|
|
|
|
|
|
Press Release
|
|
Homeowner Association Takes Home of Mentally Ill Person For $549 in Maintenance Dues
June 06, 2007
By
Jay Goldstein
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This foreclosure article has been forwarded to the California State and Federal legislative and law enforcement agencies .
Per our telephone call to you Sunday, here is a breaking story that has happened in the Los Angeles area that would be important to your viewers. There is an epidemic of home foreclosures in America. Many in homeowner associations are losing their homes as the result of bad laws, fraud, corruption and racketeering.
Posted Jun 11 2007 8:48PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
AHRC Staff
(View Profile)
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I would just state that if the Association has used 'counsel' for any reason in the past, either consulted them for 'opinion' letters, etc., and with that law firms affiliation with the CAI as a 'trade' organization first and foremost for community associations as service providers, most likely it was the 'attorney' acting as the 'principal in fact' for the 'legal' actions taken in threatening, preparing and serving the 'detainer' action, while claiming that the actual Davis-Sterling property protection provisions did not apply.
And the Gottschalk firm has announced on this very website that they are pursuing homeowner claims in this respect.
Posted Jun 10 2007 4:27AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
Yes, and most likely were acting upon the 'advice' of their main advisors, the attorneys (as with a 'legal issue' in order for them to make use of the great 'SafeHarbor' statute the CAI lobbied for to increase their coffers, first and foremost, and promote it ad nauseum on their websites, will check with the attorneys first - and any 'detainer' company to also minimize its risk of loss would almost assuredly do so).
So I would say, bottom line, especially with those attorneys stance that they will not give you the sums they are holding unless you pay their extortion claim......this was a set up most likely taking advantage of your brother.....and that Gottlieb firm in their advertised RICO pursuit (unless they are publishing false information), your best bet.
Posted Jun 10 2007 4:19AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
Looks like the HOA board may be in trouble if this is true. See below link) Since there is not much on coop's on the westcoast I found this.
taken from a website:
Unlawful Stock Transfers and Termination
Courts Deny Co-op's Automatic Liens = Co-ops have to be vigilant and address defaults due to nonpayment, objectiona
http://cooperator.com/articles/538/1/Unlawful-Stock-Transfers-and-Termination/Page1.html
"Co-op boards may believe that by acting according to the step-by-step language in their proprietary lease, they are merely exercising their legal rights on behalf of the co-op. However, such boards may, in fact, be acting unlawfully, and incur liability and expense to their co-op. Further, if they act with knowledge that they are bypassing the judicial procedures required under state laws, or without following the new administrative rules of New York City, the individual board members, managing agents or their transfer agents may be subject to personal liability. Remember, insurance doesn't cover intentional acts that are wrong and that inflict harm."
Posted Jun 10 2007 3:16AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Jay Goldstein
Los Angeles, California |
| |
|
|
| |
TAKEN FROM THE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
§ 1351 - Definitions
As used in this title, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Association" means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development.
(b) "Common area" means the entire common interest development except the separate interests therein. The estate in the common area may be a fee, a life estate, an estate for years, or any combination of the foregoing. However, the common area for a planned development specified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (k) may consist of mutual or reciprocal easement rights appurtenant to the separate interests.
(c) "Common interest development" means any of the following:
(1) A community apartment project.
(2) A condominium project.
(3) A planned development.
(4) A stock cooperative.
Posted Jun 10 2007 2:35AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Jay Goldstein
Los Angeles, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Jay,
As I stated one in some of my prior comments, condos and cooperatives are the biggest nightmare developers could create, and they are a feeding frenzy for attorneys just by the very nature of what they are - selling 'space' and just how complex documents get when you really 'own' nothing at all....and coops even worse, which is what I am assuming you had.
Are there not state regulations on those 'detainer' agencies in California? If they are preparing and serving what they are representing as 'legal' papers, I would think there would be. I would also think there would have had to have been some 'order' given by some legal authority, and just who prepared this 'stipulation' that your brother signed? Are there not 'notice' requirements in detainer actions? If the Association or their 'advisor' attorney hired them, especially if their 'advisor' attorney hired them and they were in violation of the occupancy agreement in not providing 'notice' to give you an opportunity to 'cure' the deficiency. Check the agreement again and see if there were 'notice' requirements, and if there were, then again it would appear Mr. Gottlieb with his RICO cases going on against the CAI attorneys advising these Boards might be your best bet, and if he is truly disabled the federal agencies also...since, again, property rights are, bottom line, federal issues (which the States are bound to 'uphold' rather than make more 'restrictive' but aren't).
It sounds like a whole lot of violations of your brothers rights may have gone on.....and I'll bet they WERE required to give some kind of 'notice' and prior to both even approaching him with that stipulation, and with the 'sale' of the property (and could not 'refuse' your payment, and in so doing would appear 'discriminatory', as the Association's in all states don't have the 'right' to 'choose' who buys property within them, except with the 'age restricted' communities, which really are also 'discriminatory' but for which there has not been yet a 'viable' constitutional challenge at the federal level on that either, although since judges at all level are 'bound' by the Constitution don't see how those 'restrictions' have survived all these years at all, since the homes in these communities are not 'assisted living' or 'nursing homes' but 'deed simple' properties.
Go to the state housing agencies, many of which have low cost assistance due to his disability with all your documents and papers the HOA and attorney have sent, and see if they can help, file reports with all the relevant agencies, i.e., if that attorney is 'demanding' $45,000, I would assume the contract clause also states 'reasonable' attorney fees, and for a simple contract dispute, again, I'd report it to the Bar Ethics Committee and file a police report of 'extortion'.....it is well known it would appear in California about this particular law firm since the Gottlieb firm has announced it is taking them on...but it is also your state legislators and city council you also need to report this stuff to.....since they were the 'creators' allowing these such 'purchases' without proper oversight.
I can't imagine there wasn't a judge involved in this somewhere along the line, as how could any detainer company have such a right to even approach you 'collecting'....and also could be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act, as there were serving as a 'collection agency,' it would appear.
In my opinion, I would start at the state agencies, Bar, write your legislators, especially if there were no 'notice' requirements, or this 'detainer' company had no legal authority whatsoever to be 'collecting' on a 'debt' using 'legal' documents, yet they, the Association and the attorneys refusing payment at the same time.
Posted Jun 9 2007 6:01AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
From: Google Alerts
Date: June 8, 2007
Subject: Google Alert - ahrc news services
Homeowner Association Takes Home of Menally Ill Person For $549 in ...
AHRC News Services - San Juan Capistrano,CA,USA
He provided the following additional information on this Case # 06B04350to the staff of AHRC News Services. Jay's mother owned and lived in the condo for 20 ...
See all stories on this topic
Posted Jun 8 2007 11:44PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
A judge never saw this in court. My brother was intimidated into signing a stipulation outside of the courtroom by the Unlawfull Detainer Firm, He was told that this would stop the judge from throwing him out in two weeks. Im sure if a judge did see that case he would still be living in the unit. They should have gone to small claims court to get a judgement like the Civil Code plainly states for amounts under $1800 and/or over 12 months overdue. He was only late 3 months for a total of only $549
The attorneys for the Association when we told them this was against civil code this was the response they gave
"This was not a foreclosure action subject to the Davis-Sterling Act and (NAME HERE) had proper notice of the eviction for nonpayment of the fees required ny the Occupancy Agreement. The Cooperative followed the proper procedure." Quote from David C. Swedelson, Esq
He also said when we complained about the huge legal fees he is charging on the matter:
"The Cooperative is entitled to deduct attorneys fees that were incurred in having its attorney communicate with the Goldstein and their attorney regarding matters related to the termination of Mr. Goldstein's (name redacted) rights as a shareholder for breach of the Occupancy Agreement. For this reason and the threat of litigation, the cooperative is not about to deliver the sale proceeds to Mr. Goldstein or the Goldsteins, unless there is a full and complete release agreement."
His latest letters say "The money will sit in the Cooperative's account until this matter is resolved."
In my opionion it looks like the attorneys are just continuing to find ways to rack up thier fees, furnish thier lavish homes and further profit off the backs of the weak and helpless. It never needed to get this far. It was only $549 and I tried to help when I found out. But they just tell me they don't want my brother living there.
Posted Jun 8 2007 12:25PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Jay Goldstein
Los Angeles, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Dear Jay:
To add you to the Summary List of Due Process Violations please send us the name of the Judge who made the ruling on this eviction using the "Comments" link below your article:
• Press Release: Homeowner Association Takes Home of Menally Ill Person For $549 in Maintenence Dues - June 06, 2007 - By Jay Goldstein - Los Angeles, California
Comments:
Best regards
AHRC Staff
cc: Taffy Rice - Editor - Georgia - AHRC News Services
Posted Jun 8 2007 7:52AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
AHRC Staff
(View Profile)
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Dear Jay:
We have published your story and sent it out as a Press Release which Google has also circulated.
• Homeowner Association Takes Home of Menally Ill Person For $549 in Maintenence Dues - June 06, 2007 - By Jay Goldstein = Los Angeles, California
We received the copy of the Coldwater North Bylaws you email. Do you have any other governing documents that provides a description of your homeowners association that describess it as a common interest development.
We have not received the communications from your HOA or your lawyers which you said you were also emailing..
We have given your telephone number and information to Mr. Gottshalk. He is gathering information for a class action lawsuit against Swedelson & Gottleib. .
• LAW OFFICES ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATION OF RICO ACT AND OTHER CLAIMS AGAINST ATTORNEYS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OF CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS ON BEHALF OF HOMEOWNERS - Information Requested from Attorneys and from the Public - March 21, 2007 - By Gottschalk & Associates - Los Angeles, California.
We will add your case to the Summary of Cases on Due Process Violations which • Representative John Conyers - Chair of the House Judiciary Committee asked for
• Due Process Violations - Truckin for Truth! - April 22, 2007 - By Taffy Rice
Email us if we can be of further assistance.
Best regards
AHRC Staff
cc: Mr. Gottshallk
Posted Jun 8 2007 7:40AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
AHRC Staff
(View Profile)
, California |
| |
|
|
|
|
Return to 'Homeowner Association Takes Home of Mentally Ill Person For $549 in Maintenance Dues' |
Submit a comment
|
|
|
|
