Home
Latest images
Search
Register
Log inHOA MEETING - Not happy..
2 posters
Page 1 of 1
HOA MEETING - Not happy..
dparker Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:32 pm
Dear Neighbor
I attended the meeting last night and thought things went very well until one homeowner decided to publicly castigate and denigrate Robert in public. He offended me and everyone else in the room who believes that they have been bullied by this HOA board in the past.
What this man failed to realize (or chose to deny) is that Robert took this matter to court SOLELY because the HOA Board attempted to bully him into submission. This contract we signed when we became homeowners is a 2-way document. Homeowners have obligations and the HOA has obligations.
The HOA has an obligation to follow the proper process when enforcing deed restrictions. This lawsuit was less about parking on the roadway "overnight" and more about the Board member's refusal to enter into arbitration. Now the Board is either extremely arrogant to think that they can ignore a homeowner's right to arbitration or they are bullies by ignoring it in hopes that the homeowner is not willing to spend money to hire an attorney. One other option is possible, that the HOA is listening to an attorney who is in the habit of bullying people. I tend to think this was a case of all 3.
The prospect of the HOA attorney giving the Board advice to ignore the requst for arbitration is frightening. Here we have an attorney who OBVIOUSLY profits from any litigation, caused by his bad advice or not. I now wonder how much money this attorney has made by advising the board to send his letters (which used to cost 3 times less than they do now). Surely the attorney we use has access to the legal precedents, the exact same legal precedents that were offered up by Robert's attorney. Since the judge agreed with Robert's attorney's legal argument without a trial and the Board has no semblance of an appeal then it would seem that we have been taken for a ride by our HOA attorney. But back to last night's meeting.
Our HOA meetings have been set up to allow homeowners 3 minutes to speak. Allowing someone to stand up and personally castigate another homeowner for standing up for his rights AND the rights of other homeowners in our subdivision is abominable. The HOA director should have condemned such language and reminded the body that this meeting was about the HOA, not about personally condemning another homeowner. Mr Strout should have come to the aid of Mr Medure and reprimanded the individual who offended Robert, me and everyone else in the room that believes Robert was absolutely correct. The district court who granted the summary judgement agrees with Robert and that decision carries more weight than anyone else's opinion in the room last night.
As a final thought I want to re-emphasize that Robert Medure did not cause this matter to go to court. The HOA Board (and attorney) caused this matter to go to court. They could have absolved this matter in arbitration as is outlined in the deed restrictions (take them out and read them just once). Instead they took the same bullying approach they have taken in the past with homeowners that disagreed with their interpretation of an awkwardly worded document. Whether they meant to or not, perception is reality. Ignoring a homeowner until he hires an attorney is wrong. I'm glad we've made a change to the board. Perhaps now we'll begin to look at changing our attorney. The board should also start examing the fees he's charging for a simple letter to a homeowner. This is not legal work he can charge $1000 an hour for yet when you understand how long it takes to send out a form letter thats what we're paying him, not a clerk, to do.
A concerned citizen...
I attended the meeting last night and thought things went very well until one homeowner decided to publicly castigate and denigrate Robert in public. He offended me and everyone else in the room who believes that they have been bullied by this HOA board in the past.
What this man failed to realize (or chose to deny) is that Robert took this matter to court SOLELY because the HOA Board attempted to bully him into submission. This contract we signed when we became homeowners is a 2-way document. Homeowners have obligations and the HOA has obligations.
The HOA has an obligation to follow the proper process when enforcing deed restrictions. This lawsuit was less about parking on the roadway "overnight" and more about the Board member's refusal to enter into arbitration. Now the Board is either extremely arrogant to think that they can ignore a homeowner's right to arbitration or they are bullies by ignoring it in hopes that the homeowner is not willing to spend money to hire an attorney. One other option is possible, that the HOA is listening to an attorney who is in the habit of bullying people. I tend to think this was a case of all 3.
The prospect of the HOA attorney giving the Board advice to ignore the requst for arbitration is frightening. Here we have an attorney who OBVIOUSLY profits from any litigation, caused by his bad advice or not. I now wonder how much money this attorney has made by advising the board to send his letters (which used to cost 3 times less than they do now). Surely the attorney we use has access to the legal precedents, the exact same legal precedents that were offered up by Robert's attorney. Since the judge agreed with Robert's attorney's legal argument without a trial and the Board has no semblance of an appeal then it would seem that we have been taken for a ride by our HOA attorney. But back to last night's meeting.
Our HOA meetings have been set up to allow homeowners 3 minutes to speak. Allowing someone to stand up and personally castigate another homeowner for standing up for his rights AND the rights of other homeowners in our subdivision is abominable. The HOA director should have condemned such language and reminded the body that this meeting was about the HOA, not about personally condemning another homeowner. Mr Strout should have come to the aid of Mr Medure and reprimanded the individual who offended Robert, me and everyone else in the room that believes Robert was absolutely correct. The district court who granted the summary judgement agrees with Robert and that decision carries more weight than anyone else's opinion in the room last night.
As a final thought I want to re-emphasize that Robert Medure did not cause this matter to go to court. The HOA Board (and attorney) caused this matter to go to court. They could have absolved this matter in arbitration as is outlined in the deed restrictions (take them out and read them just once). Instead they took the same bullying approach they have taken in the past with homeowners that disagreed with their interpretation of an awkwardly worded document. Whether they meant to or not, perception is reality. Ignoring a homeowner until he hires an attorney is wrong. I'm glad we've made a change to the board. Perhaps now we'll begin to look at changing our attorney. The board should also start examing the fees he's charging for a simple letter to a homeowner. This is not legal work he can charge $1000 an hour for yet when you understand how long it takes to send out a form letter thats what we're paying him, not a clerk, to do.
A concerned citizen...
dparker- Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-06-10
Age : 69
This case was actually a good thing
parc Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:50 pm
You know, this court case was actually a GOOD thing. Why? Because before the recent HOA legislation it took an arbitrarily large percentage of members to approve changes. It wouldn't be reasonably possible to change the covenants in any case. What Mr. Medura has done is (for the relatively cheap cost of $10k plus the HOA's legal fees, probably totaling $20k or so) make an end-run around the voting requirements. At the same time, he has set forth a guideline for declaring unreasonable bylaws void. Hopefully this "nuclear option" won't be needed with the new voting requirement limits.
parc- Posts : 2
Join date : 2010-06-11
The other neat thing ...
dparker Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:43 pm
The HOA's insurance paid for the incurred legal fees so the homeowner's are out nothing (except the hazard of an increase of premium since the HOA made such a poor decision about deciding to entertain a lawsuit and created an undue risk.)
I think we're all pretty lucky that Mr Medure didn't ask the court for punitive damages.
I think we're all pretty lucky that Mr Medure didn't ask the court for punitive damages.
dparker- Posts : 10
Join date : 2010-06-10
Age : 69
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum