IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION
RIDGEMARK DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS LLC, a Florida limited liability company,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 2021-CA-002748-18-W
FAIRWATER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, a Maryland real estate investment trust,
Defendant.
___________/
ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF DEFENDANT FAIRWATER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST
Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust ("Fairwater" or "Defendant"), a Maryland real estate investment trust organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland, by and through its undersigned attorneys, Calderwood & Harkness LLP and Hargrove & Liddell, P.A., hereby files this Answer and Affirmative Defenses in response to the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (the "Complaint") filed by Plaintiff Ridgemark Development Partners LLC ("Ridgemark" or "Plaintiff") on July 19, 2021. Fairwater respectfully responds to each numbered paragraph of the Complaint as set forth below.
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
I. RESPONSES TO JURISDICTIONAL AND INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
1. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that this action has been filed in the Circuit Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County, Florida. Fairwater further admits that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over actions for declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. To the extent Paragraph 1 contains any additional allegations not specifically addressed herein, Fairwater denies the same.
2. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that Ridgemark Development Partners LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its principal office located at 920 Altamonte Drive, Suite 210, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701. Fairwater denies any remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2 that are not specifically admitted herein.
3. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust is a Maryland real estate investment trust with its principal office and headquarters located at 1400 Waverly Park Drive, Suite 600, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Fairwater further admits that it is a publicly traded entity whose shares of beneficial interest are listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol "FWTR." Fairwater denies any characterizations, allegations, or inferences contained in Paragraph 3 that go beyond these specifically admitted facts.
4. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that the real property at issue in this litigation is located in Seminole County, Florida, specifically at 4250 Commerce Park Boulevard, Sanford, Florida 32771 (referred to herein as the "Fairwater Property" or the "Northern Parcel"), and that the Northern Parcel consists of approximately 42.7 acres improved with a 614,000-square-foot Class-A cross-dock distribution facility commonly known as the Fairwater Sanford Logistics Center. Fairwater denies all allegations contained in Paragraph 4 regarding the existence, validity, or enforceability of any encumbrances or easements affecting the Fairwater Property that are not specifically admitted herein.
5. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that Ridgemark owns a parcel of approximately 16.3 acres identified by Parcel ID 25-20-30-500-0030-0000, located immediately south of the Fairwater Property (the "Southern Parcel"). Fairwater further admits that Ridgemark acquired the Southern Parcel on or about March 8, 2019, from the Estate of Roland P. Thurmond, for a stated purchase price of $2,150,000. Fairwater denies any and all allegations in Paragraph 5 regarding the existence or validity of easement rights appurtenant to the Southern Parcel, including but not limited to any assertion that the Cross-Parcel Easement (as defined herein) constitutes a valid, subsisting interest running with or appurtenant to the Southern Parcel.
6. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Fairwater states that no response is required to the extent Paragraph 6 merely recites legal conclusions under Florida's Declaratory Judgment Act, Chapter 86, Florida Statutes. To the extent a response is required, Fairwater denies that a bona fide, actual, present, and practical need for a declaration of rights exists that would warrant declaratory relief in Plaintiff's favor. Fairwater further states that, to the extent any controversy exists, the resolution of that controversy requires a declaration that the Cross-Parcel Easement has been extinguished and is of no further force or effect.
II. RESPONSES TO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE CROSS-PARCEL EASEMENT
7. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that a document titled "Special Warranty Deed" was recorded on June 22, 1998, in Official Records Book 4517, Page 1283, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, by grantor Thurmond Industrial Holdings, Inc. to grantee Sunbelt Distribution Centers, Inc. Fairwater further admits that this instrument purported to create a 60-foot-wide non-exclusive ingress, egress, and utility easement across the eastern boundary of the Northern Parcel (referred to herein as the "Cross-Parcel Easement"). Fairwater states that the recorded instrument speaks for itself and is the best evidence of its contents, terms, and legal effect. Fairwater denies any and all characterizations, interpretations, or allegations regarding the Cross-Parcel Easement that are inconsistent with the express terms of the recorded instrument. Fairwater further affirmatively avers that, regardless of the original creation of the Cross-Parcel Easement, said easement has been extinguished for the reasons set forth in Fairwater's Affirmative Defenses below.
8. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that the Cross-Parcel Easement, as originally described in the 1998 Special Warranty Deed, was described as running generally north–south along the eastern boundary of the Northern Parcel for the purpose of connecting the Southern Parcel to Commerce Park Boulevard. Fairwater denies that said easement remains valid, enforceable, or in existence as of the date of the filing of this Answer, and denies that said easement is available for use by Ridgemark or any other party, for the reasons set forth in detail in Fairwater's Affirmative Defenses below.
9. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that a replat titled "Commerce Park Boulevard Phase II Replat" was recorded on September 15, 2014, in Plat Book 78, Pages 44–46, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida (the "2014 Replat"). Fairwater admits that the 2014 Replat reconfigured lot lines, dedicated new public rights-of-way, and contained express language vacating prior private easements within its boundary. Fairwater specifically admits that the 2014 Replat provides, in pertinent part: "all private easements shown on the prior plat are hereby vacated except as otherwise noted herein." Fairwater denies Ridgemark's allegation that the Cross-Parcel Easement was not encompassed by or subject to this vacation language. Fairwater affirmatively avers that the Cross-Parcel Easement fell squarely within the scope and geographic boundary of the 2014 Replat's vacation provision and was thereby extinguished as a matter of law upon the recording of the 2014 Replat.
10. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, Fairwater denies the same. Specifically, Fairwater denies Ridgemark's contention that the Cross-Parcel Easement was not "shown on the prior plat" and therefore not subject to the 2014 Replat's vacation language. The Cross-Parcel Easement was depicted on the prior plat of Commerce Park Boulevard and was encompassed by the 2014 Replat's express vacation of all private easements shown on that prior plat. In the alternative, and without waiving the foregoing denial, even if the Cross-Parcel Easement were deemed to have been created solely by the separate 1998 deed instrument rather than by the prior plat, the 2014 Replat's comprehensive vacation of all private easements within the replat boundary was sufficient to extinguish the Cross-Parcel Easement, the corridor of which lay entirely within the geographic boundary of the 2014 Replat. Under either interpretation, the Cross-Parcel Easement was extinguished by the 2014 Replat.
11. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that the special warranty deed conveying the Southern Parcel from the Estate of Roland P. Thurmond to Ridgemark, dated March 8, 2019, contains a recital referencing the Cross-Parcel Easement as an appurtenant right. Fairwater denies, however, that such recital had the legal effect of reviving, re-creating, or preserving an easement that had been previously and lawfully extinguished by the 2014 Replat. A grantor cannot convey a property interest that no longer exists, and a recital in a deed cannot overcome or undo the prior lawful extinguishment of an easement. The doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet — one cannot give what one does not have — applies with full force. Accordingly, whatever the 2019 deed purported to convey with respect to the Cross-Parcel Easement, it conveyed nothing, because the easement had already been extinguished more than four years prior.
12. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, Fairwater states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Ridgemark's allegations regarding Ridgemark's planned development of a 96-unit light-industrial flex-space park to be known as "Ridgemark Commerce Village" on the Southern Parcel, and therefore denies the same. Fairwater further denies that Ridgemark's development plans, whatever they may be, create, establish, preserve, or give rise to any legal right to an easement across the Fairwater Property. The existence or non-existence of easement rights is not contingent upon, and cannot be established by, the development ambitions of a party claiming such rights.
13. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Fairwater states that it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Ridgemark's allegations regarding the condition, capacity, or adequacy of Lakemont Trail or any other roadway as it pertains to commercial truck traffic or access to the Southern Parcel, and therefore denies the same. Fairwater further denies that any alleged inadequacy of alternative access routes to the Southern Parcel creates, preserves, revives, or establishes an easement across the Fairwater Property. The legal existence of an easement is determined by the recorded instruments and applicable law governing their creation and extinguishment, not by the practical needs or preferences of an adjoining landowner.
14. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, Fairwater admits that on or about April 2, 2021, counsel for Ridgemark, the law firm of Castellon Foley & Ruiz LLP, transmitted a demand letter to Fairwater asserting the continued existence and enforceability of the Cross-Parcel Easement and demanding that Fairwater acknowledge and permit Ridgemark's use of the same. Fairwater further admits that Calderwood & Harkness LLP, on behalf of Fairwater, responded to said demand by letter dated May 14, 2021, in which Fairwater denied the continued validity, existence, and enforceability of the Cross-Parcel Easement and set forth the bases for its position. Fairwater denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 not specifically admitted herein.
III. RESPONSES TO ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DECLARATORY RELIEF SOUGHT
15. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, Fairwater denies that the Cross-Parcel Easement was not extinguished by the 2014 Replat. Fairwater affirmatively avers that the Cross-Parcel Easement was lawfully extinguished upon the recording of the 2014 Replat, for the reasons set forth in Fairwater's responses above and in its Affirmative Defenses below. Accordingly, Fairwater denies that Ridgemark is entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Cross-Parcel Easement remains in existence and has not been extinguished.
16. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, Fairwater denies the same. The Cross-Parcel Easement, having been extinguished by the 2014 Replat and by the doctrine of merger (as set forth in Fairwater's Affirmative Defenses below), does not run with the land and cannot inure to the benefit of Ridgemark as a purported successor-in-interest to the original dominant estate. An extinguished easement possesses no characteristics capable of running with or binding any parcel.
17. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, Fairwater denies the same. Fairwater has no obligation — whether arising from the extinguished Cross-Parcel Easement, from any other instrument, or from any principle of law or equity — to permit Ridgemark or any other party to access, traverse, use, or occupy any portion of the Fairwater Property pursuant to or in connection with the Cross-Parcel Easement.
18. In response to the allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, including any prayer for relief contained therein, Fairwater denies that Ridgemark is entitled to an award of attorney's fees, costs, or any other form of relief in connection with this action. Fairwater further denies that any statutory or contractual basis exists for the award of attorney's fees to Ridgemark in this matter.
IV. GENERAL DENIAL
Except as specifically admitted herein, Fairwater denies each and every allegation of the Complaint, whether express or implied, and puts Ridgemark to its strict proof on all allegations asserted. Fairwater demands that Ridgemark establish each element of its claims by competent, admissible evidence.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Without waiving, and in addition to, the denials and responses set forth above, Fairwater asserts the following Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint. By asserting these Affirmative Defenses, Fairwater does not assume the burden of proof on any issue for which the burden of proof properly rests with Ridgemark under applicable law. Fairwater further reserves the right to amend, supplement, or add additional affirmative defenses as discovery, investigation, or further proceedings in this action may warrant, pursuant to Rule 1.190, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Extinguishment by the 2014 Replat)
19. Fairwater re-alleges and incorporates by reference its responses to each paragraph of the Complaint set forth above as though fully stated herein.
20. The Cross-Parcel Easement, originally recorded on June 22, 1998, in Official Records Book 4517, Page 1283, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, was extinguished by operation of the Commerce Park Boulevard Phase II Replat (the "2014 Replat"), which was duly approved by the appropriate governmental authorities and recorded on September 15, 2014, in Plat Book 78, Pages 44–46, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida.
21. The 2014 Replat expressly provides, in clear and unambiguous language, that "all private easements shown on the prior plat are hereby vacated except as otherwise noted herein." The Cross-Parcel Easement fell within the geographic boundary of the 2014 Replat. The Cross-Parcel Easement was not listed among the exceptions preserved or exempted from the replat's vacation language. Accordingly, the Cross-Parcel Easement was vacated and extinguished by the express terms of the 2014 Replat.
22. Under Florida law, a duly recorded replat that vacates prior easements within its boundary extinguishes those easements. This principle applies to easements that are depicted on the prior plat, as well as to easements created by separate deed instruments where the easement corridor is depicted on, referenced in, or encompassed by the prior plat that is the subject of the replat. The 2014 Replat satisfied all procedural and substantive requirements for the vacation of private easements under applicable Florida statutes and Seminole County ordinances.
23. Following the recording of the 2014 Replat on September 15, 2014, the Cross-Parcel Easement ceased to exist as a matter of law. As an extinguished interest, the Cross-Parcel Easement was no longer available to be conveyed, assigned, inherited, or otherwise transferred. Ridgemark's subsequent acquisition of the Southern Parcel on March 8, 2019, could not and did not revive or re-create the extinguished easement interest, regardless of any recital or reference to the Cross-Parcel Easement in the 2019 deed of conveyance.
24. Fairwater's acquisition of the Northern Parcel from Sunbelt Distribution Centers, Inc. in October 2016, for a purchase price of $47,300,000, was made in express reliance upon the extinguishment of the Cross-Parcel Easement by the 2014 Replat. This reliance was confirmed and supported by the following:
(a) The title commitment issued by Tidewater Abstract & Title, LLC, bearing Commitment No. TWA-2016-09821, which did not list the Cross-Parcel Easement as a Schedule B-II exception to title;
(b) The owner's title insurance policy issued by Meridian Title Underwriters, Inc., bearing Policy No. MTU-2016-FL-089312, which likewise omitted the Cross-Parcel Easement as an exception to coverage; and
(c) The survey prepared by Whitfield & Associates Land Surveyors, Inc. in connection with Fairwater's acquisition, which did not depict or reference the Cross-Parcel Easement as an existing encumbrance on the Northern Parcel.
25. Accordingly, Ridgemark's Complaint is barred, in whole, by the extinguishment of the Cross-Parcel Easement effected by the 2014 Replat.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Estoppel and Laches)
26. Fairwater re-alleges and incorporates by reference its responses to each paragraph of the Complaint and the allegations of its First Affirmative Defense set forth above as though fully stated herein.
27. Ridgemark's claim is barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of estoppel and laches.
28. Roland P. Thurmond, the prior owner of the Southern Parcel and the predecessor-in-interest from whom Ridgemark derived its title, was the controlling individual behind Thurmond Industrial Holdings, Inc. — the entity that served as the original grantor of the Cross-Parcel Easement in 1998. As such, Mr. Thurmond had actual knowledge or, at a minimum, constructive knowledge of the 2014 Replat and its vacation of private easements, including the Cross-Parcel Easement. Mr. Thurmond was a long-standing developer and landowner within the Commerce Park Boulevard area and was familiar with, and in many instances participated in, the planning and approval processes for plats and replats affecting properties in that area.
29. Following the recording of the 2014 Replat on September 15, 2014, neither Roland P. Thurmond during his lifetime, the Estate of Roland P. Thurmond following his passing, nor any other successor, assignee, or representative of the dominant estate took any action whatsoever to challenge, protest, seek to vacate, or otherwise object to the extinguishment of the Cross-Parcel Easement. This period of complete inaction and silence extended for more than six years — from September 2014 until at least Ridgemark's pre-suit demand letter dated April 2, 2021, a span of approximately six years and seven months.
30. During this extended period of inaction and silence, Fairwater acquired the Northern Parcel in October 2016 for a purchase price of $47,300,000 and made substantial, material, and irreversible investments in the property, including but not limited to the following:
(a) Fairwater entered into a 12-year triple-net (NNN) lease with Condor Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("Condor"), commencing in October 2016 and expiring in September 2028, providing for annual base rent of $2,386,460 (calculated at $3.89 per square foot on the 614,000-square-foot distribution facility), representing a total contractual rent obligation in excess of $28,600,000 over the initial term of the lease;
(b) Fairwater secured a first-priority mortgage loan in the amount of $28,400,000 from Kensington Capital Markets, LLC, which was recorded on October 7, 2016, in Official Records Book 6312, Page 0988, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, and the terms and conditions of which were structured and underwritten based on the Fairwater Property's status as being free from any third-party private easement claims; and
(c) Fairwater and its tenant, Condor, designed, configured, and have since continuously operated and maintained the logistics facility's truck-court ingress and egress system, loading dock configuration, trailer staging areas, and parking facilities in a manner that relies upon, and is inconsistent with, the existence of any third-party easement across the eastern boundary of the Northern Parcel.
31. Fairwater and Condor relied upon the absence of any third-party easement claims in making the foregoing investments and operational decisions, and such reliance was reasonable and justified in light of the 2014 Replat's express vacation of private easements, the absence of any Schedule B-II exception in Fairwater's title commitment and owner's title insurance policy, and the complete silence and inaction of the Southern Parcel's owners for more than six years.
32. It would be inequitable, unjust, and unconscionable to permit Ridgemark to assert an easement claim over the Fairwater Property after the extended period of silence and inaction by Ridgemark and its predecessors-in-interest, during which Fairwater detrimentally and materially relied upon the extinguishment of the Cross-Parcel Easement in acquiring, financing, leasing, and operating the Northern Parcel. Ridgemark's claims are therefore barred by estoppel, laches, or both.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Merger)
33. Fairwater re-alleges and incorporates by reference its responses to each paragraph of the Complaint and the allegations of its First and Second Affirmative Defenses set forth above as though fully stated herein.
34. The Cross-Parcel Easement was independently extinguished by the common-law doctrine of merger when the dominant and servient estates came under common ownership or control.
35. Between approximately 2012 and 2014, both the Northern Parcel — the servient estate with respect to the Cross-Parcel Easement, then owned by Sunbelt Distribution Centers, Inc., a Thurmond-family-related entity — and the Southern Parcel — the dominant estate with respect to the Cross-Parcel Easement, owned by Roland P. Thurmond in his personal capacity — were under common Thurmond family ownership and control. Specifically, upon information and belief, Roland P. Thurmond was the sole or controlling shareholder, officer, and director of Sunbelt Distribution Centers, Inc. during this period, such that Mr. Thurmond exercised effective ownership and control over both the dominant and servient estates simultaneously.
36. Under well-established Florida law, when the dominant estate and the servient estate of an easement come into common ownership or control in the same person or entity, the lesser interest (the easement) merges into the greater interest (the fee simple) and is extinguished. See, e.g., Smith v. Clifton, 394 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 7.5 (Am. Law Inst. 2000). The rationale for this doctrine is well-settled: an owner of land cannot have an easement over his or her own property, because the rights an easement would confer are already subsumed within the fee ownership.
37. The subsequent separation of the Northern Parcel and the Southern Parcel into different ownership — which occurred when Fairwater acquired the Northern Parcel in October 2016 and, later, when Ridgemark acquired the Southern Parcel in March 2019 — did not automatically revive or re-create the Cross-Parcel Easement. Under Florida law, once an easement is extinguished by merger, it can only be re-established by a new express grant satisfying all applicable requirements for the creation of an easement, including an instrument in writing signed by the grantor and recorded in the public records.
38. No new express grant of the Cross-Parcel Easement was made following the period of common Thurmond family ownership. No instrument was recorded in the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, purporting to re-establish, re-create, or re-grant the Cross-Parcel Easement after its extinguishment by merger.
39. Accordingly, even if the 2014 Replat did not independently extinguish the Cross-Parcel Easement (which Fairwater does not concede), the doctrine of merger independently and separately extinguished the Cross-Parcel Easement during the period of unified Thurmond family ownership, and no subsequent event revived it. Ridgemark's claims are therefore barred.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
40. Fairwater re-alleges and incorporates by reference its responses to each paragraph of the Complaint and the allegations of its First, Second, and Third Affirmative Defenses set forth above as though fully stated herein.
41. Ridgemark's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which declaratory relief may be granted.
42. Ridgemark has failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate the continued legal existence of the Cross-Parcel Easement. The 2014 Replat's express vacation of private easements within its geographic boundary, combined with the period of common Thurmond family ownership that effectuated merger, establishes that the Cross-Parcel Easement was extinguished prior to Ridgemark's acquisition of the Southern Parcel on March 8, 2019. Because the easement did not exist at the time Ridgemark acquired the Southern Parcel, Ridgemark never acquired the easement interest it now seeks to have declared valid.
43. Ridgemark cannot establish a bona fide, actual, present, and justiciable controversy warranting a declaratory judgment in its favor under Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, because the property interest Ridgemark seeks to have declared valid was extinguished as a matter of law prior to Ridgemark's acquisition of the Southern Parcel. There is no present doubt or uncertainty as to the rights of the parties that requires judicial resolution in Ridgemark's favor; rather, the legal status of the Cross-Parcel Easement has been settled since 2014. Ridgemark's Complaint should therefore be dismissed or, alternatively, judgment should be entered in Fairwater's favor.
RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
44. Fairwater expressly reserves the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as may be revealed, warranted, or supported through discovery, investigation, expert analysis, or further proceedings in this action. Such additional defenses may include, but are not limited to, abandonment, acquiescence, unclean hands, waiver, implied release, and any defenses arising from the conduct of third parties, including predecessors-in-interest to either party. This reservation is made pursuant to Rule 1.110(d) and Rule 1.190, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and Fairwater's assertion of the foregoing defenses shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of any additional defense not expressly stated herein.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust respectfully requests that this Court enter an order:
1. Denying the declaratory relief sought by Plaintiff Ridgemark Development Partners LLC in its Complaint in its entirety;
2. Entering a declaratory judgment in favor of Fairwater and against Ridgemark, declaring that the Cross-Parcel Easement originally recorded on June 22, 1998, in Official Records Book 4517, Page 1283, of the Public Records of Seminole County, Florida, was extinguished and is of no further force or effect, and that neither Ridgemark nor any party claiming by, through, or under Ridgemark has any right, title, or interest in or to said easement;
3. Awarding Fairwater its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of this action, to the extent permitted by applicable law, contract, or statute; and
4. Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just, proper, and equitable under the circumstances.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.
Dated: August 30, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Francesca Morano, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Jeffrey Park, Esq. (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 1725 K Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 555-4100 Facsimile: (202) 555-4101
Email: fmorano@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: jpark@calderwoodharkness.com
Counsel for Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust
HARGROVE & LIDDELL, P.A.
By: ________
Brenda Hargrove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0987214 501 East Church Street, Suite 300 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 555-7200 Facsimile: (407) 555-7201
Email: bhargrove@hargroveliddell.com
Local Counsel for Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on August 30, 2021, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendant Fairwater Real Estate Investment Trust was served via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal and by electronic mail upon the following counsel of record:
Marco D. Castellon, Esq. Castellon Foley & Ruiz LLP 228 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 555-3300
Email: mcastellon@cfrlawfirm.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Ridgemark Development Partners LLC
By: ________
Brenda Hargrove, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0987214