arrow left
arrow right
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
  • FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC. A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION vs GARRISON, CLO ANN CONDOMINIUM - CIRCUIT 2010 document preview
						
                                

Preview

eFile Accepted: 11/18/2014 04:29 PM Filing # 20711231 Electronically Filed 11/18/2014 03:59:22 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SARASOTA COUNTY FIRST LIDO CONDOMINIUM, INC., A Florida not-for-profit corporation, Plaintiff, VS. Case No.: 2014-CA-004931-NC CLO ANN GARRISON; and BANK OF AMERICA, NA, Defendants, / DEFENSES COMES NOW the Defendant, CLO ANN GARRISON, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Answer and Affirmative Defenses and as grounds therefore States: COUNT | 1. Without knowledge and Deny 2. Admit 3. Admit 4. Admit5. Without knowledge and Deny 6. Deny 7. Deny 8. Deny 9. Without knowledge and Deny 10. Without knowledge 11.Deny 12. Without knowledge 13.Deny 14.Deny 15.Without knowledge COUNT I 16. Without knowledge and Deny 17.Empty References in allegation, Deny 18.Deny 19.Deny 20. Without knowledge AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 21.Defendant has requested necessary documents and records from the Plaintiff to support assessments and has not received cooperation pursuant to Florida Law.22.Defendant alleges that the Special Assessments and increases in the regular monthly assessments have been brought and compounded in violation of Florida Law. 23.Defendant has been billed and paid for general assessments and serial special assessments in excess of 5 years. Defendant has requested supporting documents, statement of known future special assessments and proof of insurance and has not received any of that required documentation. 24.The disputed amounts and other claims notwithstanding, as a result of documentable hardships the Defendant is fully eligible a qualified for the Florida ELMORE program and has advised the Plaintiff on many occasions of the necessary documents, including a statement of known special assessments for the following 12 months. 25.The ELMORE Program pays existing expenses and up to 12 months of future assessments (Maximum of $25,000). 26.It is the direct result of the Plaintiff's refusal to furnish requested documents, a statement of known or anticipated special assessments for the following 12 months and violation of federal debt laws that have stalled or compromised this approved program. (EXHIBIT A) 27.The Plaintiff has refused to furnish any of the needed documents, including proof of insurance for the past 5 years, history of all special assessments for the preceding 7 years and any anticipated/known special assessments for the following 12 months.28.The Plaintiff's refusal to furnish legally obligated information to the Defendant and other tortious interference with her efforts to proceed with ELMORE have endangered her ability to conclude the program and further delay complicates the completion, since the ELMORE Program is limited im resources and length of time it is offered as a “first come, first served” program. 29.On or about October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff’s attorney furnished (via email) protected financial information, false information and other derogatory information to debt servicers without written authorization and has negatively impacted her ability to proceed with the approved ELMORE program. 30.At no time has the Defendant given the Plaintiff or their attorneys written authorization to communicate with or furnish information to her lenders, prospective lenders or any other parties. 31.The Defendant 1s without critical production that prevents her ability to present full affirmative defenses and/or counter claims against the Plaintiff. 32.The Defendant alleges that the Plaintiffis attempting to take her homesteaded property away in an attempt to avoid the Defendant’s opposition to unlawful special assessments and reckless spending by the Plaintiff's Board of Directors. 33.The Defendant alleges that certain Board Members, and the Plaintiff in general, have purposely hidden known defects & expenses and sandbagged special assessment intermittently over long periods, rather than announce all known risksand costs in advance, to defraud owners their rightful and timely knowledge to agree or oppose the full scope of the known expense and work in advance of proceeding. 34.The advanced age of the building (over 46 years old) , close proximity to the shore (Project setback greatly exceeds current governmental limitations for new construction), demonstrable erosion and rising water as a result of Global Warming liability, extreme danger in the case of a hurricane and lack of reasonable serviceability of the structures indicate that the Board of Directors had a fiduciary responsibility to divulge all information to all owners prior to beginning any major structural work. 35.The Defendant alleges that some board members purposely hid known information from the ownership, while embarking on a major project in bits and pieces to essentially commit the owners to a course of repairs without full disclosure. Avoiding owner awareness and likely opposition to secure the personal interests of some board members and to avoid other options being presented to owners that are contrary to those personal interests. 36.Had to board of directors acted with fiduciary responsibility to provide full disclosure about the excessive damage, relative danger to natural disasters, termite infestation and other issues in advance; the ownership could have reasonably sought other options — such as redevelopment the property or sale to a developer, given the greatly improved marketability of Gulf Front projects.Wherefore, Defendant CLO ANN GARRISON demands trial by jury on each and every issue so triable as a matter of right. ~ Alan Borden Esq. Borden Law, P.A. 3001 N. Rocky Point Dr. East Ste. 200 Tampa, FL 33607 Ph: 813-281-5471 Fx:813-354-2627 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished via US Mail this 18 day of November 2014 to: Mark Hanson, Esq. 2033 Main Street, Ste 403 Sarasota, FL 34237 MHANSON@LOBECKHANSON.COM Dated this 18 day of November, 2014 ~ Alan Borden Esq. Borden Law, P.A. 3001 N. Rocky Point Dr. East Ste. 200 Tampa, FL 33607 Ph: 813-281-5471 Fx:813-354-2627