Mini-golf course reopens after settlement with MICA

This 2013 file photo show the Ward family of Raleigh, N.C. enjoying a round of golf at the Marco Golf & Garden miniature golf course on Marco Island.

Photo by ROGER LALONDE // Buy this photo

This 2013 file photo show the Ward family of Raleigh, N.C. enjoying a round of golf at the Marco Golf & Garden miniature golf course on Marco Island.

— Mini-golfers are putting again on Marco Island.

The Marco Island Civic Association and Marco Golf & Garden miniature golf course have settled their legal battle after nine months.

The settlement was a win for both sides: MICA’s deed restrictions, which barred a mini golf course, were upheld by a Collier Circuit judge, but the ruling became moot after a majority of neighboring property owners voted to lift that beach block’s restrictions.

“The miniature golf course reopened last night,” Fred Kramer, a Marco Island attorney who owns the Winterberry Drive mini golf course with his wife, Marianne, said on Wednesday. “... MICA has recognized that it has no voice in the vote of property owners seeking to cancel the various Deltona restrictions.”

But Ruth McCann, MICA’s executive director, considered the settlement a validation of the 39-year-old Deltona Corp. restrictions because they were upheld by a judge.

“We are pleased that the courts have upheld the validity of the Deltona deed restrictions and their covenants,” McCann said, noting owners need to contact MICA, comply with the restrictions and understand their importance.

She said the legal battle became moot after owners of eight lots — a majority of 14 lot owners in that beach block — voted to end the restrictions. Marianne Tirri Kramer, co-owner of the 18-hole miniature golf course property, owns five lots, the majority of eight votes.

The settlement was filed in court Tuesday, ending a contentious legal battle that began when MICA sued the Kramers’ business in January. It also ended a battle pending before the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.

© 2013 marconews.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 27

lauralbi1 writes:

A great outcome. An excellent example of "If you can't win, buy the votes". Thank you to MICA for standing up for what WAS right.
As a refresher, the property owner vote done earlier in the game was not valid as one of the owners had sold their property.
Now, the process has been done correctly and congratulations to all parties for what has transpired.
Ed Issler

WMissow writes:

Thank you MICA for standing up for the MAJORITY of citizens on this island.

It goes to show if one follows the law and does not think he or she is "bigger" than the law, the process will be fair to all as it finally turned out to be.

Konfuzius writes:

The storm of controversy ended as a storm in a teacup!
MICA is the big loser.
It is time to consider to go rid of this yesterday organization. The political power belongs to the people. In this case to the free elected representatives of Marco Island citizen: City Council.
Right!

WMissow writes:

City Council may be freely elected, Klaus, but you know as well as I do that you had many, yes many blogs against them in prior years and rightfully so.

You can't argue from both sides of you mouth and expect anyone to take into reasonable consideration your contributions.

MICA is doing the job they were set up to do by law to make changes to that will only be asking for circumstances we may regret, significantly, in both the short and long run.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to WMissow:

City Council may be freely elected, Klaus, but you know as well as I do that you had many, yes many blogs against them in prior years and rightfully so.

You can't argue from both sides of you mouth and expect anyone to take into reasonable consideration your contributions.

MICA is doing the job they were set up to do by law to make changes to that will only be asking for circumstances we may regret, significantly, in both the short and long run.

To criticize city council has nothing to do with the principals. City Council is the only authority free elected by the people of Marco Island. An organization with appointed representatives can not have political power at all in a democracy. That is my standpoint.

WMissow writes:

Klaus,

One thing has nothing to do with another. MICA does not make laws or deed restrictions. MICA's responsibility is to make sure that the rest of us follow what is on the books and then to provide information to those needing it, if required, and go to court to protect those restrictions, if that becomes necessary.

You just can not make up your own rules.

The courts do the interpretation of the law, not city councilors or anyone else.

Can you imagine our city councilors, many who have little to no legal experience changing laws all because they "think" it is necessary or because some splinter group wishes to make those changes?

You have to be kidding!

johnnycakes writes:

So let me understand what you're saying here WMissow - you don't think elected representatives should be allowed to "Make up their own rules." I read that to mean "Make laws." e.g. Bylaws. Hmmmm - thought that pretty much defined what democracy is. We, the people, elect them, the legislators. They make laws on our behalf. We require them to enforce them on our behalf.

I really HATE to agree with the K-man but on this issue he is 100% korekt. MICA is unelected therefore not democratic. Count me among those who would rather deal with a single elected body (City Council) than two ... one of which is an undemocratic expression of someone's 1960's vision for my home Island.

WMissow writes:

johnnycakes,

That is your OPINION and I have my OPINION and as they say we also have something else in common.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to johnnycakes:

So let me understand what you're saying here WMissow - you don't think elected representatives should be allowed to "Make up their own rules." I read that to mean "Make laws." e.g. Bylaws. Hmmmm - thought that pretty much defined what democracy is. We, the people, elect them, the legislators. They make laws on our behalf. We require them to enforce them on our behalf.

I really HATE to agree with the K-man but on this issue he is 100% korekt. MICA is unelected therefore not democratic. Count me among those who would rather deal with a single elected body (City Council) than two ... one of which is an undemocratic expression of someone's 1960's vision for my home Island.

"I really HATE to agree with the K-man..."

OK dear tea party supporter johnnycakes that is a great tolerant attitude. To hate to be agree. Poor thinking. But conform to Sarah Palin.
However. My point is like all other points I have very simple too. If Americans needs an organization like MICA to solve or protect their fundamentalist rights than it's time to change America to a dictatorship. Principe Stalin. Who installed MICA? Answer: Deltona! Was Deltona established from the people for the people? Answer: NO! Deltona was a development company.
Maybe it was necessary to do so as Marco Island was not a City. Protect Marco Island maybe for the commissioners of Collier County. Anyway useless. But latest as Marco Island became a City, against my will, MICA is not necessary anymore. Whether I like them or not, but my elected heroes are Marco Island City Councilors!
Lets make a test. If MICA has so much power to scotch the Marriott resort expansion against City Council but supported by the majority of the Marco Island people do not like the Marriott plan, I will revise my standpoint.
Fair enough?
In the case of Kramer's put-putt case MICA loss!
The MICA storm of controversy ended as a MICA storm in a teacup!

Konfuzius writes:

in response to WMissow:

johnnycakes,

That is your OPINION and I have my OPINION and as they say we also have something else in common.

You really want to discuss the different values of opinion? islandeye ------- please not! You look not very good in that! Better is we are agree that we are disagree! Right!
And MICA loss! And with MICA the yesterday people of Marco Island!

WMissow writes:

Klaus,

Do you think being shut down for 8 months was a win for the Kramers? Like losing a football game by 50 points was a win for the loser.

WizeOlMarco writes:

"So let me understand what you're saying here WMissow - you don't think elected representatives should be allowed to "Make up their own rules." I read that to mean "Make laws." e.g. Bylaws. Hmmmm - thought that pretty much defined what democracy is. We, the people, elect them, the legislators. They make laws on our behalf. We require them to enforce them on our behalf."

Yes, in republic democracy elected reps do get to make up their own rules though the rules have no force until agreed to by the overall body politic, i.e. the rules have to be approved by vote. And, sometimes the rules are not approved. Nor can the 'rules process' be made up to suit the moment. This golf course matter demonstrates the importance of 'the rule of law'. I was surpised to read Attorney Kramer is one of the owners...not sure I ever crossed that fact in earlier blogs, which puzzled over why Kramer was involved since he one time represented MICA's view. I look forward to beating my step- and grand- kids at the course, at which time I will shout 'Thank you MICA' for defending the deed covenants.

WMissow writes:

Well said Oh, Wize one! From what I understand, Kramer had legally represented MICA some time ago and probably felt that he knew enough about them to get away with his attempt to circumvent the deed restrictions.

I think he and many more learned that such an act was not worth the consequences.

Thank You MICA for watching for us where other fail to.

If it were left up to our earlier city council members there would be a hotel or condo and every street and the rest of us would be paying for their special discounts for water, sewer etc!

RayN writes:

Tahdah .... played first round after the reopening. Won a free additional game on the ball drop/return. A great asset for Marco Island.

Where are the naysayers and misguided now? Oh, they're still here and now chanting "see the system works." Kind of like prosecutors without a case slinging a dozen charges against the wall, hoping that something will stick ..... and when nothing does, they can shrug their shoulders and say, "see the system works."

Whole thing could have been resolved months ago with the exact same outcome. Enjoy it! $12 is still a little steep, maybe the Kramers could offer the MICA discount.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to RayN:

Tahdah .... played first round after the reopening. Won a free additional game on the ball drop/return. A great asset for Marco Island.

Where are the naysayers and misguided now? Oh, they're still here and now chanting "see the system works." Kind of like prosecutors without a case slinging a dozen charges against the wall, hoping that something will stick ..... and when nothing does, they can shrug their shoulders and say, "see the system works."

Whole thing could have been resolved months ago with the exact same outcome. Enjoy it! $12 is still a little steep, maybe the Kramers could offer the MICA discount.

This case shows just one thing:
MICA is not necessary anymore.
Tahdah ...Tahdah ...Tahdah ...

WMissow writes:

Ray,

Yes it could have been resolved months ago but the Kramers refused to play by the rules. Maybe next time someone thinks they can do a side step move and circumvent the rules of the game they will think twice.

That is good enough for me!

Pursuit writes:

in response to WMissow:

Ray,

Yes it could have been resolved months ago but the Kramers refused to play by the rules. Maybe next time someone thinks they can do a side step move and circumvent the rules of the game they will think twice.

That is good enough for me!

Right on WMissow Good enough for me also The golf course causes no more disruption than say a softball game at winterberry BUT The MICA has been entrusted to follow the very necessary rules to ensure our island stay's the paradise it is. I support all the effort's they put forth. I believe the Kramer's were well out of line in pursuing their adgenda They knew the rule's

WMissow writes:

Ben,

Thank you.

It will surprise me if Putt, Putt makes it a year or two at the prices they are charging.

Quite honestly, being closed over the off season may have actually been a blessing for them.

Konfuzius writes:

in response to WMissow:

Ray,

Yes it could have been resolved months ago but the Kramers refused to play by the rules. Maybe next time someone thinks they can do a side step move and circumvent the rules of the game they will think twice.

That is good enough for me!

Good enough for you? If the Kramer's own the majority of the lots, what is good enough for you?
She said the legal battle became moot after owners of eight lots — a majority of 14 lot owners in that beach block — voted to end the restrictions. Marianne Tirri Kramer, co-owner of the 18-hole miniature golf course property, owns

five lots, 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the majority of eight votes.
MICA is a tiger with no teeth anymore. That is fact. We will see, how they handle the Marriott case. Big test!
I bet you: toothless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WMissow writes:

Klabs,

Your comments are not worth responding to because they are convoluted and meaningless.

Konfuzius writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

WMissow writes:

Klabs,

Once again you must be on the Boone's Farm or Ripple.

liberator100 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

lauralbi1 writes:

Mr. McMullan/Konfuzious: You, of all people, should know that the Marriott case has NOTHING to do with MICA. Rather it is a zoning and City requirements issue, along with a change to an existing PUD, which is also a City issue.
There are no Deed Restrictions that apply to the Marriott's desire and request. MICA will not be involved and should not be involved.
Here's hoping you do not lose too much sleep or enjoyment in life over the Marriott issue. I had only hoped that it could have been a referendum so that the few who oppose it would realize what the majority of our Islanders want. But I do not see it as being necessary or relevant at this point.
Ed Issler

Konfuzius writes:

in response to lauralbi1:

Mr. McMullan/Konfuzious: You, of all people, should know that the Marriott case has NOTHING to do with MICA. Rather it is a zoning and City requirements issue, along with a change to an existing PUD, which is also a City issue.
There are no Deed Restrictions that apply to the Marriott's desire and request. MICA will not be involved and should not be involved.
Here's hoping you do not lose too much sleep or enjoyment in life over the Marriott issue. I had only hoped that it could have been a referendum so that the few who oppose it would realize what the majority of our Islanders want. But I do not see it as being necessary or relevant at this point.
Ed Issler

Of course Eddi,of course,

MICA = Marriott Island Civic Association!

Makes sense to me!

Bill Konfuzius

Konfuzius writes:

in response to WMissow:

Klabs,

Once again you must be on the Boone's Farm or Ripple.

Did we meet there?

tikihut2206 writes:

in response to Konfuzius:

Did we meet there?

Okay I am new to this..I think the mini golf course is a great idea..and sorry to interfere guys but can you stay on topic..

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features