Risks In The Southard Street Litigation
Every piece of litigation has risks. In the Southard street litigation there is a problem that TAMPOA and its attorneys may just be beginning to understand. That problem is that even if TAMPOA proves that it owns Southard Street, lock, stock, and rum barrel, and also proves that the City violated its agreement with TAMPOA, the remedy may not be what TAMPOA wants and may take the whole matter back to square one. A judge could easily find that even though TAMPOA owns Southard and the City violated the agreement, the street must remain open 24 / 7 to all government entities and must be two way (not one way out which the agreement provides for and which TAMPOA has offered to give up in its last attempt to settle with the City). The Court could rule in TAMPOA's favor and still hold that Southard street must remain open and two way because the Navy's right to waterfront access through Southard cannot be restricted, and the original intent of the Quit Claim Deed granting Pritam Singh the Truman Annex property was to allow open access 24 / 7 to the waterfront by all governmental entities (Navy, NOAA, Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Police, Fire, Park Service, State of Florida, Monroe County and City of Key West). Finally, the court could hold that because Southard Street historically has been and open and two way 24 / 7 since being returned to civilian control, and TAMPOA has made essentially no effort to otherwise restrict waterfront access through it until the lawsuit began, equity requires the street to remain open and two way.
This scenario is a real likelihood. In such a scenario, the judge could give each side what it has sought. TAMPOA win and get its requested declaration that it owns the street and that the City violated its agreement with TAMPOA. The City would get what it wants, which is free two-way 24 / 7 access through Southard Street to the waterfront. Even the developers potentially get something in this scenario. They are salivating at the chance to get the waterfront property when the City squanders its opportunity to develop it. The City made this mistake with Truman Annex which is how developer Pritam Singh wound up with it, If the judge were to give the City a 24 / 7 easement to the waterfront through Southard, the City might well operate a bus to the waterfront through Southard or contract to have it done (by say Historic Tours of America).
After such a ruling, and a million or more TAMPOA dollars later, the status of the dispute will have returned to where it started -- and the parties will be forced to sit down and engage in yet another round of settlement talks. But the theater will have been worth it, right?
This scenario is a real likelihood. In such a scenario, the judge could give each side what it has sought. TAMPOA win and get its requested declaration that it owns the street and that the City violated its agreement with TAMPOA. The City would get what it wants, which is free two-way 24 / 7 access through Southard Street to the waterfront. Even the developers potentially get something in this scenario. They are salivating at the chance to get the waterfront property when the City squanders its opportunity to develop it. The City made this mistake with Truman Annex which is how developer Pritam Singh wound up with it, If the judge were to give the City a 24 / 7 easement to the waterfront through Southard, the City might well operate a bus to the waterfront through Southard or contract to have it done (by say Historic Tours of America).
After such a ruling, and a million or more TAMPOA dollars later, the status of the dispute will have returned to where it started -- and the parties will be forced to sit down and engage in yet another round of settlement talks. But the theater will have been worth it, right?
posted by Conchette at 8:27 AM
5 Comments:
Tampoa has always maintained authority over the Southard street gate with at least a guard there once a week even prio to the lawsuit. One needs only to show ownership with a demonstration of such once per year. That may be done with signs or persons there. In the beginning when Singh took over a guard restricted all traffic. This continued for some time. I don't believe your scenerio is plausible.
Here are the facts -
The Circuit Court suit asks for a declaratory judgement on the breech of contract. It is the simplest, fastest and cheapest way to go;asking the court to declare that the City has breeched the contract.
The City, in it reply, did NOT dispute that TAMPOA owns Southard Street. There is no disagreement from the City in the court that Southard Street is owned by TAMPOA.
The City responded that they had a right of "police powers". This is the EXACT same losing argument that they tried in the Duck Tour case.
The new, separate Federal case will clarify the Navy easement.
This information is available to anyone in the public filings.
We surely hope you are right,but are you willing to bet your farm on it. Maybe TAMPOA is. We're not.
We don't doubt you are right about TAMPOA's ownership, but in our scenario, that doesn't affect the outcome we foresee. Even when Singh took over (and we were here then) the Navy and other governmental entities had free access 24 / 7 and the street was always two way. It is these facts that create the risk for TAMPOA and the possible scenario we envision.
Guess we'll see. There are likely to be some very dissappointed folks in the Annex is we are right, as some on the Board know we have been many times in the past year. That is why we have raised the issue -- so the risks can be assessed before, not after, the scenario unfolds.
By the way, the 2000 agreement is with the city and not the US Navy. The issue is the validity of a contract between two parties. Whether the city was allowed entrance at in the past has now, per the 2000 agreement, been superseeded. Don't forget that the issue is the 2000 contract which was signed by the city. The only way that is should not be followed is if it were illegal. The city tried in their response to negate it but this failed. Mr. Tischenkel has alresy said that the agreement was legal. You did say that you read the city's response, didn't you? What was their contention then?
We agree with you that the only issue in the Circuit Court suit should be the validity of the aggreement with the City. However, that issue has yet to be decided by a court. However, none of what you have said really undermines the possibility of the scenario presented in our original post, and that is the risk with which we are concerned.
Post a Comment
<< Home