Time To Let Go Of The Gate Idea

Maybe it is time for the screwball idea of a gate at the Southard Street entrance to Truman Annex to go. We had thought the idea had been abandoned by TAMPOA -- at least that's what it told members prior to February 2007. Suddenly, however, the gates idea was back with a vengeance when the federal complaint was filed and is also in the new federal complaint. This idea seems like something from Dr. Strangelove that springs like the uncontrollable hand from a TAMPOA fantasyland. The reality is there will NEVER be a gate at the current entrance to Truman Annex on Southard Street. When TAMPOA will get this, if ever, we don't know. But to avoid continuing to look like idiots, the TAMPOA Board needs to instruct its lawyers to abandon this albatross, and soon!

The truth is the Navy will never allow a gate at the Truman Annex entrance on Southard Street and everyone knows it, including TAMPOA if it were realistic. The June 26, 2007 letter the Navy sent to TAMPOA demanding that it open the gate next to Harbor Place should be handwriting on the wall that a gate at the Southard Street will not be tolerated. (We'll have more to say about that up-coming fiasco in a future post).

Now, imagine what will run through the mind of the federal judge (or any judge) when the Navy or the City shows the judge this picture from Cayo Dave's article about what alternatives TAMPOA actually has. The judge, as anyone (including a juror) with common sense, is going to think, "that doesn't look so bad," and is a possible solution that meets TAMPOA's stated interests in a "gated community."

Such a plan also deals with TAMPOA's rather illusory fear of being sued by the ultra rich who bought mega homes allegedly thinking (if you can believe it) that they were buying into a gated community. Under such an alternate plan, Southard would remain open, and if TAMPOA insisted, it could have its gates, transponders and all, for those who want them, on Emma Street.

There are really two groups whose interests might not be totally satisfied by such an alternate plan. One will be the folks on the west side of Southard Street, but there are only about half a dozen or so of them whose homes actually face the street. For the other few Southard Street runs along the side of their residences giving them less to complain about as there are a number of fences in the Annex that run along the sides of residences.

The other group to complain will be the those in big houses near the intersection of Emma and Southard who will not want a gate on Emma near their residences. The solution to that complaint can be found in the design of the gate so as to make it less obtrusive, or to abandon the gate altogether for some other restraint like high tech retractable tire spikes.

The bottom line is there is never going to be a gate at the entrance to Southard Street, so why is TAMPOA wasting time and money on this issue when there are truly more important issues in the litigation? Beats us. It's just weird.

It's Tough In Federal Court in Florida

If you think North Carolina is tough on lawyers (having effectively removed a district attorney from office by pulling his license to practice), Florida may not be far behind in the toughness category. If you don't believe us, just ask the lawyer who told the judge in open court, that with all due respect, the judge might be just "a few french fries short of a happy meal." That Chicago-based lawyer is now in big trouble.

In trouble is a Chicago lawyer, from one of the bigger firms, who tangled with Judge Laurel Myerson Isicoff of the Federal Bankruptcy Court in Miami. She just happens to be the first woman appointed to be a bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of Florida and a veteran bankruptcy lawyer. She did not find humor the lawyer's comment. Read the transcript here.

The lawyer? Well, he'll have to get his rear end down to Miami on June 25, 2007 at 11:00 a.m.to explain to her honor why he should not be suspended from practice in her court. You can bet there will be many mea culpas in the works, especially at his hourly rate.

Mayor Served With TAMPOA's Federal Suit

TAMPOA's attorneys have made an effort to insure early and timely service of its lawsuit papers on the City and avoid any potential difficulty in complying with a Federal Judge's Pretrial Order issued in the newly re-filed case by TAMPOA against the City. (TAMPOA's prior federal suit was dismissed because of a failure to file a required scheduling report in a timely manner). TAMPOA's attorneys have hired a process server who promptly served the new Summons and Complaint on the City on May 9, 2007. The new Summons and complaint were served on Mayor Morgan McPherson at 525 Angela Street. The declaration by the process server that the Mayor had been served was filed with the Federal Court on February 14, 2007.

According to the Federal Court Clerk's Office, the City's Answer is due on June 8, 2007. Our guess is that the City will ask for an extension of time.

As he did in the prior (dismissed) case, the Federal Judge, on May 10, 2007, issued a Pretrial Order. That Order requires, among other things, that the attorneys for TAMPOA, forward a copy of the Order to all the defendants upon receipt of a responsive pleading. The Court's Pretrial Order was issued on May 10, 2007 and sets out the various procedural matters the judge expects the parties to deal with prior to the trial as well as deadlines for completing that work. Of course there is no reason for the City's attorneys to wait to be served with the Pretrial Order, since it is available from the Federal Court Clerk's Office or by a phone call to the Andersen Firm (TAMPOA's attorneys). The City's attorneys can get it, if they have not seen it already, and get a head start on complying with it.

A joint pretrial scheduling conference required by the court's Order of May 10, 2007 must be held no later than 20 days after the answer or other responsive pleading filed by the last responding defendant, or within 60 days after the filing of the complaint, whichever is sooner. This likely would make the scheduling conference occur sometime around July 9, 2007, unless the United States had not been served by that time. If so, according to the federal court's order, TAMPOA would be obligated to request the federal court to extend the time to hold the scheduling conference. However, at the rate TAMPOA is moving, if the United States has not been served, it likely will have been by July 9.

Within 10 days of the joint scheduling conference counsel for the parties must file a joint report with the judge. (It was the parties' failure to file this report that lead the judge to dismiss the case the last time around). According to sources at the Federal Court, a plaintiff's counsel (in this case TAMPOA's counsel) generally has the primary job of preparing and submitting the report.

While We Were AWOL

While we've been away from blogging for a week, the news has not waited.

In KW, according to The Citizen, the City has announced it has narrowed the field for the new City Manager to six. Our prediction is the new manager will be a Navy man, with the Coast Guard rear admiral a close second. We'll just have to wait and see if our read of the political tea leaves is accurate.

Paris Hilton, reportedly, will make a foray to KW on her way to an all important date on or about June 5 with a Los Angeles jail. Nothing like taking the long way around.

The hurricane insurance battle continues in the legislature. A Senate Bill has passed freezing Citizen's rates until 2009, but there is much left to be done to push insurance reforms ahead. The battle will continue, as will the efforts to derail any reforms.

The costs for the Monroe County Courthouse continue to increase.

And, TAMPOA has made good on its pledge to re-file the lawsuit against the City and the United States that had been dismissed by the federal court in April. The filing was not quite as quick as TAMPOA had announced it would be, but the suit has been re-filed (with a new case number). The TAMPOA suit starts anew, and TAMPOA must re-serve the defendants with the new summons and complaint.

TAMPOA has learned from the dismissal though. This time around, the summons is typed, not hand written (an insignificant matter, but it does show attention to detail, and it just looks better). This time around, TAMPOA got the summons for each defendant issued right away on the day of filing the new suit (May 8) instead of waiting for some time as in the previous case. And now, the City and its Mayor, instead of the City Attorney (as in the previous case), are listed (in the summons for the City) as those to whom the summons is addressed and from whom a response is requested. We hazard a guess that someone may have gone over these papers (and perhaps the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) with a fine-tooth comb before they were lodged with the Clerk of Court. We'll have more to report in the coming weeks as the suit progresses.

In case you haven't noticed, the sky is a different color at sunset these days. It's the wild fires from the mainland that are having an effect.

Talk Spoiled The Federal Lawsuit

Back in November 2006, as we recall, Tom Tukey, President of theTAMPOA Board felt there was so much animosity against the City among TAMPOA members that it would be impossible to resolve the dispute short of litigation. Tukey at that time felt that TAMPOA had to file a lawsuit, though his preference would have been to continue to talk. He felt that talk alone would not satisfy the TAMPOA membership. So the lawsuit got filed in February, 2007. However, the TAMPOA attorneys, Tukey, City Attorney Shawn Smith and Commissioner Bill Verge continued to talk. The time whiled away while the good old boy network tried to work its magic. Unfortunately the federal judge was not part of the that network.

When it came to buckling down and doing the work necessary to produce the required Scheduling Report, well, we hear Shawn Smith let the TAMPOA counsel know he had not given the matter sufficient attention and was too busy to do so. And, the network being what it is, the TAMPOA attorneys just let him get away with that and the deadline for filing the Report went by. They were too nice; to their own detriment.

And, of course, the United States' Attorney didn't care. He, at least had filed something with the court asking for more time. Tell us the City didn't know that the judge would dismiss the case. Is the City now going to compensate TAMPOA Attorney Bill Andersen for his time in refiling the lawsuit? Bet not! No, the City will just know that it now owes him a favor within the network. The problem is that the City's pile of IOUs in the network is getting pretty large, and no one in TAMPOA seems to be collecting on them or benefiting from them.

What we don't get is why TAMPOA and its attorneys continue to get taken in by the good old boy games being played. You'd think that by now, they'd be players in the network too, and good at it. Apparently not. Political hard ball is not their style. And the players on the City side seem to have figured that out. When will TAMPOA draw a line in the sand and say never again? Many TAMPOA members thought that had happened last November, but they were wrong.

The Disingenuous Disinformation Spin

We are now getting the spin of disinformation being put on the dismissal of TAMPOA's lawsuit. One commenter who is spouting the spin says we are jumping to "negative conclusions" by our reporting and with more spin opines,

"The City Attorney and the Mayor have been avoiding accepting service. The suit was dismissed merely as an administrative item. When they are successfully served, the scheduling meeting will be held."

Sorry Anonymous, that dog won't hunt. Here is WHAT IS REAL:

Under Rule 4(j)(2) the City Attorney does not have to be served; only the Mayor. Almost everyone, including even the TAMPOA attorneys, know where the Mayor is. He has not avoided delivery of the Summons and Complaint to him. Rule 4 states:

"Service upon a state, municipal corporation, or other governmental organization subject to suit, shall be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to its chief executive officer or by serving the summons and complaint in the manner prescribed by the law of that state for the service of summons or other like process upon any such defendant."

Service on the United States (the only other defendant in the suit) is also a simple matter. Rule 4(i)(1) says:

"Service upon the United States shall be effected

(A) by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the United States attorney for the district in which the action is brought or to an assistant United States attorney or clerical employee designated by the United States attorney in a writing filed with the clerk of the court or by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States attorney and

(B) by also sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, District of Columbia . . ."

In fact, Rule 4 makes service of process in Federal Court cases increadibly easy. It can even be done by mail in some instances. Obviously, our commenter is not familiar with the rule.

The Federal judge' s February 8, 2007 scheduling order DID NOT SAY that the scheduling conference OR the scheduling report COULD WAIT for the complaint to be served.

The attorneys for TAMPOA knew or should have known how to obtain service on the defendants.

The Summons in the case was signed on March 20, 2007. The Summons should have been (and ordinarily would have been) prepared back on February 6, 2007 when the Federal suit Complaint was filed; especially if there was any inkling that there would be any difficulty with service of process. According to the Federal Court record in the Clerk's Office, the Summons in the Federal case was not even received by the Federal Court Clerk to sign (using a signature stamp) until March 20, 2007. The Summons must be prepared by the plaintiff's (TAMPOA's) counsel. See Rule 4(b). The one submitted to the Federal court Clerk's Office was hand printed, not typed, suggesting it was done somewhat hastily or in person at the Clerk's office. To be sure, there is nothing technically wrong with hand printing the Summons, but as a routine matter, we would expect such documents to be typed, especially coming from a firm with the alleged reputation of the one TAMPOA has hired.

If Counsel for the defendants will not waive service of process, as was alleged to be the case here, service can be made in the manner described above. As a matter of courtesy to each other, lawyers waive service all the time, unless their clients instruct them not to do so. It is simply not credible to assert that the City or the United States or their counsel were "avoiding service." Why would they, when they know what the Federal Rules provide?

The reality here appears to be that service was NOT made until March 28, 2007 on the United States and perhaps not at all on the City. The United States has said it did not receive the Summons and Amended Complaint until March 28 in its motion for an extension of time that the federal judge denied as moot.

The judge's February 8 order was crystal clear and contained a clear warning about non-compliance:"[f]ailure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth [in the February 8, 2007 order] may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs." The scheduling order required that a joint scheduling conference be held by April 7, 2007 and that a report be filed by April 20, 2007. Service had been made before April 7. The judge was not provided any valid excuse for missing the April deadlines. They were either forgotten or ignored.

The failure of TAMPOA's attorneys to abide by the deadlines in the Federal judge's Scheduling Order of February 8, 2007 that resulted in dismissal of the Federal suit can't be excused by the alleged, but unsubstantiated claim that the defendants avoided accepting service. Regardless of whether the defendants were avoiding service, it was still the respondibility of the plaintiff's attorneys to abide by the scheduling order. If that meant having to get the defendants served back in February, (instead of sometime after March 20) then that's what the lawyers should have done. The plain truth is they did not. In fact none of the lawyers in the case even asked the judge to change the deadlines or to give the parties additional of time to comply with the Scheduling Order. One can't blame the judge for letting the parties know he wasn't kidding about the deadlines he set.

The Anonymous commenter, without any evidence or knowledge of Federal Court procedure (or Federal law), states, "The suit was dismissed merely as an administrative item. When they are successfully served, the scheduling meeting will be held." This statement alone shows the disinformation spin being put on the facts by those who will buy any silly excuse to believe that TAMPOA and its attorneys can make no mistakes. What the Anonymous commenter does not get is that the Federal suit HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND THE CASE FILE CLOSED by the Federal Court. It now does not matter now that the defendants "are [or were] successfully served." The federal lawsuit filed in February is over and will have to be refiled. In essence, TAMPOA must start over.

It is also bogus to say, as our ignorant Anonymous commter does, that "The suit was dismissed merely as an administrative item." The commenter wants you to believe that the dismissal was a trivial thing, but it is not. The truth is the suit is done for unless and until it is refiled. All the time between February and now to get the litigation well underway has now been lost and effectively wasted.

And, what about the money spent? Who exactly in TAMPOA will mind the billings from the lawyers to see (if one can) whether TAMPOA gets charged for whatever work that now needs to be re-done? Will that be the TAMPOA Board? Likely not. More important, even if the TAMPOA attorneys absorb the cost of re-filing, it is impossible to absorb or recoup the opportunity costs that have been lost as a result of the case being dismissed. That time is lost, and is time which has value to TAMPOA members -- almost three months more that, despite any speed in resolution, members must wait for answers sought by the lawsuit. Moreover, all the time and energy the TAMPOA Board members and others have invested in supporting the lawsuit has been largely wasted by this result. Sadly, all that time and energy must now be reinvested again.

Federal Court Dismisses TAMPOA Suit!

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami has dismissed TAMPOA's federal suit against the City and the Navy for "[f]ailure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth" by the Court's February 8, 2007 scheduling order. That order required that counsel hold a joint scheduling conference by April 7, 2007 and file a joint scheduling report by April 20, 2007. TAMPOA and its counsel, according to the Court's dismissal order, did not comply with the April 20 deadline and had not done so by the time the court, on its own, entered its dismissal order on April 25, 2007.

In its order the court cautioned (in bold type) that its February 8, 2007 order had cautioned counsel that the "[f]ailure of counsel to file a joint scheduling report within the deadlines set forth [in the February 8, 2007 order] may result in dismissal, default, and the imposition of other sanctions including attorney's fees and costs."

The Federal District Judge was serious in his warning. He issued his dismissal "sua sponte" (meaning on his own and without urging from any party to the suit).

The judge dismissed TAMPOA's suit "without prejudice" and indicated "[t]his case is CLOSED." (Caps in the original). The court also denied as moot the Navy's motion requesting more time to respond to the suit. The judge further indicated that should TAMPOA re-file the lawsuit "without a substantial change in issues or parties," TAMPOA is to "notify the Clerk of Court of the existence of the newly filed action" and the new case will be assigned to the same judge.

Now, if the suit is refiled, TAMPOA will start out with a judge whose order it has already violated and a judge TAMPOA has already made unhappy. Nice going TAMPOA. How conducive is that to winning?

What a travesty TAMPOA now has to explain to its members at tomorrow's Board meeting. This lawsuit was supposed to be the case against the Navy and the City that would definitively answer the Southard Street questions and give TAMPOA needed leverage to force the City to settle. Instead, TAMPOA and its attorneys look like rank amateurs not ready for prime time. Once again, TAMPOA's reputation suffers and gives all those who already hate us more reason to gloat.

And just when was the TAMPOA Board going to tell anyone of this debacle? The Board, and certainly its President, have to have known about this since April 25, 2007, yet not a peep to the membership. Did they think no one would find out? And just when was the Board going to say something? At the insulated little Board meeting tomorrow?

This Board has bad-mouthed The Citizen for being biased toward TAMPOA, yet the Board would rather the membership read this bad news in The Citizen. That in itself is another travesty; just another instance of the lack of effective communication with TAMPOA members.

Big question: Who now pays for the cost of this lawsuit that is now down the tubes? And if TAMPOA chooses to re-file, who pays for that cost? Of course you already know the answer to that one. More importantly, who will take responsibility for the failure to do what was required by the Federal Court Order and for the failure to do what could have been done to avoid the dismissal? Is it time yet for a change in direction?

Is Verge Still In The Negotiation Loop With TAMPOA?

His comments in The Citizen would seem to indicate that he's part of the secret negotiations going on with TAMPOA. In an effort to prevent "leaks" TAMPOA has cut off virtually all communication with its members. Something is in the works according to Verge who says, "I think we are close." We don't think he was just talking about the Waterfront Project when he made that comment.

Of course, the City and TAMPOA have been "close" before, so no one should bet the farm on what Verge or TAMPOA is saying. The City Commission has the final say and it's any one's guess where their heads are. Some may be getting worried, though, that because of their pussy-footing around, they are heading for a loss of the Waterfront Property, just like they lost the Truman Annex.

The TAMPOA Board Meets Tomorrow

The TAMPOA Board meets tomorrow, April 30, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. at the TAMPOA office. As part of the agenda, President Tukey is expected to report on how TAMPOA has been spending our money on litigation with the City, TAMPOA's legal fees, and his view of the proposed assisted living facility on the Truman Waterfront. His report should be quite interesting.

Somewhere along the way the minutes of the April 2, 2007 Board meeting will get discussed (or not) and approved. Maybe you'll eventually see them in your email, maybe you won't. But they'll be buried in the TAMPOA office if you really want to look at them. It would be nice if TAMPOA would send them out to the membership though, don't you think?

The Architectural Control Committee will also weigh in with a report. (We've got to maintain our "prestige community," after all).The Committee will tell us how we are doing in that regard. (We suspect we need more "prestige" as well as more "community," but the Committee will let us know). We're all ears.

Of some interest under "New Business" on the agenda is a review of the need for a "legal opinion on storm drainage." We had thought TAMPOA was done with that quite awhile ago.

For those transient rental fanatics, under "New Business" is also a "request to expand allowable annual rentals from 16 to 25."

Isn't it nice that there is always something interesting and entertaining going on every time the Board meets?

By the way, this is probably the last Board meeting for the TAMPOA and other snow birds. Y'all have a nice summer in Coolville.

Was Renting Smarter Than Buying?

"[I]t’s now clear that people who chose renting over buying in the last two years made the right move." See for yourself. It turns out that recent home buyers have faced higher monthly costs than renters and have lost money on their investment. Home prices are still too high to make buying a more attractive option than renting, unless you plan to keep a home for many many years. No matter which way you cut it, the costs of buying a home are much more now than the costs of renting. No wonder then that no houses are selling in Truman Annex.

It is likely to be quite some time before this situation turns around. Meanwhile those in the Annex who want to get out are stuck. Not only is there the problem of the real estate market generally, another factor that inhibits buying in the Annex, by any sane person, is the uncertainty over the path of the litigation TAMPOA is pursuing and its impact on new residents of Truman Annex. Will they really live in a gated community as prospective buyers are being promised? Will the assessments of TAMPOA members continue to spiral out of control? Realtors will have difficulty convincing any wise buyer that there is any certainty regarding the future assessments or the outcome of the TAMPOA litigation. Wise buyers are simply not going to take on those risks when they can easily buy elsewhere.

Who is to blame for this state of affairs? Well, there is enough to go around, and it is useless to finger-point -- enough of that has been done. What we need to realize in the Annex is that while we can't control the general real estate market, we can control one aspect of the effect on it with regard to the Annex. Instead of tolerating a terrible state of affairs, we ought to get busy and fix our problems within the Annex so that our community will not continue to stagnate as it has done for the last four years. At least when the real estate market (if the market) begins to turn around, we'll be able to take advantage of the turnaround instead of watching it go by.

Here's Another Fine Mess. . . Part 2

In our initial post about the TAMPOA Federal Suit we reviewed who the parties and the attorneys were and the theory behind why TAMPOA believes the matter belongs in Federal Court. Now let's take a look at some of the history behind the suit.

The story begins during World War II. Early on, it was a war we were not winning, and the United States was concerned about the security of its Southern and Eastern Coastline. As part of the war effort, the United States determined that it needed to expand the Key West Navy Base. The government wanted the waterfront area which we now think of as Truman Annex. The United States started a condemnation proceeding in the U. S. District Court -- the same court in which the TAMPOA Federal Suit is now pending. As a result of the condemnation proceeding, the City of Key West conveyed to the United States all of its rights, title and interest in the land known as the Truman Annex Parcel, including, according to the TAMPOA complaint, "any such streets and roadways." The Truman Annex Parcel is the area of land measuring 32.98 acres on which the development we know as Truman Annex was ultimately constructed by Pritam Singh. One of the streets was, of course, Southard Street.

Interestingly, Southard Street is not called "Southard Street" in the TAMPOA federal complaint. Instead Southard is referred to as the "Private Street." If you are the least bit familiar with Key West, however, you know darn well TAMPOA is referring to Southard, and you may be tempted to ask what kind of a psychological mind game the TAMPOA lawyers are playing with the Federal Court. But hold on, there may be a reason for what appears to be an ineffective attempt at a mind meld.

You see, TAMPOA doesn't claim it owns ALL of Southard Street, and the Navy didn't take ALL of Southard. The street continues to run north of what is now known as the Truman Annex Southard Street entrance. That portion of the street, north of the Annex entrance, remained the property of the City, and still does today. The TAMPOA lawyers, therefore, may be trying to differentiate the "private" Southard from the "public" Southard. That's a legitimate technique and one that gets the judge thinking about and calling the street private from the get go. Hey, the technique comes right out of Legal Writing 101 -- if you are going to frame the issues, make sure you do so in a way that is not only clear to the judge, but favorable to your side.

Whether the technique is artfully executed is not for us to say but for you, and ultimately the judge, to determine. If you begin to be persuaded, then the technique may be effective. If your reaction is why couldn't the lawyers simply have said the "private portion of Southard" instead of "the Private Street," when everyone is going to be calling it Southard Street anyway, then the technique doesn't work for you. We'll see. Nonetheless, you have to give it to the TAMPOA lawyers; they're inventive, and the term, Private Street, does have a bit of Spock-like precision to it.

But back to our story. The TAMPOA Complaint alleges that from 1942 until March 11, 1987 the Navy used Southard street as one of two entrances to the Key West Navy Base. That's true, in that Southard was one of the main gates to the base. However, there were several gates to the base.

During the 45 years when the base was operative and Southard Street from Thomas Street South to the water was part of the base property, the Navy controlled access to that part of Southard Street. The complaint also asserts that during the time the Navy owned the Truman Annex Parcel, the Navy allowed visitors to use Southard Street to go to the Fort Zachary Taylor State Park on the Waterfront.

As many of you know, the Navy base actually began in 1845 as part of the Fort Zachary Taylor army base. Fort Zachary Taylor, was originally a Union Army fort that played a roll in the Civil War. The base was eventually taken over in 1947 as the "Fort Zachary Taylor Annex" to the Key West Naval Station. New docks had been added in 1932 to make it a home base for submarines. Submarine warfare was important in World War II and explains why the Navy wanted to expand its waterfront operations in Key West.

In 1968, volunteers began to excavate the old armaments in the gun rooms of Fort Taylor. In 1971, Fort Taylor was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1973, the fort was designated a National Historic Landmark.

The Navy Base was mostly decommissioned in 1974 because nuclear submarines were too big. The Base at Key West finally was put on the list to be permanently closed.

In 1977, the federal government offered to lease the Truman Annex Parcel of the closed base to the City of Key West. The City and the federal government had lengthy negotiations while the City struggled to find the money to eventually buy the property. For a time, during the off and on negotiations with the City, the Truman Annex Parcel was leased to the Key West non-profit economic development corporation, the Key West & Lower Keys Development Corporation. After that, the Parcel was leased to the Development Corporation's successor, the State of Florida's Redevelopment Agency, pursuant to Title III, Section 163 of the Florida Statutes.

The City government of Key West has never been swimming in dough and has always had to struggle through one blunder or another to raise or conserve its funds, and the years after the Navy Base closed were no different. (My own connection to Key West as well as my name comes from my godfather who became the Administrator of Key West when the City went bankrupt in 1935).

The efforts of the City to buy the Truman Annex Parcel from the Navy were destined to and did ultimately fail. Much like it has done with the efforts to develop its current newly acquired waterfront property, the City pussy-footed around in moving ahead to raise the funds and do what was necessary to close the deal with the Navy -- the Navy wanted the City to get the property -- but the City bungled the deal. When the lease on the Truman Annex Parcel ended, the United States, in 1986, put the property up for public auction.

Next time: enter Pritam Singh. Stay tuned. . .

"Here's Another Fine Mess You've Gotten Me Into"

That's what Oliver Hardy used to say to Stanley Laurel, and it may apply to the Federal lawsuit filed February 6, 2007 by TAMPOA against the United States and the City of Key West. You, ultimately, will have to be the judge. This lawsuit is, to say the least, complicated and fact intensive. To sort out the claims and the issues will require significant time. The complaint alone is 35 pages long! It contains eight (8) counts. We've been studying the lawsuit and doing some fact gathering of our own. In the coming weeks we'll be trying to help you understand what this matter is really all about. It's complicated and not something that can be explained in a paragraph or two -- if you want to understand it, that is. So, we'll start with the players and bring you the play by play in installments. There are some surprises, so stay tuned.

Let's start the story with the players. Truman Annex Master Property Owners' Association (TAMPOA) is the plaintiff. There are two defendants: The United States of America and The City of Key West. The case is styled by the TAMPOA attorneys as having been brought by TAMPOA "individually and on behalf of its members who own residential properties within the Truman Annex Planned Residential Development." (TAPRD) (More on the TAPRD later). Ordinarily this phraseology "individually and on behalf of . . ." is used indicate that the lawsuit is being brought as a class action, although there is nothing else in the complaint specifically requesting that the case be certified by the court as a class action. In addition the Civil Cover Sheet (a document that the plaintiff's lawyers filing the case have to fill out) provides a box to check if the case is being brought as a class action, and the box is not checked. However, the TAMPOA attorneys can ask the court to certify the case as a class action later in the proceedings, but this will have to be done before too much else transpires if TAMPOA really wants to make the case a class action.

Why is whether this case is ultimately certified as a class action significant? It is because it may affect whether you, as an individual homeowner in the Annex may be bound by what happens in the federal court and may affect whether you, individually, can ever contest a result you are not happy with. So, one point that needs to be clarified by TAMPOA for Annex residents, as well as for anyone thinking of buying in the Annex, is whether TAMPOA intends to seek class certification for the lawsuit.

Even if, however, TAMPOA does not intend to seek class action certification, the outcome of the lawsuit may well affect the rights of all residents of the Annex. From that standpoint alone, Annex residents need to pay attention to what happens in this case. In fact, this lawsuit could turn out to be the most important lawsuit in the history of the relationship between the Annex and the City.

TAMPOA, so far, is not seeking money damages from any defendant nor has TAMPOA requested a jury trial. According to the complaint the federal Quiet Title Act is what TAMPOA relies upon for its claim that the federal court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, TAMPOA claims, provides authority for the court to issue a declaratory judgment in the case.

Who are the attorneys for the parties to the lawsuit? So far, the only official information from the court file shows who the attorneys are for TAMPOA. They are (in order of their listing in the court's file) William Eric Andersen of The Andersen Firm, Key West, Florida and Lynn Edward Wagner also of The Andersen Firm. (Lynn Wagner's office address of The Andersen Firm seems correctly listed in the court's file but there may be a mix up in the data regarding Wagner's current firm affiliation with that of another firm in the court's online attorneys' database connected with this case -- the document we looked at showed Wagner's firm affiliation as "Rumrell Wagner & Costabel," but our investigation leads us to believe that part of the document showing such an affiliation at the time the case was filed is incorrect). The complaint which bears both Andersen's name, Wagner's name, and The Andersen Firm name and Key West office address is signed by Lynn Wagner.

We don't yet know yet who will represent the United States, except that it will be someone from the United States Department of Justice. We also don't know if the Key West City Attorney, Shawn Smith (whose name was listed on the Cover Sheet), will represent the City of Key West or whether the City will retain outside counsel. We are likely to learn that "shortly, " that is, shortly in terms of the pace of litigation.

Stay tuned for more . . .

Here We Go!

Flash! In a somewhat disjointed story the Key West Citizen reports this morning about the filing (earlier this month) of TAMPOA's lawsuit over the easement derived from the United States General Services Administration's Quit Claim deed conveying what is now the Truman Annex property to developer, Pritam Singh. The Citizen may have been scooped, however by Key West blogger, Bob Kelly, who writes for the Bahamma Village Blog and who first reported the filing in his Valentines Day post.

Actually, there's more to the Federal Suit story. (Nothing in Truman Annex is simple).We'll have more on this story a bit later. Stay tuned.