
A Yeah, I've heard of them, yes.
Q I figured. Do most realtors know what
restrictive covenants are? Do they cover that in
the real estate licensing exam?
A I took it 20 years ago, and I really don't
remember. But I would imagine if anybody sold real
estate, they would probably know what covenants and
restrictions are.
Q Have you ever read the covenants and
restrictions for WaterSound Beach?
A Numerous times.
Q Have you read them all front to back or
it's only parts of them?
A No, I think I've read them completely.---
Q Did you used to hand out the covenants and
restrictions when someone would sign a contract --
A I have.
35
Q -- to purchase?
A I have, yes.
Q Is that required as a licensed realtor
that you hand them covenants and restrictions?
A Yes.
o David had a fiduciary duty to protect Carroll and he knew that:
Q Do you know what a fiduciary duty is?
A I do.
Q Do board of directors at HOA's have a
fiduciary duty --
A They do.
o David knew that only the Declarant could remove a builder from the
approved builder’s list:
A I really don't know if there's a set
schedule. Compliance didn't report to the board.
The board -- the compliance is run by Joe. Joe was
the one that selected compliance. Declarant is in
charge of the DRB. Not the board.
Q When you say the declarant and Joe, we're
talking about the St. Joe Company?
A That's correct.
Q Is there anyone at the St. Joe Company, or
was there anyone while you were a board member, who
was actively engaged in the DRB?36
A Yeah. Brian Stackable at one time. St.
Joe employees. Brian Stackable is the only name I
can remember off the top of my head. He was St.
Joe, and he's back on it. I mean, he is the DRB
now.
Q Is he back at St. Joe, Brian Stackable?
A Yes. Well, I don't know if he's at Joe,
but he is the town architect for WaterSound.
Q I was going to for purposes of a liability
more or less, does our HOA, the WaterSound Beach
HOA, control the DRB at this time?
A No.
Q Has our HOA ever controlled the DRB?
A No.
Q Did St. Joe delegate authority to our HOA
at any point while you were a board member to handle
DRB issues?
A No.
Q Do you believe that St. Joe managed the
DRB the entire time you were a board member?
A Yes.
o David denies that he had involvement in taking Carroll’s company off the
approved builder’s list:
37
Q Why was Chambers Street Builders taken off
the approved builders list? David, why was Chambers
Street Builders taken off --
A I don't remember what the specifics were.
But I feel that you should know the answer to that.
Q Did anyone ever come to the board of
directors while you were a board of director and ask
to have Chambers Street Builders removed from the
approved builders list?
A No. I don't remember that, no.
o David voted to take Carroll’s company off the approved builder’s list
despite the fact that he knew he had no authority to do so. (Exhibit J)
o David read the Covenants, understood the Covenants but still
intentionally, or with gross negligence, acted in violation of the Covenants:
Q Do you remember talking to Sandra Matteson
at all about whether or not that $1,000 per month
was appropriate under the covenants and
restrictions?
A I don't remember talking to Sandy Matteson
about that.
Q In your opinion, was that $1,000 per month
a fine or a benefited assessment?
A I don't have an opinion on it.
Q Do you remember ever adopting or approving38
any benefited assessment for WaterSound Beach?
A I do not.
Q What about any fines?
A I do not.
Q Do you remember what someone would have to
do in order to not be charged that $1,000 per month
anymore? How could a member get relief from that?
A To the best of my knowledge, it was
requested in writing to the board.
Q Okay. This is a little different question
than some I've already asked, but I just need to
ask. Do you remember ever talking to or trading
notes back and forth or any other way, talk to
anyone from the covenants committee at WaterSound
Beach?
A I don't know what a covenants committee
is, so the answer would have to be no.---
Q I know we may have talked about this
before, but I don't recall your answer. Do you
think you read the entire covenants and restrictions
for WaterSound Beach?
A Yeah, I did.
Q Were there parts that you didn't
39
understand in there?
A No.
Q Do you know the conditions in order to
adopt or enact or enforce a benefited assessment?
A I don't remember.
Q Do you know what a benefited assessment
is?
A I do.
Q Can you explain it?
A I can't.
Q Can you summarize?
A I can't.
o Carroll’s $1,000,000 Lot 24 was the most prominent property in
WaterSound Beach and would serve to make or break Carroll’s business as a builder:
(Deposition of Board of Director Jack Luchese)
But if you're on the main drag, which you are, I
think it's very important --
Q Why is 24 on the main drag?
A You're on WaterSound Way. You're on the
main drag of the whole community. It's the primary
road.
Q Isn't the other road down there more
prominent than mine?
A What other road?40
Q That one with the gate down the way. What
do you call? Boatright?
A No, you're -- WaterSound Way is the main
road to the beach from the main gate. How could you
not say it's not the main road? It is the main road
of the entire community.
Q And you're saying that because you're an
owner there and you know this?
A Yes.
o David went out of his way to slander Carroll and Lot 24, interrupt
construction at Lot 24, Libel Carroll and portray Carroll as unfit in his trade. He did so
maliciously, intentionally and with gross negligence. To this day, David continues to try
and cover his acts up:
Q Who's Ann Mosely?
A She's a real estate agent.
Q Are you partners with her in any
businesses?
A I'm partners with her in real estate.
Q Did you ever tell anyone that Lot 24's
concrete tower was built improperly?
A Not that I remember.
Q Did you ever tell anyone that Lot 24 had
structural problems?41
A Not that I remember.
Q Do you know who Jim Buckle is?
A Yes.
Q Did you ever talk to Jim Buckle about Lot
24's construction?
A Not that I'm aware of.
Q Do you know who Jane Buckle is?
A I would imagine that's his wife.
Q And I'm just going to ask you a wholesale
question. Did you ever talk to anyone about Lot
24's construction and whether or not it was proper
or improper?
A I have talked with people that have asked
me why it is such a disaster and why it looks the
way it does and why the windows were put in before
the roof and why the foundation wasn't done right
and why the concrete wasn't poured right, and my
answer was the same. I'm not a builder. I don't
know why he did it that way.
Q Did someone ask you if the foundation
wasn't done right?
A Yes.
Q Who was that?
42
A I cannot remember who it was.
Q Do you know any of the names of the people
you talked to about Lot 24?
A Not offhand, no.
Q Do you think Lot 24's construction is
improper?
A Me personally?
Q Yes.
A Yeah, I think it's a disaster.
Q Can you tell me what's improper about it?
A Well, the windows were put in before the
roof was. The house was wrapped in tie back over
the top of the windows and cut out instead of tucked
like it should be. The concrete was poured in
sections. That's my opinion only.
Q We just talked about the windows being put
in before the roof, and you said that was improper?
A I did.
Q What's improper about that?
A It's not the sequence that you do things
in. In my opinion, I said I think it's improper. I
didn't say there's a building code written by me
that says it is. I said in my opinion, it is.
Q I understand. You're not a licensed
43
builder; is that correct?
A That is correct.
Q So what you're talking about is just your
opinion then?
A That's all I can talk about. I think I've
answered that.
Q In your opinion, why is it improper to put
the tie back over the windows?
A I think the tie back, in my opinion -- I'm
not a builder. I don't know. I don't think that
it's supposed to be put over the windows and cut
out. I think it's supposed to be tucked on the
bottom, the sides and the top.
Q That's fair. I appreciate your candor.
Now, you said in your opinion about putting the
windows in before the roof, exactly what's the
purpose of waiting till the roof is on to put the
windows in?
A I just said I'm not a builder. I don't
know. I just know that isn't the sequence that I
have ever seen done. I have never seen that done
other than your house.
Q Did you ever bring any of these concerns
44
to me?
A No. Why would I?
Q Did you vote to take me off the approved
builders list?
A I don't remember.
Q Were you at a meeting where Chambers
Street Builders' status was talked about, whether
they could be on the approved builders list or not?
A I don't remember when you were pulled off
if I was on the board or not.
Q We just talked a second ago about concrete
being poured in stages. What were you talking about
there? I don't understand.
A What I'm talking about is that it was done
in several different levels, and my understanding of
concrete, it has to all be done at one time.
Q Are you talking about the tower?
A I am.
Q And in your opinion, that should have been
poured as one solid pour?
A That is my understanding, yes.
Q Did you take any pictures of the tower
while it was being poured or after?
A No.
45
Q Did you ever see any pictures come through
that concerned you about the Lot 24 tower?
A Did I ever see any pictures that concerned
me about it in what way?
Q In any way as a board of director?
A Yeah. That it was a disaster sitting
there and it was a real bad mark on the community,
and there was a lot of homeowners very upset with
it, yes.
Q Do you know any of those homeowners?
A It was quite a few of them. I don't know
specifically, but I've had thousands of questions,
it seems like, asked. Not thousands but a lot of
questions asked about when is that going to be torn
down or when is it going to get fixed or what's the
status.
Q That was when you were a board of
director. Did that happen after you were not a
board of director anymore?
A Um-hum (indicating in the affirmative).
Q And who asked you that?
A I don't remember.
46
4. Defendant Ron intentionally, and with reckless disregard for the
covenants and the law, made repeated and prolonged misstatements of material
facts in order to induce Carroll to act, or refrain from acting, on them. Ron relied
on business from David’s son who was Carroll’s direct competitor in WaterSound
and Watercolor. Each and every time Carroll became suspicious and sought to get
the truth, Ron compounded on his falsehoods. All the while, Ron was under the
mandate of WaterSound’s Covenants, Florida Statutes and Florida’s
Administrative Code. Ron was trained for his job, had special knowledge of
surveying and Covenants yet acted in opposition to his mandate. Ron did so to
exact harm on Carroll. Ron succeeded in damaging Carroll.
o Ron understood the purpose and importance of benchmarks, but
intentionally created a special purpose survey of Lot 24 without any:
Q Did you know Mr. Bruner?
A Yes.
Q Do you know why he would put references to
elevation that weren’t on the site?
A Yes.
Q Why would he do it?
A Because we’re required by law.
Q You are?
A Um-hum (indicating in the affirmative).
Yes.
Q I appreciate that. You’re required by law
47
to put benchmarks that aren’t on the site when
you’re doing –
A We/re required by law to have at least two
benchmarks at a minimum on any type of topographic
survey, not necessarily on site.
o Ron said he’d measure the height of the tower with a tape measure if he
could have gotten to the top (He could have):
A We would use more instrumentation to —-
more – to find the eight. In this particular
case, if I were to go to the site based on the
current status, or basically the condition of this,
I would physically measure the structure with a tape
measure.
Q Because you can get up to the top of that
tower or something?
A Yes.
Q That’s probably a pretty good way to do a
height survey?
A Yes.
o Ron knew Carroll owned Lot 24 before he conducted his first survey, but
tried to cover up the fact that Mary told him it was Carroll’s property:
Q Okay. I’m going to take back Plaintiff’s
2. I see that on the line here it says, client
named John Carroll. Was I the client?48
A No. We put that name on there because you
were the owner of the property…
Q Why would it say client name John Carroll
on this intake form if you looked up who owned the
property afterwards? Why wouldn’t it say Mary Joule
or CCMC on that line?
A Because that’s who owned the property.
Q Is it common for you to look up who owned the
property while you’re on the telephone with the
person making the call?
A Yes…
Q In this case, I see that you jumped right
to client name and then put John Carroll on there
with CCMC underneath that. It appears that you knew
the client’s name was John Carroll when you took
this order; is that safe to say?
A That you were the owner of the property,
yes.
Q How would you find out I was the owner of
the property while you were on the telephone taking
the order?
A Look at the property appraiser’s website.
Q And you can do that on-line?
A Yes.
49
Q What I’m wondering about is how would you
get on the property appraiser’s website and know who
owned the property based on information you have on
this piece of paper here?
A We can – based on the parcel ID numbers,
we can determine where the lot is.
Q Is the parcel ID number on this paper?
A No…
o Ron set out to take a picture of Carroll’s property and construction and put
false elevation numbers on it:
Q Okay. In this thing here it says
miscellaneous. Can you read that line there that
somebody hand wrote in?
A Get elevation of tower and picture.
Q And that miscellaneous line, is that what
Mary Joule told your office to do?
A To the best of my knowledge, yes.
o Ron knew how to calculate average natural grade at Lot 24, but entered a
false number into his calculations to make the tower appear taller than it was:
Q Do you think that this reference that says
3.80, do you think that, that is the distance from
the dirt to the top of the slab immediately adjacent
to the building or is it that the average grade number?
I see it says average natural ground, but I’m just50
going to ask you - -
A I’m going to - - it’s possible it’s to the
dirt, yes.
Q Immediately adjacent to the building?
A Yes.
Q Who would know that for sure?
A Me.
Q Is that? Is that the number then - -
A To the best of my knowledge, the distance
was to the grade adjacent to the structure on the
south side.
Q So this note here that says average
natural grade, that may not be accurate?
A It may not be accurate.
o Ron knew his average natural grade number was falsified and maliciously,
intentionally, or with gross negligence misrepresented this fact when asked about it on
behalf of WaterSound:
Q Did you tell anyone at CCMC what zero
referenced in your survey?
A Yes.
Q Did it say in your survey what zero
referenced?
A No.
Q When did you tell them what zero51
referenced?
A I believe it was when I gave them the
survey or shortly thereafter.
Q And when you revised your survey, you
talked a bit about it -– I want to make sure I’m
getting this right – - did you revise the average
natural grade to a different number?
A No.
o Ron met Carroll on Lot 24 and deliberately misled him about why he was
there. Later he attempted to cover this up:
Q ..Do you remember meeting me at Lot 24?
A No.
Q You don’t? Did anybody who works for you
tell you that I was at 24 when they came?
A Not to the best of my knowledge.
(Deposition of Mary Joule)
A What do you want to know?
Q Who told me that Ronald Voelker was going
over to my lot?
A I didn't tell him. I didn't tell you
that. I think Ronald told you that. He was there
that day and talked to you, wasn't he? He said he
was doing it.
Q What makes you think that's true?52
A He said he talked to you when you were
there that day.
Q He did?
A Um-hum (indicating in the affirmative).
Q When did he say that?
A I don't know. I had a conversation. He
said he saw you there.
Q Was that the first time you ever met him?
A Yeah.
Q Was after he did the survey?
A Yes.
o Ron admitted that when he appeared on site to conduct his special purpose
survey the building did not appear to be taller than any other in WaterSound:
Q Was this the first specific purpose survey
that you ever did to determine the height of a
building in WaterSound?
A Yes.
Q When you were out there on site, in your
experience, just talking to you as a surveyor with
all your education, did my tower appear to be taller
than the others on the street or in the
neighborhood?
A Appearance, I would say no.
53
5. Defendants WaterSound and Watercolor intentionally, and with
reckless disregard for the covenants and the law, knowingly allowed repeated and
prolonged misstatements of material facts in order to induce Carroll to act, or
refrain from acting, on them. Each and every time Carroll became suspicious and
sought to get the truth, the Defendants compounded on their falsehoods. All the
while, WaterSound and Watercolor were under the mandate of Watercolor and
WaterSound’s Covenants, Florida Statutes and Florida’s Administrative Code.
The corporations did so to exact harm on Carroll. WaterSound and Watercolor
succeeded in damaging Carroll.
o The requirements of section 768.72(2) have been satisfied, as well as all of
the following: (a) WaterSound and Watercolor actively and knowingly participated in the
conduct; (b) The officers, directors, and managers of Watercolor and WaterSound
knowingly condoned, ratified, or consented to such conduct; and (c) WaterSound and
Watercolor engaged in conduct that constituted gross negligence and that contributed to
the loss, damages, and injury suffered by Carroll. As a result, it’s proper to impose
punitive damages against WaterSound and Watercolor, per §768.72(3).
This proffer of evidence provides a reasonable basis that all of the Defendants
acted a) intentionally knowing, and in fact hoping that Carroll would be harmed by their
actions and b) with gross negligence because their actions constitute a disregard of
Carroll’s rights. This showing is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement to plead a
claim for punitive damages.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
54
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Christopher L. George, Esq., PO Box 1034, Mobile, AL 36633 and to Mark D. Davis, Esq., 694 Baldwin Ave. Suite 1, PO Box 705, DeFuniak Springs, FL 32435, by e-mail and regular mail this 20th day of May, 2011.
_____________________________John P. CarrollBox 613524WaterSound, FL 32461Tel: (850)231-5616Fax: (850)622-5618
55
