Latest news with #SixthDistrictCourtofAppeal
USA Today
a day ago
- Business
- USA Today
Developer tees up appeal, fights ruling that preserves Florida golf course until 2030
Developer tees up appeal, fights ruling that preserves Florida golf course until 2030 A legal battle involving the former Riviera Golf Course has taken another turn. In February, a circuit court judge ruled the property in East Naples must remain a golf course until 2030. The ruling handed a partial victory to the Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association, which sued the property's owners for declaratory and injunctive relief in 2022, in hopes of blocking their attempts to build homes on the land. The victory, however, could be short-lived, with an appeal filed. La Minnesota, the owner of the golf course property, is challenging the lower court's decision in Florida's Sixth District Court of Appeal. In an initial brief filed June 6, the property owners argue the judgment "must be reversed because itfundamentally rewrote Florida's Marketable Record Title Act," known for short as MRTA, by allowing an affidavit "to preserve ancient deed restrictions." In its civil suit, the homeowners association claimed the recording of the affidavit, prior to a deed conveyance in 1990, constituted an exception to MRTA, preserving a restrictive covenant placed on the land in 1973. In her ruling, Collier Circuit Judge Lauren Brodie agreed, finding the restrictive covenant continues to run with the land, based on a chain of deeds. MRTA allows most recorded documents to be ignored after 30 years, to simplify the purchase and sale of property. Generally, it doesn't automatically extinguish a mortgage. The protective covenant for the golf course property was included as an exhibit to the affidavit, or sworn statement, that's central to the appeal. The covenant required the land to be used solely as a golf course, and for "no other purpose." In its appeal, La Minnesota contends the affidavit was only recorded to confirm the authority needed to transfer ownership of the golf course, and to provide a legal description of the property, not to affirm the restrictive covenant, nor to convey title. The affidavit at issue was signed by Myron Gifford, whose family once owned and operated the Riviera Golf Club, and its golf course. La Minnesota argues nothing in the document "mentions, references, or seeks to preserve" the protective covenant. Judge Brodie determined the covenant remains valid and enforceable – until August 18, 2030, based on the affidavit. Her expiration date for the covenant is based on what she determined to be the "root of title," or root deed for the property, established in 2000. A title transfer that year did not reference the official record books and page numbers for the 1973 or 1990 deeds, or the affidavit. Brodie's ruling on Feb. 6 followed a one-day bench trial in December. More about the developer's appeal In its appeal, La Minnesota contends Judge Brodie's ruling is flawed because it redefines and misinterprets state statute, and essentially "defeats MRTA's purpose" to 'extinguish claims" that are at least 30 years old. "Allowing any affidavit to circumvent MRTA's requirements would swallow the rule and perpetuate the very 'stale claims' that MRTA was designed to eliminate," the appeal states. La Minnesota asserts the lower court used the wrong root of title, and the wrong document, to uphold an exception to MRTA. It points to a corrected deed recorded in August 1990 that did not include the affidavit, claiming that it should be considered as the last transaction "affecting title to the property recorded more than 30 years ago." If that deed became the starting point, the covenant would have been extinguished in 2020, "as a matter of law," the appeal states, allowing development to move forward. La Minnesota characterizes the legal fight with homeowners as "more than a dispute between private parties," but one that "threatens MRTA's effectiveness throughout Florida." If the lower court's ruling is allowed to stand, La Minnesota argues the consequences will be significant. "If this court affirms the lower court's errors, no property owner in Florida can rely on MRTA's 30-year limitation period. Title examiners will be forced to search every document ever recorded, no matter how tangentially related to a deed. The statutory scheme the Legislature carefully crafted to bring certainty to real estate transactions will collapse," the appeal states. An attorney for La Minnesota could not immediately be reached for comment on the appeal. Homeowners prepared to fight appeal In an email, Peter Osinski, a board director for Riviera Golf Estates, and a chairman of its Golf Course Working Group, said the homeowners association sees the initial brief by La Minnesota in its appeal as "a repackaging of the unsuccessful arguments they presented in the trial." He shared: "Our attorneys are well into working on the rebuttal, which will be filed in early July." La Minnesota, based in Lilydale, Minnesota, purchased the public golf course for $4.8 million in 2005, with redevelopment in mind. Located off Rattlesnake Hammock Road, just west of County Barn Road, the course has been closed since April 2022. Riviera Golf Estates, a 55-plus gated community, built between 1967 and 2003, has nearly 700 homes. It's intertwined with the 18-hole golf course. Residents are worried about the impact of the new development on their property values and their way of life. They're concerned about the potential for more flooding, noise and traffic in what's described as a peaceful and friendly neighborhood, offering a relaxed lifestyle, to seniors, including retirees. A petition to stop development of the golf course on started more than five years ago, garnered more than 1,500 signatures by county residents. Multiple attempts by homeowners in Riviera Golf Estates to purchase the property have failed, including one that involved the county. Lawsuit against the county still on hold In November 2021, La Minnesota filed an intent to convert application with Collier County's Planning & Zoning Department, initiating the process needed to change the golf course zoning to residential. It faced an uphill battle, triggering a lawsuit against the county, brought under Florida's Bert Harris property rights act. In that suit, La Minnesota claimed they'd been "inordinately burdened" by the county's new rules for rezoning a golf course. They alleged golf course conversion rules adopted in 2017 had burdened "the reasonably foreseeable residential use of the property with new cumbersome processes and new development standards." La Minnesota asserted the county's requirement for a larger greenway, instead of a traditional buffer to shield its development from the surrounding community would slice the number of single-family homes it could build on its property from 346 to 104. The developers valued their property losses – equating to 242 homes – at $14.52 million. The county asked for a "stay," or pause, in that legal spat, until the lawsuit filed by the Riviera Golf Estates Homeowners Association in the same court played out. La Minnesota agreed to the county's request. If the court sided with the association, the county's attorneys reasoned the Bert Harris claims would then become "moot," as La Minnesota wouldn't be able to build homes on the site anyway, or at least not right away. Court records show that case as inactive, not disposed, with a status conference scheduled for December. It's Collier County's policy not to comment on pending litigation. If La Minnesota's Bert Harris lawsuit is revived, the Riviera homeowners association intends to intervene, in support of the county, and its golf course conversion rules, Osinski said. The association, he said, has unearthed information that could cast doubt on the viability of that case. "It is our intention to keep fighting and advocating, and we're not giving up," Osinski said.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Yahoo
Judge grants release of ex-49ers Dana Stubblefield
The Brief A judge granted the release of former 49er Dana Stubblefield from prison. His release comes after an appeals court overturned his rape conviction in December. The appeals court overturned the conviction after determining that prosecutors made racially discriminatory statements during his trial. SAN JOSE, Calif. - Former 49ers star Dana Stubblefield will be freed from prison after an appeals court granted his petition for release. What they're saying "Finally, an innocent man is no longer sitting in a cage away from his family," said his attorney, Kenneth Rosenfeld. "The Court of Appeals issued a forceful, unanimous ruling proving bias in Dana's case. And their ruling was only the tip of the iceberg – the entire trial was infected with error and bias from the start." Stubblefield's 2020 rape conviction was overturned by the Sixth District Court of Appeal in December after determining prosecutors made racially discriminatory statements during his trial. He remained in custody until a hearing Friday morning, where his attorney asked a judge to approve a motion for his release, which was granted. He is expected to be released by Saturday. Prosecutors could have asked the court to stay their decision so they could appeal to the state Supreme Court or refile the charges. The backstory The retired football player was sentenced to 15 years to life for the rape of a woman in 2015, whom prosecutors said he lured to his home with the promise of a babysitting job. The woman reported to police that Stubblefield raped her at gunpoint, then gave her $80 and let her go. DNA evidence matched that of Stubblefield, according to a report from the Morgan Hill Police Department. The appeals court found that prosecutors violated the California Racial Justice Act of 2020, a law passed during a summer of protest over the police killing of George Floyd. The measure bars prosecutors from seeking a criminal conviction or imposing a sentence on the basis of race. Prior to the law, defendants who wanted to challenge their convictions on the basis of racial bias had to prove there was "purposeful discrimination," a difficult legal standard to meet. The appeals court said prosecutors used "racially discriminatory language" that required them to overturn Stubblefield's conviction. During the trial, prosecutors said Morgan Hill police never searched Stubblefield's house and never introduced a gun into evidence, saying it was because he was a famous Black man and it would "open up a storm of controversy," according to the appellate decision. By saying Stubblefield's race was a factor in law enforcement's decision not to search his house, prosecutors implied the house would've been searched and a gun found had Stubblefield not been Black, the appeals court said. Defense attorneys said there was no rape, and Stubblefield said the woman consented to sex in exchange for money. The Source The Law Offices of Allen Sawyer.
