UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

REDUS EL, LLC,

Plaintiff,

vs.

POINTE WEST MASTER PROPERTY

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Defendant.

 / 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Redus El, LLC, by and through its undersigned attorneys and pursuant 

to Rule 8, Fed. R. Civ. P., for its Complaint against Defendant, Pointe West Master 

Property Owners Association, Inc., alleges as follows:

Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue

1. Plaintiff, Redus El, LLC (“Redus”), is a Delaware limited liability 

company, that is a citizen of Delaware and North Carolina because its member is a 

corporation that was incorporated in Delaware that maintains its principal place of 

business in North Carolina.

2. Defendant, Pointe West Master Property Owners Association, Inc. (the 

“Association”) is a Florida citizen because it is a corporation that was incorporated in 

Florida that has its principal place of business in Florida.

Case 2:22-cv-14308-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 6
2 

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter based upon diversity of 

citizenship because it is an action between citizens of different states and the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.

4. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida as the District in which 

the Association resides in and in which a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claim occurred.

Allegations Common to All Counts

5. Redus was the successor declarant for a mixed use, master planned 

community situated in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida, known as “Pointe 

West.” 

6. On or about April 9, 2019, Redus turned over control of the Association to 

the members of Pointe West pursuant to the Master Declaration of Covenants, 

Conditions, Easements and Restrictions for Pointe West (the “Declaration”) and the By 

Laws of Pointe West Master Property Owners’ Association, Inc. (the “Bylaws”).

7. On or about July 22, 2022, the Association demanded that Redus pay

$84,316.00 to the Association for “Developer Deficit Funding” for the 2019 calendar year 

(the “Deficit Funding Claim”).

8. The Association based its Deficit Funding Claim on Art. XI, Sec. 11.1 of the 

Declaration, which provides as follows:

Prior to the Turnover Date, the Declarant shall have no 

obligation to pay Assessments on Lots or other portions of 

the Property which Declarant owns. Rather, until that time, 

the Declarant may elect annually to pay the “deficit”, which 

is the difference between the amount of Assessments 

Case 2:22-cv-14308-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 6
3 

assessed and the amount of actual expenditures required to 

operate the Master Association during the calendar year. 

The Declarant shall not be obligated to pay or fund any 

shortfall in the capital replacement reserve described in 

Section 11.12 hereof, notwithstanding anything to the 

contrary. This shall be true regardless of whether the 

Declarant is paying Assessments or funding the deficit, 

either before or after the Turnover Date. The election of the 

Declarant to pay Assessments or the deficit shall be by 

written notice to the Board not less than thirty (30) days 

prior to the beginning of each calendar year and if no notice 

is delivered by Declarant, Declarant shall be deemed to have 

elected to pay such differential or deficit. The Declarant’s 

financial obligations to the Master Association may be 

satisfied in the form of a cash subsidy or by “in kind” 

contributions of services or materials, or a combination of 

these. After the Turnover Date, the Declarant shall be 

obligated to pay Assessments on all portions of the Property 

which it owns. The Declarant shall have no obligation or 

responsibility for any assessments which are levied against 

any other Owner (including, without limitation, any Builder) 

and which are not paid by such Owner.

9. Redus disputes the Association’s Deficit Funding Claim and maintains 

that it is not obligated by Art. XI, Sec. 11.1 of the Declaration or otherwise to pay 

$84,316.00 for the Deficit Funding Claim. 

10. The Association has also indicated that it believes that some unspecified 

amounts may be due in connection with a Reimbursement Agreement between Redus 

and the Association (the “Reimbursement Agreement Claim”).

11. Redus disputes that it owes any money to the Association in connection 

with the Reimbursement Agreement Claim.

12. It is Redus’s position that it has complied with any obligations it may have

had as successor developer, paid any amounts it may have owed to the Association, 

Case 2:22-cv-14308-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 3 of 6
4 

and does not owe any further obligations to the Association in connection with its role 

as successor developer, in connection with the turnover of the Association, and 

pursuant to the Declaration and the Bylaws.

13. All conditions precedent to this action have occurred, have been satisfied, 

or have been waived.

COUNT I – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

14. Redus realleges paragraphs 1 through 13 above as if set forth more fully 

herein.

15. There is a bona fide dispute between Redus and the Association as to the 

validity of the Association’s Deficit Funding Claim, the interpretation of the relevant 

portions of the Declaration, including Art. XI, Sec. 11.1 of the Declaration, the 

Association’s Reimbursement Agreement Claim, and Redus’s compliance with any 

other obligations it may have had to the Association as successor developer, in 

connection with the turnover of the Association, and pursuant to the Declaration and 

the Bylaws.

16. Redus has a justiciable question as to the existence or non-existence of a 

right, status, immunity, power or privilege, or as to some fact upon which the existence 

of such right, status, immunity, power or privilege does or may depend.

17. Redus is in doubt as to the right, status, immunity, power or privilege 

upon which the Association’s claims are based. 

18. There is a bona fide, actual, present need for a declaration as to the 

validity of the Association’s Deficit Funding Claim, the interpretation of the relevant 

Case 2:22-cv-14308-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 4 of 6
5 

portions of the Declaration, including Art. XI, Sec. 11.1 of the Declaration, the 

Association’s Reimbursement Agreement Claim, and Redus’s compliance with any 

other obligations it may have had to the Association as successor developer, in 

connection with the turnover of the Association, and pursuant to the Declaration and 

the Bylaws.

19. Accordingly, Redus is entitled to a declaratory judgment concerning the 

validity of the Association’s Deficit Funding Claim, the interpretation of the relevant 

portions of the Declaration, including Art. XI, Sec. 11.1 of the Declaration, the 

Association’s Reimbursement Agreement Claim, and Redus’s compliance with any 

other obligations it may have had to the Association as successor developer, in 

connection with the turnover of the Association, and pursuant to the Declaration and 

the Bylaws, as well as any further necessary or proper relief against any adverse party 

whose rights have been determined by such declaratory judgment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Redus El, LLC, demands entry of a declaratory 

judgment determining the validity of Defendant, Pointe West Master Property Owners 

Association, Inc.’s demand for payment of $84,316.00 for “Developer Deficit Funding” 

for the 2019 calendar year, the Association’s claim concerning the Reimbursement 

Agreement, and Redus’s compliance with any other obligations it may have had as 

successor developer, in connection with the turnover of the Association, and pursuant 

to the Declaration and the Bylaws, as well as any further necessary or proper relief 

against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such declaratory 

judgment, an award of costs, and such other and further relief as is just and proper.

Case 2:22-cv-14308-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 5 of 6
6 

DATED this 1st day of September, 2022. 

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

777 S. Flagler Drive 

Suite 1700 – West Tower

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 

Tel: (561) 804-4441 

By: /s/ David A. Greene

Amy S. Rubin

Fla. Bar. #476048 

arubin@foxrothschild.com

David A. Greene

Fla. Bar #87629 

dgreene@foxrothschild.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Redus El, LLC

Case 2:22-cv-14308-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 6 of 6