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
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
The Neighborly way -
Below is my response to the request for opinions – this was sent to the BOD via email, posting on the yahoo site and via certified US mail.
Since I have been asked by others to share my opinion I am posting it here for your consideration.
PLEASE NOTE THE INFORMATION REGARDING HOW THIS SITUATION WAS HANDLED PREVIOUSLY IN ONE IDENTICAL SITUATION WHICH OCCURRED IN KENDALL COUNTY.
It is also noteworthy that in the previous incident in Kendall County, the developer assumed the entire financial burden to rectify the situation.
January 12, 2009
Board of Directors
Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 101
Millbrook, Illinois 60536
RE: Membership Status in HOA
To the Board of Directors;
This is in response to your request for opinions I received last week.
The information you have provided in your January 4, 2009 letter is incomplete at best. It is a shame that this association’s BOD insists on hiding information from the membership and misrepresenting the opinions of individuals referenced in your letter. For openers, your application of the concept of a “Scribner’s error is incorrect and is not the position of all of the individuals referenced in your letter – a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
These are the facts:
1. Based on the documentation currently on file, no person living in Unit 3 or 4 of the subdivision is currently a member of the HOA by virtue of the fact that the CCR’s were never recorded against their property.
2.The BOD has no information or documentation that proves otherwise.
3. Any attempt to record the CCR’s of the Estates of Millbrook HOA against any property in Units 3 and 4 in the subdivision without the prior consent of the property owner would constitute a cloud of title on the part of the HOA should the owner of record choose to pursue legal action.
4. Everyone owning lots in Units 3 and 4 of this subdivision share the exact same status and should be so informed.
Your approach to settling this matter defies logic. You have been less than forthcoming with information and refused to respond to individual inquires about this matter but you expect total, unquestioned support and have implied legal action will be taken against anyone who doesn’t capitulate to your position.
If you had contacted the individual owners of the lots in question and requested they voluntarily sign documentation which acknowledged their understanding of the situation along with an authorization to subject their property to the CCR’s, I believe you would have enjoyed great success.
As I stated many times over the last two months, this is not the first time this exact situation has occurred in Kendall County. In the other subdivision, their BOD did exactly what I stated above and over 97% of the lots owners in that subdivision willingly agreed to have their property included in the HOA.
The membership at large should also know that when that association’s BOD filed suit against one of the two individuals who refused to allow their property to be included in the HOA the presiding Judge threw the case out of court.
Sincerely,
A.D Robinson
Since I have been asked by others to share my opinion I am posting it here for your consideration.
PLEASE NOTE THE INFORMATION REGARDING HOW THIS SITUATION WAS HANDLED PREVIOUSLY IN ONE IDENTICAL SITUATION WHICH OCCURRED IN KENDALL COUNTY.
It is also noteworthy that in the previous incident in Kendall County, the developer assumed the entire financial burden to rectify the situation.
January 12, 2009
Board of Directors
Estates of Millbrook Homeowners Association
P.O. Box 101
Millbrook, Illinois 60536
RE: Membership Status in HOA
To the Board of Directors;
This is in response to your request for opinions I received last week.
The information you have provided in your January 4, 2009 letter is incomplete at best. It is a shame that this association’s BOD insists on hiding information from the membership and misrepresenting the opinions of individuals referenced in your letter. For openers, your application of the concept of a “Scribner’s error is incorrect and is not the position of all of the individuals referenced in your letter – a gross misrepresentation of the truth.
These are the facts:
1. Based on the documentation currently on file, no person living in Unit 3 or 4 of the subdivision is currently a member of the HOA by virtue of the fact that the CCR’s were never recorded against their property.
2.The BOD has no information or documentation that proves otherwise.
3. Any attempt to record the CCR’s of the Estates of Millbrook HOA against any property in Units 3 and 4 in the subdivision without the prior consent of the property owner would constitute a cloud of title on the part of the HOA should the owner of record choose to pursue legal action.
4. Everyone owning lots in Units 3 and 4 of this subdivision share the exact same status and should be so informed.
Your approach to settling this matter defies logic. You have been less than forthcoming with information and refused to respond to individual inquires about this matter but you expect total, unquestioned support and have implied legal action will be taken against anyone who doesn’t capitulate to your position.
If you had contacted the individual owners of the lots in question and requested they voluntarily sign documentation which acknowledged their understanding of the situation along with an authorization to subject their property to the CCR’s, I believe you would have enjoyed great success.
As I stated many times over the last two months, this is not the first time this exact situation has occurred in Kendall County. In the other subdivision, their BOD did exactly what I stated above and over 97% of the lots owners in that subdivision willingly agreed to have their property included in the HOA.
The membership at large should also know that when that association’s BOD filed suit against one of the two individuals who refused to allow their property to be included in the HOA the presiding Judge threw the case out of court.
Sincerely,
A.D Robinson
WHAT IS A "SCRIBNER'S ERROR?
What we are not being told about a "Scribner's error;
Definition: SCRIBNER ERROR - A minor error in notation on a plat (street map) that, upon correction by the maker of the error, would not affect the intent of the plat or its legal validity and therefore not require the consent of the signatories or the reconsideration by the city council. An error in a called bearing or distance, an adjacent street name, a spelling error, or addition of a north arrow would constitute SCRIBNER ERROR.
HISTORY – Originally from the word “scrivener” which is a person who writes a document, such as a deed, for another, usually for a fee.
A scribner's error is an error in the writing and creating of a plat and has nothing to do with the recording of documents with the county.
Furthermore, not everyone quoted in the BOD's January 4, 2009 letter as being in "unanimous agreement that there was a scribner's error" holds to that opinion.
Interesting, isn't it?
Definition: SCRIBNER ERROR - A minor error in notation on a plat (street map) that, upon correction by the maker of the error, would not affect the intent of the plat or its legal validity and therefore not require the consent of the signatories or the reconsideration by the city council. An error in a called bearing or distance, an adjacent street name, a spelling error, or addition of a north arrow would constitute SCRIBNER ERROR.
HISTORY – Originally from the word “scrivener” which is a person who writes a document, such as a deed, for another, usually for a fee.
A scribner's error is an error in the writing and creating of a plat and has nothing to do with the recording of documents with the county.
Furthermore, not everyone quoted in the BOD's January 4, 2009 letter as being in "unanimous agreement that there was a scribner's error" holds to that opinion.
Interesting, isn't it?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Status of Budget Passed at the November 17th BOD Meeting
At the November 17th meeting our BOD adopted a budget for next year.
My question is why wasn't the membership advised of this action in advance as per the Bylaws?
What is the requirement of the Bylaws regarding informing the membership of the proposed budget? According to Article VII, Section 1, the BOD is required to notify each member, in writing, at least 10 days before adoption of the annual budget.
I didn't get a written copy before the BOD voted on the budget at the November 17th meeting - did you?
I believe we are all entitled to review this important document. After all it is the approved budget for next year.
I believe is should be posted immediately on the association websites and mailed to the membership as soon as possible.
Tony Robinson
My question is why wasn't the membership advised of this action in advance as per the Bylaws?
What is the requirement of the Bylaws regarding informing the membership of the proposed budget? According to Article VII, Section 1, the BOD is required to notify each member, in writing, at least 10 days before adoption of the annual budget.
I didn't get a written copy before the BOD voted on the budget at the November 17th meeting - did you?
I believe we are all entitled to review this important document. After all it is the approved budget for next year.
I believe is should be posted immediately on the association websites and mailed to the membership as soon as possible.
Tony Robinson
Thursday, December 4, 2008
News? What News?
Have you been to the association’s Yahoo website lately. Don’t waste your time. Nothing has been posted or updated for a long time.
My question is: Why?
At a time that our association is hiring lawyers at $220.00+ per hour to investigate the legal status of the association itself shouldn’t we get regular updates even if it’s only to tell us no news is good news?
It appears we have regressed to a time when the BOD will tell us only what they believe we need to know and only when the release of information fits their agenda.
The last time we operated like this is cost us thousands of dollars. I can’t help but wonder what effect this will have on our dues this time around.
Welcome to the world of zero communications.
My question is: Why?
At a time that our association is hiring lawyers at $220.00+ per hour to investigate the legal status of the association itself shouldn’t we get regular updates even if it’s only to tell us no news is good news?
It appears we have regressed to a time when the BOD will tell us only what they believe we need to know and only when the release of information fits their agenda.
The last time we operated like this is cost us thousands of dollars. I can’t help but wonder what effect this will have on our dues this time around.
Welcome to the world of zero communications.
Timely Questions without Answers
Last month I wrote in this blog that I was going to ask the BOD for an update on the status of Units 3 & 4 and that I would pass along additional information as soon as it became available.
The following is the text of the email I sent to all active BOD members on November 18th:
Good Morning:
This will serve as a follow up to last nights BOD meeting.
While Mr. Knees had no answers for our questions he did state, when specifically asked by Mr Duffy, that there was probably something not done correctly.
At this point it is beyond obvious that there is a problem.
Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative. In either case the association is not the responsible party.
In light of this reality, please give the membership a "point in time" update by answering the following questions to the best of your knowledge based on what you know as of today.
1. Why is the association spearheading this investigation?
2. Why are we paying the bills for this investigation?
3. Is the developer aware of the problem?
4. Has the developer expressed any willingness to get involved?
5. Has the BOD asked the developer accept responsibility and assume the financial burden of correcting the problem and the retaining legal counsel?
6. Will the BOD pursue compensation from the developer to offset our expenses?
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
As you can see it has been almost three weeks since I sent the request for a “point in time” update. I have received absolutely zero response – not even an acknowledgement that I submitted a request for information. (By the way, I did send a follow up email requesting acknowledgement of receipt of my email. No response to that either).
Are we to believe nothing is being done regarding this issue? Or should we just trust that all is well and we will be informed when the need arises?
Candidly, it’s not my nature to trust those who have abused my confidence on previous occasions. I’m definitely a “trust but verify” kind of guy.
This debacle can and will cost the association thousands of dollars unless the membership holds the BOD accountable by asking tough questions and demanding the developer get involved.
A potentially valid case could be made that since the CCR’s have not been filed against Units 3 & 4 that the association has no legal basis for claiming jurisdiction over Units 3 & 4 until the developer rectifies the situation. If that legal position is deemed accurate then the makeup, function and ability of the BOD to even hold a BOD meeting to conduct business is called into question.
Don’t think for a minute that everything will work out fine. Mistakes were made to get us into this situation and mistakes can be made in correcting the situation.
If the BOD is acting without legal authority due to unqualified BOD members holding office (not all sitting BOD members live in a Unit of the subdivision that is subjected to the CCR’s) then this could get become a catastrophe in which none of us want to be caught in the middle.
It’s time for the BOD to update is all –
Please join me in calling on the BOD to respond to these important questions.
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
The following is the text of the email I sent to all active BOD members on November 18th:
Good Morning:
This will serve as a follow up to last nights BOD meeting.
While Mr. Knees had no answers for our questions he did state, when specifically asked by Mr Duffy, that there was probably something not done correctly.
At this point it is beyond obvious that there is a problem.
Furthermore, the reality of the situation is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative. In either case the association is not the responsible party.
In light of this reality, please give the membership a "point in time" update by answering the following questions to the best of your knowledge based on what you know as of today.
1. Why is the association spearheading this investigation?
2. Why are we paying the bills for this investigation?
3. Is the developer aware of the problem?
4. Has the developer expressed any willingness to get involved?
5. Has the BOD asked the developer accept responsibility and assume the financial burden of correcting the problem and the retaining legal counsel?
6. Will the BOD pursue compensation from the developer to offset our expenses?
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
As you can see it has been almost three weeks since I sent the request for a “point in time” update. I have received absolutely zero response – not even an acknowledgement that I submitted a request for information. (By the way, I did send a follow up email requesting acknowledgement of receipt of my email. No response to that either).
Are we to believe nothing is being done regarding this issue? Or should we just trust that all is well and we will be informed when the need arises?
Candidly, it’s not my nature to trust those who have abused my confidence on previous occasions. I’m definitely a “trust but verify” kind of guy.
This debacle can and will cost the association thousands of dollars unless the membership holds the BOD accountable by asking tough questions and demanding the developer get involved.
A potentially valid case could be made that since the CCR’s have not been filed against Units 3 & 4 that the association has no legal basis for claiming jurisdiction over Units 3 & 4 until the developer rectifies the situation. If that legal position is deemed accurate then the makeup, function and ability of the BOD to even hold a BOD meeting to conduct business is called into question.
Don’t think for a minute that everything will work out fine. Mistakes were made to get us into this situation and mistakes can be made in correcting the situation.
If the BOD is acting without legal authority due to unqualified BOD members holding office (not all sitting BOD members live in a Unit of the subdivision that is subjected to the CCR’s) then this could get become a catastrophe in which none of us want to be caught in the middle.
It’s time for the BOD to update is all –
Please join me in calling on the BOD to respond to these important questions.
Thank you,
Tony Robinson
Just the Facts.
I have been asked by friends if I was going to respond to the outrageous misrepresentations posted by “Watchdogone” on November 30th or the comments by the owner of the weblog.
My thoughts are as follows: The facts are the facts. Facts are verifiable and they are reality…..and they speak for themselves.
These are the facts:
1. The path was being maintained according to the proposal negotiated by the BOD when Mrs. Mueller was president.
2. Mr. Mueller did not just “contact” the Illinois Dept of Agriculture, he filed a formal complaint. There is a major difference.
3. His complaint precipitated a formal investigation regarding the application of herbicides anywhere on common property within the subdivision and effectively stopped all use of herbicides anywhere on common property within the estates.
Those are the facts.
There is one other loathsome misrepresentation I hope all can see through – his creative use of email.
Will anyone notice that in the email referenced in his comments that Mr. Mueller was not on the recipient list? He obviously cannot have firsthand knowledge of any events or details related to the email and therefore anything he writes qualifies as hearsay and would rightfully be classified as speculation on his part. I will not identify every factual error or questionable statement but I do maintain the postings contain more opinion and fiction than truth and facts.
One other question becomes obvious to anyone reading the email with a discerning eye. Where did Mr. Mueller get this email? I don’t have the answer to this question but I do know that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Spang, and Mr. Featherston have all been targets of ridicule on the “Watchdog” website so I doubt the email came from them.
The only other person this email was sent to is our current President who publically prides herself on her objectivity. I would suggest to all that any clarification she wishes to offer should be posted on the association’s website, not the private website of the spouse of a current BOD member.
Tony Robinson
My thoughts are as follows: The facts are the facts. Facts are verifiable and they are reality…..and they speak for themselves.
These are the facts:
1. The path was being maintained according to the proposal negotiated by the BOD when Mrs. Mueller was president.
2. Mr. Mueller did not just “contact” the Illinois Dept of Agriculture, he filed a formal complaint. There is a major difference.
3. His complaint precipitated a formal investigation regarding the application of herbicides anywhere on common property within the subdivision and effectively stopped all use of herbicides anywhere on common property within the estates.
Those are the facts.
There is one other loathsome misrepresentation I hope all can see through – his creative use of email.
Will anyone notice that in the email referenced in his comments that Mr. Mueller was not on the recipient list? He obviously cannot have firsthand knowledge of any events or details related to the email and therefore anything he writes qualifies as hearsay and would rightfully be classified as speculation on his part. I will not identify every factual error or questionable statement but I do maintain the postings contain more opinion and fiction than truth and facts.
One other question becomes obvious to anyone reading the email with a discerning eye. Where did Mr. Mueller get this email? I don’t have the answer to this question but I do know that Mr. Duffy, Mr. Spang, and Mr. Featherston have all been targets of ridicule on the “Watchdog” website so I doubt the email came from them.
The only other person this email was sent to is our current President who publically prides herself on her objectivity. I would suggest to all that any clarification she wishes to offer should be posted on the association’s website, not the private website of the spouse of a current BOD member.
Tony Robinson
Monday, November 24, 2008
Unbelievable!
Nobody could make this stuff up - it's just too crazy!
In "Watchdogone's" last rant, posted on November 21st, the "Watchdog" goes to the extreme to make a case that the the BOD in general and the "ex-President" specifically, stopped all path maintenance to "attack" the county and the developer thereby forcing them to do the maintenance.
Does "Watchdogone" think we have all forgotten that it was THE OWNER of the WATCHDOG website that filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Doesn't "Watchdogone" understand that it was this filing that halted all attempts to control the weeds on the path while a full investigation was conducted and it was during this time that the weeds grew out of control.
Of course the truth of the matter makes for reduced ability to play the blame game and conduct personal attacks.
In "Watchdogone's" last rant, posted on November 21st, the "Watchdog" goes to the extreme to make a case that the the BOD in general and the "ex-President" specifically, stopped all path maintenance to "attack" the county and the developer thereby forcing them to do the maintenance.
Does "Watchdogone" think we have all forgotten that it was THE OWNER of the WATCHDOG website that filed a formal complaint with the Illinois Department of Agriculture.
Doesn't "Watchdogone" understand that it was this filing that halted all attempts to control the weeds on the path while a full investigation was conducted and it was during this time that the weeds grew out of control.
Of course the truth of the matter makes for reduced ability to play the blame game and conduct personal attacks.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Another Man of Integrity Steps Down. Can You Blame Him?
Mr. Kent Duffy has resigned, effectively immediately, in response to the insultingly contemptuous attack posted on the “Watchdog” website earlier today.
Thank goodness you won’t have to read this affront to the hard work and dedication of Kent because the posting was removed shortly after he submitted his resignation.
I can’t help but wonder why it was removed so quickly. Perhaps it was because of the outcry of the good and reasonable people in the subdivision or maybe the posting was no longer necessary since the new majority has finally run off every BOD member who didn’t agree with their agenda.
Let me state it another way, every BOD member elected last February, except the person who had their name “advertized” in last winter’s newsletter, has chosen to move on because of the baseless, abusive lies, misrepresentations, and innuendos that are posted on the “watchdog” website.
Thank goodness you won’t have to read this affront to the hard work and dedication of Kent because the posting was removed shortly after he submitted his resignation.
I can’t help but wonder why it was removed so quickly. Perhaps it was because of the outcry of the good and reasonable people in the subdivision or maybe the posting was no longer necessary since the new majority has finally run off every BOD member who didn’t agree with their agenda.
Let me state it another way, every BOD member elected last February, except the person who had their name “advertized” in last winter’s newsletter, has chosen to move on because of the baseless, abusive lies, misrepresentations, and innuendos that are posted on the “watchdog” website.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Budget Debate
At last night’s BOD meeting there was considerable debate about the 2009 budget, how the numbers were calculated, and what should be the 2009 assessment.
The treasurer stated he calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21, 2008 BOD meeting which included adjustments for inflation. When determining the 2009 assessment Mr. Duffy stated we should use the formula dictated in the bylaws (if there is one). Our 1st VP was adamant that there is no requirement to calculate the assessments based on a formula in the bylaws. Both of our VP’s were unwavering on the position that the 2009 assessment should be $275.00.
Mr. Duffy is correct. Article VII, Section 1, of our bylaws specifically mandate that the budget be calculated based on the following – start with the estimated cost of taxes, wages, materials, insurance, services, and supplies which will be required in the ensuing year. To this amount the BOD has the authority to add a “reasonable amount” for “a reserve for contingencies and replacements”. The BOD is also required to take into account any estimated net cash income. That final figure becomes the “estimated cash requirement” which “shall be assessed equally to the lot owners of the Estate of Millbrook”.
Whereas Mr. Duffy calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21 BOD meeting and calculated in accordance with the bylaws it seems only logical to adjust the assessments accordingly.
Unfortunately the VP’s motioned and passed a budget proposal which includes a $275.00 assessment. This assessment is based on previous years assessments without any consideration for projected expenses. This method of calculation is an absolute violation of our bylaws. The Treasurer voted against the motion.
I have no problem with a $275.00 assessment provided it is calculated according to our bylaws. Our BOD needs to adjust the budgeted expense numbers to justify the $275.00 assessment or they need to accept the lower assessments dictated by the budget developed in accordance with the guidelines they set up at the October 21 BOD meeting.
Or they could just ignore the bylaws.
The treasurer stated he calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21, 2008 BOD meeting which included adjustments for inflation. When determining the 2009 assessment Mr. Duffy stated we should use the formula dictated in the bylaws (if there is one). Our 1st VP was adamant that there is no requirement to calculate the assessments based on a formula in the bylaws. Both of our VP’s were unwavering on the position that the 2009 assessment should be $275.00.
Mr. Duffy is correct. Article VII, Section 1, of our bylaws specifically mandate that the budget be calculated based on the following – start with the estimated cost of taxes, wages, materials, insurance, services, and supplies which will be required in the ensuing year. To this amount the BOD has the authority to add a “reasonable amount” for “a reserve for contingencies and replacements”. The BOD is also required to take into account any estimated net cash income. That final figure becomes the “estimated cash requirement” which “shall be assessed equally to the lot owners of the Estate of Millbrook”.
Whereas Mr. Duffy calculated the budget based on the guidelines given him at the October 21 BOD meeting and calculated in accordance with the bylaws it seems only logical to adjust the assessments accordingly.
Unfortunately the VP’s motioned and passed a budget proposal which includes a $275.00 assessment. This assessment is based on previous years assessments without any consideration for projected expenses. This method of calculation is an absolute violation of our bylaws. The Treasurer voted against the motion.
I have no problem with a $275.00 assessment provided it is calculated according to our bylaws. Our BOD needs to adjust the budgeted expense numbers to justify the $275.00 assessment or they need to accept the lower assessments dictated by the budget developed in accordance with the guidelines they set up at the October 21 BOD meeting.
Or they could just ignore the bylaws.
What’s the Cost?
Our association has retained the services of an attorney who specializes in HOA law to investigate and report back to the association on the Unit 3 & 4 situation. This will cost the association at least $220 per billable hour and will be paid out of the general funds of the association.
I believe we all have a vested interest in determining the status of our HOA but I do have some questions regarding the expense.
The truth is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative.
So, why are we paying the bills for this investigation? Is the developer even aware of the situation? Has our BOD asked the developer to get involved?
I have asked the BOD to address these questions in a timely manner. I’ll let you know their response as soon as I hear back.
I believe we all have a vested interest in determining the status of our HOA but I do have some questions regarding the expense.
The truth is that the association DID NOT cause the problem. It was either the developer or his legal representative.
So, why are we paying the bills for this investigation? Is the developer even aware of the situation? Has our BOD asked the developer to get involved?
I have asked the BOD to address these questions in a timely manner. I’ll let you know their response as soon as I hear back.
Lawyer at Meeting to Answer Questions
Last nights BOD meeting opened with a question and answer period. A special guest at the meeting was Mr. W. Knees who has been selected by the BOD to investigate the status of Units 3 & 4 as being subject to the CCR’s. He was there at the request of the BOD and when asked specifically why Mr. Knees was invited our 1st VP stated he was there to answer our questions.
There was only one problem – He didn’t have any answers.
Well, that’s not completely true. When asked directly, he did tell the membership that we are paying him $220 - $240/hour and that we are in fact paying his travel time.
That’s a pretty hefty price to pay only to be told what we already know.
There was only one problem – He didn’t have any answers.
Well, that’s not completely true. When asked directly, he did tell the membership that we are paying him $220 - $240/hour and that we are in fact paying his travel time.
That’s a pretty hefty price to pay only to be told what we already know.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
My Time is too Valuable
Good Evening-
Welcome back to the dark ages.
For the last week and a half I have been trying to get some verification that the research work done at the county recorder's office by our association VP is accurate. I suspected from the beginning that "incomplete" would be a kind way to describe her research but she has insisted from the start that 1) she was right, and 2) she didn't have to share her documentation with anyone.
Our President has gone so far as to publish the VP's findings stating “diligent research” has been accomplished and that the research has “revealed that there is no basis for the claims”. The President has also claimed that since the VP paid the county for cost of the documents that the BOD has no right to review the documents until the association reimburses the VP the costs charged by the county.
We all know for a fact the association has hired an attorney to do the job right but I haven't seen any updates on either website letting us know that maybe things aren't so cut and dried as we were led to believe.
For those on the BOD who questioned the accuracy of the research and insisted on reviewing the documentation the reward has been a freeze job.
Having fallen out of grace of the majority of the BOD, I have been shut out of all communication with the BOD. I am not included in any emails, not allowed any knowledge of association business, and not responded to in any manner. My phone calls and emails are ignored.
This is not my idea of how an association should be run. Just imagine the uproar if the roles were reversed; can you say lawsuit?
You might agree or disagree with me regarding how the association should be managed but the bottom line is my time is too valuable. There are too many wonderful people and interesting opportunities in my life to waste time dealing with the mindset of the new majority.
Therefore I have tendered my resignation effective today. My sincere thanks to all - every single member - for the opportunity to serve on the BOD. I know there have been many who disagreed but until the "October Surprise" came to light I always felt there was enough of a professional attitude amongst the BOD that we could overcome our differences. I was wrong.
Welcome back to the days when we will be told only what the powers in charge want us to know and not one minute before they want us to know it.
Below is the text of the letter I sent to the BOD earlier today.
Tony Robinson
November 8, 2008
Estates of Millbrook HOA
Attention: BOD
PO Box 101
Millbrook, IL 60536
Dear BOD Members,
Be advised that I am resigning my position as member of the BOD effective at the conclusion of the special called BOD meeting on November 8, 2008. In the event this meeting does not occur then my resignation will be effective at 8:40am on the same day.
Sincerely,
/s/ AD Robinson
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thoughts and Questions to Consider as you approach tomorrow's meeting
The Problem – There is a possibility that the developer did not include Units 3 & 4 in the HOA.
Investigation – This has been looked into by a number of different people.
1. VP Mueller was assigned to investigate this with the county on behalf of the association. Her findings are posted on the Yahoo website. Her report back to the President parallels the statement published in the October Newsletter.
2. BOD member Tony Robinson checked into this independently of Ms Mueller, his findings were different.
3. A member living in the community checked into this independently of both Ms Mueller and Mr. Robinson, his findings were different that Ms Mueller’s.
Questions for DePaulo
1. Is this true?
2. Was it intentional?
3. What, if anything, are you willing to do about helping us resolve the situation?
Questions for the BOD
1. What is the status of the investigation as of today?
2. Who is representing the BOD in this investigation?
3. Has the association retained the services of a lawyer in this matter?
4. Who is he/she?
5. Does this lawyer have any previous history in dealing with the developer? In this matter?
6. Has this ever happened before? If so was there a legal precedence established in that case?
7. What is the status of the BOD itself? Are BOD members living Units 3 & 4 legally BOD members?
8. Should those BOD members living in Units 3 & 4 recuse themselves from deciding any issues related to this matter due to a potential conflict of interest?
“IF” questions to consider if the claims are true
1. Who is responsible? Developer? Attorney working for the developer? HOA?
2. Exactly which lots are in and which are out of the HOA?
3. What is the status of the common property? In or out of the HOA?
4. Who owns the common property now? Has it been deeded to the HOA?
5. If Unit 3 & 4 are not in the association will they still have access to the common property?
6. What if we want to be in the HOA but live in Unit 3 or 4?
7. If we live in Unit 1 or 2, how does this affect us?
8. How will affect our dues?
There are many more questions that could be asked at this point but not all need to be asnwered until we get some more information. Please continue to press your elected BOD for complete disclosure of all facts and information.
Please come to tomorrow' s meeting with an open mind. There is no reason to assume any position is correct but we need to start getting input from the association membership.
An informed membership is key to an effective HOA
Tony Robinson
Investigation – This has been looked into by a number of different people.
1. VP Mueller was assigned to investigate this with the county on behalf of the association. Her findings are posted on the Yahoo website. Her report back to the President parallels the statement published in the October Newsletter.
2. BOD member Tony Robinson checked into this independently of Ms Mueller, his findings were different.
3. A member living in the community checked into this independently of both Ms Mueller and Mr. Robinson, his findings were different that Ms Mueller’s.
Questions for DePaulo
1. Is this true?
2. Was it intentional?
3. What, if anything, are you willing to do about helping us resolve the situation?
Questions for the BOD
1. What is the status of the investigation as of today?
2. Who is representing the BOD in this investigation?
3. Has the association retained the services of a lawyer in this matter?
4. Who is he/she?
5. Does this lawyer have any previous history in dealing with the developer? In this matter?
6. Has this ever happened before? If so was there a legal precedence established in that case?
7. What is the status of the BOD itself? Are BOD members living Units 3 & 4 legally BOD members?
8. Should those BOD members living in Units 3 & 4 recuse themselves from deciding any issues related to this matter due to a potential conflict of interest?
“IF” questions to consider if the claims are true
1. Who is responsible? Developer? Attorney working for the developer? HOA?
2. Exactly which lots are in and which are out of the HOA?
3. What is the status of the common property? In or out of the HOA?
4. Who owns the common property now? Has it been deeded to the HOA?
5. If Unit 3 & 4 are not in the association will they still have access to the common property?
6. What if we want to be in the HOA but live in Unit 3 or 4?
7. If we live in Unit 1 or 2, how does this affect us?
8. How will affect our dues?
There are many more questions that could be asked at this point but not all need to be asnwered until we get some more information. Please continue to press your elected BOD for complete disclosure of all facts and information.
Please come to tomorrow' s meeting with an open mind. There is no reason to assume any position is correct but we need to start getting input from the association membership.
An informed membership is key to an effective HOA
Tony Robinson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
