Law Offices of Vincent J. Duffy, P.A.
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33131
115
491. The circumstances are such that it would be inequitable for RODRIGUEZ to retain these new benefits without paying the reasonable value thereof to SCURTIS.
492. In the event there is no enforceable contract between parties, then SCURTIS would have no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, sues Defendants RODRIGUEZ and NPV jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, interest, costs, the imposition of a constructive trust, the award of reasonable attorney’s fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VII – TORTIOUS INTERFERNCE
493. Plaintiffs, SCURTIS and A.C.R.E.I., L.L.C. sue Defendant ZOOK for Tortious Interference, Plaintiff hereby adopt and re-allege the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 445 above as if fully and expressly set forth herein, and further allege as follows:
494. RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS, either individually or through their respective Partnerships, companies, and/or corporations, are Partners in the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership, which is an ongoing, for profit General Partnership engaged in the business of acquiring, rehabilitating, developing, and managing income producing real property and other real property projects.
495. The RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership was created by oral Agreement between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS, by the formation of A.C.R.E.I., L.L.C. (Alex Constantine Real Property Invest) on or about March 19, 2003, by the formation of
Law Offices of Vincent J. Duffy, P.A.
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33131
116
NPV on or about December 30, 2003, and by virtue of several written Limited Partnership agreements they entered into to carry on the business affairs of their General Partnership.
496. The Partners have acknowledged the existence of the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership and SCURTIS’ Partnership interest in the Partnership through various correspondence, written Limited Partnership Agreements executed by RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS that name A.C.R.E.I., L.L.C. as the General Partner to the Limited Partnerships, and RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS Partnership materials.
497. Therefore, a contractual relationship exists between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS, either individually or through their respective Partnerships, companies and/or corporations.
498. Even if the Oral Partnership Agreement, the written NPV Partnership Agreement and the several written Limited Partnership Agreements between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS are not enforceable, SCURTIS had an advantageous business relationship with RODRIGUEZ, individually or through their respective Partnerships, companies and/or corporations.
499. ZOOK had knowledge of the written Partnership Agreements and the advantageous business relationship between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS, individually or through their respective companies and/or Partnerships.
500. ZOOK, intentionally, and without justification or excuse, interfered with the advantageous business relationship between RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS,
Law Offices of Vincent J. Duffy, P.A.
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33131
117
individually or through their respective Partnerships, companies and/or corporations, in the following, but not Limited to, ways:
a. By selling or transferring ownership of Partnership properties without providing SCURTIS the “Right of First Refusal” as mandated by the RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS Oral Agreement, the NPV Partnership Agreement, and the Partnership Agreement for each Limited Partnership established to carry on the business affairs of the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership.
b. Authorizing conversions through misrepresentation, fraud and self-dealing in order to strip SCURTIS of ownership interest in Partnership real property.
c. By fraudulently inserting himself into the role of Manager of A.C.R.E.I., L.L.C.
to enable him to fraudulently sell the adjoining parcels in Edgewater in direct violation of the A.C.R.E.I., L.L.C. Operating Agreement, the NPV Partnership Agreement’s “Right of First Refusal” clause, the “Right of First Refusal” clause contained in each respective Limited Partnership Agreement for each respective Limited Partnership that owned an adjoining parcel of land in Edgewater, and the RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS Oral Agreement to develop the adjoining parcels in the future.
d. By failing to pay SCURTIS the equivalent of five percent (5%) of the sales proceeds from the sales of properties belonging to the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership as mandated by the RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS Oral Agreement, the A.C.R.E.I., L.L.C. Operating Agreement, the NPV Partnership Agreement and the Partnership Agreement for each Limited Partnership established to carry on the business affairs of the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS Partnership.
e. By failing to pay SCURTIS the remainder of the three percent (3%) owed to him for acquisition fees as mandated by the RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS Oral Agreement.
f. Withholding the money owed to SCURTIS’ from the acquisition and sale of Partnership properties to use the money due to SCURTIS to acquire new real property that would be owned by RODRIGUEZ, ZOOK, MCM, and MRES.
g. Misappropriating SCURTIS’ and the General Partnership’s assets, resources, systems, employees and property to promote Defendant’s new MCM venture at the exclusion and detriment of SCURTIS.
h. By concealing alleged insurance fraud that could damage SCURTIS in his capacity as a General Partner in the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership and as General Partner in and Co-Owner with RODRIGUEZ in NPV.
Law Offices of Vincent J. Duffy, P.A.
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33131
118
i. By concealing alleged mortgage fraud that could damage SCURTIS in his capacity as General Partner in the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership and as the co-guarantor for the mortgage that the fraud allegedly occurred within.
j. Falsely giving ZOOK credit for work performed by SCURTIS.
501. SCURTIS has suffered from damages as a direct and proximate result of the intentional and unjustified interference by ZOOK, in the following, but not Limited to, ways:
k. SCURTIS was stripped of the opportunity to purchase each Partnership property sold by his Partner RODRIGUEZ as guaranteed to him by his Oral Agreement with RODRIGUEZ, the “Right of First Refusal” clause contained in the NPV Partnership Agreement and the “Right of First Refusal” clause contained in each Limited Partnership Agreement for each Limited Partnership established by the RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS General Partnership to carry on the business affairs of their General Partnership.
l. SCURTIS was not paid $2,170,390.00 in Partnership gains via K1 distributions from the sale of RODRIGUEZ-SCURTIS Partnership properties.
m. ZOOK and RODRIGUEZ caused correspondence to be sent to the IRS misleading them that SCURTIS received $2,170,390.00 in K1 distributions that SCURTIS did not receive, generating a tax consequence for SCURTIS for money he never received.
n. SCURTIS was not paid at least $8,000,000 in acquisition fees that he earned and are still owed to him.
o. The IRS has placed a lien on the SCURTIS family assets in the amount of
$388,000.00 because of the fraudulent K1s RODRIGUEZ caused to be sent to the IRS. The IRS is threatening to seize the SCURTIS family home and levy SCURTIS bank accounts.
p. SCURTIS, after ZOOK and RODRIGUEZ sold the Edgewater adjoining parcels, is unable to develop or sell the properties today for many millions of dollars more than ZOOK and RODRIGUEZ sold them for, without exposing them to the market.
Law Offices of Vincent J. Duffy, P.A.
777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400, Miami, Florida 33131
119
q. Withholding the money owed to SCURTIS’ from the acquisition and sale of Partnership properties to benefit ZOOK, RODRIGUEZ, MCM, and MRES.
r. SCURTIS’ opportunity to develop the Edgewater adjoining parcels was stripped from him by ZOOK and RODRIGUEZ.
s. SCURTIS was precluded from participating in MCM, even though his funds and real property were used by ZOOK and RODRIGUEZ, to acquire properties for MCM and to attract investors to MCM because of the artificially low acquisition price MCM paid to acquire RODRIGUEZ and SCURTIS properties at SCURTIS expense and detriment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff sues Defendant ZOOK, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages, interest, costs, the imposition of a constructive trust, the award of reasonable attorney’s fees, and such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.