Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies Legal We are involved in litigation from time to time, primarily arising in the normal course of our business. These cases are in various procedural stages. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of these legal and regulatory matters, we generally cannot predict the ultimate resolution of the pending matters, the related timing, or the eventual loss. While the outcome of such contingencies cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the resolution of such matters will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows. On April 26, 2017, we received notice of a Class Action Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the 10th Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Florida, generally alleging that the collection of club membership fees in connection with the use and enjoyment of the club facilities located within the Solivita community is illegal in that it violates, among other laws, Florida’s Homeowners’ Association Act (“FLHOA”) and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). It also generally alleges that certain other actions by us have violated FLHOA and FDUTPA. The complaint seeks relief in various forms including recovery for the prior payment of club membership fees and an injunction to prohibit the future collection of club membership fees. On June 9, 2017, we filed an amended motion to dismiss this matter, which was heard on June 13, 2017. On August 8, 2017, the judge issued an order denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were provided leave to amend the FDUTPA claims and filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2017. We filed our amended answer on September 29, 2017 along with certain affirmative defenses. The amended answer also contains counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations, among other claims. On October 5, 2017, we also filed a motion for summary judgment, which was heard on December 8, 2017. On January 23, 2018, the court ruled, granting our motion for summary judgment in part and denying it in part. Importantly, the court ruled that our club operations in Solivita constitute commercial property under the FLHOA, that the club facilities are not common areas of the homeowners’ association and that nothing in the FLHOA prevents a developer from owning club operations for profit, as is the case in this instance. As a result of the foregoing ruling, it is our continuing contention that every count of the plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit must ultimately fail as each is without merit and rely, directly or indirectly, on an interpretation of the FLHOA rejected by the court. On April 6, 2018, the court heard arguments relative to the plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification pursuant to which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “persons who currently own, or previously owned, a home in Solivita, who have paid, or have been obligated to pay, a Club Membership Fee under the Club Plan Declaration on or after April 26, 2013.” The court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Surety Bonds Surety bonds, issued by third-party entities, are used primarily to guarantee our performance to construct improvements in our various communities. As of March 31, 2018, we had outstanding surety bonds of approximately $43.0 million. The amount of outstanding surety bonds could fluctuate depending on the level of development activity. We do not believe that it is likely any of these outstanding surety bonds will be drawn upon.

Note 6 - Commitments and Contingencies

Legal

We are involved in litigation from time to time, primarily arising in the normal course of our business. These cases are in various procedural stages. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of these legal and regulatory matters, we generally cannot predict the ultimate resolution of the pending matters, the related timing, or the eventual loss. While the outcome of such contingencies cannot be predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the resolution of such matters will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial position, or cash flows.

On April 26, 2017, we received notice of a Class Action Complaint filed in the Circuit Court for the 10th Judicial Circuit, Polk County, Florida, generally alleging that the collection of club membership fees in connection with the use and enjoyment of the club facilities located within the Solivita community is illegal in that it violates, among other laws, Florida’s Homeowners’ Association Act (“FLHOA”) and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). It also generally alleges that certain other actions by us have violated FLHOA and FDUTPA. The complaint seeks relief in various forms including recovery for the prior payment of club membership fees and an injunction to prohibit the future collection of club membership fees. On June 9, 2017, we filed an amended motion to dismiss this matter, which was heard on June 13, 2017. On August 8, 2017, the judge issued an order denying in part and granting in part the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs were provided leave to amend the FDUTPA claims and filed an amended complaint on September 15, 2017. We filed our amended answer on September 29, 2017 along with certain affirmative defenses. The amended answer also contains counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations, among other claims. On October 5, 2017, we also filed a motion for summary judgment, which was heard on December 8, 2017. On January 23, 2018, the court ruled, granting our motion for summary judgment in part and denying it in part. Importantly, the court ruled that our club operations in Solivita constitute commercial property under the FLHOA, that the club facilities are not common areas of the homeowners’ association and that nothing in the FLHOA prevents a developer from owning club operations for profit, as is the case in this instance. As a result of the foregoing ruling, it is our continuing contention that every count of the plaintiffs’ class action lawsuit must ultimately fail as each is without merit and rely, directly or indirectly, on an interpretation of the FLHOA rejected by the court. On April 6, 2018, the court heard arguments relative to the plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification pursuant to which the plaintiffs seek to certify a class of “persons who currently own, or previously owned, a home in Solivita, who have paid, or have been obligated to pay, a Club Membership Fee under the Club Plan Declaration on or after April 26, 2013.” The court has yet to rule on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Surety Bonds

Surety bonds, issued by third-party entities, are used primarily to guarantee our performance to construct improvements in our various communities. As of March 31, 2018, we had outstanding surety bonds of approximately $43.0 million. The amount of outstanding surety bonds could fluctuate depending on the level of development activity. We do not believe that it is likely any of these outstanding surety bonds will be drawn upon.