Disney/Reedy Creek

[Anonymous]

This is some entertaining stuff. I remember reading this article back in February when desantis was taking over the board. Now looking back, the board members who seemed so blasé and spineless with their comments about just doing their jobs, were actually being coy because they were outmaneuvering desantis that very day.

https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/reedy-creek-board-of-supervisors-havent-heard-from-state-about-changes

[Anonymous]

What a brilliant legal maneuver. I'm in awe.

This thread will probably get kicked to politics where I never venture, but I'm enjoying reading about it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Yes, this is amazing. Even more amazing that Desantis and his cronies were dumb enough not to suspect this would happen after Disney was like “Oh…okay” at the start of all of this. As if Disney was going to take this lying down.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter. At the end of the day the Disney stock has plummeted. That's what corporation really count on. Plus, Disney still lost a huge tax break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. At the end of the day the Disney stock has plummeted. That's what corporation really count on. Plus, Disney still lost a huge tax break.

I’m sure you’re not crediting some local politics silliness in FL with the change in Disney’s stock price? That of course relates to the streaming bubble popping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter. At the end of the day the Disney stock has plummeted. That's what corporation really count on. Plus, Disney still lost a huge tax break.

The important thing here is that DeSantis will be using taxpayer money for a pointless, protracted legal battle with Disney while making himself look like an absolute clown on the national stage ahead of his presidential campaign. Feels good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a brilliant legal maneuver. I'm in awe.

This thread will probably get kicked to politics where I never venture, but I'm enjoying reading about it elsewhere.

OP here. Yes I couldn’t decide whether to put it in politics or here! It’s entertaining for sure. It’s soul satisfying for sure. What makes it even better is that desantis is a lawyer. Apparently Greer, who is quoted in the article as saying (paraphrased) “I don’t know, I just do as I’m told”, has been on that board for 50 years and was probably giggling inside. It sounds like the reporter actually attended that Feb 8 board meeting. I wonder if they didn’t notice the agenda item or just kept quiet? I’d like to think the latter, but probably not.

[Anonymous]

My favorite part of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants is where it states that the declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England". Gold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a brilliant legal maneuver. I'm in awe.

This thread will probably get kicked to politics where I never venture, but I'm enjoying reading about it elsewhere.

I read it but I don’t get it. Can someone explain it to me as if I was 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants is where it states that the declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England". Gold.

Real property professors finally get a relevant example of drafting around the rule against perpetuities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What a brilliant legal maneuver. I'm in awe.

This thread will probably get kicked to politics where I never venture, but I'm enjoying reading about it elsewhere.

I read it but I don’t get it. Can someone explain it to me as if I was 5?

The law doesn’t allow perpetual restrictive convenants because no one wants a world in which people in 1800 got to decide what we do with land in the 21st century. But you can impose a restriction that lasts until the death of the last survivor living. I guess they picked Charles for whimsy and because he’s already got 5 grandkids, his grandkids are rich and well protected and don’t travel together so all likely to live long lives. And maybe as a nod to the disney love affair with royalty. They built that house on princesses so princesses charlotte and lillibet are going to carry them through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants is where it states that the declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England". Gold.

Real property professors finally get a relevant example of drafting around the rule against perpetuities

I was just about to say the same!! Lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What a brilliant legal maneuver. I'm in awe.

This thread will probably get kicked to politics where I never venture, but I'm enjoying reading about it elsewhere.

Oh we are laughing at Ron over in politics, too - there’s a big thread that’s been gleefully updated. 😆

[Anonymous]

I took the bar exam too long ago to remember this… if his grandkids have children and the line continues then he continues to have descendants right? Ie it doesn’t end when Lilibet dies if she were to have a child?

BTW I’ve been chuckling all day about this. Well played Disney!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My favorite part of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants is where it states that the declaration is valid until “21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England". Gold.

Real property professors finally get a relevant example of drafting around the rule against perpetuities

Lawyers, is this a rarely used way to draft around perpetuities? Should desantis’s lawyers have seen this coming? Seems pretty marvelously brilliant to me, but I’m not a lawyer.