PRE---Pre-Suit Mediation Meeting

Recall that an informal pre-pre-mediation meeting was also requested back in August of 2013 by my attorney with regard to the covenants expiration lawsuit.  I subsequently blogged on the old forum the matters discussed informally i.e. the three options available to actually FIX the SLohA extinguished covenants problem.  This is the same attorney that BOD currently retains to represent it's and Management Company's interests.   I do not include Members' interest.  (It's my opinion that SLohA is paying for representation to look out for BOD and interests (and possibly K C N's--not Members!  This remains to be seen.)

Though MANBOD spent several travel hours and other associated expenses on the trip to the Orlando attorney for this powwow--all expenses were reimbursed to them from Owners' assessments--and--to this day the BOD has yet to write a report for the Owners!  Astonishingly, BOD actually read my blog report into SLohA Official Record and then declared that what I wrote was not true, yet offered no version of their corrected version of the meeting!

Unsurprisingly, BOD wrote a statement into the record about the November 2013 pre-mediation meeting suggesting that despite "hard work for the better part of all day, no settlement was reached"--when, in fact, the meeting started at 9am, opened with Mediator's comments and statements from both sides, retired to individual conference rooms and was over (declared an impasse) by 10:15am  The Mediator actually entered my conference room only twice--the second time to validate that the meeting should be declared an "impasse" and the necessary Certificate be issued!

In light of this past bizarre behavior, perhaps you could write a followup letter to the Board to be read to the Members at the subsequent BOD meeting, and also post that letter on this Forum to let everyone know what actually took place!

Unknown what type of report the Mediator is required to make.  I would assume it would be summary to reflect the general conduct of the meeting, disclosures/warnings to attendees and the outcome.  The client of the Mediator is Both Parties so it is also unknown if or how the summary could be accessed.

On the other hand, is there still any remaining doubt as to the board's veracity?

Added: I almost forgot, there is physical evidence that this meeting did not take 'the better part of a day'. My attorney invoiced me for Time & Travel and a "2 hour minimum" professional fee.

The Pre-Pre-Suit Informal Meeting is scheduled to take place on Friday, March 28. The location will be at SLR's Front Office Bldg.

Jm and I will keep everyone informed. Again Thanks for Your Support.

Good point.  It seems like there is an inherent "home court advantage" to the SLohA attorneys in holding the meeting on SLR pproperty.   However, this pre-pre mediation meeting does not meet a necessary requirement of any mediation meeting--i.e. a third neutral party must be present.  It is my understanding that a Mediator will not be present.  Thus, it is mis-named.  It is actually something else..

What I found is that a "Pre-Mediation Conference" aka "Pre-Mediation Caucus" is called by some, but not all Mediators in preparation for the actual pre-suit mediation.  This meeting usually involves only the attorneys and is usually a telephone conference.  It is used as an organizational and planning tool.

Cute avatar.

This meeting MUST be noticed to ALL MEMBERS as a Closed Board Meeting!  Someone better tell IT to get crackin'!

Hopefully, you can get a go-ahead from your attorney to discuss a little more.  However, it is perfectly understandable that your attorney doesn't want a lot of speculation to make things more difficult at this St age. 

I discussed this issue at length with my own attorney and we agreed that I would ask him specifically each and every time if I could quote or summarize information to publish here.  Most of the stuff at this point is a matter of public record and does not require the kind of caution that your attorney is requiring in the sensitive beginning phase.

We are an information-hungry group but should temper our expectations with an abundance of caution (one of IT's old phrases).  Right thinking folks will respect the need for restraint during this fact-finding phase.  I am confident that you have chosen your legal representative wisely and that you are being conservative both in the expenditure of donated funds (and your own!) as well as adhering to conduct recommendations made by your attorney.