torbjorntrainer1738.blogspot.com
The home was supposed to be builty in the Davenport neighborhood and delivered by SuperiortHomes & Investments LLC in less than 24 But as of Jan. 29, construction still hasn't started on the couple's says Rothman & Tobin P.A.'s Michael Rothman, attorney for the The reason? The project contained environmentallhyprotected species: gopher turtles and sand And that fact kept the projectt from receiving building permits. The Sandells, who live in Devon, are one of four United Kingdom familiezs who have filed suit in Orange Circuit Civil Court againstSuperior Homes, the compan heading up Oakmont Resort Spa's home sales.
The suits allegw that Superior Homes knew before it begahn signing contracts for home purchasee that the endangered species had to be removecd and that the firm breacheds the contracts when it took more than thespecifieed two-year period to "unconditionally construcr the residence." Superior Homes has not yet formally responderd to the complaints. But Richardc Wilkes, owner of the 3-year-old Superior Homes and CEO of Superior GroupManagement LLC, says, "Ther allegations made are completely untrue, and we did not ented into contracts once we knew of the sand skink Meanwhile, his firm says the U.S. Departmentg of the Interior's U.S.
Fish and Wildlifer Service issued a permiton Aug. 22, to the project developer, Oakmont Grovre Venture LLC, allowing it to begin Further, the firm's Web site says it is "committed to the projectt and will honor the full terms and conditionx ofeach purchaser's original signed agreement." Prior knowledge? The plaintiffs learned of Oakmont Resort through offers and presentations by Superiorf in the United Kingdomj in early 2004, say the Orlando-headquartered Superior Homes' parent, The Superior has offices in England, as well as in Davenport, Canada and Spain.
The other plaintiffx are: Paul, Sharon and Scotr Brady of Stafford, England; Andrew Collier, a resident of Cornwall, England; and Philip and Patricia residentsof Hertfordshire, England. After visiting Oakmony while on vacation at various timewin 2004, they each signed agreements to buy homed there, ranging in price from $295,896 to Each one put a 10 percent deposit down on the homes, whicn ranged from $30,952 to $44,379. At no time before acceptinbg their deposits did Superior tell the plaintiffsz that construction would be delayed due to the protected speciees onthe property, the complaints say.
Further, the complaints allegwe that Superior knew as early as April 2003 that the endangeredc species were onthe land. Wilkes says Superior didn't know of the sand skinks until 2005. The complaints say a Dec. 30, 2004, lette r informed home buyers of delays due to the endangered specieas and work relatedto on-site watet management. The letter said the project would startf in early 2005 and the first homes would be completesd in latesummer 2005, according to the complaints. But Collieer claims he never gotthe letter, so he sent in a seconcd 10 percent deposit of $28,629o after getting notified by Superiodr in April 2005 that the projecyt had started.
The other plaintiffs received similarr notices, but didn't send any more money becausre construction of their homes hadnot started. After Superior failedx to deliver their homes withinthe two-year the buyers demanded deposit refunds. Each plaintiff is seekinb morethan $15,000 in damages, court costs and attorneys' fees. But Wilkes says Superior was unable to complet e construction within the contract period becausre the sand skinks werean "acg of God," which allows for an extension beyone the specified two years.
Superior has offered the buyers new contractsd at2004 prices, or the returnn of their deposits if it's able to reselk their lots, but the plaintiffs aren't Rothman says: "They have no faithy anymore." Meanwhile, more than 92 percent of the buyers in Oakmont are movinv ahead, says Wilkes, and "w are working to resolve all outstanding Case Nos.: 07-CA-170, 07-CA-171, 07-CA-172, 07-CA-173 Damagesa sought: More than $15,000 in damages, prejudgmengt interest and lawsuit costs per complaint
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment