Skip to main content

Tag: attorney fees

Van Ostenbridge, Satcher being reimbursed for attorney fees

Van Ostenbridge, Satcher being reimbursed for attorney fees

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Community News, Manatee County.

UPDATED Monday, May 24, 2021 at 11:40 a.m. – MANATEE COUNTY – County commissioners Kevin Van Ostenbridge and James Satcher will be reimbursed for the attorney fees and legal expenses they incurred as defendants in a Public Records Act lawsuit filed by paralegal Michael Barfield in December.

On May 11, the county commission voted 7-0 in favor of reimbursing Van Ostenbridge and Satcher up to $60,000. The commission approved the reimbursements without being provided with itemized attorney bills that supported the reimbursement requests.

Citing standard operating procedure, Clerk of the Court and Comptroller Angel Colonneso said the commission-approved reimbursements would not be paid until her office received and reviewed itemized invoices from Van Ostenbridge and Satcher’s attorneys.

According to the non-itemized attorney fee summaries County Attorney Bill Clague provided The Sun on May 12, Van Ostenbridge incurred $26,368 in attorney bills and $281 in additional legal costs for legal services provided by attorney Morgan Bentley and his office, for a total of $26,650. According to detailed invoices provided later by the Clerk of the Court’s Office, Van Ostenbridge received 97.2 hours of attorney services from Bentley’s office.

Van Ostenbridge incurred an additional $7,500 in expenses for legal services provided by attorney Sean Flynn and his office. According to the itemized invoice provided by the Clerk of the Circuit Court office, Van Ostenbridge received 22 hours of legal services from the Flynn Law firm. Van Ostenbridge’s attorney fees and legal expenses totaled $34,150.

According to the non-itemized invoice received from Clague, Satcher incurred $15,750 in attorney fees for 70 hours of service at $225 per hour. According to the itemized invoice later provided by the Clerk of the Court’s Office, Satcher’s total bill was $15,785.

Van Ostenbridge and Satcher’s combined attorney fees and legal costs totaled $49,935. The commission-approved reimbursement also included the $6,000 settlement payment Van Ostenbridge and Satcher agreed to pay Barfield to settle the lawsuit without an admission of liability regarding Public Records Act compliance. The settlement agreement with Barfield was executed in late April.

According to the invoices and settlement agreement, the total reimbursement sought is $55,935.

Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh is now the lone remaining defendant named in Barfield’s lawsuit he filed in December. On May 14, Barfield deposed Baugh under oath. An in-person court hearing before Judge Charles Sniffen is pending.

According to Barfield the purpose of the hearing is to seek a ruling from Sniffen as to whether Baugh fully complied with the Public Records Act and provided all the records he requested.

Commission discussion

During the May 11 commission discussion, Clague referenced a legal memorandum he included in the agenda packet.

“Florida law allows the county to pay the legal expenses incurred by commissioners in this case, subject to the board finding that the commissioners were performing their official duties for a public purpose,” the memo stated.

When addressing the commission, Clague said, “The purpose of the law is to prevent what the courts refer to as a ‘chilling effect’ on the performance of official duties by public officials, particularly elected officials. The idea is that if officials are afraid that they will be forced to pay legal expenses, personally, for doing their jobs, they will be afraid to do their jobs. People will not always agree with the decisions elected officials make and the law recognizes that the place to deal with that is the ballot box.”

Commissioner Carol Whitmore asked Clague if Van Ostenbridge and Satcher could recuse themselves from the vote if they wished to not give the appearance of personal gain or loss. Clague said they could, but they’d have to leave the room. Neither commissioner recused themselves, nor were they asked to.

Satcher said he was surprised when the lawsuit was filed and originally named him as the first and only defendant, with Baugh and Van Ostenbridge later named as co-defendants. Satcher said it was never his desire or intent to hold back any records Barfield requested.

Regarding the pending vote on the requested reimbursements, Satcher said, “People shouldn’t be bankrupted for being elected.”

Public input

County residents Matt Bower and Glen Gibellina expressed opposition to the reimbursement requests as presented, in part because the public had not yet been provided with copies of the attorney bills.

“This bill is excessive,” Bower said of the total reimbursements sought.

Bower said he and more than a dozen other county residents he communicated with were unhappy about the taxpayers being asked to pay the commissioners’ legal bills.

Gibellina said, “Any time there’s a settlement, it’s a red flag. We make deals to save time and money, but at the cost of transparency to the citizens.

Gibellina said the reimbursement request should have been delayed until the public was provided with copies of the attorney bills.

“If we’re paying the bill, we deserve to see what the bill is,” he said.

City seeks $31,645 from last Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant

City seeks $31,645 from last Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant

Written by Joe Hendricks on . Posted in Bradenton Beach, Community News.

BRADENTON BEACH – The city is seeking $31,645 in attorney fees, paralegal fees and legal costs from lawsuit defendant Reed Mapes.

Mapes is the only defendant who has not settled with the city in the 2017 Sunshine Law-related civil lawsuit in which the city prevailed.

In July 2019, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas ruled that Mapes and five other former city advisory board members violated Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law by discussing official city business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach meetings in 2017.

The Sunshine Law requires members of the same elected or appointed governmental commission, committee or board to conduct their official business in properly noticed public meetings. It prohibits members of the same elected or appointed body from communicating with each other privately about their official business.

In October 2020, Nicholas ordered Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to pay the city a total of $369,498 for the recovery of the city’s attorney and paralegal fees. When issuing that ruling, Nicholas relieved co-defendants Patricia Shay, Rose Vincent and Bill Vincent of those shared financial responsibilities after learning the three of them had agreed, before the trial began, to settle with the city for $500 each and an acknowledgement that Sunshine Law compliance errors were made.

The city commission then rejected those settlement offers because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlements which would have brought the case to an end before it went to trial.

In November, Martin and Metz reached a settlement agreement with the city that resulted in the pair paying the city $350,000 and dropping their appeals of Nicholas’ 2019 ruling. In separate actions, Shay and the Vincents agreed to pay the city $500 each, with the Vincents also agreeing to drop their appeals. Shay did not appeal Nicholas’ ruling.

Final hearing

On Monday, March 29, a virtual hearing on fees and costs was held via Zoom, with Nicholas presiding. Assisted by paralegal Michael Barfield, Robert Watrous again represented the city. Mapes represented himself at the hearing, which lasted slightly more than 30 minutes.

Watrous noted the amount sought is in accordance with statewide uniform guidelines for the taxation of costs and civil actions. Watrous said he would provide the court and Mapes with a cost summary and detailed supporting documents that verify all legal fees and costs billed to the city of Bradenton Beach through the conclusion of the 2019 civil lawsuit trial.
“Mr. Mapes is the only remaining defendant. We have settled with Mr. Metz. We have settled with Ms. Martin. The other defendants we have settled with also,” Watrous told the judge.

Watrous said the $350,000 payment made by Metz and Martin and the $1,500 received from Shay and the Vincents total $351,500, leaving a remaining deficiency of $17,998 in unrecovered attorney and paralegal fees.

“It’s our position that those would be the responsibility of Mr. Mapes because he is the only remaining defendant,” Watrous said.

Watrous and the city seek an additional $13,647 in legal costs that include court reporter fees, court reporter transcription fees, photocopying and other non-attorney, non-paralegal costs.

“It’s our position that Mr. Mapes be responsible for the costs,” Watrous said.

Nicholas then provided Mapes a chance to respond.

“I find it interesting that Mr. Metz and Tjet Martin paid $350,000 to end their issues. Then, after all of this time, Patty Shay and the Vincents settled for $500. I can’t quite figure out why I wasn’t offered the same. It seems somewhat odd to me that they settle with these three people that we know have very little funds. I have no funds. I’m a little bit befuddled about that and can’t quite figure out how they got such a good deal at the last minute,” said Mapes, who was dealing with health issues before and during the 2019 trial.

Mapes owns a home in Parrish which, according to the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office, has an appraised value of $501,732. In 2018, Mapes and his wife sold their Bradenton Beach condominium for slightly more than $1 million.

Regarding the rejected settlement offers that Shay and the Vincents signed before the trial began, Mapes said, “I didn’t sign the document that came out in 2019 because I knew good and well John Metz was not going to agree to it. I saw no reason to sign something I knew was not going to go anywhere, but all of a sudden it went someplace at the very end with Patricia Shay and the Vincents.”

City seeks $31,645 from last Sunshine Law lawsuit defendant
12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas intends to issue his next ruling without conducting another hearing. – Joe Hendricks | Sun file photo

Nicholas did not ask Watrous to do a line-by-line review of the costs and fees sought, but he did ask Watrous to swear that the information contained in the summary of costs was true.

Nicholas directed Watrous to provide Mapes with copies of the cost summary and the supporting documents. He also ordered Watrous to file a sworn affidavit regarding the remaining $17,998 in attorney and paralegal fees sought.

“I’m not going to rule today with regard to this issue. I have to review the summary of costs in more detail now that it’s sworn to,” Nicholas said.

Nicholas gave Mapes until Friday, April 16 to file any objections he has regarding the fees and costs sought.

In closing, Nicholas said, “This case is almost at the finish line and I’m not inclined to have any more hearings. I don’t think that it’s necessary. I’m not likely to make any decisions prior to April 16.”

As of Sunday, April 11, Mapes had not yet filed any formal objections to the fees and costs sought.