11 class action lawsuit against Bella Collina (Part 11 of 15)

Defendants constitute an associated-in-fact Enterprise, through which they illegally controlled the POA, knowing that the POA should have been turned over to the non-developer lot owners 90 days after August 29, 2005.
Randall Greene was Accused of Stealing Bella Collina House

Back to part 10 of 15

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 18 U.S.C. §1962CCl AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 408 as though set forth fully herein.
  2. Defendants constitute an associated-in-fact Enterprise, through which they illegally controlled the POA, knowing that the POA should have been turned over to the non-developer lot owners 90 days after August 29, 2005.
  3. Defendants used this control to embezzle funds from the POA, to harass POA members, to physically and verbally intimidate POA members, to mail false invoices for the invalid and illegal “special assessment” for the payment of private country club dues, with illegal charges for improper late fees, legal fees, attorney fees and interest, to fraudulently assert rights to an expired build compulsion, to file false liens, to deprive POA members of control of their association or community, to file unauthorized development plans which hanned the community but benefitted the developer, to illegally hinder the access of POA members to their community, to interfere with the property rights of POA members by illegally suing for alleged CDD charges, prohibiting valid use of wells for irrigation, taking possession and occupancy of a POA member’s homes and filing a false deed to maintain that possession, and other abusive and illegal acts.
  4. The defendants deceitfully used the POA to file about 400 lawsuits against lot owners of 600 or more lots to enforce a provision of the illegally amended CC&Rs which mandated the payment of a special assessment for the payment of private country club, which they knew to be invalid.
  5. DCS now has legal title to approximately 650 lots and more owned by insiders under the control ofDCS.
  6. Of the original 750 lots sold to POA members for more than half a billion dollars, only about l 00 remain in the hands o f non-developer lot owners.
  7. The ostensible purpose of the lawsuits was to acquire funds for the POA.
  8. However, the Defendants’ malicious intent was coerce non-developer lot owners into surrendering their lots to DCS by deflating the value of lots with oppressive fees and objectionable policies, effectively poisoning the market for resale.
  9. When the defendants found buyers for their lots, the POA would issue false and exorbitant demands for HOA fees, assessments and application fees and refuse to provide fair and accurate estoppel certificates.
  10. DCS used the POA to interfere with signed purchase contracts to force a distress sale or transfer of the lot to DCS instead.
  11. DCS knowingly prevented comparable sales which were necessary for buyers to obtain financing, further driving down values to obtain lots for little or no costs.
  12. In each case Ryan, improperly acting as attorney for both DCS and the POA, filed suit for exorbitant amounts related to initiation fees, club dues, interest, late fees, and attorney fees, without approval of a validly elected board or lot owners as required by statute, on the pretext of enforcing POA rights to assessments.
  13. The real intent of Ryan and the Defendants was to deprive the POA of any benefit and to obtain a negotiated settlement which required the defendant lot owner to surrender the subject lot and certain payments to DCS directly and for the POA to dismiss its lawsuit.
  14. DCS and its attorney thus usurped any opportunity for benefit by the POA.
  15. On information and belief, DCS and its attorney created LLCs such as Rocking Red H, LLC to divert lots and funds from the POA and its members to Schar, the Ryan Law Group, Simonson, Greene, and other favored insiders and prevent benefit to the POA.
  16. Schar, Simonson, Ryan and DCS directed Burman, Greene, Clarke, Lebreux, the Ryan Law Group and Aegis to use illegal and improper accounting methods to deprive the POA of income owed by DCS on its increasing hoard of lots and to increase debt allegedly owed by the POA to DCS.
  17. Schar, Simonson, Ryan and DCS directed Burman, Greene, Clarke, Lebreux, the Ryan Law Group and Aegis to perform the illegal and destructive acts detailed in this claim.
  18. Schar, Simonson, Ryan and DCS directed Burman, Greene, Clarke, Lebreux, the Ryan Law Group and Aegis to file false corporate documents with the Florida Department of State Corporations Bureau, e.g they represented that agents and officers under the control of the Conspiracy were the authorized officers of the POA and that POA lot members, e.g. Joseph Cross, were officers when they were not to hide the control by Greene of the POA board.
  19. Schar, Simonson, Ryan and DCS directed Burman, Greene, Clarke, Lebreux, the Ryan Law Group and Aegis directed CPA Showalter to falsely represent that an audit of the POA finances had been performed in accordance with law and generally accepted accounting standards and filed tax statements with the IRS without authority and which contained false or inaccurate information,
  20. DCS used confrontation and harrassment by almost any means possible to scare lot owners into surrendering their lots.
  21. DCS took control of the water COD to charge exorbitant rates, denied owners access through the resident lane of the community entrance, filed repetitive nuisance suits over use of irrigation wells permitted by the original CC&Rs, and sued in 2015 to enforce a build compulsion that expired in 2014 by the terms of the original CC&Rs, filed numerous illegal amendments to the CC&Rs to benefit the developer at the expense of the lot owners.
  22. As explained herein, the Defendants are “persons” who participated in the conduct of the affairs of the Enterprise, directly or indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activity which predicate acts include financial institution fraud (18 U.S.C. 1425), interference with commerce, robbery or extortion (18 U.S.C. 1951), racketeering (18 U.S.C. 1952), monetary transaction involving criminally obtained property (18 U.S.C. 1957), fraud using the Postal Service (18 U.S.C. §1341), fraud using wire, radio or television communicatiom (18 U.S.C. §1343), scheme or artifice to defraud or deprive another from the intangible right to honest services (l 8 U.S.C.§ 1346), interstate transportation of money taken by fraud (18 u.s.c. §2314).
  23. The following state violations constituted predicate acts: §812.014, Florida Statutes (Theft), §817.02, Florida Statutes (Obtaining Property by False Pretenses), §817,025, Florida Statutes (Home or Private business invasion by false personation), §777.04, Florida Statutes (Criminal Conspiracy), §817.03 (Making false statement to obtain property or credit), §817.061, Florida Statutes (Making solicitation o f payments prohibited), §817.15, Florida Statutes (False entries in books of business entity), §817.155, Florida Statutes (Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; False, fictitious or fraudulent acs, statements or representations … ), §817.2341, Florida Statutes (False or Misleading statements or supporting documents), §817.29, Florida Statutes (Cheating), §817.535, Florida Statutes (Unlawful filing of records against real or personal property), §713.084, Florida Statutes (False lien), §817.569, Flordida Statutes (Criminal use of a public record…), §836.05 Florida Statutes (Threats; extortion), §837.06, Florida Statutes (False Official Statements), §837.02, Florida Statutes (Perjury in official proceedings), §§895.01-895.06 (Florida RICO Act).
  24. As detailed herein, the Enterprise was used to make possible Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activities, and the pattern o f racketeering activities had:
  25. The same or similar purpose of making money;
  26. The same or similar result of collecting a debt or obtaining property by fraud;
  27. The same or similar participants in the Defendants;
  28. The same or similar victims; and,
  29. The same or similar methods of commission.
  30. The racketeering enterprise of the Defendants and each of them caused the Plaintisffs to suffer the following damages in the form of interference with the marketability and peaceful enjoyment of private property, diminution of property value, attorney fees, court costs, assessments paid, prejudgment interest, taxes and other damages a described herein and proven at trial.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FLORIDA RICO ACT

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 408 as though set forth fully herein.
  2. he following state violations constituted predicate acts: §812.014, Florida Statutes (Theft),
  • 817.02, Florida Statutes (Obtaining Property by False Pretenses), §817,025, Florida Statutes (Home or Private business invasion by false personation), §777.04, Florida Statutes (Criminal Conspiracy), §817.03 (Making false statement to obtain property or credit), §817.061, Florida Statutes (Making solicitation of payments prohibited), §817.15, Florida Statutes (False entries in books of business entity), §817.155, Florida Statutes (Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; False, fictitious or fraudulent acs, statements or representations … ), §817.2341, Florida Statutes (False or Misleading statements or supporting documents), §817.29, Florida Statutes (Cheating), §817.535, Florida Statutes (Unlawful filing of records against real or personal property), §713.084, Florida Statutes (False lien)

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 15 U.S.C. §1962, Et Seq.

FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

AGAINST RYANS, RYAN LAW GROUP, AEGIS, THE GOLF CLUB AND THE POA

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 408 as though set forth at length herein.
  2. Plaintiffs are consumers as defined by Florida Statutes §15 u.s.c. §1692 A(3).
  3. Defendants DCS, the Ryans, The Ryan Law Group, Aegis, The Golf Club and the POA, at all relevant times, are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C. §l692a(b).
  4. Defendants DCS, the Ryans, The Ryan Law Group, Aegis, the GolfClub and the POA and their officers and directors violated the Consumer Collection Practices Act by knowingly sending false billing statements related to illegal special assessments, billing lot owners for sports club initiation fees and dues knowing that such bills were illegal and unenforceable, and engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices to collect an alleged debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692 a, et seq.
  5. Defendants identified in this Claim billed for “technology” and “lotscape” assessments that had not been approved or provided.
  6. These violations of law caused Plaintiffs to suffer the inability to sell its property at fair market value, the unnecessary payment of a special assessment for a non-existent sports club, a deposit for possible membership, and diminution in the value of its lots in an amount as high as $as indicated in Schedule B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15 U.S.C. §1, §2 and 15 U.S.C. §12, et seq. AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

  1. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 408 as though set forth fully herein.
  2. Bella Collina is a discrete market for the sale and development o f 801 lots.
  3. DCS and the DCS related entities possess monopoly power in the market for the sale of lots in Bella Collina, owning or controlling 80% of all lots and homes.
  4. The value of any lot was dependent on the operation of the POA and the actions of the developer.
  5. The defendants conspired to illegally control the POA and enforce restrictive covenants which they knew to be invalid, illegal and unreasonable for the illegal purpose of destroying the value and economic viability o f the lots and coercing lot owners to surrender them to DCS and the DCS entities.
  6. The illegal mandatory golf club membership, illegal special assessment, illegal control of the POA, requirement that lot owners must pay for club memberships and assessments on lots, write-off of assessments on lots owned by the Conspirators, the merger of control of the boards of the POA, the Golf Club, DCS, the DCS entities and the CDD, and exorbitant and unreasonable country club fees and dues constituted anti -competitive practices in the form of price discrimination, exclusive dealings, price control, anti-competitive merger, inter-locking directorates and tying.
  7. This conspiracy to perform the acts described in the preceding paragraph, to monopolize this market and to restrain the development and resale of the lot owners’ property violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. and the Clayton Act §15 U.S.C. §12, et seq.
  8. These violations caused the Plaintiffs, and all similarly situated current and fonner, lot owners to suffer damages in the nature of diminished lot values and excessive carrying costs related to ownership and lack of marketability of their lots.

Continue to part 12 of 15

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on pinterest

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *