|
|
| |
How is interest applied? There are some pretty stringent laws on this and based on what I've seen here thus far, I doubt they're following any of them.
Posted Feb 11 2004 1:45AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Is that true? Can an association foreclose over late fees and reasonable cost of collection? Can someone direct me to the portion of the Davis Stirling Act or Bill that covers this?
Posted Feb 11 2004 1:44AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
I have serious issues with the whole mess, but partoicularly the last 5 paragraphs;
1. Congratulations they release the lien. Are they held responsible for damages if credit is denied due to their erroneous lien? Without being held liable for mistakes these liens can be used to extort funds from homeowners. Considering the CAI's track record, I say we leave that door dead-bolted.
2. Lien may be enforced in 30 days by non-judicial foreclosure? Is she nuts? The vultures must be salivating.
3. The Association should absolutely not be allowed to assign assessments as security for a loan. To make this short, that would give a lender rights in a default situation that no homeowners wants to be subjected to. Then again, with the CAI owning some of these banks, I can only imagine the feeding frenzy these vultures have planned.
4. You do not pay a disputed debt, much less attorney's fees. If validity of the debt is in dispute it shouldn't be with the lawyer in the first place, much less have attorney's fees tacked on. Once an account is placed with the attorney, the board is done. What these greedy vultures are doing is finding a way to attach their dirty fees onto a debt that hasn't even been verified and make the board fulfill Section 809 requirements of the FDCPA, which won't fly. To suggest that a person pay $425.00 in attorney's fees up front on a debt that may be erroneous is outrageous.
4. Since the provision is not reasonable, I can only wonder what the authors of the provision consider "reasonable" fees to be.
I guess I don't need to ask who Kehoe's major contributor is, do I? That's all I have time for right now, but I'll be back.
Posted Feb 6 2004 1:09AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
if you are interested in researching Bill AB 2289, you can search the web for Bill AB 2289, it will come up in detail, you do not have to rely Christine Kehoe's interpretation.
Posted Feb 1 2004 1:24AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
San Juan Capistrano, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Because of AB2289 I get to have a meeting with our HOA board???
Oh my God, that would be suicidal. They would just take all the information, rush off to the HOA attorney in sheer delight and then begin building a case against me.
Posted Nov 24 2003 4:48AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
|
|
| |
What if...just what if......the board of directors is corrupt and decides they just aren't going to follow the law because they don't HAVE to and nobody will ever be able to prove just what was in that certified envelope - was it a blank sheet of paper? Was it something non-descript?
I read a book titled VILLA APPALLING! DESTROYING THE MYTH OF AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY LIVING - and it talked all about how boards "notify" a homeowner via certified mail............the impression we got after reading that is that you may not ever really get 'notified'.
We had a board that disregarded the rules. Why? Because they were on a power trip? Who knows! They were covered for millions under a "duty to defend" Directors &Officers liability policy that we paid for and they didn't seem to care what the law said. They acted like they were above the law.
Who can afford to go to court just to get a corrupt board or management company to UPHOLD THE LAW.....heck, many of us have heard the horror stories about HOA corruption, property managers who embezzle, etc. Much of it in detail in the Villa Appalling! book.
Frightening stuff. I sure would hate to think that I am trusting MY HOME To a handful of neighbors - no background checks required.
Posted Nov 24 2003 4:42AM CET
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, ot |
| |
