|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2014 11:06:23 GMT -5
The lawsuit Complaint has been served to Lra and Gngr's agent, Frd O'N eel (Attny), Attorney, who is representing the ladies. They have OK'd the complaint to be posted on this forum for all owners to read and comment on. As a reminder, Lra and Gngr have permission to make edits to or delete/modify any comments on this Board. The lawsuit itself is a matter of public record.
I have read the Complaint and it is more "RUDE" than "ERUDITE". More detail after the Exhibits are available.
|
|
|
Post by courious on Jul 20, 2014 20:42:45 GMT -5
LOOKING FORWARD TO REVIEWING WHAT OUR GREAT MONEY SPENDERS ON LEGAL FEES HAVE DRUMMED UP ON THIS ONE. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LAND THAT IT SITS ON IS NOT G OVER ED BY THE SLohA RULES NO MATTER WHAT COLOR THE FRONT PAGE HAPPENS TO BE.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2014 22:17:30 GMT -5
Here is the Part 1 of 3 posts making up the Complaint that BOD has filed, at a cost of what will be thousands and thousands of dollars to litigate, "for the good of the community". I can only post 3 images in a single post. Unless you are registered as a member, you should use Saddleviewer to view and download. Sign in as Saddleviewer Password: 123abc Attachment Deleted Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2014 22:19:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 20, 2014 22:20:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 20, 2014 23:49:01 GMT -5
SLohA is filing a Suit against owners with a front porch. But SLohA, stands by with their hands in their pocket, and will not take any action against B.S.'s KCN Business run from inside his residents on Gray Hackle. What the Hell is going on with our BODs. It sure looks like something is fishy, to say the least. Favorite Attorneys in Florida have been known to give discounts, up to 20%. Just Google the topic and search the web.
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on Jul 21, 2014 5:39:00 GMT -5
I wonder if MANBOD is also filing on 25 STN as well? the porch is on the back but the unit is well over 48'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 7:52:38 GMT -5
Is this factual or speculations
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 7:53:35 GMT -5
SLohA is filing a Suit against owners with a front porch. But SLohA, stands by with their hands in their pocket, and will not take any action against B.S.'s KCN Business run from inside his residents on Gray Hackle. What the Hell is going on with our BODs. It sure looks like something is fishy, to say the least. Favorite Attorneys in Florida have been known to give discounts, up to 20%. Just Google the topic and search the web. PCSD was once again called to our community .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 8:51:18 GMT -5
I wonder if MANBOD is also filing on 25 STN as well? the porch is on the back but the unit is well over 48'.
THAT HOME AT 25 S.T.N. IS OVER 60 FEET LONG! WHERE'S THE LAWSUIT ON THAT OWNER??
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2014 9:14:15 GMT -5
Can anyone get a measurement and pictures? It might be useful for the attorney to be aware of this; though, in my personal opinion, the house is only a symbol of the REAL issue--the real issue is Covenants Expiration. This property has NO Covenants and NO Rules that bind the owners to SLohA's rules that have been proven to be altered without due process, written into the record without benefit of owner ballot and generally, a hot mess of errors since 1983. SLohA Rules & Regulations have no integrity or credibility, but the R & R are beside the point of the Complaint, in my opinion.
With a bit more documentation, this one is a significant violation and can go under the Selective Enforcement Board for current and future lawsuits.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jul 21, 2014 11:49:07 GMT -5
SLohA is filing a Suit against owners with a front porch. But SLohA, stands by with their hands in their pocket, and will not take any action against B.S.'s KCN Business run from inside his residents on Gray Hackle. What the Hell is going on with our BODs. It sure looks like something is fishy, to say the least. Favorite Attorneys in Florida have been known to give discounts, up to 20%. Just Google the topic and search the web.
These "discounts" were commonly referred to back in the day as "kickbacks"--it's still the same animal--they just changed the name to protect the guilty ones that partake of these kickbacks, uh, discounts...and you know it's the management company and their representative(s) that are on the take, and it not only includes attorney "discounts"/"kickbacks" but also "discounts"/"kickbacks" from contractors and insurance companies.
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Jul 21, 2014 16:09:34 GMT -5
Can anyone get a measurement and pictures? It might be useful for the attorney to be aware of this; though, in my personal opinion, the house is only a symbol of the REAL issue--the real issue is Covenants Expiration. This property has NO Covenants and NO Rules that bind the owners to SLohA's rules that have been proven to be altered without due process, written into the record without benefit of owner ballot and generally, a hot mess of errors since 1983. SLohA Rules & Regulations have no integrity or credibility, but the R & R are beside the point of the Complaint, in my opinion. With a bit more documentation, this one is a significant violation and can go under the Selective Enforcement Board for current and future lawsuits. Shouldn't it be up to the defendant's attorney to arrange to subpoena these homeowners in here that already have a home over 48' in length, and depose them as to the dimensions of their home as well as provide documentation that approved their oversize home be sited in SLR?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 21, 2014 16:30:40 GMT -5
I should think that might be the case only if the attorney thinks that that is an appropriate area of exploration to defend his client against further persecution by Charley & The Gang of 9.
On the other hand, maybe attorney will say "why mess with Rules and identifying deviations/variances from enforcement if the issue is that the Covenants are expired?" If the Covenants are expired, the Rules are moot and exploring other violations would be unnecessary, eh?
|
|
|
Post by Dick Tracy on Jul 21, 2014 23:22:29 GMT -5
This Suit should set a precedent for future violations. We will know if Covenants are truly expired on some lots. Or if SLohA ever had the authority to make any changes to the Original Documents. I think Polk Count Rules!!!
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 25, 2014 9:25:20 GMT -5
The Exhibits to the Complaint are: Exhibit A "The Declaration-1989" This is very curious. The Declaration which previously restricted this parcel was filed by the developer, S-bag Lake Resorts Inc, covering Unit 3, in 1976. Attorney for SLohA denies the existence of the 1976 Declaration and proclaims the false 1989 Amendment in its place, calling it "Declaration". Attorney for SLohA did not even include the original Declaration from 1976 as an Exhibit to the complaint--the complaint is all based upon the 1989 Amendment and authority to enforce compliance with Rules & Regs. The point is to convince the court that MRTA did not expire the restrictions on the subject parcel because the Attorney wants to replace and supercede the original Declaration with the 1989 Amendment. Why is it false? There is a discussion of the evolution of the 1989 Amendment on this board>>> HOA Law & Florida Government>> 1986 Amendment to Covenant AND 1989 Amendment to Covenants which traces its pathway into SLohA records. It arises from a previous Amendment to the Declaration purportedly adopted in 1986 which falsely asserted that the Declaration contained a provision to amend. It did not. It contained only a provision to "release" which is very different from "amend". The 1986 Amendment was, therefore, unlawfully adopted and so was the 1989 Amendment which followed. The Attorney for SLohA would like the world to believe that this 1989 Amendment IS the Declaration through an unknown mechanism of fantasy, but certainly includes serving up a "word salad" to befuddle and perplex the audience. Exhibit B SLohA Attorney Letter to Parcel Owner dated May 7, 2014 Attachment DeletedThis is the form letter issued by SLohA to Owners to participate in pre-suit mediation required by statute. The dispute subject to mediation was listed as: "Installation of a front porch on Lot without Association approval, and in violation of allowed dimensions."Exhibit C SLohA Rules & Regulations adopted March 26, 2014 As we all know from prior discussions, there are many known and unknown errors of omission and commission in these Rules. ALL rules must now be validated because NONE of them can be trusted to have been duly adopted. The specific Rules which are relevant to the complaint are: 4-1A Permission Slip from SLohA, 4-4B.1 Structures to be measured and maximum length is 48' and maximum width is 24', 4-4G.1 Porches are permitted and may be enclosed only if within the max length/width, and 1-3 Porch definition "an opening within 48' x 24", on any side of house and can be enclosed." The Complaint says that "although the living space is 48 x 24 (excluding the porch), the inclusion of the front porch causes the house to exceed the allowable maximum dimensions. The Complaint also says that owner did not get permission for their unit. (In my opinion, this is all irrelevant because the parcel use was not restricted by SLohA Covenants and Rules; parcel owners obtained all required permits from Polk County.) Exhibit D Attorney for SLohA Letter to Parcel Owner dated April 21, 2014 Attachment DeletedA typical Dear Homeowner letter notifying parcel owner that they are out of compliance with the Covenants: "Installation of a front porch on your Lot without Association approval, and in violation of allowed dimensions."The letter threatens to force compliance if the violation is not remedied in 15 days. The letter charges Owners $131.48 for attorney time to prepare the letter. The letter is cc: to Stmb Ixx Inc ONLY and not to the client, S-bag Lake Owner's Association. Exhibit E Melonknee's letter dated March 19, 2014 to Parcel Owners Attachment DeletedThe initial non-compliance letter with a littany of rules violations and demand to comply within 30 days.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 25, 2014 10:36:14 GMT -5
They are a tricky lot, but we have it on authority that the homeowners did get and can produce the proper permissions. The owners also never receive any of the office letters. Where did they go??
|
|
GTO
Addict
Life is Tough ! It's even tougher when you're stupid ! Jhn Wayne J ohn Wayne
Posts: 198
|
Post by GTO on Jul 25, 2014 12:50:20 GMT -5
When all is said and done, we may know the Truth about SLR's Documents. I think SLohA is in denial. The Final Cost to SLohA will be a huge amount, in more ways then one. SLohA will spend every dime of the Associations Money, to keep control.
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Jul 25, 2014 13:04:13 GMT -5
Only if the Owners approve. If the Owners do not want MANBOD to spend every dime on Legal Fees and if they want responsible people in control of common property business, they will either recall the bozos or vote out the clowns.
If Owners say nothing, sit back and watch, there can be no other conclusion than the people approve of what MANBOD is doing to S-bag and let the chips fall. The consequences of apathy will negatively change the character of the park, be unexpected and very costly.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 25, 2014 13:07:10 GMT -5
The majority of the members are uninformed and need to read or hear about this. How can we get the word to them? Gngr and Lra's hearing probably won't be for a year, so we do have time to get a new BOD and manager before it comes about. I think with the evidences we are gathering, they might want to talk instead of S u e. I would, but of course, I'm not them.
|
|