Grove Isle Board distributes lawyers’ memorandum of 3/25

The Grove Isle Condominium Association Board has forwarded residents a copy of the latest memorandum from their lawyers Weiss Serota Helfman.  It is based on conclusions regarding the developer’s presentation at the Club last week.  They added that Commissioner Sarnoff has asked for non-binding mediation between the Grove Isle Association and the developer. The City Attorney is to wait for completion of this mediation process before rendering a new Opinion Letter.   A meeting with Grove Isle owners and our Association attorneys is now being organised.  Residents will be advised of details of a possible meeting early next week.

The Board also confirmed that the Florida Appellate Court on Wednesday revived the Association lawsuit against the previous developer and Club operator. The attorneys are preparing a review of the case that will also be distributed to residents next week.   Please check the communication section for additional information on this topic.

25 March Memorandum from Weiss Serota Attorneys
25 March Memorandum from Weiss Serota Attorneys (click image to open)
Tagged , , , , , , ,

4 thoughts on “Grove Isle Board distributes lawyers’ memorandum of 3/25

  1. DJ says:

    Original developer decided to build something else besides a 4th tower following the original settlement. Zoning was changed to Miami 21 subsequently. Why does present developer feel he has any rights to old settlement? What does Miami 21 allow new developer to build taking into account the representations and amenities the community was given under original development. Do association documents include any of these representations regarding club, hotel, spa, tennis and yacht facilities? Mediation before these items are determined weakens any settlement process.


  2. Theodore 55 says:

    Was the sale/purchase of the property in conformity with association rules or state/county/city laws? Were the board or residents supposed to have been informed prior to the sale? What happens it is found to have been malfeasance on behalf of either or both partes? Have our attorneys looked into this?

    Regarding the memo, is it normal procedure to go into non-binding mediation before anything moves at city level? What is the board’s position going into the mediation? Isn’t mediation used in disputes? Isn’t it intended to reach an agreement? I don’t see how any kind of agreement can be reached until there isn’t an official opinion from the city. It may end up being a dog and pony show. I hope the Board walks into this mediation meeting with the only objective of opposing ANY kind of development.

    Liked by 1 person

    • susan says:

      Totally agree with the concept that you don’t have mediation until there is a ruling on the memorandum of law. This is all eyewash to help Sarnoff appease the developer who is probably a major contributor to him. The Board should not be taken in by this.


  3. Elizabeth says:

    It is interesting that in neither choice did the architect show driveways leading to the new structure’s parking. The architect’s plans are incomplete and unclear. I don’t think either is feasible on the island.


Leave a Reply to susan Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.