The Circuit Court heard opposing arguments on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the County and South Seas on Dec. 18. The County’s attorney did not speak – and left the argument for the South Seas attorney to make. CCA’s attorney responded to South Seas. Both parties supplemented their arguments that were made in the Motion papers. At the close of the hearing, the Judge said that he was initially inclined to decide the County/South Seas motion from the bench, but chose to wait given the number and complexity of the issues. He said that he took nine pages of copious notes during the arguments and asked both parties to submit competing proposed orders on the County/South Seas motion by Dec. 30. Attached here is CCA’s proposed order submitted to the Judge.
However, there was an interesting development. Given the unavailability of County and South Seas attorneys, CCA’s own Motion for Summary Judgment was scheduled to be heard on March 6. But the Judge wanted to move the case on a much faster track. At his initiative, the Judge reset the oral argument on CCA’s Motion for Summary Judgment for Jan. 10. Shortly after Jan. 10, we should know if the Settlement Agreement which provides that “the total number of dwelling units on South Seas Resorts is limited to 912” and that “no building permits may be issued . . . that will cause that number to be exceeded at any time” is a valid and enforceable contract.
CCA, a signatory on the 2003 Settlement Agreement, believes that the Agreement is clear on its face and should be enforced. The County and South Seas argue that the County never had the right to sign the Agreement back in 2003, and the Court does not have the authority to enforce it today.