Many of us grew up being taught the “Golden Rule” – the principle that we should always treat others the way we would like to be treated. It’s a great concept! It’s a neighborly way, which fosters good relations in society and has been utilized in American culture for many decades.
Now days a new concept of the “Golden Rule” has surfaced. It goes like this- “he who has the gold, rules”. This new found concept is all too prevalent in our current culture and it is unfortunate people with access to enough financial resources can affect the outcome of a given situation through their ability to outspend their opponents.
By now, most of us who live or own property in units 3 and 4 of the Estates of Millbrook have been served with a summons to appear in Kendall County Court to defend yourself and your property after being sued by the Estates of Millbrook HOA in their claim to having the legal right to attach their CCR’s to your property.
By filing suit against the lot owners in units 3 and 4 individually, the Association has increased its legal expenses by THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Furthermore, their actions force each lot owner to obtain their own attorney and incur the unnecessary financial burden of responding to their summons.
DID THIS HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT, AS A RESULT OF LEGAL DILIGENCE? OR was it was a calculated move that forces each lot owner to capitulate to the Board of Directors interpretation of the events or pony up the necessary cash to defend themselves.
Since they are not spending their own money what does it matter to them? This Association is not spending their money – they are spending your money! See, those who control the gold, rule!
BUT THERE IS A LOW COST SOLUTION TO THIS UNWARRENTED ATTACK!
You can ask to be added to the original complaint against the Association AT NO COST TO YOU!
After joining, future legal expenses will be shared equally among those that unite. If ten of us band together in a common defense it will cost each of us ten percent of what it would cost to go it alone. If twenty of us join together the cost will drop to 1/20th of future costs incurred, and so on ….
By adding yourself to the original complaint, in the future the Association’s lawyer will be prohibited from contacting you directly regarding this matter. They will be bound by law to work through your lawyer.
William Hotopp, the attorney representing the homeowners against the Association, has firsthand knowledge of the situation (he is a lot owner in the subdivision). He is confident that we will prevail and is willing to add any interested party to the original complaint.
THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH IS VERY IMPORTANT!
Adding yourself to the original complaint will meet the legal requirement of a response to the Association’s summons and no further action will be necessary. If you fail to file a response to the Court’s Summons, you may become a member of the Association as a result of a default action by the court.
Mr. Farris is not in this alone. Others have already joined him and we hope more will take action soon.
If you would like to discuss your options or would like to share or hear an alternate opinion on this matter please feel free to contact us via email at: Owners.v.HOA@gmail.com
For legal advice in this matter, you can also contact attorney William Hotopp directly at:
815 786-7770.
Remember, it didn’t have to go this way. It didn’t have to cost this much. The Association’s Board chose this misguided course of action. Why? Was it because that through legal manipulation, financial intimidation, and failure to disclose all the facts many lot owners will unknowingly surrender rights as property owners?
It is noteworthy that in the recent court filings by the Association they admitted facts we have known all along.
It’s your choice.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Looking for answers?
I spoke with my attorney earlier today. I called him with questions about the September 20th letter I received from the Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association. I was asking him about my rights as a lot owner and how to respond to this latest assault on the truth. I asked him what was the best way (and conversely the worst way) to respond when I’m contacted by Attorney Knee.
Here is his perspective:
The best thing any lot owner can do is not to respond at all. Do nothing!
The worst option an owner can follow is to submit to their demands and sign their documents. Signing does away with all options presently available to you.
Lot owners in units 3 and 4 have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking a wait and see approach. Waiting leaves all options open, including joining at a future time, remaining independent of any HOA, or getting together with other owners in units 3 and 4 and forming a separate HOA.
And, there is no cost to you if you decide to wait.
Not one cent.
Here is his perspective:
The best thing any lot owner can do is not to respond at all. Do nothing!
The worst option an owner can follow is to submit to their demands and sign their documents. Signing does away with all options presently available to you.
Lot owners in units 3 and 4 have nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking a wait and see approach. Waiting leaves all options open, including joining at a future time, remaining independent of any HOA, or getting together with other owners in units 3 and 4 and forming a separate HOA.
And, there is no cost to you if you decide to wait.
Not one cent.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
THE SAGA CONTINUES!
Congratulations fellow defendants!
By now you should have received your invitation to the special association meeting this Thursday evening at the township building and maybe your thinking “Now I’ll get some straight forward, honest answers”.
Not likely!
Please let me remind you of a few facts and offer a quick warning.
Since this fiasco began, the BOD has been less than open and straightforward with their answers. For example, remember when the former President requested the current President (then Vice President) research the situation with the county records department but refused to reveal what the VP discovered claiming that since the VP paid for copies of the records that the BOD wasn’t entitled to know what had been discovered.
Or you also might remember that when two BOD members called a meeting to inform the membership regarding the status of the investigation that the President and both Vice Presidents refused not only to attend but also refused to provide any documentation for review by the membership.
You might even recall that it was openly proclaimed that the county records indicated Mr. Farris was absolutely wrong and that his claims were without basis. The truth is Mr. Farris has been right all along.
The first important fact to remember when attending this meeting is –
This meeting has been called by the very same people responsible for all the misinformation offered to date.
Even the latest newsletter updating the membership on the status of the lawsuit is factually incorrect.
That update also contains the following statement: “The Board of Directors have been advised by the association’s legal counsel that a complete determination of the issues in the case requires the joining of all lot owners within units 3 and 4 as defendants in the case.” The truth is there are numerous methods to accomplish a complete determination of the issues. Dragging your neighbors into court and enjoining them to an existing legal action can be an effective method of intimidating someone into capitulating to your demands (especially when you can accomplish the entire scheme at the expense of the membership).
The update goes on to state it is “anticipated that all owners in units 3 & 4 will receive communication from the associations attorney in the near future”. According to the BOD this “communication” will contain a request that lot owners “accept service of the suit” and consent to a judgment declaring their property is subject to their interpretation of the recording of the CCR’s.
What the update does not tell you is that the association’s legal counsel had already attached, by name, most of the lot owners in units 3 & 4 to the lawsuit as co-defendants.
The second important fact to remember when attending this Thursday’s meeting is –
The BOD will only present information that supports their position. The BOD has spent thousands of your assessment dollars on legal fees trying to create and defend a legal claim against property to which the association has never held title or had any legal claim. For almost two years (since November 2008), they have consistently withheld information that did not agree with their interpretation of the facts. Do not expect that to change now.
The third and final important thing to remember is not to be intimidated by the carrot and stick approach to solving this situation –
This is no way for the BOD to treat their neighbors! There is no reason to yield to any demands from the BOD. You have legal rights as property owners. The BOD would like nothing better than for you to submit to their interpretation of the facts. You deserve better – you deserve to know the whole truth and then be given an opportunity to make an informed decision.
This entire debacle is the direct result of the developer’s actions. Either he did it on purpose or his people made some serious mistakes. They should be held responsible.
Don’t be intimidated by a BOD out of control. There is a right way to accomplish what is best for everyone but so far this BOD hasn’t listened to logic or reasoning. They have chosen to follow the course most beneficial for the developer and most onerous for the membership – without even consulting or advising the membership in advance. Why?
Get all the facts, contact your own legal counsel, do what is best for you!
By now you should have received your invitation to the special association meeting this Thursday evening at the township building and maybe your thinking “Now I’ll get some straight forward, honest answers”.
Not likely!
Please let me remind you of a few facts and offer a quick warning.
Since this fiasco began, the BOD has been less than open and straightforward with their answers. For example, remember when the former President requested the current President (then Vice President) research the situation with the county records department but refused to reveal what the VP discovered claiming that since the VP paid for copies of the records that the BOD wasn’t entitled to know what had been discovered.
Or you also might remember that when two BOD members called a meeting to inform the membership regarding the status of the investigation that the President and both Vice Presidents refused not only to attend but also refused to provide any documentation for review by the membership.
You might even recall that it was openly proclaimed that the county records indicated Mr. Farris was absolutely wrong and that his claims were without basis. The truth is Mr. Farris has been right all along.
The first important fact to remember when attending this meeting is –
This meeting has been called by the very same people responsible for all the misinformation offered to date.
Even the latest newsletter updating the membership on the status of the lawsuit is factually incorrect.
That update also contains the following statement: “The Board of Directors have been advised by the association’s legal counsel that a complete determination of the issues in the case requires the joining of all lot owners within units 3 and 4 as defendants in the case.” The truth is there are numerous methods to accomplish a complete determination of the issues. Dragging your neighbors into court and enjoining them to an existing legal action can be an effective method of intimidating someone into capitulating to your demands (especially when you can accomplish the entire scheme at the expense of the membership).
The update goes on to state it is “anticipated that all owners in units 3 & 4 will receive communication from the associations attorney in the near future”. According to the BOD this “communication” will contain a request that lot owners “accept service of the suit” and consent to a judgment declaring their property is subject to their interpretation of the recording of the CCR’s.
What the update does not tell you is that the association’s legal counsel had already attached, by name, most of the lot owners in units 3 & 4 to the lawsuit as co-defendants.
The second important fact to remember when attending this Thursday’s meeting is –
The BOD will only present information that supports their position. The BOD has spent thousands of your assessment dollars on legal fees trying to create and defend a legal claim against property to which the association has never held title or had any legal claim. For almost two years (since November 2008), they have consistently withheld information that did not agree with their interpretation of the facts. Do not expect that to change now.
The third and final important thing to remember is not to be intimidated by the carrot and stick approach to solving this situation –
This is no way for the BOD to treat their neighbors! There is no reason to yield to any demands from the BOD. You have legal rights as property owners. The BOD would like nothing better than for you to submit to their interpretation of the facts. You deserve better – you deserve to know the whole truth and then be given an opportunity to make an informed decision.
This entire debacle is the direct result of the developer’s actions. Either he did it on purpose or his people made some serious mistakes. They should be held responsible.
Don’t be intimidated by a BOD out of control. There is a right way to accomplish what is best for everyone but so far this BOD hasn’t listened to logic or reasoning. They have chosen to follow the course most beneficial for the developer and most onerous for the membership – without even consulting or advising the membership in advance. Why?
Get all the facts, contact your own legal counsel, do what is best for you!
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Asking the Tough Questions
Well, it is time for another HOA annual members meeting and I have received a number of inquiries as to my opinion on the status of numerous issues in the subdivision. Most questions center around why the association’s business is being handled in the perpetual cloud of secrecy in which it typically is handled. As the conversation continues the real question surfaces, that being: Who is going to take the lead and ask the really tough questions like, “Why doesn’t the BOD follow the association’s policies, CCR’s and bylaws?”, and “Why all the smoke and mirrors when I ask for information?”
My short answer is: Not me, because I’m not a member!
Dave Farris is not alone in his pursuit to stop the BOD’s illegal recording the CCR’s against the properties in units 3 and 4 without the consent of the owners of record. I fully support Dave and I am sharing in every aspect of these legal proceedings.
Therefore, as a non-member, I’ll hold my peace but I will tell you there is no reason the membership cannot know the specifics of the lawsuit filed against the association. That information is a matter of public record. I am willing to share copies of all the legal proceedings to date with anyone who is interested. Just send me an email and I will forward copies of the documents to you. (As a side note on the subject of legal costs related to this action, I highly doubt the cost of litigation “may require the adoption of one or more special assessments in the very near future” as stated in the last newsletter. I view statements like that as exactly what they are - just another melodramatic attack intended to cast someone who doesn’t drink their Kool-Aid in a negative light.)
So, those who want answers will have to ask the tough questions. I understand it can be intimidating to ask when those who have opposed the BOD in the past have ended as fodder in the shark tank of anonymous weblogs. Still, you deserve answers and if I were a member I would have a number questions not only about following bylaws, CCR’s and policies but also about finances and transparency of BOD activities.
My opinion - ask questions and don’t settle for smoke and mirror answers.
Best Regards,
Tony Robinson
My short answer is: Not me, because I’m not a member!
Dave Farris is not alone in his pursuit to stop the BOD’s illegal recording the CCR’s against the properties in units 3 and 4 without the consent of the owners of record. I fully support Dave and I am sharing in every aspect of these legal proceedings.
Therefore, as a non-member, I’ll hold my peace but I will tell you there is no reason the membership cannot know the specifics of the lawsuit filed against the association. That information is a matter of public record. I am willing to share copies of all the legal proceedings to date with anyone who is interested. Just send me an email and I will forward copies of the documents to you. (As a side note on the subject of legal costs related to this action, I highly doubt the cost of litigation “may require the adoption of one or more special assessments in the very near future” as stated in the last newsletter. I view statements like that as exactly what they are - just another melodramatic attack intended to cast someone who doesn’t drink their Kool-Aid in a negative light.)
So, those who want answers will have to ask the tough questions. I understand it can be intimidating to ask when those who have opposed the BOD in the past have ended as fodder in the shark tank of anonymous weblogs. Still, you deserve answers and if I were a member I would have a number questions not only about following bylaws, CCR’s and policies but also about finances and transparency of BOD activities.
My opinion - ask questions and don’t settle for smoke and mirror answers.
Best Regards,
Tony Robinson
Monday, May 18, 2009
Is Anybody Out There?
I am hearing an increased number of people expressing an interest in receiving more information about community activities along with looking for a forum to read opinions of others and to offer their own perspectives about the events and happenings in our subdivision.
I believe strongly in an informed community and therefore have decided to try to create a web based bulletin Board in an effort allow those interested in having access to a forum to express themselves. If you would like share my belief in an informed community please drop me an email at: Millbrook.Estates.News@gmail.com
Since I don't like to spend my spare time in court defending myself against lawsuits I will take a very conservative, go slow approach to developing this forum. With that in mind here are a few principles of postings I am considering.
- No anonymous postings
- No profanity
- No sexual or pornographic postings
- All opinions should be allowed provided they comply with the above.
Please drop me a note at the above email address to let me know your opinions on the idea of a electronic, web based community bulletin board. Feel free to comment on and suggest additional guidelines for postings.
Thanks for your interest -
Tony Robinson
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
It's all about the money - NOT!
I know I will be skewered for suggesting that non-members not pay assessments to the HOA. In an attempt to preempt any misrepresentation of my position please allow me to go on the record and openly state my personal opinions.
1. I personally believe everyone living in the subdivision should share in the expenses related to maintaining the common property and last November I sent the BOD a certified letter stating my willingness to contribute a full proportional share of such expenses.
2. I believe the HOA bylaws provides for a straightforward formula for calculating such expenses and that the BOD should start using that method accordingly.
3. I believe that there exists a legal precedence for requiring anyone owning property within the subdivision to contribute proportionally to the maintenance of the common property regardless of their status in the HOA.
For me, the dispute regarding inclusion in the HOA has nothing to do with finances related to common property.
Let me state again - As a non-member, I have sent the BOD a certified letter stating my willingness to contribute a full proportional share of the necessary expenses related to maintaining the common property.
Tony Robinson
1. I personally believe everyone living in the subdivision should share in the expenses related to maintaining the common property and last November I sent the BOD a certified letter stating my willingness to contribute a full proportional share of such expenses.
2. I believe the HOA bylaws provides for a straightforward formula for calculating such expenses and that the BOD should start using that method accordingly.
3. I believe that there exists a legal precedence for requiring anyone owning property within the subdivision to contribute proportionally to the maintenance of the common property regardless of their status in the HOA.
For me, the dispute regarding inclusion in the HOA has nothing to do with finances related to common property.
Let me state again - As a non-member, I have sent the BOD a certified letter stating my willingness to contribute a full proportional share of the necessary expenses related to maintaining the common property.
Tony Robinson
Options
Since the discovery that the developer never recorded the CCR’s against Units 3 and 4 many of us have been waiting for some factual, reliable information on the status of problem. The BOD has refused to fully disclose the facts surrounding the situation but these are the facts we do know as related to this situation.
1. The association has retained the services of Attorney William Knee, the same attorney that filed suit against the association on behalf of two of our current BOD members.
2. It is a fact that, regardless of any claims, insinuation or suggestion, the developer is not required to include all units in the HOA.
3. It is a fact that the developer did not record the CCR’s against any lot in Unit 3 or 4 of our subdivision.
The BOD has made numerous claims regarding the intent of developer with respect to including the lots into the HOA.
It is a possibility that at one time the developer did intend to include all of the subdivision into the HOA but the BOD has not provided any written statements from the developer certifying this claim. To my knowledge, the developer has remained silent – unwilling to get involved (Possibility due to the large legal expense required to fix the problem which would rightfully fall on him).
It is also a possibility that the developer decided against including Units 3 & 4 into the association. There are multiple opinions – each of us will have to decide for ourselves but the fact remains that the developer is not required to include all lots in the HOA and in this instance the developer did not record the necessary documents to include Units 3 and 4 in the HOA.
Next Saturday, February 7th, the Estates of Millbrook HOA will hold its annual membership meeting. The fact that over half of the lots in the subdivision are not in the HOA raises numerous questions, for example:
- How will the association address the fact that half of the BOD members are not members of the association?
- Why did the BOD knowingly appoint a non-member to the BOD?
- How will this affect the legality of any decisions made by this BOD?
- Can the association’s BOD even hold a legal BOD meeting considering the associations by-laws require a majority of 3 to open a BOD meeting?
- What will constitute a quorum at the February meeting?
The question I have been asked to comment on is:
“If I own a lot in Unit 3 or 4, what are my options?”
I believe those of us caught in the middle of this do have options. I am also convinced we have not received full disclosure of all the information. There are numerous possible reasons why but I will not speculate.
What I will do is offer the following suggestions. In order keep your options open consider the following:
1. Consider not attending this Saturday’s meeting. If you do want to attend consider not signing in as a member. You can attend the meeting without signing in. If you chose to sign in you are creating the potential for an implied consent claim.
2. As a non-member, you are not required to pay any assessments. Don’t pay any assessments to an organization of which you are not a member. If you pay an assessment it could be implied that you consent to any actions the BOD might take to subject your property to the CCR’s.
3. Consider sending a letter to the BOD demanding that you be included in the decision making process for resolving this dilemma. It’s your property and you are entitled to be included in the process. The BOD has stated they will file (or already have filed) legal paperwork to record the CCR’s against your property. While you may be in favor of this your have every legal right to insist to be included in this process.
5. Above all, ask questions of the Board and demand answers. Seek your own attorney’s opinion. Do not accept the word of the Board of Directors as legal advice.
Best Regards,
Tony Robinson
1. The association has retained the services of Attorney William Knee, the same attorney that filed suit against the association on behalf of two of our current BOD members.
2. It is a fact that, regardless of any claims, insinuation or suggestion, the developer is not required to include all units in the HOA.
3. It is a fact that the developer did not record the CCR’s against any lot in Unit 3 or 4 of our subdivision.
The BOD has made numerous claims regarding the intent of developer with respect to including the lots into the HOA.
It is a possibility that at one time the developer did intend to include all of the subdivision into the HOA but the BOD has not provided any written statements from the developer certifying this claim. To my knowledge, the developer has remained silent – unwilling to get involved (Possibility due to the large legal expense required to fix the problem which would rightfully fall on him).
It is also a possibility that the developer decided against including Units 3 & 4 into the association. There are multiple opinions – each of us will have to decide for ourselves but the fact remains that the developer is not required to include all lots in the HOA and in this instance the developer did not record the necessary documents to include Units 3 and 4 in the HOA.
Next Saturday, February 7th, the Estates of Millbrook HOA will hold its annual membership meeting. The fact that over half of the lots in the subdivision are not in the HOA raises numerous questions, for example:
- How will the association address the fact that half of the BOD members are not members of the association?
- Why did the BOD knowingly appoint a non-member to the BOD?
- How will this affect the legality of any decisions made by this BOD?
- Can the association’s BOD even hold a legal BOD meeting considering the associations by-laws require a majority of 3 to open a BOD meeting?
- What will constitute a quorum at the February meeting?
The question I have been asked to comment on is:
“If I own a lot in Unit 3 or 4, what are my options?”
I believe those of us caught in the middle of this do have options. I am also convinced we have not received full disclosure of all the information. There are numerous possible reasons why but I will not speculate.
What I will do is offer the following suggestions. In order keep your options open consider the following:
1. Consider not attending this Saturday’s meeting. If you do want to attend consider not signing in as a member. You can attend the meeting without signing in. If you chose to sign in you are creating the potential for an implied consent claim.
2. As a non-member, you are not required to pay any assessments. Don’t pay any assessments to an organization of which you are not a member. If you pay an assessment it could be implied that you consent to any actions the BOD might take to subject your property to the CCR’s.
3. Consider sending a letter to the BOD demanding that you be included in the decision making process for resolving this dilemma. It’s your property and you are entitled to be included in the process. The BOD has stated they will file (or already have filed) legal paperwork to record the CCR’s against your property. While you may be in favor of this your have every legal right to insist to be included in this process.
5. Above all, ask questions of the Board and demand answers. Seek your own attorney’s opinion. Do not accept the word of the Board of Directors as legal advice.
Best Regards,
Tony Robinson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
