Navarre Beach Against Illegal Taxation Committee

A Committee of the Navarre Beach Leaseholders and Residents Association

 

 

Tax Committee Updates

Last Updated 12/27/07

 

Please Note:  Any information deemed privileged or pertinent to our case strategy may be excluded in these public updates.

 

 

 

 

NBAITC Update December 18, 2007

 

There were two hearings during the past two months with significant ramifications, especially for the condominium lessees in our case.

 

First, a hearing was held before Judge Swanson in Santa Rosa County on October 19, 2007 asking him to:

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, these motions were denied by Judge Swanson.

 

 

The second hearing was before Judge Bergosh in Santa Rosa County on November 2, 2007 asking him to:

 

 

 

We were very disappointed when this motion was denied by Judge Bergosh.

 

 

Our attorneys have timely filed Notices of Appeal to the First District Court of Appeal in both cases. The attorneys also asked that these two appeals be consolidated into one appeal covering all issues and that motion has been granted. 

 

Although it is possible we will have to litigate in two different courts (Circuit Court in Milton, and the appeal court in Tallahassee), the attorneys are hopeful that the local proceedings will be allowed to be dormant while the appeal goes forward.  The appeal could take up to a year or longer, and obviously, if it is unsuccessful, the condo lessees will be required to pay taxes on the land, even though that issue has never been litigated.

 

 

Paying of taxes:

 

Per our Attorney, (Mr. Danny Kepner) the "STAY" on the collection of taxes is in effect and will be until the final disposition takes place for the different phases of our suit. Mr. Kepner has stated that if the time comes that any of us are required to pay any portion of the tax bill, his office will be conveying that message through written correspondence to all concerned. The Florida Statute that gives us the right of the "STAY" is F.S. 194.171(3) and can be read by visiting www.flsenate.gov.  When the page opens, click on the "Search Statutes" option at the upper left side of the page. Title XIV lists the statutes that govern taxation  and  Chapter 194 is found within.

 

 F.S 196.199 (2) (b) is another statute worth reading for those who find their way to Title XIV.

 

Note: Should we not prevail in our suit a 12% compounded annual penalty will apply to all unpaid tax bills. 

 

Please understand it is up to each one of us to decide for ourselves whether or not to pay the tax bill or any portion there of during litigation.

 

Another statute to consider is F.S. 194.171(4), which states that if you pay your tax bill while challenging it, the payment is not an admission that the tax is due. This statute goes on to say you may "seek a refund". Should we prevail in our suit  and you are a named plaintiff and have paid your tax bill,you could request a refund on an individual basis by writing a letter to the Florida Department of Revenue. You would identify yourself as having been a named plaintiff in the suit for the given years and thereby request the refund per F.S.194.171(4).

 

As you may know, we are contesting the taxation of the Governmental Leasehold Land as well as the Improvements, with the Land being the primary focus. The rulings could go Three different ways, we may win the Land issue , Land and Improvement issue, or Neither. You may consider  paying a portion of your tax bill by calling the Property Appraisers office @ 850 983-1880 and requesting a breakdown of the cost on the land vs. the improvement.

 

Note: Tax Collector Office personnel can not provide the breakdown cost of the tax bill.  ONLY  Property Appraiser Office personnel can do this breakdown for you.

 

 

The 2007 Tax Law Suit has been filed with the Santa Rosa County Court.

 

Without question, we should all be paying the MSBU Fire Protection and Beach Re-nourishment charges that are shown on our tax bills.

 

 

Update - August 3, 2007

 

 

Three new motions filed

 

Our attorneys have filed three new motions on Monday, July 23, 2007 with Judge Swanson from the Circuit Court of Santa Rosa County. Here is some background for those motions.

 

The original case in 2001 was Ward v. Brown in which 7 named plaintiffs brought a suit to challenge taxes on improvements to leasehold property. A class action suit followed for other leaseholders in 2002 – 2005. While the Ward v. Brown case was litigated through the courts, the class action suit was put on hold until Ward v. Brown was decided.

 

After the decision of the 2001 court case of Ward v. Brown, The attorneys for Ward v. Brown and the class action suits for 2002 – 2005 met with the leaseholders and recommended that the class action suit be voluntarily dismissed. The attorneys felt that since the facts were the same in the class action suit, the outcome would be the same.

 

The class action plaintiffs authorized the attorneys for the consolidated cases of 2002 – 2005, to file a motion to voluntarily dismiss these cases. The attorneys sent to all class members of the four consolidated cases, notice of the filing of the motion on our behalf and the notice of a scheduled hearing on the Voluntary Dismissal motion for July 18, 2006.

 

On the date scheduled for the hearing, the attorneys did not voluntarily dismissal of these cases, as planned and noticed.  Instead, they entered into the Stipulated Judgment of Dismissal. The stipulated Judgment bound all those in the class action suits of 2002 – 2005 to pay taxes on the improvements to leasehold property.

 

The plaintiffs had no notice of any plan or intent to enter into such Stipulated Judgment.

 

This action put us in a disadvantage, because when Judge Bergosh ruled in the current case, that we all should pay our taxes on the improvements, he did so because of the stipulated judgment.

 

The motions filed with Judge Swanson were:

 

 

  1. Motion to intervene

 

The motion to intervene asks Judge Swanson to intervene on our behalf and re-open the class action law suits of 2002-2005.

 

  1. Motion to Vacate the Stipulated Judgment

 

This motion asks the court to set aside the stipulated judgment of those class action cases of 2002-2005, since the plaintiffs were never given notice that a stipulation judgment was being entered into by their attorneys.

 

  1. Motion to Voluntarily dismiss

 

Once the other two motions are granted, this motion will allow us to voluntarily dismiss the action for those years 2002 – 2005 as was our original intent.

 

If these motions are upheld, Judge Bergosh will have to decide our current case based upon current case law.

 

 

NBAITC Update

 

A hearing was held before Judge Gary Bergosh on June 25. The next step is for the attorneys on both sides to agree what was stipulated at the hearing and get the stipulations into a Final Order.

 

Currently the attorneys for both sides can not come to an agreement on some issues. Therefore another hearing may be held for Judge Bergosh to clarify his ruling on the case.

 

Our attorney is pressing for an automatic stay of paying any taxes for improvements and taxes on the land until a final resolution has been made.

 

Once the Final Order has been signed by Judge Bergosh, we have 30 days in which to file an appeal.

 

Transcripts of the June 25th hearing have been reviewed by our attorneys and they have already filed several additional motions on our behalf.

 

This is expected to be a long process until a final result is obtained through the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Florida and we have just had our first of many days in court.

 

As updates on the motions and Final Order occur, we will continue to post any developments on our website.

 

 

Update - June 26, 2007

 

 

Our June 25, 2007 hearing yielded rulings on the following motions:

 

  1. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
  2. Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
  3. Motion to Amend Complaint

 

 

1.  Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Our opponents petitioned the court to dismiss from our case all named plaintiff leaseholders who had not paid the 2006 ad valorem taxes associated with the “improvements” or “building” value of their leasehold property by the date of the filing of the 2006 complaint.  Florida Statute requires payment by the taxpayer of any taxes owed in good faith upon filing a tax challenge or dispute.

 

Ruling:  The Judge ruled in our favor and dismissed this motion.  No named plaintiff leaseholders were dismissed or eliminated from our 2006 case.

 

 

2.  Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Our opponents filed this motion seeking an order for payment of 2006 ad valorem taxes associated with the improvements value only of leasehold property for all property parcels included in our complaint.  The basis for this motion was that the improvements tax challenge was already litigated in Ward v. Brown and could not be challenged again.  Therefore, taxes due on the improvements were due by all leaseholders.

 

Ruling:  The Judge ruled that the stipulation order in Ward v. Brown does prevail and ruled in favor of our opponents granting a Partial Summary Judgment Order. This Order will require all named plaintiff leaseholders to pay the 2006 ad valorem taxes associated with the improvements value of their leasehold property. This Order should be finalized by mid to late July, 2007.  Deadlines to pay your taxes will be detailed in this Order.

 

The Judge also ruled that condominiums fell under a statue valuation rule that allows the associated land value to be included in the “improvement” or “building” value for ad valorem taxation, thus eliminating any potential tax relief for our condominium leaseholders on the land tax challenge.

 This ruling does NOT apply to named plaintiff leaseholders with LAND only. 

 

3.  Motion to Amend Complaint

We filed a motion to amend our 2006 complaint to add the County of Santa Rosa to challenge lease language and amendments that may affect the taxability of our leasehold property.

 

Ruling:  The Judge ruled in our favor and our 2006 complaint will be amended to include the County of Santa Rosa.

 

 

Tax Committee Recommendations & Case Comments

 

 

Payment of 2006 Ad Valorem Taxes on Improvements

While the final Partial Summary Judgment Order will dictate a payment deadline date, we are expecting that leaseholders will have 30-60 days to pay these taxes and related interest from the date of the final Partial Summary Judgment Order, which is expected in July, 2007.  However, if you are a leaseholder with improvements on your leasehold property or a condominium owner, you may go ahead and pay these taxes prior to the final order. 

 

To obtain and pay the taxes on your improvements, please call or go by the Tax Collector’s (Robert McClure) office.  The Tax Collector’s office will compute the taxes owed and any interest owed.  You may contact Amy Brinkerhoff or Carol Watford with the Tax Collector’s office at (850) 983-1800.

 

You are NOT required nor ordered to make payments of 2006 ad valorem taxes associated with your land value.

 

You will NOT be notified directly in writing or through any other official notice by the Tax Appraiser, the Tax Collector or our attorneys of any taxes you may owe. 

 

  

2007 Case

All leaseholders participating in the 2007 tax case will be required to pay the 2007 ad valorem taxes associated with the improvements value only of your leasehold property prior to filing of our 2007 complaint.  Our attorneys will require a copy of our tax payment receipt prior to the filing our 2007 complaint.    No payment of tax is required for property with land only.

 

The Tax Committee is advising condominium leaseholders wanting to join the 2007 case to hold off on your submittal of legal fees and documentation.  With the rulings from this hearing, condominium leaseholders do not stand to benefit from our land tax challenge unless there is a favorable ruling in the Escambia County (Pensacola Beach) case.

 

 

Improvements Tax Challenge and Appeal

While all leaseholders were aware that our chances of overcoming the Ward v. Brown ruling on the improvements tax was 50%/50%, it will not come as a surprise to our leaseholders that we lost this challenge at the lower court.  We have 30 days from the date the final Partial Summary Judgment Order is entered, which is expected in late July, 2007, to appeal this ruling.  The Legal Liaison team will be discussing our appeal options with our attorneys prior to the 30-day expiration.

 

 

Land Tax and Lease Challenges

As soon as the final Partial Summary Judgment Order is finalized in July, 2007, our attorneys will be moving forward with the land tax and lease challenges of our case.

 

 

 

Update - April 30, 2007

 

2006 Named Leaseholder Plaintiffs - Your Lease Documents are Needed Now!

Our attorneys have been reviewing the "original" or first leases that have been submitted by our leaseholders for specific renewal language.  These leases are extremely critical for our case pleadings coming up in the June 15 hearing.  We have approximately 120 leaseholders that have not submitted their "original" or first lease on their properties and our attorneys need them ASAP.  If you have not submitted this important documentation, please do so immediately.  We need copies of your original or first leases by May 31, 2007.  Leases should be mailed to NBATIC, P.O. Box 5415, Navarre, FL 32566-0415 or may be faxed to (850) 654-9101.

 

If you need assistance in obtaining your original lease documents, please click here.

 

Legal Funding

All the named leaseholder plaintiffs in our case have contributed the original $375 requested to join our case, but approximately 400 of our named leaseholders plaintiffs have not answered our second request for funding.  Please contribute the additional $350 as soon as possible. We have raised over 85% of the necessary attorney fees towards our legal funding goal of $500,000.   If you have already mailed in your additional legal fees, thank you for your payment. 

 

June Hearing Rescheduled

The hearing scheduled for June 15, 2007 has been rescheduled to June 25, 2007 at 2:00 pm.

 

Stay of 2006 Taxes

As advised by our attorneys and agreed by opposing counsel, an automatic stay is afforded named plaintiffs in FL Statute 194.171(3) "the timely filing of an action pursuant to this section shall suspend all procedures for the collection of taxes prior to final disposition of the action." In essence, an automatic stay was given when we filed our complaint on November 30, 2006 and remains in effect until our case is settled. There will not be a formal motion requesting a stay nor a formal order granting a stay.

 

Refunds of 2006 Taxes Paid

If you are a named plaintiff in our tax suit and paid some or all of your 2006 ad valorem taxes - If we prevail on our tax challenges, you will be entitled to a refund of some or all of your 2006 ad valorem taxes paid.  Such a refund would not be automatic and would require an application filed by you, as the leaseholder, to the FL Department of Revenue.  The County Tax Collector has indicated that such a request for refund takes about 30 days to process.  You would be due a full refund if we prevail on both the improvements and land tax challenges or possibly a partial refund if we were to prevail on only one of those tax challenges.

 

If you are NOT a named plaintiff in our tax suit - If we prevail on any or all of our tax challenges, you are NOT entitled to a refund of any or all of your 2006 ad valorem taxes paid.

 

Join the 2007 Case Now

The Tax Committee is mailing a letter this week to those leaseholders not participating in our 2006 case inviting them to join for 2007.   We are requesting each leaseholder joining the 2007 case to submit $375 toward the total cost of $725 now.  The remaining fees of  $350 will be due prior to the filing date for the 2007 complaint, which should be around mid-November, 2007.  Any leaseholder is welcome to send in the total of $725.00 now.  Checks should be made payable and mailed to NBAITC,  P.O. Box 5415, Navarre, FL 32566-0415.

 

As a named plaintiff, you do have the option to not pay your taxes for any year during this litigation and benefit from the automatic stay of collection of your property taxes under FL Statute 194.171(3).   If you pay your taxes under protest for any year during this litigation in order to avoid interest penalties, as a named plaintiff, you will be entitled to file for a refund under Florida Statue 194.171(4) should we prevail.

 

Joining the lawsuit now for 2007 will help us reach our legal funding goal of $500,000 plus any court costs required.  We look forward to adding your name to our list!

If for any reason you do not want to be a named plaintiff, but would like to help stop this illegal taxation and increase the value of our leases and property, please consider giving as much as you can now.

 

Update - April 12, 2007

 

Our list of case legal filings was updated to include new filings. Click here to view the list of all case legal filings.

 

Update - April 6, 2007

 

Complaint Amended to add The County of Santa Rosa as a Defendant

On March 28, 2007, our attorneys filed a motion to amend our 2006 Complaint to add the County of Santa Rosa as a named defendant in our case in addition to Mr. Brown and Mr. McClure, Santa Rosa County Tax Appraiser and Collector, respectively.  

 

One major challenge in our case, as well as of the former case Ward vs. Brown, is the issue of “equitable ownership” or ownership interest in our leasehold property.   The actual terms of our leases could be used to determine whether any “ownership” interest does apply. Over the years, Santa Rosa County has written and amended some of our leases from their original form changing terms such as the renewal language that may affect the way the courts determine the “ownership” and taxation of our leasehold property. Our attorneys believe that we have the right to address this issue as it could directly impact whether we are subject to taxation or not.   Any change in the renewal terms that may have given us any “ownership” interest in the eyes of the court strictly violates the intent of the original terms of the lease from the US Government to Escambia County.  Any lease issues must be addressed to our “Lessor”, Santa Rosa County, and thus such motion to add the County was filed.

 

Regardless of all the other motions filed by opposing council to dismiss the improvements challenge of our case, this motion would keep all leaseholders of land and/or improvements in the case as each leaseholder has the right to be heard on these lease issues.

 

 

April 4, 2007 Hearing

The hearing on April 4, 2007 produced few decisions due to the late filing of a motion by opposing counsel that violated an administrative court rule.

 

On April 3, 2007, opposing counsel filed a motion for “Judicial Review” and used information based in this motion to argue their case in today’s hearing.  However, according to administrative court rules, such a motion of Judicial Review requires that our counsel be given at least 20 days to review before any pleadings or arguments can be presented in court.   Our attorneys were not afforded the required 20 days and did not have any time to review or prepare any arguments related to this motion.  Because it was not known what impact this motion could have on arguments, the Judge granted our attorneys the necessary time to review and respond to such motion. 

 

In addition to this late motion, our attorneys pointed out to the Judge that they had sent numerous requests for information and production of documents to which opposing counsel has either objected to or not produced. 

 

The Judge did request both attorneys submit written documents regarding case points prior to the next hearing so that he can rule on all current motions at that hearing.  

 

The next hearing is scheduled for June 15, 2007 at 1:00 pm.    

 

 

Legal Fees Due

When we committed to challenge the taxation of our leasehold improvements and land, we did so with your support and commitment with an agreement with our attorneys to fund our litigation with $500,000.00 to take our case all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

 

Of the 2244 leasehold parcels on Navarre Beach owned by approximately 1630 different leaseholders, 766 of these leasehold parcels were included in our lawsuit.  With each parcel submitting legal fees of $375.00, we received $287,250.00 toward our legal fee commitment.

 

In February 2007, we requested an additional $350.00 for each leasehold parcel by March 31 to cover the shortfall from our original request.  To date, leaseholders have only paid additional fees of $102,200.00 on 292 parcels, just 38% of the parcels included in our case.   Total legal fee collections to date are $389,450.00.

 

While we understand that the fees requested from each leaseholder are more than we expected, we know that you are still just as committed to defeat this illegal taxation and Mr. Brown.   It is not too late to send in these additional fees and your prompt payment will be greatly appreciated.  Our mailing address for payments is: NBATIC, P.O. Box 5415, Navarre, FL 32566-0415.

 

If you have already mailed in your additional legal fees, thank you for your payment. 

 

 

Summary

If you have not submitted your required lease documents, please be sure to send them in as soon as possible.  Those very documents may have a direct positive effect or outcome to our case.

 

Leaseholders that missed the deadline to participate in the 2006 tax lawsuit are eligible and encouraged to join the 2007 tax lawsuit that will inevitably be filed since a ruling in the 2006 lawsuit is not expected prior to arrival of 2007 tax bills.  You may submit your respective lease documents and legal fees of $375.00 now.

 

Thank you for your continued support of our fight against this illegal taxation!

 

 

Update - March 1, 2007

 

The Shell Fleming Davis & Menge case status report was emailed to all leaseholder plaintiffs for whom we have an email address.  If you did not receive a copy of this email, we may not have your correct email address.  If you would like to be added to our email list for plaintiff updates, please email us with your correct email address.

 

If you would like to request a copy of this status report, please click here.

 

 

Update - February 28, 2007

 

Shell Fleming Davis & Menge issued a case status report dated 2/27/07 which was mailed to each named plaintiff in our case.  If you did not receive a copy of this status report, please let us know.  We may not have your correct mailing address.  Please click here to request a copy of this status report.

 

Our list of case legal filings was updated to include three new filings by our opponents. Click here to view the list of case legal filings.

 

 

February 26, 2007 Update
 
Attorney Status

It is with great sadness that we tell you Mr. M.J. Menge passed away on February 3.  Mr. Menge leaves behind not only a very extensive and noted legal career, but also his civic and social community that will sorely miss his spirit, passion and commitment.  Our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of Mr. Menge, as well as the staff of Shell Fleming Davis Menge, during this most difficult time. 

 

Danny Kepner, Mr. Menge’s co-counsel, will continue to lead our case.  Mr. Kepner and his legal team have been involved in our case since day one, so there is no time lost due to Mr. Menge’s passing.  Mr. Kepner has been a Partner with Shell Fleming Davis & Menge for over 30 years.  He was board certified for Civil Trial Practice in 1983 and has expansive knowledge in property tax cases.  The Committee remains confident in not only the experience of Mr. Kepner and his legal team, but also their belief in and commitment to our case.

 

Mr. Kepner will speak at the Navarre Beach Leaseholders and Residents Association meeting on Saturday, April 21, 2007.  

 

Case Update

 Our lawsuit disputing the 2006 taxation of our leasehold land and improvements was filed on November 30, 2006.  Our lawsuit included 764 leased parcels with total assessed values over $301 million and ad valorem taxes assessed of approximately $4 million.   A copy of our complaint and subsequent legal filings to date are available for review on our website by clicking here.

 

Key Case Filings

 

Mr. Greg Brown (Tax Assessor) and Mr. Robert McClure (Tax Collector) have responded to our initial complaint with the following key defenses: 

 

  1. The Leaseholders can’t challenge or dispute the leasehold improvements taxation as a ruling has already been rendered on this issue in Ward v. Brown
  2. Request that all participants with leasehold improvements be dismissed because they are disputing leasehold improvements taxation that cannot be challenged or disputed again due to the ruling rendered in Ward v. Brown.
  3. Request for dismissal of participants with leasehold improvements who did not pay the taxes due on their leasehold improvements when the challenge or dispute was filed (November 30)

Our Explanations and Responses

To Key Defenses 1 and 2

The “Stipulation Judgment of Dismissal”, issued July, 2006, in Ward v. Brown, item Number 3, specifically says the Leaseholders in that case were not precluded from challenging the leasehold improvements taxation for future years (2006 and beyond) based on a “changed factual circumstances or subsequent court decision or statutory changes”.   While we have not experienced a change in the statues, we have experienced a change in factual circumstances and there have been recent court decisions that directly relate to our challenge.  Therefore, we believe we have the right to challenge such taxation again and have so filed.  

To Key Defense 3

 

The basis for this defense is found in the Florida Statute that requires a taxpayer to pay what tax he/she believes is due when challenging or disputing a tax assessment.  For example, if you were assessed $1000 and believe a fair assessment was $500, you are required to pay at least $500 when filing your dispute or challenge.

 Our response to this key defense continues to expand, but several key responses are below:  

When our attorneys started examining the valuation and taxation assessments by Mr. Brown, they found significant discrepancies in the valuation processes.  Some leasehold properties were assessed in one approach, while others appeared to be assessed in a totally different approach.   In a request for information to Mr. Brown filed on February 9, one such issue were the condominium assessments of Beachview Condominiums.  Mr. Brown has consistently told condominium owners they were not being assessed taxes on the value of their land.  Yet some condominium owners in Beachview Condominiums, whose condominiums and related common elements were completely destroyed during recent hurricanes, were still assessed “building” values from $260,000 to $300,000.  This valuation specifically violates Florida Statue 192.042(1) that provides that improvements or portions not substantially completed by January 1 shall have no value placed thereon.  If no building exists, what is Mr. Brown assessing value on?  Land? 

 

In addition to the above noted issues, “discovery” has resulted in additional requests for information from Mr. Brown regarding similar inconsistencies in his valuation and assessing process.  Further, our attorneys expect there will be many more requests of questions and for answers filed by both parties.  

 

A hearing is scheduled for April 4 regarding Brown/McClure’s request for dismissal of the leasehold improvements tax challenge.  However, since our attorneys continue to find discrepancies and other peculiarities in the valuation and assessment process as well as other new developments, they fully expect this hearing will be postponed until “discovery” is complete.

 

New Developments

 

When our attorneys started “discovery” regarding the above issues, a review of leases and other documents submitted by our leaseholder participants resulted in more potential legal issues that may or need to be addressed and may expand our complaint.  Our attorneys are currently in case strategy discussions among themselves and the Committee about the best avenue to address these new developments and how any one of them may affect the outcome of our case.  

 

Stay of Payment of Taxes

 

As of the date of this update, a stay of the payment of the property taxes is still in negotiation with opposing counsel.  Our attorneys, as well as the Committee, recognize that time is of the essence and a decision is expected just any day. We will update everyone as soon as that information is available.

 

Summary

 

This litigation, like all others, is a contentious and lengthy process.  We fully expect with the expanding number of issues that may be addressed, our case may become far more complex than originally expected.

 

If you have not submitted your required lease documents, please be sure to send them in as soon as possible.  Those very documents may help support additional issues that may have a direct positive effect or outcome to our case.

 

Leaseholders that missed the deadline to participate in the 2006 tax lawsuit are eligible and encouraged to join the 2007 tax lawsuit that will inevitably be filed since a ruling in the 2006 lawsuit is not expected prior to arrival of 2007 tax bills.  The deadline to join the 2007 tax case will be approximately around mid-November, 2007. 

 

Additional Funds Request 

Unfortunately, the state-imposed time limit of 60 days to file our lawsuit did not allow adequate time for some leaseholders to participate.  We had a good number of leaseholders we had to turn away because they submitted legal contributions and/or paperwork after the required filing date of November 30, 2006.  We feel with such strong support among leaseholders and with even just another 30 days to file our lawsuit, many more leaseholders would be participating and we would not be seeking this additional contribution. 

 

The Committee collected and has paid $300,000 towards the agreed upon legal fee of $500,000 to Shell Fleming Davis & Menge, which includes their services all the way to the Supreme Court.  Obviously, this leaves a $200,000 shortfall.  Consequently, we have requested an additional contribution of $350.00 from each leaseholder plaintiff for each leasehold parcel.

 

Our lawyers extended our deadline to March 31, 2007 to pay the remaining legal fees.  Please forward your check made payable to NBAITC and for $350.00 to:  NBAITC, PO Box 5415, Navarre, FL 32566-0415.   Your prompt payment is greatly appreciated.  

 

The additional funds requested not only will cover the shortfall in our legal fees commitment, but also were needed to cover potential court costs at the conclusion of our case as well as administrative expenses such as mail outs, postage, etc. for our 2006 and all subsequent years tax suit filings.  While the Committee does not anticipate any significant remaining funds from your legal contributions, should any funds remain, the Committee may refund any remaining funds on a pro-rata share or choose to donate those funds to another project benefiting Navarre Beach residents, such as the Beach Beautification Committee.  The Committee would not consider any disbursement of any remaining funds until all legal pursuits are completed and costs are paid.

 

Website and Email Address Update

You may now visit our website at www.nbtaxsuit.com or www.navarrebeachtaxsuit.com.  We reduced the name of the website to provide easier access and to prevent some errors when typing our website address into your browser.  Both website addresses are still live and either address or bookmark you may already have saved will take you to the same website.

 

In addition, you are welcome to email us with any questions to info@nbtaxsuit.com or info@navarrebeachtaxsuit.com.  Both email addresses are valid and continue to be answered by the legal liaison committee.