|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2015 18:24:27 GMT -5
Yes--again. Your SLohA dollars at work! SLohA wants to spend more money on mediation. Apparently, SLohA attorney thought they had actually attempted mediation from what Reichmann said at the Revitalization Chat.
By the Way, Reichmann is NOT a cooperating attorney on MY case; he is only a cooperating attorney on 66 SS. His conduct, described below, was unprofessional and and had no business saying SQUAT about my case!
On Jan 16, 2015, SLohA filed a Motion to Compel Mediation--despite the fact that I had already been to mediation and my attorney was motioning for a Summary Judgement! My attorney advised that judges LOVE mediation so I guess I will go--again and not draw this out any more than needed. At least THIS time I will be mediating with the insurance company who will be calling the shots for SLohA (rather than the Management company calling the shots).
Maybe the second time around, it will last more than 20 minutes....
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Feb 12, 2015 19:54:52 GMT -5
This is the first time I heard that the attorneys for S-bag's insurance carrier are getting involved. As I monitored the progress of the lawsuits, I kept wondering why the Board was spending so much money on legal fees. Normally, when a claim is made against an individual or corporation, the claim is turned over to the insurance carrier in a process known as "subrogation". Once that is done, the "good news" is that the insurance carrier assumes all legal costs (as well as all damages that may be awarded to the plaintiff). The "bad news" is that since the defendant has subrogated his/her/its rights to the insurance carrier, he/she/it no longer has any say in how the case is resolved. I can only speculate that the reason the Board has already spent thousands on these lawsuits is because they did not subrogate the claims to SLohA's insurance carrier until quite recently. If so, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2015 22:11:53 GMT -5
jimherbst posted:
In MY case only, SLohA has subrogated the case to Tower Hill Insurance company. However, as was evident from Mr. Riceman's comments about my case--the Mr. Riceman who is SLohA's attorney--there is "involvement" of Management Company legal firm in my business. I do not know if it is "billable" involvement. SLohA owners are not permitted to know details of how their money is being spent.
This is in contrast to 66SS--in that case, SLohA sued the owners and the Management Company lawyers (Brown, GaGaKnees et all) are prosecuting/persecuting at SLohA's BOD direction. Unfortunately for SLohA, 66SS countersued and affirmatively defended that MRTA rendered SLohA's action moot. The MRTA Countersuit brought the Tower Hill attorneys into the case as CO-counsel because its basis was nearly exactly like my lawsuit. Later, mine and the MRTA Countersuit were "consolidated".
Now comes a Cabal of Co-Counsel and the theater of sponsoring "revitalization" as a "STRATEGY" in an effort to somehow nullify my lawsuit and 66SS's Countersuit. This "strategy" would be equally valuable to both SLohA and Tower Hill and maybe they are splitting the tab--who knows? Tower Hill has several MRTA lawsuits in the hopper that need to be litigated (many of them represented by my attorney)--this fact was alluded to by SLohA's Mr. Riceman while he chattered on about MY case.
The "strategy" reasons that "If the DEO approves the Revitalization package submitted, as affirmed by SLohA members--which includes the illegal Amendments from 1986 and 1989--then it removes a debilitating leg from my lawsuit and 66SS's countersuit and there is nothing left to argue about. Voila--the many MRTA suits are magically deconstructed by DEO approving revitalization packages! Tower Hill does not have to spend time and money litigating all those lawsuits! For SLohA, it dodges the MRTA bullet that threatens to void its authority to operate as an illusory HOA and serves to protect an agenda that is, as yet, unidentified, but obviously there. Tower Hill theoretically could care less about SLohA's governance problems; it only needs to stop the looming MRTA vulnerability by finding an effective defense. Is SLohA funding a MRTA defense for Tower Hill for future MRTA lawsuits?
So, without seeing the ledger, I believe it is reasonable to think that SLohA is spending big bucks on legal fees and there is likely spending overlap between my and 66SS lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimherbst on Feb 13, 2015 10:29:49 GMT -5
Thanks for the clarification. If I may offer an opinion, I think I know why the Tower Hill attorneys are seeking mediation. They were brought in late in the proceedings and, therefore, were unable to influence the legal strategy of the Board & its "house" attorneys. Now that the Tower attorneys have gotten involved, they quickly realized that the lawsuits will probably be decided against them. At the very least, they are in for a lengthy and costly litigation. Insurance lawyers differ from their colleagues in that they are highly litigation-averse Therefore, in an effort to cut their losses, they want to mediate in hopes of reaching a settlement. Anyway, that's how I perceive it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 26, 2015 22:27:14 GMT -5
Mediation Date: Feb 26--NOW In Motion from downtown Orlando:
Feb 26, 2015 at 12:53pm observer likes this.
Post by Admin on Feb 26, 2015 at 12:53pm
NOW--Thur Feb 26th. We have been "at it" all morning and are breaking for lunch. Anybody's guess how much longer it will take. The view from the 18th Top Floor Citrus Club is spectacular! The snacks are OK but not quite as varied or plentiful as at Central Florida Mediation Services. Free Wifi. Conference table is weird; it has these "black overstuffed footbags" under the table so everytime you place your feet under, you feel something soft and squishy instead of foot space.
Wish they would provide foot massagers instead of soft bags for feet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Admin on Feb 26, 2015 at 3:42pm
3:41 and still at it. More coffee please!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by GTO on Feb 26, 2015 at 4:10pm
The heck with Coffee, how do you like your Steak cooked? Would you care for a glass of fine wine, with your dinner?
Will you ladies be spending the night with us, also?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Admin on Feb 26, 2015 at 4:46pm
It is possible we might be having dinner here. I do not want to drive in the dark.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 26, 2015 at 7:05pm
Post by GTO on Feb 26, 2015 at 7:05pm
I feel for the Mediator, he has to have a brain cramp by now. It sounds like you all are heading for "A Filibuster". You ladies may have to go on into the night...
Hang In There!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINALLY @ about 8:30 PM
Following is the statement prepared by both parties to the mediation:
We must tell everyone that we are forbidden to speak of the terms of the settlement until AFTER the court ruling. Please don't ask us. If you want to ask someone, ask a board director.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Feb 27, 2015 7:46:07 GMT -5
Conclusion of Lawsuit #2. May calm waters and healing for all be our new agenda.
See Official public post on mediation outcome on this site and on the S-bag Lake Resort site (CHUG).
|
|
Anonymous Environmentalist
Guest
|
Post by Anonymous Environmentalist on Feb 27, 2015 10:29:57 GMT -5
Asking any of our board directors about anything to do w/these law suits, (or anything else, for that matter) will surely not get you any honest answers...that's already been proven several times over.
|
|
|
|
Post by justme on Feb 27, 2015 20:09:59 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR OPENESS AND HONESTY
SOOOO DISAPPOINTING TO SEE THAT SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT HAS BEEN SILENCED, EVEN ON THIS FORUM
|
|
|
|
Post by justme on Feb 27, 2015 20:19:03 GMT -5
NEXT THING WE KNOW Melonknee WILL BE DINING OUT WITH ST ,Lra AND Gngr.PROBALY BOW TO HER AS SHE PASSES
|
|
|
|
Post by Lra on Feb 27, 2015 21:12:57 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR OPENESS AND HONESTY SOOOO DISAPPOINTING TO SEE THAT SOMETHING SO IMPORTANT HAS BEEN SILENCED, EVEN ON THIS FORUM Must follow the Court's mandate. As soon as it is allowed, the facts will be made available. We have never hidden nor distorted the truth. Just be patient and "The truth will set you free". Remember, everyone's goal IS Revitalization. Legally correct and proper Revitalization. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 27, 2015 22:32:23 GMT -5
justme posted:
Not sure I understand where the remarks about dining and Melonie are coming from, but wanted to comment about the "open and honesty" concern.
This requires some general comments about mediation. I am informed that it results in resolving up to 70% of cases without stepping into the courtroom. A concept critical to mediation is "parties coming to the negotiating table in good faith". Good faith means that BOTH sides put aside ego and drama and engage in an honest and open dialog about the issues through a neutral mediator. The mediator probes, pokes and prods each side into another way of looking at a position to move the two sides ever closer to a negotiated peace.
Mediation can be agonizing; it goes against every instinct to expose yourself to the other side! It continues until it is finished--yesterday's mediation started at 10:00am and ended at 8:30pm-- 10 1/2 hours. It is a laborious process of extracting truths, stating desires, exposing deception and mistakes, re-education and fact-finding and identifying agendas--combined with a sincere desire to come to an agreement and an acceptance that you will not get everything you want in the end. The artful management of the process by a skillful mediator may or may not result in a settlement of the issues which both sides accept.
This process cannot happen in an environment where participants fear they will become vulnerable to the "other side" should mediation fail. The vulnerability lies in the weaknesses exposed during the process. So, all parties must agree to provide safety to each other that these issues remain absolutely confidential until the terms of the settlement are finalized.
As much as I value "openness and honesty" as a general operating principle, in the case of mediation, I understand that failure to maintain confidentiality will undermine the fundamental building blocks of mediation and perpetuate unending warfare between two sides locked into positions that both believe are equally "right". A depressing and expensive scenario.
In this case, concessions were made by both sides, as is typical. The settlement terms will be met at the instant the judge says "yay or nay" after both sides have submitted their final arguments. The steps of those submissions is measured in weeks and will conclude the current legal cH allenge. Correcting the revitalization course has begun and the post mortem can begin after all the facts come to light.
I hope that everyone will at least consider the greater good that is possible by setting aside unrestrained "truth and honesty" for just a little while longer. By maintaining the integrity of mediation as a trusted vehicle to INexpensively resolve difficult questions, the process can be preserved as a useful tool for the future. And that will benefit all Saddlebaggers.
|
|
