Judge orders three Sunshine Law defendants to reimburse city
BRADENTON BEACH – Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Edward Nicholas has issued an order calling for Sunshine Law lawsuit defendants Reed Mapes, Tjet Martin and John Metz to potentially pay the city of Bradenton Beach at least $369,498 for attorney’s fees.
In the eight-page written order on the amount of fees and costs that Nicholas issued Wednesday morning, the judge relieved co-defendants Patty Shay, Bill Vincent and his wife, Rose Vincent, of any financial responsibilities regarding the city’s efforts to recover attorney fees and additional legal costs for the civil lawsuit the city filed in August 2017.
The lawsuit sought a judge’s ruling as to whether six former city advisory board members violated the Florida Sunshine Law, which pertains to open meetings and public records.
On July 19, 2019, Nicholas ruled that Mapes, Martin, Metz, Shay, Bill Vincent and Rose Vincent each violated the Florida Sunshine Law in the spring and early summer of 2017 when discussing public business at their non-city-affiliated Concerned Neighbors of Bradenton Beach (CNOBB) meetings. At the time the violations occurred, Mapes, Metz, Shay and Bill Vincent served as Planning and Zoning Board members. Martin and Rose Vincent served as Scenic WAVES Committee members.
“It is hereby ordered and adjudged that the attorney’s fee award, as applied to defendants Patricia Shay, William Vincent and Rose Vincent is stricken,” Nicholas stated in his most recent order.
Nicholas relieved Shay and the Vincents of their financial liabilities after learning earlier this year that they signed settlement agreements with the city shortly before the July 2019 trial began. The commission then rejected the settlement agreements initiated on the city’s behalf because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not expressed interest in entering into similar pre-trial settlement agreements.
“It is further ordered and adjudged that the plaintiffs (the city of Bradenton Beach) shall have and recover from the remaining defendants John Metz, Reed Mapes and Tjet Martin attorney’s fees in the amount of $369,498,” Nicholas stated in his order.
The order also addresses approximately $31,000 in additional non-attorney-related legal costs that include court reporter fees and filing fees also sought by the city.
“The court also reserves jurisdiction to resolve the issue regarding the city’s costs to determine if they too should be imposed upon defendants Metz, Mapes and Martin,” the order says.
“The court anticipates that one additional hearing will be necessary to resolve the outstanding issues of apportionment, joint and several liability and to again determine the amount of the costs and whether they should be awarded in addition to the attorney’s fees awarded herein,” the order says.
Nicholas’ ruling was the result of hearings that took place via Zoom video conferencing on June 10 and Aug. 13.
Pre-trial settlement offers
The fee recovery proceedings took an unanticipated turn during the June 10 hearing when Shay, representing herself as a pro se defendant, presented the argument that she should not be ordered to pay more than the $500 she agreed to pay in the settlement offer that Watrous and Barfield presented to her before the trial began.
Nicholas said he was not aware that Shay had agreed to settle with the city.
“Why should Ms. Shay bear the cost of a trial that she did not want to have?” Nicholas said on more than one occasion that day.
The Vincents then presented similar arguments regarding their rejected settlement agreements. Nicholas said he was not aware of the Vincents’ settlement offers either.
He learned that on June 28, 2019, the city commission rejected the three settlement agreements that acknowledged Sunshine Law compliance failures. He also learned that each of the three defendants provided the city with $500 settlement checks that were returned uncashed.
Representing the city, attorney Robert Watrous told Nicholas the city commission rejected those three settlement agreements because Mapes, Martin and Metz had not agreed to similar settlement agreements. Watrous said anything less than six settlement agreements would have still subjected the city and its taxpayers to the costs of a trial.
During the August hearing, Mapes, Martin and Metz’s attorney, Thomas Shults, claimed they never received the same pre-trial settlement offers presented to Shay and the Vincents.
Reactions to order
When contacted Wednesday morning, Shay commented on Nicholas’ order.
“I am grateful and so relieved. I’m just happy that it’s over. It’s been three tough years. As I stated in court, I was willing to settle this from the very beginning and on numerous occasions, when offers were made, I was willing to accept them. But as I said in the hearing on June 10th, I didn’t have the power or ability to convince the other pro se defendants to do that,” Shay said.
When contacted via email Wednesday afternoon and asked if he wished to comment on the ruling, Mapes said, “No.”
As of Wednesday evening, Martin, Metz, Shults and the Vincents had not responded to The Sun’s email requests for comment.
When contacted Wednesday afternoon, City Attorney Ricinda Perry said, “I am pleased with the detailed order from Judge Nicholas that serves to make the taxpayers whole and we look forward to obtaining a judgment to award the costs as well. The order clearly stands behind the transparency required of government so as to prevent the erosion of trust and integrity by those who serve the public. Government is called to serve the people; not the people who form the government.”
What next?
Sarasota-based paralegal and Sunshine Law expert Michael Barfield has been assisting the city with this case since its inception in 2017.
“It’s not over yet, but I think this is a significant victory that will go a long way towards making the city whole and healing its treasury,” Barfield said Wednesday afternoon in response to Nicholas’ order.
Barfield is now assisting attorney Mark Caramanica and Perry in the city’s defense of the appeals filed by five of the six defendants regarding Nicholas’ 2019 ruling that they violated the Sunshine Law – an appeal process Shay is not participating in.
According to Barfield, “The payment of $369,498 in attorney fees, and any additional legal costs ordered by Nicholas must be paid by the three defendants in full or by posting a bond. Only if the defendants prevail in the appeals process that is currently proceeding through the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland would the monies be returned.”
Regarding Nicholas’ latest order, Barfield said, “The order is not final yet in terms of it being subject to appeal. And there’s still some steps that need to be taken on the costs, as well as apportionment among the three defendants that Judge Nicholas saddled with the fees. When that happens, the city will then take the position that they (Mapes, Martin and Metz) need to obtain a supersedeas bond. If they lose the appeal, then there’s no further fighting. The city gets its money. That’s the position we’ll take and the city will insist that they post a supersedeas bond,” Barfield said.
According to the Colonial Bonds & Insurance website, “A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant’s appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.”
Previous settlement offers
On Sept. 5, 2017 – less than one month after the city filed the civil lawsuit – attorney Jim Dye submitted to Watrous a settlement offer proposed on behalf of the five defendants he represented at the time: Mapes, Martin, Shay and the Vincents.
Dye’s letter noted the five defendants he represented had all resigned from their city board positions and were each willing to pay the city $100 toward the city and co-plaintiff Jack Clarke’s legal fees. That offer stated there would be no admission or denial of liability or fault regarding the alleged Sunshine Law violations. The city commission rejected that offer because it contained no acknowledgment of violating the Sunshine Law.
In March 2019, the defendants collectively rejected a settlement offer proposed by the city that requested each defendant pay the city $500 each, or $3,000 collectively, and the defendants collectively acknowledge errors were made regarding Sunshine Law compliance. The city’s settlement offer was contingent on all six defendants’ acceptance.
The defendants collectively rejected that offer and responded with a counteroffer that proposed they make a $10,000 donation to the Annie Silver Community Center and contained alternative language that said “errors may have occurred” rather than “errors did occur” regarding Sunshine Law compliance.
In April 2019, the city commission offered to accept a settlement offer that stated “errors may have occurred” if the defendants agreed to pay the city’s attorney’s fees and legal costs to date, which at that time totaled approximately $203,000.The defendants rejected that offer.
In late May of 2019, the defendants presented the city with individual settlement counteroffers that collectively sought a total of $60,902 in attorney fee reimbursements from the city and an additional $24,444 from Clarke.
“It appears to be lost on the city commission and Mr. Clarke that they are exposed to substantial monetary liability in this case. This liability consists of not just the attorney’s fees and cost the city will expend for the trial and the appeals thereafter, but also the attorney’s fees and costs incurred by all defendants,” said the offer Shults prepared on Metz’s behalf.
“The open meetings law permits the award of attorney’s fees and costs against the city and Clarke if the court finds this suit was filed in bad faith or was frivolous. The city and Clarke can rest assured that Mr. Metz will pursue his right to such award if this matter is not resolved,” Metz’s offer said.
The city commission rejected all of those counteroffers and instructed the city’s legal team to continue preparing for the trial.
