Office of County Attorney cautions County Commission about accepting one of four parcels Holderness was to transfer to county in exchange for 162 Beach Road property
The April 14 publication of the agenda for the April 21 Sarasota County Commission meeting appears to have solved a riddle, in a manner of speaking, about the removal of an item from the March 24 board agenda that dealt with a Siesta Key land transfer.
On April 21, as explained in a memo from the Office of the County Attorney — which has been included in the agenda packet for that session — the commissioners will have the opportunity to seek the renegotiation of the settlement of a federal lawsuit that Siesta Key businessman and property owner Michael Holderness had pursued against the county starting in late March 2024. A commission vote in November 2025 that was considered a key factor in that settlement has proven controversial on the barrier island.
In early March, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune published a formal Sarasota County Government notice regarding a facet of the proposed settlement.
That notice said that, as part of their regular meeting on March 24, the county commissioners would “consider a resolution authorizing the exchange of [the county parcel located at 162 Beach Road on Siesta Key] for four lots owned by Siesta Beach Lots LLC, whose principal is Michael Holderness.
On Nov. 5, 2025, the board members voted 4-1 — with Commissioner Mark Smith in the minority — to approve a Coastal Setback Variance so Holderness could construct a two-story house over parking on the 162 Beach Road lot. County staff had indicated that that was the final, formal step the board needed to take to settle Holderness’ federal complaint alleging that county staff had violated his private property rights by essentially encouraging the public to gather on property he owned near Beach Access 3 on the Siesta Key shoreline.
As The Sarasota News Leader has reported, the parcel located at 162 Beach Road was purchased by the county for $1.4 million in 2017, with the funds coming out of money set aside for the county’s Neighborhood Parkland Acquisition Program. (See the related articles in this issue.)
Siesta resident Lourdes Ramirez, president of an organization called Protect Siesta Key, along with the nonprofit itself and John Phair, vice president of the Terrace East Condominium Association, filed suit against the county to try to stop the transfer of the 162 Beach Road land to Holderness because it had been bought for public use. However, 12th Judicial Circuit Judge Hunter W. Carroll ended up dismissing the complaint, citing what he saw as the plaintiffs’ failure to demonstrate standing to pursue legal recourse under the given circumstances.
A second chance
After seeing the notice in the Herald-Tribune about the March 24 County Commission agenda item, Ramirez issued a March 12 newsletter to members of Protect Siesta Key, encouraging them to write to the commissioners to urge them not to agree to the land transfer.
She explained, “The County has already taken steps toward this land swap, but the deal is not finalized.
“The County Commission must still vote on a separate motion to approve the land exchange at the March 24 public hearing at their Venice location,” Ramirez continued.
“That means your voice still matters,” she wrote.
Ramirez then provided a sample email that members could use as the basis for addressing the issue with the county commissioners.
Yet, when the March 24 agenda was published on March 17, it included nothing about the resolution described in the legal ad in the newspaper.
In a March 23 email to the commissioners, which the News Leader read in the board’s email folder online, County Administrator Jonathan Lewis provided them a copy of an email he had received from Ramirez on March 22.
Ramirez explained in that letter, “I am writing to help clarify the recent volume of public comments you have received regarding the proposed land swap involving the County-owned parcel at 162 Beach Road.
“It is my understanding that this item was not placed on the March 24 agenda, and that you may be unaware that a public notice had been published. However, an advertisement regarding the proposed action did appear in the Sarasota Herald Tribune newspaper, which prompted many residents — including myself — to submit comments in opposition.”
“Given that public notice was issued,” she continued, “many in the community reasonably believed the matter would be considered at this time. The volume of emails you received was a direct response to that notice, and reflects the level of concern within the Sarasota County and Siesta Key communities regarding this proposal.
“I respectfully request that these communications be included in the public record and considered by the Commission when this item returns on a future agenda,” Ramirez added.
“While I understand the item has been postponed, I would also like to briefly reiterate my concerns for the record,” she pointed out:
- “The parcel at 162 Beach Road was purchased using voter-approved funds from the Neighborhood Parkland Program, intended to preserve parklands in perpetuity and for public benefit.
- The property consists of dune habitat, and its removal for development raises concerns about increased flooding, loss of natural shoreline protection, and inconsistency with the County’s Comprehensive Plan. [That plan guides growth in the community.]
- “The intersection of Beach Road and Ocean Boulevard located near this site is already a high-risk area for traffic and pedestrian safety, and additional development would increase those risks.
- “As a nearby resident who regularly uses this area, these impacts would directly affect my safety, access, and use of this part of Siesta Key.”
County Administrator Lewis sent Ramirez an explanation from county staff about the removal of the item from the March 24 agenda. The News Leader had to make a public records request to view that explanation, as Lewis did not make the attachment containing it available for download through the commission’s email folder.
The explanation that the News Leader received was sent by Michele Norton, assistant director of the county’s Planning and Development Services Department, to the commissioners on March 18. On March 24, Norton sent it to Matt Osterhoudt, director of Planning and Development Services, as well.
Norton wrote, “On March 10, 2026, [the Herald-Tribune advertisement] was placed in accordance with statutory requirements for public hearings, as the item was originally anticipated to be heard [during the] March 24th [commission] meeting, and publication deadlines needed to be met. However, plans have since changed, and the item will no longer be considered for this hearing date. As such, the advertisement can be disregarded.”
On March 17, the News Leader had sent its own inquiry to the county’s Communications Department — as required by county protocols over the past decade — about the removal of the item from the March 24 agenda. Two days later, Emily Blaine, a public information officer for the county, responded: “It will be brought to the board at a future meeting.”
She offered no details about why the item disappeared from the March 24 agenda. Moreover, the answer came nearly four hours after the deadline that the News Leader had given the Communications staff for the information, in an effort to report on the matter in the News Leader’s March 20 issue.
The title problem
The memo from the Office of the County Attorney that is scheduled for commission discussion on April 21 explains that Holderness’ limited liability company, Siesta Beach Lots, had proposed an amendment to the settlement of the federal lawsuit.
William McComb, the agent for Siesta Beach Lots’ title insurer, “recently informed Siesta Beach Lots the title insurer could not provide a policy of title insurance to insure the County’s title to Lot 26,” the memo said. That parcel is one of the four that Holderness was to convey to the county in exchange for the 162 Beach Road property, the memo noted. The insurance issue arose, the memo continued, “because Siesta Beach Lots’ claim to title was based on a ‘wild deed.’
A February 2016 article on the About Florida Law website, published by the Sackrin & Tolchinsky law firm of Hallandale Beach, explains, “A ‘wild deed’ is a phoney, fake document filed in the public records and used by the evildoer to cloud title to real estate as he or she claims a legal right in property belonging to someone else (usually as part of the closing procedure in a sales transaction).
“It’s not the job of the County Clerk to judge documents: their job is to insure that documents are properly filed and that land records are kept safe,” the law firm’s explanation continues. “Making legal decisions on what documents are okay and what documents are not valid — that’s the job of a judge and jury. Meet the requirements (properly signed, etc.) and pay the fee, and you can file the document even if the clerk is extremely suspicious that you are up to no good.
“So, wild deeds DO get filed in the real estate records. Florida law does not prevent this,” the law firm adds, with emphasis.
The April 21 memo from the Office of the County Attorney (OCA) to the commission cautions, “A lack of marketable title means the County would be at risk of a lawsuit … from any persons with ownership interests in the property. As a result, a court could find that the County did not have any interest in Lot 26.”
In an April 12, 2024 memo to the County Commission that explained the federal complaint that Siesta Beach Lots had filed against the county, the Office of the County Attorney reported its belief that “Siesta Beach Lots is not the owner of Lots 15, 16, and 17 [of the Mira Mar Beach subdivision] because they were submerged for a tidal epoch. Once land has been submerged for a period of nineteen years, it is lost for good. If the water encroaches upon the land of a more remote owner and then changes its movement in the other direction gradually restoring the land which had been submerged, the re-emerging land becomes the property of the remote owner through the doctrine of accretion.” The basis for that assertion, the memo explained, was a 1977 ruling of Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal in Kruse v. Grokap.
Lots 15, 16 and 17 are the other three parcels that Holderness had agreed to transfer to the county in exchange for the 162 Beach Road property.
The settlement amendment that Siesta Beach Lots had proposed, the April 21 OCA memo noted, requires the limited liability company “to defend title to Lot 26 against any adverse claims to title and indemnify the County in an amount not to exceed $75,000.”
Yet, the memo explained, that “promise to defend title and indemnity does not address the lack of what the County bargained for in the settlement agreement, which is marketable title to Lot 26, in addition to marketable title to Lots 15, 16, and 17 [in the Mira Mar Beach subdivision adjacent to Beach Access 3 on Siesta Key].”
Therefore, the memo proposed four options for the County Commission to consider in advance of the April 21 discussion:
- Accepting the proposed amendment to the settlement.
- Rejecting the proposed amendment.
- Providing a counter proposal to the settlement.
- Directing County Administration and the Office of the County Attorney to renegotiate the settlement.
“If the Board accepts the proposed amendment,” the memo continued, “County staff will advertise the exchange of property for the Board’s consideration. If the Board rejects the proposed amendment,” it added, “the parties would likely return to litigation, with the associated risks …”
The memo further noted, “If the Board provides a counter-proposal or directs a renegotiation of the settlement agreement, there is a possibility the parties may be able to reach a new consensus, or there could be a renewal of the lawsuit.”
The April 21 County Commission meeting will begin at 9 a.m. at the Robert L. Anderson Administration Center in Venice, which stands at 4000 S. Tamiami Trail.