Build-out extensions

[AAbsolute]

Doesn't matter. Those build out deadlines will never, ever be enforced.

Would you bet $300,000 on that?.?

 

[fisher]

Would you bet $300,000 on that?.?

Several questions--

Why would Joe buyback lots at above market prices (most of the owners of empty lots in Joe communities are underwater from original purchase price) hoping that the market will return sometime in the distant future? They have enough problems as is.

How could they legally selectively enforce buybacks after ignoring/extending deadlines so many times?

Why would Joe spend precious cash for a massive buyback of hundreds of lots?

Why would they buyback lots when they have tons of unsold inventory that they badly need to move?


Sorry. Ain't going to happen.

 

[Matt J]

Fisher the question was posed for WaterColor, that's not hundreds of lots. As for the assumption of never, I remember when people thought they would never hear the name St. Joe again after the papermill closed. Time has a funny way of proving everyone wrong.

 

[AAbsolute]

Several questions--

Why would Joe buyback lots at above market prices (most of the owners of empty lots in Joe communities are underwater from original purchase price) hoping that the market will return sometime in the distant future? They have enough problems as is.

How could they legally selectively enforce buybacks after ignoring/extending deadlines so many times?

Why would Joe spend precious cash for a massive buyback of hundreds of lots?

Why would they buyback lots when they have tons of unsold inventory that they badly need to move?


Sorry. Ain't going to happen.

JOE can package and sell their rights under the Memorandum of Agreement to the right investor if there is a proper paper trail regarding build out enforcement and extensions. Maybe by a theory of subrogation. There may be enough back up documentation to enforce their rights under the Memorandum's.

This type of bulk right transfer may be very fruitful for the right party.

 

[fisher]

Fisher the question was posed for WaterColor, that's not hundreds of lots. As for the assumption of never, I remember when people thought they would never hear the name St. Joe again after the papermill closed. Time has a funny way of proving everyone wrong.

SWGB--there are several hundred sold, but undeveloped lots in Watercolor. Just look at phase IV and phase III.

 

[fisher]

JOE can package and sell their rights under the Memorandum of Agreement to the right investor if there is a proper paper trail regarding build out enforcement and extensions. Maybe by a theory of subrogation. There may be enough back up documentation to enforce their rights under the Memorandum's.

This type of bulk right transfer may be very fruitful for the right party.

You didn't answer the big question. Why would anyone, including Joe, want to buy back a lot for $500, 600, 700k, etc when the market for those lots is way below that?

 

[AAbsolute]

You didn't answer the big question. Why would anyone, including Joe, want to buy back a lot for $500, 600, 700k, etc when the market for those lots is way below that?

When it comes to the legality of those recorded Memorandums of Agreement the Courts look strictly at the words contained in the recorded doc. My company would pay to be in JOE's position on more than one of those Memorandums with a little due diligence.

Check out one of the recorded Memo's on Watersound Phase I, Bridges I and II and Watercolor Lake District.

 

[Little Fish]

AAbsolute:

Very interesting thoughts. Thanks for posting.

Question: Even if Joe found a buyer to purchase in bulk, how would that affect the new lot owner who purchased below the original release price?

Little Fish

 

[AAbsolute]

AAbsolute:

Very interesting thoughts. Thanks for posting.

Question: Even if Joe found a buyer to purchase in bulk, how would that affect the new lot owner who purchased below the original release price?

Little Fish

I'm only seeing it a couple ways.

For the lot owner who has not commenced construction they may lose big money if they bought the property at resale.

In theory only: An investor enters a subjugation transaction with JOE. The investor exercises the options according to the Memo. of Agreement.

I know that it sounds strange, but I also know LUK has profited by their build out provisions. My company has bought 2 properties that were under build out pressure and litigated same. It does happen.

 

[full time]

JOE can package and sell their rights under the Memorandum of Agreement to the right investor if there is a proper paper trail regarding build out enforcement and extensions. Maybe by a theory of subrogation. There may be enough back up documentation to enforce their rights under the Memorandum's.

This type of bulk right transfer may be very fruitful for the right party.

I suppose some people like to buy the right to litigate. But why would Joe invite litigation over this issue by subrogating 3rd parties to its rights under the Memo? When the litigation commences, Joe would be unlikely to avoid being dragged in as a defendant - plus, litigators are paid to find many issues, no matter how tangential over which to fight. Then you add that the litigation will involve our newly nationalized banking industry looking to protect their interests lined up with the landowner against Joe and its subrogee, and that paints one hell of an ugly picture. I'd do more than a little due diligence.