BRADENTON BEACH – City Clerk Terri Sanclemente and City Attorney Erica Augello are handling the city’s response to a subpoena Sanclemente received as part of the civil lawsuit former Building Official Darin Cushing filed against his former employer, SAFEbuilt Florida LLC.
While serving as the city’s building official, Cushing was a contractual employee for SAFEbuilt Inspections. M.T. Causley is a subsidiary of SAFEbuilt and the city had a contractual agreement with M.T. Causley to provide building official services.
Bradenton Beach is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit Cushing’s attorney filed with the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Bradenton on May 7, 2025.
The subpoena sent to Sanclemente on Jan. 26 requested records pertaining to Cushing’s job description, performance reviews, disciplinary actions, complaints and all documents pertaining to the termination of his employment. Because Cushing was not a city employee, the subpoena does not seek employment applications and documents related to his hiring.
During the March 19 city commission meeting, Sanclemente said she had received the subpoena from Cushing’s attorneys.
“He is suing SAFEbuilt, so I have completed all of those documents and sent them over to Erica to review; and when she’s done, she does the submittal,” Sanclemente said.
The city temporarily suspended Cushing’s contractual services on Jan. 22, 2025. Following the suspension, Cushing’s employment with SAFEbuilt was later terminated.
Cushing’s suspension centered around his permitting approval for the Drift-In bar’s tiki hut structure, as well as for various social media posts he made. The city maintained the Drift-In permit should not have been issued and the project should have been classified as a “major development” due to the new tiki hut’s increased size. Cushing has maintained that the permit was issued properly.
Cushing has alleged that his employment status with the city was threatened for not complying with what he characterized as “illegal and unethical” requests to provide favorable treatment to a local developer. City officials denied those allegations.
Cushing’s lawsuit complaint alleges he was “unlawfully terminated because of his whistleblower actions in refusing to participate in illegal activities and reporting violations of laws, rules and regulations in violation of his rights under the Florida Private Whistleblower Act.”
A court date for Cushing’s requested jury trial has not been scheduled and the preliminary legal filings continue.
ANNA MARIA ISLAND – Alleging a “deliberate, bad faith scheme” related to a $105 million deal struck with Prime Business in 2024, StayTerra Vacations has filed a civil lawsuit against Kiri Stewart, Magnolia Cottages LLC and 10 additional LLCs.
Filed on Dec. 19 with the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Bradenton, the lawsuit names as plaintiffs StayTerra Vacations LLC, Prime Vacations LLC and GSP Prime Holdings LLC.
The lawsuit names as defendants Kiri Stewart, Magnolia Cottages LLC, 48 Street LLC, 9801 Gulf Drive LLC, 224 Chilson Ave. LLC, 243 S. Harbor Dr. LLC, 518 Spring LLC, 2403 Avenue C LLC, 128 Fillmore LLC, 2210 Avenue A LLC, 103 Park Ave. AMI LLC and 6548 Sabal Dr. LLC.
Developer Shawn Kaleta is not named as a defendant, but he’s mentioned in the lawsuit and he’s listed with the Florida Division of Corporations as the manager of five of the 10 property-specific LLCs named as defendants in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit complaint says the plaintiffs, StayTerra, seek “equitable relief to enforce their agreements with the defendant Seller-KS Property Companies (Stewart’s LLCs) and to recover damages to compensate them for the substantial losses they have already incurred as a result of the defendants’ intentional and material breaches of their contractual obligations.”
“By reason of the deceptive and unfair trade practices employed by defendants Stewart and Magnolia Cottages, plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $5 million,” the complaint alleges.
“The founders and owners of the Prime Business who bound the defendant, Seller-KS Property Companies, to the Master PMA (Property Management Agreement) were Shawn T. Kaleta and Roman Eckert, the ‘Founders and Owners’. One of the founders and owners of Prime Business is defendant Stewart’s romantic partner and the father of her children,” the complaint says.
“Plaintiffs respectfully requests this court enter judgement in favor of plaintiffs against defendants, award plaintiffs compensable damages in an amount to be proved at trial, but an amount not less than $5 million, in addition to a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from continuing to engage in unfair and deceptive trade practices,” the complaint says.
The case is assigned to Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen.
StayTerra is represented by the Sarasota-based Williams Parker Harrison Dietz & Getzen law firm and the New York City-based Paduano & Weintraub law firm.
The lawsuit
According to the lawsuit complaint, GSP is an investment firm founded in or around 2013 with assets under management of more than $3.5 billion.
“Garnett Stations Partners (GSP), through plaintiff, StayTerra and GSP Prime Holdings, paid approximately $105 million to acquire the outstanding equity interests in Prime and other companies comprising a vacation rental management business,” the complaint says.
“In or around late 2023, GSP identified a potential opportunity in the large, growing and highly fragmented vacation rental management industry. Eventually, in or around January 2024, GSP received an introduction to a prominent real estate developer in Southwest Florida who had founded and built a vacation rental management business comprised of six brands (AMI Locals, Anna Maria Island Accommodations, Anna Maria Vacations, Siesta Key Luxury Property Rentals, Lido Key Vacations and Tropical Sands Vacations), referred to herein as the ‘Prime Business,’” the complaint says.
At the time, Prime Business managed approximately 1,110 vacation rental properties, including approximately 130 properties that were indirectly owned or controlled by the founders of Prime Business through the defendant, Seller-KS Property Companies and certain other LLCs, according to the complaint.
“The founder and owners of the Prime Business recognized that they needed liquidity for their real estate development business and also that GSP was an ideal partner to assist with scaling the Prime Business into a national player in the vacation rental management industry,” the complaint says.
On or around Sept. 18, 2024, GSP, through StayTerra, closed on a transaction with the founders, owners and certain other seller entities to acquire a majority stake in Prime Business.
“The deal was structured through an Equity Purchase Agreement (EPA) pursuant to which plaintiff StayTerra acquired all of the equity interests in Prime and certain other companies comprising Prime Business for a purchase price of approximately $105 million – consisting of approximately $70 million cash and approximately $35 million in rollover equity in GSP Prime Holdings, the ultimate parent company that owns StayTerra,” the complaint says.
Pursuant to conditions of the EPA, the owners/founders of Prime Business agreed they would not do the following for a period of five years:
Compete with Prime Business (StayTerra)
Recruit or hire any employee, service provider or independent contractor of the Prime Business to leave the employ or cease providing service
Contract with any suppliers of Prime Business
The complaint notes each of the founder/owners of Prime Business entered into a contribution agreement with GSP Prime Holdings in which they agreed to contribute their personal goodwill that included close business relationships with customers and vendors, trade secrets and knowledge.
“As a condition to the closing of the transaction, the founders and owners of the Prime Business delivered a Master Property and Rental and Management Agreement,” the complaint says regarding 10 properties on Anna Maria Island or in Sarasota or Bradenton.
The LLC associated with this vacation rental home at 518 Spring Ave. in Anna Maria is named in the lawsuit. – Manatee County Property Appraiser | Submitted
The LLCs for those 10 properties are listed as defendants. The Florida Division of Corporations lists Stewart as the manager of 224 Chilson Ave. LLC, 48 Street LLC, 9801 Gulf Dr. LLC, 243 South Harbor Dr. LLC and 128 Fillmore LLC. Kaleta is listed as the manager of 518 Spring LLC, 103 Park Ave. AMI LLC, 2403 Avenue C. LLC, 2210 Avenue A LLC and 6548 Sabal Dr. LLC. The Najmy Thompson law firm is named as the registered agent for all 10 of the property-specific LLCs named as defendants.
The Florida Division of Corporations lists Stewart as the manager and registered agent of Magnolia Cottages LLC.
According to the complaint, the founders and owners of Prime Business granted Prime the exclusive right to collect management fees for the properties for a minimum of seven years.
“Yet less than thirteen months after pocketing the consideration comprised of approximately $105 million of cash and rollover equity, the defendants embarked on a deliberate, bad faith scheme to eviscerate the benefit of the bargain plaintiffs struck by facilitating purported transfers of the founders’ membership interest in the Seller-KS Property Companies that are subject to the Master PMA to defendant Magnolia Cottages, which is ostensibly owned and controlled by defendant Stewart,” the complaint alleges.
The complaint alleges that in each of the transfer agreements, the founders and owners of the Prime Business, “falsely represented they had the full power to transfer their interests in the Seller-KS Property Companies subject to the Master PMA without obtaining the consent or approval of any other person.”
On Oct. 7, 2025, Stewart and Magnolia Cottages received a cease-and-desist letter from the plaintiffs.
“They were undeterred by that letter and have continued to actively engage in their scheme,” according to the lawsuit.
The complaint alleges, “Defendants Stewart and Magnolia Cottages have assisted the founders and owners of the Prime Business with a ‘shadow listing’ scheme for other properties that indisputably remain subject to the Master PMA.
“Specifically, defendants Stewart and Magnolia Cottages have listed properties that are owned or controlled by the founders of the Prime Business and subject to the Master PMA on Airbnb, VRBO and other booking platforms at prices that are lower than the prices offered by plaintiff Prime,’ the lawsuit further alleges.
Stewart response
On Monday, Jan. 26, Stewart provided The Sun with a written statement that said, “We will vigorously and successfully defend against these claims. The allegations made by Prime are false, misleading and without merit. Prime is a large corporate entity attempting to bully us as homeowners and small property operators by unlawfully seeking control of properties that we own outright.
“Prime previously mismanaged these properties, and we exercised our lawful right as owners to resume control. At no time did we sign away ownership rights or grant Prime authority to possess or control our homes,” Stewart stated.
“Had Prime successfully managed the properties and generated acceptable revenue, we would not have removed them from management. Since self-managing, we have significantly outperformed Prime’s results.
“This lawsuit is a transparent and failed attempt by a Wall Street–backed private equity firm to use the court system to pressure and exploit a small, local business rather than accept responsibility for its own mismanagement,” Stewart stated.
(After this story was published, The Sun learned a similar lawsuit was filed against Jennifer Warren-Kaleta the same day.)
BRADENTON BEACH – A planning and zoning board public hearing to consider a major development plan for the Bungalow Beach Resort property at 2000 and 2104 Gulf Drive will be held Wednesday, Jan. 7, at 1 p.m. at Bradenton Beach City Hall.
The proposed major development plan consists of a 15-guest room hotel with two habitable stories over parking, and an outdoor pool area.
The planning and zoning board is a recommending body to the Bradenton Beach City Commission. The city commission will hold a public hearing on the matter on Thursday, Feb. 5, at 6 p.m.
The meetings will be held in the Katie Pierola Commission Chambers at 107 Gulf Drive N.
Historical timeline
The property, owned by Gayle Luper and known as Bungalow Beach Resort, has been the subject of quasi-judicial hearings and a lawsuit filed against the city.
During Hurricane Helene, the older, original waterfront cottages at Bungalow Beach Resort were destroyed and subsequently condemned.
On March 14, Luper opened a portion of the razed parcel lot where the cottages once stood and began charging a resort fee of $50 per car to park and use the adjacent beach area. Code Enforcement Officer Evan Harbus told Luper all parking in that lot must cease, as it was in violation of city code.
Luper maintained that despite the bungalows being destroyed by the 2024 hurricane, the resort’s other two parcels were continually operational and she was entitled to sell resort passes that include parking, as she had done prior to the hurricanes.
Luper said she was advised by the city that she must file a parking permit to continue to charge a resort fee for parking, but she said City Planner Luis Serna advised her that a permit was not necessary.
On April 17, the city commission voted to require Luper to obtain a temporary use permit for parking, with a series of restrictions attached. The restrictions included no overnight parking and no parking past 9 p.m.
Luper filed a lawsuit against the city on April 25. The city then filed a request for dismissal of the lawsuit. That case remains open, according to the Manatee County Clerk of Court website.
On July 29, the attorneys representing Luper Enterprises and the city presented their opposing arguments regarding the commission’s decision to ban resort fee-based parking at the Bungalow Beach Resort. Special Master Marisa Powers presided over the quai-judicial hearing and later ruled she did not have jurisdiction to override the city’s decision.
SARASOTA – Suncoast Waterkeeper filed a formal Notice of Intent to Sue U.S. Recycling Company on Oct. 3 for alleged ongoing violations of the federal Clean Water Act at its industrial facility located at 1310 Industrial Court.
The environmental watchdog organization claimed that U.S. Recycling has unlawfully discharged polluted stormwater and other contaminants into Hog Creek and Sarasota Bay, waterways that are protected for recreation, wildlife and shellfish harvesting.
“Protecting Sarasota Bay and its tributaries is at the heart of our mission,” said Dr. Abbey Tyrna, executive director of Suncoast Waterkeeper. “When industrial pollution threatens those waters and regulatory enforcement falls short, it’s our duty to act. This notice is about safeguarding the health of our community and the integrity of the bay.”
According to a press release issued by Suncoast Waterkeeper, “The notice outlines numerous alleged violations of the Clean Water Act and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Among these violations are failure to develop and/or implement a proper Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), failure to monitor and report discharges as required by law, and the release of non-stormwater pollutants into nearby drainage channels.”
“Sampling conducted by Suncoast Waterkeeper found elevated levels of pollutants such as aluminum, iron, total suspended solids (TSS), and chemical oxygen demand (COD) that exceeded federal guidelines for industrial facilities,” according to the press release. “These pollutants can harm fish and wildlife, degrade water quality, and pose risks to human health. According to research on similar concrete crushing plants in the U.S., it is likely that this operation is harming the Bay with pollutants beyond what the preliminary sampling from Suncoast Waterkeeper revealed.”
Hog Creek, which receives runoff from the U.S. Recycling facility, is listed by the State of Florida as an impaired water body and flows into Sarasota Bay.
“The Clean Water Act allows citizens and environmental organizations to enforce the law when regulatory agencies fail to do so,” the release stated.
Suncoast Waterkeeper intends to file suit in federal court no sooner than 60 days after the notice date unless U.S. Recycling takes immediate and effective action to correct violations, according to the press release.
“U.S. Recycling is just one of many industrial facilities in the region that fail to comply with regulations that are designed to protect the environment,” said Justin Bloom, Suncoast Waterkeeper founder and environmental attorney. “Actions like this are geared towards attaining compliance and ensuring accountability. Recycling concrete is an important activity in a growing community like ours, but it has to be done in a way that protects the environment and the community that relies on clean air and water.”
HOLMES BEACH – The city is not joining the Senate Bill 180 lawsuit but city officials appreciate the Manatee County Commission’s recent decision to do so.
On Sept. 2, county commissioners voted 6-1 in favor of paying an initial $10,000 fee to join the lawsuit that will challenge a new state law created earlier this year by the Florida Legislature and supported by Gov. Ron DeSantis with the adoption of Senate Bill 180.
Originally intended to ensure property owners’ ability to repair and rebuild their homes after a hurricane, the far-reaching legislation prohibits city and county governments from adopting and enforcing any new development regulations that are more restrictive or cumbersome than those in place on Aug. 1, 2024.
The local regulatory restrictions imposed by the state law are scheduled to expire on Oct. 1, 2027, but would be extended in any jurisdiction located within 100 miles of a federally declared natural disaster area.
Fort Lauderdale-based attorney Jamie Cole is leading the legal challenge. When contacted on Sept. 12, he said 20 Florida cities and counties have joined the lawsuit and no decision has been made yet as to where it will be filed.
As a follow up to their Aug. 26 discussion, Holmes Beach officials revisited the lawsuit discussion on Sept. 11.
“My position hasn’t changed,” City Attorney Erica Augello said. “Whatever the determination on this is, it’s going to affect everybody in the state. It’s up to you if you want to join, but they have enough to move it forward. That’s the consensus in my office as well, with all the jurisdictions that we represent.”
Commissioner Dan Diggins said the only reason he’d vote to join the lawsuit would be to show the city’s support for the county commission’s decision.
Commissioner Terry Schaefer said he discussed the pending lawsuit with the city’s contracted lobbyist, Andrew Kalel. Schaefer said Kalel also believes an eventual court ruling would impact the city with or without joining the lawsuit and joining the lawsuit could impact the city’s relations with state leaders.
Commissioner Steve Oelfke said he discussed the lawsuit with District 3 County Commissioner Tal Siddique and expressed the city’s appreciation and support for the county commission’s decision. Oelfke said Siddique understands the city’s position on not joining the lawsuit.
Commissioner Carol Soustek hopes the lawsuit pressures the Florida Legislature into revising the new law during the 2026 legislative session.
“I support the county for doing this,” she added.
“I agree with everyone up here,” Mayor Judy Titsworth said. “I’m so proud of the county for deciding to join that lawsuit. And we are the county; they’re representing us in this lawsuit.”
Referencing the Florida Legislature’s past support for the previous county commission’s now-abandoned efforts to force the construction of a county-funded parking garage at Manatee Beach, Titsworth said, “We know what it feels like when we get trampled on by the state.”
Regarding the county commission’s decision, the mayor said, “I really support their efforts to try to protect home rule and I do feel they’re doing this to protect us.”
Titsworth said she’d support the city joining the lawsuit if the city commissioners wanted to. Augello said the city commission could revisit that decision later if the law firm handling the case needs more parties to join the lawsuit to help fund the legal challenge.
BRADENTON – C&D Properties of AMI has not appealed a judge’s ruling in favor of the West Manatee Fire and Rescue District’s (WMFR) right to levy annual assessments on short-term vacation rental properties at a higher commercial rate rather than a lower residential rate.
The 2024 lawsuit pertained to two condo units 101 67th St. in Holmes Beach owned by C&D Properties. On May 22, 12th Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas issued his written order in favor of WMFR, followed by his final order on May 29. C&D Properties then had 30 days to file an appeal and did not.
On July 2, WMFR issued a written statement that addressed the lawsuit.
“The West Manatee Fire and Rescue District has prevailed on all counts in a legal challenge brought by a short-term residential property owner over the district’s higher non-ad valorem assessment rates for such properties. The plaintiff did not appeal the ruling and the appeal period has now expired,” according to the statement. “The plaintiff argued that the district’s imposition of a higher ‘commercial’ assessment rate on short-term vacation rental properties was an unlawful regulation and preempted by Florida Statutes. The court rejected those claims, upholding the district’s authority to increase assessments based on property usage – particularly where such use demands higher service levels and resource allocation from the fire department.
“Florida’s Fire Prevention Code requires elevated life safety standards, inspections and enforcement from fire departments for short-term rentals compared to traditional single-family residential properties. The court confirmed the district lawfully applied its special assessment powers to equitably apportion costs among properties requiring more extensive fire and safety services,” according to the statement.
The statement notes the higher commercial rate is also applied to residentially-zoned assisted living facilities and daycare centers that are also subject to stricter fire code standards.
“Importantly, the court found that the district’s assessments did not constitute a regulation and did not prohibit or limit vacation rental operations, nor regulate the duration or frequency of such rentals,” according to the statement.
“The Fire Commission has never opposed short-term vacation rentals within the district,” Fire Chief Ben Rigney said in the statement. “The Fire Commission believes property owners have the right to choose how they use their homes. However, if they opt to operate a vacation rental, they should bear the additional costs for the inspections and life safety enforcement required by the Florida Fire Prevention Code.”
WMFR is an independent special fire control district that operates three fire stations and serves Anna Maria, Bradenton Beach, Holmes Beach and the unincorporated areas of Cortez, Palma Sola and northwest Bradenton.
BRADENTON BEACH – The city of Bradenton Beach is asking for a dismissal of an April 25 lawsuit filed against the city by Bungalow Beach Resort owner Gayle Luper.
Attorney Robert Lincoln is representing the city and he filed the motion to dismiss on May 21.
In his motion, Lincoln stated: “Luper improperly seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to attack a quasi-judicial action and decision of the city commission approving her application for a temporary use permit to allow parking on her demolished resort property subject to conditions. Luper attacks both the city commission’s process and decision following its April 17 hearing. Luper alleges the city commission violated her due process rights and violated her parking rights.”
The motion states: “Luper’s sole remedy for attacking the city commission’s quasi-judicial decision is a petition for writ of certiorari (pursuant to state statute). This court may not grant either declaratory or injunctive relief and therefore must dismiss counts I and II with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
According to the Florida Bar Association, “A petition for writ of certiorari is generally used to review quasi-judicial orders of county, municipal or state agencies that cannot be appealed to the district courts of appeal under the Administrative Procedure Act.”
In his motion, Lincoln stated: “The city commission must, and did, conduct a hearing to consider Luper’s application for a temporary use permit for the razed parcels. The city commission was required to, and did, apply the standards set forth (in the city’s land development code) to Luper’s application and the facts shown at the hearing. Defendant, city of Bradenton Beach, requests the court enter an order dismissing counts I and II and the entire action, with prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Hearing and Luper’s lawsuit
The lawsuit complaint filed by Tampa-based Attorney John A. Anthony on April 25 names Luper Enterprises, Inc. and Coastal Sound Investments LLC as the plaintiffs and the city of Bradenton Beach as the defendant.
Luper’s lawsuit stemmed from a decision by the Bradenton Beach City Commission at an April 17 quasi-judicial public hearing to deny the use of the currently vacant resort property at 2000 Gulf Drive N. for paid parking using a resort pass.
Commissioners questioned the resort pass request for the beachfront bungalows that were destroyed during Hurricane Helene.
During the public hearing, Luper and her attorney, Stephanie Anthony, maintained that as a working resort, a resort pass, which includes parking and access to a private area of the beach, was appropriate because other Luper-owned properties affiliated with the multi-property resort remained operational following the hurricanes.
After a nearly 2.5-hour quasi-judicial hearing in which City Planner Luis Serna recommended denial of the application, city commissioners denied the paid public parking lot application but allowed a temporary use permit for Luper, resort guests and employees to use the lot no later than 9 p.m.
The city commission placed the following restrictions on the property:
Parking at the razed parcels (the lot where the bungalows were) is permitted for a period of one year or 30 days from the issuance of a building permit;
Parking at the razed parcels is limited to 17 parking spaces, per the city-issued Transient Public Lodging Establishment license;
No trailers, recreational vehicles, campers or buses are allowed to park at the razed parcels, and no tailgating, overnight parking or paid parking shall be conducted;
Only employees, agents or registered guests of the resort are allowed to park at the razed parcels;
Parking at the razed parcels is limited to 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. enforced by a towing service secured by Luper.
Dispute timeline
Hurricane Helene destroyed many of 14 original Bungalow Beach cottages. The buildings were condemned and by Feb. 1 the razed parcels had been cleared of the demolition debris.
“At this time, Ms. Luper advised the city of her plan to reopen the razed parcels to continue parking in the manner that had been conducted by the resort for over 25 years,” Luper’s complaint states. “Ms. Luper was then advised by the city that she must file a parking permit in order to continue to charge a resort fee for parking.”
The Bradenton Beach City Commission denied Gayle Luper’s request to use her resort property for paid public parking. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Luper applied online for the permit on Feb. 3 and said she spoke to Serna on Feb. 4 about the proposed plan to reopen the razed parcel for resort-fee parking to the public. She said Serna advised her that he saw no issues with the plan.
“The resort consists of three separate but interconnected areas. The razed parcels acquired in 1999, the duplex parcel (2103 Ave. C) acquired in 1999 and the single-family parcel (2108 Gulf Drive N.), acquired and incorporated into the resort in 2024.”
According to the complaint, the razed parcels have continuously supplied parking, including overflow parking, for operations at all the resort properties.
On March 14, a portion of the parking lot was reopened for parking at the rate of $50 per-car, per-day for 29 parking spaces.
“After parking approximately 14 cars on the morning of March 14, Evan Harbus, in his capacity with the Code Enforcement Division of the city, directed that all parking at the razed parcels cease immediately,” the lawsuit complaint states. “The city’s officials advised that any vehicles violating these instructions would be towed, including vehicles owned by the plaintiffs, vehicles of resort employees, its construction or maintenance-related crews, previous and potential guests and the paying public.”
On March 16, Luper submitted an application for temporary parking.
“The resort, properly permitted to conduct a defined and legitimate business, has never ceased operating even for a day and has continuously charged a resort fee of $50-$59, which included parking,” the complaint states. “The resort charging a resort fee to the public for parking and amenity use is a consistent and well-founded practice employed by several similar resorts in the region, frequently known as a ‘resort pass.’”
BRADENTON BEACH – Pines Park Investors LLC filed a motion for the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed against them in March by the Pines Trailer Park Homeowners Association (HOA).
The HOA lawsuit filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court claims park ownership failed to comply with state law which rendered the park closure as invalid. The suit also alleges park ownership failed to fulfill its obligations in good faith, did not maintain the park’s common areas following the 2024 hurricanes and did not provide adequate parking in accordance with the city of Bradenton Beach Land Development Code.
The HOA asked, in part, for an injunction against the park closure and the evictions.
“This action arises as a result of defendant’s unlawful actions regarding its failure to maintain and repair the park common area amenities, its defective notice to the association and its illegal and unconscionable actions to illegally close the park and evict the mobile home owners,” according to the HOA complaint.
Post-hurricane timeline
The 86-unit waterfront mobile home park sustained flooding during Hurricane Helene last September. On Oct. 17, Bradenton Beach Building Official Darin Cushing told the homeowners that FEMA guidelines characterized any unit in which water covered the floors as “substantially damaged.” That triggered the city floodplain ordinance requiring the units to be brought up to code, which included elevation of up to 12 feet.
On Dec. 9, however, 83 of the 86 Pines Trailer Park homeowners were told by the city that they may repair their hurricane-damaged mobile homes, with the proper permits. On Jan. 4, however, the homeowners received notification from the park’s ownership group, Pines Park Investors LLC, that the park was being closed in July.
In December, the parking lot at 205 1st Street N. (which had been used for an annual fee by park residents who did not have available parking) was converted into a paid public parking lot. On April 22, residents who were up to date on their lot rental payments were notified they could park free of charge in the lot “until further notice.”
In a Jan. 27 letter to the Pines Trailer Park HOA, park ownership offered to sell the mobile home park to the residents for $75 million. Managed by local developer Shawn Kaleta, Pines Park Investors LLC purchased the 2.78-acre waterfront mobile home property on Aug. 5, 2023, from The Jackson Partnership LLLP for $16.25 million.
Owners’ response
In the 25-page motion to dismiss, Davie, Fl.-based Attorney Shawn Arbeiter laid out the ownership group’s reasons for the dismissal request. The motion maintains the evictions and the park closure were done in accordance with Florida Statute 723 (also known as the Florida Mobile Home Act), which governs mobile home parks.
“Plaintiff seeks to derail the lawful transition of the park – as a result of terrible circumstances – with invalid legal claims,” the motion states. “Pines Park Investors LLC provided adequate notice to residents and the HOA in the event of a planned eviction due to a change in land use.”
The motion to dismiss also claims the HOA does not have the authority as a properly-formed HOA to represent all the Pines homeowners.
“Plaintiff lacks standing to bring claims because plaintiff has failed to properly plead that they are a valid homeowners’ association and thus are not permitted to represent all of the Pines homeowners,” the motion states. “This error is not merely a technical oversight, it strikes at the heart of their standing to bring this case. By failing to properly plead that they have satisfied these statutory requirements, the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action in that regard as to counts and therefore all counts should be dismissed for lack of standing.”
The motion states the “Right to Purchase” notice made to the homeowners to purchase the mobile home park for $75 million complies with the state statue.
“The statute does not say at the market price or at the fair market price. The statute simply says at the price,” the motion states. “The defendant delivered a legally sufficient notice to the plaintiff as to their right to purchase the mobile home park at the price and under the terms and conditions in the written notice.
“Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from closing the park and from evicting mobile homeowners, but the plaintiff fails to cite to any underlying claim or statute that specifically authorizes such relief,” the motion states.
The motion concludes, in part, with the following claim: “There can be no irreparable harm if very few persons are residing in Pines Trailer Park because of the damage the park has sustained; and if there are persons residing in the park, those residents are likely there without properly pulling permits from the city, which the city has required in order to reside in one of the mobile homes considered substantially damaged.”
The defendant also asked for an award of attorney’s fees and costs in defending the lawsuit.
BRADENTON BEACH – The Pines Trailer Park Homeowners Association has filed a lawsuit against park owners Pines Park Investors LLC asking in part for an injunction against the park closure and threatened evictions.
The lawsuit, filed in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court on March 28 by Sarasota-based attorney David J. Fredericks, claims that park owners failed to comply with state law, which rendered the park closure invalid. The suit also alleges that park owners failed to fulfill their obligations in good faith, did not maintain the park’s common areas and did not provide adequate parking in accordance with the city of Bradenton Beach Land Development Code.
Laundry and shower facilities are non-operational at the Pines Trailer Park as of March 29. – Leslie Lake | Sun
“This action arises as a result of defendant’s unlawful actions regarding its failure to maintain and repair the park common area amenities, its defective notice to the Association, and its illegal and unconscionable actions to illegally close the park and evict the mobile home owners,” according to the complaint.
The suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief related to claims that exceed $50,000.
Pines HOA President Neil Lind said on March 29 that on his attorney’s advice, he could not comment on specifics of the suit, but he spoke on behalf of residents.
“We are pleased to have submitted and filed this lawsuit,” Lind said. “We are encouraged and optimistic about the future.”
Lind said the pending park closure and receipt of eviction notices have been stressful for residents.
“A number of people have had a number of negative health outcomes,” he said. “We have been through a lot in relation to what’s been going on. There have been many sleepless nights and I’m hoping a sense of calm might prevail for a while. It’s been a struggle.”
The 86-unit waterfront mobile home park sustained flooding during Hurricane Helene in September 2024. On Dec. 9, 83 of the 86 Pines Trailer Park homeowners were told by the former city building official that they could repair their hurricane-damaged mobile homes with the proper permits. On Jan. 4, however, the homeowners received notification from the park’s ownership, Pines Park Investors, that the park was being closed.
In December, 2024, the parking lot, which had been used for an annual fee by park residents who did not have available parking, was converted into a paid public parking lot.
Residents of Laverne Street in the Pines Trailer Park have no available parking at their units. The former Pines parking lot was converted to public paid parking in December. – Leslie Lake | Sun
In a Jan. 27 letter to the Pines Trailer Park HOA, park owners offered to sell the mobile home park to the residents for $75 million.
Pines Trailer Park homeowners received an email in February outlining terms for abandonment of their mobile homes and possible extension of their tenancy to Jan. 31, 2026. Those terms include transferring the ownership of mobile homes to Pines Park Investors.
A fallen tree and debris remain at the Pines Trailer Park. – Leslie Lake | Sun
On March 17, Pines Trailer Park residents who withheld lot rental payments due to what they said was the disrepair of the park were served with demand for payment notices taped to their doors and by certified mail. The notices required either immediately paying the full amounts of past due lot rental fees or vacating the premises within five days. Those notices were from Pines Park Investors LLC and the agent for the community, Fort Lauderdale-based The Urban Group.
The lawsuit claims that the defendant has a statutory obligation to act in good faith and fair dealing with the plaintiff when fulfilling its obligations under Chapter 723 of the Florida Statutes, which governs mobile home parks, including with the issuance of a Right to Purchase Notice and its intent to change land use.
“Defendant did not deal fairly with plaintiff or act in good faith when it provided plaintiff with its grossly exaggerated $75,000,000 asking price for the park. Defendant’s failure to deal fairly or act in good faith with plaintiff effectively rendered the Right to Purchase notice null and void,” the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit claims that the park was appraised as of March 5 at a value of $16.6 million, approximately 22% of the proposed $75 million asking price.
Pines Park Investors purchased the 2.78-acre waterfront mobile home property on Aug. 5, 2023 from The Jackson Partnership LLLP for $16.25 million.
The mortgage for that purchase contains a covenant and agreement by the defendant not to change, or make any application to change, the existing zoning classification or land use of the park prior to the maturity date as defined by the note, which is five years from the Aug. 25, 2023 date of purchase, or Aug. 23 2028, according to the lawsuit.
According to state statute, a mobile home park owner may evict a mobile home owner, tenant, or occupant if there is a change in land use.
An October 2024 letter to residents from Pines Park Investors LLC signed by manager Shawn Kaleta is attached to the complaint and reads in part that he “is fully committed to restoring Pines Trailer Park as quickly and efficiently as possible… Our priority is that you have a safe, comfortable home once again. We are here for you during this process and want to continuing operating Pines Trailer Park long-term as a home for you and your families.”
In meetings between ownership representatives and homeowners on Oct. 28 and 29, those representatives reportedly said that rents would not be charged while the park was not operational, according to the complaint.
“With the Right to Purchase notice, the defendant offered mobile homeowners, under the threat of eviction including for rents previously asserted not to be due from the mobile homeowners, the option to execute a one-sided agreement allowing them to continue the lease of their lot in exchange for the turnover title to their mobile homes, eliminating the protections of Chapter 723, Florida Statutes,” the lawsuit claims.
The park, excluding the parking lot, was offered for sale in the Right to Purchase notice.
The complaint states that in the city’s Land Development Code, the M-1 Mobile Home Park district zoning provides that each mobile home shall be assigned one parking space, and consequently that offer “was not in good faith and lacked fair dealing as the association would not be able to operate the park in compliance with the minimum parking requirements of the City of Bradenton Beach Land Development Code.”
The lawsuit states that common areas of the park remain in disrepair following the September hurricane.
Shower facilities are non-operational at the Pines Trailer Park as of March 29. – Leslie Lake | Sun
“On Sept. 26, 2024, the two shuffleboard courts, recreational hall, the recreational hall furnishing and fixtures, laundry facilities, office, and the dock running parallel to the seawall and associated boat mooring area and the fence separating the park from the abutting restaurant (common area improvements) were damaged by Hurricane Helene and have remained unrepaired and unusable as of the date of this lawsuit,” according to the complaint.
The lawsuit also alleges that numerous sewer line blockages and failures have occurred in the park and were remedied by mobile homeowners. Since November there has been no park manager as required by the park prospectus.
HOLMES BEACH – The two defendants in a civil suit filed by the daughter of Miriam Trotter, 86, of Bradenton, who was killed in a traffic accident on May 12, 2023, have filed responses to the suit in Manatee County’s 12th Judicial Circuit Court.
Deborah Trotter, 66, of Maryland, was crossing the street with her mother, Miriam, shortly after the reopening of the Holmes Beach intersection of Marina Drive and Gulf Drive, according to the suit. The two were crossing the street in the crosswalk when a 2018 GMC truck driven by Michael Ritchie, 43, of Bradenton, made a left turn on a green light and did not see the women crossing, resulting in both being hit by the truck.
According to a Holmes Beach police report, Ritchie was traveling south on Marina Drive turning left on Gulf Drive. The truck was stopped in the turn lane to turn onto Gulf Drive. The light turned green and Ritchie began to make the left turn onto Gulf Drive. The Trotters were crossing in the marked crosswalk, northbound over Gulf Drive, when they were struck by the truck. Both pedestrians were transported to HCA Florida Blake Hospital with injuries. Deborah was released from the hospital the same day, but Miriam suffered critical injuries during the crash and died on May 17.
HBPD Chief Bill Tokajer said Ritchie was cited for failing to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian at an intersection with a traffic control device, but was not charged with a criminal offense since their investigation determined he was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol and did not leave the scene. Ritchie was found guilty on Aug. 9, 2023, and fined $166.
On Dec. 27, 2023, Deborah Trotter filed a civil suit for $50,000 as the personal representative of the estate of her mother. Trotter’s lawsuit lists Ritchie individually and C-Squared Certified General Contractor Inc., a Florida corporation, that was the primary contractor overseeing all aspects of the months-long improvement project at the intersection where the accident took place. Trotter’s suit claims the barricade placement, maintenance of traffic modifications, lack of signage, lack of coordination between traffic and pedestrian signals, and many other factors made the intersection dangerous. The suit claims that Miriam Trotter’s death could have been prevented if C-Squared had not been negligent.
The suit claims Ritchie was negligent on 14 counts, which include failing to yield the right-of-way, failure to be aware of traffic conditions and 12 other actions that allegedly led to Trotter’s death. In Ritchie’s Feb. 1 response to the suit, filed by his attorney, W. Scott Hamilton, Ritchie admits that Trotter was struck by the vehicle, but denies all other allegations. The response also claims that all damages in the incident were caused in whole or in part by the negligence of persons or entities other than Ritchie, including, but not limited, to C-Square.
C-Squared’s response to the suit was filed on March 19 by attorney Jeremy Chevres. The response claims Trotter’s death and any damages were caused by negligence on the part of Trotter and Ritchie.
“The plaintiff’s alleged injuries and/or damages resulted from independent, subsequent, unforeseeable, intervening and/or superseding causes beyond the defendant’s control, and consequently, the defendant is not liable,” Chevres said in the response.
A Zoom video hearing is scheduled for Monday, April 22 at 11:30 a.m. in Manatee County’s 12th Judicial Circuit Court before Magistrate David Caskey.
CORTEZ – Cortez Village Marina clients who use the privately-owned Hunters Point canal may soon be named as additional defendants in a 2022 canal dispute-related lawsuit.
The Sun recently obtained a letter sent to a marina client. The letter was written by attorney Susan Martin, who represents Hunters Point developer Marshall Gobuty’s Cortez Road Investments and Finance (CRIF) ownership group. When completed, the Hunters Point development will include 86 solar-powered homes.
86 solar-powered homes are being built in the Hunters Point development. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
According to Gobuty, approximately 50 marina clients received the first wave of letters eventually sent to all known marina clients who use the facility that provides wet and dry storage for approximately 275 boats.
The marina is located just east of the portion of the canal privately owned by CRIF. In 2016, Gobuty purchased the undeveloped Hunters Point property and the man-made canal created in the 1950s.
Canal-side homeowners use the canal to access the Intracoastal Waterway. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The canal provides marina clients with their only direct access to the nearby Intracoastal Waterway (ICW). The canal also provides ICW access for several canal-side homeowners and to visitors at the Buttonwood and Holiday Cove RV resorts.
Some Cortez Village Marina clients already received lawsuit-related letters. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Dated March 20, Martin’s letter says, “CRIF is involved in a lawsuit with MHC Cortez Village LLC, aka Cortez Village Marina, regarding the unauthorized use and trespass upon the private canal owned by CRIF. Upon information and belief, you are storing a vessel at the marina and utilizing the CRIF private canal to access the Intracoastal, Anna Maria Sound or the Gulf of Mexico. There are ‘no trespassing’ signs posted on the private canal that are disregarded by the marina’s boat slip lessees and customers. Each trip down the canal by marina lessees is a separate trespass for which CRIF is seeking compensation in the circuit court.
“You are not authorized to utilize the CRIF private canal. You must immediately cease your use of the private canal. Any additional use of the private canal by you or another person utilizing your vessel with your consent is considered by CRIF to be an additional act of trespass. CRIF intends to amend the complaint to include lessees of the marina utilizing the CRIF private canal,” the letter says.
On April 4, The Sun emailed MHC Cortez Village attorneys Matthew Chait and Devon Woolard seeking their comments on the letter. As of April 8, neither Chait nor Woolard responded.
DISPUTE HISTORY
In 2021, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) issued CRIF an environmental resource permit that was supposed to allow for the construction of 49 boat slips along the triangular-shaped Hunters Point property. The docks have not yet been built.
MHC Cortez Village challenged the permit based on the assertion that the new docks would impede navigation for marina clients using the canal and negatively affect marina revenues.
This diagram illustrates where the Hunters Point homes and docks are expected to be located. – Hunters Point | Submitted
In May 2022, in response to the permit challenge, CRIF filed the still-pending civil lawsuit that seeks a court order prohibiting Cortez Village Marina clients from using the canal.
Less than a week later, and in response to MHC Cortez Village’s concerns about the canal being too narrow to accommodate two-way boat traffic, CRIF filed a separate lawsuit against several canal-side homeowners along the western end of the canal.
The canal extends westward to the humpback bridge on 127th Street. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
That still-unresolved lawsuit alleges those homeowners’ docks and boat lifts violate county code by extending more than 25% into the canal. In their legal responses, those homeowners contend their docks and lifts were legally permitted by Manatee County when installed and did not extend more than 25% into the canal when installed.
PERMIT HEARING
In late 2022, administrative law judge Bruce Culpepper presided over a multi-day hearing pertaining to the marina’s permit challenge.
During the hearing, it was established through documents and expert testimony that CRIF owns the portion of the canal that extends from the western edge of the Cortez Village Marina property to the humpback bridge at 127th Street West.
The hearing featured much testimony and debate about the potential impact the Hunters Point docks would have on canal navigability. As a safety precaution, Gobuty offered to implement one-way boat traffic on the canal at timed intervals for all incoming and outgoing boats.
In January 2023, seven wooden pilings were placed in the canal near the marina basin. Some signs say, “You Are Entering a Private Canal, Please Monitor VHF Channel 9,” “Inbound Traffic Every 15 Minutes on the Hour,” and “Outbound Traffic Every 15 Minutes on the Hour.” To date, specific one-way travel times and intervals have not been established or enforced.
PERMIT RULING
In March 2023, Culpepper issued a written recommended order in favor of CRIF, to be forwarded to the SWFWMD governing board for a final ruling.
“All witnesses agree that following construction of the dock, boats will still be able to freely travel through the canal one at a time. The proposed dock will not interfere with or prevent a single boater from traversing from the bridge to an upland property. The evidence shows that the dock will not reduce the safe navigational width of the waterway any more than the (humpback) bridge at the entrance to the canal, which is 15 feet wide; or the narrow bottleneck just before the marina, where mangrove growth restricts safe movement to one boat at a time,” Culpepper’s order said.
Some portions of the canal are wider than others. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It is uncontroverted that the placement of the dock in the canal will affect navigation to some degree. Similarly, the evidence and testimony do not show that the construction of the dock will cause more than a mere inconvenience to boaters, much less result in a significant impediment to navigation. Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the undersigned finds that Cortez Road and the district presented competent substantial evidence establishing Cortez Road’s entitlement to the permit. Conversely, the marina did not meet its burden of demonstrating that the district should not issue the permit,” Culpepper’s order said.
MHC Cortez Village appealed the SWFWMD governing board’s ruling and the upcoming oral arguments in the appeal case are scheduled for Tuesday, April 23.
CORTEZ – The public can watch the next Hunters Point Resort & Marina dock permit challenge hearing on Zoom, scheduled for Tuesday, Aug. 16 at 9:30 a.m. through Thursday, Aug. 18 at the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) office in Tampa.
Additional hearing dates, if needed, are scheduled for Sept. 1-2 at 9:30 a.m. All hearing dates will have a Zoom conference option that anyone can access using the meeting ID 2965656070 and the meeting passcode 133626.
The administrative hearing pertains to an administrative challenge the owners of the nearby Cortez Village Marina, MHC Cortez Village LLC, filed against developer Marshall Gobuty’s Cortez Road Investments & Finance Inc. ownership group and SWFWMD.
Cortez Village Marina seeks the revocation or modification of the environmental resource permit that SWFWMD issued to Gobuty and his development team in 2021. That permit allows for the construction of 49 docks along the canal privately owned by Gobuty and Cortez Road Investments. The canal borders the Hunters Point property located along Cortez Road West on three sides.
Administrative law judge Bruce Culpepper is presiding over the hearing, which began on June 14-15. Culpepper said the sole intent of the hearing is to determine whether the water district properly issued the environmental resource permit that allows the Hunters Point docks to be built.
Navigation rights
The separate but related issue of any existing and ongoing riparian rights held by upland property owners, including the Cortez Village Marina, is a matter to be decided in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Manatee County.
The Hunters Point ownership group has filed a riparian rights-related lawsuit against the Cortez Village Marina that seeks an injunction to prevent the marina and its clients from using the Hunters Point canal. Judge Charles Sniffen has been assigned to the case.
On June 6, an attorney representing the Cortez Village Marina filed a response that, among other things, contends the navigable canal has been used for more than 25 years by the marina, the marina’s predecessors and those who own homes along the canal.
A counterclaim filed by Gobuty’s attorney states: “MHC (Cortez Village Marina) refers to the canal as the ‘navigable canal.’ By calling the waterbody the ‘navigable canal,’ MHC implies that the canal is navigable under the law and legally open to public use. However, this is not the case.”
The Hunters Point ownership group also recently filed a civil lawsuit to compel eight property owners to remove their docks, boat lifts and other structures located in the Hunters Point canal. Judge Edward Nicholas has been assigned to this case and the attorney or attorneys representing the defendants named in this lawsuit had not filed any responses as of Friday, July 1.
No hearing dates have been scheduled for either of the civil lawsuits.
CORTEZ – A hearing is underway to decide whether Hunters Point can build 49 docks in the canal bordering the new development.
The case pertains to the environmental resource permit that the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) issued Hunters Point developer and property owner Marshall Gobuty in June 2021.
The permit allows Gobuty to build 49 docks – or one continuous dock with 49 slips – along the privately-owned canal he purchased when he bought the Hunters Point property in 2016. Construction is well underway on many of the 86 three-story, net-zero energy rated solar powered townhomes, but the docks will not be built until the permitting challenge is resolved. Many who pre-purchased Hunters Point homes did so with the understanding that their home would include a dock.
The Cortez Village Marina’s ownership group is challenging an environmental resource permit issued in 2021 for the construction of the Hunters Point docks. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
In July 2021, MHC Cortez Village LLC, the Cortez Village Marina ownership group, filed a petition for an administrative hearing naming Gobuty’s Cortez Road Investments ownership group and SWFWMD as respondents and asking that SWFWMD be ordered to revoke the approved permit or modify it in a manner that further protects navigation.
The petition claims the Hunters Point docks would increase traffic on the canal, impair vessel traffic by narrowing the navigable portions of the canal, negatively affect the marina customers’ safe use of the canal, limit the size of the vessels that can use the canal and negatively impact the profitability and ongoing operations of the Cortez Village Marina. The marina is located along Cortez Road West, less than a half-mile east of the Hunters Point property and upstream of the canal owned by Gobuty’s Cortez Road Investments and Finance Inc. The canal borders the Hunters Point property on three sides.
The Buttonwood Inlet and Holiday Cove RV parks are also located along the canal, east of the Hunters Point property, as are several privately owned homes. The west end of the canal passes under the humpback bridge at 127th Street West, where it connects with the Intracoastal Waterway near the Seafood Shack restaurant.
Administrative law judge Bruce Culpepper presided over the June 14-15 hearing at the SWFWMD office in Tampa on behalf of the State of Florida’s Division of Administrative Hearings. The next hearing date has not yet been scheduled.
Attorneys Susan Martin and John Fumero represented Cortez Road Investments at the hearing. Attorneys Megan Albrecht and Elizabeth Fernandez represented SWFWMD and attorneys Matthew Chait, Devon Woolard and Dan Norby represented the Cortez Village Marina.
Culpepper said the sole intent of the hearing is to determine whether the water district properly issued the environmental resource permit that allows the Hunters Point docks to be built. All parties involved agreed that the riparian rights – the right to continue using the canal for navigational purposes – of the marina, the marina customers, the RV resorts and those who own homes along the canal are a matter to be decided in a circuit court.
Hearing Testimony
After opening arguments by the three parties involved, Martin began presenting Cortez Road Investment’s case, joined at times by SWFWMD attorneys, with cross examination by the Cortez Village Marina’s attorneys.
While testifying and being cross-examined, Gobuty said the Hunters Point docks are designed to accommodate boats no longer than 25 feet, while the marina accommodates vessels as long as 35-38 feet. It was also noted the marina and storage facility accommodates approximately 350 vessels.
On June 15, Captain Dane Fleming was called as a witness for Cortez Road Investments. Fleming said he navigated and measured the canal on two different occasions prior to the hearing. Fleming expressed his opinion that the canal is wide enough to accommodate the Hunters Point docks without hindering or impeding navigation.
Fleming called into question a video previously provided on behalf of the marina owners. He noted the captain of the boat from which that video footage was filmed was navigating on the wrong side of the canal while filming. Fleming said this resulted in camera angles that “skewed” the marina’s claims regarding visibility and the canal being too narrow for safe navigation in some areas. Fleming noted there are some areas that are too narrow for two boats to pass side-by-side, but one boat can wait in the wider area until the other boat navigates the narrower area.
Stantec ecologist and permit expert Elizabeth Eardley helped Gobuty’s development team acquire the environmental resource permit granted in 2021. While testifying Wednesday, Eardley said the state permitting process did not require a navigational impact study because the canal is privately owned. She also testified the Hunters Point docks are designed to allow adequate remaining navigational space in the canal and are not expected to impede navigation.
When the hearing continues, SWFWMD attorneys will present their arguments regarding the environmental resource permit being properly issued. After that, the Cortez Village Marina attorneys will present their arguments.
Ownership and riparian rights
Even though riparian rights will not be determined during the administrative hearing, testimony was still given pertaining to the history and ownership of the canal.
The canal area directly west of the Cortez Village Marina is owned by Cortez Road Investments and is also utilized by canal-side homeowners and the Buttonwood Inlet RV Resort. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
When testifying on behalf of Cortez Road Investments, attorney and property title expert Adron Walker said the man-made Hunters Point canal did not exist when Florida was granted statehood in 1845, thus the canal’s submerged lands are privately owned and are not state-owned submerged sovereign lands. Walker also testified that the man-made canal did not exist when the property now known as Hunters Point was first platted in 1921.
During Walker’s testimony, property cards and images from the Manatee County Property Appraiser’s Office were displayed. One property card shows the Hunters Point-owned canal that extends from 127th Street West to the western boundary of the Cortez Village Marina property. Walker said he could not locate any easements or usage agreements ever granted to the marina or any other potentially impacted upland property owners regarding their right to use the privately-owned Hunters Point canal.
According to this property card image, the canal area highlighted in blue is owned by developer Marshall Gobuty’s Cortez Road Investments and Finance Inc. -Manatee County Property Appraiser | Submitted
The canal area highlighted in blue is owned by Marshall Gobuty’s Cortez Road Investments and Finance Inc. as part of the triangular-shaped Hunters Point property. – Manatee County Property Appraiser | Submitted
Walker referenced another property card which revealed the portion of the canal located directly in front of the marina is not owned by the marina but is owned by the Cipriani family trust that previously owned the Hunters Point property and canal. Walker also said he’s not aware of any use agreement between the marina and the Cipriani family trust for the use of that portion of the canal.
According to this property card, the canal area in front of the Cortez Village Marina (highlighted in blue) is owned by the Cipriani family trust. – Manatee County Property Appraiser | Submitted
Located in front of the Cortez Village Marina, the canal area highlighted in blue is owned by the Cipriani family trust. – Manatee County Property Appraiser | Submitted
Walker said the only existing right the marina and the other upland owners might have would be a prescriptive easement granted by a court. Walker said a declaration of that nature usually requires an existing historic use of at least 20 years.
Martin noted the original petition for hearing states the Cortez Village Marina has operated in its current configuration since 2008. The petition also notes that site has been used as a marina since at least the 1990s.
Recent lawsuits
In late May, Cortez Road Investments filed a civil lawsuit in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Manatee County seeking to prohibit the marina and its clients from using the Hunters Point canal.
The lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction that would prohibit Cortez Village Marina clients and employees from using the privately owned Hunters Point canal. The lawsuit notes the canal was constructed in the 1950s.
In early June, Cortez Road Investments filed a separate lawsuit against upland canal-side property owners Jonathan and Sheila Graham, Mark Ibasfalean, Jacquelyn Shepard, Mary Norman, Timothy Fitzpatrick and Wendy and George Kokolis. That lawsuit complaint states those property owners have constructed and are maintaining docks, lifts and other structures on and in the Hunters Point canal without the property owner’s authorization. The complaint notes that the Cortez Village Marina petition contends, in part, that the existing docks that extend into the Hunters Point canal could impede navigation for the marina customers.
“This has left plaintiff (Gobuty/Hunters Point) with no choice but to file this suit against defendants,” according to the lawsuit complaint.
The lawsuit seeks the removal of the named property owners’ docks, lifts and other structures located in the canal.
ANNA MARIA – The city has filed a lawsuit against the owners of a vacation rental home whose guests received five noise ordinance violation citations in a nine-month period.
The vacation rental at 313 Magnolia Ave. is managed by Vacasa and owned by the Orlando-based Mangoes on Magnolia LLC that lists Mukesh Patel and three others with the same last name as the LLC’s principals.
The noise violations documented from June 2021 to March 2022 are in violation of the city code, according to the lawsuit.
During a code enforcement hearing on May 18, Special Magistrate Jerry Buhr declared the vacation rental to be a public nuisance. On May 26, the city commission authorized City Attorney Becky Vose to file a lawsuit seeking a one-year suspension of the LLC’s city-issued vacation rental license.
“The lawsuit was filed yesterday,” Mayor Dan Murphy said at the June 9 city commission meeting. “They’ve already assigned a judge to our case and we are moving forward with it. We are going to go to court looking for injunctive relief – looking for a one-year suspension of his ability to rent as a vacation rental. So fasten your seatbelts.”
The case has been assigned to Judge Edward Nicholas. – Joe Hendricks | SunJudge Edward Nicholas has been assigned to the case. In 2019, Nicholas ruled in favor of the city of Bradenton Beach in a Sunshine Law lawsuit that city filed against six former city advisory board members. He later ordered three of the defendants to pay the city $369,498 as partial reimbursement for the attorney fees the city incurred when prevailing in that case.
Lawsuit complaint
The lawsuit complaint was filed with the Circuit Court of the 12th Judicial Circuit in Manatee County on June 8, naming Mangoes on Magnolia LLC as the defendant.
The city seeks a court ruling that the rental property is a public nuisance and therefore can be prohibited from operating as a vacation rental for one year.
According to the complaint, “This is an action for injunctive relief, seeking to judicially declare the vacation rental property located at 313 Magnolia Avenue to be a public nuisance because of five egregious noise violations in the short period of nine months, and to close such public nuisance as a short-term rental for a period of one year. Such action is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of and visitors to the city of Anna Maria.”
The complaint cites city code regarding multiple noise violations: “Three or more violations occurring at the same premises within any rolling 12-month period shall be deemed prima facie evidence that the premises is a public nuisance and subject to being temporarily and/or permanently enjoined.”
According to the complaint, “The mere imposition of fines through the normal code enforcement process is not a sufficient mechanism to compel compliance with the Anna Maria code of ordinances, and the city of Anna Maria has no reasonable expectation of being able to abate the violation on the subject property now and into the future to prevent further violations which significantly negatively impact the quality of life of the affected residences in proximity to the subject property.”
CORTEZ – Hunters Point Resort & Marina has sued the neighboring Cortez Village Marina to keep it from using a canal where Cortez Village Marina claims Hunters Point should not be allowed to build new docks.
The Hunters Point property under development on Cortez Road West includes 86 three-story, net-zero energy use solar-powered townhomes, many of which are expected to have private docks along the canal that surrounds the Hunters Point property on three sides.
This model of the Hunters Point development includes the canal that surrounds the property on three sides. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
Hunters Point is about two-tenths of a mile west of the Cortez Village Marina and boat storage facility at 12160 Cortez Road W.
Boca Raton-based attorney Susan Roeder Martin filed the lawsuit in the 12th Judicial Circuit Court in Manatee County on May 26. The civil case has been assigned to Judge Charles Sniffen. As of Friday, the defendant’s attorney had not filed a response to the complaint.
Injunctions sought
The complaint states that Marshall Gobuty’s company, Cortez Road Investments and Finance Inc., owns the Hunters Point property, including the canal constructed the 1950s and purchased by Gobuty in 2016.
The lawsuit seeks a temporary injunction, followed by a permanent injunction, to prohibit the Cortez Village Marina, owned by MHC Cortez Village LLC, from using the private canal surrounding the Hunters Point property.
Marina customers use the canal to access the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) near the Seafood Shack restaurant, as do several homeowners who live on the canal. The lawsuit does not seek to prohibit homeowners with existing county-permitted docks from using the canal.
The complaint alleges the marina is unlawfully using the canal without the authorization of the property owner, and that the marina owners are encouraging customers to unlawfully enter the canal by advertising that those who lease marina slips can use the canal to access the ICW.
“There are no easements, licenses or other use authorizations for navigation dedicated to the Cortez Village Marina or the general public found in the chain of title,” according to the complaint. “The public records of Manatee County do not indicate that any additional rights to build docks, tie up boats or utilize the private canal were granted to defendant’s predecessors or to the public. Therefore, defendant’s use is limited to a single dock with but one boat.
“MHC Cortez Village has led its 350 patrons to believe that they can lawfully utilize the private canal to access the Intracoastal, as is evidenced in its marina brochure,” Martin stated in an email that included the lawsuit complaint.
Several homeowners own docks along other areas of the canal. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
When the proposed Hunters Point development was being approved by the Manatee County Commission in 2017, several residents who own docks along the canal voiced concerns about losing the use of the canal.
In response, Gobuty’s attorney, Caleb Grimes, said, “We don’t believe anybody with a current dock has anything that is improper. These people have the right to use them as they have historically used them.”
Dock permitting challenge
MHC Cortez Village LLC filed a petition for an administrative hearing in July 2021 against Cortez Road Investments and Finance Inc. and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) challenging the district’s issuance of a permit allowing Hunters Point to build docks in the canal.
The petition claims the construction of the new docks would significantly increase and impair vessel traffic in the canal, negatively affecting Cortez Village Marina users’ ability to safely navigate the canal and affecting the marina’s profitability and ongoing operations.
The canal along the Hunters Point property is used by marina clients and neighboring homeowners. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
The petition requests the dock permit be revoked or modified to protect the marina’s riparian rights and navigational interests.
In December, Hunters Point Vice President of Development Ashley Klearman sent a construction update letter to those who purchased the Hunters Point homes about to be constructed.
“MHC is arguing the proposed docks hinder the navigation of the canal, even though the proposed docks have been designed to provide as minimal an intrusion into the canal as possible and are in full compliance with all local, state and federal rules and regulations. It is our legal team’s position that this petition is without merit and that SWFWMD correctly issued the permit,” Klearman stated in her letter.
According to Gobuty, the administrative hearing is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, June 14.
Boat lift installation
In another canal-related matter, Hunters Point sent a cease and desist letter to George and Wendy Kokolis on May 17 regarding the boat lift being installed at their undeveloped lot on the canal directly across from the Hunters Point property. The Kokolis’ lot is next to the residence they own at 4317 126th St. W.
A cease and desist letter was issued regarding the installation of a boat lift on the canal across from the Hunters Point property. – Joe Hendricks | Sun
“It has come to my attention that you are building a dock/boat lift on Cortez Road Finance and Investments’ private canal. This letter is to advise you to immediately cease construction and to remove the works that you have already placed on my client’s private property. If you do not immediately remove your facilities, we will file suit and seek damages from you. We will also request attorney’s fee and costs,” Martin stated in her letter.
As of late last week, the boat lift had not been removed.
