Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Defendants.
____________________________________________/
John Doe (“John Doe”) and Jane Doe (“Jane Doe”) as follows:
Carroll owns and controls Chambers Street Builders, Inc. a Walton County, Florida
County, Florida.
Florida, is a salesperson for Dune Construction and Development, Inc. owned by his son
licensed Building Contractor and the actions that are the subject matter of this suit
the actions that are the subject matter of this suit occurred in Walton County, Florida.
7. Voelker resides in Walton County, Florida and the actions that are the
8. John Doe and Jane Doe and other Unknown Conspirators have been
included on knowledge and belief, Defendants conspired among themselves and with
other non- party co-conspirators, as more particularly described below, to undermine and
damage Carroll, as well as the businesses he has interests in. Accordingly, in the
furtherance of this conspiracy or enterprise, the primary purpose being to impair and
boycott the Plaintiff, to impair Chambers Street Builders, Inc. and to convert it’s business
to their own pecuniary benefit and advantage and to impair and to convert J.M.B.,
L.L.C.’s business to their own pecuniary benefit and advantage, the act or omission of
one Defendant co-conspirator while active in the concerted activity constitutes the act or
omission of all other co-conspirators and vice versa. Not all participants in the
conspiracy are known to the Plaintiff. For that reason, Plaintiff has designated John Doe
and Jane Doe as representatives of other persons, unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who
conspired with the other Defendants and non-party co-conspirators to accomplish the
unlawful purposes of the conspiracy enterprise, as herein alleged.
9. Venue is proper in this Court because the real property that is the subject
of this Complaint is located in Walton County, Florida, the Defendants reside or are
located in Walton County, Florida and all actions forming the basis of this Complaint
Defendants Interfere
10. Carroll was put on the approved builder list in 2002. The Chairman of the
Design Review Board put Chambers Street Builders, Inc. (“CSB”) on the fully approved
builder list in 2003 which was provided to all Owners and potential Owners. (Exhibit A)
From 2002 through 2009 Carroll engaged in advertising, acquisition of Real Estate and
Retreat and Rivercamps. CSB remained on the approved builder list continuously
11. At some point in about April 2006 CSB’s name and contact information
were silently and covertly removed from the approved builder list. Neither CSB or
Carroll were notified of this and there were no complaints or notices of any kind against
CSB or Carroll. Any customer of CSB and Carroll inquiring was told that CSB was not
approved to build. The Chairman of the Design Review Board (“DRB”) did not take this
action. This had never occurred to any other contractor no matter how many examples of
12. On January 19, 2007 the Chairman of the Design Review Board issued (3)
written official notifications clarifying that CSB has in fact been awarded the highest
engaged Carroll and CSB in contract talks whereby CSB would be granted a beneficial
14. Relying on these acts Carroll focused on delivering value to his customers,
increased the advertising expenditures of CSB, targeted the JOE communities under the
control of Matteson and developed millions of dollars in contracted and other potential
business agreements. With the increasing success of Carroll’s business came renewed
and increased efforts on the part of the Defendants to frustrate Carroll’s beneficial
business arrangements. Without notice or knowledge to Carroll or CSB, CSB had its
name again covertly removed from the approved builder list. This too was unreasonable,
came without any complaints and defied all precedence in the history of the communities.
15. Carroll and CSB made a request for information of Matteson regarding the
removal of CSB from the approved list. A meeting was set at which time Matteson told
Carroll, “We cannot stop you from building on land you own, there will always be your
Monte Hewett’s but you should be a team player or look to work elsewhere.”
16. Carroll and CSB asked Matteson for her opinion in writing and instead
construction in Watercolor. (Exhibit D) The commentary merely pointed out the items
yet to complete on the home which was progressing at a normal rate for a home in
building codes and required no action on the part of Carroll or CSB. While the
commentary was made to look as though it came from the DRB the commentary was
actually made without the knowledge of the DRB. The residence was completed
beautifully by CSB, blends seamlessly into the community and has been fully booked by
appointment with the DRB and toured the project with Brian Stackable who was the
highest authority in the HOA regarding all DRB issues. Brian noted no DRB issues,
approved all of the construction in place and immediately evidenced these facts by
18. Matteson then had CSB re-listed on the fully approved contractor list with
one major change. This time, CSB had it’s contact phone number changed to that of
one of it’s competitors salesperson’s which diverted Carroll and CSB customers.
(Exhibit G)
19. December 2007, Joule calls her contact within the Walton County
Building Department to say that she may be able to slow up CSB’s progress on Lot 57,
WaterSound Beach. She tells her contact to go over and look at the steel placement.
Inspector DePaul covertly instructs Inspector Stosh to enter the job and take photographs
of the work in progress especially the steel placement without notice to Carroll or CSB
who was in the same community actively working. Carroll finds out about the secret
inspection, questions Inspector Stosh in the days that follow and Stosh informs Carroll
that Walton County Building Department Inspector DePaul got a call from a lady in
WaterSound to slip over to the job and look around. Carroll phones Walton County
Inspector DePaul, inquires what he knows of the actions and DePaul informs Carroll that
he doesn’t know anything about it other than the fact that Stosh saw a curious steel
condition while passing by and took it upon himself to photo same. Carroll informed
DePaul that the steel cannot be seen without going inside the foundation let alone passing
in a truck and that he already knew that DePaul set up Stosh to covertly inspect after
talking to a woman from WaterSound. Carroll then told Inspector DePaul that he wants
to know with specificity who reached out to him directly. Walton County Inspector
DePaul refused to tell Carroll and said to finish the work on the piers and get it behind
him. CSB completes the steel work, passes inspection and moves forward with
construction. All of this covert activity is improper and illegal in Florida and a misuse of
County employees. Accordingly, Carroll sends a written request for information and
20. During this same period of August 2007 through December 10, 2007 CSB
commences, completes, gains Certificate of Occupancy and conveys it’s site built model
home in WaterSound. This proves to be the quickest construction period of any home
ever constructed in the history of any of the JOE neighborhoods that Matteson, Joule and
Lilienthal work in. The home proves to be successful and fully rented and enjoyed since
21. April 29, 2008 Carroll receives word that Joule was seen with an
unlicensed contractor, who was a friend of Joule’s, at CSB’s WaterSound West project.
Carroll was informed that Joule and her friend cut an irrigation main and told CSB’s
customer that the fence was painted poorly but, that if the customer would hold some of
CSB’s payment, the unlicensed contractor, would be happy to perform any work that
CSB’s customer wanted. Carroll was working at another project in WaterSound at the
time but Joule did not notify Carroll that there was even a small question. Carroll sends
out immediate written notice (Exhibit J) to try and stop this tortious interference and
documents the sabotage. (Exhibit K)
22. At the same time, April 2008, three of CSB’s WaterSound customers in
contact with Joule team up and stop paying for materials that CSB has delivered to their
projects. The projects are special and the materials are project specific offering little
value to CSB elsewhere. This continues a series of missed payments to CSB by the
customers totaling more than $400,000.00. One of the customers tells Carroll, “ If you
ever want to work in WaterSound again you will continue your work and I’ll get you paid
back when everything is done.” This is outside the CSB contract and not in line with safe
business practice so CSB gives each customer one more opportunity to get caught up.
The customers don’t become current and CSB terminates the respective agreements.
(Exhibit L)
23. During this same period Carroll learns that Joule is contacting any and all
local suppliers and subcontractors to investigate CSB’s relationships with them. Joule
tells them that CSB is about to go out of business. This is so far out of line with the law
and Joule’s job description and authority that Carroll put Joule On Notice. (Exhibit M)
24. Joule works with the customers to assemble letters of dissatisfaction about
CSB, creates retroactive Compliance Bulletin 15 and sends out the Bulletin to all
WaterSound builders. Joule hides three names on the mailing list of WaterSound
builders; Terry Muldoon, David Burke and Kevin Achatz. This serves to notify the three
CSB customers that it is time to advance their strategies against Carroll and CSB.
(Exhibit N)
25. Carroll and CSB endeavor to maintain revenues by also performing small
services and maintenance for their past customers. CSB is awarded a job for Brian and
Kim Mitchell on CSB’s previous model home and in an unprecedented move Matteson
has WaterSound boycott Carroll and CSB and sends Carroll and CSB notice that it may
not engage in any work of any kind within the community. (Exhibit O) This is above and
beyond the approved builder list and strikes at the heart of Carroll’s Civil Rights. There
is no provision in the authority of WaterSound to take this position and it is against the
public policy of the State of Florida to attempt this act. Carroll notifies the DRB of this
damage that all of these, and many, many other continuous tortious acts caused. What is
most notable is that there are no other examples of these actions occurring during the
history of the communities to anyone other than Carroll or CSB despite innumerable true
27. Continuing the deliberate and orchestrated acts of the civil conspirators the
case moves squarely to Carroll’s business and property at Lot 24, Phase IV, WaterSound
28. Carroll, through his business, purchased the valuable real property which
is situated in WaterSound’s most prominent and central location. This location would
serve as the most advantageous for Carroll and his building business.
29. Carroll selected a fully approved Architectural firm who had above
average experience levels in the community in comparison to it’s peers. The plans were
prepared in accordance with the governing HOA guidelines, and yet were held in DRB
review for over 12 months.
30. On December 28, 2007 the plans for the Lot 24 project gain final approval
from the DRB. Carroll and CSB commence the permitting of the project and make
Officer, recommends to Carroll that he not start the project and instead sell the land
vacant. Carroll inquires why Joule would say such a thing. Joule only responds, “I
32. Carroll shows Joule what looks like a road or asphalt pile just under the
surface of the lot which appears to continue through the common areas adjacent Lot 24.
This is of concern to Carroll for many reasons which include the fact that the DRB has
just mandated that Carroll install over 46 different plants, grasses, trees and shrubs in the
WaterSound Beach Community Association’s common area that is not a part of Lot 24.
33. Carroll attends the next HOA Board of Directors (“BOD”) meeting,
February 14, 2008, and enters photographs and testimony about what proved to be buried
construction trash on Lot 24 and under the WaterSound Common Areas into the record.
(Exhibit P)
34. The WaterSound Directors told Carroll that they take Notice of the claim,
35. CSB remediates the buried trash on Lot 24 but does not undertake to deal
with the buried trash under the common area at that time. Carroll chooses that the
landscape work that the WaterSound DRB wants Carroll to install in the common area
can wait until the Directors finish their investigation and have the trash removed.
36. CSB installs the foundation per Joule’s benchmark at the Pre-Construction
Site Conference. Carroll obtains an elevation survey showing the height of the top of the
foundation in relation to the surrounding benchmarks and transmits same to the DRB per
37. CSB moves through the construction of the concrete superstructure at the
Tower of the Lot 24 project quickly, efficiently and correctly. The location of Lot 24 and
the prominence of the Tower proves to gain Carroll and CSB positive business good will
38. May 1, 2008 Matteson, formerly of JOE and currently working for
CCMC serving WaterSound, notifies Carroll that Lot 24 is one of the most talked
about homes in Watersound Beach. Further Matteson states that she has been personally
and repeatedly asked if the Tower exceeds the height of 50 feet. (Exhibit R)
immediately retain Daniel Uhfelder, Esq. who immediately submits a formal written
Florida Statute 720 request on behalf of Carroll and CSB to Matteson with a copy to
Mary Rosenheim of JOE for the names of the individuals who are personally requesting
information about the Tower at Lot 24. How are the requests being transmitted, verbally
or written? We want copies of the requests for information immediately, in line with
Florida Statute concerning HOA Records, and preservation of new requests for
information so that they may be made available. Please direct future requests to Carroll
so that he may respond. (Exhibit S) Matteson acknowledges receipt of the request for
information, but refuses to turn over the documentation to Carroll. This continues
Matteson’s chain of not honoring Carroll’s Florida Statute 720 requests for inspection of
HOA documents and will prove to damage Carroll and his businesses.
40. May 9, 2008, in another unprecedented move, Matteson has Tracy Regan
of the DRB contact Carroll and make a demand for a new set of signed and sealed
structural drawings for Lot 24. Tracy Regan acknowledges that there are no aesthetic
changes planned but that she needs new signed and sealed drawings for the DRB file.
This request is aberrant and outside of the rules and mission of the DRB. It has never
been asked of another owner. The governing documents explicitly state that the Board
does not look to plans for structural adequacy, nor issues of the Building Code and
accepts no responsibility for same. This special request of Carroll is abuse of power,
intended to slow up CSB’s progress and serves no useful purpose in the furtherance of
41. May 21, 2008 Tracy Regan now submits a letter to Carroll requesting new
drawings of the residence at Lot 24 specifically to determine whether the height of the
Tower will exceed 50’. Tracy is giving Carroll 10 days to comply. (Exhibit U) This is an
additional aberrant special request by the DRB. There is no way to know via the
drawings requested whether or not the building exceeds 50 feet. This special request of
42. May 23, 2008 Carroll hand delivers sealed plans and survey for lot 24 to
the Watersound Design Review Board care of Tracy Regan. This is just two days after
Tracy Regan gave Carroll 10 days to supply the documents, occurs before the BOD
meeting and completes her request. The documents indicate no change in elevation from
the previously approved original set and survey already in the possession of the DRB.
(Exhibit V)
43. Hours later on May 23, 2008, The Watersound Board of Directors meets
for a regularly scheduled meeting. During the meeting under “other business” is a
discussion of the fact that the Board has already taken the position that the Tower at lot
to put Carroll On Notice that the Tower has been built in violation of the Walton County
Ordinance and height restriction for Watersound. Further the Board notifies Carroll that
he “must lower the tower construction” Further “If you do not undertake to make these
alterations, we will seek an injunction in the Circuit Court in Walton County, Florida, in
which you will be responsible for not only the cost of changing the tower structure, but
we will seek penalty sanctions, attorney’s fees and costs.” Shipman says to notify the
Walton County Building Official, Billy Bearden, of the violation and get his assistance.
Shipman suggested that unless Carroll was granted a variance he would have to tear it
down. Shipman would have the Board write a letter to the County opposing the variance.
Lilienthal asked Shipman to write the letter. The Minutes of the meeting along with the
paper trail of evidence preserve the corrupt nature of the conspirators sham acts. Despite
Carroll’s daily contact with the HOA and, the proximity of Lot 24 just next door to the
HOA office, at this time no one has notified Carroll that the HOA has already taken the
legal position that the Tower is to tall and must be torn down. (Exhibit W)
44. May 28, 2008 Gary Shipman, Esq. sends a certified letter to Carroll at his
address in Watercolor that contains (5) different address inaccuracies in the mailing
address line and has to be diverted, despite Carroll seeing Lilienthal, Matteson and Joule
regularly. (Exhibit X) Upon eventual receipt of the letter by Carroll Carroll finds that
there is included an inaccurate specific purpose survey showing the height of the Tower
at 48.53’. The attached survey, produced by Voelker, certified that the date of the
field work at Lot 24 was May 16, 2008. There is only one choice that Lilienthal,
Matteson, Joule and WaterSound make available to Carroll to satisfy their legal demand:
which Carroll found Voelker on Lot 24 on or about May 16. Carroll asked Voelker at
that time why he was at the property and Voelker stated, “I am looking for a control point
so that I can complete a survey on a lot up the street.” Had Voelker not concealed his
true purpose with Carroll Voelker could have taken the time a professional surveyor
would need to conduct an authentic survey. Voelker knew from previous surveying on
that street that there were in fact true control points that referenced elevation and should
have been used to collect field datum and prepare the elevation survey. In addition,
Voelker knew that all plans for structures in WaterSound were required to be
built surveys. Further, Voelker knew that the DRB had copies of those surveys for Lot
24. Most simply, Carroll had a ladder on the Tower and Voelker had a tape measure.
The ladder is visible in Voelker’s Survey. The Tower height could have been measured
that instant by a Walton County 5th grade student to determine the correct measurement
to within 1% accuracy. There was no legitimate reason for Voelker to deduce, prepare
and certify the fraudulent survey.
46. After Carroll’s review of the survey he comes to find that the survey was
ordered and conducted by May 16 which was one week in advance of the May 23, 2008
Board of Directors meeting. It became clear to Carroll that the Board orchestrated a
sham discussion on record during the meeting to try and make their request look like
something it was not and Carroll knew who to ask for proof. Carroll makes a written
survey was ordered by the BOD as a result of the May 2008 meeting and directs
Carroll to the Minutes which are being broadcast online and in writing. (Exhibit Z)
47. Carroll makes a written request of Voelker for information that will
provide proof of the continued fraud and preserve the evidence. (Exhibit AA) Voelker
48. Carroll encounters numerous Realtors and peers of Carroll and Lilienthal
who tell Carroll that they are shocked to hear that the concrete tower at Lot 24 is in
violation of the WaterSound DRB, that they feel this is a catastrophic detriment to the
project and want to know when and how the concrete Tower is going to be torn down.
Some of the inquiries come from Carroll’s WaterSound Beach neighbors and other from
49. Voelker realizes that his survey is going to be audited and he hastily
assembles a revised survey that adjusts the height of the Tower down to match the
(Exhibit BB)
50. Voelker’s revised survey contains several new discrepancies that cannot
be explained by any reasonable professional. Most substantially evidenced is the fact that
the revised survey contains a note that reads, ”Due to the converging inward nature of the
structure, and the unavailability of access of the top of the structure, the height could be
as low 45.4’ as or as high as 47.1’ “ This caveat is fraudulent as it’s margin is still outside
the explanation of the previous survey wherein Voelker certified the height of the Tower
at 48.53’. Additionally evidenced is the fact that the revised survey is certified as having
occurred without any new field work. This would mean that Voelker has field datum in
record from which he could certify the revised survey. This also means that he was not
ordered to perform the survey as the result of the order of the May 23, 2008 BOD
51. Matteson and Lilienthal come to understand that their story does not
match the Minutes and the Minutes are abruptly removed from the community bulletin
board for the first time in the history of WaterSound. Since that time, both the Feb. 2008
and May 2008 BOD Meeting Minutes which reference Carroll and Lot 24 have
disappeared, reappeared and currently have been completely removed from the
project and hastily draws redlines and elevations to indicate that the building is taller than
it actually is. Joule inserts the evidence into the DRB file for Lot 24 without any
tall and will require de-construction. Lilienthal and his associate Ann Mosley have told
any Realtors who inquired that the Tower height is in violation, the concrete work has
54. Carroll attempts to get a clear statement from the BOD that serves as a
retraction to Gary Shipman’s letter of violation on the Tower height. A meeting is set for
November 24, 2008 between Carroll, Matteson and Board of Director members Jack
55. Carroll appears for the November 24, 2008 meeting with Lilienthal,
Matteson and Luchese. Lilienthal does not show up. The parties talk and it is agreed that
Matteson is going to get a letter from Gary Shipman, Esq. that remedies the previous
erroneous letter of Shipman for Tower Height Violation. The retraction letter does
not come.
56. December 18, 2008 Carroll attends the December BOD meeting at the
Gatehouse. Under compliance heading Jack Luchese initiated dialogue. Gary Shipman,
Esq. read the original letter of violation aloud. Carroll disputed the Notice on a line by
line basis. BOD legal counsel Shipman said on record that he did not know that a new
survey (Voelker 6/08) was issued and requested a copy from Sandy Matteson in the
presence of all in attendance. Matteson admits the revised survey proving compliance
was issued over six months ago. Carroll asserted that the letter of violation was in the
public domain by way of Realtors, that he could not correct the public opinion of
violation and was being damaged economically. Shipman quickly decided and stated that
WaterSound would not issue a retraction, that Carroll’s only remedy was to move
forward with construction and submit a final survey upon completion that shows the
Tower height. Carroll told him that was unfair, that no other WaterSound Beach owners
are required to incur the expense and time required to comply with this special request,
that this special request is above and beyond the requirements of the DRB and Covenants
and that his violation pronouncement was inaccurate on its face with specificity regarding
the measurements certified by Voelker’s original survey. Carroll repeated his clear
demand to every member present that he wants a complete retraction of the height
violation referenced in the violation letter. Carroll reminded the BOD that he submitted
his original survey of foundation elevation in February as prescribed by the DRB and that
it was approved for continued construction. Carroll asked Lilienthal why he was not
present at the November meeting with Matteson, Alex Fambri and Jack Luchese.
Lilienthal stated it was on advice of Counsel that he did not attend. The BOD said that
the height of the existing structure still did not permit completion of the roof without
being in violation of the County Height Ordinance. Carroll asked everyone present to
explain the County height ordinance in order to verify their ignorance. None, including
BOD Legal Counsel Gary Shipman, Esq., could give the correct Walton County
Ordinance particulars:
This proved their ignorance and their motive. Carroll explained the County Height
contact Billy Bearden. Shipman, evidencing motive, forcefully made the pronouncement
“I stopped you from building in a neighborhood before!” Matteson created the argument
that the discrepancy in the surveys was caused by a poor calculation of avg. grade.
Carroll pronounced that Matteson’s theory was fabricated. Voelker never told anyone
that his error was based on grade elevation. Voelker calculated and certified grade the
same in each survey. Carroll pronounced that Voelker certified that his discrepancy was
in his calculation of the angle of the Tower. On record Carroll discussed with BOD Alan
for elevation surveys. Carroll pronounced that PRM’s were referenced in both the DRB
submittals and the Rare Earth survey provided by Carroll and approved by the DRB after
completion of the foundation. The BOD had undertaken to force Carroll and CSB to act
on an unlawful request which was negligent and a breach of fiduciary duty in it’s best
light but, deliberate fraud and civil conspiracy in a light most favorable the truth.
57. December 19, 2008 Carroll issues the pre-suit Statutory Lible Prerequisite
58. Lilienthal, Matteson and Joule install Lilienthal’s son and, Carroll’s
59. September 29, 2009, Carroll, facing monetary fines from the BOD for not
completing construction on Lot 24, completes the final underground power, cable, phone,
water and sewer conduit installations, prepares grade, orders the landscaping and
undertakes the removal of the buried construction trash from the common areas the DRB
is requiring Carroll install landscaping. At this point it has been 32 months since Carroll
notified WaterSound community management and 19 months since Carroll put the BOD
On Notice about the buried garbage and the BOD told Carroll they would remediate
same.
60. Carroll then opens the ground in the Common Area for the landscaping
work and removes buried pressure treated wood, bricks, concrete, asphalt, limerock crush
base, pallet parts, grade stabilizers, rusted steel form work, and other construction trash
in order to advance the project to its current stage of completion (Exhibit EE)
restated here.
62. This is an action in law for tortious interference seeking damages that
exceed $15,000.00.
63. Carroll and his companies J.M.B., L.L.C. and Chambers Street Builders,
Inc. had a business relationship with the Owners of property within WaterSound,
64. The Defendants had knowledge of the dynamics and history of the
relationships.
relationships by slander per se, slander per quod and an unlawful coven. Defendants
Street Builders, Inc. contact information from the approved builders list at random times
without authorization and from time to time listing a competitor’s phone number as that
of Chambers Street Builders, Inc. Defendants intentionally and unjustifiably interfered in
the relationship of Carroll and his WaterSound neighbors by ordering and preparing a
fraudulent survey, declaring Lot 24’s construction as being in violation of Walton County
Height Ordinance requiring tearing down the concrete Tower, hiding Carroll’s authentic
and correct survey, rushing unapproved Minutes into publication, placing fraudulent
photographic evidence into the DRB file and broadcasting unapproved Minutes to
Carroll’s peers and neighbors whom Carroll was actively negotiating the trade of
property with.
Voelker and Joule’s tortious interference Carroll has suffered direct, incidental and
consequential damages as a result of the breach of the relationship which is the last
essential element for this type of claim as found in Florida’s Supreme Court: Gossard v.
Adia Services, Inc., 723 So. 2d 182, 184 (Fla. 1998) and more specifically and locally
Florida’s First District: Linafelt v. Beverly Enterprises-Florida, Inc., 745 So. 2d 386, 389
Defendants as follows:
that are against the public policy of the State of Florida and the United States
Constitution;
COUNT II - FRAUD
restated here.
69. This is an action in law for fraud seeking damages that exceed $15,000.00.
A. Defendants assured Carroll that CSB was listed on their approved builder
B. Defendants insisted that they would remediate the buried trash in the
common area adjacent Lot 24 where they are requiring Carroll to perform work when in
C. Defendants insisted that they would not interfere with CSB work or
D. Defendants insisted that they ordered the survey from Voelker as a result
of the May 23, 2008 BOD meeting when in fact the survey was ordered and performed at
approved for continued construction when in fact they knew that they were going to act
to stop Carroll and CSB and ultimately declare the work in violation of elevation.
new plans for the 24 project within 10 days that he could continue construction when in
fact they already knew that they were preparing an impending violation notice which
would serve to stop construction at Lot 24.
Walton County Height Ordinance without any survey, falsified or not, actually showing
H. Defendants told Carroll that they did not contact the Walton County
I. Defendants told Carroll that they did not attempt to interfere in Carroll’s
business contracts and advantageous business relationships when in fact they did.
small jobs within the community when in fact they had no authority to say so.
construction at Lot 24 and obtain an elevation survey of the Tower when in fact they had
included no additional information about the height of construction when in fact the file
O. Defendants told Carroll that they would issue a retraction letter to cure the
P. Defendant Joule told Carroll that she had the experience required and was
a Florida builder when in fact she is not and never has been.
Q. Defendant Lilienthal told Carroll that he did not tell members of Carroll
and CSB’s peer group and customer base that the 24 project had structural problems and
R. Defendant Voelker told Carroll that he had field datum to back up his
S. Defendant Matteson told Carroll that CSB was removed from the
WaterSound approved builder list by the DRB when in fact the DRB had no information
about the act, the DRB approved of all CSB projects under construction and there were
that he would discharge his BOD duties without conflict of interest when in fact he had
71. The Defendants had complete knowledge that their representations were
false.
72. The Defendants made the untrue representations, amongst other covinous
73. Carroll’s reliance on the lies denied him the opportunity to treat the true
issues, mitigate damage to his business and personal reputation and fully developing
Lot 24.
74. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendants fraud Carroll has
suffered direct, incidental and consequential damages which is the 4th essential element of
a claim for fraud in Florida according to Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625, 627 (Fla.
1985) and Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 764 So. 2d 677, 682 (Fla 1st DCA
Defendants as follows:
lies and motives so Carroll can mitigate the continued damage to his and his companies
reputations and to take all actions necessary and appropriate to complete that goal;
restated here.
77. This is an action in law for breach of fiduciary duty seeking damages in
excess of $15,000.00.
78. Carroll and the Defendants share a relationship whereby Carroll reposes
trust and confidence in the Defendants consistent with Florida Statute 720.303 (1).
79. The Defendants undertook that trust and assumed a duty to advise, counsel
claim of this type in Florida as first found in Florida’s Supreme Court in Quinn v. Phipps,
93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419, 420-421 (1927) and again more recently in Gracey v. Eaker,
837 So. 2d 348, 353 (Fla. 2002).
COUNT IV – LIBEL
restated here.
85. This is an action in law for libel seeking damages in excess of $15,000.00.
86. The Defendants made a false declaration when they declared Carroll and
CSB’s work in violation of the County Height Ordinance. They furthered the false
statements when they declared that the concrete tower will be torn down. They abused
process to give credibility to their falsehoods by threatening Circuit Court action against
Carroll and CSB when in fact they never had any evidence, falsified or authentic, that
elevation survey, preparing fake photographic evidence and broadcasting fake BOD
meeting minutes over the internet and assuring that the publications would make their
way out from the protection of privileged communications and into the local public
domain. Last, the Defendants published several fake approved builder lists showing
Carroll and CSB’s removal from the list during times when CSB was fully authorized to
88. The Defendants made the defamatory publications with the requisite intent
90. Florida Courts condemn and abhor these types of acts and when examined
collectively these acts satisfy the essential elements needed by Carroll for a claim against
B. Directing Defendants to issue the apology and retraction letter that Carroll
served upon the BOD December 19, 2008 to satisfy Florida’s pre-suit Statutory Libel
restated here.
93. This is an action in law for negligent retention seeking damages in excess
of $15,000.00.
94. WaterSound became aware, or should have become aware, of problems
with Joule that indicated her unfitness for the job of Construction Compliance Officer.
95. WaterSound owed a duty to Carroll and his companies to protect him from
construction processes. Further, WaterSound owed a duty to Carroll, his family and his
companies to protect them from Matteson and Joules tortious acts and statements.
96. WaterSound breached it’s duty to Carroll, his family and his companies by
professional reputation, economically and his family’s civil right to the pursuit of
happiness.
other employee working in WaterSound who would continue to harm Carroll, his family
or his business;
restated here.
100. This is an action in law for civil conspiracy seeking damages that exceed
$15,000.00.
101. WaterSound, Joule, Matteson, Lilienthal, Voelker, John and Jane Doe and
102. The Defendants planned, engineered and executed a boycott of Carroll and
his businesses along with a campaign of misinformation about Carroll’s personal and
business fitness.
103. The Defendant conspirators committed several acts both covert and overt
105. Carroll, his family and his businesses suffered damage to their economics,
professional reputation and civil rights afforded them by both the Florida and United
106. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants as follows.
the true identity of John Doe, Jane Doe and the other Co-Conspirators;
coven;
108. This is an action in law for slander seeking damages that exceed
$15,000.00.
109. The Defendants made a false declaration when they declared Carroll and
CSB’s work in violation of the County Height Ordinance. They furthered the false
statements when they declared that the concrete tower will be torn down. They abused
process to give credibility to their falsehoods by threatening Circuit Court action against
Carroll and CSB when in fact they never had any evidence, falsified or authentic, that
110. The Defendants orally published the false statements by preparing a fake
elevation survey, preparing fake photographic evidence and broadcasting fake BOD
meeting minutes over the internet and assuring that the publications would make their
way out from the protection of privileged communications and into the local public
domain when they told Debra Starr, Hillary Farnum and other Realtors who are Carroll’s
peers but not WaterSound Owners. Last, the Defendants published several fake approved
builder lists showing Carroll and CSB’s removal from the list during times when CSB
was fully authorized to appear on the lists and then passing on their fabrications orally.
111. The Defendants made the defamatory publications and oral statements
113. Our local Court condemns these acts which together constitute the four
essential elements of slander as clarified and enumerated in Axelrod v. Califano, 357 So.
2d 1048, 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
114. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants as follows.
the identity of all parties the defamatory statements were made to;
restated here.
116. This is an action in law for negligence seeking damages that exceed
$15,000.00.
117. The Defendants had a duty to protect Carroll, his businesses and his
family from harm when they assumed the position afforded them by the WaterSound
Declarations of Covenants.
amongst other acts, they failed Carroll and elementary mathematics in concluding the
Tower height incorrectly by margins that defy truth and then failing to read and
Building or structure height in South or North Walton County is the vertical distance or
measurement from the average elevation of the existing natural ground beneath the
footprint of the building or structure to the highest point at the top of the building or
structure or the highest point of the coping of a flat roof, the deck line of a mansard roof,
or the mean height level between eaves and ridge for gable, hip, domed, curved, and
gambrel roofs.
and finally, all of this being rounded out by their rush to write all of this up as a
119. The Defendants breach was the proximate cause of damage to Carroll, his
121. Just as seen in Jenkins v. W.L. Roberts, Inc., 851 So.2d 781 (Fla. 1st DCA
2003), Carroll is entitled to maintain a cause of action against the Defendants for
negligence because the totality of the facts match the essential elements of his claim.
122. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants as follows.
restated here.
124. This is an action in law for invasion of privacy by false light seeking
125. The Defendants through their association with each other gained a position
of coercion over Carroll and his businesses that they would not have under normal
conditions.
126. The Defendants prepared a likeness of Carroll’s real property which put
the value of the improvements to the real property in a false and detrimental light.
and invasion of his privacy as a result of the Defendants projected false light.
128. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants as follows.
restated here.
130. This is an action in law for slander of title seeking damages that exceed
$15,000.00.
131. On September 1, 2009, just days before Carroll’s planned finance closing
for Lot 24, Matteson and WaterSound communicated to Carroll’s Title Company a
fraudulent assessment certificate showing the amount necessary to clear Title was
currently $9,366.14 when it was actually several thousand dollars less and subject to
132. On September 23, 2009 Matteson admitted and testified to the inflated
assessment in County Court.
133. These three facts were intended to impair Carroll’s ability to close his loan
and were the proximate cause of damages to Carroll and his business.
134. WHEREFORE, Carroll demands judgment in his favor and against the
Defendants as follows.
_____________________________
John P. Carroll
Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
Tel: (850)231-5616
Fax: (850)622-5618