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 8 of 9 << < 123456789 > >>
Author Messages
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/21/2015 4:45 PM  
Well, I just realized that this thread has been going on for a solid 4 months.
I believe all that can be said has been said and now it's a wait and see until new details emerge.

Howard, again, I wish you luck.
KerryL1
(California)

Posts:8707


03/21/2015 5:30 PM  
But wait, Tim, Amanda must wish Howard well (as we know she will) again. : )
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/21/2015 5:51 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/21/2015 4:45 PM
Well, I just realized that this thread has been going on for a solid 4 months.
I believe all that can be said has been said and now it's a wait and see until new details emerge.

Howard, again, I wish you luck.



I will take the risk of being put down and ridiculed by some very non-platitudinous, creative, kind, mature and obviously much more intelligent individuals than myself and I will say that I agree with Tim's statement and will also repeat that I too again wish you luck.

I can think of some ways that things could be worse for you Howard but I think you can figure that out on your own
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/22/2015 8:59 AM  
Posted By JonD1 on 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?


Posted By JonD1 on 03/21/2015 3:29 PM

"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?


Posted By JohnC46 on 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?


Good questions guys.

Of course, all we have to go on is what the OP provides. And even though Howard's presentation is highly biased in his favor, so is the board's. Taken as a whole, I still have confidence that Howard is not the only one who should be financially responsible - and my view may still be that Howard should pay none of the $13k. I just don't have enough information.

I still think that Howard's BOD is playing hardball - but obviously I now understand that they are following the advice of their attorney - and I cannot find fault with them for doing that. As I said before, I think that Howard's anger against their attorney is misplaced.

What I clearly do not understand is that the $13k was apparently spent to fill in an easement that the BOD found fault with Howard for altering. Yet the changes that the BOD chose to make also altered the easement - and I do not see how the BOD can dump the entire financial responsibility on Howard.

So to answer your questions, my opinion of the BOD has softened somewhat - but I still find the hardball approach objectionable on something that we all seem to have concluded should not wind up exclusively on Howard's back. I still commend Howard for admitting wrongdoing in his original postings, and I still find fault with the BOD for putting the entire burden on Howard and admitting no responsibility.

I think that the HOA-HO relationship is a unique one. I give the BOD no credit for avoiding personal attacks - lawyers are too smart to get caught in that trap - yet they did convey a negative message about Howard to the community - and I still have issues with that.


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

Posts:566


03/22/2015 10:12 AM  
Howard,

Your first attorney and the one you are working with now both gave you their professional legal opinion. As I recall you stated BOTH attorneys stated to you (after looking over the case/information) that "The HOA would NOT win IF this went to court".

SOME FACTS CURRENT in this matter as I know them:

-You have been "threatened" with having a lien placed on your home for quite some time now.

-You have been "threatened" with a lawsuit for quite some time now.

-They have not followed through on any of these threats.



If you ask me, these are SCARE TACTICS period. They are using any tactic they and there attorney can come up with to get you to pay something that IMO you should not be liable for. If I were you I'd let them bluff, bluff, bluff away. (Even if you decide you want to settle, why on earth would you do it now? you can do it at any time, they might not go any further than this and actually they have not done MUCH!


This is contract law. Is your current attorney's specialty (I hope).

I would also ask my attorney how he feels about all the torment that the BOD has put you through these past months "threatening all this legal action" it must be taking a toll on you and your wife. (Maybe he can call attention to that fact if he sends anything out to them, for whatever its worth).

It is you who needs to weigh out if it's worth the risk or if you want to settle.


I do not feel it is important at all for me to read your letters, or see pictures they would be for the attorney and Judge to look at and decide IF these people EVER take it that far.

That is my opinion and feelings on the entire matter. I could be right, I could be wrong. Simply my opinion.



ps. I really hope other posters here can just respect my opinion and my right to post it, because the other behavior is just becoming ridiculous. (I'm done with it and ashamed to have taken part in it, you are right it's a waste of time and energy). Lets all let everyone speak their mind and listen to who they want to.
JonD1


Posts:0


03/22/2015 11:09 AM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 02/28/2015 12:25 PM
A brief update.
Lawyer #2 is convinced I would prevail if my case went before a judge however he has done many hoa dispute cases and he said that I would do well to go the mediator route.
I am very disappointed but the reality is I'll be getting screwed by the BOD no matter what.
I am still going to press the issue of the BOD doing away with the adjudicator committee and he is going to look into the legality of what they did.
I'm also going to ask him about a counter suit.
I am compelled to ask him about the liability that the contractor may have for the addition $7k. His invoice States the additional amount was due to "inaccurate information supplied by" yours truly.
The hoa attorney is a cocky arrogant piss ant. He has a reputation as such from every person who I've talked to that knows him. My fear is that he knows the hoa is a cash cow for him so I see no reason that he would be compelled to settle for much less than the full amount.
I'll keep th not here updated as information comes forth.
Thanks





By Howard's own account lawyer #1 was a putz who dropped the ball in communicating with the HOA attorney.

Now lawyer #2 ( on who the jury is still out) made the following claim ACCORDING TO HOWARD.

"Lawyer #2 is convinced I would prevail if my case went before a judge however he has done many hoa dispute cases and he said that I would do well to go the mediator route."

Suggesting in their view Howard would do well to go the mediator route. NOT push this to court. Mediation suggests settlement not maintaining your position of being 100% right.

If Howard forces this into court he is then going against his own lawyer's advice. In that case you pay a lawyer and then disregard his advice. Bad policy.

The board seems to me to have made a high-ball demand and is waiting to negotiate a settlement. Howard has failed now at any attempt to show a willingness to settle the matter.

Should a complaint be filed the cost simply to answer it will be considerable. Then there will be no getting off.

Howard's choice. Perhaps falling on his sword in his miond is his best option. The why pay the lawyer to tell you what you refuse to listen to?
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/22/2015 11:44 AM  
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/22/2015 10:12 AM
Howard,



It is you who needs to weigh out if it's worth the risk or if you want to settle.







Meaning you have to weigh all the risks, and the reality of what it will cost you.

I think you said something about you current attorney although saying the HOA wouldn't win that you may do well to go to mediation. He probably meant that it would cost as much for his legal fee to represent you, and that since your HOA is wrong and would lose in the matter they would most likely take that same amount of money in a settlement. (He's only being honest and stating the obvious that legal fees add up even if your in the right).

This is something for you to consider, only you can decide what's worth it to you. Look at the big picture. IMO You have time to contemplate.


ps. If I were you I would continue to seek advice from your attorney if they pull anymore intimidation/scare tactics. I'd run the letter to the membership idea by him . Then sit back and wait. IF they do and that's a big IF serve you with this threatened lawsuit, then take it from there. If I were truly confident I was in the right and they could not prove their case I would not be afraid of the risk. I'd say "bring it on".

Also lots of people know went through many attorneys before the got the right fit, that pretty normal, sometimes it take a while to get the right fit. Not saying that's your case but do whatever you have to do, when and If they truly play hardball. Right now this is still just theatrics IMO. They want you to make you sweat and panic, attorneys use those techniques everyday, it's what they do.
JohnC46
(South Carolina)

Posts:11638


03/22/2015 12:47 PM  
The tide seems to be shifting toward advising Howard to settle.
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/22/2015 2:43 PM  
I am going to email NPS some documents and photos. I am emailing only NPS because a few documents have the name of the subdivision and this information cannot get out. I am emailing these with confidence that these items will not be shared in any manner. I figure emailing only one party would be proper for all involved.

I don't feel compelled to have to prove my integrity however it is understandable for people to want to see documentation. I didn't come on this forum for entertainment. I came because I need help in dealing with the HOA BOD. I don't have the imagination to make the things up that I've posted here nor do I have the time, energy or desire to spend a second more on this than I have to.

I'm happy to share what I can but there is still going to be things that I claim that I cannot provide proof of. That's just the nature of the beast and if some here decide I am not being truthful then so be it.

I make no apologies for the opinions I've expressed regarding the HOA attorney and the BOD. If someone is getting sued by their HOA and they feel as strongly as I do that they BOD is shafting them yet they continue to feel the BOD is "OK" then good for them. I personally cannot break bread with someone that is trying to steal $13,000.00 from me by using their position and other peoples money. I don't care if it is a dollar BTW. It is a matter of principle first and foremost. I do not care to debate if posting these opinions helps or hurts my cause. What I mention here is not what I mention to all when I talk about the issue BTW.

Keep in mind that there are several neighbors that we educated about our situation. We provided these people with letters etc so they could form their opinion before committing to helping us at the recent HOA meeting. Each one of these people came to the same conclusion. The BOD is comprised of bad people. Four of the five members have held their position for 4+ years and the president has been in the position much longer than that. They have run amuck on several occasions but have managed to survive. One recent example is one in which a newly elected member of the BOD resigned after 6 months. He got voted in and was doing his job just fine. Then there was an issue with the AC. A homeowner was getting harassed by the AC and they went to the BOD with their concern. The BOD stood by the AC and sent the homeowner on their way. Behind closed door the BOD discussed the fact that the AC was in the wrong. Instead of admitting there was a problem with the AC the BOD decided it would be best to stand behind the AC, even though they had overstepped their bounds in a big way, and make up a story that would cover their asses. The newly elected BOD member had a big problem with this and he resigned. Another example of how out of touch these people are happened at the last meeting. One of the BOD members was chatting with a homeowner and I walked by. He was in part of the room where everyone had to walk by to get seating. I walk by and he stops talking to the homeowner and say, "hey Howard". In the south this is the same as saying "hello" BTW. So this guy, along with the other BOD members is trying to steal $13,000.00 from me and he says "hello" to me? Really? What is he thinking? Did he really think I'd say, "oh, hello Mr. BOD member, that sure is a nice tie etc etc"? I can't speak for anyone else but in my world if you are doing me wrong then I'm not saying "hello" to you.

My current attorney, YES ACCORDING TO ME, is very highly regarded in this area. He recently lost a very close election for a higher position in the legal field. I'm sure most know what I mean by this. He is not a "bull dog" corporate attorney and he doesn't send glossy photos of himself and/or his firm to any and every person that has a fender bender. He doesn't have a billboard every 5 miles along the interstate BUT he has the respect of a everyone I know. He took my case because of a recommendation by a mutual friend and I am fully confident that I could not chose a better person to represent me and my position. Yes he suggests considering a settlement if it looks like I need to do so however he doesn't feel making this decision is required right now. I can't get into our most recent conversation but I know he feels it would be best if I start thinking of a number I can live with. I have not spoken personally with him since the last HOA meeting. I sent him the "results" and I'll talk to him this week about it.

I disagree that the tide is shifting toward me needing to settle. I think it is the opposite in fact. Again I think it would be best to speak to my attorney before committing to this position but the some sentiment is being echoed by those that were at the meeting and not all of them were "sent" by me.
JohnB26


Posts:0


03/22/2015 2:49 PM  
Howard,

BEST OF GOOD FORTUNE TO YOU




now:

die, thread, DIE
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/22/2015 2:52 PM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/22/2015 2:43 PM

Four of the five members have held their position for 4+ years and the president has been in the position much longer than that.




Howard,

Are you saying that 4 of the 5 board members were on the Board while this whole ordeal has been going on?
They were on the Board when they told you to fix what you have done, they were on the Board when they told you the fix you did was satisfactory and the matter was closed and they are still on the Board telling you that that never happened and you now owe 13K?
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/22/2015 2:57 PM  
Howard,

Thanks for the update. I don't think the tide is turning towards settling either, not from anything I've read. You sound like you have your act very much together! I am VERY glad to hear you have found a attorney you are confident about. (I totally get the whole "principal first" thing, that's in my blood too.)

GOOD LUCK

ps. how about that fake a$$ saying "Hey, Howard" at the meeting, typical phony (I hate that!).
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/22/2015 3:33 PM  
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/22/2015 2:57 PM

ps. how about that fake a$$ saying "Hey, Howard" at the meeting, typical phony (I hate that!).




Some individuals are able to keep relationships of different natures separate. Some individuals can not.

I once hired a friend to work for me. I thought he was able to separate the work relationship and the friendship we had. I discovered later that he was unable to do that. I suppose that this is why you always hear not to hire your friend. Fortunately, the friendship was able to be saved but not on the level it once was.

I certainly don't know Howard or the individual he talked about. It may be that the individual is indeed a two-faced SOB. It is also possible that the individual is being outvoted and wanted to keep the friendship alive. It may simply be that he was trying to be cordial in a tense situation.

Hopefully, after this whole ordeal is resolved (regardless of how it's resolved) Howard can still be on (at least) cordial terms with his neighbors.



AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/22/2015 3:42 PM  
You make some good valid points Tim. When I made that casual statement I didn't give it that much thought to all the ways it could be perceived. Thank you for pointing that out.

BTW, even though I meant what I said (about fake people) I don't believe in grudges because hatred and not forgiving hurt you more than the other person anyway IMO.
TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/22/2015 4:07 PM  
I've got no problem with grudges. You can still be cordial and hold a grudge.

For example:

I have one member who always votes against me every election. I know they vote against me because they make it very clear that they do this (even on secret ballots).

They were on the Board when I had my issue with the Association and felt my newsletters were a personal attack on them vs. simply informing the membership of the Board's actions. However, we are still cordial to each other and have even worked together on various projects for the Association. However, there is still a grudge being held onto (probably a little bit from both sides).
BanksS


Posts:0


03/22/2015 4:18 PM  
My husband has a huge grudge against our HOA president. I don't hold a grudge and am always cordial even though he told me once that I needed to ask for God's forgiveness. I will never forget that so I keep my distance.

Perhaps the board member was just being cordial to Howard as you mentioned Tim. But Howard's emotions are running on high right now. I can certainly understand that.

I am very interested to know what Howard's board will do next but until he posts something about that I think this thread could use a much needed break.

HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/22/2015 4:31 PM  
Posted By TimB4 on 03/22/2015 2:52 PM
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/22/2015 2:43 PM

Four of the five members have held their position for 4+ years and the president has been in the position much longer than that.




Howard,

Are you saying that 4 of the 5 board members were on the Board while this whole ordeal has been going on?
They were on the Board when they told you to fix what you have done, they were on the Board when they told you the fix you did was satisfactory and the matter was closed and they are still on the Board telling you that that never happened and you now owe 13K?




Yes the BOD has 4 of 5 members that are the same as they have been since this whole thing started.
It just brings it around to the same thing. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong. They have the power to squeeze any homeowner for anything they want. I'm beating a dead horse but I have to remind myself of this because it is not normal thinking.

I just finished sending NPS a bunch of information. I've been doing this since my last post. I am not ungrateful but this will be my last effort as far as disclosing "evidence" to prove my case. If this information help or hurts my "case" in this forum we will see. If NPS decides in any direction he will still be questioned by some about how he came to the personal conclusion that he did (will???)
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/23/2015 8:05 AM  
Howard emailed me some materials.
Waiting for his clearance on what I can and cannot share with you.

Sikubali jukumu. Read all posts at your own risk.
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/23/2015 11:21 AM  
lease share your opinion based on the additional information.
I believe that I've stated everything that is in the information I sent. I sent it so someone would see I'm not making it up.
It was a pond before this all came up with my hoa bod. The size had not changed as the photos show. The documents show the BOD wanted it returned back to its original condition so that it would serve as a sediment trap etc etc. They never mentioned filling it in. At this point they are saying dirt was removed but the satellite images from 2008 clearly show the pond along with the shrubs I planted when they were 6'tall. They were planted around the border of the pond and remain in the same proximity of the border except they are now 15' tall and 10X as wide. If pruned the tops so they would getwider and less tall.
I nneglected to email the photos of the area now since the BOD filled it in. It is difficult to see from the photos I took from the ground but I'll email them later. I wish there was a way to attach with a phone but I'll do what I can. If there was a satellite photo available from within the last 6 months it would be very easy to see they filled the pond in completely where before it was water there is now dirt.
The BOD also filled in a large area outside of the border of the drainage easement that is my property. About 10' toward my side of the pond is not in the drainage easement yet they filled it in. This is not within their rights.
The Rc they site in their argument, as specified in the letter to the community, defines that no homeowner may place anything in a drainage easement other than a culvert pipe for a driveway. They omit the beginning of this rule where it says, "the developer, hoa nor any homeowner may place anything in the drainage easement.". They failed to include this section of the Rc that they site as the one I am guilty of breaking.
I am very surprised no one has mentioned anything about the BOD member blurting out my name at the recent meeting? As I said in an earlier post there was no mention of my name prior to this bod member mentioning it. She was flustered and /or angry in having to answer a question and made, what I consider to be, a big mistake. Two bod members one either side of her thought it was a bad thing as well judging by their reaction. I guess privacy and confidentiality are things that apply to them but not to homeowners they are black mailing.
Please just digest the I found I emailed and post your conclusion whatever it may be. Please do not mention specifics such as names, addresses etc. I'm sure you know what can and can't be problematic in posting. Thanks
RobertL21
(California)

Posts:17


03/23/2015 2:03 PM  
The more I read about this situation the less sense it seems to make.

1) There was a pond or a hole in the ground on common property.
2) Homeowner does something to the hole but that something is does not involve removing dirt.
3) HOA BOD catches wind of this "something" and tells homeowner to return the area back to original condition.
4) HOA BOD says all is cool after homeowner returns area back to whatever it was supposed to be.
5) HOA BOD not happy so they truck in a bunch dirt to fill the hole, additionally dirt is put on homeowners property.
6) HOA BOD then wants to bill homeowner $13K?




NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/23/2015 3:19 PM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/23/2015 11:21 AM
lease share your opinion based on the additional information.

Howard seems to have misinterpreted my issue.
He sent me material and asked me to keep it all confidential.
I emailed Howard back asking if I could quote one paragraph of a letter from the HOA and describe the rest of the material - and then give my opinion - which BTW is favorable to Howard.

IMO, keeping everything confidential (as Howard instructed me) means not sharing any of the detail. And as I said in my email to Howard, I will not express an opinion without being able to share the basis for my opinion.

Now Howard is once again explaining his situation - which puts me in a quandary - why would Howard continue to talk about stuff that he wants me to maintain confidentiality on? All he has to do is say to me - you can describe this but you can't describe that - and I would comply.

Maybe I am misinterpreting Howard's "confidentiality" instruction, but until I get his clearance, I will hold off on any further comment.



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

Posts:566


03/23/2015 3:33 PM  
Your doing the right thing NPS, I admire that.
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/23/2015 4:08 PM  
NPS - I just sent an email. I hope it clarifies the "confidential" meaning I had in mind for your your replies. I merely wish the personal details such as addresses, full names, developement name, and other details that could link this thread to the specific dispute and the parties involved.
Thanks


Robert - maybe these andswers will help. If not I'll try again to answer them.

The more I read about this situation the less sense it seems to make.

1) There was a pond or a hole in the ground on common property.

I don't know if the drainage easements are common property. By common property I'm thinking of property that is available for usage by the entire HOA?? If common property means it is common between the HOA BOD and the home/lot owner(s) then it would be common property. I've seen this description used a few different ways in my research. The area the BOD is referring to in their dispute is in the rear corner of my lot and is also within the rear lot lines of two other properties.

2) Homeowner does something to the hole but that something is does not involve removing dirt.

Correct in that I did not remove dirt. I tried putting aliner in the pond so it would not keep draining and looking like the funky mosquito pit that it started to look like when I stopped filling 8 hours a day with my well. No physical way that I could given the fact that the area is locked in by lots that I do not own and access from my lot only would mean destroying many trees for a truck to get through. We are not allowed to destroy trees in our HOA. The contractor made a path through two undeveloped lots to get to the pond. These lots are much less wooded than mine and are a direct route to the area given there are no houses to drive around.

3) HOA BOD catches wind of this "something" and tells homeowner to return the area back to original condition.

Yes.

4) HOA BOD says all is cool after homeowner returns area back to whatever it was supposed to be.

Yes. "returned to it's original condition" is how they phrased it. One, of many. problem is the BOD change their definition of, "original condition" from swale to sediment trap to whatever they had in the letter of the day or week or what have you. They NEVER said it should be filled in. NPS has a letter that, I believe, states returning to a sediment trap.

5) HOA BOD not happy so they truck in a bunch dirt to fill the hole, additionally dirt is put on homeowners property.

This is correct to the extent that the BOD filled it in. Whether they were not happy or happy? I can't say. I can make no logical argument for why they filled it in except there was, at one point during our "negotiations", mention made by the BOD about a neighbor saying it was a safety issue. If they are playing that hand then I'd have to ask why did it take so long to fill it in? Why did they wait for me to put 4 months of back breaking labor into the project AND make me jump through hoops trying to satisfy their many demands and multiple inspections? Why is there still another pond at the opposite corner of my lot? I know the reason they had not done the fill earlier is that they didn't even know about the area until a neighbor that visits his home once or twice a year inquired about the work I was doing. That made the ARC come take a look and start fussing with me. They knew they were out of their jurisdiction with this project and handed it over to the BOD right away.

The really ironic thing about how this project got started is that I was helping another neighbor. One of the homeowners that has a house/lot that abuts the pond came to my door one evening and asked if I wouldn't mind keeping the pond filled while they tried to sell their home. At that point I had quit filling the pond about 4 months prior and it was at an all time low from an aesthetic standpoint. I was tired of the cost of running the water 8 hours a day. After a short time of filling it with the well water I decided to undertake the project of filling it in. Big mistake to state the obvious.

6) HOA BOD then wants to bill homeowner $13K?

Wrong on that one. They don't WANT to bill me, they HAVE billed me via a letter from the HOA attorney. I received one single letter notifying me I was responsible for the charges and the letter of notification was in the form of a letter from the attorney along with a threat to file a claim of lien as well as a threat of foreclosure within 90 days. The letter came with two invoices from the contractor. One for the original amount of $6,000.00 and a second one for $7,000.00. The second one had a note, "addition fill and labor required due to inaccurate information provided by the homeowner" This is not exactly verbatim but it is very close. I can supply NPS with the letter from the attorney as well as the two invoices if this is required for some to see that I'm not making it up. BTW I am getting a $10.00 late charge every month from the management company since I received the letter.

FWIW when the P&L for 2014 was mailed out to all residents prior to the last election it had a line item for "swale and ditch repair". It listed the budgeted amount and they actual amount spent for 2014. The amount spent was exactly $13K over the budgeted amount. The P&L and the budgets for the previous and upcoming years are mailed out prior to the elections and they get approved at the yearly general meeting where elections are held. It took three attempts by the HOA BOD before a quorum was filled. I suspect this is a problem for a whole lot of HOA's

Thanks - I hope some of this helps.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/23/2015 4:13 PM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/23/2015 4:08 PM
NPS - I just sent an email. I hope it clarifies the "confidential" meaning I had in mind for your your replies. I merely wish the personal details such as addresses, full names, developement name, and other details that could link this thread to the specific dispute and the parties involved.
Thanks

2nd email received. Issue clarified. Will post something tonight or tomorrow. Thx Howard.

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

Posts:4216


03/24/2015 5:35 PM  
Howard sent me copies of 3 letters: 2 from the BOD and 1 from his plumber. He also sent me some photos and a plat map.

My reaction is mixed but generally favorable to Howard's position. The most powerful item in Howard's favor is the BOD's 9/10/2013 letter which gave Howard a clean bill of health (with minor exceptions). As I interpret that letter, these exceptions would have cost Howard a few hundred dollars at most. Certainly not $13,000. It seems to me that the $13k bill is for a totally different project (even though it is in the same physical location).

On the other hand, Howard is so focused on making the points that he wants to make that he fails to fill in some of the unexplained gaps in his story. I do not question what he has presented. But I think Howard did himself a disservice by being so selective in what he shared. I don't get the sense that Howard is intentionally deceptive. I do get the sense that he does not understand that he creates negative impressions by withholding information that might work against him.

I have now seen records of 4 communications from the HOA:

BOD LETTER #1. Dated 9/10/2013. This letter is polite, respectful, and appears reasonable. It opens:
"The Board of Directors for XXX HOA would like to thank you for the time and effort made to meet the request to have the drainage area restored. It was viewed that there was a great deal of effort put into the request. However, after viewing the area there are additional requests the Board has to have the area restored and functioning as a storm drainage area and sediment trap."

This is followed by 5 bullet points which ask Howard to: (a) remove a water pump as the artificial filling with water is not allowed; (b) dispose of certain materials; (c) drain the water to the level that existed prior to making it a pond; (d) once the drainage area is returned to the original purpose, the water can be allowed to move into the wetlands; and (e) all must be completed within 60 days.

If this was all I had to go on, I would have no doubt that Howard restored the drainage area to its original purpose as he says he did.

BOD LETTER #2. Dated 10/19/2013. Haven't seen this letter, but it is quoted in the BOD's 3/2/15 letter to the community. Here's part of what the community letter said: "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.'"

Obviously, the point of contention is whether Howard modified the size and shape.

BOD LETTER #3. Dated 11/18/2013. HOA acknowledges receipt of Howard's communication, and states that the HOA will set up a meeting with an independent construction consultant - and then set up a meeting with Howard to go over the consultant's recommendation.

The 11/18/2013 letter was obviously sent sometime around the 60 day deadline set by the BOD's 9/10/2013 letter. Howard did not send me a copy of the communication that he sent to the BOD that triggered this response.

Nor did Howard provide a copy of any report by the consultant, which I would have expected - I don't know of many boards that would rely exclusively on a verbal representations from a hired consultant. Also, from the tone of the BOD's letters, I would assume that a copy was provided to Howard.

I don't know what to make of it. I can only assume that this is the part of the story that supports the HOA's position and was therefore not provided.

BOD LETTER #4. 3/2/15. Letter to the community. Previously described.

PLUMBER LETTER: The other letter that Howard sent me was from Howard's plumber when Howard built his house (2008 I think). Dated 3/11/15. It states that Howard didn't make the drainage system any bigger or dig it out. Per this letter, no dirt was hauled out.

Apparently the plumber was on Howard's BOD at one time. He states in his letter that he and another board member (who is named) did an inspection and concluded that Howard didn't change the size and that trucks couldn't get in or out of the lot.

HOWARD'S PICTURES. I can't draw any conclusions from them. I expect that they support what Howard is saying and I am sure that he can use them to present his position. Howard's explanations are similar to the information in the PLUMBER's letter - so he has a witness and some pictures to support his claims that he did not alter the drainage system.

HOWARD'S PLAT MAP. I did not look at this either. I do note that in his explanation, Howard said that it "shows the drainage easement but does not show the pond. This is because the pond was originally a, 'temporary sediment trap'. There was/is no requirement that these traps be recorded with the county."

If Howard's inference that only permanent traps must be recorded, and if this one is not recorded - then that would tend to support many of Howard's arguments - and raise questions about when the BOD decided to fill in the swale and who is financially responsible.

In summary, it appears that the BOD decided first that the drainage system had to be restored to its original function and then that it should be filled in. The expert's opinion is of course missing and so we are not privy to the basis for the subsequent dispute between Howard and his BOD. As I said above, the HOA might have spent $13k, but I cannot see how that should be Howard's responsibility - even if they sent him a letter saying that he would be responsible.

My recommendations to Howard:

1. Get your plumber/BOD member to put his letter in the form of an affidavit. Your lawyer can help you with this.

2. Do not keep unfavorable information from your lawyer. Share whatever documentation you have with him from 2013. It's his job to make you look good even on your weak points - but he will be blindsided if you don't share those weaknesses with him - and that could hurt you.

3. I know that you are angry and frustrated with your BOD members and the HOA lawyer. And you have been using this forum to vent. But listen to what others here are saying - they are not wrong - it makes you look bad. If you want to prepare for the next step, then stop venting. Get in the practice of dealing with the facts and not the personalities. I know that you will say that this doesn't matter here - I disagree. Why don't you use this forum to practice what seems to come hard for you - describing what happened without adding your comments about other people's motives - You lose credibility when you do it.

4. This is about money, not principle. There is no clear cut winner. At the end of the day, money will change hands - maybe it will go from you to the HOA; Maybe from the HOA to you. And most certainly it will go from you and the HOA to the lawyers. But whatever direction the money flows, this will be settled by money.

5. If you have a bad BOD, then this may become a catalyst for getting rid of them. But don't mix these two issues together. If you do, you will lose both - not because you are wrong - but because you should be working on making your message simpler not more complicated.

6. You have been tested here by other posters. Their challenges were mild in comparison to what you would face in a courtroom setting. You also have cheerleaders here. If I were you, I would pay more attention to what the first group is saying. If you are listening (not necessarily to the exact words but to the overall message), it could help prepare you.

7. If as stated in the PLUMBER's letter, 2 BOD members made an inspection, there may be minutes describing this inspection. It would be very helpful to your position if you had a copy.

And with that, I hope I am done with this thread.

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


Posts:0


03/24/2015 6:06 PM  
NPS appears you put quite some time into reviewing Howard's material.

Still some of the disputed issues remain unclear.

Thanks for you time and interest in providing the rest of us with your observations.

Of you final suggestions IMO most important were 3,4,6.

This is not nor should it be personal. Howard is unable and unwilling to avoid expressing his views with others at a personal level. And remembering after this matter is concluded these folks might still be the members of your board and your neighbors might be worth considering.

Principle comes with a potentially high cost. My guess the HOA is willing to settle. Absent any effort by Howard to negotiate with them might force this into court. This is about money and in the end as you say $$$$$ will settle it. Just left to determine who pays how much.

Cheerleaders are good at high school football games. Blind support and meaningless agreement are valueless. If I and others can get under your skin just wait till you are under oath and being questioned by the sleazy HOA lawyer. You won't remember your own name! When the only voices and opinions you allow yourself to hear are your own and those with limited understanding of simple 5 letter words, best to expand your horizons. And information sources.

Being right is a wonderful think. My only point, are you willing to pay the freight override this to the end to prove just howcrightbyou are? And what happens if the court decides the other side is right or partially right?

Howard's new and improved lawyer has suggested he might be best served by settling. That's his best professional opinion. Or you can do battle to prove your point. Just at what cost.

In my old neighborhood we had a saying. Even when you think you won, you lose. Just how much will winning cost you in the end?

Take a break NPS job well done.
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/24/2015 6:25 PM  
Thanks for sharing your opinion with all of us posters NPS.

If I'm not mistaken Nps this "cheerleader" gave Howard the same advice previously about using the posters that were challenging him and getting under his skin, as practice and preparation (so give me a little credit please). But no hard feeling Nps I respect you. I still feel that would be good to do Howard but only if you feel it's worth your time and energy, your call. (You also have some new posters taking interest who seem to have some good questions and advice.)

From what Nps has stated, I can still agree with what seems to still be his bottom line "The HOA might have spent $13k, but I cannot see how that should be Howard's responsibility-even if they sent him a letter saying that he would be responsible." That has been why I've been a "cheerleader" all along, because I don't think the HOA has a case that will win in court.

My only new concern is that Nps seemed to imply (unless I perceived it wrong) that you may be withholding information from your own attorney? other than that I don't see anything new for me to comment on because I didn't see what Nps did.

So once again so I don't disappoint (Kerry) "I wish you well Howard" and please keep us posted.


ps. I'll let the NON-cheerleaders have the floor and hopefully they will respect you and leave me out of it too. Let the posts begin!
AmandaR2
(South Carolina)

Posts:566


03/24/2015 6:31 PM  
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/14/2015 5:36 PM
ONE more bit of advice, if I were you I would use this thread as a learning tool. Look back on what may have angered/upset other posters, look at when you may have been venting anger and it may have offended some. Use that as a way to prep for the meeting (and even if you should end up appearing before a judge). People will tell you that laws are laws, facts are facts and that is true. But appearances and how you come across to the audience contribute to the impression you make, and it may matter at that meeting for you. I have found that in the real world at times public/peers opinions can and does count for something, whether or not its fair that way or not. Making the best impression like you did here (look at all the support you have received) can only help you.

Now I'll get off my soapbox. I wish you luck at the meeting!



TimB4
(Tennessee)

Posts:17830


03/24/2015 7:19 PM  
Howard, Thank you for trusting NP enough to provide the information to him.

NP, Thank you for reading and relaying your understanding of the situation.

Howard - I encourage you to take NP's advice to heart. Please keep us posted.
MelissaP1
(Alabama)

Posts:10576


03/24/2015 9:27 PM  
My opinion is this is still going to court and there is something missing in Howard's story. I am NOT against Howard from winning and support him having a good defense. However, I also recognize the HOA may not be totally in the wrong either. Giving my advice to support Howard view but realize the HOA has cause. I am still missing the elephant in the room but I see it left footprints.,, Good luck...

Former HOA President
HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/25/2015 5:09 AM  
Thanks for reviewing the information.
I included the letter from the BOD, that states they will hire a consultant, but neglected to mention that they never did hire a consultant. There were no engineers, private or state/local/federal,, involved in the action the BOD took to fill in the pond with dirt.. I never received a letter from the BOD as a follow up to their letter where they said they were hiring a consultant or engineer because they never did. If they had done so I'd suspect there would have been a professional opinion on the dimensions of the pond and the contractor would have been able to use this information to estimate the amount of fill required.

As I mentioned, there is no way, without an up to date aerial photo, to show the pond size has not been changed. The photos I supplied shows the shrubs. I thought these would better define, at least, the border of the area. Just no way to get an overhead photo at this point.

In the BOD letter #2 the BOD States they will hire someone to do "the work". "The work" they did and the work that they requested I do were miles apart. They requested that, "allow the area to be returned to its original function as a sediment trap" or something like that. That is what I did and the BOD approved this and said I complied.. You will notice that none of the documents talk about filling the pond in. There was never any letters or any other type of correspondence in which filling in the pond was mentioned by the BOD as a way that I should remedy the situation it is abundantly clear, from the satellite photos I gave you, that there was always a pond there

The 11-16 letter came prior to the face to face meeting that the BOD and I had. This is a meeting that I requested after being given demands from the BOD and satisfying the demands only to have additional demands of made of me after they inspected that I met their previous demands. They sent me letters to return the pond to its original condition of AND told me what I needed to do to make this happen. When I did what they asked they would come out and inspect the work. Then they would say, "we found a few more things". I did these, "few more things" three separate times. After the third time I asked them to inspect it and, after doing so, meet with me personally in case there were yet more demands. This is the meeting where I walked in and the BOD member said, "Howard, aren't you glad this while pond thing will be behind you". At the end of this meeting they told me they hired a contractor to fill in the pond and asked if I would keep it empty with my pump. I told them I'd be glad to but I'd have to get word from him when he was needing it empty because my wife would be getting chemotherapy and my schedule wasn't completely open. Why would they ask me to help the contractor do a job they contracted if they knew they were going to charge me? The reality is that they would not have asked me to do this had they known that there would be a motion made 3-4 months later to go after me.

Melissa-whay is, "missing". I'd like to know what it is you feel I have omitted either by intention or accident. If you feel something is missing then you must know what that, "something" is. I'm not being confrontational. I'm genuinely interested in the specific item you are looking for.

For everyone's information, my attorney said I should be ready to settle. He has not said I need to settle as in now, this week, this month etc. He is open to the idea that this may get dropped.

Why is it that some posters here can say that I said this or that and not be called out for inaccuracies? They make false statements about what I say and what I've said can be looked at right in this forum. I'm having to provide proof that support my claim that the BOD is railroading me. That's fair enough and I don't mind. People who reply here by stating what they read and not what I've written should step back and look at my posts to make sure they are accurate please.

I have a call in to my attorney and I hope to hear from him today.

The claim that, "at the end of the day", or whatever cliche is used, that I will pay etc etc is proof that an hoa can just go out and screw homeowners. Right or wrong doesn't seem to matter to some here. "It's all about the money" is a disgusting mind set IMO. How is an hoa's ability to extort money by using court, attorney fees etc, any different than someone stealing money from you? One way is made legal by a corrupt system and one is defined as illegal and punishable. The other seems accepted and, "just one of those things". Unacceptable.

Thanks
JonD1


Posts:0


03/25/2015 6:29 AM  
"Yes he suggests considering a settlement if it looks like I need to do so however he doesn't feel making this decision is required right now. I can't get into our most recent conversation but I know he feels it would be best if I start thinking of a number I can live with. "

So the best attorney possible to handle this matter in Howard's view suggests considering a SETTLEMENT and having a number in mind meaning dollar amount in this post.

" For everyone's information, my attorney said I should be ready to settle. He has not said I need to settle as in now, this week, this month etc. He is open to the idea that this may get dropped."

Again, the attorney suggests Howard might best be prepared to settle. Just as some of us here have suggested.

" The claim that, "at the end of the day", or whatever cliche is used, that I will pay etc etc is proof that an hoa can just go out and screw homeowners. Right or wrong doesn't seem to matter to some here. "It's all about the money" is a disgusting mind set IMO. How is an hoa's ability to extort money by using court, attorney fees etc, any different than someone stealing money from you? One way is made legal by a corrupt system and one is defined as illegal and punishable. The other seems accepted and, "just one of those things".

As this matter has yet to be concluded Howard's PROOF about HOAs screwing people is a bit premature. And of course in typical Howard speak if anyone fails to agree they can't tell right from wrong. This is a dispute regarding responsibility and expenses (money). Those sorts of disputes most time are decided in the legal system. And as none of us has heard the complete position the HOA might take I would hold off on labeling their behavior as "extortion"
or corrupt. Only after all the facts are in and an outcome reached can we determine just what took place here with any certainty.

I just find it unlikely the board will drop this. Time will tell.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/25/2015 8:27 AM  
Howard. I will critique your email - not to find fault with you - but to show you where IMO you win this audience and where you lose this audience. What we think about whether you are right or wrong doesn't really matter - What matters is that you manage your responses so that you are seen in the most positive light possible.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
Thanks for reviewing the information.
I included the letter from the BOD, that states they will hire a consultant, but neglected to mention that they never did hire a consultant. There were no engineers, private or state/local/federal,, involved in the action the BOD took to fill in the pond with dirt.. I never received a letter from the BOD as a follow up to their letter where they said they were hiring a consultant or engineer because they never did. If they had done so I'd suspect there would have been a professional opinion on the dimensions of the pond and the contractor would have been able to use this information to estimate the amount of fill required.


I'm proud of you. You filled the unexplained gap about the consultant and the BOD's letters. Short, concise, and credible.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
As I mentioned, there is no way, without an up to date aerial photo, to show the pond size has not been changed. The photos I supplied shows the shrubs. I thought these would better define, at least, the border of the area. Just no way to get an overhead photo at this point.

In the BOD letter #2 the BOD States they will hire someone to do "the work". "The work" they did and the work that they requested I do were miles apart. They requested that, "allow the area to be returned to its original function as a sediment trap" or something like that. That is what I did and the BOD approved this and said I complied.. You will notice that none of the documents talk about filling the pond in. There was never any letters or any other type of correspondence in which filling in the pond was mentioned by the BOD as a way that I should remedy the situation it is abundantly clear, from the satellite photos I gave you, that there was always a pond there

The 11-16 letter came prior to the face to face meeting that the BOD and I had. This is a meeting that I requested after being given demands from the BOD and satisfying the demands only to have additional demands of made of me after they inspected that I met their previous demands. They sent me letters to return the pond to its original condition of AND told me what I needed to do to make this happen. When I did what they asked they would come out and inspect the work. Then they would say, "we found a few more things". I did these, "few more things" three separate times. After the third time I asked them to inspect it and, after doing so, meet with me personally in case there were yet more demands. This is the meeting where I walked in and the BOD member said, "Howard, aren't you glad this while pond thing will be behind you". At the end of this meeting they told me they hired a contractor to fill in the pond and asked if I would keep it empty with my pump. I told them I'd be glad to but I'd have to get word from him when he was needing it empty because my wife would be getting chemotherapy and my schedule wasn't completely open. Why would they ask me to help the contractor do a job they contracted if they knew they were going to charge me? The reality is that they would not have asked me to do this had they known that there would be a motion made 3-4 months later to go after me.


Go back and look at what I did - First and foremost, I relied on the docs you provided - and then I looked to see if what you said was consistent and whether there were documents missing or other gaps - You should expect that anyone who is trying to figure this out (and not just agreeing with your story) will put much more weight on what is and what isn't on paper than what you say. Yet, here you are adding parts of your story that are either repetitive or unnecessary - not because they are wrong or right - but because this stuff easily degrades into "He said - She said." You say this - they say that. As I said above, you filled the gaps I saw - No need to say anything more.

And by going on and on about who said what, you are shifting attention away from the real issue - which is - the BOD put things in writing and didn't follow through. This failure to do as promised is very powerful - but it gets lost in your ramblings (that may be important to you) - but work against you because people want simple not complicated.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
Melissa-whay is, "missing". I'd like to know what it is you feel I have omitted either by intention or accident. If you feel something is missing then you must know what that, "something" is. I'm not being confrontational. I'm genuinely interested in the specific item you are looking for.


What I think Melissa is referring to is the gaps that I identified in my assessment. I have seen you do this several times in your postings - you are very literal in the way you read things and sometimes miss the concept being conveyed. I am not saying that any of us are always clear - but I think this is something that you could work on.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
For everyone's information, my attorney said I should be ready to settle. He has not said I need to settle as in now, this week, this month etc. He is open to the idea that this may get dropped.


OK.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
Why is it that some posters here can say that I said this or that and not be called out for inaccuracies? They make false statements about what I say and what I've said can be looked at right in this forum. I'm having to provide proof that support my claim that the BOD is railroading me. That's fair enough and I don't mind. People who reply here by stating what they read and not what I've written should step back and look at my posts to make sure they are accurate please.


Here you are falling back into the old pattern of letting people get under your skin. Work on this. It doesn't help your cause. IMO, you lose more people than you gain with these statements.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
I have a call in to my attorney and I hope to hear from him today.
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM


OK.

Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 5:09 AM
The claim that, "at the end of the day", or whatever cliche is used, that I will pay etc etc is proof that an hoa can just go out and screw homeowners. Right or wrong doesn't seem to matter to some here. "It's all about the money" is a disgusting mind set IMO. How is an hoa's ability to extort money by using court, attorney fees etc, any different than someone stealing money from you? One way is made legal by a corrupt system and one is defined as illegal and punishable. The other seems accepted and, "just one of those things". Unacceptable.


Another rant about the poor HO getting screwed by the HOA. It doesn't help your cause - I repeat, not because you aren't getting screwed - but because every fool with every lamebrain complaint says stuff like this. What you should be doing is saying things that differentiates you from these people - not sounding them. As I said in my recommendations - Do not mix the pond issue with the bad HOA issue. It does not work in your favor. Period.

FINALLY - My thoughts about the HOA's letter to the community have shifted back and forth a bit. Now, after I understand that the BOD didn't follow through on the demands and promises of the 2013 exchanges, I feel more strongly that the BOD's letter was inappropriate - because the BOD has an obligation to protect all of the HOA's members - and that includes you. I do think as I did early on that the BOD is riding rough-shod over you. There was no justification for publicizing this dispute in a one sided manner and making you look bad to the rest of the community. The fact that they didn't use your name is irrelevant - It's a small community and it's easy to figure out who they are talking about without naming you. IMO, this borders on harassment and a violation of the BOD's fiduciary responsibilities to you personally. And if you do ultimately make an offer, it supports the idea that your offer should be very small. Or if you want to threaten the BOD with a countersuit if they come after you - that too is fine - because right now you are in the negotiation dance. You can play hardball or softball with your BOD - your choice.

Settle this any way you want. Spend money or don't spend money. As always, that's your call. Stay cool. Don't let anyone get under your skin. Good luck.


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

Posts:566


03/25/2015 8:56 AM  
Howard,

Nps obviously has your best interest at heart. He has given you some superb advice, take it all in and reflect.


Nps,
That is in my opinion the most well written, well thought out advice I have seen posted here on this forum to date. You were honest and not only gave constructive criticism but helpful suggestions and insight. Along with enough support and encouragement. Very well balanced and tactfully dispensed advice. Perfect!
JonD1


Posts:0


03/25/2015 4:13 PM  
Posted By AmandaR2 on 03/25/2015 3:35 PM
So JonD,

In the beginning I must have been wrong, in my perception/opinion of Nps. So what. I don't understand why that would be so important to you that you would need to post it.

I don't see how that is relevant to Howard.


ps. please do not address me personally in your posts and I will do the same from this point on. thank you






Seems like you Amanda have no problem questioning the value of what others post but your flip flopping goes unaddressed.

If the value of anyone's contribution should be questioned it would be yours.

445 posts many simply jumping on the wagon offering you approval as if that is required. Many based on little if any real understanding or experience
about that which you are commenting on.

Here's a clue no one requires your approval of their views. I certainly do not.
Nor does ANYONE need to have YOU second guess the value of what they have to offer.
Somewhere somehow you thought YOU had that right.

Now the term arrogant comes to mind.

And understand clearly you have no say in what I do. If I feel the need to address your posts I will do so.

Just as you felt you had the right to address the content of mine. Minimalizing my 28 years of service on my board
which you implied was not applicable to Howard's issues. How simpleminded a concept on your part.

Sorry not all of us can assume the role of burning bush like you.

Understanding those of us living in condo properties simply don't operate at your level. Thankfully.

HowardC2
(North Carolina)

Posts:80


03/25/2015 4:39 PM  
Thanks for reviewing the information I sent.

I need to reread several posts to see where there are gaps.

I feel like I need to assure those here about my tendency to rant, call names, voice personal opinions and so on. I assumed this forum was a place where I could feel OK about ranting and voicing my opinion about those that are involved in trying to steal money from me. I felt it would be understood that the negative comments carried no weight. I made these statements in the same manner that I would if I were driving in a car with someone that knew my situation. In other words I know very well that there is a time and place for everything and I've proven that I can handle myself in front of the BOD. I don't let them or the attorney rattle me and making negative comments about anyone in a serious situation would not enter my mind. I am strictly business around them and I am very aware that comments made here would not be appropriate in any way shape or form.

I really thought this would be a given.

Anyway - I have no inclination to sink my ship by acting like an immature name caller in front of the lawyer or the BOD members.
Thanks
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/25/2015 5:12 PM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 4:39 PM
Thanks for reviewing the information I sent.

I need to reread several posts to see where there are gaps.

I feel like I need to assure those here about my tendency to rant, call names, voice personal opinions and so on. I assumed this forum was a place where I could feel OK about ranting and voicing my opinion about those that are involved in trying to steal money from me. I felt it would be understood that the negative comments carried no weight. I made these statements in the same manner that I would if I were driving in a car with someone that knew my situation. In other words I know very well that there is a time and place for everything and I've proven that I can handle myself in front of the BOD. I don't let them or the attorney rattle me and making negative comments about anyone in a serious situation would not enter my mind. I am strictly business around them and I am very aware that comments made here would not be appropriate in any way shape or form.

I really thought this would be a given.

Anyway - I have no inclination to sink my ship by acting like an immature name caller in front of the lawyer or the BOD members.
Thanks


Howard. We all have a tendency to rant. Not the issue.

This forum is a setting where you can practice, practice, practice. Don't defend the behavior. Practice not using it at all. Then when you are in enemy territory and under a lot of pressure and stress, you will not fall into old habits. We all do less than our best when under stress.

The fault that I see in your logic is that you are saying that you know the difference - but when you make your arguments, you mix in rant. They are like oil and water. If you want to rant, rant. But if you are trying to convince someone - which seems to be your objective - then mixing in a bit or rant makes you look bad. And for that reason, I am not going to give you slack.

As far as handling yourself in front of the BOD and the HOA lawyer, that was nothing like the interrogation you might be under in a courtroom. And don't confuse your own impressions of how you did with how someone else might see it. If you don't settle, someone else will decide your fate. There is no telling what that person will base his or her opinion on.

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


Posts:0


03/25/2015 7:42 PM  
There is no telling what that person will base his or her opinion on.


? other than the facts and evidence as presented by the trial attorneys ?

? or perhaps you actually believe judges and juries flip coins ?


GOD BLESS AMERICA

and may

GOD HELP US ALL
JonD1


Posts:0


03/25/2015 8:06 PM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 4:39 PM
Thanks for reviewing the information I sent.

I need to reread several posts to see where there are gaps.

I feel like I need to assure those here about my tendency to rant, call names, voice personal opinions and so on. I assumed this forum was a place where I could feel OK about ranting and voicing my opinion about those that are involved in trying to steal money from me. I felt it would be understood that the negative comments carried no weight. I made these statements in the same manner that I would if I were driving in a car with someone that knew my situation. In other words I know very well that there is a time and place for everything and I've proven that I can handle myself in front of the BOD. I don't let them or the attorney rattle me and making negative comments about anyone in a serious situation would not enter my mind. I am strictly business around them and I am very aware that comments made here would not be appropriate in any way shape or form.

I really thought this would be a given.

Anyway - I have no inclination to sink my ship by acting like an immature name caller in front of the lawyer or the BOD members.
Thanks




Howard some points you might want to consider those on THIS site who have actually tired to offer you assistance ARE THEMSELVES members of HOA
boards. Tim,NPS, and I have actually been through the process . Amanda not so much. Board versus owner perhaps our refraining from making generalized comments about the difficulties we have all encountered with owners might be returned by you regarding your opinions of board members.

Perhaps sometimes even when we might feel the need to vent we hold our tongues.

Maybe you should consider your audience. Who you are asking for help..

You claim to possess the ability to focus then you rant about a board member simply saying hello.

Just what purpose does that serve? In legal matters none.

I would consider NPS's advice carefully. You can disregard mine.

I would also disregard those who simply reinforce your own views they are not the ones who will be on the other side of things should this go to court.

Those people will have no need to make your life easier.
NpS
(Pennsylvania)

Posts:4216


03/25/2015 8:22 PM  
Posted By JohnB26 on 03/25/2015 7:42 PM
There is no telling what that person will base his or her opinion on.


? other than the facts and evidence as presented by the trial attorneys ?

? or perhaps you actually believe judges and juries flip coins ?


It's more likely that the decision-maker will decide the case and then select the facts that support the ruling. That's how many of us make decisions even if we don't like to admit it - First we make our decision - Then we justify it when we explain it to others. We don't lay out all the facts/evidence - just the facts/evidence that makes our conclusion appear rational.

Juries are different, but if you have ever served on a jury, think about how much of the discussion in the jury room was about which witnesses were credible and which ones weren't - Facts/evidence that is critical to the success of one side can be disregarded for any number of reasons.

If you have never seen it, watch a great old movie - 12 Angry Men - about the goings on in a jury room. Still a good flick after more than 50 years.


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

Posts:566


03/26/2015 6:15 AM  
Posted By HowardC2 on 03/25/2015 4:39 PM
Thanks for reviewing the information I sent.

I need to reread several posts to see where there are gaps.

I feel like I need to assure those here about my tendency to rant, call names, voice personal opinions and so on. I assumed this forum was a place where I could feel OK about ranting and voicing my opinion about those that are involved in trying to steal money from me. I felt it would be understood that the negative comments carried no weight. I made these statements in the same manner that I would if I were driving in a car with someone that knew my situation. In other words I know very well that there is a time and place for everything and I've proven that I can handle myself in front of the BOD. I don't let them or the attorney rattle me and making negative comments about anyone in a serious situation would not enter my mind. I am strictly business around them and I am very aware that comments made here would not be appropriate in any way shape or form.

I really thought this would be a given.

Anyway - I have no inclination to sink my ship by acting like an immature name caller in front of the lawyer or the BOD members.
Thanks


Howard you obviously have much more patience, tolerance and respect than than many people do. I hope you are succeed in whatever it is you are trying to accomplish here on this forum. You are going through some serious stress in your situation, you sound like you have enough common sense not to let anything here truly get to you and are keeping things in perspective. This thread has take a turn where it honestly does not seem to be about the actual facts of your case anymore. It almost seems as if it's now about someone else, their feelings and how you offended them and their ego. That in my honest opinion is sad. I hope you can take away some things from here that are new and are useful to YOU and YOUR case in real life. If winning over someone on this forum helps your case in some way then that's good.

ps. I do get Nps's urging you to use this forum as practice on the impression you make as that is the advice I had given you also. Nps is gifted in the way that he is able to communicate and point out the positives you can take away from this and improve skills. I think listening and trusting in him was very wise of you. His advice is all geared towards helping you and not about himself. That's why over time I have come to respect his opinion.
Please login to post a reply (click Member Login on the menu).
Page 8 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