|
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2014 10:29:47 GMT -5
Incredibly, SLohA has sued the owners of 66 Silversides for having a porch on the front of their home. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2014 10:48:47 GMT -5
The content here has been cross-posted from Rules & Manufactured Homes
Rules & Manufactured Homes 23 minutes ago Post by BagLady on 23 minutes ago
Guess it's time to start a new lawsuit Board--this will be Lawsuit Board Number 3.
Lra and Gngr: as with the Ath's board, this board is YOUR board. YOU will control it and I am expanding "forum permissions" for you. So, if anyone posts anything you do not want to appear, you can delete the post.
POSTERS please be extra sensitive when posting on the Lawsuit Board!
Rules & Manufactured Homes 29 minutes ago Post by BagLady on 29 minutes ago
Declaratory Relief
A binding judgment from a court defining the legal relationship between parties and their rights in the matter before the court. A declaratory judgment does not provide for any enforcement, however. In other words, it states the court's authoritative opinion regarding the exact nature of the legal matter without requiring the parties to do anything.
Injunctive Relief
Injunctive relief consists of a court order called an injunction, requiring an individual to do or not do a specific action. It is an extraordinary remedy that courts utilize in special cases where preservation of the status quo or taking some specific action is required in order to prevent possible injustice.
Rules & Manufactured Homes 33 minutes ago Post by BagLady on 33 minutes ago
Unbelievable! It is true.
Case: 2014CA-002608-0000-00 Action: CONTRACT & INDEBTEDNESS Filing Date: 06/26/2014 SLohA vs Tmyk and Astn 06/26/2014 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Rules & Manufactured Homes about an hour ago
Post by Baglady
Seriously? How is it known that a summons is being attempted? Note on the door? Pool gossip? Sheriff parked in front of 66? TH doing a stumbling Happy Dance?
Is it possible that SLohA's MANBOD can be this stupid? If true, can you say "Countersuit"? ACLU? $100K in legal fees?
I will go look up in the county record and see if anything is filed...be right back
Rules & Manufactured Homes 4 hours ago
Post by Mr. Wonderful on 4 hours ago
6 hours ago courious said:
My wonder is what will the informed community think when it learns that manbod profits win or lose from these types of legal actions?
I think the community will be shocked to see manbods "dirty laundry" out in the streets. Certainly some news coverage and even a call to local talk radio could put a management company in a bad light. Rules & Manufactured Homes 6 hours ago Mr. Wonderful likes this. [Approved: Sun Jul 06 2014 by Mr. Wonderful] Post by Guest on 6 hours ago
Heard from the owners of 66 Silversides that there is a court summons trying to be served on them for BREACH OF CONTRACT, by SLohA. Amazing that everyone else knows their business before they do. Good going manbod. Talk about unethical behavior and breach of trust. Maybe a summons should be served on you for libelous slander and BREACH OF BOARD ETHICS.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2014 11:14:59 GMT -5
L aura and G inger
I want to say, on behalf of the many friends you have in S-bag, that we are dismayed and so sorry that MANBOD has taken this action against you. Regardless of how each of us feels about the rules nonsense or the expiration of covenants, filing a lawsuit against an owner is a serious assault on a pleasant retirement lifestyle which we all desire and expect to have in our community.
I believe the filing of this lawsuit is an evil attempt to harass you for failing to comply with the Board's unreasonable demands to desecrate your new home. Additionally, I believe it stems from an ugly foundation of personal discrimination. Finally, its broader purpose is to demonstrate to other owners who might contemplate resistance to the Board, the power and control they need to exercise to take your own, and other owners's assessment monies, to attack you. MANBOD's action is based on FEAR and has an ultimate motive that is unclear at this point but will eventually see the light of day, perhaps in your courtroom or the Ath's courtroom. I denounce this Board for this unnecessary and unconscionable aggression against you.
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Jul 6, 2014 11:36:22 GMT -5
Incredibly, SLohA has sued the owners of 66 Silversides for having a porch on the front of their home. Please note that there are how many illegal double wides in the Resort? And how many have porches/decks to make them 60 ft? The Board graciously in 2010 at a Board meeting issued to all waterfront properties the distinction that from that day forward the front of their home sH all be the waterfront. PLEASE READY YOUR OWN HISTORY.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 6, 2014 12:05:52 GMT -5
But.. (sputter) but...Peet Brdun stated in his BOD report on March 19, 2014 that per the very constructive meeting with the attorneys on March 13, 2014 that the Board does on not have the AUTHORITY to Grnt variances!!!
And, for SURE BOD cannot make a rule unless it is proposed to membership and ratified by at least 50% of all members.
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jul 6, 2014 14:21:49 GMT -5
Incredibly, SLohA has sued the owners of 66 Silversides for having a porch on the front of their home. Please note that there are how many illegal double wides in the Resort? And how many have porches/decks to make them 60 ft? The Board graciously in 2010 at a Board meeting issued to all waterfront properties the distinction that from that day forward the front of their home sH all be the waterfront. PLEASE READY YOUR OWN HISTORY. Today 07-06-2014 @ 11:43 AM on SilverSides I witnessed Chrly Mnc in his golf cart coming out of what appeared to be the driveway of 66 Silversides. CM was exiting and proceeding East on SS, I was West bound on SS and we passed in opposite directions no more than 3 feet apart both of us recognized each other, I of course always wave and smile, this was not returned from CM. In fact he had the look of some sort of guilt on his face.
Also note that between VT's and BT's homes there was no one in park or at home on the side of 66 SS by the grove/chain link fence side of the street on this day.
I will swear and also polygraph that this is true and correct.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 6, 2014 14:49:21 GMT -5
I hope this uninvited "visitation" was not a form of harassment.
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Jul 6, 2014 14:53:47 GMT -5
Please note that there are how many illegal double wides in the Resort? And how many have porches/decks to make them 60 ft? The Board graciously in 2010 at a Board meeting issued to all waterfront properties the distinction that from that day forward the front of their home sH all be the waterfront. PLEASE READY YOUR OWN HISTORY. Today 07-06-2014 @ 11:43 AM on SilverSides I witnessed Chrly Mnc in his golf cart coming out of what appeared to be the driveway of 66 Silversides. CM was exiting and proceeding East on SS, I was West bound on SS and we passed in opposite directions no more than 3 feet apart both of us recognized each other, I of course always wave and smile, this was not returned from CM. In fact he had the look of some sort of guilt on his face.
Also note that between VT's and BT's homes there was no one in park or at home on the side of 66 SS by the grove/chain link fence side of the street on this day.
I will swear and also polygraph that this is true and correct.
A second witness to this event has come forward. In addition an email was sent to the board president that unless invited no one but no one is to be on the premises of 66 Silversides without direct invitation from Gngr Astn or Lra Tmyk. This includes Caps and Security not allowed on the premises as the management and Board continue up to employees someone who has threatened to burn the home down.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2014 15:30:53 GMT -5
Under the circumstances, perhaps Chrly Mnc should be questioned by the police about his presence on the property during your absence. It is good that you emailed the BOD about this, but we should all remember that no one is going to be protected in any way by these people and they do not care about what is legal or right. We must look outside the community for relief.
|
|
|
Post by Rolodex on Jul 6, 2014 15:47:45 GMT -5
Under the circumstances, perhaps Chrly Mnc should be questioned by the police about his presence on the property during your absence. It is good that you emailed the BOD about this, but we should all remember that no one is going to be protected in any way by these people and they do not care about what is legal or right. We must look outside the community for relief. Polk County Sheriffs Department Non Emergency Number 863-298-6200
This is the Dispatch Switchboard and they will direct your call.
The Lake Wales Police will not respond to SLR.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 6, 2014 19:17:57 GMT -5
Dear Forum members and all SLA members, The manbod will lose us all money with the outrageous lawsuit against Gngr and Lra. They want them to move their house out of the park and have the girls pay their legal fees. What will cost them is that with the preponderance of evidence the ladies have on the manbod i.e. the signed paper allowing the home etc. will tie them up even further, not to mention the discrimination suit. Too bad Sla owners have to pay for their own folly, including the ladies have to pay so the manbod can S u e them.
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Jul 6, 2014 19:49:56 GMT -5
EMERGENCY NOTICE----Board member Chrly Mnc was seen by two eye witnesses on the premises of 66 Silversides THIS MORNING. A panel that was totally secured when I left my home on Friday was discovered removed. NO problems observed around the home Saturday/Saturday night and early Sunday morning. POLICE HAVE BEEN CALLED AT 8:20 PM.
This is the third assault against me and/or my property in less than 2 months.
|
|
|
Post by Digital Eye on Jul 6, 2014 20:45:03 GMT -5
I saw the Sheriffs at the residence in question, 1 car two Deputies. They did a thorough walk around with halogen flash lights. It was on or about 9:00 pm when the Deputies walked the property.
|
|
|
Post by Seeing Eye on Jul 6, 2014 21:05:57 GMT -5
I saw the Sheriffs at the residence in question, 1 car two Deputies. They did a thorough walk around with halogen flash lights. It was on or about 9:00 pm when the Deputies walked the property.
I saw the cops at this house around 9:30 pm Sunday nite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2014 21:15:53 GMT -5
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jul 7, 2014 7:22:07 GMT -5
Incredibly, SLohA has sued the owners of 66 Silversides for having a porch on the front of their home.
Will someone please correct me if I am wrong, but I see that the rules do NOT have any type of restriction as to WHERE the porch is placed any home in SLR? I cannot find any nomenclature anywhere pertaining to porches restricted to being placed in the rear of the unit.
With that being said, then, how can any judge rule against these homeowners?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 7, 2014 8:55:28 GMT -5
Interesting thing that...the record shows that Judges rarely ruled against the Defendant/Homeowner. I'm certain that SLohA attorneys fail to mention this to MANBOD when offering their services. If so, it should be a cautionary tale for MANBOD.
How do I know this? Simple--go to the public Official Records and look up the Judgments and Orders indexed under 'S-bag'. I pulled up the 5 cases where SLohA sued owners for architectural rules violations and in all cases, except one, the Homeowner prevailed. There were various reasons (aka the Declaratory Judgements) but SLohA lost the cases. In the single case that SLohA prevailed, I was shocked at the (flawed) 1984 decision because it formed the basis for SLohA's creation of the falsified 1986 Amendment to Covenants.
Perhaps when I get some "time off" from my work out here in California, I'll put all that paperwork together and post a summary here.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 7, 2014 9:21:03 GMT -5
Good Question
PORCHES 4-4G.1) Porches are permitted and may be enclosed only if it is included in the overall measurement of twenty-four (24) feet by forty-eight (48) feet as set forth in Regulation 4-4B.1.
DECKS AND PATIOS 4-4G.2) A deck or patio may be added to the rear of the residential unit, not to exceed twelve (12) feet from the unit and not to exceed the width of the unit. A roof over the deck or patio may be added. Decks and patios must meet all SLohA and Polk County set-back and construction standards.
I don't see anything here that requires that porches must be on the front or back or sides--as long as lot lines and setbacks are observed and a permit from Polk County is obtained. I cannot see the judge being able to make a clear ruling on the issue, especially since it will be shown that there are MANY deviations from that supposed rule and MANY oversized homes in SLR-most recently one sited last summer that is way over 24 x 48.
The bigger question is that this parcel is governed only by Polk County. Its covenants expired in 2012 and it is not subject to SLohA Covenants or Rules.
More information will be known when the summones are issued and the Complaints are available (42 pages--hmmm what do you think--about $300 per page?). That will describe, in detail, the basis on which the case will be brought.
But, the problem is not really about an architectural issue, after all.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 7, 2014 11:29:16 GMT -5
A hilarious and deranged video. Chrly is an adult unicorn who is cajoled and seduced by young unicorns into journeying to Candy Mountain. Chrly is fearful and repelled--yet somehow drawn--to the promised goodies at Candy Mountain where he will find "joyness". Reluctantly, Chrly follows the kiddie unicorns and is told they will meet the magical Leoplurodon on the way who will provide detailed directions. When they arrive at Candy Mountain, an assortment of candies dance and sing and convince Chrly of the sweet treats that await within. The unicorns kids then mysteriously disappear, leaving Chrly alone in the mountain's dark cave.
New scene: Chrly, lying outside the cave entrance with a bleeding surgical wound in his flank, crying out "They took my kidney!".
A sobering allegory to the situation here--MANBOD beware the seductive unicorns!
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 7, 2014 15:39:43 GMT -5
Mr. D B's residence roof is too tall and his new carport has been reported as being over the height limit. Is he voluntarily going to lower the structure, or will SLohA have to also file a suit against a BOD Member?
Heck, we have residents homes located on their neighbor's property, does SLohA file a Suit against them too. Maybe we need a Lawyer on staff.
One of the big violations is our BOD's allowing KCN to operate his business out of his residence on Grey-Hackle, with his servicemen reporting for work at his residence. His servicemen all have handheld gate passes, to gain assess to his residence, to pick-up their work orders for the day.
|
|