Redfish Village Beach Access

[Kevin Thompson]

Once again to many armchair quarterbacks playing lawyer. My wife is a lawyer and for a change to cause somebody to have the ability to get out of a contract it has to be BOTH Material AND Adverse. Basic florida condo law. It takes a very knowledgeable attorney to understand all this certainly not some of the people posting. Since the developer spent the money and is trying to get it approved I can just guess that since the lot is closer and it is bigger and gives everything they thought they were getting how could somebody argue it is Adverse? Seems silly to me.

The other point my wife just made is that the people on here calling people liars and charging illegal action better be ready to defend themselves in court so they should be very sure of what they are saying.

 

[Smiling JOe]

SJ,

No.

But as far I know there is not much legal difference between an advertisement and a sales agreement. They are both offers to sell, presented to the buyer. The sales agreement just formalizes the terms of the sale into a explicit written contract.

I hear your point, but in particular, a few people on this thread have stated that the sellers of Redfish are liars due to them advertising this "county approved beach lot" in their sales info. They are also using your map to try and prove their point. My point is that I have not heard anyone state that Redfish Village has advertised this particular lot #1 in their sales brochures, and your statement above shows me no differently.

Too often, I see angry people who loosely throw around bad words. I was just asking them to back up what they are saying. They have not done so thus far.

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I have just been informed by a very reliable source that the map showing the beach lot, like the one presented by whitesys, was issued with the condo docs, so that answers my question regarding where the map came from and whether it was used in marketing.

EDIT: If the map was issued with the condo docs, and it is determined that by not having private beach access at this lot, there is a material change in the docs, allowing all buyers to get out of their contracts, what good would it do for the County Commissioners to approve this lot#2 for Private Access? The developer will be stuck with the 80 units and have to find some way to pay the bank. Any comments? Any thoughts from attorneys regarding whether this subsitution of lot # 2 is a valid material change?

IMPORTANT

The answer is a big YES in my opinion to your question "...is a valid material change?". The main difference with the 2 lots is overwhelming.

Lot #1 = Provides access to a "common" beach on the east side of the 83 regional access. RFV owners of lot #1 would have free run of the beach on the east side of 83 as it is, once again, "common".

Whether this "common" beach is private or public does not matter; it is still COMMON. Again...still not an appropriate use of that lot BTW any way you look at it.

Lot #2 = Provides access to about 75 feet worth of beach surrounded by private beach on each side.


Summary:

Lot #1 = over 2500 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner from 83 to Redfish Lake.

Lot #2 = only 75 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner (outside of the regional 83 public access)....not a great "experience" in my opinion when shared with over 300 people from RFV.

SJ, you ask if there is a material change if RFV uses lot #2 instead of #1. My answer/opinion is definitely, yes. Any others?

 

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

...My wife is a lawyer and for a change to cause somebody to have the ability to get out of a contract it has to be BOTH Material AND Adverse. Basic florida condo law......

Is my post above BOTH Material AND Adverse enough for you?

 

[Kevin Thompson]

My goodness you are inflammatory Vagrant. Either lot gives them access to MILES of beach. Your problem is that you make up these thoughts that are yours and type them in BIG FONT and declare them to be fact. Well you are wrong again. Do you own the wet sand? People can walk up and down the beach all they want.

Why don't you tell us why you are gunning for these people? Is it just in your nature? You don't live here. You can't even see the access from your condo. Do you not want other people on your beach that bad or are you just a hateful person?

 

[Smiling JOe]

...

Summary:

Lot #1 = over 2500 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner from 83 to Redfish Lake.

Lot #2 = only 75 feet of "legally" accessible beach by it's owner (outside of the regional 83 public access)....not a great "experience" in my opinion when shared with over 300 people from RFV.

SJ, you ask if there is a material change if RFV uses lot #2 instead of #1. My answer/opinion is definitely, yes....

I think you present a good point here on the material differences between the two lots. Even though the distance from lot # 2 to Redfish Village is slightly closer than the distance to lot #1 from Redfish Village, having much less "common" beach available from that lot #2 access could be a major difference in value to the Redfish owners.

 

[Kevin Thompson]

Oh darn I forgot to reference the picture you posted with those poles stopping people on the beach using VagrantLaw. I guess they are STUCK on their little part of the beach.

 

[BMBWalker]

My goodness you are inflammatory Vagrant. Either lot gives them access to MILES of beach. Your problem is that you make up these thoughts that are yours and type them in BIG FONT and declare them to be fact. Well you are wrong again. Do you own the wet sand? People can walk up and down the beach all they want.

Why don't you tell us why you are gunning for these people? Is it just in your nature? You don't live here. You can't even see the access from your condo. Do you not want other people on your beach that bad or are you just a hateful person?

KT...oh, you're so pure and innocent!!!

More billable hours, huh?

 

[Kevin Thompson]

KT...oh, you're so pure and innocent!!!

More billable hours, huh?

Never said I was pure and innocent. So add that to selfish, impure and guilty.

 

[BMBWalker]

Never said I was pure and innocent. So add that to selfish, impure and guilty.

KT...you're not working for the BMB neighborhood, you are working against the BMB neighborhood.