|
|
|
|
|
|
A Letter
|
|
Attorney General, Senators, Congressmen all say "Hire An Attorney"
No one in the State of California will answer a simple question on one of their laws
June 04, 2004
By
Michael Henault
(View author info)
Copyright AHRC News Services
|
|
|
|
| |
I am just curious; when the Nazi's took everything the Jews had including their lives, did the powers that be who heard their cries tell those defrauded, poisoned and murdered victims to "hire an attorney"?
Funny how history continues to repeat itself.
Posted Jun 25 2004 5:14PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
JUDY DOYLE
(View Profile)
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Does anyone know about Palacio del Mar Homeowners Association?
It's one of those Southern Californa homeowner sssociations where the law firm of Peters & Freedman (Laurie Poole, David Peters, Jeffrey Pratt, Michael Kim) and CHUBB insurance lawyers have made hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Ray Kunkle, the board president , and his wife put in an illegal driveway for themselves, used homeowner money to buy new mailboxes, had trees cut down trees in private yards and used hundreds of thousands of maintenence dollars to sue a homeowner with fabricated information.
Other board members involved in these disgraceful , discriminatory lawsuits included a disbarred lawyer, John Meyers - who runs a law school in Yorba Linda, Malcolm Gillies - a broker who forced homeowners to hire lawyers to deal with disputes , Raul Rubaclava, Walter Schminke , Kenneth Ziebarth - a rental judge with the California Court system and JAMS, Harold Joseph - a broker and a political fundraiser for the local Republican politicians, who was indicted by the District Attorney for conflict of interest while serving on the city planning commission. He reportedly received a million dollars from a developer.
Several scammed homeowners are writing the history of the Orange County real estate lawsuit foreclosure scams which have made millions for all these "respectable" community, government and business leaders.
Posted Jun 23 2004 5:48PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I also live in Lake Don Pedro Homeowners Association, and currently being suied for breach of our CCRs. I wanted to build a 40x60 storage shed and was denied approval,
There are 26 similar structures in our subdivison that have been approved or let stand with no legal action taken against them.Our board has approved used homes to be placed on lots ,which is a direct violation of the CCR's,also our board president has a extreamly large horse barn with an ilegal roof,
WE are being wached day and night by a few of theie suportters.
Like Mike said none of our goverment wants to hear about it,but it was our politians that gave them all that power.
Let's take back our rights. If goverment won't listen ,lets bug them until they do.
If there is any great attorneys out there I would like talk to you. No dead beats please! I already got one of those. Thank you
Posted Jun 23 2004 7:05AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Donald Bloom
La Grange, California |
| |
|
|
| |
BUT DO THEY -BOARD DIRECTORS AND PROPERTY MANAGERS- CARE ABOUT THE CCR's?
They DO NOT and here is the proof from Washington State::
I. WHAT ASSOCIATION DO WE BELONG TO : #1 or #2?
Official records from the Secretary of State (360-753-7115 / http://www.secstate.wa.gov/corps/) identifies TWO non-profit corporations with the name Campus Glen Homeowners' Association.
#1 – Polygon's association (UBI# 601575435): In early 1994, Polygon Northwest (this builder is still active in the Northwest) developed a parcel of land in Federal Way into 98 lots of single family homes and named it Campus Glen.
On September 27, 1994, its corporation "Campus Glen Limited Partnership" incorporated a non profit corporation called "Campus Glen Homeowners' Association" to tender the area. It clearly states its territorial jurisdiction and purpose in Section 1, Article X of the CC&R, and Article I of the Bylaws under the provision of RCW 24-03.
When we bought our houses from Polygon Northwest, we voluntarily associated with the Polygon's association as a condition of the purchase. This non-profit corporation was DISSOLVED on January 4, 1999.
I obtained the "Certificate of Administrative Dissolution" issued by the Secretary of State.
Under the laws of Washington State, there is NO Campus Glen Homeowners' Association (the association we were associated with) which can legally do business transactions such as imposing/collecting dues, hiring staff, contracting services among others. I discovered this shocking information on January 9, 2003 and notified some homeowners, including the "volunteers" imposing themselves as the association's directors.
There has NEVER been meetings, discussion, agreement, among homeowners relating to forming any kind of new association, unincorporated or incorporated! There is NO written and legal document of any kind.
For FOUR years, we had paid dues to a financial office for a dissolved organization and NOTHING has been significantly done to the neighborhood. We felt cheated and refused to "ride a dead horse" which appears to have become a private enterprise of some "volunteer directors."
#2 – Leahy's association (UBI# 602303143). On June 20, 2003 CDC Community manager sent out a letter with a copy of the "Certificate of Incorporation" for a nonprofit corporation name "Campus Glen Homeowners' Association". No other information is provided.
What is it and how are we legally bound by it?
Its Articles of Incorporation lists the incorporator/original owner as Terrence A Leahy of Bellevue and vaguely defines the territorial jurisdiction "in Federal Way Washington"!
3. Purposes. This corporation is organized to provide an entity pursuant to the Homeowners' Association Act (RCW 64.38.005 et. seq.), hereinafter called the "Homeowners' Act," for the operation of Campus Glen Homeowners Association located in Federal Way, Washington, and to engage in all such activities as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objectives of the corporation and all activities which are permitted to be done by a nonprofit corporation under any laws that may now or hereafter be applicable or available to this corporation. The powers of this corporation shall be subject to and shall be exercised in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Homeowners' Association Act, RCW 24.03 ("the Non profit Corporations Act") and the provisions of the duly recorded Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Campus Glen ("the CC&Rs"), as each may from time to time be amended.
State officials remarked that "it's a mere coincidence of different, unrelated corporations having exactly the same name! When one corporation has been dissolved for a number of years, its name becomes available to anyone who wants it for his/her own corporation":
Legal manuals define an association as a "voluntary organization", and "one may seek, or be accepted into, membership in the organization as a matter of choice." (6 Am Jur 2d, Associations and Clubs, §1). It is based on VOLUNTARY participation. The law is very clear, you CAN NOT force mandatory membership on any homeowner.
With all respect to Mr. Leahy and his legal right of incorporating a non-profit corporation, we have nothing to do with his non-profit corporation/association.
And what does it have to do with us and with our properties? We have not signed any applications for membership! Since we are not members of this Leahy's association, it carries NO LEGAL jurisdiction on us nor on our properties.
As the name applied, "homeowners' association has to be created by property owners to have a binding power.
It is also worthy to note that the people who, for the past 4 years, have claimed of being directors of these 2 associations are not LEGALLY elected as described in all legal documents. They are all self-appointed, self-proclaimed directors.
RCW 24.03.470 Unauthorized assumption of corporate powers.
All persons who assume to act as a corporation without authority so to do shall be jointly and severally liable for all debts and liabilities incurred or arising as a result thereof.
II. THE LEGALITY OF THE IMPOSED AMOUNT?
1. The 2003 assessment of $180.00 -- $80.00 or 80% above the previous year assessment.
In November 2002, we received the notice of an annual meeting with the proposed new assessment. After 2 persons knocked on my door, introduced themselves as board directors, and asked for my proxy vote, I firmly decided to go to the annual meeting (this was before I discovered the association they claimed to represent, had no legal authority over me). At the meeting on November 21, 2002, I raised the question of the validity of the vote on the new amount of assessment (due) according to the CC&R and Bylaws. There were 17 homeowners (including 4 board members/homeowners) presented.
My objection was recorded in the minutes. The board continued asking for the vote and counted them secretly. There was no mechanism to validate the votes. The vote tabulation was never announced; just a proclamation from a volunteer director "The new assessment passed!" Seventeen homeowners were present, number of proxy votes were unknown! My numerous requests for the number of votes were completely ignored
2. The 2003 special assessment of $45.92.
On September 2003, a "Notice of Special Assessment" was sent to announce a "meeting for the purpose of the membership to have an opportunity to ratify the approved special assessment" on October 2, 2003. A vague statement of the purpose of this special assessment was given:
The board has approved a special assessment of $4,500.00 to be paid by October 25, 2003. This special assessment is $45.92 per home. This is a one-time payment and will enable the Association to meet its obligations and hopefully afford the association the opportunity to lien delinquent members and send serious delinquencies to collection. (letter from Patrik J. Rooney, CDC Community Association Manager on September 9, 2003)
Since in January 2003 I already notified the CDC management company and its attorney of my separation from the group of volunteers calling themselves directors, I did not attend the meeting. There was no additional report except a memo with an invoice for $44.92:
Provided with this memo is an invoice for a single payment special assessment approved by the governing Board of Directors and ratified on October 2, 2003 at a meeting of the Association held for that purpose..... (letter from Patrik J. Rooney, October 10, 2003)
However, this is the description of that "ratifying" meeting by the CDC manager:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Subject: Meeting Results and Draft budget
> > Margaret was the only Director present at the meeting. A total of four homeowners were present. The special assessment the Board approved passes since the there was no majority to vote against ratification. Although there was no quorum, the measure is ratified per the Washington state HOA Act.
3. The 2004 annual assessment of $281.12.
A "Notice of 2004 Annual Meeting" (dated January 15, 2004) was sent out regarding the meeting to be held on February 4, 2004. A follow-up "Notice on 2004 Annual budget ratification" (dated January 20, 2004) explains "[A] necessity to raise the annual fees an additional $50 was acknowledged..."
The result: CDC reports on its letter dated February 13, 2004:
The Budget for 2004 for Campus Glen Homeowners Association was reviewed with homeowners representing twenty-four homes, at the Annual Meeting held on February 4, 2004. The increased budget was ratified because a majority of property owners did not vote against the increase. ...
This interpretation ignore the rules the association purports to abide by. The new 2004 assessment is more than $50, more than 10% of any "previous year's annual assessment".
Are these three assessments legally passed according to the CC&R and the Bylaws?
These governing documents lay out requirements and procedures in running the association. Before setting any statutes, the State respects these governing documents as the first rules for the association:
* Unless otherwise provided in the governing documents,
* Except as provided in the association's governing documents
* Unless provided for in the governing documents.
The Board of the Leahy's association, through CDC channel, hires a lawyer as a "debt collector" who puts liens on homeowners who refuse to "obey dictators' orders" and demands payments for those "delinquent assessments"
IS IT LEGAL ???
Posted Jun 7 2004 11:12PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Gia Tran
(View Profile)
Federal Way, Washington |
| |
|
|
| |
Probably, what happened with Mr. Henault is :
1. The board simply ASSUMED that they could do a 20% increase as the dues went from $84 to $100.
2. However, Mr. Henault's governing documents, presumably the CCR's, as my previous comment noted , are MORE RESTRICTIVE than the 20% increase allowed by Davis-Sterling.
Not a lawyer, but I believe in Mr. Henault's case the assessment increase is not legal.
Posted Jun 6 2004 4:29PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Stephen Hohs
(View Profile)
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
The Daivis Stirling Act, although admitedly somewhat inartfully, authorizes annual increases in the regular assessments up to 20% without a vote of the owners notwithstanding more restrive provisions in the CC&Rs.
There is an argument to be made, although I doubt sucessfully, that that provision of the Act violates the California Constitution.
Posted Jun 6 2004 3:47AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
stanley feldsott
(View Profile)
newport beach, California |
| |
|
|
| |
With the caveat that while I am on a California HOA board but not a lawyer, in general state statutes override CC&R's, but for your question on assessments, the relevant section of the Davis Sterling Act for assessment would be Civil Code Section 1366(b):
Nothwithstanding MORE RESTRICTIVE LIMITATIONS PLACED ON THE BOARD BY THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, the board of directors may not impose a regular assessment that is more than 20 percent greater than the regular assessment for the association's preceding fiscal year or impose special assessments whcih in the aggreate exceed 5 percent of the budgeted gros expenses of the association for that fiscal year without the approval of the owners...
Notice the capitalized phrase, MORE RESTRICTIVE ..., it appears that the CC&R's take precedence.
There is also a provision in the Davis Sterling act for an emergency assessment which probably does not apply in your case.
Posted Jun 5 2004 4:49AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Stephen Hohs
(View Profile)
, California |
| |
|
|
Return to 'Attorney General, Senators, Congressmen all say "Hire An Attorney"' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
