Court summons-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

70. The Restrictive Covenant as executed by the Defendant and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest,failed to express the parties' true intentions. 71. The failure to allow for development of the Lake Parcel in the future should circumstances change that would allow for development was the result of mutua] mistake by Defendant and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest. 72. Circumstances have changed that would allow for development of the Lake Parcel, so Plaintiffs' made an application to the city for subdivision and approval of their building plans. Defendant has refused to approval Plaintiffs' application. 73. Plaintiffs cannot be sufficiently compensated except by specific performance or termination of the agreement and Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT VII FAILURE TO llISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS 74. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 73 of the Complaint. 75. Defendant failed to disclose material facts to Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest,by representing to Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest that even though the purpose of the Restrictive Covenant was to allow for a dock Defendant would later use the Restrictive Agreement to prevent building in the future, even if circumstances changed, and used the Restrictive Covenant as an attempt to resolve the lift station access issue as to the Lake Parcel. 76. Upon information and belief, at the tirne Defendant made these representations to Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, it knew they were false. 77. Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the reasons why it \ wanted to enter into the Restrictive Covenant, but did not inform Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest. 78. Plaintiffs' have been damaged by Defendant's failure to disclose this information in an amount to be proven at trial. COUNT VIII FRAUD/FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 79. Plaintiffs restate and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 78 of the Complaint. 8