|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Release
|
|
JUDGE DEREK HUNT AWARDS $400,000 TO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION LAWYERS
Another Homeowner feels he is unjustly robbed in an Orange County Courtroom
November 29, 2004
By
AHRC News Services
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Why not try and let Bill O'reilly expose the crooks? It would not hurt to write an e-mail or just a plain letter to the O'reilly Factor... Even Sean Hanity hates the HOA Bastards too!!!
Posted Sep 14 2005 7:45AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
It is happening everywhere. In Indiana they are letting homeowners assocations, and builders like centex homes get away with things. that are written down on paper. Then they change the rules and say this was never written down.
How about a person who spends and extra two thousand dollars for a full pond view, and come to find out that other homeowners did not have to pay. In addtion they let a southern baptist minster build a 6ft wooden fences that blocks more of my view. They did not make him take it down.
We are supposed to have black rod iron fences in out complex. This house was builr for me, because I'm disabled. My father thought it would be nice for me to look at the pond and the animals. He also paid and extra $3,500. for a closed in patio. Centex used cheap barn wood. They did not fix it the torn screens. There is about 35 empty homes because the homeowners gave up and left.
The channel news station would not come out and look at the house. or the poorly constrution of my house.
Posted Sep 13 2005 9:31PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, Indiana |
| |
|
|
| |
Dear Mr. Ron Guglielmino,
Thank you for your inquiry. I would like to share the current status of my lawsuit and new developments in my endeavor to achieve some kind of development on my lot in San Clemente, California.
Although I have tried to come to some settlement with my association's board of directors, the attempts have not been fruitful. The majority of the Architectural Control Committee and the majority of my board of directors is made up of; my next door neighbor, his son-in-law, and their paid employee. The "paid employee" that I refer to is also the president of the association, is an un-licensed contractor, graded his own lot without a permit, and is assisting as the "builder" of the "son-in-law's" house that is located on the other side of my neighbor. I should also note that the son-in-law started grading his lot just days after the judgment against me was entered. The grading was done very similar to mine including the importing of soils, more than double the soils movement, and the redesign of the building pad at a higher elevation to maximize views.
With that being said, let me now bring you up to date where we are today.
I have submitted new architectural plans for a single story home that meet my neighbor's alleged height requirement. Now, I cannot get an architectural review. This association ignores the new laws that went into effect this year that allow anyone to present their architectural plans at a board meeting and require an expeditious review of architectural plans. Instead, the board insists that any discussions to do with architectural submittals on my lot must be done in "executive session" and additionally they required me to sign a "confidentiality" agreement before they would even listen to me or look at the architectural plans. Needless to say, they never give an architectural review of my submittal. They simply state that they do not have to review any plans until the judgment has been followed. (The judgment requires me to re-grade the lot to its original contours because I did not get permission from the architectural committee to do the grading in the first place.) It is my belief that my appeal has stayed the judgment and new plans should be reviewed by the architectural committee. The grade or structure should be reviewed and commented on. If I cannot get a review then how can I ever get anything approved? Can a bad board of directors in a common interest development keep someone (like me) from developing their land indefinitely? At this time, this board has done just that!
Now you can see a new picture developing. OR is it the old picture?: "The next door neighbor does not want a house built next door, period." He has stacked the deck with family and employee relationships on both the Architectural Control Committee and the board of directors.
Recently the association has sent us a letter demanding ADR because of the (I guess) "nuisance" by the submission of architectural applications on the lot. It is now our position that my architectural plans for a single story home are "deemed approved" by the CC&R's. There have been 3 applications for architectural review, the last by my daughter who is now the title holder of the property, for a single story house on the lot. All the applications have run their course of time without a review of the architectural plans. The ADR is scheduled at JAMS with the Judge James Smith (ret.). on September 7, 2005. The association will only have mediation, thus there will be no record of our discussions nor will there be any written opinion by the Judge. (I might add that I requested a binding arbitration ADR back in July 2005. The association insisted on mediation. At the July 2005 mediation, nothing was resolved at JAMS with Judge James Smith (ret.) although I believe he got the picture and did his best to resolve the matter.)
As for my appeal, case No. G034081, the oral argument is scheduled for September 23, 2005 at 9:00 am in District 4, Division 3. I am very hopeful that the law will be correctly applied to my case and the Court of Appeal will rule in my favor. It was very recently (May 2005) that the Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 7, California, (Case No. B167590. Cited as: 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 592) stated that restrictive covenants should be strictly construed against enforcement and in favor of the free use of land. The potential significance of this case to my appeal is that at least one appellate court is still stating in 2005, and after the enactment of Civil Code Section 1370, that restrictive covenants should be strictly construed against enforcement and in favor of the free use of land. It seems that when there is a very good argument that the covenant does not state exactly what the "association" wants it to state, then CC1370 is raised because you can "imagine" their side if you construe anything loosely enough. If this was true for use restrictions and architectural guidelines, then why have a contract? It would be much easier to state: "For anything you want to do on your property you have to get permission from the board of directors and they can be subjective and discriminatory." Furthermore, CC1370 does not state which side (the association vs. the member) can use the loose construction which applies to only to the "operation" of the CID. I do not believe this statute says anything about applying it to use restrictions or architectural guidelines.
In conclusion, I am still very unhappy with the result of my trail in superior court. I believe the law was not properly applied to my case. Witnesses for the association did not tell the truth during testimony at trial and thus the facts are distorted. The association's board continues to breech its covenants and ignore the laws. I have tried to settle my matter with an open mind and design of a new single story home that would meet the purported height requirements. I cannot get an architectural review of any new plans on the lot. At this point it seems that my appeal is inevitable. The future use of my property lies in the hands of the appellate panel next month. I hope for justice that will allow me the use of my land as stated in my association's governing documents.
As far at the CLRC is concerned, I have sent another letter to Mr. Herbert regarding Study H-855 and the committee's attempt to initiate laws that will provide clarification of the law for California citizens living in CID's. It sure looks like there will be new laws around the corner and I will continue to give my comments. SB 853 (Kehoe) may have helped me because I graded my lot after I discovered that the soils were unsafe. The City of San Clemente insisted on the grading before any house could be constructed on my lot. Although, it's not law yet and I doubt is it will be effective in the past, this law will help many homeowners in the future. Other bills that pertain to CID's for this year include SB 137, SB 551, SB 304, SB 186, SB 61, and AB 619. My last letter to Brian Hebert, at the CLRC, was on July 19, 2005. I will continue my support of California laws that will assist the homeowner living in a CID. Not only does their need to be clarification for the members and their board of directors who live in CID's, there also needs to be clear direction given by our legislature to the Court(s) that members in a CID must be treated fairly and must be given due process according their association's governing documents and the law.
Thank you for your interest in my case.
I remain the optimist and,
Yours very truly,
Michael Doyle.
Posted Aug 30 2005 7:00AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
MICHAEL DOYLE
SAN CLEMENTE, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Doyle,
You probably remember me when you posted your comments on the Newsletter before the New Year 2005. It has been several months since you have appealed the case, and I was wondering if there are any comments you would like to share at this time.
I'm hoping for optimistic results...
Ron Guglielmino
Fair Oaks Ranch, CA
Posted Aug 17 2005 11:07PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
RONALD GUGLIELMINO
Canyon Country, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Doyle,
As you are aware, I am scrutinizing your case very closely. I just read AHRC's Newsletter, Dec 20th, 2004 and thought of you and all the problems with your Association and Lawsuit. I encourage you to read AHRC's Newsletter Dated Dec 20, 2004 and post your comments encouraging what the California Law Revision Commission has proposed.
If this agency gets passed into Legislation, these will be the "biggest muscles" you will have on your side.
Please write in your comments to AHRC to forward them to the California Law Revision Commission ASAP before the Dec 31st deadline.
Again, best of luck to you.
Ron Guglielmino
Fair Oaks Ranch, CA
Posted Dec 21 2004 5:17PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
RONALD GUGLIELMINO
Canyon Country, California |
| |
|
|
| |
It appears the judge is attempting to protect the other homeowners from the enormous cost of this lawsuit, since they are basically innocent bystanders. By doing so, the judge is ignoring the incompetent actions of the HOA and the price gouging by their attorneys.
That's not the judges job. The judge is not there to protect the innocent, the judge responsibility is to uphold the law. I say go ahead Mr. Doyle. If justice is finally done, and Mr. Doyle wins his appeal, perhaps there will be an angry mob of homeowners to pressure legislators into protecting the millions of people living within theses gulags.
Posted Dec 19 2004 2:42PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
Nellysford, Virginia |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Doyle,
I have read your detailed information you posted for interested viewers. Again, I do wish you the best in your endeavor to succeed in this matter. However, the viewer who posted Comment #9 has some valid points; it's all about money, money, and everyones money. I also have to agree with his closing comments.
At this point, you must be very stressed out. That is no "cheap" chunk of change that you were ordered to pay the HOA for reimbursement of the Lawyers fees. See if you can make some compromises. Put all your cards on the table and figure out if this is really worth pursuing.
Granted, that you will most likely still be held to that judgment against you; but try to see what you can do (like submitting your plans to the Architectural Committee for approval) and "work out" something where all concerns will be met in a diligent manner.
Like Commenter # 9 said "don't look for justice" as you're not very likely to find it.
Best of luck to you and your wife...
Ron Guglielmino
Fair Oaks Ranch, California
Posted Dec 11 2004 12:25AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
RONALD GUGLIELMINO
Canyon Country, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Dear Mr. Doyle,
If look at this carefully, you'll realize that you're legal position regardless of what it really is, does not in the final analysis, matter. What does matter are attorney fees.
Since the lawsuit was brought by your homeowner association, the attorneys who represent their interests must be paid and the homeowners association reimbersed. Your homeowners association and the management company who guides their every thought and action form a sort of dictatorship. They will do anything they want to you, regardless of how groundless.
It's all about money, your money, all the homeowners' money, or anyone elses' money they can get their hands on.
As for the Judge, he is nothing but a stupid idiot, who doesn't know his backside from his frontside. He doesn't care about your problem. It's all those legal fees which have piled up.
My advice to you is don't look for justice. If you do, you're not very likely to find it. If people like you, and you sell them on your plan ahead of time, you're in like flynn, but if not, look out!
Posted Dec 10 2004 9:27AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Pedro, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Here is a WORD document (attached) with the exhibits that were left out of the California Law Revision Commission's letter. This may help you understand a little more about my case. I will be posting more information, such as the Court's statement of decision, and my rebuttal to that, very soon.
I want to provide you with as much of the information about my case that is possible. After you have reviewed it, you might better understand my position and why I believe justice was not served. Please scrutinize my case and give your objective opinions so that I may learn more or so that other homeowners, that live under the rule of a Board of Directors, may learn something useful from all my experience.
At sometime the legal system has to curb "discretion" that can be used as a sword by so few to hurt so many.
Mike Doyle
Forster Ranch Estates
Posted Dec 5 2004 4:16PM CET
|
| |
|
Submitted Files
|
| |
Filename
|
Description
|
File Type
|
File Size
|
Click to download
|
| |
MyHOAstory4110504.doc
|
"My Homeowner Association Story - I believe justice was not served" - Michael Doyle
|
Microsoft Office Document
|
945KB
|
Download
|
|
| |
MICHAEL DOYLE
SAN CLEMENTE, California |
| |
|
|
| |
This is a comment to the viewer who wrote comment # 6
I fully concur with your assessment of HOA BoDs. However, your comment about the Board having D&O insurance is partially true. Remember, the Board has to "act in good faith" and when they are NOT, they are not carrying out their Fiduciary Duties as Directors of the Corporation. They can be held liable for tort and possibly collusion. That, however, is NOT covered with D&O liability insurance. The individual Board members can personally be sued and held liable.
I am scrutinizing this case very closely; and really do feel sorry for Michael. After all, these are his dreams to finally build a home for he and his wife in such an area with a beautiful view. It is very clear that his next door neighbor is controlling and manipulating the system; even possibly threatening other BoDs to side with him. But, in the end, if Michael can proove that this is evident, the money will certainly "roll" his way eventually.
Ron Guglielmino
Fair Oaks Ranch, CA
Posted Dec 2 2004 9:19PM CET
|
| |
|
| |
RONALD GUGLIELMINO
Canyon Country, California |
| |
|
|
|
|
Return to 'JUDGE DEREK HUNT AWARDS $400,000 TO HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION LAWYERS' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
