Attempted Entrapment

Anonymous Environmentalist posted:

First, was this transaction witnessed by anyone?  If so, the sheriff should be contacted and a report filed ASAP.  It is not too late; however, the more time that goes by, the easier it is for a report to be impeached.

Especially because it was SS.  This is the same unhinged board member (now ex) that attempted a vehicular assault against the residents of SS because he didn't want those residents to be there in the park either.  The sheriff already has a serious criminal complaint on file.  This could be the icing on the cake to get the AG office involved in a prosecution for trafficking in illegal drugs.  SS now has a pattern of hostile, aggressive and unlawful behavior.

Also, keep in mind that this is basis for a HUD Complaint.  The resident would be wise to carefully document ALL encounters and correspondence.  The sooner the complaint is filed, the better.  A lawyer is not needed but there is one available to assist the process.  It does not cost anything to file a complaint and the details of filing are readily available.  A second HUD complaint would surely raise the eyebrows of HUD since the first case was only lost because of timing issues and the fact that the amendment to HUD rules came months after the complaint was filed. 

The issue of management's responsibility in this instance is now clear and embedded in the newly-enacted law.

Believe you me, this residents is 'armed for bear,' and has already taken the appropriate steps to contact authorities--each & every time manbod steps out of line with them.  Not to worry, EVERY encounter with manbod has also been documented and the info given to this residents' attorneys.  Like i said before, it's just a matter of time...and manbod's time is indeed runnin' out!

I believe this firmly points to the fact that manbod will do anything and everything up to and including depraved acts of sheer stupidity... Evidently, they are desperate, and their actions as of late involving this resident have shone just how desperate they are. And, of course, desperate people with no regard for the law tend to kick themselves in the arse...

Anonymous Environmentalist posted:


Chappie knows that the Covenants DO NOT have any authority over architectural concerns.  It cost owners over $100,000 to teach the board and management company a lesson that was obvious by reading the governing documents.  Maybe the reading comprehension was low, but seems like pitching away $100,000 should have gotten their attention at least.  The fact that Chappie or anyone else from Management or the Board continues to harass owners about architectural matters that are permitted by the only governing authority, Polk County, suggests that SLohA will find itself again in a lawsuit over this matter.

One could consider placing a CAM complaint against Chappie and Toneesha (I assume she is the one puffing about no access to office, which is ridiculous as ALL owners or specified agents of owners have access to common property.  I am curious if Toneesha cited any recognized authority for her ban.)

Are these people slow learners or investors in the law firm who stands to gain from litigating another issue of architectural concern?  Is there anyone who actually believes that SLohA has authority over architectural matters after the last lawsuit?  Except maybe Chappie.

And what are they so desparate about that they are willing to spend another $100,000 on a SECOND lawsuit lesson and perhaps get slapped with HUD sanctions?  Maybe this time we won't be able to get a D & O policy at any price?  How 'bout that?  NO indemnification of anyone!  As it is, we have such a huge deductible ($75,000) as to functionally be without D & O.

Anonymous Environmentalist posted:

Have these people gone mad?  They can call them "elephants".  It is not relevant to anything.  Nor is the mortgage status of the property.  SLohA cannot insert itself in this transaction; it has no "legal standing" to cH allenge the Buyer or the Owner. 

The Owners have apparently sold the property on an Installment Sale Contract.  This is perfectly legal and gives the buyer occupants the right of quiet use and enjoyment of the property as any person who was paying a mortgage has.  The previous owner can and probably has transferred all its private and common property interests to the new owner and the new owners have every right to enjoy their property unmolested by idiots that want to get rid of them for some trumped up reason.  Similar to a lease.   Anyone who leases a property is entitled to use all the amenities attached to the property.  What does the installment contract say?

As far as renting a Shed, I believe that it is for Owner's Only, so if there is no Trustee Deed, the original owner is the only one who can rent a shed.  The folks might want to get their Owner to rent a shed and increase the rent thereby.  SLohA is renting by written agreement; what does the agreement say?  For the moment, if I were in their position, I would empty the shed, clarify and proceed.

The details of the sale ownership transfer could be of some limiting nature regarding the right to records and right to vote in the association.  This is the only thing that SLohA need concern itself with (aside from rented shed).  If a Trustee Deed was not issued by the old owner to the new owner, then title remains in the old owner's name until the terms of the Installment Sale Contract are fully satisfied.  In many states, a Trustee Deed MUST be part of an installment sale, but I don't think this is so in Florida.  These people probably need to speak to an attorney or they could get a conversation going with their Owner and rework the deal.  There is little functional difference between a mortgage and an installment sale.

Shed placement--NOT SLohA's business.  If they think the shed is encroaching on SLohA common property, they should get Polk Code Enforcement involved.  If the shed is encroaching on a neighbor, the neighbor should call Polk Code Enforcement.

If SLohA enters the property without invitation, they are trespassing.  If they remove personal property while trespassing, it is Theft.  These folks should have NO TRESPASSING signs up, they should deliver a letter to SLohA specifically telling them they are not to enter upon the private property and, if a Deed has not been passed, they should bring the recorded Owner into the conversation.

If it were me, I would go one step further and call for an officer and file an informational report stating the threats and letters that have been received from the management company/board and ask how the sheriff would advise handling any confrontation on the property.  That way a record is begun. 

Have the sheriff on Speed Dial and your smartphone cameras ready.

Actually, the mgmt's beef with their shed in the storage lot was concerning which way the door of the shed was facing and had nothing to do with encroachment issues. In all actuality, the way their door is facing is indicative of several others in the storage lot that have been that way for years, yet only they have been targeted to not only remove the contents of their shed, but to adjust the position of said shed so that the door faces the way mgmt wants it to be facing. Whether or not there's a trustee deed shouldn't matter, the Association has known for 17 that they are buying the property and had never before in the last 17 years given these buyers any type of unwarranted harassment such as this until now. 
 
In mgmt's harassment letter there was neither any mention of any "recognized authority" nor were there any CCR's cited, & moreover,  nor were there any statements of witnesses or proof they did any of the other things they were accused of.

They have HAD the Sheriff's Dept on speed dial for quite some time, & call them when necessary...however i mentioned to them that if mgmt decides to remove their shed contents they can always claim it was "theft by vandals/kids" like they've done in the past and then say the camera in the storage lot was either "not working" or "malfunctioned" or some other load of crap...

Anon Environ posted"


I think Toneesha IS Stmbug Ixx by proxy.  Has anyone seen or heard from him in years? 

IMO, we are no longer dealing with Bd and Hayvn't been for quite some time; we are being run by TWO CAMs--Toneesha and Chappie.  Toneesha is being counselled by their attorney, GaggaKnees et al.

ATTENTION MANAGEMENT:

IF YOU ARE PAYING ANY ATTENTION WHATSOEVER TO THIS FORUM, THEN, ONCE AGAIN, (FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME) YOU MUST BE REMINDED THAT:

MANAGEMENT'S JOB IS:

TO RUN THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE RESORT AND IT'S EMPLOYEES...NOT THE DAY-TO-DAY LIVES OF IT'S RESIDENTS AND THEIR PROPERTIES!

AMEN