Letter from Henry Macklin

What was the reason?

Duchess, I know just enough about the Village of Blue Mtn to be concerned with purchasing there. I am told that they had some problems of the developer walking out years ago, with many people's money. I thought they had cleared all of that up, and the property sold (or at least changed names b/c many of the same people were still involved in the development) and they began moving forward developing the property I called the landing strip.

Please tell us more about the statements in the letter you received. I am curious.

I got a letter like that around 2 years ago from him for the Blue Mountain Beach club dues saying we owed him all the dues we had been paying to the management company for the previous 2 years. The whole thing went into receivership and we of course owed him nothing. It might be a similar legal move or just an attempt to go around the system to collect something the lender now owns. The whole thing was handled very poorly in our instance. :(

I wouldn't want to judge someone prematurely but based on past knowledge of Mr. Macklin and his business in South Walton, he is not to be trusted and I wouldn't worry about the letter. He will probably be in jail before he wins any judgement against you.

long story short.....

I've dealt with Macklin since 2001. We went through the whole receivership fiasco as well, but I thought with their reorganization of about 1 1/2 years ago that positive changes were being made. There was never a build-out time in the Village. Threats were made late last year forcing owners to begin building. That threat was modified this spring to say that no, we didn't have to begin building but that if we didn't irrigate and sod our lots, Macklin would pay to have it done for us. The problem is, this will all be torn up whenever anyone starts to build. It's wasteful and besides, Macklin et al haven't delivered on *many* of their promises to owners in the Village. Hope this clarifies the scenario....

Sorry, it's late...

More clarification....so now Macklin wants to hire someone to do the landscaping, then force us to pay him and if we don't, he'll put a lien on the property.

If those requirements weren't in the covenants you were given at closing you don't have to do anything.

I have dealt with Macklin in the past and cannot believe he isn't already in jail. I ran into a man who works "with" Macklin and says the problem in BlueMountain is that people think since the amenities were not finished on time, the due should not be paid. (That depends on what the contract says). Then he explained there are 6 associations and a Master association. Said people do not pay to the 6 neighborhood associations, only to the Master association. That is a cash cow if I have ever seen one.

Did you read the article about what Macklin is doing in the North part of the county, trying to develop timberland into subdivision against state statues of what timberland is? He says even though he is building structures, it meets the timberland definition because he INSIST that they are going to harvest timberland AND be a housing development.

Anyway the county shut him down for now.

You could not pay me enough money to get involved with one of his projects.

I wanted look at property there about a year and half ago, but my realtor told me about the receivership etc. Thought it best I stay away. I had heard that someone- I guess maybe Macklin would kncok on doors at the condo, to see if there were rentors, because apparently he was supposed to get a cut of rental income according to the bylaws? :confused:

In case anyone was curious as to what ever happened to Henry W. Maclin III it appears he is essentially bankrupt.

Here he was trying to hold on to his interest in a family home in Maine, but lost:
http://files.mainelaw.maine.edu/library/SuperiorCourt/decisions/YORre-10-234.pdf

The plaintiff, SE Property Holdings LLC, (SEPH) is a successor entity to Vision Bank. A heavy lender to the Gulf Coast development sector back in the
"go go" days, Vision ended up saddled with lots of what bankers call "non performing loans" (NPL's). The holding company which owned Vision sold the "good"
parts of the bank to another bank, but kept the NPL's (I would assume the buying bank was not going to pay anything for NPL's). the holding company then
set up SEPH in order to attempt to collect on all these bad loans. You don't want to owe money to SEPH: they are the "pit bulls" (my apology to lovers of the breed)
of creditors, and they never give up. It is SEPH that is suing Peter Bos of Destin, again over an old Vision Bank loan. While nothing is predictable with any assurance when it
comes to jury trials, if I was going to bet I would probably bet on SEPH.

SEPH is also, and has also, pursued others including the people who guaranteed loans for a failed project over in Gulf Shores called "Bama Bayou" as well as much smaller
entities/ individuals.:
SE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC | Civil Action No. 15... | 20170103736| Leagle.com

There are lessons here for both lenders and borrowers as the excesses of a decade ago continue to play out.