CLARIFICATION OF RBC v. WCI LAWSUIT PLCA will be named as a “nominal party” only

Dear RBC supporters:

Today’s email from the PLCA board president to the full community has raised a lot of concern and discussion,  mostly based on misunderstanding of the actual facts of the matter. RBC asked its legal counsel to provide clarity on the matter for the community.  Below is the message our attorney provided, clarifying the meaning and reasoning for joining PLCA to the RBC v WCI law suit.

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jason R. Himschoot, Esq. 

WCI argued to the court that PLCA is a legally necessary party to the suit by RBC against WCI – legally referred to as an “indispensable party”.  The court agreed.  Accordingly, RBC will name PLCA as a party.  However, RBC is not going to allege a cause of action against PLCA and PLCA will only be named in the suit as a nominal party.  A nominal party is one that simply is entitled to receive notice of pleadings and proceedings in the action but does not face any liability for any of the causes of action alleged between the primary parties to the suit.  

 There are only a few paragraphs in the complaint that will be referring to PLCA in any material way.  That is, to identify that PLCA is the non-profit entity that was created to maintain and oversee the association affairs as recorded in the governing documents along with similar statements.  PLCA will not be required to file any pleadings or defend any allegations made. 

 Essentially, PLCA is being “invited” to the proceedings but is not obligated to participate.


Dear RBC supporters:

As many of you who were at the recent court hearing will recall, WCI spent most of its oral argument stating that the Pelican Landing Community Association was a necessary party to the lawsuit.  As a result of WCI’s arguments, RBC has been given 20 days to amend the complaint to include PLCA as a party in the suit. In order to proceed, we now will add them as a party.  

 When the amended complaint is filed, RBC will post it on its web site.

3 thoughts on “CLARIFICATION OF RBC v. WCI LAWSUIT PLCA will be named as a “nominal party” only

  1. Good question…where are both attorneys written opinions? PLCA paid for them, and we’ve yet to see them! Instead of threatening assessments, the Board president ought to share what we’ve already financed with our dues! At least those who contributed to RBC have a responsive attorney that translates what’s going on into English, instead of castigating the RBC and sending out misinformation. Shame on you Clyde!

  2. So who’s lawyers do we trust – how about none of them. The only ones to benefit will be the lawyers.

    • Well, since Florida’s statutes are not self-enforcing, the only remedy residents have is with the courts — of course the other option is to let WCI simply have their way with Pelican Landing. While you may not have been an owner back then — residents fought WCI and as a result benefited considerably back in 2001 … fast forward to 2015 when RBC tried mediation … WCI refused. Option 2 … sit back and allow WCI to control our Board of Directors and our documents, overbuild, and infringe on the amenities that were built to a plan of development that did not include many hundreds of tower units in Raptor Bay and Weeks Fish Camp as well as 290 more units in the timeshare parcel — it’s all about the beach! At least RBC’s lawyer wrote a response — the PLCA attorney, T. Hart, has yet to put anything in writing for the residents to see regarding these subjects (over the past 2 years) … in fact it is unclear if he has ever given the PLCA board his written opinion on any matter of importance.

Comments are closed.