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 Board members, Not the HOA Board
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 4 of 7 << < 1234567 > >>
Author Messages
GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:4276


06/20/2015 2:57 AM  
Thread revived after 12 days. Please let it die peacefully.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 5:08 AM  
Posted By JohnnyC2 on 06/20/2015 1:45 AM
It seems Walt is basing his suite entirely on the following statement in his covenants.

"The officers and directors shall not be liable for any mistake of judgment, negligent or otherwise, except for their own individual willful misfeasance, malfeasance, misconduct, or bad faith."

As a sitting director on a POA in Georigia we have that very same statement in our covenants and I guarantee he will not be able to prove that this was more than a mistake/negligent judgement. Especially since the board members were conducting board business when the charges occurred.




Not entirely. They didn't follow clear provisions of the Bylaws and GA law to have a majority of the Board approve disbursal of money in writing.

They should pay wrongly disbursed money back to the home owners.

I doubt if the insurance company will pay a claim on this. We'll see.

Walt
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/20/2015 7:14 AM  
Posted By NpS on 05/21/2015 2:08 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 05/15/2015 12:40 PM

Okay, I have filed in Magistrate's Court (Small Claims) an action, not against the Board, but against the corporate officers, for malfeasance.

I engaged one of those online lawyer services, and he confirmed I can sue in a "derivative action" on behalf of the HOA members to get a judgment not for me, but to force the Board members to repay money to the corporation for 1) using funds wrongly and 2) without getting a majority vote in writing as required by Georgia law, as detailed below.

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

A derivative action is being brought by the plaintiff on behalf of the Homeowners Association for harm done to it by the defendants. One thousand, one hundred and forty dollars ($1,140.00) of the Association, funds were disbursed in September 2014 in order to have the Association attorney analyze and attend a deposition for a trial between two members of the Association. The deposition was pursuant to a suit between two HOA residents over a claim of defamation. It had nothing to with HOA affairs.

1. The four defendants were the officers of the corporation on the dates when the services were rendered by the attorney and the invoices from the attorney have those dates, September 3, September 4, September 5 and September 8, 2014.

2. No regular meeting of the Board of Directors was held during that time.

3. No Board meeting being held, per the Association Bylaws and the O.C.G.A. § 14-3-704 - Approval of action without meeting, an Action Without Meeting is required. A majority of the Board Members must approve the disbursement in writing.

4. The Association Bylaws require that Actions Without meetings be decided BEFORE the action. "Action Without A Meeting. Any action by the Board of Directors or by any committee appointed by the Board of Directors required or permitted to be taken at any meeting may be taken without a meeting if, prior to such action one or more written consents describing the action taken are signed by no less than a majority of the members of the Board of Directors or of such committee, as the case may be." (HOA Bylaws Art IV, Sec 7).

5. No Actions Without Meetings were recorded throughout years 2013 and 2014 per communication with the management company representative.



THEREFORE Plaintiff asks for relief in this action on two grounds:

1. The money was spent for the personal gain of two of the defendants.
2. The money was not disbursed with the concurrence of a majority vote of Board members in writing as required by law.

Defendants must make restitution by a payment of one thousand, one hundred and forty dollars ($1,140.00) to the general account of the HOA.

-------------------------------------------------------

What do ya'll think?

Walt


SOOOOOOOOOOO Walter
Under GA procedural law for magistrate courts, your defendants have 30 days from date of service to file their answer. Now you be sure to provide us with their full answers - not your abbreviated version. I for one would like to hear what the other side has to say.


Time's up Walter. Where's the answer that the defendants filed?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10521


06/20/2015 7:52 AM  
You do realize when they have to pay back the homeowners that does NOT mean each owner gets an individual check? It means the money that was missing would go back into the HOA's budget from whence it was removed in the first place. Your NOT going to get "reimbursed". Your just filling a hole that was created.

You have all 100 owners who pay dues for $1 a month. Your HOA budget has $100 in it's budget. A board member takes $50 from that budget for something not "authorized" then your HOA is left with $50 in it's budget. It pursues repayment. They win. The $50 then goes back into the HOA budget. Thus making the HOA budget WHOLE again at $100. None of which goes back to INDIVIDUAL owners. It goes back to the Association of Homeowners.

Math... Figure it out....

Former HOA President
PitA


Posts:0


06/20/2015 7:59 AM  
DIE, thread, DIE

WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 9:43 AM  
Posted By PitA on 06/20/2015 7:59 AM
DIE, thread, DIE





Bumping the thread back to the top is a funny way to help it die.

Plus, it is just now getting interesting.

I did get in the mail Thursday four (4) answers from the defendants and a Motion to Dismiss on behalf of all of them from the HOA attorney. I am just now reviewing them in detail.

A weird thing is that their attorney cites in the Motion to Dismiss, the same case my lawyer did. I call him 'my' lawyer; he consulted with me online as some of you may recall for $50.00.

Part of that exchange:

Question

Craig, If the
officers of the corporation (this is an HOA) did commit malfeasance and disburse money improperly, do I have standing as a member of the Association to take them to court?



Answer

Yes,you could personally or through an attorney bring an action against the directors and I or officers for malfeasance or a similar action. The details of the civil case against the association would depend upon the specific factors in your case. Without knowing the specifics of your case ---- the suit could be in a derivative form, in other words you acting on behalf of the association. For an example of such a dispute, you can visit
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1584296.html."

The link goes to Crittenton et al.


I forgot to scan the defendant pleadings at work, but most importantly the defendant's lawyer cites in the Motion to Dismiss:

ourt of Appeals of Georgia.
CRITTENTON, et al. v. SOUTHLAND OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., et al.
No. A11A0990.
Decided: October 27, 2011
- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1584296.html

"Furthermore, plaintiffs' remaining portion of their petition for declaratory judgment regarding the proper election-voting procedures under SOA's bylaws, their negligent misuse of association funds claim , and their attorney-fees claim were also properly dismissed. While we disagree with the trial court that those claims are moot,8 we nevertheless find that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue on those claims individually rather than derivatively.

A “derivative suit is brought on behalf of [a] corporation for harm done to it[,] and any damages recovered are paid to the corporation.9 And although plaintiffs may bring direct actions for injuries done to them in their individual capacities by corporate fiduciaries, our Supreme Court has held that “to have standing to sue individually, rather than derivatively on behalf of the corporation, the plaintiff must allege more than an injury resulting from a wrong to the corporation.”10 In fact, “to set out an individual action, the plaintiff must allege either an injury which is separate and distinct from that suffered by other [members], or a wrong involving a contractual right of a [member] which exists independently of any right of the corporation.”11 Thus, “[f]or a plaintiff to have standing to bring an individual action, he must be injured directly or independently of the corporation.”12 Furthermore, “[t]he determination of whether a claim is derivative or direct is made by looking to what the pleader alleged,” and “ it is the nature of the wrong alleged and not the pleader's designation or stated intention that controls the court's decision.”

So two different attorneys cite a case to mean the opposite.

I am clearly alleging harm done to the corporation (HOA) as a whole, which gives me standing to act in derivative manner.

In their Answers the defendants do not claim to have followed the Bylaws. The Answers say: [defendant] "denies that funds were not disbursed in accordance with the rules and pattern of practice of the ... Homeowners' association."

Which is gobbiltygook. The Statute requires a paper trail and none was maintained.

They would have to show that Actions without meetings were ever held in the past. None were that I can find out. The management company rep said -none- were on file.

Their attorney strung a bunch of words together but they have little pith.

Walt
PitA


Posts:0


06/20/2015 9:54 AM  
Bumping the thread back to the top is a funny way to help it die.


OOPS ~ GOOD POINT, WELL TAKEN

bye-bye
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11507


06/20/2015 10:12 AM  
Enough...enough...enough, please.

MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10521


06/20/2015 10:51 AM  
This post officially has the same score of a bad Tennis match.. Love / 0....

It is useless to point out obvious to the oblivious...

Thanks for posting what NOT to do in a HOA lawsuit... It does more teaching than we ever could with advice, experience, and a little bit of knowledge... It is the last part that I hope you find.

Former HOA President
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/20/2015 12:01 PM  
Posted By NpS on 06/20/2015 7:14 AM
Posted By NpS on 05/21/2015 2:08 PM
SOOOOOOOOOOO Walter
Under GA procedural law for magistrate courts, your defendants have 30 days from date of service to file their answer. Now you be sure to provide us with their full answers - not your abbreviated version. I for one would like to hear what the other side has to say.


Time's up Walter. Where's the answer that the defendants filed?


So Walter - No more excuses - No more of your interpretations - We can do our own interpreting.

Show us the complete answers that the defendants filed?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


06/20/2015 1:13 PM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 9:43 AM
I am clearly alleging harm done to the corporation (HOA) as a whole, which gives me standing to act in derivative manner.


Walter,

You now qualify as the stupidest dickhead on this forum and perhaps in the world.

Your own state law prescribes that in order to bring a derivative action a minimum percentage of members must join as plaintiffs. You have just one plaintiff. By law, you do not have standing to bring a derivative action. You can allege whatever you want but without the required minimum percentage of members you have no standing to bring a derivative action.


WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 2:32 PM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 06/20/2015 1:13 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 9:43 AM
I am clearly alleging harm done to the corporation (HOA) as a whole, which gives me standing to act in derivative manner.


Walter,

You now qualify as the stupidest dickhead on this forum and perhaps in the world.

Your own state law prescribes that in order to bring a derivative action a minimum percentage of members must join as plaintiffs. You have just one plaintiff. By law, you do not have standing to bring a derivative action. You can allege whatever you want but without the required minimum percentage of members you have no standing to bring a derivative action.






Apparently the HOA lawyer doesn't see it that way.

Walt
LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


06/20/2015 5:03 PM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 2:32 PM
Apparently the HOA lawyer doesn't see it that way.

Walt


Walt,

Why don't you post the HOA lawyer's response so we can see for ourselves? For some reason I do not trust your interpretation of legal pleadings and would prefer to make my own judgment about what the HOA lawyers "sees."

WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 6:33 PM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 06/20/2015 5:03 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 2:32 PM
Apparently the HOA lawyer doesn't see it that way.

Walt


Walt,

Why don't you post the HOA lawyer's response so we can see for ourselves? For some reason I do not trust your interpretation of legal pleadings and would prefer to make my own judgment about what the HOA lawyers "sees."





Are you nuts?

I am not posting the actual filings. The attorney does not cite any 5% rule for derivative actions. I don't know where you got that in the first place. -You- cite that reference, and we'll go from there.

Walt
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 6:35 PM  
I started this thread to see if anyone could shoot any holes in my logic and process.

No one did.

Walt
LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


06/20/2015 6:41 PM  
Walter,

Per your request, these are the citations to the statutes that I previously posted.



Posted By LarryB13 on 05/16/2015 9:28 PM

After reviewing your state statutes I have come to the conclusion that your lawsuit is fatally flawed.

First, the statute you cited, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-704, applies to meetings of the members. It does not apply to meetings of the board of directors.

Second, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-821 is concerned with actions of the board taken outside of a meeting. I see nothing in the statute that would prevent a majority of the board from signing written consents to the action and recording that in the minutes. There is no time limitation within the statute to prevent the board from ratifying an action long after the fact.

Third, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-741 requires the participation in a derivative lawsuit of at least 5% of the member votes or 50 members, whichever is lower. Unless you have 5% of the voting power, you cannot bring this action by yourself. I did not research this for Georgia, but in my state a non-lawyer would not be permitted to pursue this kind of lawsuit as it involves bargaining for the rights of others.

Fourth, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-742 requires that before filing a derivative lawsuit you must make a written demand to the board to comply with the statutes. The board then has 90 days in which to correct the issue before you may file suit. You did not mention doing that.



WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 6:44 PM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 06/20/2015 6:41 PM
Walter,

Per your request, these are the citations to the statutes that I previously posted.



Posted By LarryB13 on 05/16/2015 9:28 PM

After reviewing your state statutes I have come to the conclusion that your lawsuit is fatally flawed.

First, the statute you cited, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-704, applies to meetings of the members. It does not apply to meetings of the board of directors.

Second, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-821 is concerned with actions of the board taken outside of a meeting. I see nothing in the statute that would prevent a majority of the board from signing written consents to the action and recording that in the minutes. There is no time limitation within the statute to prevent the board from ratifying an action long after the fact.

Third, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-741 requires the participation in a derivative lawsuit of at least 5% of the member votes or 50 members, whichever is lower. Unless you have 5% of the voting power, you cannot bring this action by yourself. I did not research this for Georgia, but in my state a non-lawyer would not be permitted to pursue this kind of lawsuit as it involves bargaining for the rights of others.

Fourth, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-742 requires that before filing a derivative lawsuit you must make a written demand to the board to comply with the statutes. The board then has 90 days in which to correct the issue before you may file suit. You did not mention doing that.







The HOA attorney cites none of that in the motion for Dismissal.

So it is all moot.

Walt
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/20/2015 7:04 PM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 06/20/2015 6:41 PM
Walter,

Per your request, these are the citations to the statutes that I previously posted.



Posted By LarryB13 on 05/16/2015 9:28 PM

After reviewing your state statutes I have come to the conclusion that your lawsuit is fatally flawed.

First, the statute you cited, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-704, applies to meetings of the members. It does not apply to meetings of the board of directors.

Second, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-821 is concerned with actions of the board taken outside of a meeting. I see nothing in the statute that would prevent a majority of the board from signing written consents to the action and recording that in the minutes. There is no time limitation within the statute to prevent the board from ratifying an action long after the fact.

Third, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-741 requires the participation in a derivative lawsuit of at least 5% of the member votes or 50 members, whichever is lower. Unless you have 5% of the voting power, you cannot bring this action by yourself. I did not research this for Georgia, but in my state a non-lawyer would not be permitted to pursue this kind of lawsuit as it involves bargaining for the rights of others.

Fourth, O.C.G.A. § 14-3-742 requires that before filing a derivative lawsuit you must make a written demand to the board to comply with the statutes. The board then has 90 days in which to correct the issue before you may file suit. You did not mention doing that.







I posted this before.

Proceedings in the magistrate court shall not be subject to Chapter 11 of Title 9, the "Georgia Civil Practice Act."

Walt

JonD1


Posts:0


06/20/2015 7:04 PM  
So the logic we all get to see here is that Walter in an attempt to recoup what he believes was a misuse of HOA funds decides in best to drag the entire HOA into court. In doing so he then forces that same HOA to spend more money by using their lawyer to defend against Walter's suit. If not already my guess at some point those costs will exceed the amount Walter is seeking to recoup. So the bottom line is Walter's actions in a monetary sense will do more harm than good for his own community. Walter though continues to hide behind the representation he is protecting his fellow property owners when in fact that was never the case. Maybe Walter is buying that nonsense himself I'm not.

And I agree why not post the filing from the HOA lawyer to allow it to speak for itself? My guess the contents might expose Walter and his version of the facts.

Even if Walter was to prevail his HOA will be losing. Can't twist that truth to suit your liking.
JimR26
(Alabama)

Posts:27


06/21/2015 7:11 AM  
What these autocrats are trying to say is that it's important that every HOA member just to let wrongs continue to go on forever. If you don't correct them you're better off because you and the HOA save a little bit of money. If you correct the issue then you bring attention to the HOA and surrounding communities that funds are being mismanaged.

I'd say forget what the tyrants are saying here. Bring this to the attention of the courts. More courts need to hear how corrupt these micro-govts are. "Suing the HOA is suing yourself" if it corrects this sort of behavior in the future. Don't back down! Force your board (apostle volunteers of virtue) to come clean, force them to follow the CC&Rs, By-Laws and other governing documents. You do the same. It's the only FAIR and EQUITABLE way to live in an HOA. Damn the bastards that are cheating the HOA.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/21/2015 7:53 AM  
Posted By NpS on 06/20/2015 12:01 PM
Posted By NpS on 06/20/2015 7:14 AM
Posted By NpS on 05/21/2015 2:08 PM
SOOOOOOOOOOO Walter
Under GA procedural law for magistrate courts, your defendants have 30 days from date of service to file their answer. Now you be sure to provide us with their full answers - not your abbreviated version. I for one would like to hear what the other side has to say.


Time's up Walter. Where's the answer that the defendants filed?


So Walter - No more excuses - No more of your interpretations - We can do our own interpreting.

Show us the complete answers that the defendants filed?


Time to put up or shut up Walter. HFD.


Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JimR26
(Alabama)

Posts:27


06/21/2015 7:56 AM  
Volunteers or not, it is important for individual HO's or groups within a community to hold a BofD's accountable, or individual board members accountable. HOs are apathetic and are not inclined to pay attention to what happens within the community. When you hold a board (or individual members) accountable, the apathetic majority wakes up. Then they want to know why and how there's a grand missing from their own wallet. The smaller the community the bigger the impact of the costs.

The only way to correct the tyranny associated with the micro-gov'ts is to go forward. Even if you lose, you will make an impact. You'll find your board will be much more careful in the future to document their actions, report to the community, and follow governing documents. You might even find that the cowardly tyrants refuse to run again ... all tyrants are cowards.

I totally support you Walt and what you are trying to accomplish. And, when they talk about apathy here on this site, what I've seen is that the board members are equally apathetic; they never bother to read the CC&Rs and other governing documents they're responsible for. Instead they defer their vote(s) to the one board member they believe has read the documents. Why are they on the board? To socialize and get to know people in the community ... it's all about "love and caring". Yeah, right!
JonD1


Posts:0


06/21/2015 8:09 AM  
Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:11 AM
What these autocrats are trying to say is that it's important that every HOA member just to let wrongs continue to go on forever. If you don't correct them you're better off because you and the HOA save a little bit of money. If you correct the issue then you bring attention to the HOA and surrounding communities that funds are being mismanaged.

I'd say forget what the tyrants are saying here. Bring this to the attention of the courts. More courts need to hear how corrupt these micro-govts are. "Suing the HOA is suing yourself" if it corrects this sort of behavior in the future. Don't back down! Force your board (apostle volunteers of virtue) to come clean, force them to follow the CC&Rs, By-Laws and other governing documents. You do the same. It's the only FAIR and EQUITABLE way to live in an HOA. Damn the bastards that are cheating the HOA.




No Jim what we are trying say is just because you THINK you have a case doesn't make it so. That Walter's view on his legal standing, despite expending a whole $50 with an online attorney, might just be off base. That to have the HOA spend more in legal fees than you are looking to collect is a lose-lose for the HOA. That Walter has allowed his desire to prove a point to inflict damages on the very community he claims to serve. That like you, Jim, Walter thinking a simple payment to the HOA lawyer to review legal action that might involve the HOA or its officers from which no board member benefitted in the views of some does not constitute malfeasance.

I note all the anti-HOA buzz words in your posts. No doubt you have spent much time memorizing those to serve in proving your limited points.

"Damn the bastards that are cheating the HOA." Your determination that the board members are in fact cheating the HOA is simply unfounded and groundless. Perhaps we should wait for the court's decision my guess they are better qualified in the law than you. And damn those bastards but support those that sue the same HOA and inflict more expense. Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Let's wait and see just how Walter's crusade concludes. And if his suit fails will he be reimbursing the HOA for its legal costs? Of course not. Him doing the right thing doesn't require that...
LarryB13
(Arizona)

Posts:4099


06/21/2015 8:28 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 6:33 PM

Posted By LarryB13 on 06/20/2015 5:03 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 2:32 PM
Apparently the HOA lawyer doesn't see it that way.

Walt


Walt,

Why don't you post the HOA lawyer's response so we can see for ourselves? For some reason I do not trust your interpretation of legal pleadings and would prefer to make my own judgment about what the HOA lawyers "sees."




Are you nuts?

I am not posting the actual filings.




Didn't you claim to be a Marine? You sound more like a coward afraid of the truth and not at all like an honorable Marine.

TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


06/21/2015 8:44 AM  
Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:56 AM

Volunteers or not, it is important for individual HO's or groups within a community to hold a BofD's accountable, or individual board members accountable.




Jim, I (and I believe most on this site) agree with that statement.

We differ in what method should be utilized to hold the Board accountable. Legal action, in some instances are the only real option. However, removing the Board or being willing to serve so there is a choice are usually the quicker and most effective.


Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:56 AM

When you hold a board (or individual members) accountable, the apathetic majority wakes up.




Depends on the issue.

Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:56 AM

The only way to correct the tyranny associated with the micro-gov'ts is to go forward. Even if you lose, you will make an impact.




Although I disagree with your implication that all HOA/COAs have tyranny, going forward to holding individuals accountable will have an impact. Perhaps good, perhaps bad or perhaps a combination of both (as all decisions have both intended and unintended consequences).

Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:56 AM

I totally support you Walt and what you are trying to accomplish.




I also think that what Walt is trying to accomplish is good. However, I (and from the comments, many others) disagree with the method Walt is using to accomplish his goal.

BTW: Did you notice earlier in the Tread where Walter did the same thing as a Board member that he is accusing others of: Spending funds without prior authority (go back and read where Walter admits to asking the Association attorney for an opinion on something he was not previously authorized to discuss).

Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:56 AM

what I've seen is that the board members are equally apathetic; they never bother to read the CC&Rs and other governing documents they're responsible for. Instead they defer their vote(s) to the one board member they believe has read the documents.




Unfortunately, that is a true statement and one reason why I had the issue I had with my Association.


Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 7:56 AM

Why are they on the board?




They are on the board because they were willing to step forward and volunteer to help.

They are on the board because the membership, at least those willing to participate, voted to accept their offer and elected them to the Board.

That is how they get there. If there were more volunteers willing to serve, there would be choices for the membership to choose from.

Jim, I don't recall, do you now or have you previously served on a HOA/COA Board?



JimR26
(Alabama)

Posts:27


06/21/2015 9:52 AM  
Whoa Willy, Tim and the rest ...

Tim made this claim: BTW: Did you notice earlier in the Tread where Walter did the same thing as a Board member that he is accusing others of: Spending funds without prior authority (go back and read where Walter admits to asking the Association attorney for an opinion on something he was not previously authorized to discuss).

Poor Walt is getting blamed for everything. If the Atty at the HOA where Walt resides responds to him without asking the board for direction, then she/he has wasted the communities money. Where does it say that Walt can't ask a question of ANYONE? Is that in the governing documents? The attorney doesn't have to but should read Walt's comments. It would save the community money IF the HOA did communicate to Walt that the board handled the situation correctly or NOT.

And, of course I was not referring to the excessive posters on this site when I inferred HOAs are autocrats. You people are all on the "apostles of virtue" team.

I'm not a Judge, I am an observer. Walt feels he has a legal claim against his HOA. Obviously his HOA Board has failed to explain the discrepancy to Walt's satisfaction. IF the Board cares to avoid legal costs, they should sit down with him and explain why the expense was valid and perhaps (and this is a stretch I know) apologize that their procedure was not clear and what they will do in the future to make it clear. That is "they should make an effort to diffuse the situation". Have you read anything in Walt's posts where he explains the board is trying to diffuse the situation? HOs get angry, they get angry over little stuff and big stuff. If the President's role is to communicate, then there should be some communication; if they are right they should communicate that to Walt. Then the healing begins.

Walt should continue to move forward in a peaceful manner, albeit legal recourse, until he feels comfortable that the board handled this correctly. They've reached an impasse, and more than likely it's a stubborn board.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/21/2015 10:40 AM  
Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM
If the Atty at the HOA where Walt resides responds to him without asking the board for direction, then she/he has wasted the communities money.

I have yet to meet the lawyer who is going to get an inquiry from a HO, get direction from the board, and not bill for her time. Many HOAs set up one board member who is the point of contact with attorney in order to avoid multiple billings on the same issue.

Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM
The attorney doesn't have to but should read Walt's comments.

If the attorney reads Walt's comments, the attorney should be paid for her time.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JimR26
(Alabama)

Posts:27


06/21/2015 12:19 PM  
Nps I was glad to read your comments. Some attorneys bill for reading e's, others do not. It's one of those situations where "it depends". But again, you are one of the excessive posters who can only be an "Apostle of Virtue". No doubt in my mind that what ever you say is the "gold standard". Anyone and everyone can rely on anything you say. You have the scoop on the dog poop, so to speak.

Walt, if you are right, go for it. If not back away. Good Luck. If they are jerks "bring them down". If you are able to bring them down, please come back and brag about it on this website. HO's need to know when there is a win.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


06/21/2015 1:36 PM  
Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM

Tim made this claim: BTW: Did you notice earlier in the Tread where Walter did the same thing as a Board member that he is accusing others of: Spending funds without prior authority (go back and read where Walter admits to asking the Association attorney for an opinion on something he was not previously authorized to discuss).




The claim was based on Walts' postings from his first thread (which occurred while he was a Director:


Posted By WalterM3 on 04/24/2014 7:08 AM


I will add that I sent the 'secret' Motion [to decrease size of Board] to the HOA lawyer 3 weeks prior to the annual meeting where it was given effect. At that time only a fifth person (not a 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th person) was allowed to stand for election.

He never answered my e-mail. He may have colluded on their course of action that restricted the Board to five members.





All I'm pointing out is that Walter did the same thing, incurred an expense to the Association, that he was not authorized to incur. There was no action without meeting, there was no authorization from the Board to make such an inquiry. Just because Walter never received a reply doesn't mean that the Association wasn't charged for the attorneys' time.

I simply think it's amazing how some people believe that it's alright for them to do something but get mad when others do the exact same thing.

If the attorney representing the Association becomes conscious of this, he can make the Court aware that Walter has un-clean hands as he has done what he is accusing others of having done and it may affect the Courts opinion.


Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM

Where does it say that Walt can't ask a question of ANYONE? Is that in the governing documents?




Per Walter, yes it is.

Walter, being a Director at the time, required authorization before incurring expenses on behalf of the Association. Per Walter, the Bylaws (along with State Statute) specify that authorization can be obtained as an action without meeting that per Walter, must be done prior to the action taking place. Walter gives the impression that this never occurred.

Therefore, Walter can not ask for a legal opinion that is being paid for by the Association.

To me, it sounds a little hypocritical.

Although I disagree with Walters chosen method, I did wish him luck.

Walter feels that the action was wrong and called people on it. The fact that additional funds are being spent by the Association to defend those same people Walter called out doesn't appear to be relevant to Walter. The possibility that Walters legal action may actually discourage qualified people from volunteering to serve doesn't appear to be relevant to Walter.

Sometimes, as JohnC is known to say: you can win the battle but lose the war.


Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM

HOs get angry, they get angry over little stuff and big stuff. If the President's role is to communicate, then there should be some communication; if they are right they should communicate that to Walt. Then the healing begins.




On this, I think most, if not everyone, agrees.





NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/21/2015 7:04 PM  
Posted By NpS on 06/21/2015 10:40 AM
Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM
If the Atty at the HOA where Walt resides responds to him without asking the board for direction, then she/he has wasted the communities money.

I have yet to meet the lawyer who is going to get an inquiry from a HO, get direction from the board, and not bill for her time. Many HOAs set up one board member who is the point of contact with attorney in order to avoid multiple billings on the same issue.


Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 9:52 AM
The attorney doesn't have to but should read Walt's comments.

If the attorney reads Walt's comments, the attorney should be paid for her time.

Posted By JimR26 on 06/21/2015 12:19 PM
Nps I was glad to read your comments. Some attorneys bill for reading e's, others do not. It's one of those situations where "it depends". But again, you are one of the excessive posters who can only be an "Apostle of Virtue". No doubt in my mind that what ever you say is the "gold standard". Anyone and everyone can rely on anything you say. You have the scoop on the dog poop, so to speak.

Walt, if you are right, go for it. If not back away. Good Luck. If they are jerks "bring them down". If you are able to bring them down, please come back and brag about it on this website. HO's need to know when there is a win.


Jim

In your original post, you seemed to think that the HOA lawyer should be available for anyone. In response, I reminded you that lawyers don't work for free and that many HOAs are very cautious about running up their tab with the HOA lawyer.

Your response is that some lawyers don't charge for reading an email. Sure, many lawyers don't charge for reading an email. But you in fact were arguing much more than that - that upon receipt of Walter's email, the HOA lawyer should have contacted the board.

I see two problems with your argument. 1. Maybe the HOA lawyer did contact the board. 2. Communicating with the board is more than just reading an email. Either way, your suggestion will cost the HOA money. And that was the point I was making.


Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 7:32 AM  
"BTW: Did you notice earlier in the Tread where Walter did the same thing as a Board member that he is accusing others of: Spending funds without prior authority (go back and read where Walter admits to asking the Association attorney for an opinion on something he was not previously authorized to discuss)."

Lord, Lord.

I had no idea the attorney was going to bill the HOA for an e-mail from me. The HOA being billed for my e-mail wasn't discussed at any Board meetings. But someone (not me) apparently approved that expenditure.

They did that without maintaining the proper paper trail required by statute. Now they have been sued for malfeasance.

Walt
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 7:34 AM  
Posted By LarryB13 on 06/21/2015 8:28 AM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 6:33 PM

Posted By LarryB13 on 06/20/2015 5:03 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/20/2015 2:32 PM
Apparently the HOA lawyer doesn't see it that way.

Walt


Walt,

Why don't you post the HOA lawyer's response so we can see for ourselves? For some reason I do not trust your interpretation of legal pleadings and would prefer to make my own judgment about what the HOA lawyers "sees."




Are you nuts?

I am not posting the actual filings.




Didn't you claim to be a Marine? You sound more like a coward afraid of the truth and not at all like an honorable Marine.





I don't think this site accepts files as large as a pdf. file of several pages would be. Further, publication at this point might be considered defamatory.

Walt
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 7:43 AM  
"The fact that additional funds are being spent by the Association to defend those same people Walter called out doesn't appear to be relevant to Walter."

Sure it is. When two of these Board members come up for reelection in the Spring, it won't be forgotten by the members that they spent the Association's money to cover their butts for malfeasance.

This is a link to my FB page of when I was first overseas in the Marine Corps:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Marine-Detachment-USS-Simon-Lake-AS-33/266367943436706?sk=photos_stream

I hope it works.

Walt
JonD1


Posts:0


06/24/2015 9:01 AM  
So Walter's motto seems to be now do as I say not as I did.
He didn't know there would be a charge to the HOA to speak to the HOA's lawyer? Hmmmmmmmmmmm Guess those legal folks work for free!

And in the event Walter's case fails will he do the honorable thing and reimburse his neighbors and fellow home owners the legal costs to defend his suit?

Of course not, his doing the right thing only goes so far........

The term hypocrite comes to mind for some reason.

And yes the owners might also remember Walter's suit was lost in court costing the HOA needless expense. We will have to wait and see.

WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 9:39 AM  
Posted By JonD1 on 06/24/2015 9:01 AM
So Walter's motto seems to be now do as I say not as I did.
He didn't know there would be a charge to the HOA to speak to the HOA's lawyer? Hmmmmmmmmmmm Guess those legal folks work for free!

And in the event Walter's case fails will he do the honorable thing and reimburse his neighbors and fellow home owners the legal costs to defend his suit?

Of course not, his doing the right thing only goes so far........

The term hypocrite comes to mind for some reason.

And yes the owners might also remember Walter's suit was lost in court costing the HOA needless expense. We will have to wait and see.





Someone could have told the attorney, "We won't pay that."

Right?

Walt
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/24/2015 9:52 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 7:34 AM
I don't think this site accepts files as large as a pdf. file of several pages would be. Further, publication at this point might be considered defamatory.

Papers filed in court are public documents. Defamatory excuse is nonsene.
Never had a problem with multi-page pdf attachments. Did you try? Maybe must another excuse.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 9:59 AM  
Posted By NpS on 06/24/2015 9:52 AM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 7:34 AM
I don't think this site accepts files as large as a pdf. file of several pages would be. Further, publication at this point might be considered defamatory.

Papers filed in court are public documents. Defamatory excuse is nonsene.
Never had a problem with multi-page pdf attachments. Did you try? Maybe must another excuse.




I don't think just being public documents relieves the possibility of defamation.

I am not revealing the names of the parties or which HOA it is or where it is. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Walt
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/24/2015 10:05 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 9:39 AM
Someone could have told the attorney, "We won't pay that."

Right?


Ok - so let me see if I got you right ...

You're a military guy, but you didn't run it up the chain of command to see if the HOA lawyer would charge for her time to read your email.

You thought that the HOA lawyer should work for free. Of course you paid your lawyer $50 - Maybe he should have worked for free too. Wudya think?

So the HOA lawyer reads your email and bills for her time. But since reading your email wasn't a pre-approved expense, you think that someone on the board should have refused to pay it.

So to summarize ... you created the expense without any prior approval. And you find fault with the board members because they didn't refuse to pay the expense that you created.

Makes perfect sense to me Walter. Yup yup yup. You should send more emails to the HOA lawyer. Maybe one every day. No one will have to pay cause it's not pre-approved. Won't that be fun? Yup yup yup.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/24/2015 10:06 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 9:59 AM
Posted By NpS on 06/24/2015 9:52 AM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 7:34 AM
I don't think this site accepts files as large as a pdf. file of several pages would be. Further, publication at this point might be considered defamatory.

Papers filed in court are public documents. Defamatory excuse is nonsene.
Never had a problem with multi-page pdf attachments. Did you try? Maybe must another excuse.


I don't think just being public documents relieves the possibility of defamation.

I am not revealing the names of the parties or which HOA it is or where it is. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Walt


What's unreasonable is your excuses. One after the other. Never producing anything. But making wild-ass allegations. Hooblah.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 10:11 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 9:59 AM
Posted By NpS on 06/24/2015 9:52 AM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 7:34 AM
I don't think this site accepts files as large as a pdf. file of several pages would be. Further, publication at this point might be considered defamatory.

Papers filed in court are public documents. Defamatory excuse is nonsene.
Never had a problem with multi-page pdf attachments. Did you try? Maybe must another excuse.




I don't think just being public documents relieves the possibility of defamation.

I am not revealing the names of the parties or which HOA it is or where it is. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Walt




NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/24/2015 10:29 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 10:11 AM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 9:59 AM
Posted By NpS on 06/24/2015 9:52 AM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/24/2015 7:34 AM
I don't think this site accepts files as large as a pdf. file of several pages would be. Further, publication at this point might be considered defamatory.

Papers filed in court are public documents. Defamatory excuse is nonsene.
Never had a problem with multi-page pdf attachments. Did you try? Maybe must another excuse.




I don't think just being public documents relieves the possibility of defamation.

I am not revealing the names of the parties or which HOA it is or where it is. I don't see that as unreasonable.

Walt


REDACT.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/24/2015 12:04 PM  
"You're a military guy, but you didn't run it up the chain of command to see if the HOA lawyer would charge for her time to read your email."

I am a military guy who never exchanged e-mails with a lawyer before.

Why didn't whoever approved that outlay of HOA funds mention it to me? Why didn't we discuss how to approach the attorney as a Board of Directors? Or when to and not to?

I was on the Board for a year after that. It was only after I requested the invoices through an open records request early this year that I found out at all.

Walt

NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/24/2015 12:19 PM  
You got all the answers Walt. Still haven't produced a single document. Not one. One excuse after the next. You can't this and you can't that - but you sure have time to figure out how to go after everyone you don't like. Your credibility IMO is zero. And you have done nothing to improve it. Done with your threads. Have a nice life. Bye.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JonD1


Posts:0


06/24/2015 2:28 PM  
Walter is a fraud who only presents his version of reality. And when asked to post the reply of those he has brought suit against let the BS begin.

A Marine who can't master the removal of names and identifying information off a piece of paper! What a crock!

And the idiotic story he didn't know lawyers charged fees for legal work. DUH...........

But the HOA paid that bill because Walter's Honor and need to do the right thing only applies to OTHERS!

Not much of a double standard there.

Excuses, BS, double talk, and fabrication none of which one should ever be proud of....... Walter has it ALL!
JimR26
(Alabama)

Posts:27


06/25/2015 10:14 AM  
JonD1 or New York ... you are the fraud, not Walt. I've read plenty of your postings. Too many to be exact.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/25/2015 11:59 AM  
Posted By JimR26 on 06/25/2015 10:14 AM
JonD1 or New York ... you are the fraud, not Walt. I've read plenty of your postings. Too many to be exact.




I don't know what the problem is. I am such a sweetheart. What I am saying probably hits too close to home for many.

Walt
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/25/2015 12:17 PM  
Posted By JonD1 on 06/20/2015 7:04 PM
So the logic we all get to see here is that Walter in an attempt to recoup what he believes was a misuse of HOA funds decides in best to drag the entire HOA into court. In doing so he then forces that same HOA to spend more money by using their lawyer to defend against Walter's suit. If not already my guess at some point those costs will exceed the amount Walter is seeking to recoup. So the bottom line is Walter's actions in a monetary sense will do more harm than good for his own community. Walter though continues to hide behind the representation he is protecting his fellow property owners when in fact that was never the case. Maybe Walter is buying that nonsense himself I'm not.

And I agree why not post the filing from the HOA lawyer to allow it to speak for itself? My guess the contents might expose Walter and his version of the facts.

Even if Walter was to prevail his HOA will be losing. Can't twist that truth to suit your liking.




How does my HOA lose if I win?

Walt
JonD1


Posts:0


06/25/2015 4:33 PM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/25/2015 12:17 PM
Posted By JonD1 on 06/20/2015 7:04 PM
So the logic we all get to see here is that Walter in an attempt to recoup what he believes was a misuse of HOA funds decides in best to drag the entire HOA into court. In doing so he then forces that same HOA to spend more money by using their lawyer to defend against Walter's suit. If not already my guess at some point those costs will exceed the amount Walter is seeking to recoup. So the bottom line is Walter's actions in a monetary sense will do more harm than good for his own community. Walter though continues to hide behind the representation he is protecting his fellow property owners when in fact that was never the case. Maybe Walter is buying that nonsense himself I'm not.

And I agree why not post the filing from the HOA lawyer to allow it to speak for itself? My guess the contents might expose Walter and his version of the facts.

Even if Walter was to prevail his HOA will be losing. Can't twist that truth to suit your liking.




How does my HOA lose if I win?

Walt




Walter are you really that simple?

IF YOU PREVAIL (win) THE HOA IS STILL LEFT SADDLED WITH THE ADDITIONAL LEGAL COSTS OF DEFENDING YOUR LAWSUIT.

MY GUESS THOSE FESS WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU PLAN TO RECOVER.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONFUSED HAVE SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

YOUR DESIRE TONPROVE YOURSELF SOMEKIND OF HERONJUST MIGHT BACKFIRE ON YOU.
LETS WAIT AND SEE. MY GUESS IF YOU WERE TO LOSE WE WOULD NEVER SEE ANOTHER POST FROM YOU.


JonD1


Posts:0


06/25/2015 4:36 PM  
Posted By JimR26 on 06/25/2015 10:14 AM
JonD1 or New York ... you are the fraud, not Walt. I've read plenty of your postings. Too many to be exact.


Jim go preach your memorized simpleminded nonsense somewhere else. The crazy train stopped here and left and you should have been on it!
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


06/25/2015 4:43 PM  
Jon,

This is similar to the Mike thing.
Let it go as I, and others, have. It's not worth the time.

Spend time offering advice to those willing to listen. To those who are looking to make an informed decision vs. simply wanting justification for their own decision.


Tim
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11507


06/25/2015 4:58 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 06/25/2015 4:43 PM
Jon,

This is similar to the Mike thing.
Let it go as I, and others, have. It's not worth the time.

Spend time offering advice to those willing to listen. To those who are looking to make an informed decision vs. simply wanting justification for their own decision.


Tim




Well said.

JonD1


Posts:0


06/25/2015 5:18 PM  

Thanks Tim and John I just have no patience for limited ignoramuses who read something and then repeat it over and over again like it was their original thought.

Walter is either confused or blinded by his agenda to prove some meaningless point. With the property becoming collateral damage due to his nonsense.

Jim is just a shallow, limited view of the world putz.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


06/25/2015 7:07 PM  
I think he's simply blinded by his agenda.

He seems to mean well, based on what he said he is trying to achieve. I suspect (well hope) that had the Board simply gotten an action without meeting or held a special meeting of the Board to approve the charge, then he would likely not be taking legal action.

It's also possible, as it was never confirmed one way or the other, that the Boards decision to reduce the size of the Board prevented him from serving another term. If that's the case, add potential hurt to personal pride as a factor. Again, this is pure speculation.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/25/2015 8:23 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 06/25/2015 7:07 PM
I think he's simply blinded by his agenda.

He seems to mean well, based on what he said he is trying to achieve. I suspect (well hope) that had the Board simply gotten an action without meeting or held a special meeting of the Board to approve the charge, then he would likely not be taking legal action.

It's also possible, as it was never confirmed one way or the other, that the Boards decision to reduce the size of the Board prevented him from serving another term. If that's the case, add potential hurt to personal pride as a factor. Again, this is pure speculation.

I agree Tim when you say that he is blinded by his agenda and that his personal pride was probably hurt when he was apparently squeezed off the board.

But re your comments on the fees and meetings, I think you need to go a bit deeper. In one of his threads, Walter admitted that the $5000 legal expense was about him. It seems obvious that the board decided to reach out to the lawyer for help on how to deal with the "Walter issue" without including Walter in those discussions.

What that "Walter issue" is from the board's perspective (not from Walter's perspective) is unclear from Walter's postings. In thread after thread, posting after posting, Walter repeatedly refused to provide the contents of his chosen adversaries' writings.

But I can imagine what the "Walter issue" might have been. Let's suppose that Walter threatened individual board members with arrests or other police action. Let's say that other board members were actually scared that Walter would take physical action against them. Walter so much as said that several board members resigned and that his goal is for all of them to resign. So what actually was going on. And where does that leave his HOA.

No I don't think the lack of a special meeting or action without meeting is at the root of this issue. I think that the root of this issue is that Walter could be just plain scary for the people who have to contend with his threatening behavior on a daily basis.

I cannot comprehend that someone who sat on the board for more than a year wouldn't know that the HOA lawyer charged for her time. There's just way too much missing here. And Walter has rejected every opportunity to let someone else's words fill in the blanks.

I thank Walter for his service to our country. Not much more to say.





Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
TimB4
(Virginia)

Posts:17766


06/25/2015 8:53 PM  
NP,

I think, like my speculation on Walter being squeezed out from serving on the Board, you may be reading too much between the lines. It may or may not be a correct reading. However, like mine, it's still just speculation.

Regardless of how we fill in the blanks of the issue, as I have done in the past - I wish Walter luck. He saw a wrong and is trying to fix it. I do not agree with his approach but that is the method he has chosen to use and it was in place prior to him posting the issue on this site.

NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4215


06/26/2015 2:27 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 06/25/2015 8:53 PM
I think, like my speculation on Walter being squeezed out from serving on the Board, you may be reading too much between the lines. It may or may not be a correct reading. However, like mine, it's still just speculation.

And just why are we left to speculate so often on every one of Walter's threads?

Posted By TimB4 on 06/25/2015 8:53 PM
Regardless of how we fill in the blanks of the issue, as I have done in the past - I wish Walter luck.

As do I.

Posted By TimB4 on 06/25/2015 8:53 PM
He saw a wrong and is trying to fix it. I do not agree with his approach but that is the method he has chosen to use and it was in place prior to him posting the issue on this site.

If you are talking about the lawsuit, my impression is that he filed it after he began posting here. My comment about looking deeper stems from here:

Posted By WalterM3 on 03/26/2015 6:49 AM
I was on the Board during this time. To my surprise I found over $5,000.00 in expenses not covered at the monthly meetings. I know this because I was there. They mostly involved my actions – they wanted to keep these things secret from me.



Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/26/2015 5:27 AM  
Posted By JonD1 on 06/25/2015 4:33 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/25/2015 12:17 PM
Posted By JonD1 on 06/20/2015 7:04 PM
So the logic we all get to see here is that Walter in an attempt to recoup what he believes was a misuse of HOA funds decides in best to drag the entire HOA into court. In doing so he then forces that same HOA to spend more money by using their lawyer to defend against Walter's suit. If not already my guess at some point those costs will exceed the amount Walter is seeking to recoup. So the bottom line is Walter's actions in a monetary sense will do more harm than good for his own community. Walter though continues to hide behind the representation he is protecting his fellow property owners when in fact that was never the case. Maybe Walter is buying that nonsense himself I'm not.

And I agree why not post the filing from the HOA lawyer to allow it to speak for itself? My guess the contents might expose Walter and his version of the facts.

Even if Walter was to prevail his HOA will be losing. Can't twist that truth to suit your liking.




How does my HOA lose if I win?

Walt




Walter are you really that simple?

IF YOU PREVAIL (win) THE HOA IS STILL LEFT SADDLED WITH THE ADDITIONAL LEGAL COSTS OF DEFENDING YOUR LAWSUIT.

MY GUESS THOSE FESS WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU PLAN TO RECOVER.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONFUSED HAVE SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

YOUR DESIRE TONPROVE YOURSELF SOMEKIND OF HERONJUST MIGHT BACKFIRE ON YOU.
LETS WAIT AND SEE. MY GUESS IF YOU WERE TO LOSE WE WOULD NEVER SEE ANOTHER POST FROM YOU.







The Board members thoroughly and completely ignored the Bylaws and Covenants for two years. They did whatever they wanted. They messed up and spent money without capturing a majority vote in writing, as required by the laws of Georgia.

This action will serve (two of the defendants are still on the Board) to warn them and others who come after that they must follow the rules.

It is not in the scope of this action, but two of the defendants also a couple of years ago now, tried to fine a resident retroactively. This while the Covenants say in two different places that the Association may act after written notice of ten days time.

They are horrid, horrid people who acted to hide their actions from members of the Association, people who behaved arrogantly and incompetently. An action such as I have brought was imperative to get these jerks under control.

Walt
JonD1


Posts:0


06/26/2015 5:50 AM  
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/26/2015 5:27 AM
Posted By JonD1 on 06/25/2015 4:33 PM
Posted By WalterM3 on 06/25/2015 12:17 PM
Posted By JonD1 on 06/20/2015 7:04 PM
So the logic we all get to see here is that Walter in an attempt to recoup what he believes was a misuse of HOA funds decides in best to drag the entire HOA into court. In doing so he then forces that same HOA to spend more money by using their lawyer to defend against Walter's suit. If not already my guess at some point those costs will exceed the amount Walter is seeking to recoup. So the bottom line is Walter's actions in a monetary sense will do more harm than good for his own community. Walter though continues to hide behind the representation he is protecting his fellow property owners when in fact that was never the case. Maybe Walter is buying that nonsense himself I'm not.

And I agree why not post the filing from the HOA lawyer to allow it to speak for itself? My guess the contents might expose Walter and his version of the facts.

Even if Walter was to prevail his HOA will be losing. Can't twist that truth to suit your liking.




How does my HOA lose if I win?

Walt




Walter are you really that simple?

IF YOU PREVAIL (win) THE HOA IS STILL LEFT SADDLED WITH THE ADDITIONAL LEGAL COSTS OF DEFENDING YOUR LAWSUIT.

MY GUESS THOSE FESS WILL EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU PLAN TO RECOVER.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONFUSED HAVE SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

YOUR DESIRE TONPROVE YOURSELF SOMEKIND OF HERONJUST MIGHT BACKFIRE ON YOU.
LETS WAIT AND SEE. MY GUESS IF YOU WERE TO LOSE WE WOULD NEVER SEE ANOTHER POST FROM YOU.







The Board members thoroughly and completely ignored the Bylaws and Covenants for two years. They did whatever they wanted. They messed up and spent money without capturing a majority vote in writing, as required by the laws of Georgia.

This action will serve (two of the defendants are still on the Board) to warn them and others who come after that they must follow the rules.

It is not in the scope of this action, but two of the defendants also a couple of years ago now, tried to fine a resident retroactively. This while the Covenants say in two different places that the Association may act after written notice of ten days time.

They are horrid, horrid people who acted to hide their actions from members of the Association, people who behaved arrogantly and incompetently. An action such as I have brought was imperative to get these jerks under control.

Walt



I guess you will continue to ignore the damage and cost your actions are inflicting on your community.
In your blind zeal to act as judge regarding the board's actions you are willing to excuse your own behavior which caused an undue expense to the HOA and then you plead ignorance and even go so far as to suggest the board should have refused to pay.

The board acted "arrogantly and incompetently" ?????? But you were allowed to use the services of the HOA's attorney for your purposes and then claim
Ignorance to the simple well known fact there would be a cost.

The term hypocrite seems to apply. In my view you are NOT the defender of right and wrong in your HOA's operations but rather someone who picks their facts, twists their version of reality and is now attempting to hold others to standards you yourself failed to live up to.

Unlike some others I do not wish you luck. I hope the best for your HOA. It is unfortunate your entire community needs to pray the price so you might attempt to prove a lesson to the board. Surely, there were better ways to address this. But your limitations saw just one. Lawsuit.

And you are so blind you can't even fathom the harm you are causing. I think the term for such behavior is being a "right fighter". Seems that label fits you well Walter. Please stop trying to pass yourself off as some hero, do gooder, protector when in fact it is only your agenda and interests your actions are serving.
There are none so blind as those with eyes that will not see.....
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/26/2015 6:39 AM  
"In your blind zeal to act as judge regarding the board's actions you are willing to excuse your own behavior which caused an undue expense to the HOA and then you plead ignorance and even go so far as to suggest the board should have refused to pay."

Nah, I am asking the Magistrate Court to judge. I think I have a pretty good case.


And it is not undue expense. It is a necessary expense to put Board members on notice that they MUST follow the Bylaws and Covenants. They cannot fine residents retroactively. They cannot spend the Association's money and not account for it -- as required by law.




Walt
WalterM3
(Georgia)

Posts:371


06/26/2015 6:45 AM  
"It is unfortunate your entire community needs to pray the price so you might attempt to prove a lesson to the board."

Most of the Association members won't speak up.

I am not spending the Association’s money. Only the Board can do that. They could admits mistakes were made and just agree to pay the $1140.00. If they spend 3 X that amount to deploy the attorney, I didn’t make them do that. If the home owners won’t speak up, that is not my fault. I can’t stand having such low, coarse people as these Board members impinging on my operations. So I took them to court to get them to comply with the laws of this state. And if the home owners don’t have the cojones to vote a couple of them them off the Board next spring, so be it.


Walt
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 4 of 7 << < 1234567 > >>
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Suing Board members, Not the HOA Board



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