|
|
Post by Admin on May 8, 2015 13:55:12 GMT -5
$68,395.48 is the amount spent by SLohA on Legal Fees this year.
This amount does not include any "liens and foreclosure" expenses.
Most of this was paid to Brown, GaGaKnees et al and does not include the legal costs absorbed by the SLohA insurance carrier, Tower Hill. Most of this expense was incurred by filing the lawsuit against 66SS. (The insurance carrier completely absorbed the Tg lawsuit expenses.)
The amount above does not include the monstrous cost of the Feb 26th mediation with 6 attorneys (2 for Tower Hill, 2 for Brown, GaGaKnees et al, 1 for consolidated cases of three owners and 1 attorney-mediator) in attendance for 10 1/2 hours. This cost was assumed by the insurance company which desparately wanted to stop the bleeding and settle the cases.
Thank your Board. Now, who was it that wanted a shady pavillion down at the beach for group functions or some adequate lighting in the clubhouse parking lot? And, the Covenants are still expired!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2015 23:48:30 GMT -5
This is not the end for legal fees, more legal fees will accumulate in the near future. We have some real winners running the show.
This should have never happen! You can thank your Board of Directors for this fine mess.
|
|
|
|
Post by S-bag follower on May 11, 2015 11:09:42 GMT -5
$68,395.48 is the amount spent by SLohA on Legal Fees this year.
According to my math this means that every owner paid at least $81.00 per parcel just in one fiscal year for legal fees including the residents that were sued. We need to question why did SLohA bring the lawsuit against 66 SS when the Board was aware that the Covenants were expired ( read the February 2013 Board minutes ) and knew that Melonknee Kreemcow gave written permission and was there on February 18, 2014 and allowed the unit into SLR ( see photo previously posted on this forum site ). Even more interesting is that the person making the mistake was employed by Stmbug Ixx and the Board turned around and hired the attorneys who represent Stmbug Ixx. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 11, 2015 14:42:08 GMT -5
$68,395.48 is the amount spent by SLohA on Legal Fees this year.
According to my math this means that every owner paid at least $81.00 per parcel just in one fiscal year for legal fees including the residents that were sued. We need to question why did SLohA bring the lawsuit against 66 SS when the Board was aware that the Covenants were expired ( read the February 2013 Board minutes ) and knew that Melonknee Kreeow gave written permission and was there on February 18, 2014 and allowed the unit into SLR ( see photo previously posted on this forum site ). Even more interesting is that the person making the mistake was employed by Stmbg Ixx and the Board turned around and hired the attorneys who represent Stmbg Ixx. All good questions. Who will ask the hard questions in the aftermath of this expensive fiasco? If someone asks, who will answer? Will anyone answer these questions? Or can they only be answered in separate legal action-*shareholders derivative lawsuit-- via depositions in the discovery process ? *Derivative lawsuit: Under traditional corporate business law, shareholders are the owners of a corporation. However, they are not empowered to control the day-to-day operations of the corporation. Instead, shareholders appoint directors, and the directors in turn appoint officers or executives to manage day-to-day operations.
Derivative suits permit a shareholder to bring an action in the name of the corporation against parties allegedly causing harm to the corporation. If the directors, officers, or employees of the corporation are not willing to file an action, a shareholder may first petition them to proceed. If such petition fails, the shareholder may take it upon himself to bring an action on behalf of the corporation. Any proceeds of a successful action are awarded to the corporation and not to the individual shareholders that initiate the action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Robbero on May 11, 2015 16:16:48 GMT -5
WOW, you are one sick lady!
|
|
Juan Robberos brother
Guest
|
Post by Juan Robberos brother on May 11, 2015 16:19:16 GMT -5
WOW, you are one sick lady!
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 11, 2015 17:37:55 GMT -5
Above posts will remain quarantined; the Latin bros are violating the Terms of Service from the same computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alaska HEMI R/T Jm Admin. on May 11, 2015 18:39:12 GMT -5
Robbero and his "bro" are the same sicko. all IP's 187.130.70.30
Geolocation data from IP Address Labs (Product: Pro On-demand API)
IP Address Country Region City ISP
187.130.75.30 Mexico - - Telmex
Continent Latitude Longitude Organization
North America 19.43 -99.13 Telmex
Google Map for -, -, Mexico (New window)
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2015 7:43:09 GMT -5
Almost $1000 spent on attorney Brown et al in May. For what? There were no Special Privileged Meetings held. Perhaps that was a belated billing for Terror BearIt's presence at the March Hearing? The one that she sat in and didn't say a single word...?
I should check the April Check Register...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 9, 2015 7:55:25 GMT -5
$3,379.98 PAID to attorneys Brown et al in April.
Only $1,120 was paid from the Budget Line item "Legal Fees".
Where is the remaining $2,259.98 being spent from? What line item of the budget was charged?
My guess: the Sunbank Slush Fund (This individual expenses of this "check" are invisible to owners.)
|
|
|
|
Post by pestcontrol on Jul 9, 2015 9:21:34 GMT -5
$3,379.98 PAID to attorneys Brown et al in April. Only $1,120 was paid from the Budget Line item "Legal Fees". Where is the remaining $2,259.98 being spent from? What line item of the budget was charged? My guess: the Sunbank Slush Fund (This individual expenses of this "check" are invisible to owners.) REVITALIZATION??? It's possible. Afterall, that should be the next priority far above towers, etc. If not, then we are an association that loves to support the legal team that is employed by our Management company. Great bed fellows. We really need independent legal council. Brown, GaGaKnees, et.al. is the same firm that gave us the green voting/permission form that was wrong and advised us to S u e 66 Silversides where we lost over $68,000. |
|
