Get 1 year of free community web site hosting from Community123.com!
Tuesday, November 30, 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: Homeowner being sued by NC HOA
Prev Next
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 7 of 9 << < 123456789 > >>
Author Messages
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/20/2015 4:24 AM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 12:54 AM
Posted By JohnC46 on 03/19/2015 7:41 PM
Howard

You said:

"He also told me the HOA attorney was inquiring about any settlement considerations I may have made my attorney aware of. He again stated that they would be filing a claim if no offer(s) were made."

They have thrown the ball back in your court as in make an offer.

Were it me, I would throw the ball back with an offer. The offer would be much less then they want and much less then I am willing to pay but it keeps the "dealing" going.

They want $13K. I offer $1,300 or 10% of what they want. The negotiations begin.

If you have not come up with a figure in your own mind (known only to you) to make this go away then you are reveling in it and do not want it to go away.

Let the dancing begin.


IMO, wrong timing John.

Before the HOA sent a letter saying to the community that Howard was in the wrong, maybe. But that letter was IMO a game changer.

And the upcoming meeting is another game changer.

These are intimidation tactics that the HOA is using against one of it's own.

This is a kangaroo court intended to hang Howard out to dry in front of his community.

If they can do this to Howard, they can do it to any other member of the community. And that is the point that Howard needs to get across at the meeting to the rest of the community. There is no process to protect Howard - And there is no process to protect anyone else the BOD doesn't like - That's the message that Howard needs to get across. This board is dangerous.

IMO, this is not negotiation. It is leverage that the HOA is using against its own. No one is safe. Howard, does your community understand this? Your mission at the meeting is to make sure they do.






In light of the way things went last PM, at the open meeting, the BOD has to drop this case. I doubt they will. They again showed last night how they all feel they CAN DO NO WRONG.
The item on the agenda that concerned the pond came up and the BOD introduced the hoa attorney. He got up and gave his summation of the issue. After that several homeowners started asking questions. He would respond by repeating what he said in his opening statement or he would deflect the question with an answer that had nothing to do with the question. At times he would tag team with the BOD and they would explain their position. At least three people that I were at the meeting for separate reasons were provoked to ask questions and they were all questioning the manner in which the BOD went about the process of deciding the area needed to be filled in. The attorney and the BOD could not explain their decision in any definitive way. The BOD was asked a few times about the cost and how the contractor estimated the job. The attorney and the BOD both stood strong in their assertion that the homeowner supplied depth was at fault for the excessive final amount. Many people in attendance could believe that bod was standing by this premise. The BOD seemed incredulous that folks didn't agree with this method of estimating the job. A few people asked if the homeowner was given an opportunity to address the decision the BOD made to "fix" the pond by filling it in.
I'll try to make this shorter by saying the BOD and the hoa attorney chased their tails trying to figure ways to answer question. The attorney showed up late and talked about the adjudicatory panel being dissolved and an earlier item addressed reforming the panel but making it a panel, "that would address fines only". A homeowner corrected the attorney about the status of the panel and one board member shouted out, "it doesn't matter, the board makes the final decision"
At one point during the meeting a board member blurted out my name while addressing a question. I need to confirm this but I think this was a no no. Two bod members next to this one poked the offending member as if to say, "what the he'll are you doing?" I never got up during the discussion.
I will post more later when I'm at a computer.
JonD1-I hear the fish are biting, or the golf course is open, or there is a new knitting supply store open, OR SOMETHING! get a life please and stop posting here. YOU ADD NOTHING!
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/20/2015 4:37 AM  
Did you record the meeting as suggested by your Attorney?
JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 5:09 AM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 12:54 AM
Posted By JohnC46 on 03/19/2015 7:41 PM
Howard

You said:

"He also told me the HOA attorney was inquiring about any settlement considerations I may have made my attorney aware of. He again stated that they would be filing a claim if no offer(s) were made."

They have thrown the ball back in your court as in make an offer.

Were it me, I would throw the ball back with an offer. The offer would be much less then they want and much less then I am willing to pay but it keeps the "dealing" going.

They want $13K. I offer $1,300 or 10% of what they want. The negotiations begin.

If you have not come up with a figure in your own mind (known only to you) to make this go away then you are reveling in it and do not want it to go away.

Let the dancing begin.


IMO, wrong timing John.

Before the HOA sent a letter saying to the community that Howard was in the wrong, maybe. But that letter was IMO a game changer.

And the upcoming meeting is another game changer.

These are intimidation tactics that the HOA is using against one of it's own.

This is a kangaroo court intended to hang Howard out to dry in front of his community.

If they can do this to Howard, they can do it to any other member of the community. And that is the point that Howard needs to get across at the meeting to the rest of the community. There is no process to protect Howard - And there is no process to protect anyone else the BOD doesn't like - That's the message that Howard needs to get across. This board is dangerous.

IMO, this is not negotiation. It is leverage that the HOA is using against its own. No one is safe. Howard, does your community understand this? Your mission at the meeting is to make sure they do.






Without actually reading the HOA's letter which was never provided one can only ASSUME what the board's motivation is.

Howard has proven incapable of even considering he played any part in this or is responsible in any way.

Although he admits to cleaning out and altering a common element.

Perhaps the board is trying to protect the other owners from the $13,000 cost of filling this hole which they perceive as being caused by Howard's actions.

The cheerleaders attending the meeting hopefully already side with Howard his antics with them accomplishes nothing.

He is NOT going to bully the HOA lawyer.

So what's the upside?

Putting Howard into the role of victim having heard just HIS version might prove to be a mistake.

But Howard's seems to believe repeating the same details over and over again makes his point.
What's more important are the board's version of what has taken place.
We have not heard that.

Funny in another post some decided news accounts were simply unreliable. But Howard's account of whatvhasctaken place is certainly gospel.
I have my doubts Howard is able to view any of this in a way that even considers the other side.

They are wrong. Howard is right. Therefore Howard must prevail.

Let's wait and see.

Crystal balls rarely are accurate....
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/20/2015 5:28 AM  
Howard,

You previously offered to share the HOA's letter. If you are still willing to share, my e-mail is:
[email protected]
JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 5:30 AM  
JonD1-I hear the fish are biting, or the golf course is open, or there is a new knitting supply store open, OR SOMETHING! get a life please and stop posting here. YOU ADD NOTHING!



Well Howard the only thing I add is a sense of reality versus what you have accomplished thus far.

And like this situation you don't get to dictate what I do either.

Sounds like another successful evening. Why did you not threaten them with a SLAAP lawsuit? Perhaps, you should have demanded the lawyer be asked to leave. Did you demand to know their hourly rate? Did you explain Amanda was impressed by your preparations? How about those tactics of mailing you empty certified letters did you blow the lid off of that scheme? Were there enough chairs? Now that's a big one. Some of this had to put the fear of God in this board? NO?

I would have thought the board would agree to pay you $13,000......

Well time for round 3. So far HOA board and lawyer 2 Howard 0.

What was accomplished? That served your cause I mean.

Some people just can't help digging themselves a deeper hole.

Then when they land at the bottom they wonder how.

What's your lawyer say about all of this? If anything.



JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 5:35 AM  
Perhaps I might be the only one but curiosity brings up a few questions.

How many owners are there on this property?
How many Howard supporters were there?
How many uninvolved owners were present?

This would explain whether public support has any value in all of this or not.

Local math is important. At least to me it would be....


AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 5:56 AM  
Harummmmphhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
and a
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 5:57 AM  

AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 5:57 AM  

AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 5:58 AM  
sorry computer glitch I just wanted to

AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 5:59 AM  
OMG
sigh sigh sigh
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 6:02 AM  
I apologize Howard that was not done purposely, Your BOD and HOA attorney obviously WANT you to settle. To me that signifies that they really don't want to serve you papers to go to court because they feel there is a VERY GOOD chance they will LOSE! That's my opinion anyway. Keep doing what your doing let THEM make the next move, the balls in their court.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/20/2015 6:52 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/20/2015 3:16 AM
Posted By JohnC46 on 03/19/2015 7:41 PM

"He also told me the HOA attorney was inquiring about any settlement considerations I may have made my attorney aware of. He again stated that they would be filing a claim if no offer(s) were made."

They have thrown the ball back in your court as in make an offer.

Were it me, I would throw the ball back with an offer. The offer would be much less then they want and much less then I am willing to pay but it keeps the "dealing" going.


However, submitting an offer, if worded incorrectly , could be an admission of wrong doing.


Doesn't matter how it's worded. Will be seen as an admission of wrong doing by many.

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

Posts:4216


03/20/2015 6:57 AM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 6:52 AM
Posted By TimB4 on 03/20/2015 3:16 AM
Posted By JohnC46 on 03/19/2015 7:41 PM

"He also told me the HOA attorney was inquiring about any settlement considerations I may have made my attorney aware of. He again stated that they would be filing a claim if no offer(s) were made."

They have thrown the ball back in your court as in make an offer.

Were it me, I would throw the ball back with an offer. The offer would be much less then they want and much less then I am willing to pay but it keeps the "dealing" going.


However, submitting an offer, if worded incorrectly , could be an admission of wrong doing.


Doesn't matter how it's worded. Will be seen as an admission of wrong doing by many.


This is not a board that will let you walk away with your head held high.

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

Posts:4216


03/20/2015 7:14 AM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/20/2015 5:28 AM
Howard,

You previously offered to share the HOA's letter. If you are still willing to share, my e-mail is:
[email protected]


I'm at [email protected]

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


Posts:0


03/20/2015 9:01 AM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 6:57 AM
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 6:52 AM
Posted By TimB4 on 03/20/2015 3:16 AM
Posted By JohnC46 on 03/19/2015 7:41 PM

"He also told me the HOA attorney was inquiring about any settlement considerations I may have made my attorney aware of. He again stated that they would be filing a claim if no offer(s) were made."

They have thrown the ball back in your court as in make an offer.

Were it me, I would throw the ball back with an offer. The offer would be much less then they want and much less then I am willing to pay but it keeps the "dealing" going.


However, submitting an offer, if worded incorrectly , could be an admission of wrong doing.


Doesn't matter how it's worded. Will be seen as an admission of wrong doing by many.


This is not a board that will let you walk away with your head held high.



Doesn't matter. It only matters how Howard conducts himself. He can hold his head as high as the sky. I don't give a damn about what the BOD thinks of me and I have been sued twice by my board. I hold my head up high no matter what. I know in my heart and mind that I was right. But you also have to see the practical side of things. I just didn't have the funds or stamina to keep it going.

I also don't believe that making an offer necessarily shows an admission of guilt. It can also show you want to put the situation behind you and move on. Our settlement agreement is worded that neither party is admitting wrong doing. It's a compromise settlement agreed to by both parties.
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/20/2015 10:10 AM  
To add to what I wrote earlier. There was a question about the amount that was paid to fill the pond. The BOD said $13,000.00. Someone else asked of this was the original estimated amount and the BOD said it the original estimate was for $6,000.00 and the additional $7,000.00 was billed by the contractor because the homeowner supplied the contractor with inaccurate information. This seemed to blow a few people away and several, talking over each other unfortunately, started hammering the BOD about clarifying exactly what involvement the homeowner in the letter had in providing information to the contractor. The BOD member that had asked me, "Howard how deep do you think it is at the deep end" told the audience that the homeowner was asked how deep the pond and that this information was used to estimate the amount of dirt needed. Several folks pressed the BOD and wondered why the contractor didn't measure the pond himself. The BOD tried to deflect this by taking the stance that this was a very normal way of doing business. Shortly after this little discussion the BOD decided to put a couple of photos up on a large screen that is used during meetings to project the minutes so people stay on topic and the meeting flows in an orderly manner. The photos were taken toward the very end of the project I had been doing. It was when I received the stop work order from the ARC. The photo shows the pond drained of water with the bottom fully exposed. The same BOD that asked me about how deep the pond was got the attention of the audience and said, "look at the size of this pond. It is 8 feet deep! The contractor thought it would take 45 loads of dirt (the contractor actually said it would take about 28 loads) and it ended up being 200 or something, we quit counting" I will swear on the Bible that this is what he said. It likely is not word for word but it is what he said. He said it was 8' deep right in front of the entire meeting. So, he had this photo obviously since it was taken months prior to the pond being filled in YET he, and the rest of the BOD, feel my 4' "estimate" was the reason the contractor needed more dirt???? Has something happened that makes 4' more than 8'? This was a huge blunder on their part.
More to come after I brief my attorney about the meeting.
Thanks
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/20/2015 12:59 PM  
Howard emailed me a copy of the HOA letter. Obviously prepared by the HOA attorney. Presents the HOA position well, but like Howard's posts here, presents only information that is favorable to that side.

States that the HOA "has been working for several years to resolve an issue regarding the existence of a 'pond' in a deeded drainage easement and its impact on the function of this drainage easement. The restrictive covenants clearly state, 'no lot owner is allowed to pipe of fill in a swale, or ditch used to meet the storm water regulation, except driveway culverts' (rc33). In a letter dated 10-19-13 from the HOA the homeowner was instructed to 'drain the existing water to a level that will allow you to restore the swale & sediment trap to the previous size and shape.' The homeowner was also notified in this letter that 'if this work is not done to restore the area to the original design and function, the association will hire a professional firm to complete the work and invoice your account back for this.'"

Letter goes on to describe the HOA's $13k expenditure. Letter states contentions that Howard supposedly made and then refutes them. But as Tim has said many times, it's all in the way you frame the issue - deniability is easy when you get to choose the wording.

Letter closes by saying that the BOD would prefer to dialog with Howard prior to filing a lawsuit. Mentions that the 2/18/15 meeting took place - that HOA lawyer was present - and that Howard did not make an offer. Also states that HOA has offered mediation with each side paying half of the mediator's cost, but Howard has not yet agreed to participate in mediation.

IMO, what is missing from Howard is some documentation of the clean bill of health that he says he received. Would also like to know if that clean bill of health was before or after the HOA's 10-19-13 letter.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
JohnB26


Posts:0


03/20/2015 1:36 PM  


Unless Howard actually has a properly issued letter from the BOD which 'clears him' Howard WILL, eventually, be forced to 'pay up' as Howard actually DID 'mess around' with a drainage easement which was on his property, w/o written authorization.



The nit is dead ... long live the nit !
JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 4:24 PM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 12:59 PM
Howard emailed me a copy of the HOA letter. Obviously prepared by the HOA attorney. Presents the HOA position well, but like Howard's posts here, presents only information that is favorable to that side.

States that the HOA "has been working for several years to resolve an issue regarding the existence of a 'pond' in a deeded drainage easement and its impact on the function of this drainage easement. The restrictive covenants clearly state, 'no lot owner is allowed to pipe of fill in a swale, or ditch used to meet the storm water regulation, except driveway culverts' (rc33). In a letter dated 10-19-13 from the HOA the homeowner was instructed to 'drain the existing water to a level that will allow you to restore the swale & sediment trap to the previous size and shape.' The homeowner was also notified in this letter that 'if this work is not done to restore the area to the original design and function, the association will hire a professional firm to complete the work and invoice your account back for this.'"

Letter goes on to describe the HOA's $13k expenditure. Letter states contentions that Howard supposedly made and then refutes them. But as Tim has said many times, it's all in the way you frame the issue - deniability is easy when you get to choose the wording.

Letter closes by saying that the BOD would prefer to dialog with Howard prior to filing a lawsuit. Mentions that the 2/18/15 meeting took place - that HOA lawyer was present - and that Howard did not make an offer. Also states that HOA has offered mediation with each side paying half of the mediator's cost, but Howard has not yet agreed to participate in mediation.

IMO, what is missing from Howard is some documentation of the clean bill of health that he says he received. Would also like to know if that clean bill of health was before or after the HOA's 10-19-13 letter.





Thank you for YOUR interpretation of the content of the letter.

Sounds like the groundwork was laid to present the board's view of this matter. Not as cut and dry as the version Howard presented.

Howard has the perception and others here have jumped on the bandwagon this board is evil , out to get HIM, and certainly needs to be fought.
The board's perception might be Howard fiddled with common property, enlarged the size of this pond, without authority or permission to do so,
then for some reason participated in what appears to be a miscalculation of the estimate to fill this pond. They therefore place some level of responsibility for the cost on Howard. Does that really sound 100% unreasonable? Not to me.

Howard's perception is he is 100% in the right. The board seems to believe Howard is responsible to cover some of the costs.
In the middle somewhere is where negotiation might take place.

The board met with Howard. Nothing resulted towards settling this. The board offered mediation Howard can't decide.
Sounds like the board is following a path to show THEY have worked to resolve this and Howard simply remains locked in his position to
to offer no solution. Other than he pays nothing.

Sounds to me like this lawyer just might know what they are doing.

In that case this will not end well for Howard. His lawyer has yet to be heard from.

Just maybe the reality of this matter lies between Howard's version and the details the board has provided. Imagine that?

Understanding of course my only experience has been 28 years of service on a condo board, along with a 30 career, along with a degree in Criminology.
( where we studied a little about the law). No match for those on the cheerleading squad who offer opinions, brainstorming, and feelings as a basis for their contributions. None of which hold water in a court of law.

Howard would do well to take an honest, realistic view of his current situation. His options are running out and he might now FORCE the board on a path to court for a settlement. He has left them with no other.

TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/20/2015 5:07 PM  
I also received the letter from Howard. NP summarized the letter well.

Based on having both sides, and as NP stated, it very well may boil down to Howard being able to produce documentation of the Boards acceptance of the work he did and, the date of the actual letter.

Now, the letter also said that the 13K was to restore the pond back to its original state. However, Howard said that the Board filled the pond in, which was not the original state when Howard beautified the pond. So, that is a bit misleading based on the information that has been provided. I mean, it was a hole in the ground. Howard made it a pretty hole in the ground. Board complained, Howard returned it to just a hole in the ground. The Board filled the hole in. So a question could be, what was the original State. Perhaps Howard should look for that info to be able to prove what the original state of the hole was.
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 5:22 PM  
I think the fact that Howard sent the letter to NPS and TIM to, proves in my opinion he is being honest and truthful with what he presents here and has nothing to hide. Also that he is a trusting person (that could be a factor of why this BOD thinks they can get away with twisting things to fit their needs and have him take the fall for their mistakes). I trust the judgement of Nps and Tim and trust it was summarized in a a fair and balanced way by both of you. Thanks for sharing your viewpoints. I feel point Tim made about what the "original condition" really was is another key point.

ps. Jon, as we say here in the South "Bless your heart".
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/20/2015 5:39 PM  
Amanda,

I don't think anyone was saying that Howard was lying. They were saying we only have one side of the story and from Howards' perspective. As we know, there are different perspectives to all issues.
Keep in mind, individuals who explain things from their perspective is typically always honest about the issue as they see it.

For example:

Per Howard, one of the issues the Board claims is that Howard removed dirt from the pond.
Howard said he did not.
However, Howard did say (in his first post) that he "cleaned it out and installed a pond liner"

If Howard removed any dirt at all during the clean out, or if Howard removed dirt to install or when removing the pond liner, technically, the Board would be correct (from their perspective).


Again, I have no reason to disbelieve what Howard is saying. What he needs to resolve the issue, based on the Board's letter, is documentation that the Board was satisfied that the sediment pit was returned to it's original condition. If Howard doesn't have that documentation, then it becomes an I say, you say argument. Except that the Board has a bit more documentation to support what they say.


Lesson learned for everyone - Get it in writing and keep that documentation.
JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 5:49 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/20/2015 5:07 PM
I also received the letter from Howard. NP summarized the letter well.

Based on having both sides, and as NP stated, it very well may boil down to Howard being able to produce documentation of the Boards acceptance of the work he did and, the date of the actual letter.

Now, the letter also said that the 13K was to restore the pond back to its original state. However, Howard said that the Board filled the pond in, which was not the original state when Howard beautified the pond. So, that is a bit misleading based on the information that has been provided. I mean, it was a hole in the ground. Howard made it a pretty hole in the ground. Board complained, Howard returned it to just a hole in the ground. The Board filled the hole in. So a question could be, what was the original State. Perhaps Howard should look for that info to be able to prove what the original state of the hole was.





So Tim or NPS was the tone of this letter adversarial or not. Was it drafted in away to attack this owner and make them look like a fool?

Or was it simply stating their case?

Were there any personal attacks? You know like those levied against the board by Howard.

Who gave Howard the OK as to his restoration work? Is this person in position to represent the board or was it the board itself?

Has the board membership remained constant.

Perhaps Howard should consider the board just might have some claim here versus his being 100% in the right.
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 6:09 PM  
I believe Howard said he had the "Meeting Minutes" documenting that the issue was taken care of? and that's actually word spoken by the BOD (not Howard"s version). That is proof that both were in agreement?

(I believe Nps asked Howard a question about the timing of the letter that hasn't been addressed by Howard yet)

The BOD has a letter(s) sent out by THEM stating their version/side of the story only, I'm not sure in court what weight that piece of paper will have? (It is in no way proof that both were in agreement (like the minutes).

So your statement "Except that the Board has a bit more documentation to support what they say." IMO from what I understand from what has been relayed about the letter and what Howard has said.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 6:16 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/20/2015 5:39 PM
Amanda,

I don't think anyone was saying that Howard was lying. They were saying we only have one side of the story and from Howards' perspective. As we know, there are different perspectives to all issues.
Keep in mind, individuals who explain things from their perspective is typically always honest about the issue as they see it.

For example:

Per Howard, one of the issues the Board claims is that Howard removed dirt from the pond.
Howard said he did not.
However, Howard did say (in his first post) that he "cleaned it out and installed a pond liner"

If Howard removed any dirt at all during the clean out, or if Howard removed dirt to install or when removing the pond liner, technically, the Board would be correct (from their perspective).


Again, I have no reason to disbelieve what Howard is saying. What he needs to resolve the issue, based on the Board's letter, is documentation that the Board was satisfied that the sediment pit was returned to it's original condition. If Howard doesn't have that documentation, then it becomes an I say, you say argument. Except that the Board has a bit more documentation to support what they say.


Lesson learned for everyone - Get it in writing and keep that documentation.





Tim " perspective" is an 11 letter word. Hard to expect some to grasp the concept when they have shown and inability to comprehend even 5 letter words like "naive". And they misunderstand the meaning of the words they use like "harsh".

Remedial English. Elementary school stuff. Then they take offense when it is their limitations that prevent them from reaching an understanding of what others have said.

No one suggested Howard was lying. But to understand that you would need to know the meaning of the 11 letter word "perspective". Is is clear some don't.

Am I mistaken Tim or has this letter shed some light on the "possibility" this board may in fact have some standing in their position?

Or are they clearly evil, liars as Howard I believe called them. Funny how no one found that characterization offense or "harsh". Guess in the minds of some boards deserve no benefit of the doubt or are guilty until proven innocent.

My my my how open minded. Let's not try to find the truth....


NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/20/2015 6:26 PM  
Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 5:49 PM
So Tim or NPS was the tone of this letter adversarial or not. Was it drafted in away to attack this owner and make them look like a fool? Or was it simply stating their case? Were there any personal attacks?

Simply put, the letter was lawyerly. No personal attacks. But it did identify the weakness of Howard's position from the Board's perspective. No mention that Howard's changes had been approved - only that the changes Howard made were violations - I quoted that paragraph verbatum. As you can see, it is crisp and to the point.

The letter was crafted to make Howard look unresponsive and unwilling to come to settlement. But Howard could make similar claims. For example, the letter made the point that Howard had made no settlement offer. The same could be said of the board. Neither side has moved from its original position yet (except the Board offered 50-50 split on cost of mediation).

A key question is whether I as a homeowner in Howard's HOA (with no prior knowledge) would find anything objectionable in the letter itself. Answer: No. If I had prior knowledge I might disagree with the facts as stated, but no one should expect that a letter prepared by the HOA lawyer would make any effort to present both sides.

Which takes us back to the chronology of events and the documentation Howard received. And to know that, we will have to hear again from Howard.

Your other questions Jon are IMO beyond anything that can be found within the letter. On that too, we will have to hear from Howard.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 6:31 PM  
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/20/2015 5:22 PM
I think the fact that Howard sent the letter to NPS and TIM to, proves in my opinion he is being honest and truthful with what he presents here and has nothing to hide. Also that he is a trusting person (that could be a factor of why this BOD thinks they can get away with twisting things to fit their needs and have him take the fall for their mistakes). I trust the judgement of Nps and Tim and trust it was summarized in a a fair and balanced way by both of you. Thanks for sharing your viewpoints. I feel point Tim made about what the "original condition" really was is another key point.

ps. Jon, as we say here in the South "Bless your heart".



Tim I was simply stating the fact that from my postpuctiveshh him sharing the letter with you two was further proving his credibility in my opinion. That is all I stated, I did not say he was being called a liar, why did you take it that way?????

Don't worry about explaining what Jon says or might mean. (He's a big boy and can defend himself, I think) What he says doesn't phase me, from my pruspactive it says something about himself.
JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 7:00 PM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 6:26 PM
Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 5:49 PM
So Tim or NPS was the tone of this letter adversarial or not. Was it drafted in away to attack this owner and make them look like a fool? Or was it simply stating their case? Were there any personal attacks?

Simply put, the letter was lawyerly. No personal attacks. But it did identify the weakness of Howard's position from the Board's perspective. No mention that Howard's changes had been approved - only that the changes Howard made were violations - I quoted that paragraph verbatum. As you can see, it is crisp and to the point.

The letter was crafted to make Howard look unresponsive and unwilling to come to settlement. But Howard could make similar claims. For example, the letter made the point that Howard had made no settlement offer. The same could be said of the board. Neither side has moved from its original position yet (except the Board offered 50-50 split on cost of mediation).

A key question is whether I as a homeowner in Howard's HOA (with no prior knowledge) would find anything objectionable in the letter itself. Answer: No. If I had prior knowledge I might disagree with the facts as stated, but no one should expect that a letter prepared by the HOA lawyer would make any effort to present both sides.

Which takes us back to the chronology of events and the documentation Howard received. And to know that, we will have to hear again from Howard.

Your other questions Jon are IMO beyond anything that can be found within the letter. On that too, we will have to hear from Howard.





"So these people will think I am a nut job just from this letter."

"The letter the BOD sent out is so incredible. It is full of lies and statements that are extremely misleading. It paints me in a very bad light and makes them look like they are saints. These are evil people. The HOA attorney is very sleazy. He will clearly benefit from having this suit take a lot of time and it was also very clear he has no problem avoiding my questions and playing the stall game.

Thanks Howard"


So NPS would your conclusion now be as Howard suggests "these are evil people". How about the comment the HOA attorney is "sleazy"?
It might be Howard has now made this personal big hint to me you view the other side as the enemy period.

From what you describe and understanding Howard's name was never mentioned tough to ascribe vicious intentions on the part of this board directed at Howard as he sees it.

Quite telling when you read the words for yourself versus hearing them through Howard's filter.

There is in the end no reality only perception. Useful to understand the concept.

Thanks NPS how this plays out should prove interesting. In life it is vital you consider and understand the others party's perceptions.
Howard has failed to do that.



AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 7:14 PM  

I perceive that my perception of Jon is a reality not a concept. ;)
BanksS


Posts:0


03/20/2015 7:20 PM  
And JonD1 said: "In life it is vital you consider and understand the others party's perceptions."

Interesting that you make such a profound statement. I haven't seen much of that from you since I began posting and participating on this forum.

With that being said, I believe you are absolutely right with that statement.
JonD1


Posts:0


03/20/2015 7:31 PM  
Posted By BanksS on 03/20/2015 7:20 PM
And JonD1 said: "In life it is vital you consider and understand the others party's perceptions."

Interesting that you make such a profound statement. I haven't seen much of that from you since I began posting and participating on this forum.

With that being said, I believe you are absolutely right with that statement.





Hopefully Banks that makes you feel better.

As a poster here I am not in conflict with other parties. Nor does the outcome of our exchanges directly affect me.

Perhaps it is you who is blinded by your own experiences and you project this on others.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/20/2015 8:08 PM  
Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 7:00 PM
So NPS would your conclusion now be as Howard suggests "these are evil people". How about the comment the HOA attorney is "sleazy"?
It might be Howard has now made this personal big hint to me you view the other side as the enemy period.

From what you describe and understanding Howard's name was never mentioned tough to ascribe vicious intentions on the part of this board directed at Howard as he sees it.

Quite telling when you read the words for yourself versus hearing them through Howard's filter.


As I said before, the lawyer is doing his job - "sleazy" "evil" and "lies" are Howard's emotions spilling over. I don't think much of it one way or the other - except to know that this is not a balanced playing field - Howard is up against a pro whose job is to make Howard's position look unreasonable and weak.

I have said repeatedly that Howard can't get a fair shake if there isn't a neutral third party running the event. The HOA has said that it doesn't want to spend the money on litigation and has offered mediation. To me that sounds reasonable because for the first time, the person running the show would not be the HOA or its lawyer.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/20/2015 8:25 PM  
May I add that many of the comments about the HOA attorney and the BOD were made from Howard directly after his meeting with them. Howard had even stated that he was communicating from his cell phone after the meeting. So since we all know his story, IMO he was comfortable "venting" here. I hope that this forum is in some way therapeutic to him. (Although most likely not tonight ). )
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/21/2015 4:55 AM  
Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 5:49 PM

So Tim or NPS was the tone of this letter adversarial or not. Was it drafted in away to attack this owner and make them look like a fool?

Or was it simply stating their case?




In my opinion, the letter was mainly stating the Boards case with a couple of jabs.

The jabs consisted of mentioning that a meeting was held with the homeowner, and arbitration was offered by the board but the homeowner has not agreed to arbitration.

Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 5:49 PM

Were there any personal attacks? You know like those levied against the board by Howard.




Depends on perception. As NP said, the letter is written to favor the board. Therefore, the letter is written to indicate that the homeowner is the sole reason for this dispute. It mentions that the Homeowner was told to fix what they did to the pond. However it fails to mention that the homeowner complied or tired to comply with this requirement. Hence, allowing others to draw their own conclusions if the homeowner is being reasonable or a jerk.

Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 5:49 PM

Who gave Howard the OK as to his restoration work? Is this person in position to represent the board or was it the board itself?




Not mentioned in the Board's letter.

According to Howard's previous posting - he was given a letter from the Board stating satisfaction with the work they requested to have done.

Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 5:49 PM

Has the board membership remained constant.




Unknown.


Jon,

I agree that if Howard does not have the documentation of the communication between himself and the Association, that it will be an uphill battle for Howard to prove to a court or mediator what he has told us here. Based on the letter Howard provided and the postings Howard made, it appears that his Association has the documentation they need.
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/21/2015 5:10 AM  
Howard,

If you really want to try nip this in the behind, I would suggest that with your attorney's permission you send a simple letter to the membership, simple, matter of fact and with finger pointing. Something along the lines of:


In response to the letter of the Board:

I am the homeowner mentioned in that letter. It is true that, I had taken upon my self to beautify the pond in question. It is true that when the Association took notice of this that they sent me a letter requiring me to return the pond to it's original state. What is not mentioned in the Board's letter is that this work was completed to the satisfaction of the Board who was serving at the time. Attached are the minutes from the Board's meeting of mm/dd/yyyy stating this fact and a letter I received from the Board specifying that I had done all that was required of me.





Such a letter may turn membership support away from the board and could help you with a recall effort.

Of course, such a letter will also show all your cards, have little to no relevance to legal proceedings associated with the case and, most certainly will divide the membership. It would simply present your side to the membership in hope that pressure from the members may have the Board reconsider their actions.

Such a letter could help, such a letter could backfire and create more of a mess.

Simply a suggestion to discuss with your attorney.
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/21/2015 5:16 AM  
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/20/2015 6:31 PM
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/20/2015 5:22 PM
I think the fact that Howard sent the letter to NPS and TIM to, proves in my opinion he is being honest and truthful with what he presents here and has nothing to hide. Also that he is a trusting person (that could be a factor of why this BOD thinks they can get away with twisting things to fit their needs and have him take the fall for their mistakes). I trust the judgement of Nps and Tim and trust it was summarized in a a fair and balanced way by both of you. Thanks for sharing your viewpoints. I feel point Tim made about what the "original condition" really was is another key point.



Tim I was simply stating the fact that from my postpuctiveshh him sharing the letter with you two was further proving his credibility in my opinion. That is all I stated, I did not say he was being called a liar, why did you take it that way?????





Because making such a statement implies that others were posting that he wasn't being truthful in his postings or that others were making statements that inferred Howard wasn't being truthful.

Otherwise, such a statement would not have typically been made.
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/21/2015 5:57 AM  
I can email photos of the pond prior to starting the project. The problem is that I could pull any photo off the internet and there isn't a way to prove it is the pond at my house. I could also get a photo of the pond as it is now full of dirt. This would again be difficult to "prove" that it is the same photo etc etc.
I can take a photo of the minutes that state that the BOD cleared me of the original dispute however there is no letter head etc and folks could doubt that it is real.

I'm really happy people have offered help here and I do appreciate this. I will continue to look in here and I'll explore possibilities for emailing evidence to the size of the pond and the disposition of the original dispute that are in a form where reasonable people would agree that I've submitted "the real deal"

I will not be posting much other than these thing because I'm tired of JonD1 and his remarks. I can't relate to someone with so much free time on their hands that they find posting negative and provocative replies an on internet some kind of accomplishment. A large portion of this thread is nothing but his comments and other posters trying to refute them or defend themselves. That is a shame because it is a huge waste of time, effort and energy.

I'll make one comment about my comments here. I figured it was understood but maybe not. Comments I've made about the BOD and the HOA attorney are just meaningless comments. Yes I feel both parties are scum bags, individually and collectively. So what. This is an internet forum. I am not making these comments in some formal setting where the things I say may be used against me in a court of law etc. So I call the atty a walking POS. SO WHAT! Who cares? It means nothing. I think people in this thread have all but called each other that. Don't dwell on my description of the characters of these people. It is just my opinion expressed in a very informal (although far too contentious and judgemental as it has evolved since the advent of JonD1) setting.
Howard
JonD1


Posts:0


03/21/2015 6:09 AM  
Posted By NpS on 03/20/2015 8:08 PM
Posted By JonD1 on 03/20/2015 7:00 PM
So NPS would your conclusion now be as Howard suggests "these are evil people". How about the comment the HOA attorney is "sleazy"?
It might be Howard has now made this personal big hint to me you view the other side as the enemy period.

From what you describe and understanding Howard's name was never mentioned tough to ascribe vicious intentions on the part of this board directed at Howard as he sees it.

Quite telling when you read the words for yourself versus hearing them through Howard's filter.


As I said before, the lawyer is doing his job - "sleazy" "evil" and "lies" are Howard's emotions spilling over. I don't think much of it one way or the other - except to know that this is not a balanced playing field - Howard is up against a pro whose job is to make Howard's position look unreasonable and weak.

I have said repeatedly that Howard can't get a fair shake if there isn't a neutral third party running the event. The HOA has said that it doesn't want to spend the money on litigation and has offered mediation. To me that sounds reasonable because for the first time, the person running the show would not be the HOA or its lawyer.





Howard could equal the playing field if he used a lawyer. Howard seems to think his version of reality wins.Howard seems to think he is the equal or better of this HOA lawyer a miscalculation IMO.

He should never have met with them lawyerless that meeting is now being used against him. He was there to prevail. The lawyer was there to settle the matter. Proving the board was the engaged party.

Shouldn't Howard realize by now the HOA lawyer is better at this than he will ever be? And that competent does not equal sleazy because they represent the other side?

And the board offered mediation which suggests they are open to a settlement of some kind. You ask for everything and then work to the middle.
But with Howard he starts and sticks at zero. Which will leave the board little choice.

The only question now who will blink first. I have my doubts the HOA will back away. They have made this public. That makes folding difficult.

If Howard decides against mediation it might be off to court they go.

I have to wonder where Howard's lawyer is in all of this? Are they waiting for the right moment to join in? It's getting late in the game...

TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/21/2015 6:10 AM  
Howard,

I believe that you understand what will likely be required to prove your position (mainly the minutes of the meeting and/or the letter from the board).

Talk to your attorney on what would be needed to certify that the minutes you have are from the Board (if they were sent via e-mail to you, that will likely do). You may also want to try and contact members who were on the Board when your issue was initially resolved and get statements from them, just as you said you can get a statement from the builder/developer.

It's been said before, it's time to get your ducks in a row and prepare for a potential legal battle.

Keep us posted as you can.

I wish you luck.

Tim
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/21/2015 6:26 AM  
Hi Howard

Neither Tim nor I have found fault with your expressions of anger and frustration against the other side. Once we received the board's letter, we gave our candid opinions of the contents.

Why not do the same with whatever you received from the board approving what you did. If it's not dated, so be it - just tell us the date. If it's not on HOA letterhead, so be it. It is what it is. We will look at it and give our opinion.

Re pictures, I agree with you - we won't know what we are looking at. Yet if you did bring the to court or mediation and explain what they are, you could use them to explain your point.

There are many more people reading this thread than those who are posting. I'm sure that they would chime in if they had some additional information about (1) when the board gave you a clean bill of health and (2) Tim and my assessments of the document you received.

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


Posts:0


03/21/2015 6:38 AM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/21/2015 5:57 AM
I can email photos of the pond prior to starting the project. The problem is that I could pull any photo off the internet and there isn't a way to prove it is the pond at my house. I could also get a photo of the pond as it is now full of dirt. This would again be difficult to "prove" that it is the same photo etc etc.
I can take a photo of the minutes that state that the BOD cleared me of the original dispute however there is no letter head etc and folks could doubt that it is real.

I'm really happy people have offered help here and I do appreciate this. I will continue to look in here and I'll explore possibilities for emailing evidence to the size of the pond and the disposition of the original dispute that are in a form where reasonable people would agree that I've submitted "the real deal"

I will not be posting much other than these thing because I'm tired of JonD1 and his remarks. I can't relate to someone with so much free time on their hands that they find posting negative and provocative replies an on internet some kind of accomplishment. A large portion of this thread is nothing but his comments and other posters trying to refute them or defend themselves. That is a shame because it is a huge waste of time, effort and energy.

I'll make one comment about my comments here. I figured it was understood but maybe not. Comments I've made about the BOD and the HOA attorney are just meaningless comments. Yes I feel both parties are scum bags, individually and collectively. So what. This is an internet forum. I am not making these comments in some formal setting where the things I say may be used against me in a court of law etc. So I call the atty a walking POS. SO WHAT! Who cares? It means nothing. I think people in this thread have all but called each other that. Don't dwell on my description of the characters of these people. It is just my opinion expressed in a very informal (although far too contentious and judgemental as it has evolved since the advent of JonD1) setting.
Howard





Sounds to me Howard like the wheels are starting to come off your wagon.

I respect Tim and NPS enough to accept their interpretation of this letter. The lawyer representing their client. How surprising.

Not the personal attack you perceived. That is what lawyers do. Hence my comment about you being naive. Should they have presented your version instead?

And your stance that you are 100% in the right limits the response by this board.

And finally Howard your characterizations about the lying, sleazy, evil people on the other side tells me you are unable and unwilling to even consider their views on this matter. Which in the end might lead you to court.

Disputes are never settled when the parties remain at the far end of different views unwilling to meet somewhere else.

And finally if you have difficulty with my comments just wait till the lawyer questions you on the stand under oath about how you took it upon yourself to alter this pond. That might be a lose- lose for you.

Time will tell.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11638


03/21/2015 7:02 AM  
I have closely followed this subject. I maintain that when push comes to shove, Howard and the BOD will reach an agreement as in the BOD will settle for less and Howard will pay something. Both will walk away saying they were right.



AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/21/2015 7:19 AM  
Howard,
I sincerely hope you receive the justice you deserve in this matter.
JohnB26


Posts:0


03/21/2015 10:40 AM  
I suggest you look up the word: Platitude.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/21/2015 10:53 AM  
What I know and what I don't know:

I know that Howard's BOD sent 2 letters, one in Oct 2013 and one in Mar 2015. The 2013 letter put Howard on notice that if Howard didn't do certain work to the BOD's satisfaction, the HOA would get the work done and bill Howard for the expense. The 2015 letter described this situation to the community most favorably to the BOD.

Per Howard, I also know that he was notified that the work he did was satisfactory. But I don't know if that was before the Oct 2013 letter or after the Oct 2013 letter. Yet the timing of the other communication from the BOD is critical to understanding the sequence of events. Others have added that the BOD may have changed, and this too could be important to understand - for example, if a prior board gave Howard a clean bill of health and then a later board wanted Howard to do more, that could be important. Dates are critical to understanding this, but this crucial information remains missing.

Per Howard, the pond/swale/whatever and the $13k expenditure was on 3 properties, not just Howard's - So I would question why only Howard is being charged for the entire $13k.

Per Howard, he had an independent inspection of the easement, and the BOD did too. The inspector apparently told Howard that the easement was no longer needed. Again, I would want to know the dates. Inpectors keep records and that should be fairly easy to get. And I would want to see something in writing from that inspector stating what Howard described. That could turn everything around in Howard's favor.

Per Howard, he fully reversed the objectionable changes he made. If that's the case, then Howard has a valid argument that he shouldn't be made responsible for the $13k which was above and beyond his obligation to put things back as they were. And once again, I would like to see what form the clean bill of health from the BOD took. The language is critical.

To me, the discussion about the depth of the changes and the conversations with Howard by the contractor may have some relevance but not a lot. They demonstrate that Howard was attempting to be cooperative. But then again, I go back to the Oct 2013 letter and see that the HOA was claiming that Howard would be responsible for whatever the cost would turn out to be. So, while this depth dispute may be the big issue that the BOD wants to discuss because their position is fairly strong here, I think the other issues are far more important from Howard's perspective.

Finally, I have no opinion on what the BOD is doing or isn't doing. And I have no opinion of what Howard is doing or isn't doing. I just find it difficult to comprehend when critical facts and dates are missing.

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

Posts:4216


03/21/2015 12:13 PM  
Posted By JohnB26 on 01/02/2015 5:25 AM
the OP's post:

I'll try to summarize by saying that I tried to beautify this sediment trap by cleaning it out,installing a pond liner and filling it so it would be a pond instead of a mosquito pit that holds water depending upon the rains and water table


since the OP took it upon himself to modify an engineered water retention facility he 'may' be liable for the 'removal' expenses of his work


Looking back at the thread, I also find this exchange important. What exactly did the BOD approve when they said he had performed to their satisfaction?

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/21/2015 1:17 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/21/2015 5:10 AM
Howard,

If you really want to try nip this in the behind, I would suggest that with your attorney's permission you send a simple letter to the membership, simple, matter of fact and with finger pointing. Something along the lines of:


In response to the letter of the Board:

I am the homeowner mentioned in that letter. It is true that, I had taken upon my self to beautify the pond in question. It is true that when the Association took notice of this that they sent me a letter requiring me to return the pond to it's original state. What is not mentioned in the Board's letter is that this work was completed to the satisfaction of the Board who was serving at the time. Attached are the minutes from the Board's meeting of mm/dd/yyyy stating this fact and a letter I received from the Board specifying that I had done all that was required of me.





Such a letter may turn membership support away from the board and could help you with a recall effort.

Of course, such a letter will also show all your cards, have little to no relevance to legal proceedings associated with the case and, most certainly will divide the membership. It would simply present your side to the membership in hope that pressure from the members may have the Board reconsider their actions.

Such a letter could help, such a letter could backfire and create more of a mess.

Simply a suggestion to discuss with your attorney.



In my opinion the advice above is sound. I don't think you are beyond the point of "nipping this in the bud" as Tim put it. After all your goal still is (if I understand correctly) is to deflate the accusations and false statements being made to the membership in their one sided letter and avoid court. So anything you can do that would possibly give the membership a opportunity to recognized what is really going on, IMO would be worth a shot. In my opinion, a carefully and properly worded letter (simple, direct and as uncomplicated as possible) may help your situation.

(of course with your attorney's help or blessing)


JohnB26


Posts:0


03/21/2015 1:21 PM  
(of course with your attorney's help or blessing)


What a platitudinous statement

Otherwise stated as: D'OH

AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/21/2015 1:32 PM  
Posted By JohnB26 on 03/21/2015 1:21 PM
(of course with your attorney's help or blessing)


What a platitudinous statement

Otherwise stated as: D'OH



Don't you know when to STOP, enough already.
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/21/2015 2:28 PM  
John,

Although that statement is certainly used a lot and can be seen as dull, platitudinous if you will, the fact that Howard is in a legal confrontation strongly suggests that anything he does to try and resolve the case should be discussed with his attorney first. Otherwise, Howard could inadvertently weaken his position if and when the issue goes to court.

Good word though. I had to look it up.

Tim
JonD1


Posts:0


03/21/2015 2:50 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/21/2015 2:28 PM
John,

Otherwise, Howard could inadvertently weaken his position if and when the issue goes to court.

src='http://www.hoatalk.com/desktopmodules/ntforums/images/emoticons/smile.gif' height='20' width='20' border='0' title='Smile' align='absmiddle'>

Tim





I think that horse left the barn long ago.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11638


03/21/2015 3:04 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/21/2015 2:28 PM
John,

Although that statement is certainly used a lot and can be seen as dull, platitudinous if you will, the fact that Howard is in a legal confrontation strongly suggests that anything he does to try and resolve the case should be discussed with his attorney first. Otherwise, Howard could inadvertently weaken his position if and when the issue goes to court.

Good word though. I had to look it up.

Tim




If I understand JohnB (and that can be hard at times) I do agree we have some posters who feel the need to post when they have nothing of value to add. Quite often they repeat what others have already said along with the "obvious" well worn out (platitudinous) suggestions versus be creative.

Son, you have been given lemons so make lemonade....LOL


JonD1


Posts:0


03/21/2015 3:16 PM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 02/20/2015 5:16 PM
Thanks for all the input and opinion. I try my best to look at all views and use anything that may benefit me. This forum has been a great asset to me in dealing with this case.

JonD1-if there are any specific questions you may have for me that may help clarify anything in your mind I'd be happy to address them. I agree this is a mess, no question about that. If I can help by answering specific questions I would be happy to do so. My answers will not include any emotional comments or personal opinion. Anything I state I will back up with the facts as I know them.

I was very disappointed with the attorney I initially hired and I can't explain his behavior. I first thought it was something about me he was not comfortable with but, on the two times we met in his office, he was very energetic and enthused about the case. He even said he liked me and liked that fact that I was going to fight this charge. He said he felt I had a great case yet was clear in explaining even cases that are no brainers cost money to litigate and his estimate was in the ballpark of 1/2 the amount I was said to owe. He was giving me fair warning and I knew there may come a time where I would be spending good money after bad or I would decide to offer a settlement amount. Everything seemed like we were partners in this fight and I was confident he was going to be the guy for me. Then things changed. I (I thought "we" at the time)had sent a letter to the HOA attorney requesting a meeting. Weeks went by and had not heard anything. I emailed my attorney and heard nothing back. I called and left messages as I was never able to catch him on whenever I called. I finally sent an email directly to the HOA BOD asking if they would please accept this meeting because I wanted to get this over with and not have it hanging over me for the upcoming year. About two days later I get an email from my attorney with an attachment from the HOA attorney stating that I called the BOD about a meeting and questioning my attorney regarding a letter the HOA attorney had sent him with proposed dates fro a meeting that he never responded to. It turned out that my attorney totally forgot about the letter (email actually) from the HOA attorney. So my attorney asks me if such and such dates were OK for a meeting and I answered any date is fine. A couple of more weeks go by and I leave a message. All this time I am thinking it is the HOA attorney that is dragging his feet and it was my attorney not being attentive. So I cannot explain his behavior.

As for psycho BOD members I don't think I ever used that term. Perhaps I did. I am not interested in looking back through this thread to confirm yes or no. I do not think these people are card carrying psychopaths. I do think they are bent in the head however. I am not alone in this opinion and I'd be in the minority in this HOA if I said they were fine upstanding, clear thinking individuals. They have made so many extremely expensive decisions in the last 3, or so, years that there are people talking about starting a facebook page to aid in HOA communication and to discuss some of the decisions this board has made that have cost the community tens of thousands of dollars. These decisions were made after open meetings in which almost everyone at these meetings were attending to voice their opinion against the decisions this BOD made. These people were trying to tell the BOD that they do not like these decisions yet the BOD went ahead with their "ideas" and it cost the HOA a lot of money.

If you feel that the majority of HOA BOD members are folks that are completely open minded and in lock step with the general pulse of the HOA members I will gladly disagree. It has been my experience that most HOA BOD members are self indulgent little caesars with power trip egos and almost zero ability to listen to other people. They are the "my way or the highway" types that we all have run across in life. These folks are never wrong in their minds. In my opinion this is the type of people that HOA BODs attract. It happens with a lot of committees in many walks of life. Certain personality types get off on volunteering for these positions and I'll stand by that. I've lived 57 years and I have seen more than my fair share of human behavior. This is the profile that fits. That's just how it is IMO.

Thanks





Reviewing a few pages of posts this post from Howard becomes more meaningful.
Seems to set the tone Howard has followed all along.

Us against them. They have no point I am 100% right.

And they have to be "phycho". Becuase they din't see this my way.

Bad road to head down.



JonD1


Posts:0


03/21/2015 3:21 PM  
Posted By NpS on 01/10/2015 9:01 PM
Posted By JanetB2 on 01/10/2015 8:19 PM
When the neighbors possibly end up paying for garbage ... then in the future they will pay attention and maybe participate more in HOA business and meetings, otherwise who is next to face similar situation.

Brava Janet. Maybe they'll throw the bums out.





Perhaps NPS there is a slight shift in your views?

About throwing the bums out I mean.

The bums being the board members. Correct?
JonD1


Posts:0


03/21/2015 3:29 PM  
Posted By NpS on 01/11/2015 2:52 AM
Posted By MelissaP1 on 01/10/2015 11:23 PM
Janet, even if the HOA does pay the owners legal costs and does not assess them... The owner is still paying for their own suit. The HOA is ONLY funded by its owners for its owners. Their HOA dues still contribute to the pay out. They just may not have to be party to a special assessment if that is needed to pay the judgement. However, I believe a judge still has to determine that in the terms.

Any way you slice it, your going to pay some portion of your suit on BOTH sides. It is just the additional consequence of your decision. No one says you are right or wrong in making that decision. It just is a factor in your final decision making if you pursue a lawsuit option.


Hi Melissa

Of all the stories I have read on this site so far, Howard's board has so far proven to be one of the most arrogant, ignorant, and irresponsible.

Howard is neither suing his association nor himself. He is responding to the threat of a lawsuit by his board against him. To me there's a world of difference between Howard and some people who come here thinking that the world owes them something. Rarely have I seen someone who demonstrates such respect and who has such a straightforward claim of malfeasance.

The contractor bill is $13k. The Board has probably run up a bill of at least $1k with their lawyer and Howard has run up something similar with his own attorney. So for $15k (or only $1k more than what they are already obligated to pay), Howard's Board can put this to bed. And if they play their cards right with Howard, maybe Howard will absorb that $1k himself.

But if they stay on their foolhardy path, lawyer fees can easily exceed $10k on both sides. So now the Board is looking at a potential exposure of more than $35k. If this goes any further (and somehow I have a feeling it won't), I hope that the other homeowners finally wake up and go after Howard's Board to recover the excess and unnecessary cost from the directors personally. I seriously doubt that they have a letter from the HOA lawyer saying that what they did was within their authority. I think those directors are standing in quicksand right now.

So like Janet, I do not believe that Howard is suing his HOA or himself. Howard's Board of directors are the one's who are threatening the lawsuit. They are the ones who are suing the entire membership for their own stupidity and irresponsibility.










"Howard's board has so far proven to be one of the most arrogant, ignorant, and irresponsible."

I had suggested it be doubtful Howard's board had lost their collective minds some time ago.
I also am laboring under the idsadvantage of not having read the actual HOA letter. But Howard's version left some details I just could not assume to understand.

I wonder NPS do you still stand by this comment in reagrds to Howard's board in light on what you have read yourself?

Maybe reality exists somewhere in between.


JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11638


03/21/2015 4:15 PM  
I respect NPS and his views, but I am also detecting a shift in his position. Am I wrong?
BanksS


Posts:0


03/21/2015 4:16 PM  
I am guilty of being platitudinous. What a word! Sorry folks.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am still of the opinion that their is a compromise to be reached here.

Howard made a mistake. Unfortunately sometimes the consequences of the mistake reach beyond correcting the mistake. Without the minutes, it will be difficult to prove that he was absolved of any further responsibility. Oh no here I go being platitudinous again.



BanksS


Posts:0


03/21/2015 4:16 PM  
I am guilty of being platitudinous. What a word! Sorry folks.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I am still of the opinion that their is a compromise to be reached here.

Howard made a mistake. Unfortunately sometimes the consequences of the mistake reach beyond correcting the mistake. Without the minutes, it will be difficult to prove that he was absolved of any further responsibility. Oh no here I go being platitudinous again.



BanksS


Posts:0


03/21/2015 4:17 PM  
Oh no and I accidentally hit submit twice.
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 7 of 9 << < 123456789 > >>
Forums > Homeowner Association > HOA Discussions > Homeowner being sued by NC HOA



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