Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Wednesday, October 28, 2020











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: demand letter from hoa attorney
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 2 of 2 << < 12
Author Messages
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/20/2020 4:05 PM  
Just multiply this time XXXXX for each board meeting at this association - and, the emails? And texts? And phone calls.

I tire of hearing about it.

Trying to find something good in all of this.
ChrisE8
(New York)

Posts:134


09/20/2020 4:08 PM  
Actually, please consider following my third rule of HOA life:

3. If your HOA is bad and shows no sign of improvement, MOVE.

There are many great HOAs out there. I live in one and love it. Life’s too short to let a bad HOA make you miserable.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/20/2020 4:11 PM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/20/2020 3:45 PM

but geez, he's supposed to be the hoa lawyer,, i'm sure the fact that I have been right on several technical legal issues just pisses him off. Mainly because he so vehemently stated I was wrong on three different occasions. every one of them,, turns out i was right. Of course, he never apologized or even sent a written confirmation that on the issues in question. My reading of the law was correct . He basicallly assumed he knew the answer .. I've realized the law is all about the details
LaskaS, how many times did you make a fuss insisting you were right about xyz and then it turned out you were wrong?

Believe me, I can appreciate your besting the HOA attorney a few times. But it seems like I have seen some gross errors on your part as well.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/20/2020 5:05 PM  
Chris, IMO this is not a case of a bad HOA.
ChrisE8
(New York)

Posts:134


09/20/2020 5:17 PM  
Well it’s a situation of conflict with the HOA.

It’s not worth fighting a HOA unless the issues can be fixed and the property is worth the hassle. In this case, clearly the problems aren’t going away.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10017


09/20/2020 5:41 PM  
Why do I think Laska would go looking for problems in any association she moved to?
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/20/2020 6:06 PM  
Posted By JohnC46 on 09/20/2020 5:41 PM
Why do I think Laska would go looking for problems in any association she moved to?
Maybe you think this for the same reason I think you would deny HOA records to a HOA member or HOA director who has the lawful right to view these records.

I think LaskaS has had some significant successes. I am disappointed in other efforts she has undertook. But I am not writing her off.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/20/2020 6:08 PM  
Life is too short.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 6:41 PM  
Augustine,

Good point, I don't have access to the attorney. I send my objections or concerns to the board member who is the contact person with the attorney and cc the attorney.

What usually happens is, when the attorney replies to member , If i'm wrong , member a will forward me the email. However, when it turns out that the attorney had initially said I was wrong and then had to backtrack. I never get the actual emails with the oops info forwarded to me. Member A will just send me a text like he did this past thursday..
"Hey Laskas, you were right about the quorum thing, everything after you left will have to be ratified at a new meeting. "
The attorney is not accessible to all of the board, we have all agreed to have a main contact person. The problem is, an attorneys answer can vary depending on how the question is asked. And Member A is not transparent with what question he asks and what the exact response from the attorney is.

The only time I can recall that I've been wrong about the interpretation of our documents is the issue regarding my ability to call a special meeting, then adjourn it then at the adjourned meeting take action with whichever board members show up.

That's why I have often come here and posted my questions.. I usually first have done as much research as possible , I don't raise an issue unless I have a reasonable expectation that based on my reading of the documents, the issue I am raising is valid. When The board ignores my concern, that usually means I have a point and dammit they don't want to have to do it the right way.
Regarding how many times I have made a fuss about something and it turns out I am wrong. I would say I more often fuss to myself and for the past 2 years or so, I come to the message board and ask questions trying to find out why exactly I'm wrong.

Regarding the requirement to fill the vacant board seats. After requesting it in writing to the former board president and the board and being ignored. I finally CC'd the attorney along with the board members. Apparently he responded to Member A. Yes, you all are required to fill the seats ,it's not optional. However, then Member A tells me, we will do it, we plan to do it, but there is no specific time frame we are required to do it in. This is clearly not acting in good faith.

Your point is well taken though, what I have been is incessant . I will not just sit back and be railroaded when the board procedures and requirements are being ignored. my only real power is to object with actual valid points. This pisses them off. Because my points are valid and it causes them to have to find a workaround. I'm like, why not just do it right!

LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 6:46 PM  
augustin,

Just out of curiosity, what efforts have I taken on that you didn't believe had merit.


I've actually learned quite a lot from these boards and the many contributions of several of you. I've always recognized that there is a constant peanut gallery attempting to dismiss my concerns.

One of the things that I realized at some point. I might be right, but if I don't have a majority of the board that supports me, it's going to go nowhere.
I think for a long time I thought that the the other board members just didn't understand the documents and requirements. But at some point I realized , they probably knew they were wrong, but they were counting on noone stopping them .
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/20/2020 6:48 PM  
Gah- burning our lives away ...
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 6:53 PM  
Johnc46. I don't know why you think that, it probably has something to do with past experiences with someone I(my posts) reminds you of. So i'm getting sentenced for the crimes of someone you actually dealt with in person day in day out.

so to speak.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/20/2020 6:56 PM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/20/2020 6:46 PM
Just out of curiosity, what efforts have I taken on that you didn't believe had merit.
The 'adjourned meeting' topic, but you owned that in your post here just a little while ago.

I could be wrong and you actually have been nearly 100% consistently right and yes, on substantive issues.

I am a little wound up about how, in another recent thread you started, thrice a certain section of the Texas nonprofit corporation act had to be quoted. Like something is amiss in your reading comprehension.

I do know I myself am backpedaling a bit on what your Bylaws say about having nine directors. At this point I am sort of reverting to (1) what KerryL1 has said about interpreting this bylaw (using the horrifying passive voice*); and (2) the practical realities of a board that cannot muster a majority to confirm a nominee to the board. A director who does not like a nominee must vote her or his conscience.

I see your update about how appointing four new directors is on the agenda (again) of an upcoming meeting. Let's see what happens.



*Maybe two people here will understand the problems of passive voice in a statute, covenant, or whatever. To be a total ass-le tonight.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/20/2020 6:58 PM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/20/2020 6:53 PM
Johnc46. I don't know why you think that, it probably has something to do with past experiences with someone I(my posts) reminds you of. So i'm getting sentenced for the crimes of someone you actually dealt with in person day in day out.
Lol.

Bring on the shrinks.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 7:47 PM  
the byalws specifically define the Board of Managers as consisting of 9 people.

I noticed when rereading the relevant portions of the bylaws that refer to the the board and quorum etc..

Board of Managers is capitalized when it is used in our Bylaws. Whereas, in most state law, board of managers is not referring to a specific board. Kinda like the use of God and god.
Could it be that our documents and capitalization of Board of Managers is meant to denote that Board of Managers is specific entity with a clear definition.( 9 people) . so when Board of Managers is used later in the bylaws. and it is capitalized, that means you need to read it and apply the definition that is contained in our documents.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/20/2020 8:09 PM  
Nine or 3-9?
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 8:23 PM  
Also. .

It makes sense why a quorum of the Board of Managers is required for any actions of the board to be valid. After harvey, when most of the board resigned. We were informed in no uncertain terms that until a board was elected at the special meeting.. nothing outside of regular day to day business can occur. I.e. the 2 remaining board members could not start making decisions for the hoa until they at least filled enough of the seats so that the board would meet quorum requirements to conduct business as defined in our documents. So the two board members had to fill a seat, then the 3 board members would vote and approve the 4th seats and so on.


A majority vote of those present at a board meeting, (as long as there is a least a quorum present) will determine the actions of the board.

the confusion I believe comes from the language and word order in the bylaws.

here is the exact excerpt from our documents.

Board of managers Quorum . At all meetings of the Board of Managers, a majority of the Managers shall constitute a Quorum for the transaction of business, and the acts of the majority of the Managers present at a a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the acts of the Board of Managers. If , at any meeting of the Board Of Managers, there be less than a quorum present, the majority of those present may adjourn the meeting for time to time. At any such adjourned meeting, any business which might have been transacted at the meeting as originally called may be transacted without further notice.

The interpretation that I originally thought was correct is as follows. the quorum defnition is based on the number of board seats as prescribed in the bylaws makes up the Board of Managers.. the hoa attorney initially said that the definition of quorum is based on the number of seats currently filled.

If Board of Managers is defined in our bylaws as consisting of 9 owners. Quorum would be 5 board members.( a majority of seats of the defined board of managers). Any meeting where at least 5 are present, would qualify as a valid meeting .
a board meeting with only 7 board members fulfillls quorum requirements and thus a meeting at which business can occur can proceed. During the meeting. at least 4 votes will be needed to approve actions.
at a board meeting with only 5 board members present, this is still enough to proceed with business. at least 3 votes will be needed to approve actions at the meeting.
any gathering with less that 5 board members present does not qualify as a board meeting and thus no business can be conducted. discussions. sure. but not actual votes and decisions.

My contention was that the executive session that was called( and which i wasn't notified of) only had 4 board members present. so it was an invalid meeting.
The lawyer said, 4 board members present met quorum requirements. he said quorum is a majority and 4 is a majority of 5.
He was changing the definition of quorum depending on the number of board seats actually filled. this was incorrect.



JohnC77
(Washington)

Posts:207


09/20/2020 9:00 PM  
Laska

You're wasting your time with these people. They are here to ridicule you.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/20/2020 9:17 PM  
John,

“These people“ try and help a lot of people.

I suggest you tune back your language - you don’t have to, of course, but you will be more effective.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/20/2020 9:45 PM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/20/2020 8:23 PM
It makes sense why a quorum of the Board of Managers is required for any actions of the board to be valid. After harvey, when most of the board resigned. We were informed in no uncertain terms that until a board was elected at the special meeting.. nothing outside of regular day to day business can occur.
Informed by whom? Also I think the "in no uncertain terms" is nonsense. For example, if an emergency arose, management would not wait for an election of x number of directors to address this. Management would rightly take direction from whatever directors were remaining.

Posted By LaskaS on 09/20/2020 8:23 PM
He was changing the definition of quorum depending on the number of board seats actually filled. this was incorrect.
It's not incorrect until a court says it is incorrect. To me the truth is that the Bylaws Section 12 phrase, "a majority of the managers" is ambiguous. It does not say "a majority of the nine managers." It does not say "a majority of the managers whose seats are filled." To me the ambiguity justifies looking to the Nonprofit Corporation Act for direction on how to proceed.

But what is important at this point is that the HOA attorney changed his mind. Apparently, all directors now agree that a quorum is five. Congratulations. Next do you intend to force a majority of the five directors to vote the way you want them to vote? Will you use the threat of a lawsuit to try to get the directors to vote the way you want? Will water-boarding come into play in your efforts to get the directors to vote the way you want?

LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 10:01 PM  
found this explanation if this maybe clears it up.

a board which has the power to fill vacancies in its membership cannot reduce its quorum by neglecting its duty to fill vacancies immediately, and that, as a consequence, if such a board allows the number of its members to fall below its quorum by neglecting to fill vacancies as they arise, it will be unable to act thus requiring it to fill the vacancies.

LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/20/2020 10:04 PM  
in our documents, the only thing a board can do if it falls below quorum requirements is fill the vacant seats by a majority vote of the remaining board. even if less than a quorum
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/21/2020 5:52 AM  
LaskaS, how are you going to force a director to vote the way you want?

You come here complaining that the board will not follow the rules. Yet it appears you are not following the rules about directors being allowed to vote their consciences.
GeorgeS21
(Florida)

Posts:3279


09/21/2020 6:58 AM  
Gonna repost something Laska posted - goes to the number of managers per the Bylaws of that association ...

There is some built in ambiguity about the number of "Managers," yes? Given this is obviously not the first meeting, without other language in the Bylaws is the number actually 1-9? Vice hard 9?

"Board of Managers
1. Number and Qualification. Until the first meeting of
the Association, the affairs of this Association shall be governed
either by Declarant or by a Board of Managers consisting of from
one (1) to nine (9) persons appointed by Declarant. At such first
meeting, .here shall be elected any nine (9) members of the
Association •to the Board of Managers who shall thereafter govern
the affairs of this Association until their successors have been
duly elected and qualified. "
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/21/2020 7:52 AM  
GeorgeS21, because of the qualifier "At such first meeting... " I think you are right that the number of managers 'required' today for this Board is ambiguous.

I think this brings us back to the Texas Nonprofit Corporations Act as follows:
===
Sec. 22.204. NUMBER OF DIRECTORS. (a) If the corporation has a board of directors, a corporation may not have fewer than three directors. The number of directors shall be set by, or in the manner provided by, the certificate of formation or bylaws of the corporation, except that the number of directors on the initial board of directors must be set by the certificate of formation.

(b) The number of directors may be increased or decreased by amendment to, or in the manner provided by, the certificate of formation or bylaws. A decrease in the number of directors may not shorten the term of an incumbent director.

(c) In the absence of a provision of the certificate of formation or a bylaw setting the number of directors or providing for the manner in which the number of directors shall be determined, the number of directors is the same as the number constituting the initial board of directors.
===

What does LaskaS's HOA's certificate of formation say? If the certification of formation is silent on the number of directors, then per 22.204 above, under the law I think LaskaS's HOA's Board might be permitted as few as three and as many as nine directors. It depends on how many directors were on the initial board.

While this Board, the HOA attorney and LaskaS are arguing about this, with LaskaS's motivation being to pack the board with the directors she wants, isn't there a lack of attention being paid to other condo issues?

I continue to think LaskaS's strategy should be to get her people elected at the next election.

Yada yada. The GOP will achieve a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court before the November election. It is the GOP's lawful right to do so. The Democrats may take control of the Presidency, Senate and House and pass legislation that is bulletproof to the courts. It is the Democrats' lawful right to do so. Thank god the U. S. is not a third world country where we are all starving and dying of disease. Thank god only some people in the U. S. are starving and dying of disease.

She was a goodly Justice.
Take her for all in all.
We shall not look upon her like again.

-- Hamlet, Act I, Scene 2, slightly edited
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:1316


09/21/2020 10:06 AM  
Having seen a fair few of these kinds of squabbles, I've noticed that the complainer can have an unspoken assumption which they may not even be aware of - namely, that if the board can just be forced to "do things by the book" that they will come to see things the same way the complainer does.

It rarely works out that way.

That's because every board member has their own strengths and shortcomings and blind spots, and will end up making their own set of mistakes no matter how hard they try to get things right.

'Tis the nature of the beast.

(Years ago a friend of mine introduced me to the concept of "dying in full possession of the right of way". There are times when you can be right a thousand times over, and things are still not going to go your way. A person can either understand the reality of this and make peace with it - or spend their lives beating their heads against an unmovable wall but accomplishing nothing other than annoying the wall.)

GenoS
(Florida)

Posts:4133


09/21/2020 11:22 AM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 09/21/2020 10:06 AM


That's because every board member has their own strengths and shortcomings and blind spots, and will end up making their own set of mistakes no matter how hard they try to get things right.

'Tis the nature of the beast.

It is, although there are instances of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance that shouldn't be hand-waved away or trivialized with "hey I'm only a volunteer and everybody makes mistakes" rationalizations.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10017


09/21/2020 12:36 PM  
Posted By CathyA3 on 09/21/2020 10:06 AM
Having seen a fair few of these kinds of squabbles, I've noticed that the complainer can have an unspoken assumption which they may not even be aware of - namely, that if the board can just be forced to "do things by the book" that they will come to see things the same way the complainer does.

It rarely works out that way.

That's because every board member has their own strengths and shortcomings and blind spots, and will end up making their own set of mistakes no matter how hard they try to get things right.

'Tis the nature of the beast.

(Years ago a friend of mine introduced me to the concept of "dying in full possession of the right of way". There are times when you can be right a thousand times over, and things are still not going to go your way. A person can either understand the reality of this and make peace with it - or spend their lives beating their heads against an unmovable wall but accomplishing nothing other than annoying the wall.)




I always liked lose some battles but be sure to win the war.
CathyA3
(Ohio)

Posts:1316


09/21/2020 12:48 PM  
Posted By GenoS on 09/21/2020 11:22 AM
Posted By CathyA3 on 09/21/2020 10:06 AM


That's because every board member has their own strengths and shortcomings and blind spots, and will end up making their own set of mistakes no matter how hard they try to get things right.

'Tis the nature of the beast.

It is, although there are instances of malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance that shouldn't be hand-waved away or trivialized with "hey I'm only a volunteer and everybody makes mistakes" rationalizations.




True dat.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/22/2020 3:59 AM  
george, augustine

Am i missing something,

the passage above clearly says, until the first meeting of the association the association will be managed by either a declaratn or by a board of managers from one to 9 appointed by the declarant.

then it says, at such first meeting. there shall be elected 9 board members .

how is that vague..

our documents specify the board of managers consists of 9 people.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/22/2020 4:02 AM  
augustine,

I'm not sure where i gave the impression that I am trying to get the board to vote the way I want.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Although it would be nice if i could figure out how to do that.

what i want is for the board to FILL THE EMPTY SEATS . if they vote no on a candidate , so be it. But to try and put up road blocks and avoid having to vote, that's clearly not abiding by the requirement to act in good faith and fill the vacant seats.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9649


09/22/2020 4:24 AM  
What is the time schedule to fill? Laska time or real life time?

Former HOA President
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/22/2020 7:40 AM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/22/2020 4:02 AM
what i want is for the board to FILL THE EMPTY SEATS . if they vote no on a candidate , so be it. But to try and put up road blocks and avoid having to vote, that's clearly not abiding by the requirement to act in good faith and fill the vacant seats.
I do not have a problem with your lobbying for a vote (by the Board) to occur. But when a majority of the current directors fails to fill the empty directors' seats, what will you do next?

More importantly, if you know that a board majority will not vote to fill all four empty directors' seats, then practically speaking, what you are doing is a waste of time, and you are irritating people. I think you would be better off focusing on the next election.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/22/2020 8:00 AM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/22/2020 3:59 AM
Am i missing something, the passage above clearly says, until the first meeting of the association the association will be managed by either a declaratn or by a board of managers from one to 9 appointed by the declarant. then it says, at such first meeting. there shall be elected 9 board members . how is that vague.. our documents specify the board of managers consists of 9 people.
The Bylaw in question is this:


"Board of Managers
1. Number and Qualification. Until the first meeting of
the Association, the affairs of this Association shall be governed
either by Declarant or by a Board of Managers consisting of from
one (1) to nine (9) persons appointed by Declarant. At such first
meeting, there shall be elected any nine (9) members of the
Association to the Board of Managers who shall thereafter govern
the affairs of this Association until their successors have been
duly elected and qualified."


First possibility:
Suppose at the first meeting (pre-1994 for your Texas Ch. 81 condo), nine members were not elected. If this is the case, then the Texas nonprofit corp statute that I quoted above is going to control. You will have to quote here what, if anything, the Condo's Certificate of Formation says.

Second possibility:
No one can find minutes recording how many directors were elected at the first meeting. The Texas Nonprofit Corp Act at 22.204 indicates that the number of directors is "the number of directors is the same as the number constituting the initial board of directors." The initial board was allowed to be one to nine. The statute requires a minimum of three directors. So this means the number of directors the law (including your condo's covenants) requires would be three to nine.

There are other possibilities.

Right now I think the best thing you can do is go get the Certificate of Formation for your condo and quote here what it says about the number of directors.

LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/22/2020 9:24 PM  
doesn't the excerpt say,, until the first meeting there is an optional number of persons,,, (i.e. declarant or board consisting of 1-9)

however. at the first meeting of the association. there shall be elected any nine(9).

the initial board was only in office until the first meeting of the association which would be the first annual election.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/22/2020 9:33 PM  
update,

after the hoa attorney apparently flip flopped on his initial disagreement with my contention that a quorum of the board of the pines is defined as 5.

the board secretary last friday called a meeting for this wednesday (tomorrow )

with stated agenda..
Agenda: To vote in new board members and ratified past conversations had in previous board meetings where there was not a quorum.


also. based on the past 4 days discussions with the board member who now is responsible for making sure the property manager does what she says and fulfills the job requirements etc.

the board member called me and is incredulous that the property manager is not capable of basic excel or data entry with any kind of consistency or reliability. I'm pretty sure the property manager will be gone within a week.. I have to get right on gathering resumes for property managers.

this time. we are going to make the property manager pass a basic computer skills test. and we are going to hire a CPM certified manager.. it will cost more, but everyone agrees it will be money well spent.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/23/2020 7:17 AM  
LaskaS,

-- Please post what the condo's "Certificate of Formation" says about the number of directors. Until you do, this discussion, on the number of directors required, is pretty worthless. You can call the Texas Secretary of State and ask if they have a copy of the Certificate of Formation. Usually they do.

-- Requiring an employee to either pass a computer skills test at this point, or she will lose her job, may very well violate Texas law. Talk to the HOA attorney.

AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/23/2020 7:26 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 09/23/2020 7:17 AM

-- Requiring an employee to either pass a computer skills test at this point, or she will lose her job, may very well violate Texas law. Talk to the HOA attorney.
In particular in Texas, if your HOA fires the employee without having a good reason, then I think it is likely that the employee will likely be eligible for unemployment benefits. Last I checked your HOA would have to pay for a good deal of these unemployment benefits. The cost is not cheap.

I believe firing the employee because "she could not pass a test the employer did not require before hiring the employee" counts as not being a good reason for firing the employee.

The board should talk to the HOA attorney.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/23/2020 11:58 AM  
augustine.

we use the progressive discipline system that is widely used . She has now been written up twice.
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/23/2020 12:02 PM  
i think you misunderstood.. we aren't going to require the current employee to do anything . finally. we are holding her accountable. If she says she has done something, and she hasn't. if she is instructed to process chargeback for the week and submit them to the accounting company and she doesn't , and after verbal warning and more training. and she still can't do it.
there's a problem

regarding taking a computer test.

the property manager we hire next , is going to be required to be proficient in excel and cpm certified.



MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:9649


09/23/2020 12:12 PM  
Who is we?

Former HOA President
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10017


09/23/2020 3:20 PM  
Never be afraid to fire an employee if they are not performing. Document the non-performance but do not be afraid to fire them for the non-performance.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10017


09/23/2020 4:26 PM  
Laska
Is there any reason the PM must/should be an employee? Might be time to consider hiring a PM that is not an employee.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/23/2020 6:37 PM  
Posted By LaskaS on 09/23/2020 12:02 PM
i think you misunderstood.. we aren't going to require the current employee to do anything .
Posted By LaskaS on 09/22/2020 9:33 PM
we are going to make the property manager pass a basic computer skills test.




AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/24/2020 9:52 AM  
Posted By AugustinD on 09/23/2020 6:37 PM
Posted By LaskaS on 09/23/2020 12:02 PM
i think you misunderstood.. we aren't going to require the current employee to do anything .
Posted By LaskaS on 09/22/2020 9:33 PM
we are going to make the property manager pass a basic computer skills test.
I see what LaskaS was trying to say earlier: That passing a computer skills test will be a pre-hiring requirement for the next manager of her condo. But firing the current manager due to a lack of computer skills, when this was not stated as a pre-requisite prior to hiring, is legally dangerous in my opinion.

The ellipses, run-on sentences, frequent lack of a capital letter at the start of sentences, and so on are an enormous burden when trying to read LaskaS's posts. LaskaS, if this is how you communicate with your board and your attorney, I can see why they want you off the board. Too much time and energy are expended just trying to understand what you are trying to communicate.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:7582


09/24/2020 2:50 PM  
I agree with you, Augustin, and applaud your considerable patience working with Laska.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:10017


09/24/2020 5:28 PM  
While I have never doubted Laska has "legitimate" concerns, I still believe her way of going about correcting them will not get them corrected.

She is her own worst enemy.
AugustinD


Posts:4160


09/24/2020 5:39 PM  
I have been thinking about this line (now making the rounds) from the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
"Fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you."
LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/24/2020 8:18 PM  
Augustine, I read that quote from RBG also. I immediately recognized how useful it would be if I used it more often.

My apologies again for typing in a stream of consciousness, run on sentence kind of way.
The bad habit has carried over from years of sometimes responding on a smart phone. The small screen, combined with the small keyboard resulted in so many typos and run on sentences. I stopped trying to correct my punctuation errors.

Its ironic. One of the few things the current property does well is write long emails with proper sentence structure and punctuation. Despite the emails containing information that turned out to be false or misleading, the sentence structure, paragraph layout and punctuation were perfect. lol

LaskaS
(Texas)

Posts:416


09/24/2020 8:19 PM  
correction.

One of the few things the current PROPERTY MANAGER does well....

Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 2 of 2 << < 12
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > demand letter from hoa attorney



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