Benderson Contract up for approval on Thursday subject to unknown later amendments

The agenda for the regularly scheduled Board meeting Thursday at 2:00 has been posted on the MCA Member portal.

This is proceeding despite the known lawsuit that states that approval of such a contract requires the consent/approval of MCA members.

The 3 Action Items are approval of the Ground Lease Agreement, Additional prepayments on our existing debt, and set the date of the Annual Member meeting on March 12.

Although the Promissory Note draft is included with the Board materials as a separate agreement, there is no motion to approve its terms.

What is the Board being asked to approve?

The Board is being asked to “authorize the Association President to sign the MCA Benderson Ground Lease Agreement (“Lease”) once the final amendments are made,”

It appears that it means the President can make whatever amendments they want afterward the Board has “approved” it. That means the agreement is not yet final and Board members don’t know the full content of the contract they are considering for approval. Under Chapter 720, the board’s authority is to act in the association’s best interests using reasonable business judgment. Approving something that is still “to be determined” can undermine that duty because directors can’t evaluate cost, risk, or obligations if the material terms are missing.

There is no indication that the President’s right to amend is limited to minor or clerical details (which would commonly be allowed).

Loan Prepayments

The second amendment seeks approval of making $738,000 of loan prepayments. Why are we doing that?

  • If the contract is approved, and BRDI exercises the CE option the interest rate will soon go down to 3%, and we will no longer have a balloon payment in a year (so no need to accelerate payments)
  • The new loan terms indicate we will have to make our first annual payment on March 16 2026, and we estimate it is over $300,000 (see Footnote 1)
  • Our Replacement Fund is underfunded by $5.4 million and we are supposed to be adding $500,000 per year to the fund, not $50,000.
  • Once the CE’s are in place we won’t be able to borrow against the 500 acres or sell any portion if we need significant funds.
  • Once the loan is in place we can’t borrow against our assessments without the permission of Benderson (this was just added in the latest version).

Once these prepayments are made we cannot get that cash back and we don’t have any way to replace it (other than Special Assessments).


If you are an MCA Homeowner* and would like to discuss this and other MCA matters with your fellow Homeowners*, join the “For The Meadows” Facebook group. Please provide your address in your request to join the group so your ownership can be confirmed. (* or spouse of a Homeowner)

Footnote 1 –

First paragraph from Payments section of the Promissory Note:

Consecutive Annual payments of principal and interest at the rate of interest set forth above based on a thirty (30) year amortization period shall commence on March 16, 2026, and shall continue on the third Monday in March of each year thereafter during the term hereof until February _, 2033. All payments received by Lender shall be applied first to interest, then to principal, then to escrows, then to late fees, then to any other fees, then to insurance then to other collection costs or in any other order as determined by Lender, in its sole discretion, as permitted
by law




Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

17 responses to “Benderson Contract up for approval on Thursday subject to unknown later amendments”

  1. David Moore Avatar
    David Moore

    will the group that has filed the lawsuit be asking the judge to place an injunction or whatever other legal ruling they can make to keep the MCA board from going forward with this agenda?

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      Work is underway

      Like

  2. Amy Levine Avatar
    Amy Levine

    Will the filing to restrain this action by the board ask for reimbursement of our attorney fees?

    Like

  3. Denny Harton Avatar

    are we thinking an emergency injunction?

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      Work is underway

      Like

  4. Richard Sommerfeld Avatar
    Richard Sommerfeld

    In the face of the lawsuit filed to put the contract to a community vote and with the D&O insurer apparently declining to defend the MCA, the recklessness with which Perone & Bondur are pursuing a very flawed contract is flummoxing to say the least.

    Like

  5. buffnitty Avatar
    buffnitty

    Would the MCA GM please inform us which insurance company indemnifys MCA officers and directors for fradulant breaches of fiduciary responsibilities?

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      You can see the MCA’s insurance policies under homeowner documents: https://www.themeadowssarasota.org/mca-docs/ (most are not current but the D&O insurance is)
      Appears to be The Cincinnati Insurance Company

      The just declined the MCA’s claim regarding the member vote lawsuit.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. buffnitty Avatar
    buffnitty

    There is probably a pack of Benderson lawyers working with the MCA to fix things so their deal can succeed. Benderson will probably offer our board immunity but encumber none of their own assets – only a shell company and our folks are not bright enough to walk away.

    Like

  7. jennifer newsom Avatar
    jennifer newsom

    Hello all. Thank you for your efforts and information. If you would kindly correct the following, no doubt inadvertent, seeming misrepresentation, it would be appreciated:

    This is proceeding despite the known lawsuit that states that approval of such a contract requires the consent/approval of MCA members.

    The pending lawsuit to which I believe you are referring, in actuality, is a CLAIM that the Benderson deal requires approval of MCA members. The issue is for the court or the jury, if a jury trial, to decide. The claim may be right, or, wrong, but, in any event, a final determination may be a few years away, as I see it.

    Jennifer Newsom Meadows Resident – Somerset Condominium Association ________________________________

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      It is our understanding that the final determination would typically be much quicker than “a few years”. But time will tell.

      Like

    2. Website Admin Avatar

      Drew Clayton who is a resident and lawyer informed residents on Monday that the MCA’s D&O insurer has declined coverage on the member vote lawsuit issue. So if directors vote on/for it, and there are damages awarded later, they will have no insurance coverage. As the President and GM have kept the other directors in the dark on all other legal issues, the other directors likely don’t even know about this. If you know any, please let them know!

      Like

      1. Jennifer R Newsom Avatar
        Jennifer R Newsom

        How does Mr. Clayton know this? Also, could the name of the Website Administrator responding to posted questions also be posted? It would lend credibility to statements.

        Jennifer Newsom, Meadows resident

        Like

      2. Website Admin Avatar

        Mr. Clayton is consulting counsel to the complaint regarding tour members’ right to vote on this matter.

        Like

      3. Jennifer R Newsom Avatar
        Jennifer R Newsom

        Would it be unusual for an insurance company to decline D & O insurance coverage on a claim that does not name directors or officers but, rather, the corporation itself?

        Like

  8. John Canty Avatar

    Why wasn’t an emergency injunction filed today (Wednesday) to prevent the vote tomorrow?

    Like

    1. Website Admin Avatar

      It was filed this morning. It requires a judge’s order to create a temporary restraining order, we can’t just file one.

      Like

Leave a reply to David Moore Cancel reply