Any Updates on Redfish Village Contract Lawsuits

[wallymom]

Haven't heard anything for awhile on all the lawsuits filed by Redfish Village contract holders who claimed breach of contract because of the change in amenities. I understand there were 25-30 contract holders suing to get out of their contracts. Does anyone have any updates on these? I've noticed several units there that look to be occupied.

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Take a look at the last post here (http://www.sowal.com/bb/showthread.php?t=9814&page=21). The numbers you are quoting would seem about right.

Originally, RFV was originally going to build their access in Blue Mountain Beach subdivision. Had they succeeded, the owners of RFV would have had FULL access to over 1/2 MILE of "their" beach (shared with BMB Subdivision). Now with the alternate beach access, they have only 80 feet of beach which they share with the public (via deeded easement).

[Smiling JOe]

That's not true, according to the deeds I've read, BMBV. You even shared them with us. Did you not read them?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

That's not true, according to the deeds I've read, BMBV. You even shared them with us. Did you not read them?

For the benefit of those not following all threads...

From instrument # 1011222 filed in September, 2007: "....will not interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of said beach area by any owner of property in Blue Mountain Beach Subdivision No. 1."


http://www.sowal.com/bb/gallery/files/6/8/4/BMBwest.GIF

[Smiling JOe]

Thank you for sharing that. I stand corrected.

[BeachSiO2]

Anybody know what sparked the change in September 2007? Was it due to seawall construction and making sure the walls were constructed on private property (i.e. Seagrove issues) or beach use?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

Anybody know what sparked the change in September 2007? Was it due to seawall construction and making sure the walls were constructed on private property (i.e. Seagrove issues) or beach use?
What do you mean by "sparked the change"?

[BeachSiO2]

What do you mean by "sparked the change"?

I was referring to why it was done in September 2007 and not back when the property was originally purchased. For example the first property to the east of the main access was owned by the same family since 1987, but didn't acquire the beach area until 2007. Another couple of properties down has been owned since 1989 but got the beach for $100 in 2007. It just seems odd that it took 20 years to acquire that land. Did it take that long in court proceedings?

One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?

[scooterbug44]

One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?

Hmmm - even though prices have gone down I'll definitely pay $100 for each of those chunks of beach. ;-)

Do you think I'll get my own blue sign if I make it all a dedicated public beach?

[BlueMtnBeachVagrant]

I was referring to why it was done in September 2007 and not back when the property was originally purchased. For example the first property to the east of the main access was owned by the same family since 1987, but didn't acquire the beach area until 2007. Another couple of properties down has been owned since 1989 but got the beach for $100 in 2007. It just seems odd that it took 20 years to acquire that land. Did it take that long in court proceedings?

One item of note, since the upland owners only paid $100 for the beach, is that all it is worth? I wonder how they came up with that number?

I see. What do you think? I believe you have a reason for asking this. I have my suspicions why those owners made their move last year and I believe you do too.

BTW, $100 is 100 times more than $1.00 which seemed to be the norm in the old days for officially consumating an agreement, I believe. So I guess one could also conclude that beach front property is worth 100 times more than it use to be.

In the end, does it really matter when it was done? The property was always private: previously legally owned by the developer and now legally owned by the gulf-front property owners per the developer's wishes should the developer no longer exist.

Oh.....

I almost forgot....


A well respected Walton county government official in no uncertain terms incorrectly claimed (probably unintentional) that the beach to the east of the 83 access was public for all to use. And he made his claim here on SoWal during some of the hotly contested exchanges regarding private vs. public beaches and RFV.

edit: Bottom line - that's over 1/2 mile of beachfront that the county was incorrectly claiming as public.

I can not blame the owners for defending their private property. You would do the same.

What's ironic is that it appears "some people" in the BMB Subdivision perceive this deed-update as a threat when in fact it protects them as well from the future floodgate of uncontrolled "remote" growth and beach access as evidenced by RFV and (the now defunct) Nature's Walk.

The fact that the BMB Community Association aggressively fought off Redfish Village from developing the first access in their residential neighborhood but then actually SUPPORTED the development of the access in "our" neighborhood has always and will continue to be a thorn in my side.

Tying all this with the Wallymom's intital post here: In my (non-legal and totally personal) opinion, there seemed to be a significant and material change to the original RFV development based on the original beach access.

I laid low with this concept as I figured most RFV contract holders would see this on their own - and word does get around. So I am guessing that those that are suing to get out of their contracts are doing so for the above reason.