jwa
New Member
Posts: 18 
|
Post by jwa on Apr 28, 2014 16:56:55 GMT -5
Hello Friends, An Update: The pre-suit mediation Ath vs S-bag Lake HOA will take place on May5,2014, at 1pm. The meeting will be held at the Central Florida Mediation Group,LLC. located in Lakeland, Fl. We have requested that two (2) standard conference rooms be reserved. Most mediations run 2hrs. minimum to 4hrs., and that Arthur Mattson will be our mediator. Let us hope we can move this issue forward.
J im and I would like give a big Thank You, For All of Your Help and Support.
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 28, 2014 17:32:24 GMT -5
I looked him up and he seems like a standup guy. Loves animals-that's always a good sign of a nice human. His wife is a vet. Here's the Mediation website where his bio is posted: Mediator MattsonDon't be tense. They are really nice to you there and there is all kinds of good food for munchies to calm your nerves. They have free wifi too. Prepare some questions to pick Bar bra's brain while the other conference room is conferencing. Ask her for some juicy details about her Bay Landing HOA Covenant case and what became of that Davenport HOA guy she convicted for fraud/embezzlement? Heck you're paying for her time anyway--might as well ask her some burning questions, eh? We'll look forward to your and Bar bra's reactions to the meeting--understanding that you can't provide material details of the discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on Apr 28, 2014 17:38:40 GMT -5
hmmm..just noticed that Dennis Maloney is one of the mediators on the staff at Central FL Mediation Group and he was the judge who ruled in the 1984 case I posted about this morning! I wonder if that would cause him to recuse himself had he been tapped to mediate?
|
|
jwa
New Member
Posts: 18
|
Post by jwa on May 6, 2014 21:53:34 GMT -5
Hello Friends, This is a update on May 5th's pre-suit mediation meeting:
The pre-suit mediation was held and the following were in attendance: DB, PB, SS and AK for the Board, TS for the management company, and SLohA’s counsel, along with J and I and our attorney, BS. The Mediator was also present. The Board would have preferred that BS from KCN be present, we declined to sponsor and pay for his attendance due to the fact that BS is not a party to the lawsuit, which is against SLohA for failure to enforce the covenants against commercial activity on the property.
Jm & I had specifically verified that the mediation would be attended by all decision makers. This is how it is supposed to be set up. Despite that, there was no quorum present on behalf of SLohA. So, things started out on the wrong foot; we should have had a 5th director “on tap” should there be the need for a decision. That was not prearranged as is customary. So we wondered how seriously the mediation was being taken by SLohA.
Uncharacteristically, there was no formal introduction of the attendees nor were there summary statements by the opposing attorneys. Both parties separately retired to their individual conference rooms where a feeding frenzy commenced. The munchies food provided by the Mediation Service is outstanding!
The conferencing lasted for 4 hours and there was much discussion that veered off into side concerns by the Board. We would have preferred more focus in the matter of removing K C N from the property. We seemed to be spinning around the same unproductive territory as in the pre-pre suit mediation meeting. The Mediator seemed neutral and effectively communicated.
At the conclusion, we reaffirm to our neighbors and supporters our resolve to continue this litigation to a favorable conclusion with SLohA or with each individual director. It was and is our position that the Covenants must be enforced without reservation and we left the Board to consider their options over the summer. To be continued…..
J & J Ath (16 RC)
5/6/14 |
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 7, 2014 7:57:55 GMT -5
This board has long been known to deflect, deny, and disconnect themselves from certain issue(s) at hand.
Knowing they needed 5 BOD's in attendance, but only 4 show up proves they wanted to shanghai this meeting from the get-go.
Since that did not happen, and the mediation was started w/out quorum anyhow, their plan was then to attempt to stray off the main topic, and stay there.
I don't understand why the mediator did not get them back on topic and stay there--isn't that what the mediator is there for?
Then again we all know how frequently these BOD's stray off topic at our regular in-park meetings.
I doubt they are going to think about anything else this summer except to continue to dig themselves in with their preposterous contentions--which, in time, will be proven as such...
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on May 7, 2014 8:02:54 GMT -5
I failed to ask: Did the mediation effort fail?
Or is that a question that cannot be answered at this point?
|
|
|
|
Post by BagLady on May 7, 2014 9:40:48 GMT -5
720.311 Dispute Resolution
This also states:
I daresay that Ta knee sha Sh road der of Stmb Ixx Inc, who attended the pre-suit mediation, is NOT a corporate representative of SLohA. She is an accountant with our hired vendor, Stmb Ixx and cannot be considered a "corporate representative" of SLohA. If she were to be considered a corporate representative of SLohA, who has capacity and status, that should have been demonstrated beforehand.
This also concerns me because the unaddressed issue of Bd Stmb Ixx being listed as a signatory on bank authorization cards for our depository accounts has still not been remedied by the Board. There is a problematic blurring of the proper roles of the BOD and the management company, who is but a hired hand.
The fact that there was no "group" gathering prior to the start of mediation proceedings is a bit troubling in terms of the confidentality aspect of mediation, especially in consideration of a non-party's--Ta knee sha Sh road der's--presence there. While the involved parties are cautioned individually by their attorneys about the nature of the mediation agreement with regards to confidentiality, no such caution was given to Stmb Ixx's Ta knee sha Sh road der, who is not represented by either party's attorney. Thus, Ta knee sha would appear to have neither presumed confidentiality caution by an attorney, nor was she cautioned in a pre-mediation group gathering before the start of mediation discussions. Though the entire process is meant to be informal and exploratory, it seems to me that this is a loose cannon of sorts and Ta knee sha is under no confidentiality agreement and cannot be held accountable for any breach of confidentiality. In light of past and continuing overlap of roles between and BOD aka MANBOD, this is problematic and places the complainants in a disadvantaged position.
From my own experience and also from that reported by J & J, it would seem that pre-suit arbitration is a waste of money, especially in light of the fact that a quorum was not present for SLohA. That would suggest lack of committment to the spirit of mediation, as well as to the Rules of Procedure for mediations, which require all decision makers to be present or "attending the discussion by phone" by prearrangement. However, it has been proven to keep cases out of court in a vast majority of cases and it does provide additional information to both sides about the seriousness of the issue. I cannot see why this mediation consumed 4 hours; from the way you described it, it sounds like the one I attended that was virtually over in 30 minutes with no substantive discussion or indication of a desire to progress the issue outside of court.
I hope you at least had a good food and a nice chat with your attorney, Bar bra St age.
|
|
