BACKGROUND
Resident Jude Davis spoke at the WPA monthly Board Meeting last evening. She has provided The Wedgefield Examiner a copy of her presentation, which is provided below. Her presentation provides information to the Board and residents on the settled dredging lawsuit brought by Zieske, Thomas, and Wilson.
George Wilson spoke on the same subject during the December Board Meeting. You can read his transcribed presentation in the report titled, "WILSON INSTRUCTS THE BOARD ON THEIR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AS IT RELATES TO THE "SETTLED" LAW SUIT", at this site.
HERE IS JUDE DAVIS' PRESENTATION:
-------------------------
"Thank you for letting me speak tonight. I hope to clear up some of the misconceptions that seem to be floating around the Plantation. The lawsuit filed in October, 2009 by Carol Zieske, Fred Thomas, and George Wilson was DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE on November 16, 2011 by order of Judge Larry Hyman.
I have provided each of you with a copy of the signed order and would like to call your attention to a few salient points. I have highlighted and numbered each point.
- DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE A dismissal with prejudice is dismissal of a case on merits after adjudication. The plaintiff is barred from bringing an action on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgement. Since Carol, Fred and George brought this case 'on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation Association,' this means that all members of WPA are barred from bringing any other suit using the information presented in this case. This dismissal precludes additional supplemental lawsuits.
The second point that I would like to call your attention to is on page two.
2. "The State, Plaintiffs, and other named Defendants acknowledge that this order is no way
addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield
Plantation Association regarding, the maintenance, dredging, or any other activity
pertaining to the canal and, therefore, this order in no way addresses or rules upon those
rights, duties, or obligations."
The defendants in this suit pushed to resolve this canal issue once and for all. We wanted to have the court rule on responsibility. Our lawyer, Mike Smith, approached Turner Perrow, the plaintiffs' lawyer about resolving, once and for all, the canal issues. Mike was prepared to argue on behalf of the defendants that we had a responsibility to maintain the canals, however, Turner informed Mike that his clients 'were not interested in going there.' Why not? After two years, they weren't interested in pursuing the charges THEY brought.
And finally, look at page three.
3. "The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the
dredging of the canals, the financing of the canals and the collection of assessments
from the members of the Wedgefield Plantation Association and for other acts allegedly
performed by these defendants and more fully described in the complaint and, therefore,
this Order, in no way, finds or establishes any wrongdoing by the Defendants."
According to THIS ORDER, the defendants did no wrong. This includes the assessments and the bank loan. Collect the supplemental assessments without worry of legal prosecution. Carol, Fred and George AGREED on behalf of Wedgefield Plantation that there was no wrong doing.
I heard George say that the Board had started legal proceedings against the bank. I do not know if Mr. Moody had a copy of this order before he made inquiries about possible action, but, hopefully, he has stopped any inquiries. When did the Board vote to sue the bank? I seem to have missed that action. The bank DID do their homework. At the August, 2009 Board of Directors Meeting, the Funding Committee recommended a plan to finance the dredging including the terms of the loan and the supplemental assessments. (This was one of four plans that the Funding Committee presented to the entire Board the night before and was the one that the Board felt was the most reasonable). According to the written minutes of this meeting, the entire Board VOTED to accept this plan by a vote of 7-2. Fred is yelling about wanting his money back. He needed to think about that before he signed the dismissal order. He lost his, and the WPA's, opportunity.
The two checks for $7500 from the insurance company were a cheap way for them to remove themselves from this suit, not an admission of the merits. They are no longer involved with Wedgefield.
The original suit was dismissed, yet the counter suit remains. As some of you have come to realize, unsubstantiated charges of wrongdoing are actionable in a court of law."
PLEASE NOTE: I have retyped Jude Davis' presentation. If there are typing errors, poor alignment, etc. they are my deficiencies, not hers.
PLEASE NOTE: I have retyped Jude Davis' presentation. If there are typing errors, poor alignment, etc. they are my deficiencies, not hers.
-------------------------
Jude Davis provided each Board Member with a copy of the final order. She also provided one to The Wedgefield Examiner. The blog program will only accept pictures of documents or jigs. I have typed the portions of the doucment that she has numbered or highlighted. The document is on file here and should be in the WPA office. Here they are:
# 1. "ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS"
# 2. "The State, Plaintiffs and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way
addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield
Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity
pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order, in no way addresses or rules upon
those rights, duties, or obligations. "
# 3. "The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the
dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the
Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these
defendants and moe fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no
way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."
# 1. "ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS"
# 2. "The State, Plaintiffs and other named Defendants acknowledge that this Order in no way
addresses any rights, duties or obligations of the Board of Directors for Wedgefield
Plantation Association regarding the maintenance, dredging or any other activity
pertaining to the canals and, therefore, this Order, in no way addresses or rules upon
those rights, duties, or obligations. "
# 3. "The Defendants specifically deny any wrongdoing associated with the votes for the
dredging of the canals and the collection of assessments from the members of the
Wedgefield Plantation Association and for any other acts allegedly performed by these
defendants and moe fully described in the complaint and, therefore, this Order, in no
way, finds or establishes any such wrongdoing by the Defendants."
-------------------------
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? Send them to wedgefieldexaminer@yahoo.com. Be sure and specify whether you want your name used.
