|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 07, 2003
|
Case No: 02-1-04560-42 Lost Mountain Homeowners Association vs Rice
|
|
Georgia
Superior Court
County of Cobb County
|
Lost Mountain Homeowners Association
Inc.
Architectural Control Committee of the Lost Mountain Township Homeowners Association
Represented by: Richard Calhoun
v.
J. Andrew Rice
Kathryn W. Rice
Represented by: Edmund Novotny, Charles Bridgers
|
Summary
The people claiming to be the Board illegally sold our 10 acre common area and used litigation alleging that we built a fence without permission as punishment for ourspeaking out opposing the illegal sale. Politicians in high positions in the state are also involved. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Due to space limitations, I have only hit the highlights.
There are a number of people who have worked together to harass a family of five, to suit their own purposes. (Copy of lawsuit and an atricle will be published on AHRC soon.)
|
|
Causes of Action: • Allegation a $25,000 fence was built without approval.
• Allegation the fence was built upon raised terraces, without permission.
• Allegation that a covenant amendment should now be ruled to mean what the plaintiffs now intend, versus what the intent was at the time of filing 7 years earlier.
|
|
Judge: The Honorable Adele Grubbs
|
Current information/Final Decision
The Judge ruled the fence must come down and we must pay the plaintiffs legal fees, in excess of $34,000.
She also ruled the two non-existant entities are the proper parties, in direct contradiction with the evidence, the facts, and the admissions by the plaintiffs themselves.
She ruled the fence is in violation of County Code, despite the fact it wasn't an allegation in the suit at the time of trial. This is also contrary to the evidence the County inspected the fence no less than 17 times with no violation found.
This is also in contrast to the head of Cobb County Community Development, who handles all zoning issues, testifying there is no violation. We are currently in the appeal process.
See attachment for greater detail on the major issues. |
|
Lawsuit Text
Summary
Plaintiffs admit approval was given for fence, but it was revoked in direct violation of covenants.
Plaintiffs admit they are not the proper party to bring this action. There are two associations for our subdivision. The wrong one (which has been legally dissolved) filed the suit.
There is a claim that the two associations were merged in 1996; however, this was not done in accordance with the covenants and is therefore, invalid.
Plaintiffs have changed their arguments multiple times over almost 4 years, including filing multiple lawsuits. The current one is a renewal action, which does not resemble the original suit for the most part.
The covenants require the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) of our association to file a suit for a covenant violation. The ACC has not been constituted, or legally empowered under the terms of the covenants. The ACC listed as a plaintiff is a non-existant entity.
Again they used the wrong name. Therefore, both plaintiffs are actually fictitious. The covenants also require the ACC to provide specific written notice, delivered by certified mail or hand delivery, detailing exactly the violation PRIOR to the filing of a suit. This requirement was not met.
The plaintiffs presented much false information, including false sworn statements, during the trial and previous hearings. The fact is the fence was approved by the people claiming to be the ACC and the County. The fence was built exactly as requested.
The people claiming to be the Board illegally sold our 10 acre common area and used the litigation as punishment for ourspeaking out opposing the illegal sale. Politicians are also involved. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Due to space limitations, I have only hit the highlights.
There are a number of people who have worked together to harass a family of five, to suit their own purposes.
|
|
| |
|
View Comments (16) | Post a comment |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
