Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Monday, October 18, 2021











HOATalk is a free service of Community123.com:

Easy to use website tools to help your board
Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.
Subject: Suing my HOA
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 2 of 4 << < 1234 > >>
Author Messages
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11507


06/23/2013 5:30 PM  
Sharon

Not personal at all, but:

I believe you lean toward associations need more government control and many need to be sued to correct things.

I believe the majority of us lean toward less government control of associations and legal action is far, far down our list of remedies.

In the case of Out, the criticism from some was you jumped to advising legal action without all the facts.

Again, nothing personal and please do not take this as such.




SharonH9


Posts:0


06/23/2013 6:13 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 06/23/2013 5:30 PM
Sharon

Not personal at all, but:

I believe you lean toward associations need more government control and many need to be sued to correct things.

I believe the majority of us lean toward less government control of associations and legal action is far, far down our list of remedies.

In the case of Out, the criticism from some was you jumped to advising legal action without all the facts.

Again, nothing personal and please do not take this as such.







I wasn't advocating for bringing the lawsuit. Out just asked if arguing the case as a contract case was on track. I just explained what my personal experience was. I will never tell someone it's a good idea to sue or not to sue. That's a decision that should be made by the individual. Out was just gathering some information.

I agree that legal action should be far, far down the list of remedies. My husband and I tried and tried to settle with our HOA. We didn't sue them, they sued us. I would like to see more governmental control here in Iowa because we have no specific HOA laws.

Yes, I probably sound anti-HOA and but I'm not. I just have a bad taste for mine right now but it's improving.
JonD1


Posts:0


06/23/2013 8:34 PM  
Posted By SharonH9 on 06/23/2013 4:52 PM
Okay Jon. I should have said duplication of services. Where I live the HoA used to pay for the water and road maintenance. Now the water is provided by a regional water company. The road maintenance is now provided by the County. Why would we continue to pay for those services when they are not now necessary. But you and I know that a lot of people just go with the status quo. They just pay the fees and don't give it a second thought. We had a case here in Iowa where the City of Des Moines was charging its resident a franchise fee for bringing utilities to the residents that were provided by private companies. One person brought a civil action and argued that the City was charging an illegal fee. The case went to the Iowa Supreme Court and the person won. Now the City of Des Moines has to reimburse the residents of Des Moines millions of dollars for charging this fee. Don't criticize the person who is willing to stick their neck out to set things right. It takes a lot of courage to do that. I could have just paid the fees in my case too but it was outrageously unfair.

Give Out a break. Not everyone lives in an urban area where security is an issue or the public services are subpar. Our County does a great job maintaining our roads and plowing our roads in the winter time. Maybe Out's do too. Don't assume that the services are necessary just because no one else steps up to the plate and questions it.





Sharon you have come to see Out as someone whose actions are to be admired. I do not. His courage as you see it came from a $10 filing fee. Rather than working within the HOA Out has gone outside to the courts to get HIS money. With no regard for the consequences to his neighbors and community as a whole.

I don't agree with your acceptance of Out's version of what had taken place. He has been less than forthcoming. He has been less than honest with his details. And when pressed he got personal in his attacks.

Rather than explaining HIS situation he made accusations and assertions in order to take away from his own failings. I find that both disrespectful and unacceptable.

When you omit facts, provide less than truthful information, become defensive when asked for explanations, become nasty when others don't agree, and are willing to do harm and damage to their own community I simply don't respect or admire that sort of behavior.

In fact I find it annoying.

If anyone deserves my sympathy it would be Out's community for having to deal with him...




SharonH9


Posts:0


06/24/2013 5:28 AM  
Not to politisize the situation but isn't that how change is made in our society? Someone is willing to step outside the status quo for change. And yes, I do admire that. Maybe in reality it is the board that is ultimately harming the community. The Board is made up of personalities. Some are more assertive than others. Some are quiet and just sit back and let the more assertive, aggressive ones take charge. I've seen it time and time again.

Well got to get busy. I have to get out my wash board to wash my clothes and hang them on the balcony to dry. It's an all day task. LOL.
JM10
(California)

Posts:503


06/24/2013 6:16 AM  
Posted By SharonH9 on 06/24/2013 5:28 AM
Not to politisize the situation but isn't that how change is made in our society? Someone is willing to step outside the status quo for change. And yes, I do admire that. Maybe in reality it is the board that is ultimately harming the community. The Board is made up of personalities. Some are more assertive than others. Some are quiet and just sit back and let the more assertive, aggressive ones take charge. I've seen it time and time again.

Well got to get busy. I have to get out my wash board to wash my clothes and hang them on the balcony to dry. It's an all day task. LOL.




I'm with Sharon on this. I wasn't clear on what the actual issue is, but I don't like to take the stand that suing the HOA is suing yourself and therefore foolhardy. My husband and I sued our HOA and won. It was a matter of civil code and thus a civil rights issue. We tried to work with the board, but that's hard when they wouldn't even allow us to know when the meetings were. While others acknowledged that what was happening wasn't right, they kept their heads down. I recently found this was true when a local contest was being held. Several people I contacted knew the rules weren't being enforced and yet said nothing (although at least one and possibly two supported my pointed question asking). In this case, it had nothing to do with opinion (since the most obvious problem was the number of words and everyone could agree on that. Yet only one person spoke up?!
JonD1


Posts:0


06/24/2013 10:20 AM  
Posted By SharonH9 on 06/24/2013 5:28 AM
Not to politisize the situation but isn't that how change is made in our society? Someone is willing to step outside the status quo for change. And yes, I do admire that. Maybe in reality it is the board that is ultimately harming the community. The Board is made up of personalities. Some are more assertive than others. Some are quiet and just sit back and let the more assertive, aggressive ones take charge. I've seen it time and time again.

Well got to get busy. I have to get out my wash board to wash my clothes and hang them on the balcony to dry. It's an all day task. LOL.





Sharon:

I might understand your feelings about HOAs since you were sued. Not knowing all the details about your mater they may have been handled poorly. When I asked if you or the HOA won I think you stated it was a lose-lose. Not good for either party.

See my problem with Out is this. He is not about bettering his property or HOA. He is not about working for change wintin the system in place. He is not about doing what's best or beneficial for his neighbors. Out is about getting Out's. Out is about winning while the rest of the owners lose.

As yes if you have zipper heads running your property, time for them to go. If you have liars, cheats, selfserving a-holes YES send them on their way. I bought here, I joined the Board just to see how things worked, I found out combined the members of the Board had the IQ of a turnip, I found out there was wasteful, selfserving, illegal use of the property's funds. I found out it was time for them to go.

I was outnumbered 8-1 and throw in the MC who was in their pocket. And the lawyer. So it was an uphill battle. I worked full time then. I had a life and could no take this on 24X7. But I had a plan. Slowly I made moves to add folks to the Board who would work with ME.

Took me 14 YEARS!

YES Sharon 14 YEARS!

To clear out the Board garbage, wake up enough owners to support me,
change what had been going on for 20+ years.

Voted them out, fired the MC, fired the lawyer and then defended and won the MCs lawsuit for breach of contract.

So I have been down that road.

Didn't hurt the owners, didn't run up huge expenses, just made a few enemies who I didn't care about anyway.

Didn't go to court trying to line MY pockets.

That is what makes me different from OUT.



JM10
(California)

Posts:503


06/24/2013 2:20 PM  
You are so patient and I also admire your willingness to work within the system. In our case, we didn't line our pockets. We paid the attorneys and took a financial loss on the sale of our unit. The insurance company obviously knew they had to settle because excluding us from meetings and elections and then harassing us with hearings or threats of hearings and attempting to defraud us was too egregious to ignore.
JonD1


Posts:0


06/24/2013 2:45 PM  
Posted By JM10 on 06/24/2013 2:20 PM
You are so patient and I also admire your willingness to work within the system. In our case, we didn't line our pockets. We paid the attorneys and took a financial loss on the sale of our unit. The insurance company obviously knew they had to settle because excluding us from meetings and elections and then harassing us with hearings or threats of hearings and attempting to defraud us was too egregious to ignore.





JM10:

The story I gave was the PG version. Reality was X-rated.

I did not mention being threatened by the former Board President. His words " I will take you outside and beat your ______. Good luck with that!

The physical assault by another Board member.

One night after being called a liar I informed a fellow Board member his next words would result in me throwing him out through the window of our meeting room. For some unknown reason after that meeting he resigned. If I had known that I would have threatened him earlier!

A woman I was dating was assualted too.

My vehicles were vandalized.

Calls at all hours of the night were made to my home.

One night I was followed into a parking lot after our annual meeting by a young man 1/2 my age with instructions to do me harm. Didn't quite go the way it was planned.

I've been sued as an individual in SSC and Supreme Court.

Former Board member was sentenced to a brief jail term for assaulting our MC.

Over the past 26 years to quote Spurs coach Popovich "This is the big boys game. When you rock the boat and attempt to clear out the garbage as Ross Perot wouold say " we might have to get our hands dirty on this one." My hands have been dirty.

That's the road I have been down. Many folks would have gotten off long ago. Just not my way of doing things....................





JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11507


06/24/2013 3:51 PM  
And JM makes a real big issue of her home made signs being ripped down....LOL
JM10
(California)

Posts:503


06/24/2013 11:08 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 06/24/2013 3:51 PM
And JM makes a real big issue of her home made signs being ripped down....LOL




Are you referring to the 8.5 X 11 notes requesting to know when the board meeting was that were ripped down from the community board every two hours? Then the subsequent threats to fine us for daring to ask when the meeting was? Those signs were what helped win the small claims court case against the board of directors.

Or are you talking about the signs that a director climbed up on a ladder to take off of our balcony and the real estate agent's sign that the same director climbed up on a ladder to take off of our balcony and then the next sign that the same director climbed up on a ladder to take off of our balcony? All three of those signs were returned to us after we called the police, however, it was clear that no one in the complex felt that climbing up on our balcony and stealing things and invading our privacy was in issue worth pursuing. It was apparently justifiable harassment. Do you find that laughable?

As a woman, it would not make sense to continue living in a place where the directors and members felt that my privacy and personal property weren't to be respected. So I'm not sure why you would think that is laughable. I suppose you'd be fine with any of your female family members being alone and accosted by a hostile male who easily outweighs them by fifty pounds when it is abundantly clear that no one would stand up for them or come to their aid? A man that gets hysterically mad at a mere sign asking a civil question is not reasonable and can't or shouldn't be trusted. Would you feel so much better if I had waited until I was assaulted?
JM10
(California)

Posts:503


06/24/2013 11:20 PM  
Posted By JonD1 on 06/24/2013 2:45 PM
Posted By JM10 on 06/24/2013 2:20 PM
You are so patient and I also admire your willingness to work within the system. In our case, we didn't line our pockets. We paid the attorneys and took a financial loss on the sale of our unit. The insurance company obviously knew they had to settle because excluding us from meetings and elections and then harassing us with hearings or threats of hearings and attempting to defraud us was too egregious to ignore.





JM10:

The story I gave was the PG version. Reality was X-rated.

I did not mention being threatened by the former Board President. His words " I will take you outside and beat your ______. Good luck with that!

The physical assault by another Board member.

One night after being called a liar I informed a fellow Board member his next words would result in me throwing him out through the window of our meeting room. For some unknown reason after that meeting he resigned. If I had known that I would have threatened him earlier!

A woman I was dating was assualted too.

My vehicles were vandalized.

Calls at all hours of the night were made to my home.

One night I was followed into a parking lot after our annual meeting by a young man 1/2 my age with instructions to do me harm. Didn't quite go the way it was planned.

I've been sued as an individual in SSC and Supreme Court.

Former Board member was sentenced to a brief jail term for assaulting our MC.

Over the past 26 years to quote Spurs coach Popovich "This is the big boys game. When you rock the boat and attempt to clear out the garbage as Ross Perot wouold say " we might have to get our hands dirty on this one." My hands have been dirty.

That's the road I have been down. Many folks would have gotten off long ago. Just not my way of doing things....................









Dear Jon:

I have actually had my vehicles vandalized, calls at all hours of the night and been assaulted but not in relation to a HOA matter. Usually it was related to my being a woman in a big boys game or a woman not behaving as I should. It has been my mother who has been harassed at her home, but that's not a HOA. Our family was the first of our race and ethnicity in the neighborhood and as far as I know the hate crimes began after my father passed away. She has remained and the neighborhood is now more multicultural. Her best friend in another part of town had her home bombed and her family moved to another state.

For these reasons, I sympathize with you and admire your perseverance.

JM
JohnH38
(South Carolina)

Posts:84


06/25/2013 7:16 PM  
Bud,

You only recover money when you wrote on each of your checks "Paid Under Protest" otherwise you de facto accept the higher premium and have no recourse.

I write it on most of my checks, taxes and what not.

Sound advice, John
SharonH9


Posts:0


06/26/2013 4:59 AM  
Posted By JohnH38 on 06/25/2013 7:16 PM
Bud,

You only recover money when you wrote on each of your checks "Paid Under Protest" otherwise you de facto accept the higher premium and have no recourse.

I write it on most of my checks, taxes and what not.

Sound advice, John




JohnH38,

Do you know this to be the absolute law of the land or is this an opinion on your part? Good advice by the way but I have my doubts whether this is true under every situation.
MikeR15
(Massachusetts)

Posts:389


07/04/2013 8:26 AM  
If the documents are from 1939 they are most likely expired. 30 years seems to be average in most states.

The HOA is charging you illegally, and their lawyer could care less about the law....that too is so typical of these places designed to get our money and even our equity in our homes.

You should be able to sue to invalidate the whole scheme, HOA and all
JonD1


Posts:0


07/04/2013 9:10 AM  
Posted By MikeR15 on 07/04/2013 8:26 AM
If the documents are from 1939 they are most likely expired. 30 years seems to be average in most states.

The HOA is charging you illegally, and their lawyer could care less about the law....that too is so typical of these places designed to get our money and even our equity in our homes.

You should be able to sue to invalidate the whole scheme, HOA and all





Yeah.... Do as Mike says...

He has been in court with his own HOA for 10+ years and has been able to accomplish ZIPPO.

I'm going to crush the HOA!
I'm going to take the Bioard members homes!
I'm going to protect the Constitution!
I'm going to have the court strip the HOA of all their powers!
I'm going to be famous! Like Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jefferson and the other American patriots!

But then again Mike did but a $250 on-line law degree. No doubt with that and using himself as a lawyer lead right to his results. LOSS, LOSS,
LOSS, LOSSS............

Yes people like Mike you need to take their advice!!!!! It might work for you!!!
MikeR15
(Massachusetts)

Posts:389


07/04/2013 9:15 AM  
Or.....let folks like Jon run the show and rip you off, violate the law and generally just make stuff up as they go along.

Really does wonders for you property values
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10521


07/04/2013 11:13 AM  
Again a HOA does NOT protect HOME VALUES. Never has and never will. A HOA is responsible for ONLY making the property ATTRACTIVE to potential home buyers. Home values are based on FACT. Those facts are: Location, the price of homes that have sold in similar size/condition within a few miles, and the prices of foreclosure/short sale sales. You have a lot of foreclosures in the area, that factors in on the home sale prices/appraisals.

Get a copy of an appraisal form. It will break down what goes into your home's appraisal value. Plus go to Zillow.com. Zillow is a bit high in their evaluation but it will give you an accurate view of the true home sales in your area so you know the ball park of your home. No where is how "Pretty" your home is factored into your home sale. That is part of the ATTRACTIVENESS of the home.

I've not wanted to buy a house because the wallpaper was ugly. You can't control other people's personal taste when looking for a home. Hence why a home being in a HOA is subjective to be a FACT in the overall home value. However, some people are attracted to the HOA concept and will buy into them. The HOA job is to make sure that happens by having rules of being orderly, owning amenities, or providing certain benefits over individual homes outside of HOA's. It's competition out there. HOA's are just trying to play...

Former HOA President
OutC
(Missouri)

Posts:21


07/19/2013 10:58 PM  
As you all can see, I quit posting on or about June 21 in order to prepare for my June 27 court date. I know you have all been on the edge of your seats while waiting for me to respond with the details of the case. *smiley face*

The judge listened, first to my presentation; then to the attorney for the defendant homes association. Not once, in either the 23 points he listed in his filed "Answer to Plantiff's Petition", nor in the court session did the attorney address my two major claims: 1) that “the annual assessments shall not exceed more than the proportion of one mill per annum per square foot' of each owner's property” and 2) “anything in the document may be amended 'except the rate of assessment.'” Those where his only obligations to contend, yet when questioning the defendant Board president on what did our neighborhood property look like, what activities were held, how many benches were at various locations, I saw a definite turn in my favor when the judge looked the attorney squarely in the eye and told him “Let's just cut to the chase.” That, I believe is something no one, especially an attorney, wants to hear in court. When testimony was over, the judge said he would take it under advisement and render his decision in 10 days. It took 20, but I am most highly gratified to report that, in opposition to the many contemptuous remarks about me made here, the judge today rendered his decision in my favor.

In actuality, the decision was a victory for the much-maligned document which few of the 600-plus community members knew about (I'm sure that many still don't), and if any Board members in recent history knew of its existence, they kept it quiet. That, to me, proves that most people who buy into an HOA have no idea of either their personal responsibilities (other than writing that annual check) or those of the Board, namely, fiduciary duties. Yes, the document was on file in the courthouse. But no one told me about it--even when I asked. I had to discover it for myself and had not our Bylaws mentioned it, I may not even today know about it. Mention has been made that the 1939 document is outdated. But it is just as valid as the “intent” of any marriage license granted from the same time period, especially when it is specifically written into my homeowner's title and deed. That is what makes it my “contract” with the Association. Sadly, almost none of our members care enough to apprise themselves of the NON-AMBIGUOUS language within the document, nor that their rights, in the form of fluctuating assessments, have been trampled upon for years by “lifers” (as I mentioned, directors cycling in and out of the Board, thus keeping “new blood” out).

Only to shut up those who are going to presume I was suing for the windfall of all the law would allow ($5,000), for the 15 years that I lived here the amount that I was overcharged and that I asked for and recouped, was $387. This little 70-year old lady won her case against one who is considered “the best HOA lawyer” in town. Why? Because he had no defense. I spoke to the legal documents. He spoke to picnics and flowers planted around the concrete benches, But rather than tell the Board that their position was indefensible, he is charging them several thousands of dollars. When governing documents do not make provision for continuing services once those services are absorbed by a local entity, then the only thing that matters, is what the document says about assessments—in our case, the [non-amendable] RATE of assessment, which, as I tried to point out, may be different than many of you deal with, living in shared communities, or condos which, as newer, may provide for percentage increases over time.

Having INTIMATELY familiarized myself with my CC&Rs and my state non-profit laws for over 4 years I knew I was on solid ground with this case. So for those of you who were placing bets on my losing, I will happily now collect. Just as my case was about the principle of following the documents--not the money--I will gladly accept apologies rather than the pot that was collected on the odds I would lose.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


07/20/2013 12:02 AM  
OutC,

CONGRATULATIONS !!!


From your postings, it appears you attempted many times to resolve the issue with the Board/s and they wouldn't believe the documentation you were providing. If the two sides of an agreement can't agree then the only other option is to bring in a third party with the authority to make a decision.
This is exactly what you have done.

It's a shame that it couldn't have been resolved without the courts being involved. Bottom line is you were willing to comply with the agreement entered into and the Board wasn't. Hopefully they have learned from this.

Again, Congratulations.

Tim
FrankS10
(Kansas)

Posts:276


07/20/2013 4:13 AM  
Yes Congratulations, and hopefully we all learned from your experience!
OutC
(Missouri)

Posts:21


07/20/2013 4:56 AM  
Thank you. I was not going to respond again, but the two posters above have just restored my faith in this forum, in spite of the few who (admittedly are not attorneys), feel that unless they have every single excruciating detail, that the questioner is being less than honest. It has been a painful process for me because I am the one who, for 4 years, has been castigated and vilified in our HOA online forums by the same 10 people, all for bringing the CC&R document out into the open, and writing articles on the various specifics which were written into its 7 pages. Now that the case is decided in my favor, I realize the Board cannot be forced to apply the dues structure equilaterally, but they may find out that there were some members too timid, just waiting in the wings for me to stand up for their rights.
MikeR15
(Massachusetts)

Posts:389


07/20/2013 5:19 AM  
Unbelievable! You beat the HOA easily because you stood up to them in court.

They KNOW this will happen, no suprise.

The only suprise was that you actually did it.

HOAs violate the governing documents, general laws of the state and fundemental governing principles all the time...

And you have to expend this tremendous amount of effort to do anything about it.

It is sickening

Congratulations for schooling these unethical &%%#!
SharonH9


Posts:0


07/20/2013 5:44 AM  
Out,

You won!! Congratulations!!!

Sharon
JonD1


Posts:0


07/20/2013 8:42 AM  
So OUT who says they are 70 years of age has spent the last 4 YEARS doing battle with her HOA for $387.

The HOA overcharged her $387 over a 15 year period equaling $25 per YEAR!

Which the HOA Board members more than likely paid themselves.

And as many of us pay monthly that breaks down to just over $2 per month.

So now the HOA is left to pay OUT the $387 and the lawyer fees of "up to $5,000".

And it would appear OUT views this as a WIN?

A WIN for who?

And in doing so it appears OUT has endured the wrath of her neighbors and fellow property owners. My guess that just might continue.

So just who comes out ahead on this deal?

The property?
The HOA members?
OUT with that $387 windfall?

So some offer OUT congratulations for WHAT?

Collecting the $387?
Costing the HOA and her neighbors up to $5,000?

My question would be after all the effort, all the time, all the consequences, was it worth it in the end for OUT? And if so I would hope there would be more important accomplishments I would be able to achieve in the course of my life.

No word from OUT regarding her contention the court had the power to dissolve the HOA.
My guess that did not occur. So other than the $387 refund what was accomplished?

4 years of my time would hopefully be worth more than $387......

So for OUT does the feel good moment she now has become worth her efforts and everlasting ill will between her and some of her neighbors? OUT prevailed in court is the victory that rewarding and worth the price that comes with it?

As an HOA Board member, as a property owner in an HOA who paid the price for all of this how would I see this as a good thing???
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10521


07/20/2013 8:49 AM  
You did forget to add JonD that FHA will now see that on the appraisal form the HOA fills out. Increasing the risk of the HOA and thus effecting loan types and rates. A factor many people overlook as not aware that lawsuits, unpaid dues, and other outstanding debts are evaluated by the banks before they loan money. Next time someone tries to refinance, sell, or even buy a home in that HOA, it will be harder or more expensive for them to do so. This NOT reflective of an increase in home values. It is a reflection of the higher costs of operating the HOA and it's risk.

Former HOA President
OutC
(Missouri)

Posts:21


07/20/2013 9:06 AM  
Okay, damned if I do and damned if I don't. I expected that. I thought it just as effective to let you think I was suing for $5,000, but now that you know it was less than $400, I'm still on your sh*t list. In what world do you live where a group of 5-7 people can dictate an illegal dues structure for the other hundreds when it runs AGAINST the legal documents? Oh yeah, get on the Board. Well, I did that. Twice. My friend is still on it. Try fighting the minority of 20 who keep voting their "good ol' boys" back into the club. What I did was perfectly legal, their recalcitrance gave me opportunity, and yeah, I can sleep at night. Now, either get your head out of your a**es, or get off mine.
OutC
(Missouri)

Posts:21


07/20/2013 9:11 AM  
...and Melissa, maybe those Board members should have been aware of those loan considerations before they decided to thumb their noses at the CC&Rs. Kinda blows the argument that an HOA provides value to the homes.
JonD1


Posts:0


07/20/2013 9:50 AM  
Posted By OutC on 07/20/2013 9:06 AM
Okay, damned if I do and damned if I don't. I expected that. I thought it just as effective to let you think I was suing for $5,000, but now that you know it was less than $400, I'm still on your sh*t list. In what world do you live where a group of 5-7 people can dictate an illegal dues structure for the other hundreds when it runs AGAINST the legal documents? Oh yeah, get on the Board. Well, I did that. Twice. My friend is still on it. Try fighting the minority of 20 who keep voting their "good ol' boys" back into the club. What I did was perfectly legal, their recalcitrance gave me opportunity, and yeah, I can sleep at night. Now, either get your head out of your a**es, or get off mine.




OUT seems your victory has not lessened your anger on this matter.

Why does what we might think unsettle you so?

Not the reaction you had assum ed you might get?

Sorry but I still do not agree with the path you followed win. lose or draw.

And to learn you did all of this battling for the small sum of $387 makes me wonder why?

And in fact Melissa has a point with pending litigation and how that might affect the owners or buyers ability to obtain financing. Was that worth you pocketing $387?

And with you refund in hand what else did you achieve?

How will the Board handle this in regards to the other property owners? Will you be fighting for them to receive their refunds too? My guess that is not something you would find worth the effort.

How does your friend whom serves on the Board going to justify YOU were refunded your portion of over payment BUT now what do we do about the rest of the owners?

Perhaps you could use your $387 to repay your neighbor.

So if you plan a victory parade to celebrate your WIN count ME out. On its face seems to me you were out to prove a point with no regard for the cost to or damage to your own community.

If YOU are the BIG winner here that's quite sad....................for both YOU and your neighbors.







FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 11:52 AM  
You just don't get it! You just can't see the big picture here.

Out did not cause her HOA and neighbors to go to court! It was the same idiots who have cycled themselves on and off the board for years.

Do you think the board members are doing their legal (Fiduciary) duties by ignoring the issue and not doing the 'legal" thing here?

As I read this forum and here the statement by you current and past "board members" on how suing your HOA is suing yourself, none of you, not a single one of you get the bigger picture.

That is, that no HOA member would have to sue if you non-trained, non-professionals just opened your eyes and look objectively at what your neighbors are bringing to the table in the way of issues.

Yet,I read countless times by a past board member how you board members "are just volunteers". Sorry, the fact that you are volunteers does not give you carte blanche to make mistakes, or keep doing something wrong because it was done that way when you bought into the property.

Yes, let's look at this from a fiduciary point of view. In Out's HOA (started in 1939):
1. No one on the current board appears to know or have read the document in question
2. No one on her board cared to check if the document in question was still the legal one
3. Somewhere along the line the board (and HOA Attorney) failed to check the old document to the new situation as the city picked up doing things the dues were intended for. in other words they still collected the money and put it to other uses not intended in the original document - that my friend is the point here. That is corruption. (at the very least it is morally corrupt)
4. The board opted to pay thousands of dollars and force this to go to court instead of just settling out of court. That means that there was a lot of money riding on this - none of you are doing the math - 600 homes times the $25 per year is$15,000 a year.

That is something - that's why the HOA fought this, they did not loose $5,000 on lawyer fees they stand to loose $15,000 a year that they have been collecting illegally. This is why so many people are against HOA's. They do things that are illegal.

So, go ahead and villify Out for standing up. Go ahead and mock her for the $387. Go ahead and show your contempt of HOA members in this way, while continuing to commit fraud and steal $15,000 from the membership each year. Yes, that's right - steal.

If the board has legitimate uses for the money, then there are "LEGAL" ways to amend the documents to bring it up to date or to collect monies for these flowers and picnics etc. Just do it legally.... oh I forgot, you board members are volunteers so you ignorance of the law is excused. See you mock the law and feel as though you are above it. That D & O insurance has gone to your heads. It is not a pass on following the law, it is coverage for making an "HONEST" mistake.

The HOA forced this to go to court over $387 for one home owner. Yes, they had to have looked at the risks and benefits and they determined that spending $5000 on a lawyer to protect $15,000 in ill-gotten gains was worth it.

That is the picture that comes from this. Get off your high horse about the HOA member who takes a case to the courts and focus on why and how HOA Boards do these illegal things that some members will fight for.

I know read this board for amusement in seeing how obviously ignorant HOA board members are (by and large). WHen you pick on a person who has been forced into the courts by their board and yet refuse to see the big picture.

If the board really cared about the tick mark against them for FHA loans and such, then WHY did they opt to go to court for $387? That sounds like a big risk, unless there was big money at stake.... Because you fail to see the BIG picture or ask the right questions, I have to just sit back and laugh.
With every post, pontificating how bad it is to sue your HOA, you are basically siding with unjust boards. You are telling the members to suck it up and continue living with the injustice.

My advice to you folks is to take a deep breadth, step back and then look at this and all situations with a little more objectivity. From what I see on this board, whenever a non-board member comes here with a problem about their board, you collectively get defensive. You high opinions of yourselves force you to limit your objectivity and that is am embarrassing thing for you (or at least it should be) and something that amuses the hell out of me.

I now ask you to justify the board's decision to take this to court? Why would or should a legitimate board go to court over this sort of issue?

Oh, least I forget - CONGRATULATIONS Out! Great job and you are the Greatest Generation. The morals and ethics from the Greatest generation are what makes this country Great. Thank You

JohnB26


Posts:0


07/20/2013 12:17 PM  
[DITTO DITTO DITTI

well said
JohnB26


Posts:0


07/20/2013 12:18 PM  
DITTO DITTO DITTO
OutC
(Missouri)

Posts:21


07/20/2013 12:56 PM  
FredO, you really have it. Until I asked a court to rule that I either could pay my "mill per annum" or that I couldn't, there was nothing to stop another "2010 Board" from charging 10 times what was legal...or 20, since they felt they got away with it once. From the grilling some in this forum would like me to respond to, I'm sure you can imagine the pompous remarks that have been used as a defense to my Board's actions. Regarding the Board being volunteers, for that reason, they are not charged dues during their terms in office. The longest running director, with the exception of only a 6-month break, was "excused" from paying dues for 14 years--something that is overlooked by many! What he cost the Board was more than my judgment. As president for eleven of those years (exceeding Bylaw's regs of two 2yr terms) he allowed the HOA to fall into administrative dissolution for 7 of those years--which no one knew about. That was also when it ran in the red for 6 years. Currently set at $50, the 7 Board members are costing the Assn $350/yr. Another cute trick is to run for office, then not attend meetings for 4-6 months, resign, and then not have to pay any dues for the next year and a half. Those who say they perceive anger in what I write would be wrong; perhaps they are projecting. Both times, I ran (and got elected) on a platform of 1) transparency and 2) if you don't like the documents, then change them, but don't keep making decisions as if they don't exist. Those ideals got me elected twice but there weren't enough others interested in effecting change who could have knocked the power-hungries off their pedestals. At my age, it has been quite an eye-opener to have found this much ignorance and attitude-of-latitude in this little HOA--and then to find it also rampant throughout. It sickens me to think of it multiplied on the City-County-State-Federal levels. It certainly gives one pause to consider whether the membership in the HOAs as represented here would concur that their HOA is so wonderfully perfect.
MatthewW4
(Arizona)

Posts:500


07/20/2013 2:41 PM  
Posted By JonD1 on 07/20/2013 8:42 AM

No word from OUT regarding her contention the court had the power to dissolve the HOA.
My guess that did not occur. So other than the $387 refund what was accomplished?



My understanding is that she took this into a small claims court, where jurisdiction is usually very limited (as are the judicial abilities of the judges). A small claims court normally would have no jurisdiction to dissolve an HOA nor would it have the jurisdiction to declare whether the HOA could lawfully exceed a 1939 limit on assessments. We have no idea as to how the judge arrived at his $387 figure but there appears to be nothing to prevent the HOA from continuing to exceed the 1939 assessments in the future.

The HOA also has the option of appealing the judgment where it may not withstand the scrutiny of a real judge.

Not surprising that Out sued for $5,000, the jurisdictional limit of her small claims court. I recall years ago People's Court Judge Joseph Wapner stating that he had testified in the California legislature against raising the limits from $1,500 to $2,500. Wapner said his opposition stemmed from the fact that everyone who files a lawsuit in a small claims court thinks he is entitled to the maximum regardless of his actual damages and a higher limit just encourages more unfounded lawsuits instead of reasonable settlements.



TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


07/20/2013 3:16 PM  
Posted By OutC on 07/20/2013 9:06 AM

Okay, damned if I do and damned if I don't. I expected that. I thought it just as effective to let you think I was suing for $5,000, but now that you know it was less than $400, I'm still on your sh*t list.




Sometimes it's not the money but the principal of the issue.

OutC did try to resolve the issue internally first. It didn't work as the Board didn't listen.
Articles were written to educate the membership and that didn't work.
Therefore, be it for the money or the principal alone, Out had nowhere to go but through the courts.

Will the HOA have to disclose the legal action - Not anymore, as the legal action is over.
They did have to disclose it prior to the issue being resolved but had the Board read the paperwork and/or their attorney properly advised them, then legal action might not have ever been needed.

Sometimes, it's the Boards fault and not the members.

Yes, legal action should only be taken as a last resort.
It sounds like this is what happened.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


07/20/2013 3:21 PM  
Posted By MatthewW4 on 07/20/2013 2:41 PM

The HOA also has the option of appealing the judgment where it may not withstand the scrutiny of a real judge.




Matthew,

It sounds like your a little biased to someone based on the restrictions/limitations imposed upon them by their job.
CarolR11


Posts:0


07/20/2013 3:54 PM  
Fred, the mantra, "Suing the Board (or HOA) is suing yourself and your neighbors" belongs to Melissa. It just seems like lots of posters here say it, but it's basically Melissa over & over & over. Don't paint us all with one brush, Fred. Most of us have our own experiences and advice. There's no "group think" here.
CarolR11


Posts:0


07/20/2013 3:54 PM  
Fred, the mantra, "Suing the Board (or HOA) is suing yourself and your neighbors" belongs to Melissa. It just seems like lots of posters here say it, but it's basically Melissa over & over & over. Don't paint us all with one brush, Fred. Most of us have our own experiences and advice. There's no "group think" here.
FrankS10
(Kansas)

Posts:276


07/20/2013 4:03 PM  
FredO,

Spot on!
MatthewW4
(Arizona)

Posts:500


07/20/2013 4:18 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 07/20/2013 3:21 PM

It sounds like your a little biased to someone based on the restrictions/limitations imposed upon them by their job.




In AZ, what others call small claims court is known as a Justice Court and is presided over by a Justice of the Peace, who is elected.

The qualifications for becoming a justice of the peace are: 1. Win the election.

A justice of the peace need not be a lawyer nor need he/she have any knowledge of anything. Nonetheless, state law vests original jurisdiction with the justice courts for civil lawsuits in amounts of $10,000 or less.

The salary of a justice of the peace varies with how many cases are filed in their precincts. Most JP's in the Phoenix area earn well over $100,000 a year. Which gives plenty of incentive for an otherwise worthless human being to seek the office.

So, yes, I am prejudiced against small claims judges.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10521


07/20/2013 4:37 PM  
Until you can prove it WRONG that suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors... Then the FACT and REALITY of that statement stands... Now commence in finding a way around it... You can't. It's just what your willing to do and if your willing to take on that consequence. That is all.

Former HOA President
JonD1


Posts:0


07/20/2013 4:41 PM  
Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 11:52 AM
You just don't get it! You just can't see the big picture here.

Out did not cause her HOA and neighbors to go to court! It was the same idiots who have cycled themselves on and off the board for years.

Do you think the board members are doing their legal (Fiduciary) duties by ignoring the issue and not doing the 'legal" thing here?

As I read this forum and here the statement by you current and past "board members" on how suing your HOA is suing yourself, none of you, not a single one of you get the bigger picture.

That is, that no HOA member would have to sue if you non-trained, non-professionals just opened your eyes and look objectively at what your neighbors are bringing to the table in the way of issues.

Yet,I read countless times by a past board member how you board members "are just volunteers". Sorry, the fact that you are volunteers does not give you carte blanche to make mistakes, or keep doing something wrong because it was done that way when you bought into the property.

Yes, let's look at this from a fiduciary point of view. In Out's HOA (started in 1939):
1. No one on the current board appears to know or have read the document in question
2. No one on her board cared to check if the document in question was still the legal one
3. Somewhere along the line the board (and HOA Attorney) failed to check the old document to the new situation as the city picked up doing things the dues were intended for. in other words they still collected the money and put it to other uses not intended in the original document - that my friend is the point here. That is corruption. (at the very least it is morally corrupt)
4. The board opted to pay thousands of dollars and force this to go to court instead of just settling out of court. That means that there was a lot of money riding on this - none of you are doing the math - 600 homes times the $25 per year is$15,000 a year.

That is something - that's why the HOA fought this, they did not loose $5,000 on lawyer fees they stand to loose $15,000 a year that they have been collecting illegally. This is why so many people are against HOA's. They do things that are illegal.

So, go ahead and villify Out for standing up. Go ahead and mock her for the $387. Go ahead and show your contempt of HOA members in this way, while continuing to commit fraud and steal $15,000 from the membership each year. Yes, that's right - steal.

If the board has legitimate uses for the money, then there are "LEGAL" ways to amend the documents to bring it up to date or to collect monies for these flowers and picnics etc. Just do it legally.... oh I forgot, you board members are volunteers so you ignorance of the law is excused. See you mock the law and feel as though you are above it. That D & O insurance has gone to your heads. It is not a pass on following the law, it is coverage for making an "HONEST" mistake.

The HOA forced this to go to court over $387 for one home owner. Yes, they had to have looked at the risks and benefits and they determined that spending $5000 on a lawyer to protect $15,000 in ill-gotten gains was worth it.

That is the picture that comes from this. Get off your high horse about the HOA member who takes a case to the courts and focus on why and how HOA Boards do these illegal things that some members will fight for.

I know read this board for amusement in seeing how obviously ignorant HOA board members are (by and large). WHen you pick on a person who has been forced into the courts by their board and yet refuse to see the big picture.

If the board really cared about the tick mark against them for FHA loans and such, then WHY did they opt to go to court for $387? That sounds like a big risk, unless there was big money at stake.... Because you fail to see the BIG picture or ask the right questions, I have to just sit back and laugh.
With every post, pontificating how bad it is to sue your HOA, you are basically siding with unjust boards. You are telling the members to suck it up and continue living with the injustice.

My advice to you folks is to take a deep breadth, step back and then look at this and all situations with a little more objectivity. From what I see on this board, whenever a non-board member comes here with a problem about their board, you collectively get defensive. You high opinions of yourselves force you to limit your objectivity and that is am embarrassing thing for you (or at least it should be) and something that amuses the hell out of me.

I now ask you to justify the board's decision to take this to court? Why would or should a legitimate board go to court over this sort of issue?

Oh, least I forget - CONGRATULATIONS Out! Great job and you are the Greatest Generation. The morals and ethics from the Greatest generation are what makes this country Great. Thank You





Fred since you seem to be the only one who you think gets the big picture let me ask you to explain one simple question for me.

Other than getting $387 what has OUT accomplished? What has changed? What will be different going forward?

And this after 4 years.

Now lets assume both you and OUT are right in your claims this is the worst Board in America.
Perhaps on the face of the Earth. (Although your claim they steal money and put in into the property falls a little short for me.) But lets assume for the sake of argument here you are right. What has OUT suing the property done?

Is the Board still in place?
Has the old boy's club been dismantled?
Did the court dissolve the HOA as OUT had held out hope for?

What benefit to the community and property has been provided?

That's the small picture I see when you spend 4 years and accomplish nothing.

So forgive me if I choose not to salute OUT's efforts as something special.
FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 4:49 PM  
Carol,

yes, I know who it is. It is very disconcerting to keep hearing and reading that mantra. What I see is a person who has lost touch with reality. The constant pontificating about not suing your HOA is just baseless and senseless. I don't think this particular person has any common sense.

After all, who in their right mind really wants to sue anyone in the first place? I mean, to get to the point of needing to sue, means that most prudent and reasonable people have already gone through every means outlined in their governing documents to right an injustice or correct something. Oft times, it is also a matter of principle and in some cases standing up to a bully.

I have read many examples of these types of situations on this forum. Too many times to count.

After reading all these, I have developed the opinion that there are a few, very blind yet opinionated people who take it very defensively whenever a rank and file member of an HOA comes to this forum looking for solutions. These few individuals usually harass the visitors to no end. Like in this case with Out. I dare say, in reading the entire thread, there were responses that outright insulted Out and these people never considered that the board and many successive boards over the years were doing something wrong (or even illegal as it constitutes fraud in my humble opinion.

In Melissa's case, she has often cried the mantra (and served the kool aid) of Suing your HOA is suing yourself and your neighbors. While this may be factually true it is no reason NOT to sue when all attempts at following the grievance procedures outlined in our governing documents have been followed - or attempted to be followed by the complaining homeowner.

So, on the one had there is the mantra not to sue. Then she turns around and says to the HOA Boards to go ahead and let a homeowner sue because it is easy to counter sue (no cost involved to counter sue..)

I would like her to explain to me, just what the F*[email protected] the HOA in Out's situation could counter sue for? They have no case and have been committing fruad for an excessively long period of time. The HOA has no case to counter sue for. They did everything to make this HOA live up to the claims of MikeR from Mass who claims all HOA's are corrupt and criminal enterprises.

Just once, I would like to see a forum like this, stand up for the Homeowner and state that yes, the HOA Board in this situation was wrong. It's obvious from the court finding.

Instead, this thread was filled with people doing a collective piling on of crap on Out. It turns out she was right, right from the get go. Now are all those naysayers going to admit they were wrong? JonD1 and Melissa appear on nearly every thread, yet I see no comments from them since Out stated her update. Where's the F*^&ing apology that I think is owed to Out?

I am appalled at some of the people on this forum board and their attitudes. I stand by my earlier post in that they have let their power and position go to their heads. I have read countless times (from a few posters) stating that this is a volunteer effort. It is not an excuse to exercise common sense or legal reasoning. Yes, all boards are made up of 3 or more individuals. This is to suppose to ensure balanced reasoning and decision making. Instead, I have seen many times (and read on this forum) where serving on the HOA Board is more a social event than a serious business responsibility. That is when and where problems start. These untrained volunteers goad people into making the wrong decisions and then sticking with them until a homeowner has no choice but to sue. Then they ridicule the homeowner when they sue.

There is the poster from NY who states he has been on his HOA board for 25 years or more. I have yet to see him step back and look at any thread with objectivity. I get the feeling everything he writes is severely clouded by his opinion that HOA Boards can do no wrong and that the affected homeowner is automatically wrong. Might be the case in HIS HOA but there are so many HOA's across the Nation that no one, NO ONE can or should be saying things as absolutes.

I can sit back and agree with MikeR on some of his views just like I can (and do) sometimes agree with JonD1 and Melissa.

But, I can say, that based on the many negative (to the HOA member comments) that there seems to be a collective group think on the parts of many members of the forum when they pile on visitors to the forum. I get the feeling that their minds are made up, let's not confuse them with relevant facts.

This is why I read this forum now for mere amusement. Unfortunately, I decided to speak up because of JonD1's comments mocking Out for her $387 victory. His near-sightedness on the bigger picture that this is Fraud on a large scale - $15,000 per year times how many years? The total value could be many hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Makes the board a criminal enterprise - under the RICO laws)

basically, it is due to unpaid (well actually Out's HOA board was paid - by virtue of not having to pay dues while on the board) volunteers. Well these folks, because of their pay status have an even greater fiducial responsibility than true unpaid volunteers. It galls me to no end to read post after post where board members are violating the rules established in their own documents.

Sorry for the long winded response -



JonD1


Posts:0


07/20/2013 4:50 PM  
Posted By MatthewW4 on 07/20/2013 2:41 PM
Posted By JonD1 on 07/20/2013 8:42 AM

No word from OUT regarding her contention the court had the power to dissolve the HOA.
My guess that did not occur. So other than the $387 refund what was accomplished?



My understanding is that she took this into a small claims court, where jurisdiction is usually very limited (as are the judicial abilities of the judges). A small claims court normally would have no jurisdiction to dissolve an HOA nor would it have the jurisdiction to declare whether the HOA could lawfully exceed a 1939 limit on assessments. We have no idea as to how the judge arrived at his $387 figure but there appears to be nothing to prevent the HOA from continuing to exceed the 1939 assessments in the future.

The HOA also has the option of appealing the judgment where it may not withstand the scrutiny of a real judge.

Not surprising that Out sued for $5,000, the jurisdictional limit of her small claims court. I recall years ago People's Court Judge Joseph Wapner stating that he had testified in the California legislature against raising the limits from $1,500 to $2,500. Wapner said his opposition stemmed from the fact that everyone who files a lawsuit in a small claims court thinks he is entitled to the maximum regardless of his actual damages and a higher limit just encourages more unfounded lawsuits instead of reasonable settlements.







In some of OUT's earlier posts she had suggested the court had the option of dissolving the HOA. At best wishful thinking.

In the end the final result was she was awarded $387.

Hardly, changing the status quo of her property for the better.

Sometimes when you fight the fight simply based on proving how right you are, in the end what you win proves to be a lot less valuable than you thought.

IMO any victory OUT might claim is quite minimal.

So in the end after all the cheers die down OUT still resides in a community where she is unhappy with those governing the property.

If the members of the Board are the problem work for 4 years to remove them rather than telling yourself YOU getting a $387 refund serves the same purpose in the end. It does not.


SharonH9


Posts:0


07/20/2013 5:17 PM  




Fred since you seem to be the only one who you think gets the big picture let me ask you to explain one simple question for me.

Other than getting $387 what has OUT accomplished? What has changed? What will be different going forward?

And this after 4 years.

Now lets assume both you and OUT are right in your claims this is the worst Board in America.
Perhaps on the face of the Earth. (Although your claim they steal money and put in into the property falls a little short for me.) But lets assume for the sake of argument here you are right. What has OUT suing the property done?

Is the Board still in place?
Has the old boy's club been dismantled?
Did the court dissolve the HOA as OUT had held out hope for?

What benefit to the community and property has been provided?

That's the small picture I see when you spend 4 years and accomplish nothing.

So forgive me if I choose not to salute OUT's efforts as something special.




Jon,

You are being premature in your conclusions. The court decision was just made yesterday. All of those things you listed as having not happened may happen now.

Accept it. Out won. You should certainly have learned something from Out's issue. The main lesson learned is the Board must follow the CC&Rs. They are the written contract between the property owner and the HOA. When there is a disagreement about the interpretation of the CC&R's sometimes the only option is court where a qualified judge who has researched the laws of the state of Missouri came to the conclusion that the HOA was not adhering to the contract.

So Matthew now criticizes the small claims system by comparing Arizona's to Missouri's. Do you know what qualifications the presiding officer at Out's trial must have by Missouri statutes? It may not be like Arizona's.


FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 5:22 PM  
Johnny-boy,


What has Out proved or accomplished? Well for starters, this is the start of removing the old corrupt board. With a count win on her side, she can now go about the HOA membership to get herself and other new blood voted on and to break the back of the stronghold of the old board. It is hard to dismiss a court decision. That sort of thing would and should go a long way to aiding the general membership of the HOA that something needs to be done. Namely remove the old board and go through a legal process of updating the documents.

You dismiss my assertion that the old board has been stealing. Well maybe for you new yorkers theft and graft have different meanings and definition than the rest of the US. However, when you collect funds under fraudulent means, even if you use it for the HOA, it is still theft by Fraud. Sorry, it's not me saying this, it is the legal dictionary. The fact that the board used the funds for reasons other than the reasons claimed for the collection of those funds is a crime in most states (except maybe yours I guess).

The board, in this case, personally benefits from the collection of those dues because as a perk of their board membership, they are excused from having to pay dues. This means those fraudulently collected funds may be funding their free ride. That smells fishy to me and in this case seems to meet the merits of being an actual crime.

You claim this is some sort of hollow victory and agin your clouded judgement and bias is clearly evident. How many times have you pontificated about the long and arduous process it took YOU to affect change in your own HOA. It took you more than four years. So, your mocking OUT because she has been interested in fighting this battle for four years. Your pompus been there, done that attitude just reeks to high heaven.

For Out, I am sure the battle is not over. But this is a victory nonetheless for her and her HOA (in the long run). It goes to show us as a perfect example that governing documents should be reviewed from time to time and updated. It shouldn't take a lawsuit to do it. Your shallow, brazen, protect the Board (notice not the HOA because your attitude show contempt for the HOA membership and defense for the board) attitude is baseless and rife with contempt.

Give the lady her due and maybe offer some of your vast experience as advice on how to best use this victory and generate interest in her HOA membership to affect some change and oust the old board and get new members in there. Remember, your own road to HOA success was a long one. Do not begrudge Out for her four years effort (unless of course you're jealous).

Again, HOA board membership is a leadership role. Stop passing the buck and take responsibility for the boards actions. It is a failure of leadership everytime an individual homeowner has to resort to the courts to correct injustice. I learned a long time ago that problems are 100% of the time caused by poor leadership. This is a personal affront to you and many other members of the forum who are past or present board members. You are leaders in your HOA communities. You alone (well collectively as a Board) are responsible for any and all problems within your HOA's. It is that basic.

Don't be so quick to kill the messenger (like Out and the MikeR's of the world) without taking that step back to look at the big picture. By your own admission, you only see the small picture and are dismissing the fraud. Address it instead of denying it. Fraud is fraud and it shows why the board as a collective body chose to go to court instead of resolving the issue out of court. They do not want their free ride to end....

It is the board that made the decision to go to court. Address and answer me why they did that over $387? What did they lose by doing that? What did they stand to win if the judge found their way??

You are still missing the big picture as far as I can tell.

MatthewW4
(Arizona)

Posts:500


07/20/2013 6:16 PM  
Posted By SharonH9 on 07/20/2013 5:17 PM

The main lesson learned is the Board must follow the CC&Rs. They are the written contract between the property owner and the HOA. When there is a disagreement about the interpretation of the CC&R's sometimes the only option is court where a qualified judge who has researched the laws of the state of Missouri came to the conclusion that the HOA was not adhering to the contract.



That is a lot of conclusion to be drawn from a judgment for $387, the basis of which remains a mystery. Based on my experiences with small claims court judges, any resemblance to the judgment and state law will be coincidental. (The infinite number of monkeys on typewriters thing.)



Posted By SharonH9 on 07/20/2013 5:17 PM

So Matthew now criticizes the small claims system by comparing Arizona's to Missouri's. Do you know what qualifications the presiding officer at Out's trial must have by Missouri statutes? It may not be like Arizona's.



I do not recall having compared Arizona's idiot JP's to Missouri's idiot small claims court judges. I responded to Tim's comment about my bias towards such judges. It is rather apparent from the wording of your question that you are equally ignorant of Missouri statutes in regards to qualifications for small claims court judges.

BTW, I heard that the Missouri Supreme Court is wrestling with a vexing legal question: If a Missouri couple gets a divorce are they still brother and sister?

SharonH9


Posts:0


07/20/2013 6:29 PM  
Matthew,

Are you one of those monkeys you speak about typing your responses on this forum? LOL

MatthewW4
(Arizona)

Posts:500


07/20/2013 6:36 PM  
Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 5:22 PM

What has Out proved or accomplished? Well for starters, this is the start of removing the old corrupt board. With a count win on her side, she can now go about the HOA membership to get herself and other new blood voted on and to break the back of the stronghold of the old board. It is hard to dismiss a court decision. That sort of thing would and should go a long way to aiding the general membership of the HOA that something needs to be done. Namely remove the old board and go through a legal process of updating the documents.




Yeah, her argument for being elected to the board is "I just cost you all $387 plus what you spent on your attorney." Who can fight that winning argument?
MatthewW4
(Arizona)

Posts:500


07/20/2013 7:14 PM  
I just went looking at Missouri Revised Statutes hoping to find something about the qualifications for presiding over a small claims court. What I found was utter chaos.

I cut-and-pasted this from Missouri Revised Statute 98.030 [http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0980000030.HTM]:
"*This section was repealed and reenacted by H.B. 971, 1978; it was also repealed by H.B. 1634, 1978. House Bill 971 became effective 8-13-78; H.B. 1634 became effective 1-2-79. Apparently this statute is in effect. "

This appears to be an official website of the State of Missouri and even they cannot figure out if the statute is in effect or has been repealed. God help you if you have to go to court in that state.



FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 7:17 PM  
Matty, Matty, Matty,

Tsk, tsk tsk,

How can winning a judgement of $387 be a cost to Out's HOA? It seems this was money collected from Out herself. She was asking for the return of "HER" money. This is NOT a cost to the HOA neighbors.

now what else has Out proved?? Well, it is clearly evident that she proved to her general membership that their illustrious board has the decision making capabilities of those monkeys you alluded to in your other post. Seems, the Board decided it was good business to got to court over $387 instead of settling out of court, or better yet, working to understand what Out was saying and then fixing the documents through the legal process.

if nothing else, Out has proved that these board members have no clue about fiduciary responsibility or the proper and legal way to change the governing documents. For this reason alone, I sure as hell would vote for any other candidate than the current incumbents .

Maybe Mathew, you are having trouble comprehending the facts that the HOA Board has been collecting monies under fraudulent pretenses. In most states except New York and now maybe Arizona, this act would be illegal. The board members have had their HOA dues waived (a form of payment as this is "consideration") or more likely the cost or their waived dues is picked up by the rest of the association. How new is that rule? Was that part of the original 1939 documents? There are a host of questions yet to be asked or answered.

$387 is the tip of the iceberg of $15,000 per year times how many years this fraud has been going on. Seems to me this is more complicated than you can understand. What Out has proved is that the HOA board has been taking funds for things that long ago were picked up by the city. What's wrong with that picture? Again, you and other forum members who are also board members past or present seem to be circling your wagons to defend the actions of the board in this case. Why is it that the Homeowner is always wrong by your estimation - none of you are taking responsibility for the fact that the HOA Board was wrong to be collecting funds un fraudulent pretenses which is basically what the court judgement proves.

If I were Out, I would send, post, share copies of that judgement with the entire membership. That ought to persuade many of the fence sitters that there is a problem and they need to fix it by removing the board and electing people who would go about the process legally to update their governing documents.

It is time to pull you head out of your 4th point of contact and try, just try to understand the bigger picture. Again you are wrapped around the axel on this $387 issue when it is really a whole lot more money and full on fraud in how they are getting it.

Does criminal fraud (theft) not matter to you people! I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the people on this forum lack ethics and morals since you are harassing Out over this case and are dismissing the fact that the board decided to go to court on this issue. What about the f*@king board that did this? Are you going to pile on the crap on them the same way you pile this onto Out???

JonD1


Posts:0


07/20/2013 8:20 PM  
Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 5:22 PM
Johnny-boy,


What has Out proved or accomplished? Well for starters, this is the start of removing the old corrupt board. With a count win on her side, she can now go about the HOA membership to get herself and other new blood voted on and to break the back of the stronghold of the old board. It is hard to dismiss a court decision. That sort of thing would and should go a long way to aiding the general membership of the HOA that something needs to be done. Namely remove the old board and go through a legal process of updating the documents.

You dismiss my assertion that the old board has been stealing. Well maybe for you new yorkers theft and graft have different meanings and definition than the rest of the US. However, when you collect funds under fraudulent means, even if you use it for the HOA, it is still theft by Fraud. Sorry, it's not me saying this, it is the legal dictionary. The fact that the board used the funds for reasons other than the reasons claimed for the collection of those funds is a crime in most states (except maybe yours I guess).

The board, in this case, personally benefits from the collection of those dues because as a perk of their board membership, they are excused from having to pay dues. This means those fraudulently collected funds may be funding their free ride. That smells fishy to me and in this case seems to meet the merits of being an actual crime.

You claim this is some sort of hollow victory and agin your clouded judgement and bias is clearly evident. How many times have you pontificated about the long and arduous process it took YOU to affect change in your own HOA. It took you more than four years. So, your mocking OUT because she has been interested in fighting this battle for four years. Your pompus been there, done that attitude just reeks to high heaven.

For Out, I am sure the battle is not over. But this is a victory nonetheless for her and her HOA (in the long run). It goes to show us as a perfect example that governing documents should be reviewed from time to time and updated. It shouldn't take a lawsuit to do it. Your shallow, brazen, protect the Board (notice not the HOA because your attitude show contempt for the HOA membership and defense for the board) attitude is baseless and rife with contempt.

Give the lady her due and maybe offer some of your vast experience as advice on how to best use this victory and generate interest in her HOA membership to affect some change and oust the old board and get new members in there. Remember, your own road to HOA success was a long one. Do not begrudge Out for her four years effort (unless of course you're jealous).

Again, HOA board membership is a leadership role. Stop passing the buck and take responsibility for the boards actions. It is a failure of leadership everytime an individual homeowner has to resort to the courts to correct injustice. I learned a long time ago that problems are 100% of the time caused by poor leadership. This is a personal affront to you and many other members of the forum who are past or present board members. You are leaders in your HOA communities. You alone (well collectively as a Board) are responsible for any and all problems within your HOA's. It is that basic.

Don't be so quick to kill the messenger (like Out and the MikeR's of the world) without taking that step back to look at the big picture. By your own admission, you only see the small picture and are dismissing the fraud. Address it instead of denying it. Fraud is fraud and it shows why the board as a collective body chose to go to court instead of resolving the issue out of court. They do not want their free ride to end....

It is the board that made the decision to go to court. Address and answer me why they did that over $387? What did they lose by doing that? What did they stand to win if the judge found their way??

You are still missing the big picture as far as I can tell.





Freddy

So now you have gotten into the predicting the future business. The Board will now be ousted and the documents will be updated. Looking into that crystal ball you have just when will that be happening? I am sure OUT would love to know....

"There is the poster from NY who states he has been on his HOA board for 25 years or more. I have yet to see him step back and look at any thread with objectivity. I get the feeling everything he writes is severely clouded by his opinion that HOA Boards can do no wrong and that the affected homeowner is automatically wrong. Might be the case in HIS HOA but there are so many HOA's across the Nation that no one, NO ONE can or should be saying things as absolutes."

Freddy I have related the story many times about the crap that was taking place on the property where I live. In another post you made reference to it. So where does YOUR claim now come from that I believe HOAs can do no wrong? Or are we now just making it up as we go along? Or is it watching the BIG picture has you as bit confused??

Other than YOU, who has made any suggestions there was in fact a criminal act of fraud in this matter? So will you be prosecuting those charges against the current and former Board members who have served on this particular Board since 1939? In your mind they would all seem to be guilty of theft, fraud and violating the federal Rico Act. Really????

My guess there will be no fraud charges brought or prosecuted. Unless you plan to dig up a few dead folks and hold them accoutable for the crimes you now have found them guilty of.

And your new assertion that the Board not paying dues, although it might violate your idea of right and wrong, might just not meet the level of another criminal act as you now suggest.

The small picture difference which you seem to be unable to grasp between what OUT did and what I did is I did not act in a manner that brought cost to the property. I did not file an unrelated legal action that in the end would not resolve the existing problem. I did not tie up the property in a lawsuit. And I cleaned house by getting rid of the problem people and the MC and the lawyer. So down in little picture land where I visit once in a while that is quite a difference from walking away with $387.

And now you claim OUT's lawsuit will result in HER documents being reviewed and updated? Is that what she wrote somewhere? Well NO! Or is this just more Freddy make believe at work.

"I learned a long time ago that problems are 100% of the time caused by poor leadership."

So Freddy what I learned a long ago is that people do what they are allowed to get away with.
And if you sit in a coma as a group and allow a small group to run over you, misuse your monies, and abuse you than the reason for that can be found in your bathroom mirror. And rather than blaming it on someone else why not own YOUR role in the mess?

" Fraud is fraud and it shows why the board as a collective body chose to go to court instead of resolving the issue out of court. They do not want their free ride to end...."

So now Freddy you have the ability to not only determine the mind set of folks you have never met or spoken to, you can claim results that in fact have not happened. Just how did this affect the Board's free ride? Come on make something up.

And Freddy if you were able to follow along here I asked OUT for details, she was reluctant
to provide them because she felt it served no purpose. So unlike you I cannot read the minds of others and explain why they acted as they did. Perhaps, you can continue to do so as that must all be part of the big picture you see.

I would hope OUT would provide us with the reality of what might occur on her property going forward. The good, the bad, the positive and the not so positive. Rather than relying on YOUR opinions, predictions, and baseless assumptions.

My guess your crystal ball is off quite a bit.




JonD1


Posts:0


07/20/2013 8:48 PM  
Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 7:17 PM
Matty, Matty, Matty,

Tsk, tsk tsk,

How can winning a judgement of $387 be a cost to Out's HOA? It seems this was money collected from Out herself. She was asking for the return of "HER" money. This is NOT a cost to the HOA neighbors.

now what else has Out proved?? Well, it is clearly evident that she proved to her general membership that their illustrious board has the decision making capabilities of those monkeys you alluded to in your other post. Seems, the Board decided it was good business to got to court over $387 instead of settling out of court, or better yet, working to understand what Out was saying and then fixing the documents through the legal process.

if nothing else, Out has proved that these board members have no clue about fiduciary responsibility or the proper and legal way to change the governing documents. For this reason alone, I sure as hell would vote for any other candidate than the current incumbents .

Maybe Mathew, you are having trouble comprehending the facts that the HOA Board has been collecting monies under fraudulent pretenses. In most states except New York and now maybe Arizona, this act would be illegal. The board members have had their HOA dues waived (a form of payment as this is "consideration") or more likely the cost or their waived dues is picked up by the rest of the association. How new is that rule? Was that part of the original 1939 documents? There are a host of questions yet to be asked or answered.

$387 is the tip of the iceberg of $15,000 per year times how many years this fraud has been going on. Seems to me this is more complicated than you can understand. What Out has proved is that the HOA board has been taking funds for things that long ago were picked up by the city. What's wrong with that picture? Again, you and other forum members who are also board members past or present seem to be circling your wagons to defend the actions of the board in this case. Why is it that the Homeowner is always wrong by your estimation - none of you are taking responsibility for the fact that the HOA Board was wrong to be collecting funds un fraudulent pretenses which is basically what the court judgement proves.

If I were Out, I would send, post, share copies of that judgement with the entire membership. That ought to persuade many of the fence sitters that there is a problem and they need to fix it by removing the board and electing people who would go about the process legally to update their governing documents.

It is time to pull you head out of your 4th point of contact and try, just try to understand the bigger picture. Again you are wrapped around the axel on this $387 issue when it is really a whole lot more money and full on fraud in how they are getting it.

Does criminal fraud (theft) not matter to you people! I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the people on this forum lack ethics and morals since you are harassing Out over this case and are dismissing the fact that the board decided to go to court on this issue. What about the f*@king board that did this? Are you going to pile on the crap on them the same way you pile this onto Out???





Freddy you better smoke one of those California state approved joints and mellow out. You sound about ready to blow a gasket.

I just love how you assume and make facts up. Did you read the court's ruling? Well NO then how do you know why $387 was awarded and how that amount was arrived at? Fact is you don't.

And where did the money come from to defend the HOA??? From the funds paid by its members or from the insurance policy paid for by its members. Either way there was a cost to the property owners.

And Freddy before you doze off do you know when these collections began? According to OUT at least 15 years so do we hold only the current Board guilty as you now charge them or all the Board members, including OUT from the beginning of time? Who instituted the practice? Or does that not matter in the big picture?

And again WHEN was the practice of waiving dues begun? Was it just with the current Board? Did OUT pay dues during her time of service? I wonder. Was it approved? Is it legal? Do the answers to any of these questions matter Freddy? For me they would.


"What Out has proved is that the HOA board has been taking funds for things that long ago were picked up by the city."

Sorry Freddy just what has OUT provided that suggested to you this was proven? Were you there in court? Did OUT provide you with a copy of the court's determination? Or is this more guess work on your part???

Better chill Freddy sounds like the BP is climbing and for a laid back resident of California that is not good.

Inhale deeply and hold................

FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 9:03 PM  
You say this over and over and over and in saying it you seem to be placing blame on the Homeowner who is doing the suing.
What you fail to understand is that more often than not, it is the decision of the board and people like you who force the situation where a Homeowner has to resort to suing.

Why do you get all bent out of shape when the inevitable lawsuit happens then?

You other mantra of: "Go ahead and let the Homeowner sue the HOA, the HOA can always counter sue! WTF kind of logic is that? You are on the one hand blaming them for suing then on the other hand challenging the homeowner to sue? Your logic here makes no sense at all.

Just another board member (past) who does not quite understand the big picture.

Nowhere in any of your posts have I ever seen or read where you place blame for any HOA issues on the leadership of the BOARD!
I have read where you offer countless explanations on how the board members were unpaid, untrained volunteers and therefore all you contemptuous HOA members ought to not forget how hard of a job it is. WTF - you are making excuses for bad behavior and outright criminal action.

I know for a fact that there are many, many well meaning people serving on HOA Boards all over the country. What I have never seen on this forum is you board members ever admitting to seeing the many, many bad board members who do not have a clue about fiducial responsibilities or even the roles and responsibilities of being a board member. I have seen, first hand, where the HOA board and a sub set of the board members served because they wanted or expected special social standing in the community. They held up ACC items, barged into peoples homes (yes, actually) and or wrote people up for fictitious violations (using their power to fine or create liens to control and or scare the members they didn't like).

I would like to see you people on this forum look at this example of Out's HOA and apologize to her. Then I would rather see you have a discussion talking about how the board acted wrong.

Please explain to me, why you feel so strongly about suing your HOA? How about we lay the blame where it belongs and that is on the actions of a corrupt board and their illegal actions (Fraud on this scale is a crime in most states except I think NY. AZ and MO).

Out is one little old lady. Her board is comprised of 7 (seven) people and they have a Bar tested and certified Lawyer to aid and advise them. Are you saying that these 8 people did the right thing in taking this case to court? Because you sure are hell bent on telling any and everyone that suing your HOA is wrong. You say this without admitting or acknowledging that the boards and their collective IQ's can never be wrong. I think you are off your meds or something to not be able to see this case and realize that the board and their lawyer decided to go to court against a 70 year old lady who did not have a lawyer.

What possible reason can you come up with or justify the HOA going to court given the facts given in this thread????

It seems pretty obvious to me that they were willing to gamble on the illegal way they are collecting funds in the face of a legitimate and binding document. Their fraud is that they continued to collect funds, and raised the rates illegally. For the last few years this has amounted to $387 of "OVERPAID" funds by every member of the community. Out did not cost her HOA a single penny.

The 7 members of the Board allowed this and decided to pay a lawyer $5,000 to defend a $387 case? WTF kind of idiots are on that board? That is sound decision making that seems to be the norm in many HOA's (at least the three I have lived in during my lifetime. Three for three, that's batting a 1000)

now, why would a board be willing to fight this lawsuit aover paying her or actually refunding to her the over payments? They spent $5,000 on lawyer fees. You say that she caused this to happen? No She did not! The HOA board could have sat down and settled with her at any time. It is the collective idiot think found on boards that is the problem here.

$5,000 pitted against a law suit for $387 - who in their right minds would ever do that? No one would do this, it makes NO sense. Either they got really bad advice from their lawyer (who stands to make more money from any lawsuit win or lose) or was there a more sinister reason for them to fight this in court?

yes, that's right, their fraud is netting them $15,000 or more a year. Since they are putting most of the money back into the HOA and then claiming this as their good works, these board members keep getting re-elected. Now when you add the fact that they are paid (de-factor by having their dues waived) means that they are in fact, profiting from their fraud.

If you and others on this forum cannot see this as wrong then I would have to say that you may not be Board member material.

It seems pretty obvious to me that you are willing to overlook the actual wrong doing or criminal behavior of a board (any board) in your obvious claims to get people to NOT sue their HOA Boards. How much money are these actions costing the members???

There is a time and a place to sue a Board. It appears to me that Out availed herself or every option but the board refused. Leaving her no other choice than to sue. You should be applauding her for this instead of vilifying her like you and others have.

TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


07/20/2013 9:05 PM  
Posted By MatthewW4 on 07/20/2013 4:18 PM
Posted By TimB4 on 07/20/2013 3:21 PM

It sounds like your a little biased to someone based on the restrictions/limitations imposed upon them by their job.




In AZ, what others call small claims court is known as a Justice Court and is presided over by a Justice of the Peace, who is elected.




Thanks for the explanation.

Just be aware that that isn't the case in all States
FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 9:34 PM  
johnnie, johnnie, johnnie,

I think you are not the brightest bulb in the pack. Out did NOT cost her HOA a single penny. The board did that. It was the board that decided it was better to pay $5,000 to fight a $387 lawsuit.

I do not read minds, lord knows in your case, it is a book of blank pages!

however, you seem to not grasp the fact that Out did everything you folks ordinarily say members must do. When all that failed, she took them to court. You are still missing the point that seven Board members and the HOA lawyer opted to go to court on this. I do not think that blaming Out for this is the best or most mature way to go.

You have been a board member for far too long now. 25 years or so. In all of your posts commenting on this fact, you end up holding your members in contempt stating that they either do not care or are not bright enough to understand the things you do. Your attitude is off putting and you should be embarrassed. It seems you are so busy wanting to hear yourself talk or read your own posts that you often miss the relevant details in many other's postings.
Do you get the big picture? For sure you do not! Do you get the little picture? That is likewise doubtful!

Do you take defense when anyone claims thats there are bad HOA boards out there? Yes, I see this from you all the time from you. Do you blame visitors to this site for their own problems - yes you do. You hold people in contempt and are condescending to an extreme. Your holier than thou self appointed position is getting old. Time for some new material there johnnie-boy.

Can I read more into things than you. Well, that is obvious because if it is not spelled out for you in minute detail, you do not understand the nuance.
You don't know me or anything about me. Do I know the law, yes I do. You keep making inferences there and you know what? Whatever you have seen or learned from watching law & order on TV??

Yes, fraud is a crime. The HOA Board collecting money under false pretenses is a crime. Is it going to prosecuted? No! Not in this situation because money for used for the good of the HOA. That, however, does not negate that fraud has happened. I know you are from NY and are morally and ethically challenged (just by living there. The long history of corruption and graft there is well known), but that does not excuse you from not being able to comprehend that taking or collecting money under false pretense is illegal. If you can't see that, and it appears you can't see it, then I am very glad I do not live in your HOA.

There should be standards for being on a board, other than being able to fog a mirror.

So, how again did Out cost her HOA any money?
The way I see it, the Board made all the costly decisions. If I lived in Out's HOA, that reason alone should be cause to vote all the board members out of office. Their ability to make decisions is highly questionable. Your ability to grasp this is also questionable because you keep chanting the mantra that Out
cost her HOA and her neighbors money. She did not- this was the boards decision. She only got refunded what she overpaid, so how exactly is that costing her neighbors money? They all overpaid it too!

Maybe you need to re-read some of todays posts as Out indicated that the board gets a perk for serving in that their dues are waived for the 2 year term. That is payment for their services. So, one would think they would do some thing s on the up and up. Out has already spent 4 years in this battle and you vilify her throughout for it. I compared your long winded story to hers in that you are so proud of yourself for doing it (don't dislocate that shoulder patting yourself on the back there johnnie-boy).

You seem to be against her for sticking up for what is right, but then you turn around and state that you did it! Seems like you are way off your meds. Is there a doctor we can call for you?? You seem to need a lot of help!

You claim if you as a collective group allow yourselves to be railroaded it is your own fault (the person you see in the mirror), then you jump on people like Out, or MikeR or Helen or me when we decide to affect change. You're just a big wind bag as far as I am concerned and it is you that I enjoy to read so much because I find your crazy rantings to be very funny. I enjoy the hell out of this forum and some of the main posters who the more they post shows the less they know.

MatthewW4
(Arizona)

Posts:500


07/20/2013 9:36 PM  
Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 7:17 PM

How can winning a judgement of $387 be a cost to Out's HOA? It seems this was money collected from Out herself. She was asking for the return of "HER" money. This is NOT a cost to the HOA neighbors.



Are you saying that association has a little bag of money hidden away with her $387 and they have kept that separate from the rest of the association funds since 1939? Gimme a break!



Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 7:17 PM

Seems, the Board decided it was good business to got to court over $387 instead of settling out of court, or better yet, working to understand what Out was saying and then fixing the documents through the legal process.



Apparently you missed the part where Out said she was suing for $5,000, the limit for that court. (Had she sued in Arizona she undoubtedly would have asked for $10,000 because that's the limit here.) Out sued for twelve times as much as the court found her entitled to. The lawsuit and the lack of settlement was Out's doing and not the association's.



Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 7:17 PM

if nothing else, Out has proved that these board members have no clue about fiduciary responsibility or the proper and legal way to change the governing documents. For this reason alone, I sure as hell would vote for any other candidate than the current incumbents .



Once again, a lot of strange conclusions to be drawn from a small claims court judgment for $387.



Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 7:17 PM

Maybe Mathew, you are having trouble comprehending the facts that the HOA Board has been collecting monies under fraudulent pretenses. In most states except New York and now maybe Arizona, this act would be illegal. The board members have had their HOA dues waived (a form of payment as this is "consideration") or more likely the cost or their waived dues is picked up by the rest of the association. How new is that rule? Was that part of the original 1939 documents? There are a host of questions yet to be asked or answered.



Just exactly which part of Out's small claim lawsuit addressed this issue? And how would a small claims court have any jurisdiction over how the association's board operates? It would make a good case for Superior Court or the equivalent where there would be jurisdiction to issue injunctions. If you and/or Out believe that something wrong has been done file a lawsuit in a court with proper jurisdiction.



Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 7:17 PM

$387 is the tip of the iceberg of $15,000 per year times how many years this fraud has been going on. Seems to me this is more complicated than you can understand. What Out has proved is that the HOA board has been taking funds for things that long ago were picked up by the city. What's wrong with that picture? Again, you and other forum members who are also board members past or present seem to be circling your wagons to defend the actions of the board in this case. Why is it that the Homeowner is always wrong by your estimation - none of you are taking responsibility for the fact that the HOA Board was wrong to be collecting funds un fraudulent pretenses which is basically what the court judgement proves.

If I were Out, I would send, post, share copies of that judgement with the entire membership. That ought to persuade many of the fence sitters that there is a problem and they need to fix it by removing the board and electing people who would go about the process legally to update their governing documents.

It is time to pull you head out of your 4th point of contact and try, just try to understand the bigger picture. Again you are wrapped around the axel on this $387 issue when it is really a whole lot more money and full on fraud in how they are getting it.

Does criminal fraud (theft) not matter to you people! I get the distinct feeling that a lot of the people on this forum lack ethics and morals since you are harassing Out over this case and are dismissing the fact that the board decided to go to court on this issue. What about the f*@king board that did this? Are you going to pile on the crap on them the same way you pile this onto Out???



First, I do not condone the practice of allowing board members to avoid paying assessments as compensation for their services unless this is written into their CC&R's (which we have never seen). The expenditure of funds is normally within the discretion of the board of directors; how they spend association funds is up to them. If you don't like the way they spend money then elect a different board.

You and Out are the only two that I am aware of who think that a crime has been committed. Why have neither of you reported it to a law enforcement agency instead of bellyaching in this forum? What happened to all the police in Missouri? All the prosecutors? Is there no one left to report this "crime" to? Did the FBI fold up shop? If you really think there is something criminal going on then report it to law enforcement. Or maybe you did already and they are giving your complaint all the attention it deserves.

Here's a suggestion for you: In most states it is legal to make a citizen's arrest when a felony has been committed. And in most states the kind of money you are talking about is in felony territory. So go make an arrest and haul the offenders down to the police station. I would certainly do that if I thought a crime had been committed.
FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 10:25 PM  
Johnnie,

poor little boy that you are. Seems you can't understand the facts as presented.

Out stated the facts. I did not make any up.
She stated that her lawsuit was for less than $400 but let you all assume that she was suing for the full $5000 in small claims court in her state.

The Judge awarded her what she was asking for (unless in NY $387 is more than $400. Must be that big city math and oh yeah, NYC, the center of financial wonderment that brought all of our home prices down. thanks to their financial mismanagement and decision making on an epic scale.

Anyway, per Out's posting, she won the verdict in court. She was awarded all the money she was seeking. Did I see the Judges order? No, did you?
Per Out's posting she said the board was collecting money (dues) for things that had been picked up as services provided by the city years ago. She pointed this out to them.

Not only that, but they raised the rates of these dues without first changing or amending the governing documents and the deed restrictions pertaining to her lot (and we can assume all the lots in her association).

The fact remains that collecting money under false pretenses is flat out Fraud. Fraud is against the law in most states. Per the RICO laws, they consider it an ongoing criminal enterprise if the situation persists for a long time (like 10 or more years). being from NY I would expect that you are well versed in the RICO laws since all the corruption, racketeering and graft in that state is the stuff of legend. It is not relevant to say that it will not be prosecuted. Does this make a difference or should it? Whether prosecuted or not, it is still illegal.

I guess from your ethics and morals, something is only illegal IF you get caught and IF you get prosecuted for it. Man, you are a scary dude, glad you are there and I am out here.

Out posted that the Board decided to go to court and that the HOA lawyer was part of that decision. Seems that amounts to 8 people making the decision to go to court over $387.

You seem to state that Out cost her HOA money. How in the world can you state that? Does she hold or reign such power as to command 8 people what to do? It seems to me that eight people including a savvy lawyer decided on this course of action. Even if she was suing for $5,000 it still would have been for an amount of money she was overcharged. So how again is that costing her neighbors and money whatsoever? Come on, explain it to this dumb ass Californian.

How is getting your own money back costing anybody anything. Man, you must be the Director of the IRS with that logic!!!!
Would love to talk to you about taxes because you really don't grasp the concept here.

Now for the last time, go take your meds and repeat after me: "Out did not cost her HOA a single penny. It was the collective decision of the HOA Board and their Lawyer!"

Now for your task tomorrow, you should maybe go take an Evelyn Woods Reading Comprehension Course. You would be well served to learn something new.

I did not make anything up unlike you. You seem to be making a lot of stuff up in reference to me so all I can say is that you amuse the hell out of me with your juvenile ranting and ravings. I seriously doubt you are the president of an HOA. let alone a member of the board for 25 consecutive years.

FredO
(California)

Posts:198


07/20/2013 10:54 PM  

Are you saying that association has a little bag of money hidden away with her $387 and they have kept that separate from the rest of the association funds since 1939? Gimme a break!

No, I am saying she paid this money. She got back what she was overcharged. It was her money, therefore they never had a right to it. So how do you figure the rest of the HOA is paying for this windfall?

Apparently you missed the part where Out said she was suing for $5,000, the limit for that court. (Had she sued in Arizona she undoubtedly would have asked for $10,000 because that's the limit here.) Out sued for twelve times as much as the court found her entitled to. The lawsuit and the lack of settlement was Out's doing and not the association's.

I guess you likewise missed her posts today where she said that the case was always less than $400 and she stated the $5,000 figure to get more cred. That backfired for sure but you missed it... maybe go re-read her posts from today.


Once again, a lot of strange conclusions to be drawn from a small claims court judgment for $387.
Not really a conclusion. Just a well educated opinion since the BOARD opted to go to court. They did it not Out. They left Out with no choice and most likely that HOA Board was following the advice of people like Melissa when she advises HOA Boards to go ahead and let the Homeowner sue (call their bluff) and then counter sue because it's cheaper that way. Hmm, really, seriously, you call the decision to go into court and fight this the brightest decision on the part of the HOA. Yes, Out initially said $5,000 but today says her reasons for less than $400. If true, (and no reason to not believe her) then that board is definitely NOT doing their fiduciary duty to the rest of the HOA.



Just exactly which part of Out's small claim lawsuit addressed this issue? And how would a small claims court have any jurisdiction over how the association's board operates? It would make a good case for Superior Court or the equivalent where there would be jurisdiction to issue injunctions. If you and/or Out believe that something wrong has been done file a lawsuit in a court with proper jurisdiction.

I do not believe Out covered any of this in her small claims suit. The Small Claims Court Judge would not have jurisdiction as you say. However, the board is obligated to operate in compliance with their governing documents. I guess in Arizona (as well as NY) anything goes if you can get away with it. So your ethics are what? Situational based on whether anyone is watching or not? Integrity is measured by what you do WHEN no one is watching.




>>You and Out are the only two that I am aware of who think that a crime has been committed.
Again, if you think no crime was committed here then I am very glad I do not know you in person. You are not the sort of person who exhibits high morals or ethics. A crime is still a crime whether reported and prosecuted or not. I guess in your logic if your mother, sister, wife, daughter got raped and then did not report it then no crime happened? You are another scary dude with a warped sense of morals.


>>Why have neither of you reported it to a law enforcement agency instead of bellyaching in this forum?
For all you know, this was reported?

>>What happened to all the police in Missouri? All the prosecutors? Is there no one left to report this "crime" to?
Great question Mathew. With the cities and counties going bankrupt there is an open season on crime here in many places in Calif. When my father had an attempt on his life, the city being a well known retirement destination, did not want to report the crime and did no investigation because it would show up in National FBI stats. The city did not want that.... so they did nothing. Yet we gave them a cast iron case with evidence and all. Still no guarantee of the authorities doing anything - yet that does not mean a crime was not committed. I guess you can comprehend this fact...


>>Did the FBI fold up shop? If you really think there is something criminal going on then report it to law enforcement. Or maybe you did already and they are >>giving your complaint all the attention it deserves.

Awfully judgmental there Mathew. What are your Qualifications to be a judge. You're from Arizona right... ah I get it now.... You explained it earlier today... monkeys right!

>> Here's a suggestion for you: In most states it is legal to make a citizen's arrest when a felony has been committed. And in most states the kind of money you >>are talking about is in felony territory. So go make an arrest and haul the offenders down to the police station. I would certainly do that if I thought a crime >>had been committed.

Thanks for the suggestion. I am well versed in making citizens arrests as well as other arrests. I am quite educated with the law, particularly criminal law.
However, all your insults do not dismiss the fact that the HOA committed fraud by taking monies under false pretenses. The point is, had those board members decided to do the right thing and the legal thing, then their (quasi) well intentioned actions would not have been an issue.

Too bad you can't comprehend this fact. Please, Please, Please - stay in Arizona. You are desperately needed there as a jp.


SharonH9


Posts:0


07/21/2013 6:31 AM  
Posted By MatthewW4 on 07/20/2013 7:14 PM
I just went looking at Missouri Revised Statutes hoping to find something about the qualifications for presiding over a small claims court. What I found was utter chaos.

I cut-and-pasted this from Missouri Revised Statute 98.030 [http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C000-099/0980000030.HTM]:
"*This section was repealed and reenacted by H.B. 971, 1978; it was also repealed by H.B. 1634, 1978. House Bill 971 became effective 8-13-78; H.B. 1634 became effective 1-2-79. Apparently this statute is in effect. "

This appears to be an official website of the State of Missouri and even they cannot figure out if the statute is in effect or has been repealed. God help you if you have to go to court in that state.







So you justify your position by being critical of the small claims judges in Missouri and go so far as to look up their qualifications. This is what I perceive as one of the biggest problems in HOA's today. Egos. Some people just can't accept that their point of view is challenged and that the issue has merit. They don't take an objective look at the situation. They let their egos get in the way of making sound decisions and forming sound opinions.

Fellas the small claims judge in Missouri has spoken. Out won her case. Since this is so important to you that you spend quite a bit of time reading and posting your lengthy responses to each other, take a deep breath, sit back, keep your egos in check, and learn something from Out's victory.

JonD1


Posts:0


07/21/2013 7:11 AM  
Posted By FredO on 07/20/2013 10:25 PM
Johnnie,

poor little boy that you are. Seems you can't understand the facts as presented.

Out stated the facts. I did not make any up.
She stated that her lawsuit was for less than $400 but let you all assume that she was suing for the full $5000 in small claims court in her state.

The Judge awarded her what she was asking for (unless in NY $387 is more than $400. Must be that big city math and oh yeah, NYC, the center of financial wonderment that brought all of our home prices down. thanks to their financial mismanagement and decision making on an epic scale.

Anyway, per Out's posting, she won the verdict in court. She was awarded all the money she was seeking. Did I see the Judges order? No, did you?
Per Out's posting she said the board was collecting money (dues) for things that had been picked up as services provided by the city years ago. She pointed this out to them.

Not only that, but they raised the rates of these dues without first changing or amending the governing documents and the deed restrictions pertaining to her lot (and we can assume all the lots in her association).

The fact remains that collecting money under false pretenses is flat out Fraud. Fraud is against the law in most states. Per the RICO laws, they consider it an ongoing criminal enterprise if the situation persists for a long time (like 10 or more years). being from NY I would expect that you are well versed in the RICO laws since all the corruption, racketeering and graft in that state is the stuff of legend. It is not relevant to say that it will not be prosecuted. Does this make a difference or should it? Whether prosecuted or not, it is still illegal.

I guess from your ethics and morals, something is only illegal IF you get caught and IF you get prosecuted for it. Man, you are a scary dude, glad you are there and I am out here.

Out posted that the Board decided to go to court and that the HOA lawyer was part of that decision. Seems that amounts to 8 people making the decision to go to court over $387.

You seem to state that Out cost her HOA money. How in the world can you state that? Does she hold or reign such power as to command 8 people what to do? It seems to me that eight people including a savvy lawyer decided on this course of action. Even if she was suing for $5,000 it still would have been for an amount of money she was overcharged. So how again is that costing her neighbors and money whatsoever? Come on, explain it to this dumb ass Californian.

How is getting your own money back costing anybody anything. Man, you must be the Director of the IRS with that logic!!!!
Would love to talk to you about taxes because you really don't grasp the concept here.

Now for the last time, go take your meds and repeat after me: "Out did not cost her HOA a single penny. It was the collective decision of the HOA Board and their Lawyer!"

Now for your task tomorrow, you should maybe go take an Evelyn Woods Reading Comprehension Course. You would be well served to learn something new.

I did not make anything up unlike you. You seem to be making a lot of stuff up in reference to me so all I can say is that you amuse the hell out of me with your juvenile ranting and ravings. I seriously doubt you are the president of an HOA. let alone a member of the board for 25 consecutive years.





So Freddy let me see somehow someway the folks from NYC caused YOUR property values in California to collapse. Hmmmmmmmmmm pretty simpleminded review on what took place. Certainly none of your fault or that of the politicians you may have elected. But seems par for the course for folks like you to sit back and place the blame on others while you whine about what NYC did to you.

I also like your claim that you claim NY to be familiar with crime, graft and other undesirable behavior. None of that in your state right? Picture perfect. An example of state government firing on all 8 cylinders. Just how many BILLIONS is California in the hole?
How many cities there have filed for bankruptcy? Yes, Freddy everyone else should do as California does.

Freddy you have no first hand knowledge of what in fact took place. Nor the time frame when it took place.

Were the rates increased prior to the current Board being in place? You don't know.

Did OUT pay HER dues during the time she served on the Board? You don't know.

What in fact were the legal fees to the property? You don't know.

What in fact was OUT's relationship with the Board prior to her filing suit? You don't know.

How do you make the claim OUT proved there were duplicate services provided? You don't know.

How do you make the claim OUT's win will change the Board out and update the documents? You haven't got a clue.

As they say in court Freddy all you claim are facts not in evidence. Just make believe wishful thinking.

Yes, Freddy it is clear OUT is YOUR personal hero. We get it. Doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree with her course of actions. Nor does it require we march in lock step with you when you claim all the positives that have resulted. When those have taken place only in your small world. Not the real world.

Got to go, working on driving down the value of your home even lower......... Wow what a simpleminded fool..........................






Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 2 of 4 << < 1234 > >>



Only members have access to all features.
Click here to join HOATalk for Free! Members click here to login and access all features.







General Legal Notice:  The content of forum messages are from the posting member and have not been reviewed nor endorsed by HOATalk.com.  Messages posted by HOATalk or other members are for informational purposes only, are not legal or professional advice and do not constitute an attorney-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.  HOATalk is not a licensed attorney, CPA, tax advisor, financial advisor or any other licensed professional.  HOATalk accepts ads from sponsors but does not verify sponsor qualifications nor endorse/guarantee any sponsor's product or service.
Legal Notice For Messages Posted by Sponsoring Attorneys: This message has been prepared by the sponsoring attorney for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Readers of HOATalk.com should not act on this information without seeking professional counsel. Please do not send any sponsoring attorney confidential information unless you speak with the sponsoring attorney or an attorney from the sponsoring attorney’s firm and get authorization to send that information to them. If you wish to initiate possible representation, please contact an attorney in the firm of the sponsoring attorney. Sponsoring attorneys that post messages here are licensed to practice law in a specific state or states as indicated in their message signature or sponsor’s profile page. (NOTE: A ‘sponsoring attorney’ is an attorney that is a HOATalk.com official sponsor and is identified as such in the posted message or on our sponsor page.)

Copyright HOA Talk.com, A Service of Community123 LLC ( Homeowners Association Discussions )   Terms Of Use  Privacy Statement