Slanderous accusation of slander by HOA pres? > HOA Forum

Unanswered

Active Topics

Forums

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions

Subject: Slanderous accusation of slander by HOA pres?

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/19/2008 2:30 PM
If you recall, last week I posted a message about a non-HOA community web site I moderate that the HOA board wants to get rid of. I didn’t mention this part because I thought it was an honest mistake and that it would easily get resolved, but now it looks like I was incorrect. The HOA pres’s argument to get rid of the web site was that if someone said something slanderous on the site the board could be sued over it if it was believed that the site was an official HOA web site. Stupid reason if you ask me, but that’s besides the point. The pres continued on to say there have already been slanderous statements made on the site. One of the other board members asked for an example, and the pres said that I had been slanderous on the site! He said I incorrectly stated that a repair would cost $32,000 and he said he had proof. His accusation of slander is 100% incorrect. The story: Someone on the site said they “heard” that repairs to a playground would cost the HOA $32,000. I replied to that message basically saying “that’s very troubling”. Pres stated that I falsely said the repairs would cost $32,000! First off, I didn’t say it! Secondly, someone else (very clearly) said they “heard” it would cost $32,000, which is not slander unless you want to argue and intend to prove that they did not hear that. I denied ever making that statement, but being a board meeting I was just observing the meeting and was not given an opportunity to defend myself. I tried but the pres and PM spoke over me. The meeting ended late and the pres was talking with someone else, so I did not stay to talk about it. I figured I could clear it up over email after going home and verifying I was not stupid enough to do what he accused me of. I sent an email stating I pulled the messages up that he questioned and I believe he made a mistake in his allegation. I requested that he apologize and copy everyone that was in attendance so no one mistakenly believed I was slandering the board. That was a week ago and I have not heard anything back yet. Ironic that in an attempt to protect themselves from slander they actually committed slander! Any suggestions on what to do next? I know it’s not a huge deal, but I really don’t like that everyone at that meeting went home thinking I slandered our HOA and I’d really like an apology and clarification. I’m considering posting the story on our non HOA community site but I really don’t want to make things ugly.

BrianB
(California)

Posts:1748

08/19/2008 2:34 PM
it all depends on how much fighting you want to do. If it really bothers you, then pursue it. IMO, i would let it go, be the bigger person. my daddy used to say "don't wrestle with a pig: you get muddy, and the pig enjoys it".

GeorgerwilliamsW
(Indiana)

Posts:767

08/19/2008 2:38 PM
It makes me sick to see this kind of a situation. You might consider sending a letter on your own to every member of the association explaining the situation and your position. Based on what you have posted, the board is going off the deep end here. Something--I don't know what--has got to be done to bring them back to reason. Cool heads need to prevail.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/19/2008 3:00 PM
While I'm not on the pres's fan club, I doubt he intentionally is slandering me. I've been critical of him before and I'm sure he is not in my fan club either. He probably saw my name, got excited, didn't read very close and put it in his proof folder to mention at the meeting. I doubt he was trying to slander me, he's just not very detail oriented. I'd like to let it go, but it's enough of an allegation that it could come back to me if I don't nip it now (i.e. I run for the board next year and someone says I slandered the board). It's hard to dispute it a year or more later after not doing anything... Plus, I don't want people in my hood thinking I'm dumb enough to slander the board on the internet.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/19/2008 3:54 PM
Unless there was a motion concerning this issue at the meeting, all this stuff, too, is ALL conversation - which does not go into the minutes and IMHO, should not be aired on a web site. In fact, what you heard or thought should not go on a web site, either. As a board member, you should not be partaking in discussing board business, discussions, bids, etc. Let the minutes speak for themselves. Members can attend the meetings. YOU should not be talking out of school! I thought that your web site was a discussion group with some residents, a kind of social blog. Sorry, IMHO, you are off base and ought to put a plub in it. My board would have you recalled in a minute.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/19/2008 5:36 PM
Huh? I'm not on the board. The president of our HOA made a false allegation of slander against me at the board meeting and said he had proof (which he never showed). Everyone there heard it including the entire board and several homeowners. Clearly he is wrong and I can easily prove it. I was not given a chance to defend myself from the false allegation. And now the President won't apologize for it, won't even reply to me email. I should put a "plub" in it (whatever that is)? I'm off base? You don't see a problem here? And, how can I be recalled? I'm not even on the board! Please tell me what I did wrong here? Please!

GeraldT4

Posts:934

08/19/2008 5:44 PM
DarylF - If I recall your post, you received several opinions to remove any mention of your HOA in the web address, name of the site so as not to give the appearance that it is a Board and therefore association sanctioned site. Your post today proves why you must do this.

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/19/2008 5:53 PM
Susan, Daryl is not currently a Board member. His concern is that if he becomes known now for slandering the Board that it would affect his position should he run for the Board later.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/19/2008 5:58 PM
how does this prove anything? One person in the community heard repairs were to cost $32,000. They posted it on my site as "I heard...". I replied saying that it was toubling to hear that it was going on. (long story) The president accuses me of slander, even though I never said it, and the person that said it clearly said they only heard it, thus was not presenting it as fact. I can actually probably sue the board for slander because of what they said at the meeting about me, stating they have proof, when clearly they are wrong. But this is all because of the web site? If the web site had a different name and a disclaimer my pres will read better and make sure he knows what he's talking about, and not make false accusations? I'm confused?

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/19/2008 6:00 PM
I would agree that you may need to take further steps to assure that your site is not HOA sponsored. To that end, I would name it after the neighborhood and ensure it doesn't have HOA or the HOA name in it. You should also note that any attempt to educate your BOD president would be futile. He clearly doesn't understand and is not interested in reality.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/19/2008 6:08 PM
thanks kirk, in the other thread I stated the actions I took with the site. I changed the title and added a disclaimer. The site has never even implied it is HOA related and has been around before the HOA was turned over to the community.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/19/2008 6:58 PM
This is in your original post: "I denied ever making that statement, but being a board meeting I was just observing the meeting and was not given an opportunity to defend myself." I meant you ought to put a "plug" in it. I still mean it.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/19/2008 8:44 PM
Posted By SusanW1 on 08/19/2008 6:58 PM This is in your original post: "I denied ever making that statement, but being a board meeting I was just observing the meeting and was not given an opportunity to defend myself." I meant you ought to put a "plug" in it. I still mean it. HAHAHA, that's funny. President slanders me, but shame on me for not being quiet about it. Good one. You would get along great with our HOA president!

DwightT
(Idaho)

Posts:479

08/19/2008 9:40 PM
Susan - at the top of every page on this site it states that HOATalk is "A positive place..." I would have to say that your responses to Daryl have been less than positive. If anybody has been "off base" here, IMO it's you. Daryl came with what he feels is a legitimate concern. You might disagree with his concerns, but I would think that you could treat him with a little more consideration.

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/20/2008 5:08 AM
Sorry - I have no sympathy for those who gather for the purpose of gossip and spreading inaccuracies about Boards - whether that is on a blog or talking across the fence. Some sample "gossip" that has hurt our Board: The treasurer remodeled her home using HOA funds. The dues are going to be raised. They are all crooks. The HOA is "broke" The HOA has millions of dollars they aren't telling us about. The Board only hires board members' relatives to do work. The Board does not care about the roads. They waste money by buying flowers for the entrances, when our roads are such a mess. So much energy is spent in deflecting these accusations and correcting the falshoods that it takes away from the business of the association. That blog is a petri dish for gossip and trouble.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/20/2008 6:27 AM
I don't care what happens in your neighborhood. The only inaccuracies in my case is the board accusing me of slander. But hey, thanks for assuming I'm the bad guy. I know it may be a little hard for you to believe, but sometimes board members make mistakes too. It's not always us peopn homeowners always in the wrong. As for the blog, it's been a great tool for the neighborhood. It's been used to locate lost pets, organize a fund raiser for a neighbor with cancer (we raised almost $50K for him and his family), hook up babysitters with people that need them, help people find tools they need to borrow, organize parties... It's been a great site. Very productive. I'm sorry your neighborhood can't figure out how to play nice and feels the need to gossip about the board, we don't have that problem where I live. It sounds to me like you have issues need to work out though.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1856

08/20/2008 8:00 AM
Susan was not out of line. She said nothing abusive. I also think she was referring the the forum in general as being a ticking bomb of issues, not necessarily calling you a bad guy. She wasn't asking for your "care" about her HOA, just giving you examples of the types of "gossip" that does more harm than good. If your forum has similar unsubstantiated "leaks," then indeed it might be wise for you to put a plug in them. The line can get crossed quickly and may be difficult to redraw. I think her early warning was fair.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/20/2008 9:19 AM
This thread is about the board slandering me. Not the perfectly legal web site that the HOA can do nothing about. I have already posted threads (two I think) about the perfectly legal web site where other board members here beat me up for it. If you want to beat me up for it some more, please go to those threads and do so. I'm simply asking for suggestions on how to deal with a board member that slandered me, at a board meeting, not on a web site. Putting a plug in it does not resolve my problem unless you mean to put a plug in the board member? And, again, quite ironic that the board dislikes the site because of the possibility of slander (which has never happened on our site) yet they have no problem slandering me in an attempt to get rid of the web site. So please, lets keep on topic. Go to the other threads if you can't help yourself from talking about the web site. Or, start your own thread on the topic of web sites and discuss it all you want.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1856

08/20/2008 9:43 AM
Okay! Then to lighten it up a bit in here, technically, shouldn't the thread be titled: Slanderous accusation of libel by HOA pres? "Defamation is a false statement communicated to someone else that is intended to damage your reputation or good name. Defamation through writing is called libel. Spoken defamation is called slander." So technically you are correct when you say "his accusation of slander is 100% incorrect." However, you would also have to prove that he knew it was incorrect and that he intended to damage your reputation or good name. But even if he had said you had "libeled" him by claiming that the repairs would cost $32,000, and that was a false number, he would still be wrong. Saying a repair costs $32,000 when it doesn't might be a falsehood, but it isn't defamatory. And, as you pointed out, you didn't even say it. I am curious, though, what exactly was your reply? You said this above: "I replied to that message basically saying “that’s very troubling”." Did you actually only say, "That's very troubling." Even if you expanding on that by saying something like, "Spending that kind of money is irresponsible! I find that troubling." You still haven't "defamed" anyone. You have just expressed an OPINION about a certain kind of alleged behavior. As far as your original question, "Any suggestions on what to do next?" I think Susan and others commenting on the problems with the site are sort of relevant. I think that "what to do next," would probably include all those things you did to ensure that the site not be confused with the official HOA site and to put a "plug" in discussions that border on defamation, on either side. However, were it me, I would simply send an email to the president clarifying what exactly Libel, Slander, and Defamation are and requesting that he further refrain from defamatory comments about you, either in meetings or in writing. I would also clarify to him that simply allowing other posters to make comments that are factually incorrect (such as claiming that the repairs cost $32,000 when they didn't) is not defamatory. HOwever, his comments in a public meeting attributing "slanderous" comments to you that you neither made nor were "slanderous" COULD put him in a position of defaming YOU and he needs to stop it. I don't think you can expect an apology, but you CAN put him on notice that further comments like that will be likely to cause him legal problems.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1856

08/20/2008 9:43 AM
Sorry about the italics above. Can't edit.

DarylF
(Washington)

Posts:69

08/20/2008 1:59 PM
Yesh, you people here are detail nazis! Very long story I did not intend to get into and really has no bearing on the false allegation. My troubling reply was more in reference to how the situation was handeled and was not in any way an allegation, just a statement of opinion. Furthermore, the pres was very specific at the meeting that he was only calling the $32K comment slanderous (his words). Thanks for the feedback (and correction).

KirkW1
(Texas)

Posts:1190

08/20/2008 2:51 PM
Daryl, I would handle the situation by starting a thread on your board concerning its continued existence. I would leave out the part of you personally being accused. Simply state that some on the Board would like to shut your site down and their stated reasons why. Having read back through you are entirely in your rights. You may want to pass on some information regarding Frisco Fairways and their lawsuit against three owners. (They settled out of court and neither side can claim victory. But the BOD has been replaced and the three defendants now sit on the BOD.) Not every action goes so well for a BOD.

MicheleD
(Kentucky)

Posts:1856

08/20/2008 5:39 PM
Yes, that's true. And not every case of on-line posting of comments by a resident is protected speech, either. Were I hosting a website for residents of an HOA, I would still err on the side of caution and make sure the members who post are aware of the potential problems that can arise from "knee-jerk" comments about board members: In this case below, the Defendant is the HOA. The Plaintiff brought charges against the HOA challenging a special assessment and their right/legality in enacting certain covenants. The HOA filed the below counterclaim: "2. Defendant's counterclaims The Defendant has asserted two counterclaims; the first alleging libel; and the second, seeking injunctive relief. Those claims will be addressed separately below. A. Libel In the amended counterclaim filed on May 21, 2007, the Defendant has alleged in excess of fifty separate instances of libel. While some of the allegations directly refer to the Board of Directors of the Defendant B Lazy M Ranch Owners Association, others refer to individuals acting in their capacity as officers and directors. Since a corporation can only act through its officers and directors, the Court concludes that libel directed toward an officer or director acting in their official capacity is actionable by the corporation itself. The Court wants it to be clear that some statements directed at either past or present board members not related to their duties as board members were not considered by the Court. The Court first concludes that the Defendant's claim is governed by C.J.I. 4th, 22:4. The Court further finds that the Defendant, although a non-profit corporation, has the legal status as a private person. See Diversified Management v. Denver Post, 653 P.2d 1103 (Colo. 1982). The Court also concludes that the matters raised in the libelous statements are not of public concern. See Quigley v. Rosenthal, 43 F.Supp. 2d 1163 (D.Colo. 1999). To constitute a matter of public concern, the matters raised must have been of public concern prior to the publication of the defamatory statement. No evidence was presented that the conduct of the Defendant was a matter of public concern prior to the Plaintiff's publication of those matters. The Court next concludes that many, if not most, of the instances identified by the Defendant are libelous per se. That is, the statements are defamatory on their face and clearly reference the Defendant or its officers and directors acting in their official capacity. These statements tend to harm the Defendant's reputation in the community. See C.J.I. 4th, 22:7. In addition, many of the instances allege criminal misconduct, refer to the board members as incompetent in the performance of their duties, and some even include references to psychiatric illnesses. While the Court does not intend to go through each of those instances, some examples are illustrative. The Court believes that all of these publications relied on by the Defendant occurred within 12 months preceding the filing of the original complaint in this case and are therefore within the limitation period pursuant to the earlier Order of this Court. The references will be to the Defendant's exhibit designations. ex. v: HOA consists of "wannabe dictators" ex. w: HOA "almost totally corrupt" ex. y: "dictatorial ravages of their rogue boards of directors", AND allegations of criminal misconduct ex.cc: "power and money seekers like this California developer" ex. dd: "Colorado's poster child for corrupt homeowners associations" ex. ee: "Ranch psychopaths" ex. ff: psychopaths ex. jj: obsessive-compulsive disorder ex. mm, p 9; "Ranch BoD is getting a little nervous about somebody catching them with their fingers in the cash register?" p. 32: referring to supporters of the BoD as "sycophants" which is defined by Webster's as being a servile flatterer or a parasite. p. 37: BoD involved in a "conspiracy to defraud, discrimination, the violation of fiduciary duties" p. 46: assertions that the BoD attorney as well as a BoD member who happens to be an attorney should be reported to the Colorado Bar for unethical conduct, AND allegations of federal and state law violations which should be reported to appropriate authorities p. 66: violation of state and federal laws p. 71: "and the venal HOA beat goes on" p. 84: "the President of our HOA--appears to be the most inept, incompetent "mouthpiece" that any cabal in existence has probably ever experienced. p. 91: "all the improper/illegal BLM ROA skeletons-in-the-Ranch-closet" p. 106: accusations of "rigging the votes" ex. nn: May 31, 2005 email asserting "apparent violations of state of Colorado and federal laws (civil and criminal)" by the BoD. Numerous e-mails asserting civil and criminal violations by BoD, including RICO violations, violations of "constitutional rights", "serious legal violations", etc. Aug. 10, 2006 email asserting at least one board member may be afflicted with a very serious and destructive-to-others mental/emotional disorder There is no dispute that the Plaintiff's statements were published (see C.J.I. 4th 22:6). The Court concludes the statements made by the Plaintiff are false. Testimony presented by the Defendant contradicted these allegations, and no factual evidence was presented by the Plaintiff to support her contention that the Defendant violated state or federal law, that the Defendant committed a civil wrong, or that any officers or directors suffered from a mental illness. Perhaps most interestingly, even though this case was commenced by the Plaintiff, the only assertion of wrong-doing which she raised related to the process of amending the covenants. Despite her many references to wanting to present these matters in court, no claim was made by her for any civil or criminal wrong of any kind. The Plaintiff does not deny making any of the more than fifty publications identified by the Defendant. Instead, she argues that she is just stating her opinion. While statements of pure opinion may be protected, in this case the Plaintiff asserts factual support for many of her opinions. See Sall v. Barber, 782 P.2d 1216 (Colo. App. 1989) and Burns v. McGraw-Hill, 659 P.2d 1351 Colo. 1983). Therefore, those statements of opinion which imply or state factual support are actionable. The more difficult question is one of damages. Because of the difficulty in calculating damages in libel claims, in instances of libel per se, damages are presumed. No special damages need be proven. As stated by one well-known author: Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed. William Shakespeare, "Othello", Act 3 scene 3 In this case, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendant has proven its counterclaim of libel, and that the conduct of the Plaintiff was both intentional and for the express purpose of causing harm to the Defendant ROA as well as to the individual board members. Accordingly, the Court awards damages to the Defendant and against the Plaintiff in the amount of $10,000. B. Injunctive Relief The Defendant also seeks injunctive relief to prohibit the Plaintiff from publishing libelous materials and from contacting the ROA as well as the individual members of the association. The Court recognizes that the issuance of an injunction, particularly when it restricts the free speech rights of a party, is a drastic remedy, and the scope of the injunction must be narrowly limited to serve its legitimate purposes. However, the Court is satisfied from the evidence that the Plaintiff has engaged in intentional acts of harassment over a period of many years; that the acts of the Plaintiff are not entitled to constitutional protection; that the ROA has no adequate remedy at law; and that unless the Court issues an injunction the conduct of the Plaintiff is likely to continue. The Plaintiff is therefore enjoined from the following: 1. Publication in any manner or forum, including, but not limited to, the news media, letters to editors, community newsletters, and internet and blog postings of the name of the B Lazy M Ranch Owners Association, the names of its property owners, or the names of its past and present board members; 2. Publication in any manner or forum, including, but not limited to, the news media, letters to editors, community newsletters, and internet and blog postings alleging criminal conduct, civil wrongs, and mental and/or psychiatric conditions, which refer directly or indirectly to the B Lazy M Ranch, the B Lazy M Ranch Owners Association, its property owners, or its past and present board members; 3. Communication by any means, including but not limited to, e-mail, letter, telephone, or in person with any member of the B Lazy M Ranch Owners Association, its property owners, and its past and present board members which in any way alleges criminal conduct, civil wrongs, or mental or psychiatric conditions by any past or present board member of the B Lazy M Ranch Owners Association. 4. Because prohibition of future misconduct will not remedy the continuing harm which may result on the on-going publication on the internet or blogs of some of the defamatory statements identified by the Defendant, the following mandatory injunction shall also issue: Within 15 days of this Order, the Plaintiff shall contact the American Homeowners Resource Center, the Gazette YourHub, and any other internet website or blog on which she has posted contributions and shall request that all postings made by her which identify or name the B Lazy M Ranch Owners Association, the names of its property owners, or the names of its past and present board members, be removed from said website or blog. Within 30 days of this Order, the Plaintiff shall file with the Court and provide copies to opposing counsel proof of compliance with this Order. In order to preserve the Plaintiff's right to seek redress of any future grievances, if she believes that any present board member of the B Lazy M Ranch Owner's Association has violated any law or has acted in contravention of their duties as officers or directors, the Plaintiff shall first notify, in writing, the president of the B Lazy M Ranch Owner's Association of the alleged violation, describing in detail the facts which she believes constitutes the violation and the specific statute, duty, or common law which she alleges has been violated. The B Lazy M Ranch Owner's Association shall then have 30 days to respond in writing. If the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the response, she may then petition the Court for permission to further publish information concerning the alleged violation. No publication which is otherwise prohibited above shall occur without prior court approval. C. Attorney Fees The Defendant also seeks recovery of its attorney fees. The Court has previously Ordered in Section 1 above that the Defendant is entitled to recover its attorney fees in defending the Plaintiff's complaint. The Court is also satisfied that the Defendant is entitled to recover its attorney fees in seeking an injunction both under the terms of the covenants (to assure quiet enjoyment) as well as the provisions of CCIOA which permit the award of attorney fees in covenant enforcement actions. However, the Defendant has not presented any authority for awarding attorney fees in libel claims. The primary purpose of the libel claim was to obtain an award of damages, not to enforce the covenants. See Colorado Homes, Ltd. v. Loerch-Wilson, 43 P.3d 718 (Colo. App. 2001). Accordingly, the Defendant is not entitled to recover its attorney fees incurred in pursuit of the libel action. Within 20 days, the Defendant is Ordered to submit an affidavit in support of its claimed attorney fees, and if possible, separate from the total amount those fees incurred in the libel claim. If the Defendant is not able to separate those fees, the Court will make an determination. If the Plaintiff requests a hearing on the reasonableness of the Defendant's fees, within ten days a request for hearing shall be filed. So Ordered October 24, 2007. BY THE COURT THOMAS L. KENNEDY DISTRICT COURT JUDGE - COLORADO" http://www.hoatruebeliever.com/jackson_verdict.htm

SusanW1
(Michigan)

Posts:2316

08/20/2008 6:54 PM
Michele! Thanks so much for finding that and re-printing it in its entirety. VERY informative! Very supportive! The most important statement (IMHO) was: "Therefore, those statements of opinion which imply or state factual support are actionable."

SM3
(Alabama)

Posts:6

09/24/2008 10:20 AM
Posting a website and naming it or appearing to name it after the community is just asking for trouble. Sounds to me like a gripe site. These types of things only cause further disharmony and bickering.

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

09/24/2008 10:58 AM
If DarylF feels that he was accused of slander and the Prez's 'proof' is as stated and the BOD left with the impression he slandered the board, and if he wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself during the meeting he should write a letter to the BOD members. Just so it forms part of the record even if they don't believe him and it demonstrates such allegations won't go unchallenged. ie. "Dear BOD: Certain comments were made at the BOD meeting on xxxx, 2008, which left me with the impression I was being accused of slandering the BOD members. If that is the impression you left the meeting with then let me assure you at no time has that been my intent. The comments to which I have been attributed as making, which were provided as examples of slander, were in fact not mine. I appreciate the hard work the BOD members do to make our HOA a better place to live and look forward to the opportunity to make a positive contribution to our HOA. blah blah blah"

DJ1
(Ontario)

Posts:460

09/24/2008 10:59 AM
If DarylF feels that he was accused of slander and the Prez's 'proof' is as stated and the BOD left with the impression he slandered the board, and if he wasn't given an opportunity to defend himself during the meeting he should write a letter to the BOD members. Just so it forms part of the record even if they don't believe him and it demonstrates such allegations won't go unchallenged. ie. "Dear BOD: Certain comments were made at the BOD meeting on xxxx, 2008, which left me with the impression I was being accused of slandering the BOD members. If that is the impression you left the meeting with then let me assure you at no time has that been my intent. The comments to which I have been attributed as making, which were provided as examples of slander, were in fact not mine. I appreciate the hard work the BOD members do to make our HOA a better place to live and look forward to the opportunity to make a positive contribution to our HOA. blah blah blah"

CharlesB10
(Texas)

Posts:4

09/30/2008 2:47 PM
Big difference between actionable and recoverable folks. I've had one of these cases: http://branhamlegal.com/news.php , except I was on the side of the defendants. At the end of the day, slander and libel are all but impossible to prove. Besides, if you want to be the leader of the pack, you need to be able to expect and take criticism (warranted or not). I'm not saying these cases can't be one, but it's awful tough. Plus I find that when it comes to litigating the matter, both sides have said things they are not going to be proud to have read to a jury.

RobertR1
(South Carolina)

Posts:2507

10/01/2008 12:27 AM
To most, Having a similar experience with a Private web site, and as long as a disclaimer is posted stating the site is nothing but a private site and not affiliated with any other site, I see no problem of a private web site. Our experience was nuch to do about nothing and now that site is the official web site because we never had a web site, A couple board members objected and gnashed their teeth but reason prevailed, and the condominium has something to be proud of. There probably are a few still uphappy, but in the long haul that fades away and you try and move forward. Therefore, if this site was private and as long as you are not stealing a domain name, I doubt there is much can be done. However, you do have to take the high road and stay out of trouble. I am not sure the presidents remarks are a big deal, in the long run. The meausre should be, has the site helped the association to be better? That's a tough question and can only be answered by the folks running the site. In a personal sense, I am all for everyone having their say and everything has equal value to accept or reject on private web site. We are moving now in a direction that will provide more interaction verbally by all members. I also like that idea. This is not policy construction, this is street corner banter, and if some good springs up.........well, good!

TamaraW
(Ohio)

Posts:180

10/01/2008 7:30 AM
DARYL - Print off the conversation on the website you are talking about, highlight the specific words and sentences you believe the BOD Pres. is taking out of context and pass it around to your homeowners. People should be able to see it for themselves in order to come to their own conclusion. If it states what you say, then people more than likely will see the fault that the BOD carries in this. People don't always clearly read things. Example: Susan read your first post and thought you were on the Board. When clearly you pointed out a few times (un-directly) that you were not.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Slanderous accusation of slander by HOA pres?