IV4 Update

It has been awhile since we have talked about Inverness Villages IV. You can recap that by going here.. there is a timeline that shows how we got to where we are today.

In short, there are two lawsuits currently taking place regarding IV4, as well as bankruptcy action with Van der Valk, the main builder in IV4.

One lawsuit is the Southwest Florida Water Management District filing against the county as well as Van der Valk and others. In this lawsuit, SWFWMD claims that the county failed to get an Environmental Resource Permit for the rights of ways and that since there is no stormwater management system within IV4, that rainwater is flowing from county owned land (right of way) into surrounding areas.

Then there is the Florida Department of Environment protection lawsuit against Van der Valk and others, claiming similar things.

Ok.. all caught up. Here are the updates.

First, the SWFWMD lawsuit with the county.

Since this is a government agency suing another government agency, state law says that they have to go through mediation before the lawsuit can continue through the courts.

SWFWMD formally voted 11-0 on October 28th to enter into those proceedings with the county.

So that civil case is on hold until SWFWMD and the County do their mediation process as required by state law. If they can come to a resolution, I imagine the county will be removed from the case. If not, it will continue.

So we are in a holding pattern here.

However, the DEP lawsuit against Van der Valk and others (Van Usen) is heating up and will give a preview of what the county will face in the SWFWMD lawsuit.

First, it appears that Matser (Van der Valk) has purchased many of the remaining lots from Van Usen under a new LLC called MB1725, LLC. Remember, Van Usen was the largest land owner in IV4. The county has claimed in its letter to Ashley Moody that there was a "common scheme to defraud" involving Van Usen and Matser. Basically, the allegation was that Van Usen would sell lots and require buyers to use Van der Valk to build.

Now, Matser owns 48 lots within IV4.

So that is interesting.

Likely as a result of this sale, DEP has agreed to dismiss, with prejudice, the companies that Van Usen owns from the DEP lawsuit. The "with prejudice" portion is important because it means that the DEP cannot refile a lawsuit against these entities.

Now, Van der Valk has filed for sanctions against DEP for filing a false complaint.

They make some interesting claims in this filing. In short:

1) DEP knows that Van der Valk does not need the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) as construction does not affect more than one acre

2) The motive for the lawsuit is to try to get owners to build the infrastructure and references BOCC statements at meetings

3) The lawsuit is a way for the county to get out of paying for the upgrades that the courts have ruled they are responsible for, referencing the 2011 lawsuit. Now that more houses were built, the costs have skyrocketed and the county has pressured the state to initiate these actions since the county cannot afford the upgrades.

4) The washout are from the county owned right of way, not construction activities.

5) The state referenced lots that were not under construction, so Van der Valk could not have been responsible for those issues.

6) The state is trying to connect Matser to Marpad, which was at one point an owner of many of the lots in IV4, but Van der Valk claims that Marpad had many officers and directors.

7) The state did not disclose full documents when referencing cases and did so intentionally to paint an improper picture of what was happening.

8) None of the lots were ever conveyed to Matser (no mention of the 2025 purchase)

9) They reference other contractors that have also built homes in IV4, showing it was not only Van der Valk

10) They claim the DEP would need to name each and every landowner for this lawsuit

And the rest goes on to say that the complaints are not supported by facts and seeks sanctions, including award of attorney's fees. Then includes a bunch of evidence.

Something that stuck out to me was this letter.

The key here is that SWFWMD has told the county that they will need to do an ERP, back in 2023, unless they vacate the ROW. The county has NOT vacated the ROW and has continued to allow the use of the ROW.

That is going to come back in play during the SWFWMD lawsuit.... the county was told about the issues but did nothing to address them... even though the court ruled in the 2011 case that the roads/drainage were the responsibility of the county, but they could determine how to pay for them.