Mountain Park Life



Remember me

Main Menu
 · Home
 · The Stand
 · News
 · Traffic
 · Community
 · Members
 · Forum
 · Recipes
 · Polls
 · About

bullet editor
Jun 01 : 17:00
Members, post announcements in the Chat that don't seem to fit in the Forum such as Happy Birthday, Welcome New Baby, etc. Get "social."

Mountain Park Life :: Forums :: City Issues
<< Previous thread | Next thread >>   

Latest Lake Litigation Developments

Author Post
Fri Sep 24 2010, 05:46am
Registered Member #390
Joined: Wed Jun 10 2009, 10:29pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 26
More bad news for Mountain Park is evident from the recent litigation pleadings as trial nears. One of the remaining defendants, Crabapple Development (also known as Rochlin Holdings) has announced it has no assets and will not defend the litigation further.

Also, this week the insurer for Peachtree Residential, Central Mutual Insurance, has filed suit in Federal District Court (the same Court hearing the Lake Garrett litigation) asking the court to determine that it is NOT liable to pay any claims that might result from the lake litigation. Mountain Park has been named as a defendant in the new lawsuit. (More litigation costs for Mountain Park...)

So this is where the defendant list now stands:

Lakeside at Ansley/Chatham Holdings – claims to be uninsured and insolvent; and is the party responsible for a majority of the damage according to Mountain Park litigation documents. Chatham has been through a bankruptcy before. Good luck collecting from this group.

Day Investments II – insured, but according to Mountain Park litigation documents, is responsible for a small part of the damage (less than 15%).

Peachtree Residential – as noted above, the insurer for Peachtree Residential has filed suit claiming it is not responsible for any damage (the insurer contends the Mountain Park litigation claims are not covered by the insurance policy). Also, according to Mountain Park litigation documents, Peachtree Residential is responsible for a small part of the damage (less than 15%).

Woomer Construction (settled for about $100k and dismissed as a defendant).

Crabapple Development a/k/a Rochlin Holdings (Bankrupt and won’t defend).

Brookfield Counry Club/Homeowner’s Assn/St. James-Brookfield, LLC (Settled for $100k and dismissed as a defendant).

Who is left standing to pay? What a nice position to enter the trial, and with Mountain Park legal fees and expenses now at $2 million.
Back to top
Dutch Uncle
Fri Sep 24 2010, 02:37pm
Registered Member #120
Joined: Wed Mar 22 2006, 12:06am
{LOCATION}Posts: 54
If this represents the "slam dunk" the citizens were promised by Julia and Claire-Murray, we should be thankful that this was not a challenging case to bring. They were advised against this course of action and turned a deaf ear. Why?
Back to top
Sat Sep 25 2010, 02:49am
Registered Member #424
Joined: Fri Aug 06 2010, 09:06pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 18
Lakeside at Ansley, LLC is set up with the agent being a lawyer (Jernigan, Keith A.) as the contact through the Secretary of State information.
This is normal, then you expense out all the income and hold the least amount of assets that you can. If we had managed our risks equivalent to how they managed theirs, we wouldn’t have the worries.

He must be their main guy or he has a lot of clients doing this unless he is part of the action.

Jernigan, Keith A.

The status of each is relevant as an LLC is easy to dissolve as long as there are no claims against it. There's no way to tell how many are Chatham's but this agent represents a lot of LLC affiliated with real estate and development.


I can’t imagine a lawyer not having insurance unless there was another arrangement for self-insurance and he gets paid for that, a little would be better than none.

Back to top
Sat Sep 25 2010, 03:41am
Registered Member #390
Joined: Wed Jun 10 2009, 10:29pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 26
The lawyer's insurance is irrelevant. I have served as Registered Agent for many, many clients, and have never been responsible for the client's business risks. Mountain Park is only interested in the developer's insurance, not the registered agent.

You are right, though about the entity having limited assets. That is why developers use single purpose entities for their development activities.
Back to top
Sat Sep 25 2010, 02:52pm
Registered Member #424
Joined: Fri Aug 06 2010, 09:06pm
{LOCATION}Posts: 18
The most relevant point is an attorney on a contingency would have counseled clients on solutions which seek the best financial position and investigate to see if the entities were worth suing because it was in the attorney's best interest too. Martin Shelton must have some knowledge about them.

Frequently but not always, they just formed LLC's, bought the land, developed it and then sold lots to home builders with the remaining property becoming public property or dedicated to an association. They sometimes hold a few lots in the name of the LLC after that.
There are situations to litigate the individuals behind the LLC's and corporations if it can be proven they did an illegal act.

I meant, an attorney's advice should have been to inform them to have insurance, if asked and nothing to do with his insurance as an attorney. At some point they should have had insurance and it should cover claims made covering that time interval all with exceptions, if the claim was covered by that particular policy considering their numerous and very general exemptions.
Back to top
Moderators: bt, Archive, editor

Jump:     Back to top

Forum theme loosely based on Invision Power Board

© Mountain Park Life 2006 All Rights Reserved is a community site for the City of Mountain Park.
Render time: 0.0567 sec, 0.0088 of that for queries.