Hollywood Wins Push for Arbitration in Lawsuit Filed by Margaritaville Developer
The developer disputes the city's claim to $1.7 million from the sale of the resort. Broward Circuit Chief Judge Jack Tuter sides with the city in saying the case belongs in arbitration, not litigation.
June 12, 2019 at 03:18 PM
5 minute read
Hollywood gained ground in a feud with the Margaritaville resort developer over $1.7 million the city claims it's owed from the sale of the property last year.
The city pressed to arbitrate instead of litigate the dispute, and Broward Circuit Chief Judge Jack Tuter agreed in an order issued June 6.
The two sides are locked in a fight over how much, if anything, the city is owed after Margaritaville Hollywood Beach Resort LP sold the hotel in April 2018.
The resort company led by Hollywood-based developer Lon Tabatchnick, with Barry Sternlicht's Connecticut-based Starwood Capital Group as equity partner, sued the city last October after the city made its claim.
The resort was sold to an affiliate of Denver-based leisure real estate investment company KSL Capital Partners LLC for $190 million.
Tabatchnick, who is president of Hollywood-based Lojeta Group, a real estate development company, said, “We are happy with the judge's decision and look forward to resolving the issue with the city.”
His attorney, Michael Kreitzer, litigation partner at Bilzin Sumberg in Miami, said by email, “Margaritaville Hollywood Resort looks forward to litigating this matter in whatever forum the court deems appropriate.”
The oceanfront project at 1111 N. Ocean Dr. was developed on city land leased by the developer. It features a 349-room hotel, 35,000-square-foot convention center, eight restaurants and bars, several pools, a FlowRider wave ride and parking garage.
The garage, which is shared by the resort and the city, is at the heart of the dispute.
The project was built in 2015 after the two sides signed a development and lease agreement in June 2013. The agreement said the city would be entitled to a payout if the developer sold the project at a profit or for a net price that's higher than the development costs.
The payout would be 5% of the difference between the net sale proceeds and the developer's investment.
Although the gross sale price was $190 million, the net proceeds were just over $188.4 million, the developer said in its complaint. The developer said it invested nearly $190.7 million in the property, which would leave it owing nothing.
Not so fast, the city said.
The city argues the developer incorrectly included the full cost of the garage in its investment calculation even though the city funded the construction of the public portion of the garage pedestal. The city created a community development district for the project.
Excluding the cost of the public parking, the developer's investment shrinks to $154 million, City Attorney Douglas Gonzalez wrote the developer last October. City figures leave the developer on the hook for $1.7 million based on a $34 million difference between the net sale proceeds and the developer's investment.
Fox Rothschild partner Joseph DeMaria in Miami, who represents the city in the lawsuit, said the issue comes down to the developer trying to avoid payment.
“Wait a minute, Mr. Developer,” DeMaria said. “You didn't pay to build the spaces in the public garage. The taxpayer did. And that's what this case comes down to. They are taking the position that they get to deduct as an expense money that they never spent just so that they can wipe out the profit and not pay the taxpayer.”
The complaint for declaratory judgment argued the city's calculations are “erroneous” and based on a “flawed” interpretation of the development agreement.
The developer noted the city staff initially agreed with the developer's conclusion and argued the city's claim was pushed by some commissioners trying to gain voter support.
“Certain members of the Hollywood City Commission, in an attempt to curry favor amongst some voters, have demanded that the city mug the project in [an] effort to extract monetary concessions to which there is no contractual or legal right,” the complaint said.
The resort, which borrows its name from Jimmy Buffett's hit song, has revitalized Hollywood Beach, helped triple the taxable value of beachfront properties and spurred more development.
Steven Zelkowitz, the Fox Rothschild partner in Miami who has represented the city since 2009 on real estate aspects of the project, acknowledged the city was committed to improving business at the beach.
In pursuit of that, the city leased the land, partially funded the garage and issued a $28 million grant for the resort and streetscape improvements.
“The city really bent over backwards to assist the developer to allow them to move forward,” Zelkowitz said.
“This is like the case of the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished,” DeMaria added. “The community, the taxpayer gives all these benefits to the developer, and the developer has one obligation. If you sell that property for a profit, you got to pay a fee. Not an outrageous fee, but a fee.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250