1st Amended Complaint
-
Upload
john-carroll -
Category
Documents
-
view
160 -
download
1
description
Transcript of 1st Amended Complaint
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUITIN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 09CA002021v.
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Florida CorporationDAVID LILIENTHAL, individuallyand as Director,MARY JOULE,SANDRA MATTESON,RONALD VOELKER,WATERCOLOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.JOHN DOE and JANE DOE
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND OTHER RELIEF
Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
1. Plaintiff, John P. Carroll (“Carroll”), sues Defendants, WaterSound
Beach Community Association, Inc. (“WaterSound”), David Lilienthal (“Lilienthal”),
Mary Joule (“Joule”), Sandra Matteson (“Matteson”), Ronald Voelker (“Voelker”),
Watercolor Community Association, Inc. (“Watercolor“) John Doe (“John Doe”) and
Jane Doe (“Jane Doe”) as follows:
2. Carroll is a Florida resident with his principal place of business and
residence in Walton County, Florida. Carroll is a Florida licensed Building Contractor.
Carroll owns and controls Chambers Street Builders, Inc. a Walton County, Florida
Corporation. Carroll owns and controls J.M.B., L.L.C a Florida LLC.
3. WaterSound is a Florida Corporation with its place of business in Walton
1
County, Florida.
4. Lilienthal is a Florida resident with his personal residence in Walton
County, Florida, is a Realtor with his principle place of business in WaterSound and
Watercolor in Walton County, Florida, is a salesperson for Dune Construction and
Development, Inc. owned by his son in WaterSound and is a Director of WaterSound
located in Walton County, Florida.
5. Joule resides in Walton County, Florida, describes herself as a Florida
licensed Building Contractor, works in and for WaterSound and Watercolor, and the
actions that are the subject matter of this suit occurred in Walton County, Florida.
6. Matteson resides in Walton County, Florida, works in and for WaterSound
and Watercolor in Walton County, and the actions that are the subject matter of this suit
occurred in Walton County, Florida.
7. Voelker resides and works in Walton County, Florida and the actions that
are the subject matter of this suit occurred in Walton County, Florida.
8. Watercolor is a Florida Corporation with its principal place of business in
Walton County, Florida.
9. John Doe and Jane Doe have been included on knowledge and belief,
Defendants conspired among themselves and with other non- party co-conspirators, as
more particularly described below, to undermine and damage Carroll, as well as the
businesses he has interests in. Accordingly, in the furtherance of this conspiracy or
enterprise, the primary purpose being to impair and boycott the Plaintiff, to impair
Chambers Street Builders, Inc. and to convert its business to their own pecuniary benefit
and advantage and to impair and to convert J.M.B., L.L.C.’s business to their own
2
pecuniary benefit and advantage, the act or omission of one Defendant co-conspirator
while active in the concerted activity constitutes the act or omission of all other co-
conspirators and vice versa. Not all participants in the conspiracy are known to the
Plaintiff. For that reason, Plaintiff has designated John Doe and Jane Doe as
representatives of other persons, unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who conspired with
the other Defendants and non-party co-conspirators to accomplish the unlawful purposes
of the conspiracy enterprise, as herein alleged.
10. Venue is proper in this Court because the real property that is the subject
of this Complaint is located in Walton County, Florida, the Defendants reside or are
located in Walton County, Florida and all actions forming the basis of this Complaint
took place in Walton County, Florida.
General Allegations of Defendants’ Interference
11. Carroll was put on the approved builder list in 2002. The Chairman of the
Design Review Board put Chambers Street Builders, Inc. (“CSB”) on the fully approved
builder list in 2003 which was provided to all Owners and potential Owners. (Exhibit A)
From 2002 through 2009 Carroll engaged in advertising, acquisition of Real Estate and
assembling business arrangements in WaterColor, WaterSound, Windmark Beach, The
Retreat and Rivercamps. CSB remained on the approved builder list continuously
through April 2006.
12. At some point in about April 2006 CSB’s name and contact information
were silently and covertly removed from the approved builder list. Neither CSB or
Carroll were notified of this and there were no complaints or notices of any kind against
CSB or Carroll. Any customer of CSB and Carroll inquiring was told that CSB was not
3
approved to build. The Chairman of the Design Review Board (“DRB”) did not take this
action. This had never occurred to any other contractor no matter how many examples of
their repeated and evidenced poor quality of work in the community.
13. On January 19, 2007 the Chairman of the Design Review Board issued (3)
written official notifications clarifying that CSB has in fact been awarded the highest
level of approval to appear on the approved builder lists. (Exhibit B)
14. Two weeks later, on February 2, 2007, the St. Joe Company (“JOE”)
engaged Carroll and CSB in contract talks whereby CSB would be granted a beneficial
Builder Program in WaterSound. (Exhibit C)
15. Relying on these acts, Carroll focused on delivering value to his
customers, increased the advertising expenditures of CSB, targeted the JOE communities
under the control of Matteson and developed millions of dollars in contracted and other
potential business agreements.
16. With the increasing success of Carroll’s business came renewed and
increased efforts on the part of the Defendants to frustrate Carroll’s beneficial business
arrangements. Without notice or knowledge to Carroll or CSB, CSB had its name again
covertly removed from the approved builder list. This too was unreasonable, came
without any complaints and defied all precedence in the history of the communities.
17. Carroll and CSB made a request for information of Matteson regarding the
removal of CSB from the approved list. A meeting was set at which time Matteson told
Carroll, “We cannot stop you from building on land you own, there will always be your
Monte Hewett’s, but you should be a team player or look to work elsewhere.”
18. Carroll and CSB asked Matteson for her opinion in writing and instead
4
received a hastily prepared written commentary on a CSB project 7 months into
construction in Watercolor. (Exhibit D) The commentary merely pointed out the items
yet to complete on the home which was progressing at a normal rate for a home in
Watercolor. The commentary listed no violations of any community standards or
building codes and required no action on the part of Carroll or CSB. While the
commentary was made to look as though it came from the DRB, the commentary was
actually made without the knowledge of the DRB. The residence was completed
beautifully by CSB, blends seamlessly into the community and has been fully booked by
vacation renters. (Exhibit E)
19. Upon receipt by Carroll of Matteson’s commentary, Carroll set an
appointment with the DRB, and toured the project with Brian Stackable who was the
highest authority in the HOA regarding all DRB issues. Brian noted no DRB issues,
approved all of the construction in place and immediately evidenced these facts by
issuing Carroll and CSB a letter stating so. (Exhibit F)
20. Matteson then had CSB re-listed on the fully approved contractor list with
one major change. This time, CSB had it’s contact phone number changed to that of
one of it’s competitors salesperson’s which diverted Carroll and CSB customers.
(Exhibit G)
21. December 2007, Joule attempted to stop construction on one of CSB’s
projects by calling the Walton County Building Department and asking them to perform a
secret inspection on Lot 57, WaterSound Beach. Carroll heard about the County
inspection second hand and, after personally investigating, came to find that in fact the
County did set up a secret inspection without notice to Carroll or CSB. Carroll talked to
5
the building inspectors involved and Deputy Building Official Lee DePauw misled
Carroll in an attempt to cover up the covert Walton County act. All of this covert activity
is improper and illegal in Florida and a misuse of County employees. Accordingly,
Carroll sends a written request for information and investigation to Walton County
Building Official Bearden. (Exhibit H)
22. During this same period of August 2007 through December 10, 2007, CSB
commences, completes, gains Certificate of Occupancy and conveys it’s site built model
home in WaterSound. This proves to be the quickest construction period of any home
ever constructed in the history of any of the JOE neighborhoods that Matteson, Joule and
Lilienthal work in. The home proves to be successful and fully rented and enjoyed since
that time. (Exhibit I)
23. April 29, 2008 Carroll receives word that Joule was seen with an
unlicensed contractor, who was a friend of Joule’s, at CSB’s WaterSound West project.
Carroll was informed that Joule and her friend cut an irrigation main and told CSB’s
customers, Kim Mitchell and Brian Mitchell, that the fence was painted poorly but, that
if the customer would hold some of CSB’s payment, the unlicensed contractor would be
happy to perform any work that CSB’s customer wanted. Carroll was working at another
project in WaterSound at the time, but Joule did not notify Carroll that there was even a
small question. Carroll sent out an immediate written notice (Exhibit J) to try and stop
this tortious interference and documents the sabotage. (Exhibit K)
24. During the same time, April 2008, three of CSB’s WaterSound customers,
in contact with Joule, team up and stop paying for materials that CSB has delivered to
their projects. The projects are special and the materials are project specific offering little
6
value to CSB elsewhere. This continues a series of missed payments to CSB by the
customers totaling more than $400,000.00. One of the customers, knowing he has the
improper co-operation of Joule, tells Carroll, “If you ever want to work in WaterSound
again you will continue your work and I’ll get you paid back when everything is done.”
This is outside the CSB contract and not in line with safe business practices so CSB gives
each customer one more opportunity to get caught up. The customers don’t become
current, and CSB terminates the respective agreements. (Exhibit L)
25. During this same period Carroll learns that Joule is contacting any and all
local suppliers and subcontractors to investigate CSB’s relationships with them. Joule
tells them that CSB is about to go out of business. This is so far out of line with the law
and Joule’s job description and authority that Carroll put Joule On Notice. (Exhibit M)
26. Joule works with the customers, ex parte against Carroll, to assemble
letters of dissatisfaction about CSB, creates retroactive Compliance Bulletin 15 and sends
out the Bulletin to all WaterSound builders. Joule hides three names on the mailing list of
WaterSound builders; Terry Muldoon, David Burke and Kevin Achatz. This serves to
notify the three CSB customers that it is time to advance their strategies against Carroll
and CSB. (Exhibit N)
27. Carroll and CSB endeavor to maintain revenues by also performing small
services and maintenance for their past customers. CSB is awarded a job for Brian and
Kim Mitchell on CSB’s previous model home and, in an unprecedented move, Matteson
has WaterSound boycott Carroll and CSB, and sends Carroll and CSB notice that it may
not engage in any work of any kind within the community. (Exhibit O) This is above and
7
beyond the approved builder list, which does not control small jobs not requiring Walton
County permitting, and strikes at the heart of Carroll’s Civil Rights. There is no
provision in the authority of WaterSound to take this position and it is against the public
policy of the State of Florida to attempt this act. Carroll notifies the DRB of this and they
rescind their notice, but only after first interfering unjustly in Carroll’s contractual
relations with the Mitchells.
28. There is no way to determine the exact amount of substantial
damage that all of these, and many, many other continuous tortious acts caused. What is
most notable is that there are no other examples of these actions occurring during the
history of the communities to anyone other than Carroll or CSB despite innumerable true
violations of the community standards evidenced by work in place on other projects by
other contractors and individuals. This speaks to the malice.
False Statements and Misrepresentations Targeting Lot 24
29. Continuing the deliberate and orchestrated acts of the civil conspirators the
case moves squarely to Carroll’s business and property at Lot 24, Phase IV, WaterSound
Beach, in Walton County, Florida.
30. Carroll, through his business, purchased the valuable real property which
is situated in WaterSound’s most prominent and central location. This location would
serve as the most advantageous for Carroll and his building business.
31. Carroll selected a fully approved Architectural firm who had above
average experience levels in the community in comparison to it’s peers. The plans were
prepared in accordance with the governing HOA guidelines, and yet were held in DRB
review for over 12 months.
8
32. On December 28, 2007 the plans for the Lot 24 project gain final approval
from the DRB. Carroll and CSB commence the permitting of the project and make
provisions for efficient, rapid and orderly construction.
33. During the pre-construction site conference Joule, WaterSound
Compliance Officer, recommends to Carroll that he not start the project and instead sell
the land vacant. Carroll inquires why Joule would say such a thing. Joule only responds,
“I wouldn’t start this house if I were you.”
34. Carroll shows Joule what looks like a road or asphalt pile just under the
surface of the lot which appears to continue through the common areas adjacent Lot 24.
This is of concern to Carroll for many reasons which include the fact that the DRB has
just mandated that Carroll install over 46 different plants, grasses, trees and shrubs in the
WaterSound Beach Community Association’s common area that is not a part of Lot 24.
Joule instructs Carroll to just do it and forget it.
35. Carroll attends the next HOA Board of Directors (“BOD”) meeting,
February 14, 2008, and enters photographs and testimony about what proved to be buried
construction trash on Lot 24 and under the WaterSound Common Areas into the record.
(Exhibit P)
36. The WaterSound Directors told Carroll that they take Notice of the claim,
would investigate and find an immediate resolution.
37. CSB remediates the buried trash on Lot 24 but does not undertake to deal
with the buried trash under the common area at that time. Carroll chooses that the
landscape work that the WaterSound DRB wants Carroll to install in the common area
can wait until the Directors finish their investigation and have the trash removed.
9
38. CSB installs the foundation of the Lot 24 project per Joule’s benchmark at
the Pre-Construction Site Conference. Carroll obtains an elevation survey showing the
height of the top of the foundation in relation to the surrounding benchmarks and
transmits same to the DRB per Joule’s instruction. (Exhibit Q) CSB is approved to
continue construction according to the Architectural Plans.
39. CSB moves through the construction of the concrete superstructure at the
Tower of the Lot 24 project quickly, efficiently and correctly. The location of Lot 24 and
the prominence of the Tower proves to gain Carroll and CSB positive business good will
and is much talked about by Carroll’s peers.
40. May 1, 2008 Matteson, formerly of JOE and currently working for
CCMC serving WaterSound and Watercolor, notifies Carroll that Lot 24 is one of the
most talked about homes in Watersound Beach. Further Matteson states that she has been
personally and repeatedly asked if the Tower exceeds the height of 50 feet.
(Exhibit R)
41. May 1, 2008, in a substantial attempt to head off any additional
interference, misinformation and damage by the conspirators, Carroll and CSB
immediately retain Daniel Uhfelder, Esq. who immediately submits a formal written
Florida Statute 720 request on behalf of Carroll and CSB to Matteson, with a copy to
Mary Rosenheim of JOE, for the names of the individuals who are personally requesting
information about the Tower at Lot 24. How are the requests being transmitted, verbally
or written? We want copies of the requests for information immediately, in line with
Florida Statute concerning HOA Records, and preservation of new requests for
information so they may be made available. Please direct future requests to Carroll so
10
that he may respond. (Exhibit S) Matteson acknowledges receipt of the request for
information, but refuses to turn over the documentation to Carroll. This continues
Matteson’s chain of not honoring Carroll’s Florida Statute 720 requests for inspection of
HOA documents and will prove to damage Carroll and his businesses.
42. May 9, 2008, in another unprecedented move, Matteson has Tracy Regan
of the DRB contact Carroll and make a demand for a new set of signed and sealed
structural drawings for Lot 24. Tracy Regan acknowledges that there are no aesthetic
changes planned but that she needs new signed and sealed drawings for the DRB file.
This request is aberrant and outside of the rules and mission of the DRB. It has never
been asked of another owner. The governing documents explicitly state that the Board
does not look to plans for structural adequacy, nor issues of the Building Code and
accepts no responsibility for same. This special request of Carroll is abuse of power,
intended to slow up CSB’s progress and serves no useful purpose in the furtherance of
the DRB goals. (Exhibit T)
43. At some point prior to May 16, 2008, an unknown co-conspirator contacts
Voelker of Voelker Surveying, LLC. The party instructed Voelker to perform an
inspection and special survey of Lot 24, WaterSound Beach to determine the height of the
Concrete tower. This inspection is ordered without any notice to Carroll or CSB. The act
of ordering and performing an inspection in this manner is in violation of the Restrictive
Covenants of WaterSound Beach.
44. May 16, 2008, Carroll found Voelker on Lot 24. Voelker appeared to be
conducting a survey. Carroll asked Voelker what he was doing. Voelker said he was not
surveying Carroll’s property. Voelker told Carroll that he was merely looking for a
11
control point or PRM, and that he was actually performing a survey on another lot up the
street.
45. May 21, 2008, with Voelker’s fraudulent survey of May 16, 2008 in hand,
Tracy Regan now submits a letter to Carroll requesting new drawings of the residence at
Lot 24, specifically to determine whether the height of the Tower will exceed 50’. Tracy
is giving Carroll 10 days to comply. (Exhibit U) This is an additional aberrant special
request by the DRB. This special request of Carroll is abuse of power intended to slow
CSB’s progress, is unprecedented within WaterSound, is intended to harm Carroll
economically and serves no useful purpose in the furtherance of the DRB charter. No one
in WaterSound informs Carroll that Voelker has already inspected and surveyed the tower
at Lot 24.
46. May 23, 2008 Carroll hand delivers sealed plans and survey for lot 24 to
the WaterSound Design Review Board care of Tracy Regan. This is just two days after
Tracy Regan gave Carroll 10 days to supply the documents, occurs before the BOD
meeting and completes her request. The documents indicate no change in elevation from
the previously approved original set and survey already in the possession of the DRB.
No one at WaterSound informs Carroll the Voelker has already conducted an inspection
and survey at Lot 24. (Exhibit V)
47. Hours later, on May 23, 2008, The Watersound Board of Directors met
for a regularly scheduled meeting. During the meeting under “other business” is a
discussion of the fact that the Board has already taken the position that the Tower at lot
24 is constructed to tall. No one at WaterSound notified Carroll that the agenda would
include a discussion and decision of violation concerning the height of the tower at Lot
12
24. In fact, the Notice of Meeting made no mention of Lot 24, Carroll or the construction
at Lot 24. Lilienthal instructs Board attorney Gary Shipman (“Shipman”) to put Carroll
On Notice that the Tower has been built in violation of the Walton County Height
Ordinance and height restriction for Watersound. Further the Board notifies Carroll that
he “must lower the tower construction” Further “If you do not undertake to make these
alterations, we will seek an injunction in the Circuit Court in Walton County, Florida, in
which you will be responsible for not only the cost of changing the tower structure, but
we will seek penalty sanctions, attorney’s fees and costs.” Shipman says to notify the
Walton County Building Official, Billy Bearden, of the violation and get his assistance.
Shipman suggested that unless Carroll was granted a variance he would have to tear it
down. Shipman would have the Board write a letter to the County opposing the variance.
Lilienthal asked Shipman to write the letter. The Minutes of the meeting along with the
paper trail of evidence preserve the corrupt nature of the conspirators sham acts. Despite
Carroll’s daily contact with the HOA and, the proximity of Lot 24 just next door to the
HOA office, still no one has notified Carroll that the HOA has already taken the legal
position that the Tower is too tall and must be torn down. (Exhibit W)
48. May 28, 2008 Gary Shipman, Esq. sent a certified letter to Carroll at his
address in Watercolor which contained (5) different address inaccuracies in the mailing
address line and had to be diverted, despite Carroll seeing Lilienthal, Matteson and Joule
regularly. (Exhibit X) Upon eventual receipt of the letter by Carroll, Carroll finds that
there is included an inaccurate specific purpose survey showing the height of the Tower
at 48.53’. The attached survey, produced by Voelker, certified that the date of the
field work at Lot 24 was May 16, 2008. There is only one choice that Lilienthal,
13
Matteson, Joule and WaterSound make available to Carroll to satisfy their legal demand:
“…be advised that you must lower the Tower.”
49. After Carroll’s review of the survey he comes to find that the survey was
ordered and conducted by May 16 which was one week in advance of the May 23, 2008
Board of Directors meeting. It became clear to Carroll that the Board orchestrated a
sham discussion on record during the meeting to try and make their request look like
something it was not, and Carroll knew who to ask for proof. Carroll makes a written
request of Matteson. (Exhibit Y) Matteson intentionally misinforms Carroll that the
survey was ordered by the BOD as a result of the May 2008 meeting, and directs
Carroll to the Minutes which are being broadcast online and in writing. (Exhibit Z)
50. Carroll made a written request of Voelker for information that would
provide proof of the continued fraud and preserve the evidence. (Exhibit AA) Voelker
refused to turn over any of the evidence. Through this day, Voelker has refused to turn
over the full documentation that is kept in the usual course of business by surveyors.
51. With at least a one week head start on Carroll, the inaccurate story which
depicted the construction as being in violation of the Walton County Height Ordinance
has made its way through the local Realtor pool. Carroll encounters numerous Realtors
and peers of Carroll and Lilienthal who tell Carroll that they are shocked to hear that the
concrete tower at Lot 24 is in violation of the WaterSound DRB, that they feel this is a
catastrophic detriment to the project and want to know when and how the concrete Tower
is going to be torn down. Some of the inquiries come from Carroll’s WaterSound Beach
neighbors and other from Carroll’s professional peers who are not owners in WaterSound
Beach.
14
52. Voelker realized that his survey was going to be audited and he hastily
assembled a revised survey that adjusts the height of the Tower down to match the
surveys provided by Carroll to the DRB at the commencement of the project.
(Exhibit BB)
53. Voelker’s revised survey contained several new discrepancies which
cannot be explained by any reasonable professional. Most substantially evidenced is the
fact that the revised survey contains a note that reads, ”Due to the converging inward
nature of the structure, and the unavailability of access of the top of the structure, the
height could be as low 45.4’ as or as high as 47.1’ “ This caveat is fraudulent as it’s
margin is still outside the explanation of the previous survey wherein Voelker certified
the height of the Tower at 48.53’. Additionally evidenced is the fact that the revised
survey is certified as having occurred without any new field work. This would mean that
Voelker has field datum in record from which he could certify the revised survey. This
also means that he was not ordered to perform the survey as the result of the order of the
May 23, 2008 BOD meeting as previously attested to by Matteson, Lilienthal and the
Minutes.
54. Matteson and Lilienthal come to understand that their story does not
match the Minutes and the Minutes are abruptly removed from the community bulletin
board for the first time in the history of WaterSound. Since that time, both the Feb. 2008
and May 2008 BOD Meeting Minutes, which reference Carroll and Lot 24, have
disappeared, reappeared and currently have been completely removed from the
community bulletin board.
55. On or about September 2008 Joule prepared photographs of the Lot 24
15
project and hastily drew redlines and elevations to indicate that the building was taller
than it actually is. Joule inserted the evidence into the DRB file for Lot 24 without any
notification or explanation to Carroll or CSB. This action occurred after Voelker revised
his original and fraudulent survey. (Exhibit CC)
56. September 12, 2008, Watersound Board of Director Member Lilienthal
notified Carroll that he was still understanding the Tower of lot 24 to be constructed to
tall and will require de-construction. Lilienthal and his associate Ann Mosley have told
any Realtors who inquired that the Tower height is in violation, the concrete work has
structural problems and must be dismantled by CSB and Carroll.
57. In good faith, Carroll attempted to get a clear statement from the BOD that
would serve as a retraction to Gary Shipman’s letter of violation on the Tower height. A
meeting was set for November 24, 2008 between Carroll, Matteson and Board of Director
members Jack Luchese and Lilienthal.
58. Carroll appeared for the November 24, 2008 meeting with Lilienthal,
Matteson and Luchese. Lilienthal did not show up. The parties talk and it is agreed that
Matteson is going to get a letter from Gary Shipman, Esq. that remedies the previous
erroneous letter of Shipman for the Tower Height Violation. The retraction letter did
not come.
59. December 18, 2008 Carroll attended the December BOD meeting at the
Gatehouse. Under the compliance heading Jack Luchese initiated dialogue. Gary
Shipman, Esq. read the original letter of violation aloud. Carroll disputed the Notice on a
line by line basis. BOD legal counsel Shipman said on record that he did not know that a
new survey (Voelker 6/08) was issued and he requested a copy from Sandy Matteson in
16
the presence of all in attendance. Matteson admitted on record that the revised survey,
proving compliance, was issued over six months ago. Carroll asserted that the letter of
violation was in the public domain by way of Realtors, that he could not correct the
public opinion of violation and was being damaged economically. Shipman quickly
decided and stated that WaterSound would not issue a retraction, that Carroll’s only
remedy was to move forward with construction and submit a final survey upon
completion that shows the Tower height. Carroll repeated his clear demand to every
member present that he wanted a complete retraction of the height violation referenced in
the violation letter. Carroll reminded the BOD that he submitted his original survey of
foundation elevation in February, 2008 as prescribed by the DRB and that it was
approved for continued construction. The BOD said that the height of the existing
structure still did not permit completion of the roof without being in violation of the
County Height Ordinance. Carroll asked everyone present to explain the County height
ordinance in order to verify their ignorance. None, including BOD Legal Counsel Gary
Shipman, Esq., could give the correct Walton County Ordinance particulars:
5.00.06. Height Limitation, Exceptions, Exemptions, and Measurement Methodology for Building or Structure Height. (E) Methodology for Measurement for Building or Structure Height: Building or structure height in South or North Walton County is the vertical distance or measurement from the average elevation of the existing natural ground beneath the footprint of the building or structure to the highest point at the top of the building or structure or the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof, or the mean height level between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, domed, curved, and gambrel roofs. Building or structure features such as chimney height as required by the Florida Building Code shall not be included in the methodology for measurement for building or structure height.
This proved their ignorance and their motive. Shipman, evidencing motive, forcefully
made the pronouncement “I stopped you from building in a neighborhood before!” The
BOD had undertaken to force Carroll and CSB to act on an unlawful request which was
17
negligent and a breach of fiduciary duty in it’s best light, but deliberate fraud and civil
conspiracy in a light most favorable the truth.
60. December 19, 2008 Carroll issued the pre-suit Statutory Libel Prerequisite
Letter in accordance with F.S. 770.01 to the B.O.D. (Exhibit DD)
61. Lilienthal, Matteson and Joule install Lilienthal’s son, and Carroll’s
competitor, Robert David Lilienthal as WaterSound DRB member on March 6, 2009 over
Carroll’s request otherwise.
62. At a point unknown, WaterSound created a new policy whereby they
would issue “benefitted assessments” at their sole discretion which would encumber the
real property of members with a $1,000.00 per month punitive fine if construction was
incomplete after a time period unknown to Carroll.
63. This so termed, special “benefitted assessment” rule, has not been
recorded into the Walton County Official Records.
64. This “benefitted assessment” does not meet the requirements of the
WaterSound Beach Restrictive Covenants.
65. WaterSound has not permitted a hearing for Carroll who disagreed in
writing with the “benefitted assessment” charges against Lot 24. WaterSound acted
capriciously and arbitrarily by enforcing this new rule against Carroll while not applying
the rule uniformly against all members of WaterSound.
66. September 29, 2009, Carroll, under extreme duress proximate to his facing
escalating monetary fines from the BOD for not completing construction on Lot 24,
completed the final underground power, cable, phone, water and sewer conduit
installations, prepared grade, ordered the landscaping and undertook the removal of the
18
buried construction trash from the common areas at the locations the DRB is requiring
Carroll install landscaping. At that point it had been 32 months since Carroll notified
WaterSound community management, and 19 months since Carroll put the BOD On
Notice, about the buried garbage which the BOD told Carroll they would remediate
immediately.
67. Carroll opened the ground in the Common Area for the landscaping
work and removed buried pressure treated wood, bricks, concrete, asphalt, limerock crush
base, pallet parts, grade stabilizers, rusted steel form work, and other construction trash
in order to advance the project to its current stage of completion (Exhibit EE)
COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH ADVANTAGEOUS BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP
68. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
69. This is an action in law or equity for tortious interference seeking damages
exceeding $15,000.00.
70. Carroll and his companies J.M.B., L.L.C. and Chambers Street Builders,
Inc. had a business relationship with the Owners of property within WaterSound,
Watercolor, Rivercamps and Windmark Beach. Carroll communicated and had contracts
and agreements with several parties.
71. The Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor, Joule, Matteson, Voelker and
Lilienthal had knowledge of the dynamics and history of the relationships.
72. All the Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably interfered with the
relationships by slander per se, slander per quod and an unlawful coven.
73. Defendants Matteson, Joule, Lilienthal, WaterSound and Watercolor
19
intentionally and unjustifiably interfered in the relationships by removing Chambers
Street Builders, Inc. contact information from the approved builders list at random times
without authorization and from time to time listing a competitor’s phone number as that
of Chambers Street Builders, Inc.
74. Defendants Joule, WaterSound, Lilienthal, Matteson and Voelker
intentionally and unjustifiably interfered in the relationship of Carroll and his
WaterSound neighbors by ordering and preparing a fraudulent survey, conducting an
inspection of Lot 24 without notice and permission of Carroll, declaring Lot 24’s
construction as being in violation of Walton County Height Ordinance requiring tearing
down the concrete Tower, hiding Carroll’s authentic and correct survey, rushing
unapproved Minutes into publication, placing fraudulent photographic evidence into the
DRB file and broadcasting unapproved Minutes to Carroll’s peers, the world wide web
and Carroll’s neighbors and with whom Carroll was actively negotiating the trade of
property.
75. As a direct and proximate result of WaterSound, Watercolor, Matteson,
Lilienthal, Voelker and Joule’s tortious interference, Carroll has suffered direct, incidental
and consequential damages which resulted upon the breach of the relationships which is
the last essential element for this type of claim as found in Florida’s Supreme Court:
Gossard v. Adia Services, Inc., 723 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla. 1998) and more specifically and
locally Florida’s First District: Linafelt v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d
386, 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
76. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against all
Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
20
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants unlawful interference;
B. Directing Defendants to immediately cease and desist from further actions
of unlawful interference with Carroll’s customers, both contracted and potential;
C. Compelling WaterSound to issue a complete, line by line retraction of it’s
declaration of violation of Walton County’s Height Ordinance;
D. Awarding Carroll special damages against all the Defendants for costs
incurred by Carroll in mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants;
E. Awarding Carroll the costs associated with bringing this action;
F. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT II - FRAUD
77. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
78. This is an action in law or equity for fraud seeking damages that exceed
$15,000.00.
79. The Defendants made multiple false statements to Carroll as follows:
A. Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor, Matteson and Joule assured Carroll
that CSB was listed on their approved builder list, when in fact it was not included.
B. Defendants WaterSound, Matteson and Lilienthal insisted that they would
remediate the buried trash in the common area adjacent Lot 24 where they are requiring
Carroll to perform, work when in fact they never intended to do so.
21
C. Defendants Watercolor, WaterSound, Matteson, Joule and Lilienthal
insisted that they would not interfere with CSB work or business relationships, when in
fact the opposite was true.
D. Defendants WaterSound, Lilienthal and Matteson insisted that they
ordered the survey from Voelker as a result of the May 23, 2008 BOD meeting, when in
fact the survey was ordered and performed at least 7 days before the meeting.
E. Defendant WaterSound, Matteson, Lilienthal and Joule informed Carroll
that the elevation of construction was approved for continued construction, when in fact
they knew that they were going to act to stop Carroll and CSB and ultimately declare the
work in violation of elevation.
F. Defendants WaterSound, Joule and Matteson issued a special order to
Carroll wherein if he would furnish new plans for the 24 project within 10 days he could
continue construction, when in fact they already knew that they were preparing an
impending violation notice which would serve to stop construction at Lot 24.
G. Defendants WaterSound, Lilienthal, Joule and Matteson declared the
height of the Tower at Lot 24 in violation of the Walton County Height Ordinance, when
in fact they were without any survey, falsified or not, actually showing construction in
violation of the Height Ordinance.
H. Defendants WaterSound, Matteson and Joule told Carroll that they did not
contact the Walton County Building Department to slow CSB’s progress, when in fact
they did.
I. Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor, Matteson, Joule, Lilienthal and
Voelker told Carroll that they did not attempt to interfere in Carroll’s business contracts
22
and advantageous business relationships, when in fact they did.
J. Defendant Voelker told Carroll he was not performing a survey of Lot 24
when in fact he was.
K. Defendant WaterSound informed Carroll that he could not sub-contract
small jobs within the community, when in fact they had no authority to say so.
L. Defendants WaterSound, Matteson, Joule and Lilienthal informed Carroll
that he must complete construction at Lot 24 and obtain an elevation survey of the
finished Tower, when in fact they had no authority to demand same.
M. Defendant WaterSound acknowledged the contents of the DRB file
included no additional information about the height of construction, when in fact the file
included falsified photographic evidence slipped into the file by Joule.
O. Defendants WaterSound and Matteson told Carroll that they would issue a
retraction letter to cure the alleged libel when in fact they had no intentions of doing so.
P. Defendant Joule told Carroll that she had the experience required and was
a Florida builder, when in fact she is not and never has been a licensed Florida contractor.
Q. Defendants Matteson, Lilienthal, Voelker and Joule told Carroll that they
did not tell members of Carroll and CSB’s peer group and customer base that the 24
project had structural problems and code violations, when in fact they did spread the
misinformation.
R. Defendant Voelker told Carroll that he had field datum to back up his
certified survey, when in fact he did not.
S. Defendants Matteson, Watercolor and WaterSound told Carroll that CSB
was removed from the WaterSound and Watercolor approved builders list by the DRB,
23
when in fact the DRB had no information about the act, the DRB approved of all CSB
projects under construction and there were no documented reasons of any kind, in
Watercolor and WaterSound’s DRB file.
T. Defendant Lilienthal assured the owners of WaterSound property
including Carroll that he would discharge his BOD duties without conflict of interest,
when in fact he had no intentions of doing so.
U. Defendants Matteson, Joule, WaterSound and Lilienthal told Carroll and
others that Lot 24 was encumbered by justified “benefitted assessments”, when in fact the
“benefitted assessments” were fabricated outside the justification of the WaterSound
recorded Covenants and Restrictions.
80. The Defendants all had complete knowledge that their representations
were false.
81. The Defendants made the untrue representations, amongst other covinous
acts, to induce Carroll’s reliance on the misrepresented facts.
82. Carroll’s reliance on the lies denied him the opportunity to treat the true
issues, mitigate damage to his business and personal reputation and fully developing
Lot 24.
83. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants fraud Carroll has
suffered direct, incidental and consequential damages which is the 4th essential element of
a claim for fraud in Florida according to Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla.
1985) and Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 764 So. 2d 677, 682 (Fla 1 st DCA
2000) amongst other Florida cases.
84. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
24
Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants fraud against Carroll;
B. Directing Defendants to immediately confess and admit in writing, their
lies and motives so Carroll can mitigate the continued damage to his and his companies
reputations and to take all actions necessary and appropriate to complete that goal;
C. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants;
D. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
E. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT III – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
85. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
86. This is an action in law or equity for breach of fiduciary duty seeking
damages in excess of $15,000.00.
87. Carroll and Defendants WaterSound, Matteson, Joule and Lilienthal share
a relationship whereby Carroll reposes trust and confidence in the Defendants consistent
with Florida Statute 720.303 (1).
88. Those Defendants undertook that trust and assumed a duty to advise,
counsel and protect Carroll also consistent with 720.303 (1).
89. Those Defendants breached that fiduciary duty by deliberately
orchestrating sham acts as described in 1 through 67.
25
90. Carroll suffered damage to his reputation and economically as a result of
the Defendants’ breach of their duties including:
A. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll
constructed a building that violated Walton County’s Height Ordinance requiring the
concrete tower to be torn down.
B. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed, while rain poured
into the building for 7 months causing damage to the roof framing materials, $65,000.00
custom wood windows, $18,000.00 unpainted cedar siding materials, unprotected
plywood floors, unprotected plywood walls, unprotected framed walls, unprotected gun-
nails and sub-floor adhesives, unprotected and installed floor trusses and other materials
not meant to withstand direct assault from the elements for that length of time.
C. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed while Carroll’s
potential and contracted customers came to deduce that Carroll’s model home was
stopped because of finance problems or construction defects which were not actual.
D. Carroll was forced to lay off his workers who intended to complete the
project with the materials already stored on site.
E. Carroll was forced to break advantageous arrangements with his sub-
contractors who had guaranteed Carroll unbeatable pricing in return for the preceding 12
months of consistent, substantial and timely paid work.
91. These circumstances evidence those defendants’ liability to Carroll for a
claim of this type in Florida as first found in Florida’s Supreme Court in Quinn v. Phipps,
93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 420-421 (1927) and again more recently in Gracey v. Eaker,
26
837 So. 2d 348, 353 (Fla. 2002).
92. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, Carroll demands judgment in
his favor and against the Defendants WaterSound, Matteson, Joule and Lilienthal, jointly
and severally, as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Breach of Fiduciary Duty
to Carroll;
B. Directing those Defendants to immediately act in a manner consistent with
their fiduciary duty to Carroll from this time forward;
C. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the those Defendants;
D. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
E. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT IV – LIBEL
93. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
94. This is an action in law or equity for libel seeking damages in excess of
$15,000.00.
95. The Defendants WaterSound, Matteson, Lilienthal, Joule and Voelker
made a false declaration when they declared Carroll and CSB’s work in violation of the
County Height Ordinance. They furthered the false statements when they declared that
the concrete tower will be torn down. They abused process to give credibility to their
27
falsehoods by threatening Circuit Court action against Carroll and CSB when in fact they
never had any evidence, falsified or authentic, that proved a violation of the Walton
County Height Ordinance.
96. The Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor, Matteson, Voelker, Joule and
Lilienthal published the false statements by preparing a fake elevation survey, preparing
fake photographic evidence and broadcasting fake BOD meeting minutes over the
internet, and assuring that the publications would make their way out from the protection
of privileged communications and into the local public domain. Last, the Defendants
published several fake approved builder lists showing Carroll and CSB’s removal from
the list during times when CSB was fully authorized to appear on the lists.
97. The Defendants made the defamatory publications with the requisite intent
of both negligence and malice.
98. Carroll suffered damage to his professional reputation and economically
as a result of the Defendants false publications including:
A. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll
constructed a building that violated Walton County’s Height Ordinance requiring the
concrete tower to be torn down which was a direct assault on his perceived professional
fitness.
B. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll was
removed from the WaterSound and Watercolor approved builder lists for constructing
inadequate residences when in fact that was untrue.
28
99. Florida Courts condemn and abhor these types of acts and when examined
collectively these acts satisfy the essential elements needed by Carroll for a claim against
the Defendants for libel.
100. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, Carroll demands judgment in
his favor and against all of the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Libel against Carroll;
B. Directing Defendants to issue the apology and retraction letter that Carroll
served upon the BOD December 19, 2008 to satisfy Florida’s pre-suit Statutory Libel
Prerequisite Letter in accordance with F.S. 770.01;
C. Directing Defendants to publish the retraction in every size, scope and
medium that the original defamatory publication was made;
D. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants;
E. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
F. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT V – NEGLIGENT RETENTION
101. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
102. This is an action in law or equity for negligent retention seeking damages
in excess of $15,000.00.
103. WaterSound became aware, or should have become aware, of problems
29
with Joule and Matteson that indicated their unfitness for the job of Construction
Compliance Officer and Senior Property Manager.
104. WaterSound owed a duty to Carroll and his companies to protect him from
their Construction Compliance Officer’s ignorance of vertical elevation theories and
construction processes. Further, WaterSound owed a duty to Carroll, his family and his
companies to protect them from Matteson and Joules tortious acts and statements.
105. WaterSound breached its duty to Carroll, his family and his companies by
failing to act to investigate, discharge or reassign both Joule and Matteson.
106. WaterSound’s breach proximately caused Carroll to suffer damage to his
professional reputation, economically and his family’s civil right to the pursuit of
happiness.
107. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, Carroll demands judgment in
his favor and against the Defendant WaterSound as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of WaterSound’s Negligent Retention of
Joule and Matteson;
B. Directing WaterSound to reassign or discharge Matteson, Joule or any
other employee working in WaterSound who would continue to harm Carroll, his family
or his business;
C. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by WaterSound’s Negligent Retention;
D. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
30
E. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT VI – CIVIL CONSPIRACY
108. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
109. This is an action in law or equity for civil conspiracy seeking damages that
exceed $15,000.00.
110. WaterSound, Watercolor, Joule, Matteson, Lilienthal, Voelker, John and
Jane Doe and other Unknown Co-Conspirators formed a conspiratorial coven.
111. The Defendants planned, engineered and executed a boycott of Carroll and
his businesses along with a campaign of misinformation about Carroll’s personal and
business fitness.
112. The Defendant conspirators committed several acts both covert and overt
as fully enumerated in 1 through 67 in the pursuit of the conspiracy.
113. The conspirators possessed, by virtue of their association, a special power
of coercion that an individual would not ordinarily possess.
114. Carroll, his family and his businesses suffered damage to their economics,
professional reputation and civil rights afforded them by both the Florida and United
States Constitution by the reach of the civil conspiracy including:
A. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll
constructed a building that violated Walton County’s Height Ordinance requiring the
concrete tower to be torn down.
31
B. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed, while rain poured
into the building for 7 months causing damage to the roof framing materials, $65,000.00
custom wood windows, $18,000.00 unpainted cedar siding materials, unprotected
plywood floors, unprotected plywood walls, unprotected framed walls, unprotected gun-
nails and sub-floor adhesives, unprotected and installed floor trusses and other materials
not meant to withstand direct assault from the elements for that length of time.
C. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed while Carroll’s
potential and contracted customers came to deduce that Carroll’s model home was
stopped because of finance problems or construction defects.
D. Carroll was forced to lay off his workers who intended to complete the
project with the materials already stored on site.
E. Carroll was forced to break advantageous arrangements with his sub-
contractors who had guaranteed Carroll unbeatable pricing in return for the preceding 12
months of consistent, substantial and timely paid work.
F. Carroll’s contracts and agreements with Muldoon, Achatz, Burke, Kaye,
Mitchell, Gutkin, Whatley, Betz, Waits, Harmuth, Harrison, Humphreys, St. Joe,
Wildwood, Wallace, Lynch, LIG Holdings, Beckman, Midha, Davis, Freeman, George,
J.M.B., LLC, M.G., LLC and others were interfered with at Carroll’s detriment and for
the potential gain of the conspirators.
G. Carroll’s relationship with the Walton County Building Department was
interfered with by the Defendant’s in an attempt to slow down Carroll’s progress on more
than one job, on more than one occasion, by covert and illegal means.
115. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against all of
32
the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
B. Directing the Defendants to immediately notify Carroll and this Court of
the true identity of John Doe, Jane Doe and the other Co-Conspirators;
C. Directing the Defendants to immediately cease and desist their unlawful
coven;
D. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
E. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
F. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT VII – SLANDER
116. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
117. This is an action in law or equity for slander seeking damages that exceed
$15,000.00.
118. The Defendants WaterSound, Joule, Voelker, Lilienthal and Matteson
made a false declaration when they declared Carroll and CSB’s work in violation of the
County Height Ordinance. They furthered the false statements when they declared that
the concrete tower will be torn down. They abused process to give credibility to their
falsehoods by threatening Circuit Court action against Carroll and CSB when in fact they
never had any evidence, falsified or authentic, that proved a violation of the Walton
33
County Height Ordinance.
119. All of the Defendants orally published the false statements by preparing a
fake elevation survey, preparing fake photographic evidence and broadcasting fake BOD
meeting minutes over the internet and assuring that the publications would make their
way out from the protection of privileged communications and into the local public
domain when they told Debra Starr, Hillary Farnum and other Realtors who are Carroll’s
peers but not WaterSound Owners. Last, the Defendants published several fake approved
builder lists showing Carroll and CSB’s removal from the list during times when CSB
was fully authorized to appear on the lists and then passing on their fabrications orally.
120. The Defendants made the defamatory publications and oral statements
with the requisite intent of both negligence and malice.
121. Carroll suffered damage to his professional reputation and economically
as a result of the Defendants false publications as follows:
A. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll
constructed a building that violated Walton County’s Height Ordinance requiring the
concrete tower to be torn down which was a direct assault on his perceived professional
fitness.
B. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll was
removed from the WaterSound and Watercolor approved builder lists for constructing
inadequate residences when in fact that was untrue.
122. Our local Court condemns these acts which together constitute the four
34
essential elements of slander as clarified and enumerated in Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So.
2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
123. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against all of
the Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Slander;
B. Directing the Defendants to immediately notify Carroll and this Court of
the identity of all parties the defamatory statements were made to;
C. Directing the Defendants to immediately orally retract their unlawful
and defamatory statements;
D. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
E. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
F. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT VIII – NEGLIGENCE
124. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
125. This is an action in law or equity for negligence seeking damages that
exceed $15,000.00.
126. The Defendants WaterSound, Matteson, Lilienthal, Joule and Voelker had
a duty to protect Carroll, his businesses and his family from harm when they assumed the
position afforded them by the WaterSound Declarations of Covenants.
35
127. Those Defendants breached their duties as stated in 1 through 67 when,
amongst other acts, they failed Carroll and elementary mathematics in concluding the
Tower height incorrectly by margins that defy truth and then failing to read and
understand Walton County Height Ordinance 5.00.06, and finally, all of this being
rounded out by their rush to write all of this up and publish their findings in writing, in
broadcast and orally as a condemnation of Carroll’s competence when it was their own
rudimentary mistake or reckless disregard for the truth.
128. Those Defendants’ breach was the proximate cause of damage to Carroll,
his family and his businesses.
129. Carroll suffered damage to his professional reputation and economically
as a result of those Defendants’ false publications by and including:
A. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll
constructed a building that violated Walton County’s Height Ordinance requiring the
concrete tower to be torn down.
B. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed, while rain poured
into the building for 7 months causing damage to the roof framing materials, $65,000.00
custom wood windows, $18,000.00 unpainted cedar siding materials, unprotected
plywood floors, unprotected plywood walls, unprotected framed walls, unprotected gun-
nails and sub-floor adhesives, unprotected and installed floor trusses and other materials
not meant to withstand direct assault from the elements for that length of time.
C. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed while Carroll’s
potential and contracted customers came to deduce that Carroll’s model home was
36
stopped because of finance problems or construction defects.
D. Carroll was forced to lay off his workers who intended to complete the
project with the materials already stored on site.
E. Carroll was forced to break advantageous arrangements with his sub-
contractors who had guaranteed Carroll unbeatable pricing in return for the preceding 12
months of consistent, substantial and timely paid work.
130. Just as seen in Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 851 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA
2003), Carroll is entitled to maintain a cause of action against the Defendants for
negligence because the totality of the facts match the essential elements of his claim.
131. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants WaterSound, Matteson, Lilienthal, Joule and Voelker as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
B. Directing the Defendants to renew their studies in addition and subtraction
if they wish to exercise control over vertical datum;
C. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
D. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
E. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT IX – BREACH OF CONTRACT
132. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
37
133. This is an action in law or equity for breach of contract seeking damages
that exceed $15,000.00.
134. The Plaintiff, Carroll, and the Defendants WaterSound, Joule, Matteson
and Lilienthal were parties to a valid contract which was recorded into the public records
of Walton County and entitled: Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for
WaterSound. (Exhibit FF)
135. The Defendants committed several material breaches of the contract when
they:
A) Ordered Voelker to enter upon Lot 24 to inspect, monitor and test the
improvements and structure located there without notice to Carroll. This violated the
terms of Plaintiff and Defendants’ contract at 10.7.
B) Permitted Voelker to enter into the structure without Carroll’s consent.
This violated the terms of Plaintiff and Defendants’ contract at 10.7.
C) Retained Voelker to inspect the design and construction of the
improvements and structure located on Lot 24 in connection with a potential or pending
claim, demand or litigation involving such design or construction without first notifying
Carroll and CSB in writing. This violated the terms of Plaintiff and Defendants’ contract
at 10.8.
D) Created a new “benefitted assessment” without following the terms of the
contract at 8.5 and other sections.
E) Changed the terms of the contract by arbitrarily and capriciously enforcing
an enhanced penalty against Carroll for the length of construction, whereby they changed
the fine from a one time $500.00 fine to an inexhaustible $1,000.00 per month fine, then
38
applying said “new term” in a non-uniform manner.
F) Expressed their enhanced penalties against Carroll and Lot 24 as a lien.
136. Carroll suffered damage to his professional reputation and economically
by the Defendants’ material breaches including:
A. Carroll’s friends, peers, neighbors, customers, competitors, lenders,
Building Official, Realtors, children and suppliers came to believe that Carroll
constructed a building that violated Walton County’s Height Ordinance requiring the
concrete tower to be torn down.
B. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed, while rain poured
into the building for 7 months causing damage to the roof framing materials, $65,000.00
custom wood windows, $18,000.00 unpainted cedar siding materials, unprotected
plywood floors, unprotected plywood walls, unprotected framed walls, unprotected gun-
nails and sub-floor adhesives, unprotected and installed floor trusses and other materials
not meant to withstand direct assault from the elements for that length of time.
C. Carroll’s model home sat idle, without the roof framed while Carroll’s
potential and contracted customers came to deduce that Carroll’s model home was
stopped because of finance problems or construction defects.
D. Carroll was forced to lay off his workers who intended to complete the
project with the materials already stored on site.
E. Carroll was forced to break advantageous arrangements with his sub-
contractors who had guaranteed Carroll unbeatable pricing in return for the preceding 12
months of consistent, substantial and timely paid work.
F. Damaging Carroll’s $6,000,000.00 business enterprise.
39
137. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
B. Directing the Defendants to cease their abherrant enforcement actions
against Carroll;
C. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants’ Civil Conspiracy;
D. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
E. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
COUNT X – SLANDER OF TITLE
138. Carroll incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 as if fully
restated here.
139. This is an action in law or equity for slander of title seeking damages that
exceed $15,000.00.
140. On September 1, 2009, just days before Carroll’s planned construction
finance closing for Lot 24, Matteson, Lilienthal and WaterSound communicated to
Carroll’s Title Company a fraudulent assessment certificate showing the amount
necessary to clear Title was currently $9,366.14 when it was actually several thousand
dollars less and subject to additional set offs.
141. On September 23, 2009 Matteson admitted and testified to the inflated
assessment in County Court.
40
142. These three facts were intended to impair Carroll’s ability to close his loan
and were the proximate cause of damages to Carroll and his business.
143. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants WaterSound, Lilienthal and Matteson, jointly and severally, as follows:
A. Awarding Carroll actual, incidental and consequential damages against
Defendants’ for Carroll’s loss of income, inability to financially care for his family and
lost opportunities which were consequences of the Defendants’ Slander of Title;
B. Awarding Carroll special damages for the costs incurred by Carroll in
mitigating the damages caused by the Defendants’ Slander of Title;
C. Awarding Carroll the costs associated in bringing this action;
D. Granting all further relief deemed appropriate by this Court.
144. Carroll demands trial by jury on all counts.
_____________________________John P. CarrollBox 613524WaterSound, FL 32461Tel: (850)231-5616Fax: (850)622-5618
Dated: February 2, 2010
41