Preview
Filing # 197626506 E-Filed 05/04/2024 07:07:30 PM
IN THE COUNTY COURT
IN AND FOR CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA
THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, 2024 CA 000336 A
VS.
CASE NO: 2024-CC-0172
KENT VOGES AND
LESLIE VOGES,
Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs,
VS.
CLAREMONT PROPERTY COMPANY,
STRATEGIC CLAIM CONSULTANTS,
LLC, and GREENBERG NIKOLOFF, P.A.,
Third Party Defendants.
/
VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
KENT VOGES and LESLIE VOGES, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this
Verified Counterclaim against THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. and
bring claims against CLAREMONT PROPERTY COMPANY, STRATEGIC CLAIM
CONSULTANTS, LLC, and GREENBERG NIKOLOFF, P.A. and requests a jury trial on all
counts so triable and in support thereof states:
FACTS
1. The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
INC (hereinafter “The Islands”) filed this action on February 19, 2024 along with an
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
2. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs KENT VOGES and LESLIE VOGES (hereinafter “the
Voges”) filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 29, 2024 and filed a Response to the
Page 1 of 17
05/15/2024 3:02:17 PM CITRUS COUNTY CLERK-FILED FOR RECORD
Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction on March 5, 2024.This is a dispute in
which the damages exceed $50,000 and should be transferred to circuit court.
3. Third Party Defendant, CLAREMONT PROPERTY COMPANY (Hereinafter “CPC” as
they are commonly known), is a for profit corporation headquartered in Bellaire, Texas.
They are authorized to do business in Florida, maintain an office in Lutz, Florida and are
the primary contractor for the reconstruction of the subject condominiums.
4. Third Party Defendant, STRATEGIC CLAIM CONSULTANTS, LLC (Hereinafter
“SCC”), is a for profit limited liability company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. They
have acted as a public adjuster for the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant for The Islands.
5. Third Party Defendant, GREENBERG NIKOLOFF, P.A. (Hereinafter “GN”), is a law
firm organized as a for profit corporation headquartered in Dunedin, Florida. They have
been contracted by the board of The Islands to represent The Islands for various tasks for
the condominium association.
6. On August 30, 2023, Hurricane Idalia struck coastal Citrus County, Florida with
substantial wind and flooding damage.
7. The hurricane caused substantial flooding damage to The Islands Condominium
Association, Inc. and all of the units that are a part of said association.
8. The Islands contracted with Third Party Defendant CPC to repair all units of the
association by rebuilding the “white boxes”, the association part of each individual unit.
9. The contract between The Islands and CPC was designed to undercharge for the white
box but overcharge for the unit finishes, which are owned by and controlled by the
individual unit owners. The Islands and CPC worked to try to convince the unit owners
that they needed to use CPC for their finishes for several reasons.
Page 2 of 17
10. Upon information and belief, CPC did not complete construction in several of the units
but was still paid for work on those units.
11. The Islands contracted with Third Party Defendant, SCC for public adjusting services for
the insurance claim. The Islands agreed to give SCC 7% of the entire claim for their
services. The Islands were not authorized to contract with SCC for payments of the 7% of
the unit finishes, which are owned by the individual unit owners, not the association.
12. The Islands contracted with Third Party Defendant, GN for some services related to the
insurance claim. The Islands agreed to give GN 3% of the entire claim for their services.
The Islands were not authorized to contract with GN for payments of the 3% of the unit
finishes, which are owned by the individual unit owners, not the association.
13. The Voges completed the construction on their own white box because of the
unreasonable delays by The Islands and CPC. CPC performed no work in the unit owned
by the Voges. The Voges are entitled to be reimbursed for their outlay for the
construction of the white box as the insurance company has paid or will pay the
association for that work.
COUNT
I
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE ISLANDS
14. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
15. The Islands owes a duty to its owners to act in the best interest and on behalf of the unit
owners. Florida Statute 718.111 (1)(a).
16. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with CPC.
17. The Islands beached their duties by failing to supervise the work of CPC, which was
wholly substandard.
Page 3 of 17
18. The Islands breached their duty by failing to secure the premises as they promised to the
unit owners.
19. The Islands breached their duty by failing to take action against CPC when the workers
of CPC were abusing the property belonging to the unit owners, including defecating in
their units, using the appliances of the unit owners, sleeping in the units owned by the
unit owners and damaging the property of the unit owners.
20. The Islands breached their duty when they paid CPC for work CPC did not perform.
21. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with SCC.
22. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with GN.
23. The Islands breached their duties by paying GN to write checks and approve payments to
unit owners, duties of the association. |
24. The Islands breached their duty by bringing lawsuits against the unit owners, attempting
to prevent them from living in their homesteads without good cause.
25. The Islands have breached their duty by failing to advance the insurance money to the
Voges for the cost of construction of the white box of their unit.
26. The Voges suffered financial damages and great grief and frustration as a result of the
breaches of duty by The Islands.
27. The actions of The Islands were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by
the Voges.
28. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
29. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1) (a).
Page 4 of 17
30. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any dues or assessments
charged by the association to fund litigation against them when the unit owner prevails
pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1)(a).
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, dues
or assessment refunds, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant The Islands
along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
COUNT I
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE ISLANDS
31. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
32. The Islands owes a duty to its owners to act in the best interest of the unit owners. Florida
Statute 718.111 (1)(a).
33. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with CPC.
34, The Islands beached their duties by failing to supervise the work of CPC, which was
wholly substandard.
35. The Islands breached their duty by failing to secure the premises as they promised to the
unit owners.
36. The Islands breached their duty by failing to take action against CPC when the workers
of CPC were abusing the property belonging to the unit owners, including defecating in
their units, using the appliances of the unit owners, sleeping in the units owned by the
unit owners and damaging the property of the unit owners.
37. The Islands breached their duty when they paid CPC for work CPC did not perform.
38. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with SCC.
Page 5 of 17
39. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with GN.
40. The Islands breached their duties by paying GN to write checks and approve payments to
unit owners, duties of the association.
41. The Islands breached their duty by bringing lawsuits against the unit owners, attempting
to prevent them from living in their homesteads without good cause.
42. The Islands have breached their duty by failing to advance the insurance money to the
Voges for the cost of construction of the white box of their unit.
43. The Voges suffered financial damages and great grief and frustration as a result of the
breaches of duty by The Islands.
44. The actions of The Islands were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by
the Voges.
45. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
46. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs
pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1) (a).
47. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any dues or assessments
charged by the association to fund litigation against them when the unit owner prevails
pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1)(a).
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, dues
or assessment refunds, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant The Islands
along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
Page 6 of 17
COUNT II
NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CPC
48. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
49. Third Party Defendant CPC oweda duty to the Voges to perform the work for which it
was hired to do in a professional workmanlike fashion.
50. Third Party Defendant CPC owed a duty to the Voges to not damage any of their
property.
51. CPC breached that duty by its acts described above.
52. In addition, CPC employees were squatting in the unit owned by the Voges, the
employees were sleeping the in the unit and they discovered personal hygiene items there
as well. This happened in multiple other units as well.
53. The Voges suffered financial damages and great grief and frustration as a result of the
breaches of duty by CPC.
54. The actions of CPC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the
Voges.
55. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
56. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and CPC.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant CPC along with any other relief
this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
Page 7 of 17
COUNT IV
BREACH OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT
AGAINST CPC
57. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
58. The intended third party beneficiary of a contract may sue for breach of contract. Taylor
Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850 So.2d 536, 543 (Fla. s" DCA 2003).
59. Upon information and belief, CPC breached its contract by failing to perform its duties
under the subject construction contract.
60. The Voges were damaged by the breach of contract by the actions of CPC and their
employees.
61. The actions of CPC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the
Voges.
62. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
63. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and CPC.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant CPC along with any other relief
this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
COUNT V
BREACH OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT
AGAINST SCC
64. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
Page 8 of 17
incorporate them herein.
65. The intended third party beneficiary of a contract may sue for breach of contract. Taylor
Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850 So.2d 536, 543 (Fla. 5" DCA 2003).
66. Upon information and belief, SCC breached its contract by failing to perform its duties
under the subject public adjusting contract.
67. SCC entered into a contract with The Islands for public adjusting services. The contract
was to pay 7% of the insurance proceeds from The Islands claim from damage caused by
Hurricane Idalia.
68. The contract provided for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild the white box for
which the association is responsible and also for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild
the unit finishes for which each unit owner owns and is responsible.
69. The Islands was not authorized to contract on behalf of the individual unit owners.
70. SCC knew or should have known they could not receive compensation for the unit
finishes without authorization from the individual unit owners.
71. In addition, SCC did not provide a valuable service to the association, as they did not
obtain more insurance proceeds than the association would have received had they not
engaged SCC.
72. The Voges were damaged by the breach of contract by the actions of SCC and their
employees.
73. The actions of SCC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the
Voges.
74. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
Page 9 of 17
75. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and SCC.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant SCC along with any other relief
this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
COUNT VI
UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST SCC
76. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
77. SCC entered into a contract with The Islands for public adjusting services. The contract
was to pay 7% of the insurance proceeds from The Islands claim from damage caused by
Hurricane Idalia.
78. The contract provided for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild the white box for
which the association is responsible and also for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild
the unit finishes for which each unit owner owns and is responsible.
79. The Islands was not authorized to contract on behalf of the individual unit owners.
80. SCC knew or should have known they could not receive compensation for the unit
finishes without authorization from the individual unit owners.
81. In addition, SCC did not provide a valuable service to the association, as they did not
obtain more insurance proceeds than the association would have received had they not
engaged SCC.
82. The Voges were damaged by the breach of contract by the actions of SCC and their
employees.
Page 10 of 17
83. The actions of SCC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the
Voges.
84. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
85. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and SCC.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’
fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant SCC along with any other relief this
Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
COUNT VII
BREACH OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT
AGAINST GN
86. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
87. The intended third party beneficiary of a contract may sue for breach of contract. Taylor
Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850 So.2d 536, 543 (Fla. 5" DCA 2003).
88. Upon information and belief, GN breached its contract by failing to perform its duties
under the subject contract.
89. GN has been retained to represent The Islands.
90. GN has been paid an hourly fee for representation of The Islands for general
representation, collections and overseeing the insurance claim process.
91. GN also entered into a contract to receive 3% of the insurance proceeds from both the
white box and the unit finishes.
Page 11 of 17
92. The unit finishes are owned by the individual unit owners and The Islands and GN were
not authorized to agree to pay or accept a fee from the insurance proceeds for the unit
finishes.
93. GN has not properly or professionally represented The Islands.
94. Their actions have cost all of the unit owners of The Islands thousands of dollars
unnecessarily.
95. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated
to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
96. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and GN.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant GN along with any other relief this
Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
COUNT VIII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST GN
97, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
98. GN has been retained to represent The Islands.
99. GN has been paid an hourly fee for representation of The Islands for general
representation, collections and overseeing the insurance claim process.
100. GN also entered into a contract to receive 3% of the insurance proceeds from both
the white box and the unit finishes.
101. The unit finishes are owned by the individual unit owners and The Islands and
Page 12 of 17
GN were not authorized to agree to pay or accept a fee from the insurance proceeds for
the unit finishes.
102. GN has not properly or professionally represented The Islands.
103. Their actions have cost all of the unit owners of The Islands thousands of dollars
unnecessarily.
104. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are
obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
105. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and GN.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant GN along with any other relief this
Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
COUNT
IX
CONFLICT OF INTEREST AGAINST GN
106. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and
incorporate them herein.
107. GN has been retained to represent The Islands.
108. GN has been paid an hourly fee for representation of The Islands for general
representation, collections and overseeing the insurance claim process.
109. GN also entered into a contract to receive 3% of the insurance proceeds from both the
white box and the unit finishes.
110. The unit finishes are owned by the individual unit owners and The Islands and GN were
not authorized to agree to pay or accept a fee from the insurance proceeds for the unit
Page 13 of 17
finishes.
111. The work of GN representing and getting paid by both The Islands and the unit owners
is an explicit conflict of interest.
112. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are
obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs.
113. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and GN.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages,
attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant GN along with any other relief this
Honorable Court determines to be just and fair.
Page 14 of 17
COUNLX
114. Plainuifs Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one
(1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein.
115. The elements of a cause ofaction for civil conspiracy
are: a conspiracy between two or more parties, to do an
unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, the
doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy and
damage to the Plaintiff as a result of the acts done under the
conspiracy. Walters v Blankenship, 931 $0.2d 137, 140
116. The Islands, CPC, SCC and GN are partics to a civil
conspiracy against the Voges and all other unit owners of
The Islands.
117. The Islands, CPC, SCC and GN conspired to do an
unlawful act, namely financially benefiting themselves at
the expense of the individual unit owners of The Islands by
unlawful means.
118. The Islands and GN owed a duty to the Voges and other
unit owners to protect them from this unlawful scheme.
119. The Islands, CPC, SCC and GN committed multiple
overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy including
discussing their plan and executing their plan.
120. Defendants’ conspiracy and their respective overt acts
caused the Voges and other unit owners to suffer damages.
Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a
judgment awarding damages, and costs against all Defendants
named herein along with any other relief this Honorable Court
determines to be just and fair.
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the
foregoing and that the facts alleged therein are true and correct
to the best of my knowledge and belief,
Lsend If: Vores6
KENT VOGES ¢
VERIFICA TION
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that | have read the
Panwa nine al ohn ahi Pants ala ald dhacnio nen fee amd Ane
wk
to the best of my knowledge and belief. ,
Yobe Ia
LESLIE VOGES 7
Stanley W. Plappert, as attorney for the Defendants/
Counter Plaintitls, hereby designates the following email
addresses for the purpose of service of all documents required to
be served pursuant to Rule 2.516, Fla. R. Jud. Admin. (effective
September 1, 2012) in this proceeding:
Primary E-Mail Address: SWP@flagocala.com
Secondary E-Mail Address: DR@flagocala.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
| HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing has been furnished by email to the following on this
“'3¢day of May 2024:
® Scott Gross, Esquire
Scoi@associationlawfL com
Stanley W. Plappert, Esquire
The Florida Legal Advocacy
Group, P.A.
Attorney for Defendants/Counter
Plaintiffs
445 NE 8 Avenue
Ocala, FL 34470
Florida Bar No. 76603
352-732-8030 telephone
888-399-3129 facsimile
swp@flagocala.com
Page 16 of 16
Preview
Filing # 197626506 E-Filed 05/04/2024 07:07:30 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR CITRUS COUNTY, FLORIDA THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, 2024 CA 000336 A VS. CASE NO: 2024-CC-0172 KENT VOGES AND LESLIE VOGES, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs, VS. CLAREMONT PROPERTY COMPANY, STRATEGIC CLAIM CONSULTANTS, LLC, and GREENBERG NIKOLOFF, P.A., Third Party Defendants. / VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND KENT VOGES and LESLIE VOGES, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this Verified Counterclaim against THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. and bring claims against CLAREMONT PROPERTY COMPANY, STRATEGIC CLAIM CONSULTANTS, LLC, and GREENBERG NIKOLOFF, P.A. and requests a jury trial on all counts so triable and in support thereof states: FACTS 1. The Plaintiff/Counter Defendant THE ISLANDS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC (hereinafter “The Islands”) filed this action on February 19, 2024 along with an Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs KENT VOGES and LESLIE VOGES (hereinafter “the Voges”) filed a Motion to Dismiss on February 29, 2024 and filed a Response to the Page 1 of 17 05/15/2024 3:02:17 PM CITRUS COUNTY CLERK-FILED FOR RECORD Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction on March 5, 2024.This is a dispute in which the damages exceed $50,000 and should be transferred to circuit court. 3. Third Party Defendant, CLAREMONT PROPERTY COMPANY (Hereinafter “CPC” as they are commonly known), is a for profit corporation headquartered in Bellaire, Texas. They are authorized to do business in Florida, maintain an office in Lutz, Florida and are the primary contractor for the reconstruction of the subject condominiums. 4. Third Party Defendant, STRATEGIC CLAIM CONSULTANTS, LLC (Hereinafter “SCC”), is a for profit limited liability company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. They have acted as a public adjuster for the Plaintiff/Counter Defendant for The Islands. 5. Third Party Defendant, GREENBERG NIKOLOFF, P.A. (Hereinafter “GN”), is a law firm organized as a for profit corporation headquartered in Dunedin, Florida. They have been contracted by the board of The Islands to represent The Islands for various tasks for the condominium association. 6. On August 30, 2023, Hurricane Idalia struck coastal Citrus County, Florida with substantial wind and flooding damage. 7. The hurricane caused substantial flooding damage to The Islands Condominium Association, Inc. and all of the units that are a part of said association. 8. The Islands contracted with Third Party Defendant CPC to repair all units of the association by rebuilding the “white boxes”, the association part of each individual unit. 9. The contract between The Islands and CPC was designed to undercharge for the white box but overcharge for the unit finishes, which are owned by and controlled by the individual unit owners. The Islands and CPC worked to try to convince the unit owners that they needed to use CPC for their finishes for several reasons. Page 2 of 17 10. Upon information and belief, CPC did not complete construction in several of the units but was still paid for work on those units. 11. The Islands contracted with Third Party Defendant, SCC for public adjusting services for the insurance claim. The Islands agreed to give SCC 7% of the entire claim for their services. The Islands were not authorized to contract with SCC for payments of the 7% of the unit finishes, which are owned by the individual unit owners, not the association. 12. The Islands contracted with Third Party Defendant, GN for some services related to the insurance claim. The Islands agreed to give GN 3% of the entire claim for their services. The Islands were not authorized to contract with GN for payments of the 3% of the unit finishes, which are owned by the individual unit owners, not the association. 13. The Voges completed the construction on their own white box because of the unreasonable delays by The Islands and CPC. CPC performed no work in the unit owned by the Voges. The Voges are entitled to be reimbursed for their outlay for the construction of the white box as the insurance company has paid or will pay the association for that work. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE ISLANDS 14. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 15. The Islands owes a duty to its owners to act in the best interest and on behalf of the unit owners. Florida Statute 718.111 (1)(a). 16. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with CPC. 17. The Islands beached their duties by failing to supervise the work of CPC, which was wholly substandard. Page 3 of 17 18. The Islands breached their duty by failing to secure the premises as they promised to the unit owners. 19. The Islands breached their duty by failing to take action against CPC when the workers of CPC were abusing the property belonging to the unit owners, including defecating in their units, using the appliances of the unit owners, sleeping in the units owned by the unit owners and damaging the property of the unit owners. 20. The Islands breached their duty when they paid CPC for work CPC did not perform. 21. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with SCC. 22. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with GN. 23. The Islands breached their duties by paying GN to write checks and approve payments to unit owners, duties of the association. | 24. The Islands breached their duty by bringing lawsuits against the unit owners, attempting to prevent them from living in their homesteads without good cause. 25. The Islands have breached their duty by failing to advance the insurance money to the Voges for the cost of construction of the white box of their unit. 26. The Voges suffered financial damages and great grief and frustration as a result of the breaches of duty by The Islands. 27. The actions of The Islands were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Voges. 28. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 29. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1) (a). Page 4 of 17 30. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any dues or assessments charged by the association to fund litigation against them when the unit owner prevails pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1)(a). Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, dues or assessment refunds, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant The Islands along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. COUNT I BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AGAINST THE ISLANDS 31. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 32. The Islands owes a duty to its owners to act in the best interest of the unit owners. Florida Statute 718.111 (1)(a). 33. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with CPC. 34, The Islands beached their duties by failing to supervise the work of CPC, which was wholly substandard. 35. The Islands breached their duty by failing to secure the premises as they promised to the unit owners. 36. The Islands breached their duty by failing to take action against CPC when the workers of CPC were abusing the property belonging to the unit owners, including defecating in their units, using the appliances of the unit owners, sleeping in the units owned by the unit owners and damaging the property of the unit owners. 37. The Islands breached their duty when they paid CPC for work CPC did not perform. 38. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with SCC. Page 5 of 17 39. The Islands breached their duties by entering in to the contract with GN. 40. The Islands breached their duties by paying GN to write checks and approve payments to unit owners, duties of the association. 41. The Islands breached their duty by bringing lawsuits against the unit owners, attempting to prevent them from living in their homesteads without good cause. 42. The Islands have breached their duty by failing to advance the insurance money to the Voges for the cost of construction of the white box of their unit. 43. The Voges suffered financial damages and great grief and frustration as a result of the breaches of duty by The Islands. 44. The actions of The Islands were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Voges. 45. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 46. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1) (a). 47. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any dues or assessments charged by the association to fund litigation against them when the unit owner prevails pursuant to Florida Statute 718.303 (1)(a). Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, dues or assessment refunds, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant The Islands along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. Page 6 of 17 COUNT II NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CPC 48. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 49. Third Party Defendant CPC oweda duty to the Voges to perform the work for which it was hired to do in a professional workmanlike fashion. 50. Third Party Defendant CPC owed a duty to the Voges to not damage any of their property. 51. CPC breached that duty by its acts described above. 52. In addition, CPC employees were squatting in the unit owned by the Voges, the employees were sleeping the in the unit and they discovered personal hygiene items there as well. This happened in multiple other units as well. 53. The Voges suffered financial damages and great grief and frustration as a result of the breaches of duty by CPC. 54. The actions of CPC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Voges. 55. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 56. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and CPC. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant CPC along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. Page 7 of 17 COUNT IV BREACH OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT AGAINST CPC 57. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 58. The intended third party beneficiary of a contract may sue for breach of contract. Taylor Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850 So.2d 536, 543 (Fla. s" DCA 2003). 59. Upon information and belief, CPC breached its contract by failing to perform its duties under the subject construction contract. 60. The Voges were damaged by the breach of contract by the actions of CPC and their employees. 61. The actions of CPC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Voges. 62. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 63. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and CPC. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant CPC along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. COUNT V BREACH OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT AGAINST SCC 64. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and Page 8 of 17 incorporate them herein. 65. The intended third party beneficiary of a contract may sue for breach of contract. Taylor Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850 So.2d 536, 543 (Fla. 5" DCA 2003). 66. Upon information and belief, SCC breached its contract by failing to perform its duties under the subject public adjusting contract. 67. SCC entered into a contract with The Islands for public adjusting services. The contract was to pay 7% of the insurance proceeds from The Islands claim from damage caused by Hurricane Idalia. 68. The contract provided for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild the white box for which the association is responsible and also for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild the unit finishes for which each unit owner owns and is responsible. 69. The Islands was not authorized to contract on behalf of the individual unit owners. 70. SCC knew or should have known they could not receive compensation for the unit finishes without authorization from the individual unit owners. 71. In addition, SCC did not provide a valuable service to the association, as they did not obtain more insurance proceeds than the association would have received had they not engaged SCC. 72. The Voges were damaged by the breach of contract by the actions of SCC and their employees. 73. The actions of SCC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Voges. 74. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. Page 9 of 17 75. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and SCC. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant SCC along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. COUNT VI UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST SCC 76. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 77. SCC entered into a contract with The Islands for public adjusting services. The contract was to pay 7% of the insurance proceeds from The Islands claim from damage caused by Hurricane Idalia. 78. The contract provided for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild the white box for which the association is responsible and also for payment of 7% of the amount to rebuild the unit finishes for which each unit owner owns and is responsible. 79. The Islands was not authorized to contract on behalf of the individual unit owners. 80. SCC knew or should have known they could not receive compensation for the unit finishes without authorization from the individual unit owners. 81. In addition, SCC did not provide a valuable service to the association, as they did not obtain more insurance proceeds than the association would have received had they not engaged SCC. 82. The Voges were damaged by the breach of contract by the actions of SCC and their employees. Page 10 of 17 83. The actions of SCC were a direct and proximate cause of the damages suffered by the Voges. 84. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 85. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and SCC. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant SCC along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. COUNT VII BREACH OF THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY CONTRACT AGAINST GN 86. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 87. The intended third party beneficiary of a contract may sue for breach of contract. Taylor Woodrow Homes Florida, Inc. v. 4/46-A Corp., 850 So.2d 536, 543 (Fla. 5" DCA 2003). 88. Upon information and belief, GN breached its contract by failing to perform its duties under the subject contract. 89. GN has been retained to represent The Islands. 90. GN has been paid an hourly fee for representation of The Islands for general representation, collections and overseeing the insurance claim process. 91. GN also entered into a contract to receive 3% of the insurance proceeds from both the white box and the unit finishes. Page 11 of 17 92. The unit finishes are owned by the individual unit owners and The Islands and GN were not authorized to agree to pay or accept a fee from the insurance proceeds for the unit finishes. 93. GN has not properly or professionally represented The Islands. 94. Their actions have cost all of the unit owners of The Islands thousands of dollars unnecessarily. 95. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 96. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and GN. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant GN along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. COUNT VIII UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST GN 97, Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 98. GN has been retained to represent The Islands. 99. GN has been paid an hourly fee for representation of The Islands for general representation, collections and overseeing the insurance claim process. 100. GN also entered into a contract to receive 3% of the insurance proceeds from both the white box and the unit finishes. 101. The unit finishes are owned by the individual unit owners and The Islands and Page 12 of 17 GN were not authorized to agree to pay or accept a fee from the insurance proceeds for the unit finishes. 102. GN has not properly or professionally represented The Islands. 103. Their actions have cost all of the unit owners of The Islands thousands of dollars unnecessarily. 104. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 105. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and GN. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant GN along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. COUNT IX CONFLICT OF INTEREST AGAINST GN 106. Plaintiffs/Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 107. GN has been retained to represent The Islands. 108. GN has been paid an hourly fee for representation of The Islands for general representation, collections and overseeing the insurance claim process. 109. GN also entered into a contract to receive 3% of the insurance proceeds from both the white box and the unit finishes. 110. The unit finishes are owned by the individual unit owners and The Islands and GN were not authorized to agree to pay or accept a fee from the insurance proceeds for the unit Page 13 of 17 finishes. 111. The work of GN representing and getting paid by both The Islands and the unit owners is an explicit conflict of interest. 112. The Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs have hired the undersigned law firm and are obligated to pay them for their reasonable fees and costs. 113. Upon information and belief, the Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to the contract between The Islands and GN. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, attorneys’ fees and costs against Plaintiff/Counter Defendant GN along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. Page 14 of 17 COUNLX 114. Plainuifs Counter Defendants reallege paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) and incorporate them herein. 115. The elements of a cause ofaction for civil conspiracy are: a conspiracy between two or more parties, to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy and damage to the Plaintiff as a result of the acts done under the conspiracy. Walters v Blankenship, 931 $0.2d 137, 140 116. The Islands, CPC, SCC and GN are partics to a civil conspiracy against the Voges and all other unit owners of The Islands. 117. The Islands, CPC, SCC and GN conspired to do an unlawful act, namely financially benefiting themselves at the expense of the individual unit owners of The Islands by unlawful means. 118. The Islands and GN owed a duty to the Voges and other unit owners to protect them from this unlawful scheme. 119. The Islands, CPC, SCC and GN committed multiple overt acts in furtherance of their conspiracy including discussing their plan and executing their plan. 120. Defendants’ conspiracy and their respective overt acts caused the Voges and other unit owners to suffer damages. Wherefore, Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs pray for a judgment awarding damages, and costs against all Defendants named herein along with any other relief this Honorable Court determines to be just and fair. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing and that the facts alleged therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, Lsend If: Vores6 KENT VOGES ¢ VERIFICA TION Under penalties of perjury, I declare that | have read the Panwa nine al ohn ahi Pants ala ald dhacnio nen fee amd Ane wk to the best of my knowledge and belief. , Yobe Ia LESLIE VOGES 7 Stanley W. Plappert, as attorney for the Defendants/ Counter Plaintitls, hereby designates the following email addresses for the purpose of service of all documents required to be served pursuant to Rule 2.516, Fla. R. Jud. Admin. (effective September 1, 2012) in this proceeding: Primary E-Mail Address: SWP@flagocala.com Secondary E-Mail Address: DR@flagocala.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by email to the following on this “'3¢day of May 2024: ® Scott Gross, Esquire Scoi@associationlawfL com Stanley W. Plappert, Esquire The Florida Legal Advocacy Group, P.A. Attorney for Defendants/Counter Plaintiffs 445 NE 8 Avenue Ocala, FL 34470 Florida Bar No. 76603 352-732-8030 telephone 888-399-3129 facsimile swp@flagocala.com Page 16 of 16