Court summons-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

80. Defendant made representations to Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest that were misleading or false. 81. Defendant made these representations on the record at a 2001 Planning Commission meeting and 2001 City Council hearing, specifically stating that the purpose of the Restrictive Covenant was to allow Plaintiffs' predecessor-in- interest to continue use of her dock. 82. Defendant knew or should have known that these representations were false or misleading, as now Defendant is using the Restrictive Covenant to bar building on the Lake Parcel even though circumstances have changed making the Lake Parcel buildable. 83. Defendant failed to fully disclose to, and has concealed from, Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest that the Restrictive Covenant would be used by Defendant to bar future building even if circumstances changed. 84. Defendant knew or in the exercise of due care should have known, that Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest would rely on such misrepresentations as stated in the city records. Alternatively, Defendant made such representations under circumstances that Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest would be justified in acting in reliance thereon. 85. Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest justifiably relied to Plaintiffs' predecessor-in- interest detriment upon the above misrepresentations and as a direct and proximate result thereof has sustained, and continues to sustain, direct and/or consequential damages in an amount which is yet undetermined but is believe to be in excess of$50,000. COUNTIX REFORMATION (IN THE ALTERNATIVE) 86. Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 85 of the Complaint. 87. On July 23, 2001, Defendant and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest entered into the Restrictive Covenant for the purposes of allowing a dock on the Lake Parcel. 88. Defendant and Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest did not accurately reflect the actual purpose of the Restrictive Covenant. 9