Appellants Initial Brief Seeking Injunction

E-Copy Received Feb 24, 2010 9:46 AM
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff/Appellant,
v. CASE NO.: 1D10-643

L.T. CASE: 2009 CA 002021
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC., WATERCOLOR
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
SANDRA MATTESON, DAVID LILIENTHAL,
RONALD VOELKER, MARY JOULE,
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE,
Defendants/Appellees.
______________________________/
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
IN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NUMBER 2009 CA 002021
___________________________________________________________________
APPELLAT'S IITIAL BRIEF

___________________________________________________________________
John P. Carroll, Pro Se

Box 613524
WaterSound, FL 32461
Telephone 850-231-5616
Facsimile 850-622-5618
AAbsolute@aol.com
TABLE OF COTETS
TABLE OF
CONTENTS................................................................................................................i
TABLE OF
AUTHORITIES.........................................................................................................ii
PRELIMINARY
STATEMENT............................................................................................................1
STATEMENT OF THE
CASE/FACTS............................................................................................................2
SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................7
ARGUMENTS
I. A DE OVO REVIEW WILL SHOW THAT THE CIRCUIT

COURT MISAPPLIED THE LAW WHE IT DECIDED THAT A
CITIZE WOULD OT BE IRREPARABLY HARMED BY
DEFEDATS WATERSOUD AD WATERCOLORS POLICY
OF WITHHOLDIG PUBLIC RECORDS AD HOA RECORDS,
SIMPLY BECAUSE A CITIZE HAD THE ABILITY TO FILE
SUIT TO GAI THE RECORDS THROUGH FORMAL
DISCOVERY, IF CERTAI CODITIOS WERE MET.
..8
II. THE CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHE IT DECIDED THAT WATERSOUD AD
WATERCOLORS DRB RECORDS ARE OT PUBLIC
RECORDS AS DESCRIBED BY 119.011(11).
................11
III. THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETIO WHE IT DEIED
PLAITIFF CARROLLS PETITIO FOR IJUCTIO.
....13
i
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................16
CERTIFICATE OF
SERVICE.................................................................................................................17
CERTIFICATE OF
COMPLIANCE........................................................................................................17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison,

296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974).........................................................10, 12, 15
ews-Press Pub. Co., Inc. v. Carlson,

410 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)..............................................................12
Krause v. Reno,
366 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)............................................................12
Wood v. Marston,
442 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1983).............................................................................12
Daniels v. Bryson,
548 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)..............................................................12
Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc.,

379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980)....12
Statutes
119.011(11), Fla. Stat. (2009)..8, 11, 12
286.011, Fla. Stat. (2009)2
286.011(2), Fla. Stat. (2009)...10, 15

ii
720.303 (a), Fla. Stat. (2009)...8, 10, 15
Other Authority
AGO 99-53 Architectural Review Boards are Subject to the Sunshine Law.7
PRELIMIARY STATEMET
Appellant JOHN P. CARROLL, Plaintiff below, will be referred to in this Initial
Brief as Carroll or Plaintiff Carroll.
Appellee WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Defendant below, will be referred to in this Initial Brief as WaterSound or
Defendant WaterSound.
Appellee WATERCOLOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant
below, will be referred to in this Initial Brief as Watercolor or Defendant
Watercolor.
Appellee SANDRA MATTESON, Defendant below, will be referred to in this
Initial Brief as Matteson or Defendant Matteson
For purposes of this brief, the following abbreviations have the following
meanings:
T = Trial transcript
R = Record on appeal
1
STATEMET OF THE CASE AD FACTS
On October 9, 2009, Plaintiff Carroll filed his original Complaint against
Defendant WaterSound and other defendants in Walton County Circuit Court with (10)
Counts, seeking equitable and other relief with case number 2009 CA 002021 (R 1).
On November 3, 2009, Plaintiff Carroll filed a separate Motion for Injunction, which
shared the same case number and included 7 Exhibits, seeking to permanently enjoin
Defendants WaterSound and Matteson from withholding public records (R 2).
The Petition for Injunction cited Floridas HOA Statute 720.303 as grounds for
the injunction flowing from Plaintiff Carrolls membership in the WaterSound HOA
(R 2). In addition, Carroll put forth Floridas Sunshine Statutes 119.01(1) and 286.011
as additional authorities, reasoning that the Walton County Building Department
delegated permit authority to Defendants WaterSound and Watercolor (R 2).
Thereafter, on January 4, 2010, Plaintiff Carroll filed a Supplemental Brief in
Support of Injunction setting forth the argument and citations of authorities which
authorized the injunction on HOA grounds and Sunshine Law grounds (R 3).
On January 5, 2010, Defendants WaterSound and Matteson filed a Response to
Motion for Injunction setting forth the argument that Defendant WaterSound is a
private organization and not an agency of government. Further, Defendants responded
2
that Plaintiff has now issued a formal discovery request for the same documents he has
previously sought, and as a result the Defendants will get those documents together in
short order (R 4).
Thereafter, on January 5, 2010, Plaintiff Carroll filed a Reply to Defendants
Response for Injunction. Plaintiff pointed out to the Court that the Defendants
acknowledged that the documents he has been seeking for more than (2) years are the
same type of documents he seeks to enjoin the Defendants from withholding in the
future. Further, Plaintiff noted that the Defendants were served with the Petition for
Injunction 61 days prior to his response wherein he loosely offered I do not foresee
any problem withwe should be able to schedule a date in the near future for you to
review (R 5).
On January 5, 2010, the Honorable Judge W. Howard LaPorte held the hearing
on the Petition for Injunction. In addition to the (7) Exhibits attached to the Petition
for Injunction, Carroll introduced a true copy of a letter, from Defendant WaterSound,
that is required by the Walton County Building Department in order to obtain a Walton
County Building Permit that lists the lot number and builder approved (R 6; T 5).
Plaintiff Carroll introduced a true copy of Walton Countys Permit Checklist
into evidence, which proved that Walton County requires the approval of Defendants
WaterSound and Watercolor as a prerequisite for obtaining a County Building Permit
3
(R 7; T 6).
Plaintiff Carroll had witnesses present who are the Walton County Building
Official, Billy Bearden and County Planner, Hal Laird to testify to the authenticity and
authority of the Exhibits. Defendants Counsel stipulated to the authenticity and
authority of the Exhibits and the witnesses were released without testimony (T 6, 7).
Plaintiff Carroll entered a qualified written request into evidence. The request
was delivered by Carrolls attorney to Defendants WaterSound and Watercolor through
their agent, Defendant Matteson, on November 9, 2007 and sought records pertaining
to approval of builders, discipline of builders, removal or prohibition of builders and
records pertaining to submittals for building permits (R 8; T 7, 8).
Plaintiff Carroll then entered a follow up written request, dated May 2008, to
Defendants WaterSound and Matteson into the record. That request served by
Carrolls attorney on Matteson, was again seeking HOA and Design Review Board
(DRB) documents. Carroll testified that request was also denied with no rebuttal by
Defendants (R 9; T 8, 9).
Plaintiff Carroll then entered another qualified request into the record. This
letter was issued to Defendant WaterSound on March 25, 2009. Again, this requested
DRB documents of WaterSound. Again, Carroll testified without rebuttal that he was
denied access to review these records (R 10; T 9).
4
Next, Plaintiff Carroll entered another written request into the record. This
exhibit was a string of e-mails initiated in March 2009 and flowing through to October
29, 2009. It showed that the records requested pertained to the same permit type
documents repeatedly requested over the course of 723 days, yet not made available for
review (R 11; T 9, 10).
Carroll testified that he tried as hard as he could, over the course of 2 years, to
obtain the records without seeking an injunction and that he was being harmed the
entire time (T 10).
Carroll testified that he does not seek a blanket order. Instead, Carroll sought a
limited order to enjoin a future violation that resembled the same repeated violations
evidenced therein (T 11).
Carroll testified that the injunction would not create an undue hardship on
Defendants, in that he only sought review. The evidence and testimony entered
showed that Carroll offered to bring his own copier and paper to limit any kind of
hardship so Defendants injury, if any, would be inconsiderable (T 11).
Defendants Counsel offered only one argument in his rebuttal to the Petition for
Injunction and trial testimony. That argument simply stated that they intend to offer
Plaintiff review of everything he has requested thus far, with one caveat. Counsel
5
stated that, I dont want to get in a situation where we produce all of these documents
and then say three months down the road, he wants to come back and look at again
new documents that have been generated. (T 13).
Defendants Counsel offered testimony that his clients may have actually
honored Plaintiffs requests. He did so with shyness and deferred to Plaintiffs right to
correct him if he misinformed the Court, because his clients did not appear for the
hearing (T 14).
Carroll did correct Defendants Counsels shy assertion that the qualified
requests were honored. To help the court with proof, Carroll directed the Court, and
opposing Counsel, to Exhibit 6 of the hearing, which was his clients written
acknowledgement that in fact they did not honor Carrolls qualified written requests
(R11; T 15, 16).
Plaintiff Carroll only sought compliance with Florida Statutes. Carrolls entire
argument was founded on the principle that public policy favors obedience to the
Statutes in that it benefits the public when the statutes are obeyed, and injures the
public when they are violated. This well grounded thesis provided the lower tribunal
with everything it needed to find that Carroll had a high probability of success on the
merits (R 2; R 3; R 5; T 3, 4, 11, 12).
Judge LaPorte filed his Order denying the petition on January 12, 2010 (R 12; T
6
16).
This appeal, seeking reversal with instructions to the lower court to enjoin
Defendants from withholding public records in the future, was timely filed on February
8, 2010 (R 13).
SUMMARY OF ARGUMET
This case is an appeal from a final order denying a petition for injunction. In the
petition, Appellant sought to enjoin Respondents, WaterSound Beach Community
Association, Inc and their management, from withholding public records from
Appellant. Yes, at first impression, any reasonable person might conclude that a
private organization is not encumbered by the Government in the Sunshine Laws.
However, this is a case where the private organization, controlled by the St. Joe
Company, is comingled with the special power of the government. Appellant argued
and continues to show that this private organization is exerting special leverage over
Floridas citizens in an unlawful coven with our government.
Attorney General Legal Advisory Opinion AGO 99-53 makes the point on
several fronts that these committees are subject to the Sunshine Law. It is beyond
question that these boards are subject to Floridas HOA Statute 720, in so much as any
member of the HOA is entitled to complete and immediate access to records review.
The Defendants, WaterSound and Sandra Mattesons position to withhold
7
official records from their own members violates Floridas HOA Statute 720.303 (a).
The Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor and Mattesons policy of denying public
access to the activities and documentation that occur during their approval or denial of
building plans for Walton County permitting, violates Floridas Sunshine Statutes at
286.011.
The Circuit Court misapplied the law when it reasoned that a citizen would not
be harmed by WaterSound and Watercolors policy of withholding public records,
because a citizen had the separate ability to file suit to gain the records through formal
discovery, if certain conditions were met. The Circuit Court committed reversible
error when it decided that WaterSound and Watercolors DRB records are not public
records as described by 119.011(11). The Circuit Court abused its discretion when it
denied Carrolls petition for injunction.
ARGUMET
I. A DE OVO REVIEW WILL SHOW THAT THE CIRCUIT

COURT MISAPPLIED THE LAW WHE IT REASOED
THAT A CITIZE WOULD OT BE IRREPARABLY
HARMED BY WATERSOUD AD WATERCOLORS
POLICY OF WITHHOLDIG PUBLIC RECORDS AD
HOA RECORDS, SIMPLY BECAUSE A CITIZE HAD
THE ABILITY TO FILE SUIT TO GAI THE RECORDS
THROUGH FORMAL DISCOVERY, IF CERTAI
CODITIOS WERE MET.
8
In this case it is not disputed that:
1. Carroll is a Florida Citizen.
2. Carroll is and was a member of the WaterSound HOA.
3. Carroll is a builder who builds within WaterSound and Watercolor.
4. The Walton County Building Department requires a letter of
approval from WaterSound and Watercolor, approving the plans and the builder, as
a prerequisite to obtaining a building permit.
5. Carroll made requests for records of WaterSound and Watercolor
pertaining to HOA records and DRB records.
6. The records were requested in writing.
7. Carroll was repeatedly denied access to the review of the records.
8. The denial persists in excess of 2 years.
9. The Petition for Injunction was served over 2 months prior to the
hearing on the petition.
10. Counsel for Defendants represented to the Court that the records
requested by Carroll are the same records Carroll had been requesting over the
proceeding 2 years.
11. Counsel for Defendants represented that, because Carroll had now
requested the records as part of formal discovery in the pending action, the records
9
would be turned over to Carroll at some point in the future.
12. Despite all of the foregoing, Counsel for Defendants represented to
the Court that, I dont want to get in a situation where we produce all of these
documents and then say three months down the road, he wants to come back and look
at again new documents that have been generated.
13. Carroll offered to bring his own copier and paper to alleviate the
burden on Defendants.
Florida Statute 720.303 is the law that expressly governs requests for
HOA records such as Carrolls. At 720.303(a) there is a rebuttable presumption that,
to deny a members requests for more than 10 days, is a willful failure to comply with
the law.
Florida Statute 286.011(2), states that the circuit courts have jurisdiction to issue
injunctions upon application by any citizen of this State. The burden of prevailing in
such actions has been significantly eased by the judiciary in sunshine cases. While
normally, irreparable injury must be proved by the plaintiff before an injunction may
be issued, in Sunshine Law cases the mere showing that the law has been violated
constitutes "irreparable public injury." Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d
473 (Fla. 1974)
Carroll successfully provided the Circuit Court with the essential elements to
10
support the issuance of an injunction:
1. Irreparable harm
2. A clear legal right
3. An inadequate remedy at law
4. A likelihood of success on the merits
Counsel for the Defendants testified to the Court that they would allow Carroll
to review the records he had previously requested only because he had ultimately
requested those records as part of formal discovery in the present lawsuit. The Court
reasoned that this would render Carrolls injunction moot. The Court overlooked, or
misapplied, the Defendants caveat that they would not allow Carroll to review future
records generated by the same defendants, pertaining to the same acts. Carroll and
Walton Countys other citizens need protection from the impending future violations
by Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor and Matteson. Carroll prays the justices of
this 1st District Court of Appeals stand up for Carroll and the citizens of Walton
County and require the lower court to issue an injunction barring the Defendants from
future back room politics.
II. THE CIRCUIT COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR WHE IT DECIDED THAT WATERSOUD AD
WATERCOLORS DRB RECORDS ARE OT PUBLIC
RECORDS AS DESCRIBED BY 119.011(11).
11
Florida Statute 119.011(11) defines public records as to include: all
documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings,
data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form,
characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or
ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.
The Florida Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all
materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are
used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. Shevin v. Byron, Harless,
Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (Fla. 1980).
This case is analogous to, but more poignantly valid than, Town of Palm Beach
v. Gradison, News-Press Publishing Co. v. Carlson, Krause v. Reno, Wood v. Marston
or Daniels v. Bryson. Each of those cases were decided on the basis that official acts
were delegated to advisory groups. In each case the advisory group was held to be
subject to the Sunshine Law. In the case before you now, Walton County has
delegated full authority to the WaterSound and Watercolor design review boards, in
their sole and absolute discretion, to approve or reject plans or builders for County
building permits.
Under the above stated authorities, it is well established that Walton Countys
citizens can review building permit files held by the Walton County Planning and
12
Zoning Department, as well as the Building Department. That is with a special
exception, if a resident seeks to review those records pertaining to WaterSound or
Watercolor, the County does not maintain those. The citizen must request those
records directly from WaterSound or Watercolor.
As the trial court clearly observed, by competent substantial evidence,
Defendants WaterSound and Watercolor will not allow a citizen to review those
records. In fact, the Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor and Matteson will not permit
review of those records by their own members. Counsel for Defendants specifically
avoided any discussion or rebuttal of the Sunshine threshold. Nonetheless, the trial
court decided those records were not subject to any public records scrutiny.
The lower court committed reversible error when it failed to consider the DRB
records pertaining to plans review, and approval of Florida licensed contractors to
obtain building permits within their communities, public records.
III. THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETIO WHE

IT DEIED CARROLLS PETITIO FOR IJUCTIO.
Again, in this case it is not disputed that:
1. Carroll is a Florida Citizen.
2. Carroll is and was a member of the WaterSound HOA.
3. Carroll is a builder who builds within WaterSound and Watercolor.
13
4. The Walton County Building Department requires a letter of approval
from WaterSound and Watercolor, approving the plans and the builder, as a
prerequisite to obtaining a building permit.
5. Carroll made requests for records of WaterSound and Watercolor
pertaining to HOA records and DRB records.
6. The records were requested in writing.
7. Carroll was repeatedly denied access to the review of the records.
8. The denial persists in excess of 2 years.
9. The Petition for Injunction was served over 2 months prior to the
hearing on the petition.
10. Counsel for Defendants represented to the Court that the records
requested by Carroll are the same records Carroll had been requesting over the
proceeding 2 years.
11. Counsel for Defendants represented that, because Carroll had now
requested the records as part of formal discovery in the pending action, the records
would be turned over to Carroll at some point in the future.
12. Despite all of the foregoing, Counsel for Defendants represented to
the Court that, I dont want to get in a situation where we produce all of these
documents and then say three months down the road, he wants to come back and look
14
at again new documents that have been generated.
13. Carroll offered to bring his own copier and paper to alleviate the
burden on Defendants.
Florida Statute 720.303 is the law that expressly governs requests for
HOA records such as Carrolls. At 720.303(a) there is a rebuttable presumption that to
deny a members requests for more than 10 days is a willful failure to comply with the
law.
Florida Statute 286.011(2), states that the circuit courts have jurisdiction to issue
injunctions upon application by any citizen of this State. The burden of prevailing in
such actions has been significantly eased by the judiciary in sunshine cases. While
normally irreparable injury must be proved by the plaintiff before an injunction may be
issued, in Sunshine Law cases the mere showing that the law has been violated
constitutes "irreparable public injury." Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d
473 (Fla. 1974)
Carroll successfully provided the Circuit Court with the essential elements to
support the issuance of an injunction:
1. Irreparable harm
2. A clear legal right
3. An inadequate remedy at law
15
4. A likelihood of success on the merits
It is Carrolls complete belief that, under identical circumstances, any reasonable
judge would have issued the injunction at the conclusion of the hearing. Plaintiff
Carroll, respectfully requests that this court consider the judges position, the
substantial pleadings, testimony, evidence and lack of defense proffered by Defendants
WaterSound, Watercolor and Matteson to determine that the lower court abused its
discretion when it denied Carrolls Petition for Injunction.
COCLUSIO
For the above-mentioned reasons, Plaintiff Carroll contends that the trial court
committed reversible error and abused its discretion by denying the Petition for
Injunction, and thus Carroll requests that this Court reverse the trial courts denial of
Injunction and remand with instructions for the immediate issuance of the injunction.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
John P. Carroll, pro se
Box 613524
(850) 231-5616 - phone
(850) 622-5618- fax
AAbsolute@aol.com
16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished to Christopher L. George, Esq., PO Box 1034, Mobile, AL 36633 and to
Mark D. Davis, Esq., 694 Baldwin Ave. Suite 1, PO Box 705, DeFuniak Springs, FL
32435, and to Gary Shipman, Esq., 1414 County Highway 283 South, Suite B, Santa
Rosa Beach, FL 32459, Attorneys for Appellees, by hand delivery or certified mail this
17th day of February, 2010.
_____________________________
John Carroll, pro se
Box 613524
(850) 231-5616 - phone
(850) 622-5618- fax
AAbsolute@aol.com
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIACE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the lettering in this brief is Times New Roman 14-
point Font and complies with the font requirements of Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.210(a)(2).
_____________________________
John Carroll, pro se
Box 613524
(850) 231-5616 - phone
(850) 622-5618- fax
AAbsolute@aol.com
17
IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff/Appellant,
v. CASE NO.: 1D10-643

L.T. CASE: 2009 CA 002021
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY
ASSOCIATION, INC., WATERCOLOR
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,
SANDRA MATTESON, DAVID LILIENTHAL,
RONALD VOELKER, MARY JOULE,
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE,
______________________________/
ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,
CASE NUMBER 2009 CA 002021
___________________________________________________________________
APPELLAT'S APPEDIX TO IITIAL BRIEF

___________________________________________________________________
John P. Carroll, Pro Se

Box 613524
Telephone 850-231-5616
Facsimile 850-622-5618
AAbsolute@aol.com
TABLE OF COTETS
Transcripti
Record 1.............................................................................................................ii
Record 2....................................................................................................................iii
Record 3....................................................................................................................iv
Record 4.v
Record 5....vi
Record 6...vii
Record 7..viii
Record 8ix
Record 9.x
Record 10..xi
Record 11.xii
Record 12....xiii
Record 13....xiv
i Transcript
1
1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY,
2 FLORIDA
3
JOHN P. CARROLL,
4
5 Plaintiff,
6 vs. CASE NO. 09-CA-2021
7 WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY

ASSOCIATION, et al,
8
9 Defendant.
10
11 _____________________________________________________
12 PROCEEDINGS
January 5, 2010
13 3:00 p.m.
Walton County Courthouse Annex
14 DeFuniak Springs, Florida
15
BEFORE: The Honorable Howard LaPorte
16 Circuit Judge
17
18 _____________________________________________________
KATHRYN B. PEACOCK
19 Court Reporter
1009 Ridgewood Cove, S.
20 Niceville, Florida 32578
(904)897-2864
21
22
23
24
25
KATHRYN B. PEACOCK, COURT REPORTER (850) 897-2864

2
2 APPEARANCES
4 Plaintiff Pro Se
6 CRISTOPHER L. GEORGE, ESQUIRE

Attorney at Law
7 Post Office Box 1034
Mobile, AL 36633
8 For the Defendant
10 INDEX
11 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 17
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

3
1 THE COURT: We are convened on Case Number
2 09 CA 2021. And Mr. Carroll?
3 MR. CARROLL: Thank you, Your Honor. Do I
4 need to stand?
5 THE COURT: No.
6 MR. CARROLL: Okay. We're here today on
7 my petition for injunction. I'm asking the
8 Court to rule and issue an injunction enjoining
9 the respondents from withholding records that I
10 feel a part of -- that should be governed by
11 Florida Sunshine statute and the HOA statute.
12 The Florida statute that I have for the HOA is
13 720.303, and that governs disclosure of records
14 of, you know, HOA. And then on my Sunshine
15 statue grounds it's 119.01-1 and also 286.011,
16 and I think that DRB records of the Watersound
17 community will fall within those statutes. The
18 way that this case has developed is that as a
19 member -- me being an owner within
20 Watersound -- I've asked for certain documents
21 dating back to 2007 and consistently and
22 repeatedly asked for those same documents all
23 the way up until most recently when Mr. George
24 and I have been talking. And we're getting --
25 it seems like we're getting close to resolving

4
1 the issue. However, on the Florida Sunshine
2 statute, it never should have gone this far --
3 not two plus years. It's a real simple matter,
4 and I felt like it should have been taken care
5 of a lot quicker than this. I acknowledge that
6 usually Sunshine statute doesn't govern an HOA
7 like the one that Mr. George represents.
8 However, in this particular case, Walton
9 County's building permit department, which is
10 all Sunshine statute documents has delegated
11 authority to Watersound to conduct preliminary
12 plan approval. The county will not even
13 consider issuing a building permit within
14 Watersound unless the DRB has specifically
15 approved the plans and references that by way
16 of a letter of final approval -- and I think I
17 should enter it into evidence but I'm not sure
18 if I call this an exhibit or an attachment
19 or -- I cross it with Exhibit A for discussion.
20 THE COURT: It will be marked as
21 Plaintiff's Exhibit A?
22 MR. CARROLL: Okay. Should I write that
23 on there now? Do you want to take a look at
24 this? I think you have a copy. But this is
25 kind of a central document.

5
1 THE COURT: Any objection?
2 MR. GEORGE: No, sir.
3 THE COURT: Any objection to it being
4 accepted as an exhibit?
5 MR. GEORGE: No, Your Honor.
6 MR. CARROLL: Thank you.
7 THE COURT: It will be accepted as
8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1.
9 MR. CARROLL: That document is the true
10 and accurate document that Walton County
11 requires us to turn in at the time that we
12 apply for a building permit. That document
13 lists the lot and block of the property within
14 Watersound and also the name of the builder
15 that's been approved to build the building.
16 Without that, I as a builder, can't apply for a
17 permit. No builder can apply for a permit in
18 Walton County without a letter in that form.
19 And I believe that at that point the DRB
20 records become public documents. I wanted to
21 show the Court a document that I called
22 Attachment B, and that document is also a true
23 and accurate copy. I would like to enter this
24 into the record, too. A copy for Mr. George.
25 I think he's got it.

6
2 MR. GEORGE: No, Your Honor.
3 THE COURT: It will be then Plaintiff's
4 Exhibit 2.
5 MR. CARROLL: That's a true copy of Walton
6 County's building department's check list for a
7 permit. And if you look at one of the top
8 lines, it says this form must be attached to
9 all building plan submittals. Number 10 on
10 that document says you're required to give an
11 approval letter from the architectural review
12 committee if building in a subdivision that
13 requires approval to build. I've called, or
14 subpoenaed rather, Mr. Billy Bearden, the
15 Walton County building official, and Hal Laird
16 from the planning department to authenticate an
17 e-mail that I included in my original petition
18 as Attachment A. However, after talking to
19 Mr. George, I don't think I'm going to need to
20 call those witnesses today to authenticate
21 this. Attachment B is pretty clear and it's
22 proof that you're required to turn in the
23 letter of DRB approval.
24 THE COURT: And is that correct that y'all
25 agreed that those individuals would not have to

7
1 testify?
2 MR. GEORGE: Well, we don't dispute, Your
3 Honor, that as noted on Attachment B that he's
4 introduced into evidence that you do have to
5 have approval from the architectural review
6 committee before you can build. So if he's
7 calling them to establish that, there's no need
8 to do that.
9 THE COURT: Thank you. Very well. Then
10 we won't call them.
11 MR. CARROLL: Like I said before, starting
12 in 2007, through my lawyer Daniel Uhlfelder, I
13 asked the DRB and Sandy Madison, Sandra
14 Madison, to provide certain documents, which
15 were in essence and simply records that show
16 how Watercolor and Watersound have chosen to
17 approve their builders, records that show how
18 they discipline their builders, records that
19 show how they can remove a builder or prohibit
20 a builder from building within their community,
21 and also records pertaining to submittals for
22 building permits. These are all things that
23 are normally public documents, but in this
24 case, being it's HOA, it got kind of cloudy.
25 And I wanted to attach -- show that it's

8
1 Attachment C.
2 MR. GEORGE: It was a part of your motion
3 for injunction.
4 MR. CARROLL: Can I enter this into --
6 MR. GEORGE: No objection.
7 THE COURT: It will be accepted as
9 MR. CARROLL: In that letter, we made a
10 qualified written request of Sandra Madison and
11 the Watersound DRB to turn over the documents
12 that I'm talking about. And you can see that
13 that's dated for back in 2007. That records
14 request follows nearly line by line this same
15 documents that I'm still asking for at this
16 time. I have several other records requests
17 that follow that up, and I think I need to
18 enter them in the record, too. The first was
19 in May of 2008, which I call Attachment B. Is
20 it okay if I enter this as an exhibit?
21 MR. GEORGE: I have no objection to that
22 either, Your Honor.
23 THE COURT: That will be accepted then as
25 MR. CARROLL: That was another written

9
1 request, and it went directly to Sandra Madison
2 and Watersound asking for these -- essentially
3 the same records that I had asked for six
4 months earlier, and those records did not come.
5 I've got another one in my complaint. It's
6 called Attachment E, which is a letter I issued
7 on March 25th, which was a follow-up. I'd like
8 to enter it into the record.
10 THE COURT: It will be Plaintiff's Exhibit
11 5.
12 MR. CARROLL: Thank you. And again,
13 that's asking Watersound's DRB to share records
14 that they've got in their possession, and that
15 request went essentially unanswered. The
16 community has been very evasive in that they
17 just won't give the documents. Now Mr. George
18 says that he believes they're going to turn
19 them over at any time. I've made a request
20 through discovery for those. I haven't gotten
21 them yet. Again, on October 29th I asked the
22 DRB for those same records again. I called it
23 Attachment F. Can I enter this into the
24 record?

10
1 THE COURT: Plaintiff's Exhibit 6.
2 MR. CARROLL: Thank you. That exhibit
3 might be a little confusing when the Court
4 reviews it because it's a series of e-mail that
5 are all attached to one another, and
6 unfortunately they start on the last page and
7 move forward to the most relevant page, which
8 is the front page. I didn't receive those
9 records. That was 723 days since I made the
10 first request. Now, I'm submitting to the
11 Court that I tried as hard as I could in good
12 faith to get these records without asking for
13 an injunction. I've done it in good faith. I
14 was being harmed the whole time. It finally
15 came to this that I had to ask for this
16 injunction. When I read Florida Statute
17 286.011-2, it read that Florida circuit courts
18 have jurisdiction to issue injunctions upon
19 application by any citizen of the state, and in
20 an unusual case, it says the burden of
21 prevailing such allegations have been
22 significantly eased by the judiciary in
23 Sunshine cases. Normally, irreparable injury
24 must be proved before the plaintiff can get an
25 injunction issued. In Sunshine law cases, the

11
1 mere showing that the law has been violated
2 constituted irreparable public injury, and
3 that's a quote from the town of Palm Beach
4 versus Grayson, and it's included in my
5 petition. I understand that the Court can't
6 issue a broad blanket order. However, I
7 believe that the Court can enjoin a future
8 violation that resembles the same violation
9 that we're talking about here. And I got that
10 from Port Everglades Authority versus
11 International Longshoreman's Association, Local
12 1922-1. That was in Florida Fourth DCA in
13 1995. I believe that all these facts being
14 true there's a high probability of success on
15 the merits. I don't believe that the
16 respondents have the right to do this, and I
17 don't think it would create an undue hardship.
18 In fact, I've always asked and it's contained
19 in these exhibits, I'll bring my own copier and
20 paper and whatever they need to limit any kind
21 of hardship. Again, I say, if this injunction
22 is granted, their injury will be
23 inconsiderable. If it only involves opening
24 their books, I don't see how they would be
25 harmed, and I respectfully request an

12
1 injunction enjoining them from withholding
2 documents. And my petition speaks for itself
3 on those documents I request. Last, I ask that
4 I should be awarded damages in accordance with
5 720.303(b), but not at this time. I think the
6 Court needs to have an evidentiary hearing at a
7 later date. Finally, I would ask that within
8 48 hours I be allowed to submit a proposed
9 order to the Court for your consideration on
10 this. And that's all I have, Your Honor.
11 THE COURT: All right. Mr. George.
12 MR. GEORGE: Yes, Your Honor. Before I
13 get into some of the facts that have been
14 represented to the Court, I want to stress to
15 the Court as I have to Mr. Carroll, that now
16 these very same documents he's been requesting,
17 albeit in a much more vague sense, these prior
18 requests, they've now been requested
19 specifically in request for production. Our
20 responses to those requests for production are
21 due on Monday, I believe is the date. I have
22 advised Mr. Carroll we're going to produce
23 everything he's asked for in his request for
24 production minus some correspondence from me to
25 my clients and minus some correspondence from

13
1 some other attorneys who have represented the
2 building committee to his client. I told him
3 I'll give him a privilege law with respect to
4 those documents so that if he thinks he's
5 entitled to some of that correspondence we can
6 try to work it out and if necessary, you know,
7 come back and take it up with the Court. I
8 think in light of that, the fact that we're now
9 in litigation, these same documents are part of
10 discovery request that we are going to answer.
11 If it's really moot what he has raised in his
12 petition for injunction is moot. And I think
13 if you issue an injunction at this point that
14 says make some blanket statement that he can
15 review the records any time he chooses, it's
16 going to interfere with the litigation process.
17 I don't want to get in a situation where we
18 produce all of these documents and then say
19 three months down the road, he wants to come
20 back and look at again at new documents that
21 have been generated. Well, that's just going
22 to almost have parallel litigation going, you
23 know, where he's going to do that as opposed to
24 going through the rules of civil procedure
25 making request for production. I do want to

14
1 note that it is my understanding, and since we
2 have Mr. Carroll here, I invite him to correct
3 me if I've been misinformed. We haven't taken
4 depositions yet. But my understanding is that
5 when he made his last request for access to
6 materials, that was back in March of 2009, as
7 he noted and as in one of the exhibits, that
8 two days later, he received a response from
9 Tracy Reagan with our client and they made an
10 appointment for him to come look at records one
11 day after that. And one day after that, he did
12 come and look at records, and I think he was
13 given access to every record he said he wanted
14 to look at that time. Now, again, if I've been
15 misinformed, I apologize to the Court and to
16 you Mr. Carroll, but that's my understanding
17 back in 2007, within two or three days, you
18 were allowed to come look at records. But the
19 last request he made was October of 2009, which
20 was just three or four days before this lawsuit
21 was commenced. So there really wasn't time for
22 the association to respond to that last request
23 in '09 before, you know, we're in litigation.
24 Like I said, I don't think there's any need for
25 you to reach the Sunshine statute issue, the

15
1 homeowners statute issue. We cannot dispute
2 that documents he has requested, all of those
3 documents are relevant to this case that he's
4 now filed. They're due to be produced. They
5 will be produced to him, and as of Monday I'll
6 get in touch with him and we'll make a mutually
7 convenient time for him to come look at them.
8 So I just submit that in light of all of that,
9 there is no danger of any irrepairable harm to
10 Mr. Carroll at this point. What needs to
11 happen is let's go through the litigation
12 process and see where we get to.
13 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Carol, your
14 response.
15 MR. CARROLL: My attachment to my
16 petition, which I called F, I think it's been
17 entered into the court's records, but I don't
18 remember the number.
19 THE COURT: Six.
20 MR. CARROLL: That's a paper trail of
21 communication between the woman he referenced
22 and myself, which shows if the Court finds time
23 to read it, that the request that Mr. George
24 asked about wasn't honored, and it actually
25 concludes with Ms. Reagan saying okay, you can

16
1 come on the 4th, I think, of November and see
2 those documents. What Tracy Reagan and the
3 Watersound DRB provided me was 17 records with
4 the earliest date being mid to late '09 despite
5 the fact that my request dated back to November
6 of 2007. She allowed me a very limited view,
7 and it was only one side of what I had asked
8 for. It didn't include any of the responses
9 that I specifically requested. I think this is
10 a Sunshine case and I think it is entitled to
11 be ruled on. We'll be going through this again
12 in Watercolor. I can almost guarantee it
13 otherwise. We're just limiting this to
14 Watersound, so I'll stop there.
15 THE COURT: All right. The plaintiff's
16 motion for injunction will be denied.
17 Mr. George, since it's in your favor, I'll ask
18 you prepare an order and provide it to me with
19 copies and envelopes.
20 MR. GEORGE: Yes, sir.
21 THE COURT: Thank you. Good day to you.
22 (Hearing concluded.)
23
24
25

17
2 REPORTER'S HEARING CERTIFICATE
3 STATE OF FLORIDA
4 COUNTY OF OKALOOSA
6 I, Kathryn B. Peacock, Freelance
7 Court Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and
8 did stenographically report the foregoing hearing;
9 and that the transcript is a true record of the
10 testimony given by the witness.
11
12 I further certify that I am not
13 a relative, employee, attorney, or counsel of any of
14 the parties, nor am I a relative or employee of any
15 of the parties' attorney or counsel connected with
16 the action, nor am I financially interested in this
17 action.
18
19
20 KATHRYN B. PEACOCK
Freelance Court Reporter
21
22
23
24
25

ii R 1
Ri
2/16/2010 Walton aerk
P1ev Search
Case Progress Dockets
CASE NUMBER I FILE DATE CASE TYPE STATUS
62O09CAOO2O21CAXXXX 10/09/2009 OTHER CIVIL PENDING
[PLAINTIFFCARROLL, JOHN P DEFENDANT WATERSOUND BEAC H COMMUNITY

AS DEFENDANT=LIL1ENTHAL, DAVID DEFENDANT=J3ULE, MARY DEFENDANTMATTESON,
SANDRA DEFENDANTVOELKER, RONAC DEFENDANTDOE, JCI IN DEFE NDANTDOE,
JANE
[UDGE=LAPORTE, W HOWARD]
LAST DOCKET DATE=0210812010 JURY TRIAL=Yes
[c.ir Evnt I Finance Infol
ACTION DATE TEXT
10/09/2009 ICIVIL COVER SHEET; SS
10/09/2009 COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND OTHER RELIEF; SS
10/16/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED TO WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC INC VW
10/16/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED TO DAVID LILIENTHALVW
10/16/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED TO MARY JOULE VW
10/16/2009 1SUMMONS ISSUED TO SANDRA MATTESON, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT
lOflb/.1009 LAF'IIALCQNSULIANI MANA(,MbNI CQKF' VW
10/16/2009 SUMMONS ISSUED TO RON VOELKER VW
10/16/2009 COPY OF CHECK TO WALTON COUNTY SHERIFF VW
10/21/2009 PROOF OF SERVICE TO DAVID ULIENTRAL 10/19/09; JMK
10/21/2009 PROOF OF SERVICE TO WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC INC
10/21/2009 10/19/09; JMK
10/21/2009 PROOF OF SERVICE TO CAPITAL CONSULTANTS MANAGEMENT
10/21/2009 CORP ON 10/19/09; IMK
10/21/2009 PROOF OF SERVICE TO VOELKER SURVEYING 10/20/09; JMK
10/21/200j!FOFSERVICETO MARY JOULE 10/20/09; JMK

11/03/2009 JAINTIFFS MOTION FOR INJUNCTION; SS
11/06/2009 LETTER TO KRISTIE SOMERS FOR JOHN CARROLL;RS
11/06/2009 FAXED NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; JMK
11/06/2009 IFAXEDDEFENDANT.SMOTION TODIS.MISS.MOTION .STRIKE,
ll/O/2OO9 OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE
11/06/2009 STATEMENT; JMK
11/06/2009 17A. LETTER TO KRISTIE SOMERS FROM JOHN CARROLLL;KA
11/09/2009 MOTION FOR DEFAULT AGAINST DEFENDANT RONALD VOELKER; OP
11/09/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING ON JANUARY 5. 2010; DP
11/09/2009 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE; MAC
L
11/09/2009 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS, MOTIONTO STRIKE, OR, IN THE
11/09/2009 ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT; MAC
11/12/2009 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS;DY
wAw2.myfloridacounty.com/.../docket?c... 1/5
2/16/2010 Walton Clerk
11/24/2009PLAINTIFPS RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION
11/24/2009 3T0 DISMISS, MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE
11/24/2009 STATEMENT; DP
12/14/2009 NOTICE OF HEARING ON 01/0512010; DP
12/14/2009 PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
12/14/2009 FROM DEFENDANT WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
12/14/2009 INC.; DP
12/15/2009 PLAINTIFFS JOHN P. CARROLL FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
12/15/2009 'OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANT RONALD VOELKER; DP
12/16/2009 PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
12/16/2009 DEFENDANT MARY JOULE; DP
12/18/2009 PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM
12/18/2009 DEFENDANT DAVID LILIENTHALVW
-
12/29/2009 PLAINTIFFS MOTION AND/OR PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
12/29/2009 )UDGMENT; DP
12/31/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING TO DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL BILLY
12/31/2009 BEARDEN ON 1/5/2010 AT 11:30 VW
12/31/2009 SUBPOENA FOR HEARING TO WALTON COUNTY PLANNER I, HARRY
12/31/2009 LAIRD ON 1/5/2010 11:30 VW
12/31/2009 NOTICE OF SERVING PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
12/31/20091 TO DEFENDANT WATERSOUND BEAC H COMMUNITY ASSOC IATION INC VW

12/31/2009 PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT
12/31/2009 WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. VW
01/04/2010 PETITIONERS SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTION VW
01/05/2010 PETITiONERS REPLY TO RESPONDENTS RESPONSE TO INJIJNCTION;JK
01/05/2010 FAX COVER SHEET FROM CHRISTOPHER L. GEORGE, ESQ.
01/05/2010 DATED 1-4-10; SH
01/05/2010 DEFENDANTS WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.
01/05/2010 AND SANDRA MATTESONS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION
01/05/2010 FOR INJUNCTION; SH
01/07/2010 37A. COVER LETTER;DY
01/07/2010 37B. DEFENDANTS WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION INC
01/07/2010: AND SANDRA MATTESONS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
01/07/2010 IN)UNCTION;DY
01/0812010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFALAN RIEHL; DP
01/08/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TEC UM OF ALESSANDRA
01/08/2010 FAMBRI;DP
01/08/2010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFANNE MOSLEY; DP
01/08/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF ANNE WINICKI; DP
01/08/2010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFBILLYBEARDEN;
01/08/2010 DP
01/08/2010 NOTICEOFTAKLNG DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF BRIAN STACKABLE;
01/08/2010T
01/08/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF BRIDGET PRECISE;
01/08/2010DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF PEGGY GEPPERT;
www2.myfloridacounty.com/. ,,/docket?c... 2/5
---------. ............................
01/11/2010 OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFPERPY REVIS; OP

01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF RON ROMANO; DP
01/11/2010. NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF RONALD VOELKER;
01/11/2010 OP
01111/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF SANDRA MATTESON
01/11/2010 DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF SCOTT ROSENHEIM;
01/11/2010 OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFSTEVE CELLUCCI;
01/11/2010 OP
01/11/20104DF TAKING DEPOSITION DUC ES TECUM OF BUILDING
01111/2010 INSPECTOR STOSH; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFTIM REESE; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFTOM DODSON; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFTRACY REGAN; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF WILLIAM DOERING D
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF WILLIAM
01/11/2010 SABELLA; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF CRAIG BARANOWKI;
01/11/2010 DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DLJCES TECUM OF DALE PUTZ; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF DAVID LILIENThAL
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF DAVID

01/11/2010 LILIENTHAL, JR.; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF DEBBIE STARR; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF GARY HULION; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFHILARY FARNUM;
01/11/2010 DP
01111/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFJACK LUCHESE; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF JAMES BAGBY; OP
01111/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF JANE BUCKLE; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFJIM BUCKLE; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OFTAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OFJOANN LUCHESE;
01/11/2010 DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF JOHN BROWN; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF JONATHAN BILBY;
01/11/2010 OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF KAREN WAGNER; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DLICES TECUM OF KEN BORICK; OP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF KEVIN ACI-IATZ; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF LEE DEPAUW; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF MARIANNE
01/11/2010 BERRIGAN GRANT; DP
vv2.myfloridacounty.com/../do:keI?c... 3/5
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF MARY JOULE; DP
01/11/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF MARY ROSENHEIM;
01/11/2010 OP
01/12/2010 78A. LETTER TO JUDGE LAPORTE FROM CHRISTOPHER GEORGE; M8
01/12/20101 78B. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 1; LETTER OF FINAL APPROVAL;
01/12/2010 78C. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 2: WALTON COUNTY BUILDING DEPT.
01/12/2010 CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING PERMITS; JMK
01/12/2010 78D. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 3: LETTER; JMK
01/12/2010 78E. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 4: EMAIL; JMK
01/12/2010 78F. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 5: EMAIL; JMK
01/12/2010: 78G. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT 6: EMAIL; JMK
O1/12/2010178H. EMAIL; JMK
01/12f20104,FAXED DEFENDANTS WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY
01/12/2010 ASSOCIATION, INC. AND SANDRA MATTESON'S RESPONSE
01/12/2010 TO PLAINTIF' MOTION FOR. INJUNCTION; JMK
01/12/2010 ORDER (DENIES MOTION FOR INJUNCTION); JMK
01/1412010 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION AND/OR PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
01/14f20104GMENT-SECRETED INSPECTIONS; SS
01/14/2010 DEFENDANT'S, RON VOELKERS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR.
01/14/2010 DISCOVERY; JMK
01/15/2010 NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF RALPH MENOCAL
01/1512010 ON 03/10/2010; OP
01/19/2010 PLAINTIFF'S SECOND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
01/19/2010 FP.OM DEFENDANT WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION,
01/19/2010 INCVW
01/19/2010 PLAINTIFF JOHN CARROLLS FIRST MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
01/1912010 FROM WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOC ET AL VW
01/19/2010.COVER. LETTER;DY
01/19/2010 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT RON VOELKERS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
01/19/2010 FOR DISCOVERY;DY
01/22/2010 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES; MDB
01/22/2010 COVER LETTER;DY
01/22/2010 NOTICE OF FILING DISC OVERY;DY
01/22/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING;DY
01/22/2O1OIDEFENDANTS RESONSE TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST REQUEST FOR
01/2212010 PRODUCTION;DY
01/25/2010 COVER LETTER;DY
01/25/2010 NOTICE OF HEARING;DY
02/01/2010 PLAINTIFF JOHN CARROLLS NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF FIRST
02/01/2010 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY FROM WATERSOUND BEACH
02/0112010 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, ET AL
02/03/2010 COMPLAINT FOR EQUITABLE AND OTHER RELIEF; DP
02/03/2010 LETTER FROM PLAINTIFF JOHN P. CARROLL; DP
02/04/2010 SUMMONS ISSUED TO WATERCOLOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC;
02/04/2010: GARY SHIPMAN, REGISTERED AGENT; DP
02/04/2010 MOTION TO AMEND CAPTION OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
ww2.myfIoridcounty.com/.../doket?c... 4/5
02/04/2010 jEQUITABLE AND OTHER RELIEF; DP
02/04/2010 LETTER TO )UDGE LAPORTE FROM JOHN CARROLL:KD
02/04/2010 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS:KD
02/08/2010 NOTICE OF APPEAL; SS
02/08/2010 DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK; SS
02/08/2010 DESIGNATION TO REPORTER AND REPORTERS ACKNOWLEDGMENT
02/08/2010JACKNOWLEDGMENT NOT SIGNED); 55
02/08/2010 LETTER TO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OFAPPEAL FROM CLERK; SS
ww2.myfloridacounty.com/.../docket?c...
iii R 2
FLED
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUCS
IN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, F
CIVIL DIVISION A iO 2
JOIIN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 09CA002021

V.
WATERSOLINI) REACH COMMUNITY ASSOC1ATION, INC.,

florida Corporation
DAVID LILIENTHAL, individually
and as Director,
MARY JOULE,
SANDRA MAT'FESON,
RONALD VOELKER.
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and OTHER UNKNOWN
CONSPIRATORS
Defendants.
Dl L IP.VTTVV'CITJL.'J
I Ltt1flhIi1' A1Vl'T(1 VCU3
ItflU! J UT!I'TICW
I'tjfl IIWPtJ!.flIItJ.1
Plaintiff, JOHN P. CARROLL ("Carroll"), pursuant Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure 1.610, moves for an injunction enjoining Defendants, WATERSOUND
BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. ("Watrrsound"), SANDRA
MAlI ESON ("Mtteson") their agents, servants, employees and attorneys and those
persons in active concert or panicipation with Defendants from withholding public
records in violation of Florida Statute 720.303 for Homeowners Associations, Florida's
Government in the Sunshine Statute 119.01(1;) for DRB records and Florida's
Government in the Sunshine Statute 286.011 for DRB records and as grounds therefore
state:
1. Plaintiff, Carroll, is a Member of WaterSound. Defendants, WaterSound

and Matteson are custodians of both the WaterSound and Watercolor Community HOA
records and DRB records.
This matter arises from the Defendants repeated refusal to produce
documents requested by Carroll. The requests were in conformance with Florida's HOA
Statute governing records and also conformance with Florida's Government in the
Sunshine Statute.
Florida Statute 720.303 states that "The official records shall b
maintained wuhin the slate and must be open to inspection and available for
photocopying by members or their authorized agents at reasonable times and places
within 10 business days after receipt of a written request for access. This subsection ma'
be complied with by having a copy of the official records available for inspection or
copying in the community. If the association has a photocopy machine available where
the records are maintained, it must provide parcel owners with copies on request during
the inspection if the entire request is limited to no more than 25 pages.
The failure of an association to provide access to the records within 10 business days
after receipt of a written request creates a rebuttable presumption that the association
willfidh' failed to comply with/his subsection.
A member who is denied access to official records is entitled to the actual damages
or minimum damages for the association willful failure to comply with this subsection.
The minimum damages are to be $50 per calendar day up to 10 days, the calculation to
begin on the 11th business day after receipt of the written request."
4. Florida Attorney General Advisory Legal Opinion Number: AGO 99-53
Dale: September 1. 1999 advised that, "It is axiomatic that public officials cannot do
indirectly what they are prevenledfrom doing directly. Those to whom public officials
delegate dejacto authority to act on their behalf in the formulation, preparation and
promulgation ofplans on which foreseeable action will be taken by such public officials
stand in the shoes of such public officials insofar as the application of the Government in
the Sunshine Law is concerned.' further "Although the Legislature has "no right to
require meetings of civic organizations, unconnected with.. . government, to conform to
the government in the sunshine law, "J83 lam unable to state that these architectural
review committees are unconnected with county government. While the activities of a
homeowners association architectural review committee would not normally be subject
to the Sunshine Law, the county has by ordinance elevated the decisions of such
committee to a prerequisite step in obtairRing a building permit. The ordinance, in effect,
gives these committees the authority to review and approve building permit applications
befire they will be considered by the county building department. If the committee does
not approve the application, a county permit generally will not be issued"
The Walton County Building Department, by way of their Building
Official Billy Hearden, have certified that a letter issued &om the Architectural Review
Board of WaterSound or Watercolor stating approval of the residence is required as a pre-
requisite to obtaining a Walton County Building Permit. See Attachment A
The Walton County Building Department delegated approval of residential
construction plans and placement for Building Permits to the Walton County Planning
Department. The Walton County Planning Department delegated approval of residential

construction plans and placement for Building Permits to the Architectural Review
Boards of WaterSound and Watercolor. The Building Department requires all perrnitters
to complete a checklist as a pre-requisite to obtaining a building permit. See Attachment
7. The Watercolor and WaterSound Architectural Review Boards
acknowledge and enforce the authority delegated to them by the Walton County Building
and Planning Departments. See Attachment B2
K. Starting on or about November 9, 2007 Carroll made written requests of
Matteson, WaterSound and the Watercolor Community Association, lnc. to provide and
make available for review records of the Community Association's and their respective
Architectural Review Boards Those written rquesls have. been routinely and
continuously denied full review to Carroll by Defendants. See Attachment C
Again on May 1,2008 Carroll made a written request of Matteson and
WaterSound for review of documents and again the full disclosure was withheld from
Carroll. See Attachment I)
On March 25, 2009 Carroll made a follow up written request to produce
and review DRB documents and WaterSound refused to deliver all of the documents.
See Attachment E
Carroll made a follow up written request of the DRB on October 29, 2009
for the same documents which is not set for inspection until November 5, 2009 which is
227 days after the first request for production of those documents. See Attachment F
12 It has been 723 days that Carroll has been deprived these public
documents without explanation of Matteson or WaterSound.

Plaintiff ha.s attempted to resolve this matter without the need for litigation
as evidenced by the numerous requests and patience spanning 2 years. Despite Plaintiff's
good faith efforts, Defendants continue to withhold documents from Carroll in violation
of Florida law.
Unless Defendants are enjoined from the aforementioned actions, Plaintiff
will be irreparably harmed as Defendants continue to withhold documents and hold
meetings without proper notice. Section 286.02 1(2), Florida Statutes, states that the
circuit courts have jurisdiction to issue injunctions upon application by any citizen of this
state. The burden of prevailing in such actions has been significantly eased by the
judiciary in sunshine cases. While normally irreparable injury must be proved by the
plaintiff before an injunction may be issued, in Sunshine Law cases the mere showing
that the law has been violated constitutes 'irreparable public injury.' Town of Palm
Beach v. Gradison, 296 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1974)
Maintiff acknowledges that this Court cannot issue a blanket order
enjoining any violation of the Sunshine Law on a showing that it was violated in
particular respects, however Plaintiff notes that a court may enjoin a future violation that
bears some resemblance to the past violation. Port Everglades Authority v. International
Longshoremen's Association, Local 1922-1, 652 So. 2d 1169, 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
Plaintiff alleges, that based on the foregoing, there is a high probability of
success on the merits.
Defendants do not have the authority to conduct the actions which Carroll
wishes to enjoin and therefore entry of this inunetion will not create undue hardship on
the Defendants.
Carroll will be left with no adequate remedy at law since Defendants
continue to withhold documents that should be open to him as an HOA member and a
Florida Citizen entitled to a Government in the Sunshine.
If this injunction is granted the injury, if any, will be inconsiderable as this
involves only opening all the DRB books for review which is in accordance with
Florida's Public Policy.
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court enter an Injunction
against Defendants enjoining them from withholding docunents including:
A. Any and all documents, correspondence, communications, e-mails, notes,
andlor papers regarding andlor relating to John Carroll andlor Chambers Street Builders,
Inc.;
B. Any and all documents, correspondence, communications, c-mails, notes,
and/or papers regarding and/or relating to approval of contractors/buiLders within
Watercolor and WaterSound;
Any and all documents, correspondence, communications, e-mails, notes,
and/or papers regarding and/or relating to the disciplining, suspending, monitoring or
removal of contractors/builders within Watercolor and WaterSound; and
All WaterSowid and Watercolor Architectural Review Board public records
best described at Section 119.011(11), Florida Statutes, which defines 'public records' to
include: all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound
recordings. data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form,
characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance
or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency.

The Flonda Supreme Court has interpreted this definition to encompass all
materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are
used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. Shevin v. Byron, Harless,
Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc., 379 So. 2d 633, 640 (VIa. 1980).
21. Award Carroll actual da,naes in accordance with Florida Statute
720.303(b) Said damages to be determined at an evidentiary hearing.
I HEREBY CERT WY, that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
delivered by hand delivery to the office Gary Shipman, Esq. at 1414 County Highway
283 South, Suite B, Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Box 613524
WateSo FL 32461
Tel: t 23l-S616
Fax: (850)622561 8
Dated: November 3, 2009

Page I of I
Subj RE: RE: John Carroll/Chamber, Stroet Builder,

rn-1)-T-
Date: 10/1212009 4:23:44 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: laihRrry@co.WaltonfLlJS
To: aabsolute@aol.com
No, have to have approval from Wateround. Sorry!

harry (Hal) Laird
Planner
Walton County Planning and Services Divi,ion
850-622-1457-PH
850-267-2084-FX
laiharry@co.walton.fl.us
Onginet Meesage-
From: aabsolute@aoLconi !mailto:aabsoiuteaol.conh}
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:03 PM
To: Hal Laird
Subject: Fwd; RE: John Carroll/Chambers Street Builders
Hal, [want to pernilt a new single family residence in Watereound but

the plans are not approved by the DRB. Can I obtain a Walton County
Building pernit anyway?
Original Message
From: Billy Bearden beabillyco.waIton.fl.ua>
To: AAbsoluleaol. corn
Sent: Mon. 12 Oct 200911:5215 -0500
Subject: RE: John Carroll/Chambers Street Builders
John,
All s well with me.,

I hope that it is with you. I believe that the ORB approval is
required, but you can contact Hal Laird at 267.2084 to make sure. He
does the
re'iew en approval of the application for the Plannin9 issues before
the Building Department issues the permIt. Thanksl
prom: Mbsolute@aol corn mailta:MbsoIuteaaLcom}
Sent Monday, October 12, 2009 11:47 AM

To: Billy
Bearden
Subject: John CarrolL/Chambers Street
Builders
Billy,
I hope you are doing well.
I want to permit a single family residence in

WaterSound but the plans are not approved by the ORB. Can I obtain a
Walton County permit anyway?
Thanks, .John Carroll
Monday, November 02, 2009 AOL: A Absolute

App4Icado Date Per*ft Ckrtr
WALTON COUNTY BUIU)ING DLPA&TMZNT CHrCKUST FOR BUILDING P
NOlTh WALTON g92.I 60, SOUm WALTON 27-2flg4
App1ilJC1tat N Pc, 11 tc Ci-\ r'

I. Tax LD. Map & Parcel Nabor- Can Pmpaty Appralier at 5924123.
2. Sei,dc Tuk Peredt or Wifor aid Sewer AyaIlabdfty Letter fri. Utility Co. - HJih Dept
592-&)21, South Walton UtWtice' 537-8, Rogionel t1tfIitf: 231-5114. Inlet Bok; 23 I-44, or
Preepod City Hall. S35-2
3 fgy Fsc.i - If planning on bcethig & onollng the building with a ciflil unit, t ,wor
oompeny or individual aie'cc. Neta Tergy Fore Mt Be S4sd.
I.peet Pee Rrcelpt- South Walton izt* call 267-I 29L toin ar iallotth Walton obtain from
the Building Dept. Libuty aria (Dowdie Gsa Co.) 92-7055, or Frecpor* City Limits &3-2S22.
Fiat Pisa - A led plot plait or omlthod nvey ebowing all iuovomonn bath odating and
Prcoeul mad ts, aiaavutiou uces and tight of ways uu* bcailanlued 6 Iota le. then
one u in . Flot FI for Lots I acre or ow need ont be anded or d tImUating med will
be atanded for to the building. hhleate th0 location of the toed on the Plot Plan and how far it
will be niaided. If adj.oit to or hi vininity of& Cotal Dune Lake, an Iow that information.
6 Sarv.y - A. Boundajy Sorvey from a Cmtl&d Surveyor may be requited ftn' lrt Less than one acm.
B. !fuwe is o 2 .twlc, must have Thpogrephlc Survey with rwtsriml celcrxarnt of Isuage
- rmt ofI1. and height of building. C. Must indieate Flood Zone, 1). Anothcr ac'ey wilt
be required following the itnfaflation of the slaWflocr frwilog ill Iota Ii. than 1 acre. Th airway
___be tmrw.d I. to the Iidg. Dept. peter to athedduag Friteg lupadlee.
7. Ievatlou Certitiril. (Plaid Zew. Oily) - Three icqulred 1. Proposed ii pmnitthig. 2. Un&
crmatructkii at fataidgkm, mid 3. Aa built fansL
8. Plus for Owe or Two Fandly Dwalliap aid their aecassary ttrnctlrse, aid other bulldla$s:
NoPI s-lfconatrudbon ii less than 4(10 . ft andnolCoaitil
Two Sats of Pl- Ifcrmatxuction is 400 iq. ft. or reore aid loot CosstiL
Two SeN of Pimia Sod & Scaled by a Florida Reclatued Architect or Eimlnc - If the
cunuttjon is located in the Co1 Connictloo Zone, both ada of plans must include
Waltai County Wind Load Stalunmt
. . ficSabdIteioc eld Recorded P1st, If ap&,bt..
ANWo,Il L.rUw fro, tie ArcMltictarul Rr,lsw Csmndtlac If BalkIlig kI a SsbdlvWeo 1W

requir. spprov,I to baUd.
11. . - ist be a d the ' of Co.)
Prodnet Approval Sp.clflratloa Suit - You y ecqufre egroval nmubem from the Vandor I
Supplia or frcnn wfioddabuiIdue.or. Note: Th form ash be signed.
Watla. - Any State or Fr4asl Jwiallc*jonl Wetlands on Ux psrccl must be indlatrsl on the
flat Plan or SItC Plan. The applizd is rssponsible ftr the delleeettoe of the epecntc baitdati
of State and Feds1 Jrla1IiooaI WdJaidi. Any impecte to tire S or Fad Witlands from
conarnlaion tivltis oumt be pudtied by the Florida Dapsilmeet of Eavlronmciflpl Protection
ondkr the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers before the County wift rsea Building Punnit
(FDEP: 850-595-8200 and U.S. Army Cotpe: 850-763-1955)
Cmaercla1 ProJrda or Melti-Psally ijilte of 3 or aere sad their iceshioty hr.ctP.rs

1. Dev.kIp.st Or.r fru. FIaaaIng D.partacot will Approved Sits Plea (267-1955)
2. Fellew Steis 1- U Above. Note: All conmierelal projects require 2 ids of building plane.
Satheck Reqalremeots fre Sfriietvr to Property Usat Front 20 ft, Back - If ft. Sides -7.5 ft. (cxction: 5 ft
sides if property was platted or hat a dm6 before June 1975-_uvi4c ianx,1.
Setback Riqoirsavet, frOth SIt-nm t tie lewlsg Cic -SOft., Wctinds 25 ft. BaySO ft.. Rivn 30ft,
Coastal Lake 100 ft (Eocptlort For Single Family Dweillnp - Lots of Record prior to Dec. 28. 1992,
That ate lam thai 200 ft. -25 ft or 20 porcont of lot depth, whicirever- is 5rt.)
Wbee paying for Per.tt, the Centr,eadr atoll pay for Fe.-mft with CASH. CHECK or Credit Card. If tie Homeowasr Ii p.rckasla
permIts ii as Iicttyldeal, thee they mist pay CASH. PERSONAL CHECIC. or Credit Card. J'erscn.l CWIa and CruduiCard, froL
COURIERS will sot be acceoted
Revised 6-25-07
Design Review Frocess
Step I Select a eg4st.r.d Architect and Landscape Architect.
Contact the DRB Coos'dinator for a current List of Approved Architects/Designers
and Landscape Architects.
Architects other than those listed may only be employed after ORB approvaL Ask
your selected Architect to contact the DRB Coordifltr for an application and
iOstwctions on the approval process.
The selected Architect must contact the DRB Coordinoor to confirm they are using
current DRB review forms.
Step 2 SeLected A,chtt.ct muit schedul, a Pre. DesIgn Msftn wtth DR Consultant.
?rior to beginning design work, your Architect is required to meet with the DR
Architectural Consultant to clarify the de5ign philosophy and design guidelines, the
specific lot criteria and the review procedures to ensure good communication.
and to reduce time needed for approval.
Step 3 Azchlf.ct Submits Pr.flmtnary Plan Rsvl.w Appticatlon and P.es
A preliminary plan submission is intended to iesolve design issues before incurring
the expense of contract documents.
The initial submission must include:
The completed Design Review Application
$1,500.00 non-refundable Design Review fee mode payable to the proper
entity either WaterColor or WaterSound Beach Community Association,
lnc.
Site plan
Floor plans
All exterior elevations
Certified survey with raised, signed seal. Survey should include property
lines thnnaronhic linac. cinnificcif trpec. Lit iliti5.
The Architectural ConsuUant wit! assist the Architect to produce an approved
design, perform initial reviews and provide written reports to the Owner and
Architect via Email.
The Architect must respond to any matters identified in the preliminary report(s
prior to submitting plans far final approval review.
Application Riview
The Architect and Landscape Architect of Record should make ALL submissions to the
oflice at the DRB Coordinator.
Final R.vl.w Subrnitslori
I, Architect must submit one (lj set of architectural drawings, spOcifications and a copy
of the approved landscape plan, dated, signed nd sealed by the approved design
professionals. The construction documents shall be complete and detailed so that all
significant aspects of the construction are clearly identified and con be readily
understood by construction professionals. The drawings shall all be 24x36 size and
bound in one set. The final submission should also include exterior color selection and
any exterior specifications and fixtures.
2. The Architectural Consultant will issue ci wntten Notice of Eligibility for Construction.
3, Once the design is approved by the DRB, the Contractor/Builder of Record must
contact the Compliance Officer and schedule a Pre-construction Site Conference to
receive the DRB letter of approval, which is required by the County to submit a building
permit application.
An .sllmat.d/av.rag. lime line
Each project is unique and review time depends in pan on the time the Architect needs
to make
revisions and resubmit revised plans to the DR. The Design Guidelines states that the
"Reviewer
shall make a determination on each tinal application within 45 days utter the completed
application and all information is presented to the DRB but the Board makes every effort
to
respond well within the allotted time frame.
Architectural Consultant: Tim Reese - email - drbgnt.net.
phone . 850-225-6711
S.nd AU. wchtt.cturol submission, to
The DRB Coordinator: Tracy Regan
Office of Design eview
133H S. WaterSound f'kwy
email tregan@ccmcnet.com
phone 850-231-7411
Modifications - Please note that any modifications to the exterior of any stnjcturellot
must be
ubmitfed to the ORB for approval. This includes, but is not limited to: garages, any type
of
outbuilding, decks, terraces, patios, courtyards, walks, driveways. parldng areas.
swimming pools,
greenhouses, wolls, fences, exterior lighting, exterior color changes of any exterior
surface,
landscaping, cut and fill operations. drainage, or removal of any existing vegetation. If
you have
any questions regarding a possible modification, please contact the Design Review
Cnordinr,tor
at 850-231-741 I.
Daniel W. Ulilfekier, PA
Attorney at Law
124 east County Rd 30A
Graytoii Bath, Eorida 32459
Te1epoe 8534-O246
Fachnjk 850/534-O5
Nveinb 9,2007
VIA EMAIL AND

.EGULAR U.S. MAIL
KmcIh Rui&
Vioe Preidait of Opations
St. Joe Company
fifJ
133 S. Watioaxd Padcway
Watsound, FL 32413
Re: Joi Cwoll I ciiamb Stree Bi1d, Inc.
DcatKai
A8
nai avet UUU, IflC 111W lCU a-V w iuuuw up u u
rcganling my cJiaits.
P ur directive, my cileil and I appwed this morning at the DRB Meeting. but
wbi we rived we wue told that Sandy Matteeori had ahesdy left and the 1MW had
already disonased the iues regwding my c1Lns i would heve bcea nice to at leant
have reonved a e call bere we made the to the meeting, and I would
appreciate the cxurteey of aaine m the futwc.
This zIxnmng my thmd mxli wae provided with a list of iasuee to nddrees on
two houaea in WatColor whith they e ingto pioinptly addra, but again my clionts
and I mo confused as to why they c anapeeded from building in WateiColor. You
indicated to me that they we suepded bocmmo of iaaues on thrc two housee, but my
clia have also beeii advised that there wan sonic sort of oounpaint filed by another
homeowna which jwuptvd this pmkm The mreiit suspcnaiois that has takee
place appeera to predate ti ianuea on the two bousee with makea it ev more undear
it is onafusing to aay the leant, and my clients are being siouly igr4 by this
uncertainty an they are reedy to start cx,nstruction in WateiCo1or on anotb house.
Fur henxiore in justiable reliance upon being an approved builda in WaterColor for
eeveral they have spent significant time and expense marketing for mslrurtion
1
work in WatmCo1. Notwithstanding the obviot estoppcl and relian issue that hava
bout cated tomy clients' ddrixnutt, it a tome that tnaideaing the zrruit state of
the rail estate miitst, WatCo1or would want moftops.
Again, my cliasta e rtady willing d able to work anilcably with u all to

these issues jIved, but time is of tha aiscc an this You advised today that we
would be gting anwo sod of ouneapondance from u all 'to bring some darity to these
issues, asit reeflyis un why my diesita are bthig treated in this mama.
In any event, my clients e hthy reqcsting that your clients jauvide and make
available for review the following doasnents whioh they m'e catided to review pursuant
to Florida Statutes Section 720.303:
Any and all do muns, correspondenoe, oosnnamicthans, c-snails, notes,

and/or pepu, regarding and/or rilating to John CEroll and/ac thanibacs Strant Builders,.
inc.;
Any and all doc'.imaita, uorrespondencc, oun uzcstiurs, c-mails, notes,

and/or p'iesa ienfing and/or relating to approval of oontracors/buildas within
WaterColor WesSoa and
Any and all doaments, ceepoodence, ansnniuuications, n-mails, notes,

andor pap regarding and/cc relating *0 the diiiplin4ng, or
runoval of cos ore/lruilders within Wet'Color and WatScumd.
Thank very much. Pleese c.oact me an I can mike rangents to review

theac doczuii within 10 bciinea da pwcunt th Flocida Statut Stki 720.303(5),
and alw p1ee c me oc have the sppmpia*c pso mess soon ss possible
to addrs the is in this It so my thi1a d I cn pl1 acxdinIy.
SinceJy,
cc diocits
2
Pa
Subj: R: Mary Joule

Date: 5f212008 12:09:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time
From: smaltesor@Ccmcnet.com
To: daniel@dwulaw.com, AAbsoIute@aol.com
CC: lTiary.rosenheim@joe.com
As the company that oversee the management of the property and the oversight of the Design Review, the
owners have full rights to contact us at any rne..
I will gladly pass any written requeste on to you if they come in however, it is more likely they are questions that
are expressed in our daily contract with the owners.
Questions on construction do not necessanly represent onticiern about construction.... Many of the questions
stem from th tower being constructed without seeing the relationship to the rest of the house..
Sandy Matteson
Vice President
Capital Consultants Management Corporation
Northwest Florida Main Office
1 33-H S. Watersound Pkwy
Watersound Beach, FL 32413
Email: srnattesoniccmcnet.com
Visit our website: www.ccmcnet.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail rncsaac, including any atlschmenls. is for the soic us of the intended recipicnIs) and
may eoniain conlidentia! and privileged informaiort. My unauthorized revicv, use, disclosure or distribution is cohibitcd. If you are
not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Daniel W. Ijhtfelder fmaIIto:daniel@dwulawcam]

Sent; Thursday, May Dl, 2008 2:48 PM
To: Sandy Matteson; Mbsolute@aol.com
Cc: mary.roseihe1m@;oe.m
Subject: RE: Mary joule
Can you tell us the name of the vendor you reference below please?
Also, who is repeatedly asking you about the house and how are these commLncatEons being conveyed? Are
they calling you up or talking to you onsite? We would request that you produce all documents regarding such
communications as soon as possible, and document any future communications so you can produce them in
the future.
I am kind of at a loss as to why you should be receiving repeated questions about the house and who are
asking all these questions. Maybe you could give us some more information on who and why you are getting
these "repeated questions so we could adequately respond, and direct those inquiries to my client. Plee
simply direct these repeated" questions to my client so he can adequately respond and help relieve you of
those duties, as I am sure you have much more important things to do than engage fl small talk about my
client's house.
Also, please refrain from ergaging in any conduct that could be construed as improperly interfering with my
clients business.
Thank you very much.
Original Message
From: Sandy Matteson [maUto:smattesontccmcnet.com]

Page 2 of 3
Sent: Thursday, May01, 2008 11:57 AM

To: AAbsc,lute(aol .com
Cc: m rsenheimjoe.com; danlel@idwulaw.com
Subject: RE: Mary ioule
Included in the position of any compliance officer is the daily inspection of homes throughout the
WateColor and WaterSound Communities. If you are asking If Mary has been thared to observe
homes within the community under construction every day, the answer would be yea.
I had spoken to Mary and had asked her if she had taken anyone to the house, and she told me it was
only a vendor who was performing the work that had nt been done as part of the punch list..
As I see there is a new email today, you are attempting to complete the list instead..
For whatever reasDn, the home you are constructing at Yachyt Pond Lane lot 26 is one of the most
talked about houses at WaterSound Beach.
believe it is based on the way tIe construction of the tower has proceeded the home I personally
have been asked repeated If the tower exceeds the height and how the tower is being constructed.
My answer is always the same, the DRB is charged with the esthetics, design end compatibility of the
home in The community. However things such as height are an issue in the community and will be
reviewed. I believe Mary will respond in the same form, however will seek this information from her As
the construction of this house is somewhat different, I would suspect we would keep a Close eye on it to
ensure to is compatible on all aspects of the design guidelines..
Please let me know if you have any concerns and we car address them on a case by case basis..
Sandy Mattcson
Vice Presidcrit
LapIuu LUflSUJI4flth vianagemeni orpvratiori
33-H S. Watersound Pkwy
Email: smauesoniccmenet.com
Visit our website: www.ccmcnet.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any at nients, is for the sole use of the intended recipient
(a) and may enniain cnnf,deatiai and privileged information. Any unaxthcnzed review, use. disclosure or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply c-mail and destroy all copies of the or:ginal
message.
From: Mbsoluteaol.com [rnaitto:MbsoIuteaoI,com

Sent: Monday, AprIl 28, 2008 5:24 PM
To: Sandy Maeson
Cc: nary.rosenheim@Joem; danleI@dwuiaw.com
Subject: Mary Joule
Sandy,
Wil you please ask Mary Joule to stop visiting my jobs with her friends who are looking for work?
Wit you please ask Mary ,Joule to refrain from talking to my customers about things tI-tat she thinks are
interior abojt the homes I build? Any builder, including me, can covertly make visits and observations
about anothers work behind someon&s back. I am begging you to do something about this.
If you, Mary or anyone else wants to review my work and talk to my clients I am insisting that I be
notified prior to such. I know Mary is actively pursuing this course of action and the continuity of such
Monday, November 02,2009 AOL: A Absolute

Page 3 of3
has no legitimate purpose.
Thanks, John Carroll
Need a new ride? Check ut the largest Site br US. used car listings at AOL Autos.

Pag
Subj: Lot 24 Wat.rSound Biach r..ponIe to letter from I R.an dited 3112109
Date: 3/25/2009
To: tregan@ccrncnet.com
CC: atambri@ccmcnetcom, jjlucheseembarqmail.com
Tracy,
I received your latter of March 12, 2009 regarding the ccnstructton timeline on Lot 24 WaterSound beach
Phase IV. I wish to respond in writing as you requested. In order to prepare a proper response 1 will need to
examine tile HOA records of tile many constructhn projects that have come under this purported Design
Guidelines provision. I will ask to review the HOA or DRBs standard farm letter of Notice to the
homeowner your office has sent in tile past. I will ask to review the response of each by the homeowner.
I can come to your office for the review so there is no financial burden on our HOA and will promptly issue
the written response. Im invoking my request by the aithority granted to me under Flonda Statutes 720.30 (4)
and 720. 303 (5) and any other legal authority.
Thanks, John Carroll

Subs: Your requs.t toi- Information on build time
Date: 10/2912008 11:52:03 AM, Central Daylight Time
From: A Absolute
To: tregan@ccmcnetcom
CC: afambri@ccmcnet.com, jjlucrese@embarqmail corn
Ttacy,
On March 12, 2009 the DRB sent me a noticaton that Lot 24 was moving up on 16 months construction and
that there was a potential fine. I resporded on March 25, 2009 that! Would prepare the statement you asked for,
but that I would require some documents from the DRB in order to prepare a proper response.
This is what our communication looked like to refresh our memories:
That will be tine. I will see you Tuesday at 11:00.
Thank you,
Tracy Regan
Design Review Coordinator
t.. uptiui Lunsuuu,If3 iv1uflugLmerlI U.. Elf [44 ILIrl
Northwe.ci Florida Main Office
1394 Co. Hwy 283 Sauzh, Bldg 7
Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459
Phone 850.231.1035
Fax 850,231,4526
Email: Ircgatl'wccncnL'I. corn
Visit our website: I'I'i. LL'IflCtICl. corn
CONFiDEWT!4L/TY NOTICE. This e-mail message. including wtv attachments. is/or the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contarn confidential and privileged information. At unauthorized review, use. thscloure or distribution isprohibaed. Ifyou are not the
infrndedl-eclpient, p/cave contact the sender reply e-mail and destroy alt copies of the original message.

Page 2 of 3
From: AAb ec)aol.com [maiffo.AA1so/uteol.cmj

S.n1 Wednesday, f4a,t* 25, 2009 6.'15P14
To: Tracy R7an
Cc: Alex Panibri; j/iudiese)embargmaiL corn; ndy tlatteson, Mbsolute)aoi corn
Subject Re: Lot 24 Wate,Sound Bead, ,esoonse .o letter from TRegan dated 3/12/0
Thanks Tracy for your quick response. / 71 see you or, the earlier free day, Tuesday. Can I please come to the
OIhCO t 11.00?
Thanks You, John
In a message dated 3i2512009 9:29:01 AM. Central Daylight Time, treganccmcnet.com writes:
John,
I can have the records ready for you to view on either Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
Please let me know a date and time that will be convenient for you.
Thank you,
Tracy Regan
Capital Consultants ManageMent Corporation
1394 Co. Hwy 283 South, Bldg 7
Phone 850.231.1035
Fax 850.231.4526
Email: ucgo,1(a)ctmc,?cI. corn
Visit our weh.sjje, utv' c cme,wt. corn

Page 3 of 3
CONE/DEN TJAUIY NOT1C.E: This e-mail message, including any onachments, is for the soie use of the intended recipienf()
and mt contain conjidenjial and privileged information. Any unauthorized review. use, disclosure o' distribuoan is
prohibited. l[you ore no: the intended rectpwru, please couacr the sender i'y reply e-mail and destroy all cope.r of the original
message.
From: MsoMeiaoI.vm [mai1to:MbOlute'acl.cc,n]

Sent: Wednesday, Ma,rh 25, 2009 7:29 AM
To: Tracy Regan
Cc: Alex famb,!; jJIuc/iesecJembarqinai/. win
Subject: L,t24 Wate,Sound 8each ,'sponse t letter ftr,m TRegan dated 3/12/09
Tracy,
/ recOived your letter of March 12, 20Q9 re'arding the construchon tirneilne on Lot 24 WeterSound
Beach Phase IV. I wish to inspond in writing as you requested. In order to prepare a proper response I
will naed to examine the HOA records of the many construction projects that have come under this
purpoded Design Guidelines provision. I will ask to review the HOAs or DRB's standard ftnm letter of
Notice to the homeowner your ofce has sent in the past. I will ask to review the response of each by
the homeowner.
carl come to your office for the review so there is no financial burden on our HOA and wi/I promptly
issue the written response. I'm invoking my request by the authority granted to me under Florida
Statutes 720303 (4) and 720.303 (5) and any other legal authcjnty.
Thanks, John Cairn/I
You were most efficient by setting up the meeting and preparing a spreadsheet showing the 17 active jobs in
WaterSound Beach You did not provide me the responses of the homeowners and your documents were
hmited to just 17 active projects in WaterSound Beach.
Wnen can I expect the responses of the homeowners and the documents on the earlier projects?
Thanks, Thanks, Thanks John Carroll

iv R3
J THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plalntifl Cisc No.: 09CA002021

V.
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, TNC.,

Florida Corporation
and as Director,
MARY JOULE,
SANDRA MATTES ON, N. -c
RONALD VOELKER,
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and OTHER UNKNOWN -
CONSPIRATORS
. r,
fl!
Defendints. >
-.4-.-
.. ("P
PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTION
Petitioner, John Carroll ("Petitioner"), in this action for Petition of Injunction,

seeks to enjoin Respondents WaterSound Beach Community Association, Inc.
("WalerSound") and all of their agents or assignees of any kind, including Sandra
Matteson ("Matteson") from withholding Design Review Board ("DRB") documents
from the Petitioner or the community at large. WaterSound and Matteson are situated in
Walton County and the actions of the DRB occur within Walton County, therefore this
Court has jurisdiction to make a final ruling on this matter.
Petitioner has statutory standing to bring this action in several ways. First,
Petitioner is a member of the WaterSound HOA and is entitled to review the records of
the WaterSound DRB as a matter of Law. Florida Statute 720.303 is very clear and
grants any member of an 1-IDA the right to examine DRB documents within 10 days of a
request. Petitioner has made repeated requests for documents during the past 26 months
which have not been honored. Petitioner has appeared for settlement talks with
WaterSound several times in an attempt to rest this disagreement. WatcrSotmd cannot
legally defend their refusal to supply Petitioner with community documents. That said,
Petitioner does not take any additional time of this Court to add clarity to it's argument
on grounds flowing from Florida's Homeowner's Association Statute, Chapter 720.
Please allow Petitioner to redirect this brief to his standing granted by the Florida
Sunshine Statute. The Court should review a document which is central to this case
which is known as the "Letter of Final Approval". This letter is required by the Walton
-
County Building Department as prelimiriaiy approval for a building permit:
mA I * by
IM . Cy P1 GW
c
I L
TI*
oc
d
cfin** L.l
CDI-f
Wb.* thi U
O
LETTER OF FIPAL APPROVAL
Jausty 7, 2OO
c.
Pa Bo 61324
WIoufld, El 324e1
. si5.d usd1 P'IISSW, Lt 34

Cw4
V%s: I4MD OflN!RY
T! Chrnir f Ri*w Soani ni ad th* D' R,M wd m54 Vd ao

If WP If L 24 Wt,1d P!ne IV E.y inud .ld 1e *nil
a b Iw,Ea OU
- It'
WC
LW) 3JCU a u WW
1
,Y,d11e
!eeb
tio
rId,d Df a
r*ft .
rc* ,a1 d. n,nb
nLf.*e /' /
. - - Io $500C
foc siccoco r
a
, CrmaR The dss ,4 of a y 01 e Con

Sa.dt WC
Th.o IWL 's a
TW flOf
Wy
NI e, ims
* WY
WT 'e
DY 0I
tDY * ffWl b
Tb. )s Ra
bo cdN
ULWY. W)O MZ
..O
od S. Joe
leEcI of WSC.$d Bl
DP*
a
y
V
aay tW DY
-
PcI bS
emw.-
of,
Ya Ni
swts *w.
..proe n froen, Nd ,a, PW
Csmbs.,f 8u1d1
Florida's Sunshine Statute is intended to open the books of government to the
citizens. Florida's citizens aren't required to explain why they want to review records,
they're simply entitled to full disclosure providing no privilege or exclusion exists. At
first glance it might bc reasonable to conclude that a private HOA enjoys privilege over
records concerning it's Design Review Actions. In fact, Petitioner concedes that it
cannot find a case where this question has been presented to a Florida Court. This is the
case, this is the time, the issue is finally ripe.
The Walton County Planning and Building Departments are the local
governmental authorities for citizens seeking a building permit. A resident must comply
with several public office and legislative prerequisites first, unless the Florida resident
wishes to construct a building within WaterSound, WaterColor, Rosemary Beach or
several other Walton County communities. In these special cases, the Walton County
Planning and Building Departments have delegated their preliminary permit approval
authority to WaterSound and the others. Simply put, no approval front the private
community's DRB, no permit from Walton County. That is the place and time when the
private DRB becomes public regarding florida's Sunshine Statute.
WaterSound and other private Walton County communities require their owners
and builders to submit highly detailed permitting submittals prior to review. During
review of the submitials, WaterSound's DRB committee meets and makes decisions
which are evidenced by notes and other memoranda- At some point, the meetings of the
DRB committee members axe considered complete and adjourned. Al some time
thereafter, reports of some of the DRB's conclusions are transmitted to some of the
parlies of the transactions. Upon eventual receipt by the resident andlor builder of thc
committee's formal decision, the resident is notified that their project is approved for
pursuit of the next stage of permitting or is being returned with comments for changes. If
the resident successfully follows through with WaterSound final plan approval, they are
issued notice and required to set a pre-consiruction site conference between the builder
approved by the community and a representative of the community.
The pre-construction site conference consists of a physical inspection of the land

to be improved, establishment of the elevation of the proposed building's first floor and a
review of the community's contractor standards. If the contractor is not approved for
construction by the community, the Letter of Final Approval is not delivered, regardless
of his valid State and Walton County Contractor's License. Without the Letter of Final
Approval, the resident cannot obtain a Walton County Building Permit,
When an agency of Florida's government delegates authority to a private

organization to make decisions on pub1i matters, that private organization is subject to
Florida's Government in the Sunshine Statute. This will end this brief which is
respectfully submitted to this Court for consideration and final determination.
Petitioner has assembled Statutory and Walton County citations of authority for
the Court's review, if needed, which are included in the pages that follow.
Citations in Sunport of Petilion for thiunclion
Florida Statutes
553.38 Application and scope.The department shall enforce every provision of the
Florida Building Code adopted pursuant hereto, except that local land use and zoning
requirements, fire zones, building setback requirements, side and rear yard requirements,
site development requirements, property line requirements, subdivision control, and
onsitc installation requirements, as well as the review and regulation of architectural and
aesthetic requirements, are specifically and entirely reserved to local authorities. Such
local requirements and rules which may be enacted by local authorities must be
reasonable and uniformly applied and enforced without any distinction as to whether a
building is a conventionally constructed or manufactured building.
553.73 Florida Building Code.
(4)() All enthies authorized to enforce the Florida Building Code pursuant to s. 553.RO
shall comply vith...procedures for plans review and inspections.... The local government
shall make such amendments available to the general public in a usable format.
(12) The florida Building Code does not apply to... zoning requirements, land use
requirements, and owner specifications or programmatic requirements which do not
pertain to and govern the design, construction.., of private buildings.., or to
nrorammatie reauiremcnts that do not pertain to enforcement of the Florida BuildinR
Code.
553.79 Perinils; applications; Issuance; inspectlon.-
After the effective date of the florida Building Code adopted as herein provided, it
shall be unlawful for any penon, firm, corporation.. to construct, erect.., any building
within this state without first obtaining a permit therefor from the appropriate enforcing
agency or from such persons as may... be delegated authority to issue such permits.
Except as provided in subsection (6), an enforcing agency may not issue any pennit
for construction. erection... of any building or structure until the k)cal building code
administrator or inspector has reviewed the plans and specifications...
553.791 Alternative plans review and inspection.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(c) 'Building" means any construction, erection, alteration, demolition, or improvement

of, or addition to, any structure for which permitting by a local enforcement agency is
required.
(g) "Local building official" means the individual within the governing jurisdiction
responsible for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plans review,
enforcement, and inspection of any construction, erection, alteration, demolition, or
L
substantial improvement of, or addition to, any structure for which permitting is required
to indicate compliance with applicable codes and includes any duly authorized designee
of such person.
553.792 BuIlding permIt application to local government,
(1) Within 10 days of an applicant submitting an application to the local government, the
local government shall advise the applicant what information, if any, is needed to deem
the application properly completed in compliance with the filing requirements published
by the local government. If the local government does not provide written notice that the
applicant has not submitted the properly completed application, the application shall be
automatically deemed properly completed and accepted. Within 45 days after receiving a
completed application, a local government must notify an applicant if additional
information is required for the local govcrnmcnt to determine the sufficiency of the
application, and shall specify the additional information that is required. The applicant
must submit the additional information to the local government or request that the local
government act without the additional infonnation. While the applicant responds to the
request for additional information, the 120-day period described in this subsection is
tolled, Both parties may agree to a reasonable request for an extension of time,
particularly in the event of a force major or other extraordinary circumstance The local
government must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application within 120
days following receipt of a completed application.
553.80 Enforcement.-
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (a).(g), each local government and each legally
constituted enforcement district with statutory authority shall regulate building
construction and, where authorized in the state agency's enabling legislation, each state
agency shall enforce the Florida Building Code required by this part on all public or
private buildings, structures, and facilities, unless such responsibility has been delegated
to another unit of government pursuant to a. 553.79(9).
163.3220 Short title; legWattve intent.

Sections 163.3220-163.3243 may be cited as the "Florida Local Government
Development Agreement Act."
The Legislature finds and declares that:
() The lack of certainty in the approval of development can result in a waste of

economic and lund resources, discourage sound capital improvement planning and
financing, escalate the cost of housing and development, and discourage commitment to
comprehensive planning.
(b) Assurance to a developer that upon receipt of his or her development permit or
brown.field designation he or she may proceed in accordance with existing laws and
policies, subject to the conditions of a development agreement, strengthens the public
planning process, encourages sound capital improvement planning and financing, assists
in assuring there are adequate capital facilities for the development, encourages private
participation in comprehensivc planning, and reduces the economic costs of development.
1633221 Florida Local Co'vernment Development Agreement Act definitions,Ai
u%ed in s.163322O-l63.3243
"Developer' means any person, including a governmental agency, undertaking any

development.
"Development" means the carrying out of any building activity or mining operation,
the making of any material change in the use or appearance of any structure or land, or
the dividing of land into three or more parcels.
(a) The following activities or uses shall be taken for the purposes of this act to involve
"development":
1. A reconstruction, alteration of the size, or material change in the external appearance

of a structure on land.
"l)evelopment permit" includes any building permit, zoning permit, subdivision

approval, rezoning, certification, special exception, variance, or any other official action
of local government having the effect of permitting the development of land.
(8) "Land development regulations" means ordinances enacted by governing bodies for
the regulation of any aspect of development and includes any local government zoning,
rezorng, subdivision, building construction, or sign regulations or any other regulations
controlling the development of land.
an example of customary disclosure of records pertaining to planning or zoning or

aesthetics:
163.3174 Local planning agency. (5) All meetings of the local planning agency shall
be public meetings, and agency records shall be public records.
163.3243 Enforcement.Any party, any aggrieved or adversely affected person as

defined in sl63.3215(2), or the state land planning agency may file an action for
injunctive relief in the circuit court where the local govermnent is located to enforce the
terms of' a development agreement or to challenge compliance of the agreement with the
provisions of ss. 163 3220-1633243.
489.105 Definitlon.As used in this part:
(12) "Local construction regulation board" means a board, composed of not fewer than
three residents of a county or municipality, which the governing body of that county or
municipality may create and appoint to maintain the proper standard of construction of
that county or municipality
489.108 Rulemaking 2uthorily.The board has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss.
120.536(l) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon
it.
(4Xa) When a certificateholder desires to ene in con raeiin in any areao( the state,
as a prerequisite therefor, he or she shall be required only to exhibit to the local building
official, tax collector, or other person in charge of the issuance of licenses and building
permits in the area, evidence of holding a current certificate and to pay the fee for the
occupational license and building permit required of other persons.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a), a local construction regulation

board may deny, suspend, or revoke the authority of a certified contractor to obtain a
building permit ... if the local construction regulation board has found such contractor,
through the public hearing process, to be guilty of ... after providing notice of an
opportunity to be heard to the contractor.....Notification of and information concerning
such permit denial shall be submitted to the department within IS days after the local
construction regulation board decides to deny the permit.
(d) it is the policy of the state that the purpose of regulation is to protect the public by
attaining compliance with the policies established in law. Fines and other penalties are
provided in order to ensure compliance; however, the collection of fines and the
imposition of penalties are intended to be secondary to the primary goal of attaining
compliance with state laws and local jurisdiction ordinances.... A notice of
noncompliance should not be ac.comnanied with a fine or other discir,linary penalty. it
should identify the specific ordinance that is being violated, provide information on how
to comply with the ordinance, and specify a reasonable time for the viointor to comply
with the ordinance. Failure of a licensee to take action correcting the violation within a
set period of time would then result in the instimtion of further discipliniry proceedings.
489.117 RegIstration; speelsity contractors.
(b) Registration allows the registrant to engage in contracting .. in the counties,

municipalities, or development districts where he ... has complied with all local licensing
requirements and ... for the type of work covered by the registration.
489.129 Disciplinary proceedings.
(1) The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or
registrant ... if the contractor ... is found guilty of any of the following acts:...
(12) When an investigation of a contractor is undertaken, the department shalt promptly

furnish to the contractor or the contractors attorney a copy of the complaint or document
that resulted in the initiation of the investigation. The department shall make the
complaint and supporting documents avai)able to the contractor. The complaint or
supporting documents shall contain information regarding the specific facts that serve as
the basis for the complaint. The contractor may submit a written response to the
information contained in such complaint or document within 20 days after service to the
contractor of the complaint or document. The contractor's written response shall be
considered by the probable cause panel.
4S9313 RegistratIon; application; requirements.
(1) Any person engaged in the business of contracting in the state shall be registered in
the proper classification unless he or she is certified. Any person desiring to be a
registered contractor shall apply to the department for registration and must:
Registration permits the registrant to engage in contracting...
The local jurisdictions are responsible for providing the following information to the
board within 31) days after licensure of, or any disciplinary action against, a locally
licensed contractor who is registered under this part
Licensure information.
Code violation information pursuant to a. 553.781.
Disciplinary information.
The board shall maintain such licensure and disciplinary information as it is provided to
the board and shall make the information available through the automated information
system provided pursuant to s. 455.2286.
Walton County Ordinances
BUILDING
11.04.00. PERMITS, SIGN PERMITS, AND OTHER
DEVELOPMENT PERMITS
1L04.0l. Applicatlon Generally.

Application for a building permit or other development permit shall be made to the
department of planning and zoning on a form provided by the department, and may be
acted upon by the department without public hearing or notice. No portion of permit fees
will be refunded if the permit becomes void.
11.04.02. BuIlding Permita.

Generally. No erection, alteration, or reconstruction of any building or structure
shalt be commenced without first obtaining a building permit from the building official.
Application. Each application for a building permit shall be accompanied by:
I. A plat drawn to scale, showing the actual dimensions of the lot to be built upon, the
size, shape and location of the building to be erected;
Written certification by a qualified professional that the plans submitted conform to
all application regulations; and
Such other information as the Director deems necessary to provide for the
enforcement of this Code.
Chapter XI
S.00.02. Minimum Lot Area Requirements.
1. Requirements for Residential Development. There is no minimum lot area for
individual lots within a residential development that will be served by both a cenira]
water and central sewer system, provided that all of the following requirements are met:
The land area for the total project is sufficient to meet standards of this Code as stated
in paragraph (A) of this section.
Residential density of the area shall not exceed that specified in the Walton County
Comprehensive Plan.
Land with the boundaries of a subdivision or a Neighborhood Plan, exclusive of
individual lots to be conveyed in fee simple ownership, shall be owned andlor controlled
and maintained through a condominium association, property owners' association, or
other similar private legal entity, or may be conveyed to governmental or public not-for-
profit organizations for the same purpose. Recordable instruments providing for these
common-ownership lands shall be submitted for review with the application for
development plan review.
5.10.01. Standards for New Construction Activities.

In order to minimize the impacts of artificial lighting on nesting sea turtles and their
hatchlings, and other coastal wildlife, the following standards shall apply to exterior
artificial light sources on all new coastal construction (including redevelopment and
substantial improvements) within the Wildlife Conservation Zone for which a building
permit was issued on or alter the date of adoption of this ordinance:
.(1S) Before granting any building penniz, the Walton County Building Deparnant
shall ensure that the County Planning and Development Division has reviewed the nroject
lighting plans and has determined that all proposed construction complies in all respects
with the standards imposed in this section. Detailed project lighting plans shall be
submitted to the Division showing the location of all exterior light sources relative to
adjacent nesting habitat. The plans must identif' the location, number and type of
lighting to be used for all fixtures. Each building permit shall include a condition that the
exterior lighting actually installed under such plans must comply with the standards
imposed in this section before a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued. Applicants
providing evidence that proposed lighting has been approved by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection as part of a permit for construction seaward of the CCCL
shall he exempt from this provision. l-iowever, this exemption shall only apply to those
lights reviewed under the CCCL program. AU exterior lights landward of the CCCL
within the Wildlife Conservation Zone must be reviewed and approved by the County as
set forth herein.
10.02.02. Notice of Quasi-Judicial Proceedings.

Unless otherwise specificafly provided for in this Code, each quasi-judicial hearing shall
be subject to the minimum notice requirements provided in Section 10.03.02 of this
Code.
10.02.03, Procedure for Quail-Judicial Hearings.

The basic procedures to be followed in all quasi-judicial hearings shall be as set forth
herein, but may be altered by other provisions of the Code within specific substantive
areas.
A. Generally. Each quasi-judicial hearing required by this Code shall conform
essentially to the following procedures, as supplemented by other portions of this Code,
and by law, rule or judicial decision:
I. Applicant makes application through the Director of the Department of Planning and
Zoning;
County staff reviews application for completeness and compliance with this Code and
all other applicable County regulations, and prepares a report to be presented as part of
the evidence at the final hearing as to the matter;
The appropriate reviewing Board conducts a quasi-judicial hearing, which shalt be
fair, open and impartial in nature, and which shall be followed by issuance or denial of
the requested action or development order/permit. The issuance or denial of the requested
action or development order/permit is the final action as to the matter, and may only be
appealed in the Circuit Court as provided by Jaw.
10.02.05. Special Pnwi%ions Relating to Quasi-Judicial Decilon-Makers.

A. Cballengei to ImpartiMlity. A party to a quasi-judicial proceeding may challenge
the impartiality of any member of the applicable Board. The challenge shall be made by
sworn affidavit setting forth facts relating to a bias, prejudgment, personal interest, or
other facts front which the challenger has concluded that the decision-maker cannot
participate in an impartial manner. Except for good cause shown, the affidavit of
challenge shall be delivered by hand delivery or US. Mail to the Director of the
Department of Planning and Zoning no less than 48 hours preceding the time set for the
hearing. The Director shall attempt to notify the person whose qualifications are
challenged prior to the hearing. The challenge, and any response of a challenged Board
member thereto, shall be incorporated into the record of the hearing.
B. Duiqualillcation of Decision-Makers A particular decision-maker shall not
participate in the rendition of a quasi-judicial decision ii a particular case if either:
Any of the following have a direct or substantial financial interest in the
proposallrequest which is the subject of the quasi-judicial decision: the decision-maker;
the decision-maker's spouse, brother, sister, child, parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law; a
business in which the decision-maker is then serving or has served within the previous
two years; any business with which the decision-maker is negotiating for, or has an
arrangement or understanding with concerning, prospective partnership or employment.
The decision-maker owns property within the area entitled to receive notice of the
hearing.
The decision-maker has a direct private interest in the proposal or request; or
For any other valid reason, the decision-maker has determined that slhe cannot
impartially participate in the hearing and decision.
C. Conflicts of Interest. Any member of a quasi-judicial Board with a conflict of
interest, as same is defined by Chapter 112, Part III, F.S., shall comply with the
requirements of that Chapter.
B. Participation by Interested Officers or Employees. No officer or employee of the
County who has a financial or other private interest in a proposal shall participate in
discussions with or give an official opinion to the hearing body on the proposal without
first declaring for the record the nature arid extent of the interest.
E. Ex Parte Contacts. Quasi-judicial decision-makers shall reveal any prehearing or cx
parte contacts with regard to a particular matter at the commencement of the hearing on
such matter, For purposes of this section, "ex part& shall mean any contact with a
member of the hearing Board occurring outside of the hearing of a matter. However,
incidental preapplication contacts that do not include discussion as to particulars of a
pending proposal do not need to be stated. If the decisionmakers impartiality or ability
to vote on the matter has been impaired by any such contact, the decision-maker shall so
state and shall abstain from participation in the decision on the matter.
F. Involuntary Disqualification. A majority of the members of a hearing body present
and voting may for reasons described by the Code or other applicable law vote to
disqualify a member who has refused to disqualify himlherself.
1 HEREBY CERTWY that a copy of the foregoing has been furnished to

CHRISTOPHER L. GEORGE, ESQ. P0 Box 1034, 56 Saint Joseph St.. Mobile, AL.
36633 1034, attorney for WaterSound and Matteson, by fax and regular mail this 4th day
of January, 2010.
WaterSoun., L32461
Tel:(851 31-5616
Fax: (S50)622-5618
Dated: January 4, 2010

v R4
FAX 12514331086 CLARX, SCOTT SULLIVA Q0L/O34
O1/08/20t3 XC4 16: 38
SCOTT, SULLIVAN, STREETMAN & FOX, P.C.

POST OFFICE BOX 1034
REGIONS BANK BUILDING
56 SAINT JOSEPH STREET, 10th FLOOR (36602)
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36633-1034
(251) 433-1346
Telecopier (251) 433-1086
Wats (800) 239-6733
FAX COVER SKEET
DATE january 4, 2010

TO Circuit Civit Department
FAX NO. 1-850-892-7551
FROM Christopher L. George, Esquire
Re Carroll v. Watersound Beach Comrnuniy_4ssociation, Inc.

eta!
Case No.: 2009 CA 002021
MESSAGE Please file today Defendants Wetersound Beach

Community Association, Inc. and Sandra
Matteson's Response to Plaintiff's Motion for
Injunction. The originals are following In the
mail.
NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 4
PLEASE CALL 800-239-5733 AND ASK FOR MfcheIIe Chacon IF YOU DO

NOT RECEIVE ALL PA GES.
TH INFORMATION CONTAINED EN THIS TRANSMISSION IS ATTORNEY PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL IT IS
NThNOED ONLY FOR TIlE LSE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE
IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NCTIFED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR
COPYING OF TH:S COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIEITEO. IF YOU RECEIVE ThIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR,
PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN ThE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE
ADDRESS VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICES. THANK YOU.
3Ws1
01104/2010 MON 16 38 F 12514331006 CLAII, SCOTT & SULLIVA21 002/004
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDiCIAL CIRCUIT

CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 2009 CA 002021
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATiON, INC.,

Florida Corporation
DAVID ULIENTUAL, individually
and as Director,
MARY JOULE, ',
SANDRA MATFESON
ROI4ALDVOELKER,
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and OTHER UNKNOWN a)
CONSP[RATORS
Defendants,
/
flPVINnA 1rT' WTP
-, Q(TT1'T0
'.A 14 AC'U ('(Th4MT T1'.TITV A(1CT ATIflN ITW
WAS
/aND SANDRA MA1TESPN'S RESP9NSE TO PLAJNFIFF'S MOTION FOR
INJUNCFION
COME NOW Defendants Watersound Beach Community Association, Inc. and
Sandra Matteson (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Defendants") by and through
counsel, and, in response to the Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction, which show onto this
Honorable Court as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction asserts that the Defendants have withheld
records in violation of Florida Statute o.3o3 for Homeowners Association, Florida's
Government in the Sunshine Statute 119.01(1) and Florida's Government in the Sunshine
Stature 286.011. The Plaintiff's reliance on Florida's Sunshine Statutes is misplaced as
these statutes pertain only to "state, county, and municipal records" maintained by an
"agency" of the state. Florida Statute 119.01(1). An agency, for purposes of the Florida
1/O4/2DLQ )4O} 16 3 FAX I254331OB6 CLARI, SCOTT & SULLIVI5 OQ/OD4
Sunshine Statutes is defined as 'any state, county district, authority, or municipal officer,
department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of Government
created or established by law including, for the purposes of [said statutes] ,the Commission
on Ethics, the Public Service Commission, and the Office of Public Counsel, aud any other
public or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on

behalfofanypublicagency." FloridaStatutes 119.011(2). See also Shebin v. Byron Harless,
379 So.2d (Fla.1980). As the Watersound Beach Community Association, tnc. is clearly
not an agency as defined in the Sunshine Statutes, the Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction is
due to be denied to the extent that it is premised upon the Florida Sunshine Statutes,
2. The Plaintiff has now propounded discovery requests seeking to discovery the
seine materinlsallegedlypreviouslywithheldfrom him. Eventhoughthe r'esponsestothese
discovery requests are not yet due, Defend4nts' counsel has advised Plaintiff, in writing,
that he has no objection to arrange a mutually convenient time for the Plaintiff to review
and/or copy aJi of the material requested with the caveat that, as the Plaintiffs discoveiy
requests are broad enough to encompass communications between the Defendants and
counsel that are protected from disclosure pursuant to the attorney-client and/or work
product privileges, any such materials would be withheld from disclos'ire and a privilege
log provided as to any materials withheld on these grounds. Defendants respectfuily submit
that this renders Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction moot. Moreover, now that this matter is
in litigation, if there are any additional problems in the future regarding the Plaintiffs
attempt to obtain and review records they can be dealt with pursuant to the Florida Rules
of Civil Procedure governing discovery in civil actions such as this.
WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an
order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Injunction.

01/54/2010 HDN 16 38 FIX 12511331086 CL0, SCOTT i SULtIV.II
RESPEeIFULLY SUBMITIED,
CIiRLSTOPI-IER L. GEORGE (o
Defendants for Watersound znnmnity
Association, Inc. and Sandra
OF COUNSEL:
SCOTI', SULLIVAN, STREETMAN & FOX, PC

P0 Box 1034
Mobile, AL 36633
Telephone: (i) 433-1346
Facsimile: (251) 433-10B6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF
I hereby certifvthatl have on this the 4th day of January. 2010. served a cony of the
foregoing p'eading upon the party stated below by placing a copy of same in the United
States Mail, properly addressed and first-class postage prepaid:
John P. Carroll
Box 613524
WaterSound, Florida 32461
OF COUNSEL
vi R5
15
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Plaintiff, Case No.: 09CA002021

V.
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Florida Corporation
and as Director,
MARY JOULE,
SANDRA MATTESON,
RONALD VOELKER,
JOHN DOE, JANE DOE, and OTHER UNKNOWN
CONSPIRATORS
Defendants.
PETITIONER'S REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S RESPONSE TO INJUNCTION
COMES NOW Petitioner, John Carroll ("Petitioner"), in this action for Petition of
Injunction, seeking to enjoin Respondents WaterSound Beach Community Association,
Inc. ("WaterSound") and all of their agents or assignees of any kind, including, Sandra
Matteson ("Matteson"), from withholding Design Review Board ("DRB") documents
from the Petitioner or the community at large and replys to Respondent's response as
follows:
1. Respondent has cut directly to the heart of this Petition when he quotes at
Paragraph (1) of his Response the definition of an Agency as, "and any other public
or private agency, person, partnership, corporation, or business entity acting on
behalf of any public agency." Florida Statutes 119.011(2). Unfortunately for
Respondent, his argument is self refuting at that quote. The Walton County Building
Department is a public agency. They have delegated the authority to WaterSound to act
on their behalf for preliminary plan review and approval of licensed contractors for any
Florida Citizen who intends to build within WaterSound. That relationship and act opens
and closes the case on this Petition.
2. At Respondent's Paragraph (2) the urgency and futile position of
Petitioner with regard to his multiple requests, spanning over (2) years now, is clarified
when Respondent is quoted, "The Plaintiff has now propounded discovery requests
seekiu to diseover(y) the snme materials allegedly previously withheld from him.'
The Respondent has had this Petition for Injunction in his hands for 61 days and now
says that he'll get the documents over to Petitioner right away, this after a 2 year wait
over several qualified requests. Even if Respondent really does follow through at this
13th hour, "it has been recognized that injunctive relief may be available upon an
appropriate showing for a violation of Ch. 119, F.S. See Daniels v. Bryson, 548 So.
2d 679 (FIn. 3d DCA 1989) (injunctive relief appropriate where there is a

demonstrated pattern of noncompliance with the Public Records Act, together with
a showing of likelihood of future violations; mandamus would not be an adequate
remedy since mandamus would not prevent future harm)."
3. At Respondent's Paragraph (2), Respondent sums up his case by saying
that "Defendants' counsel has advised Plaintiff, in writing, that he has no objection
to arrange a mutually convenient time for the Plaintiff to review.....What the

Respondent actually said in writing was, "I do not foresee any problem with...we should
be able to schedule a date in the near future for you to review..." This proposed cure for
the public records violations of Respondents, came on the last business day of the year
and (2) years after the Petitioner's primary request. This is not a cure and certainly
2
doesn't render this Petition moot Please see Florida's own 2009 cioverument-in-the-
Sunshine-Manual at 2 B (4) Muotness:
In Puls v. City of Port St. Lucie, 678 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the
court noted that "[p]roduction of the records after the [public records]
lawsuit was filed did not moot the issues raised in the complaint" The
court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the issue of
whether, under the facts of the case, there was an unlawful refusal of
.,kernrAc See also Times Publishing Company y. City of
St. Petersburg, 558 So. 2d 487, 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (although courts
and
do not ordinarily resolve disputes unless a case or controversy exists
resolution would have some practical purpose, since the instant situation
is capable of repetition while evading review, we find it appropriate to
address the issues before us concerning applicability of the Public Records
Act for fttture reference'); Mazer v. Orange County, 811 So. 2d 857, 860
(Fla. 5th DCA 2002) ("the fact that the requested documents were
produced in the instant case after the action was commenced, but prior to
final adjudication of the issue by the trial court, does not render the case
entitlement to fees
moot or preclude consideration of the petitioner's
under the statute); and WFTV, Tnc. v. Robbins, 625 So. 2d 941 (Ha. 4th
DCA 1993).
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Court Grant the Petition for
is
Injunction against WaterSound and Matteson, and grant Petitioner all further relief he
entitled to under Florida's laws.
3
has been furnished to
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Joseph St., Mobile, AL.
CHRISTOPHER L. GEORGE, ESQ. P0 Box 1034, 56 Saint mail this
4Eh
day
36633-1034, attorney for WaterSound and Matteson, by fax and regular
of January, 2010.
Box 613 4
Tel: (850)231-5616
Fax: (850)622-5618
Dated: January 4, 2010

vii R6
1-J
Q7C/\ zozj
LETTER OF FINAL APPROVAL
January 7, 2008
Chamber Street Bulideri

John Carroll
POBox 613524.
WatsrSound, Fl. 32461 P1
Re: WilerSound Seich Phase IV, Lot 2

> r
Owner: John Carroll

-
Via: HAND DELIVERY
The Chairman of the Desn Review BoarL is pleased to announce that the Design Review Board met and approd
fnr construction your plans for Lot 24 WatrSoLmd PhaSe IV Eligibitity is based upon sigled and sealed permit set
submIttal with cover issue sheet dated 20 lavember 2006 and plans signed and sealed date of 13 November 2007.
plans drawn by Harrison Design ano Assocites.
Receipt is hereby acknowledged of a corpIiance deposit check number ' for $5000 and a non
reFundable constructon management fee check number i/ for $1000 00, both payable to
WatarSound Beach Community Asociatii. Inc. The builder acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Contractor
Standards and compharce with those standrds is assured.
This approval is a Function of the rnechanim for maintaining the overall aesthetics of WaterSound Beach. Approval
does not create any duty to any person. Tte Design Review Board, SI Joe or its affiliated companies shati not bea
any responsibility far ensunng the structura integrity, soundness, adequacy, capacity and Safety features of approved
constnicbon or modificaons. compliance vith buitdlng codes and other governmenta reuirernents, or for ensunng
that every shucture is of coniparanle quatifyivatue or size.
Please remerimer that final color and matinal. approval a mad, from field apptted samplea Please contact this
office when ready for sample review
Chan,bet6tr,et BuIld.rs
John Ctrott PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
I
I.i3IISoiii Sond tL 24I3 ()2't.7412 N5Ii.3l74iiI f
STJOE
viii R7
* DSS
R7
WALTON COUNTY SUUJ*D*G DOAWIMENT cNKaISr FOR HVUDINC
NCP13 WALTON 892-8160. SOUTH WALTON 261-24
ApphrtCat N ik j{ bErv 3
I. Tn 1.0. Mn & PuS N$r-Csll Pa,aty Axt as *923 123. y} (A-t I
2. SapS taM ParS - WS St San AnilabtttP I.e fIn UtIky Ca - IaMb DW
892-t21. 5 W.kml UWS 137-29a Rggk.S UdjIts: 231-3114. ln1Bth: 231-4498.
Frofl (3ty Hall: S3s-2.
En - K pThg s $et.g & oeolkc the beUdg . ccdfll mit, coSiC pOu
ISlyiflhal a Na bitt' Rn M.d Ut Sl.d.
lapr Pat R.Spt- Sodt Wulton an caR 267-1298, Sn & loNotIb Walmo Sit' flhI
Th2il De% L.thaty s Wowdle auCa) 892-7055, Fiteofl Oty LmIts 83s-2fl2
S. PIM Pin - A nled plot - cntt& n

Pntoc& mS -. prdio@ n ad d* rt.mt otmi be
tho.'Sa aD ir4go.at both cJaSg ad
w.tstod Lola 1
cecdAa]. tfacinmgrmiv.411
"'
is. Pk,tPtnfrr In tnt cern the
eoeedatIboaSS
w01 ____
the to the bu4ldW. Wd
.. S
loada & tot mite P1st P1w ted how
T'- lit tot -
r ft
t S.rny - L Bctodsy Survoy fins & Catifled Smnyr -. S ropted fir Icts I than at
.t o(.vaSzt
B. If nim,st S ova 2 srS. r bavt To owapbi Survey v4th nonird
gr majnt of fit ed Sight of Stig. C. MS IMicSe Flood Zn 1). Mothc .ey will
S utqiuiied frnowS the ledSion of to gabffloa fra,jc te alit the 1 eat.
be tartS it Ia 1k 114 ept peW I. .cbedizllq Fratfllnp.cIla
Unda
7. DaTh Calffiaie (Thtd 144. OS) - mite requht 1- ?mpo.od S pamthnj. 2-
&anlongflamSknaSLAzbudhftra1 9>
8. FS hr O.eaTwS flely pwSaap as r .ea.c7 s.n, as San C
NnEz- Ifootsnxtal Is tton 400 .qt andnS Cosal
Tw9 Se orpin-lfoiWon S 400 sq. ft cwmottaidSnOtCot.'al-
_______ Rod Arthikct & EasSa - If Ut
- on -
Two Sea of Pt A Sq4 by
caisnalon is losod ii the 4al Cnsdiai Zn bolt 3 of pitn nsa tousle Ut
n-np,
W,lzon Conly WIOd LS SJtaiaL
or
CoC
9. I
hr S.bS,Ul.S sail R.aSed Fist. If sqi&abIt
10. Appreval La frns the Astauedsr& Review C.ataSe ltIdig S a SSdI,t It

.wqnkie sppnval S baSil.
II. - I
12- Fndad Appreni Sp.dacstWs SM.' - Youi - .oqSe sptovsl insobas flea the Va.dorf
Sugilaorhwi www JINWJ,&K$IQ ,w NS This tea W be Sped
It WSltSe - kay
PkPlmi&SIitfl. ImapnulsIamasa
d Pedati Mlstl I W
Ls-
1wFttied i.nIsRctionsI Wslsa& on the ptd mit.' be h,dk*ed on IS
Any lna ti thc Stat Fodeal W1mS from

of S
ooanSm, stititi
mrdRr 1
(mEp s50-59543
lt
bC!PntIMth by Us Florida 0catiIt oCFatOtmeOtal Protec000
a BoildS&Pttmit
113. Aim, Caps of Eaflrns batit e CamLy iW
Sal U& An'y Capc 850-763-1955)
ConerSi Pr.le at MaltS-flSIy Vt of 3 - an .ad ita a7 S.dt

1. DevdapaS Oat fra Flasaist Dart with Appestat! SNs Pita (267-1955)
2. PolSw Step. I -12 Aba.. Notc All comointial pr.*1s ,et 2 of buildhig plans
SdSck Ralthwa.st bu System tetrapeety Uae Floor- 20 ft. BSr 1St, SIrit 73 ft (aaptioo: 5 ft
.idm if psojiaty w plated at bat a aS bta l.a. 1975- rrn.e
50 ft.,
Setback M.qafleat ys Sysdare to aft. PfteMlaw Qoek -50 ft.. Wotlaids -25 ft. B. -SOft.. Rlv
Caatl Lt - lOG ft oepo Pot Sin#ePmsfly Dwellings -lAb OfRnCotdP&IT*D. 28,1992.
Thaw.
C
ibai 200 ft. -25 ft. or 20 tofIotdepd, whici r.)
t LW Ct.dtt n* pay at taft wftb CASH CHECK or Qidit Card. If the Daseowsar S p.srthWa
eat! C)dft flIds frau
permit 'an Sdlvidnl. Use Soy net pay CASK, PERSONAL CHECK, or Credit Card. Ftnoatl Check.
C*WBIERR wIB aol be .ccei,ttd.
p...;. a40-07
ix R8
T)
Dnie1 W. Uhlfdder, PA
Aznney ax Law
124 County R 30A
Gxiytun Beech. Florida 3245
Teleithone 850/534 -0246

Facatmjlt 850/3#O985
Novrib 9,2007
YLA EMAll AND
REGULAR VS. MAIL
K Bo
Vioc Pre.idait of Opitions
St Joe Conpsny
133 S. WatoundPazkway
Wiound, FL 32413
R: Jolwic.n'oIL aad azinb Strew Builds, Inc
Aa )VU kix,w, this lijw finn baa the pIeaa of rqresnng John Caimil a
Qamba, Strent Builders, c. Tha lelter saves to kUow up on our daaassiaii
r5aidiigmy
I
Pes dhective, nythra and I ajesxed this morning at the DRB Meetin& but
whui we Nrived we wuc to'd that Sandy Mmtessi had andy left and the DRB had
already disaj.cd the jisuas tcprding my ch2ts. It have beei dce to t least
have received * phene czII bere we made the U to d meeting, and I would
ppiccistc the a,wtery of sane in the fitmc.
This ns)mng zy cliaits and I we pwvidcd with a list of ia,ues to addreas on

Iwo houses in WaterColor whjth they n xngb jiwmA1y address, but again my cliaita
end I e confused as to why they &c sicpaided 'm building in WaterColor. YOU
indlcsed to me that they w suspisd bcoauae of issues on these two hou, but my
cliesi have also boi edvizd that that was some sort of complaint filed by azxflher
homeowner wbid pnaiptrd ha sespesakai. The ap suspasion that has taker
place appears to predate the isues the two houses which makes it evan more undrer.
it is confiithng to say tbe least, sad my clients are being seriously danaed by this
uncertin1y as they are reads' to start onnatniction in WaterColor on another luse.
Fiixthatnoru, in justifiable reance upon being an approved builde1 in WaterColor for
scvaaJ years, they have spes aignifiouni thne and pe mark for ouns1ntion
'7iii .
work In WetColc. Notwithstanding the obvioi tatopcl d rdianer iue that lve
bom created to my aliit* Wthnt ft sme to n that 000aidthn the cIrru2t state of
the rial atc m&k, WuCoIor would want rooftops
Again, my oiazt c ready, willing and ibe to wxk antth1y with )Vu all to t
theec issuea resolved, bt4 thnc is of tI eaamou o thiz You advised today that we
would be getting some aot ofc ponde flni .11 to bcing some vlaiity to tba
issues, asit really is under wbymydlanta e being treated in this mssm.
In any cyan, my di c hthy ruueating that your th pcovlde and make

available for review the uIowiog docsangits whith they ss'c tuthUed to review purwt
th Florida Statutes Seion 720303:
Any and .11 dimanta, c uespondenou communicatiom, cmnils, notes,

sr*dIor pa regatdb 14d/or raliUng to Jci Carroll and/or Chinths Street Rul]&a,
Inc.:
Any and id doormanta, ii catioiis, o-maila, notcs,

and/or s re,j.xsling and/or rrlathig to sproval of con*mctorn/buildus within
WCdorg WatSot and
(3) Any and afl 6ocunnts, xrcspoedce thcalioll%, o-mai1a, nOt,
and/or pap repiding *id/or relating to the disciplining. suapuiding. monitoring o
irznoyal otc lracxWbvjdmi within WatColor and W.terSoimd.
Th.,L. , D1.. ,,.. I nfr.. ., frs fV
&icuzur1tg wlbm 10 1*iain dy puzmiallt tn floiida Stnhxtes ScckH1 720.303(5),
amd 1so pee xii me bave the xi*tt pan aintt me soon u poab1c
5ddres lhc issues in this 1te so my Ii ax1 I n plso &u,zdingly.
Sincusly,
cc: c1ia1R
2
x R9
Pa
-T
Sub):
Date:
From:
RE: Mary Joul.
512/2008 12:09:22 P.M. Centra Daylight Time
sn,tteson@ccmcnet.com
D
To: danIel@dwiIw.corn, MDsoIqaoI,com
CC: myrosenhin1@joe.cQm
As the company that oversee the man.ge$nt of the property and the overaht of the Deagri RevIew, the
owners have full rights to contact us at an' time..
I will gladly pass any wriften requests on k you if they come in however, it Is more likely they are questions that
are expressed in our defly confrct with th owners.
QuestonB on construction do not necesaaflly represent cricism about construction.... Many of ttquestions
stern from the tower being constructed wltl!out seeing the relationship to the rest of the house,.
r
L
Sandy Matteson
Vice President
Capital Consultants ManaemenI Corporation
C-,-',
Northwest florida Main Office .-
.,.
Dt
133-H S. Waterscund P,y
Wafersound Beach, FL 32413
Email: smattesort@ccmcnel.com
Vigit ou.r website: www.ccmcnet.com
CONFtOENTlALTY NOTICE. 11th -miI mac, nch4g any aoachncnts. a fr the aolc use of the mended recipient(s) and
may conlain confidential and privileged infoimaiinrl. Any un uthorized review, use, diacinaure r diarthuiton is pmIibited. If you ale
not the intendcii recipient. pIcs.c rentact the scnlcr by rcply e-mail and dcsoy all copies of the onginal rnessse.
P,umi Danie4 W. UIWekIei- tmaIIto:dne14dwuaw.com1

Sent Thursday, May01, 200fi 2:4 PM
To: Sandy Mattesori; MbsouteaoI.com
Cc: mary.rosenhelmjoe,com
cubja& RE: Mary 3oule
Can you tell us the name of the vendor yo.t reference below please?
Also, who Is repeatedly asking you about l,e house and how are these communications being conveyed? Are
they clIlng you up or talking to you on5it? We would request that you produce all documents regarding such
communications as soon as possible, snd document any future communications so you can produce them in
the future.
I am kind of at a loss as to why you should be receiving repeated questions about the house and wh are
asking all these questions. Maybe you ccJld give us some more information on who and why you are getting
these repeated" questions so we could adequately respond, anti direct those inquiries to my client. Please
simply direct these repeated questions ti my client so he can adequately respond and help relieve you of
those duties, as I err sure you have much more important things to do than engage in small talk about my
client houc.
I
Also, please refrain from engaging in any Conduct that could be constwed as Improperly interfering with my
clients business.
Thank you very much.

PLAINTIFF'S
----Original Message--
From: Sandy Matxeson [malfto:sT1attson@ccmcnet.corn
Monday, 1.fovember 02, 2009 AOL: A Absolute

Page 2 o13
Sent Thursday, May 01, 2008 1j1:57 AM

To: AAbsoIuteaol.com
Cc nyrosenhelm@joe.com; aniei@dwulaw.coni
SubJ.ct RE: Mary ]oule
Included in the position of any compliance officer is the daily inspection of homes throughout the
WaterColor and WaterSound Cmunities. If you are asking if Mary has been charged to observe
homes within the cornniunity uner consU-uction every day, the answer would be yea.
had spoken to Mary and had ked her if she had taken anyone to the house, and she told me it was
only a vendor who was performing the work that had not been done as part of the punch list..
As I see there is a new email today, you are attempting to complete the list instead..
For wtiatever reason, the home ou are constructing at Yachyt Pond Lane lot 26 is one of the most
talked about housas at Wat.cSound Beach.
beIieie, it is based on the way the construction of the tower has proceeded the home. I personally
have been asked repeated If the tower exceeds the height, and how the tower is being constructed.
My answer is always the same, the DRB is charged with the esthetics, design and compatibility of the
home In the communIty. Howevr things such as height ere an issue in the community and Will be
reviewed. I believe Mary wit resPond in the same form, however will seek this information from her. As
tile construction of this house is omewhat different, I would suspect we would keep a close eye on it to
ensure to Is compatible on all a9pects of the design guidelines..
Please leL me know If you have ny concerns and we can address them on a case by case basis..
Sandy Matteson
Vice Prc3ident
Capital Consultants Management Corporation
133-H S. Watersound Pky
Email: smaneson@ccmcnet.fom
Visit our wcbste: vvwccmnet.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, wciudln any auachnienls, i for the sole usi of the intended renpjet
(s) and may cootaus confldential md pvleged infcmaton. Any unauthc,nzed review, use, discloswc or di ibutioo is
pteinbiled. It you are aol the iatcndcd eciplcnt, please contarl thc scnder by reply e-mail and deitroy alt copies of the original
'means;.
From: Mbso1utaol.com (mlto:&Absolute@aol.comj

Sent Monday, Ap1l 28, 2008 524 PM
To: Sandy Matteson
Cc; mary.rosenhelmtjoe.corn; dandwulaw.com
Subject: Manj Joule
Sandy,
MlP you please ask Mary Joule to stop siUng my jobs with her frands who are looking for work
WII you please ask Mary Joule to refrain from talking to my customers about things that she thinks are
infeor about the homes I build? Any builder, including me, can covertly make visits and observations
about anothers woric behind soreone's back. I am begging you to do something about this.
If you, Mary or anyone else wants to review my woric and talk to my clients I am i sisbrtg that I be
notified prior to Such. I know Mflry is actively pursuing this course of action and the continuity such
Monday,lNovember 02, 2009 AOL: A Absolute

Page 3 of 3
has no Iegitirnte purpose.
Thanks, John Carrot
Need a n ride? Check out the rgest sita for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos.
MondayjNovember 02, 2009 AOL: A Absolute

xi R 10
Pag
tn- E
Subj:
(Y7(4Zoi1
Lol 24 Wit.rSoind B,.ch ..pon.. to litter from I Regan cIuted 3/12/09
Data: 3/25/2009
To: tregan@ccmcnet.com
CC: afambrccrnq.com, jjlucPeseiembarqmaiLcom
Tracy,
received your letter of March 12, 20(19 reerdin9 the construction timeline on Lot 24 WaterSound Beach
Phase IV. I wish to respond in wilting a you requested. In order to prepare a proper response I will need to
exrnine the HOA record, of the many conutruction projects that have come under this purported Design
Guidelines provision. I wilt ask to review the 140As or IDRB's tanduffl form letter of Notice tO the
homeowner your office has sent in the Pift. I will ask to review the response of each by the homeowner.
I can come to your office for the revIe$, so there is no financial burden on our HOA and will promptly issue
the written response. tm nvoking my rMuest by the authority granted to me under Florida Statutes 720.303 (4)
and 720303(5) and any other legal authority.
Thanlcs, .Jon Carroll
PLANTIFS
EXHIBfT
MondayJ November 02,2009 AOL: A Absolute

'F
xii R 11
Subi. Your request for Information on build time

Date: 10/29/2009 11:52:03 A.M. CntraI Dayght Time
From: A Absolute
To:
CC:
trean@ccmcnet corn
afambriccmcnet.com, ucseembarqmail.com
C9dA2O2/
Tracy,
On March 12, 2009 the DRB Bent me a notification that Lol 24 was moving up on 16 moiflha construction and
that there was a potential fine. I repond$d on March 25, 2009 that would prepare the statement you asked (or,
but that I would require some documents from the DR in order to prepare a proper reapoc-ise.
Thu is what our communication looked: like to refresh our memories:
Th1 VI/) be flne. I will see you Tuesday I .00.
Thank you.
Tracy Regan
Capztal Consultants Management Corporation
1394 Co. Hwy 283 South. Bldg 7
Phone 850.231.103.5
Far 850.231.4526
Email: lregwl@ccmLnel. Con?
Visit our webste. II'I iv. . PflCp?CI. corn
CONFJDFJ.TlA i/fl' NOTiCE: This g-mi/ ,,esmge, Encludi'g attqch,,,enit. uJor th ,ole uie fzIw inie,,ded rc'jenIf) and moy
r.ontaia onfi4rntiai and p.ivikgtd infonnanon. 4, wtQNghor,.rd ,-eww, d13c10:u,e o d bt.oa i.prohiLnsed fyou arr not ih.
inrnded rec,inz, p/,a.i contacr 1/i, p tepty e-mail and iesiroy a/I cie. of the orgrnal mesoge
Morday. November 02, 2009 AOL: A Absolute

xiii R 12
iN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

CIVIL DIVISION
JOHN P. CARROLL,
Pairitiff,
v. Case No. 2009 CA 002021
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Florida Corporation
and as I)ireetor,
MARY JOULE,
SANDRA MA'ITESON,
RONALD VOELKER,
JO! IN DOE, JANE DOE, and OTHER UNKNOWN
CONSPIRATORS
Defendants,
/
ORDER
The Motion for Injunction filed by Plaintiff John P. Carroll against Defendants
Watersound Beach Community Association, Inc. and Sandra Matteson, having come before
this Honorable Court, and this Court, having heard the arguments from Plaintiff John P.
Carroll and counsel for Defendants Watersound Beach Community Association, Inc. and
Sandra Matteson, hereby finds that said motion is due to be and is hereby DENTED.
HONORABLE JUDGE La PORTE

Circuit Court Judge
xiv R 13
v ED
IN THE CIRCUIT
JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AJRCt
WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 2009 CA 002021 -B A
JOHN P. CARROLL )
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
v. ) NOTICE OF APPEAL
)
WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY )
ASSOCIATION, INC., WATERCOLOR )
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., SANDRA )
MATTESON, DAVID LILIENTHAL, MARY )
JOULE, RONALD VOELKER, JOHN DOE, JANE)
DOE nd OTHER UNKNOWN CONSPIRATORS)
NOTiCE IS GIVEN that John P. Carroll, PlaintifllAppellant, appeals to the First

District Court ocAppeal of the State of Florida, the order of this court rendered January
11, 2010. The nature of the order is a final order denying a petition for injunction
seeking to enjoin Defendants from withhoIdin public records.
U Pro
Box 613524
WaterSoun, FL 32461
850-231- .16
AAbsolutc@aol.com
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been
furnished to Christopher L. George, Esq., P0 Box 1034, Mobile, AL 36633 and to
Mark D. Davis, Esq., 694 Baldwin Ave. Suite 1, P0 Box 705, DeFuniak Springs, FL
32435, and to Gary Shipman, Esq., 1414 County Highway 283 South, Suite B, Santa
Rosa Beach, FL 32459 Attorneys for Appellees, by certified mail this 7th day of
February, 2010.
1NSTR #1107777
OR BK 2835 PaQeB 1462. 146D
RECORDED 0210810 l2E:04
MARTKA IN4GLE WALTON COUNTY
CLERK OF COURT
DEPUTY CLERK S SUJERA

Appellants Initial Brief Seeking Injunction

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Appellants Initial Brief Seeking Injunction

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

E-Copy Received Feb 24, 2010 9:46 AM

IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

v. CASE NO.: 1D10-643

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

APPELLAT'S IITIAL BRIEF

John P. Carroll, Pro Se

I. A DE OVO REVIEW WILL SHOW THAT THE CIRCUIT

Town of Palm Beach v. Gradison,

ews-Press Pub. Co., Inc. v. Carlson,

Shevin v. Byron, Harless, Schaffer, Reid and Associates, Inc.,

119.011(11), Fla. Stat. (2009)..8, 11, 12

286.011, Fla. Stat. (2009)2

286.011(2), Fla. Stat. (2009)...10, 15

Appellant JOHN P. CARROLL, Plaintiff below, will be referred to in this Initial

Brief as Carroll or Plaintiff Carroll.

Appellee WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant below, will be referred to in this Initial Brief as WaterSound or

Appellee WATERCOLOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant

below, will be referred to in this Initial Brief as Watercolor or Defendant

Appellee SANDRA MATTESON, Defendant below, will be referred to in this

Initial Brief as Matteson or Defendant Matteson

On October 9, 2009, Plaintiff Carroll filed his original Complaint against

Defendants WaterSound and Matteson from withholding public records (R 2).

as additional authorities, reasoning that the Walton County Building Department

delegated permit authority to Defendants WaterSound and Watercolor (R 2).

Thereafter, on January 4, 2010, Plaintiff Carroll filed a Supplemental Brief in

On January 5, 2010, Defendants WaterSound and Matteson filed a Response to

private organization and not an agency of government. Further, Defendants responded

short order (R 4).

Thereafter, on January 5, 2010, Plaintiff Carroll filed a Reply to Defendants

Plaintiff Carroll introduced a true copy of Walton Countys Permit Checklist

WaterSound and Watercolor as a prerequisite for obtaining a County Building Permit

authority of the Exhibits. Defendants Counsel stipulated to the authenticity and

was delivered by Carrolls attorney to Defendants WaterSound and Watercolor through

to approval of builders, discipline of builders, removal or prohibition of builders and

records pertaining to submittals for building permits (R 8; T 7, 8).

denied access to review these records (R 10; T 9).

review (R 11; T 9, 10).

entire time (T 10).

evidenced therein (T 11).

hardship so Defendants injury, if any, would be inconsiderable (T 11).

new documents that have been generated. (T 13).

(R11; T 15, 16).

merits (R 2; R 3; R 5; T 3, 4, 11, 12).

petition, Appellant sought to enjoin Respondents, WaterSound Beach Community

private organization is not encumbered by the Government in the Sunshine Laws.

Floridas citizens in an unlawful coven with our government.

The Defendants, WaterSound and Sandra Mattesons position to withhold

The Defendants WaterSound, Watercolor and Mattesons policy of denying public

be harmed by WaterSound and Watercolors policy of withholding public records,

denied Carrolls petition for injunction.

I. A DE OVO REVIEW WILL SHOW THAT THE CIRCUIT

1. Carroll is a Florida Citizen.

2. Carroll is and was a member of the WaterSound HOA.

3. Carroll is a builder who builds within WaterSound and Watercolor.

4. The Walton County Building Department requires a letter of

a prerequisite to obtaining a building permit.

5. Carroll made requests for records of WaterSound and Watercolor

pertaining to HOA records and DRB records.

6. The records were requested in writing.

7. Carroll was repeatedly denied access to the review of the records.

8. The denial persists in excess of 2 years.

hearing on the petition.

12. Despite all of the foregoing, Counsel for Defendants represented to

APPELLAT'S IITIAL BRIEF

ews-Press Pub. Co., Inc. v. Carlson,

III. THE CIRCUIT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETIO WHE

APPELLAT'S APPEDIX TO IITIAL BRIEF