12/5/13 Executive Session – Items related to the Board enforcing the governing documents
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors. 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
President’s Report is the minutes of actions taken in executive session
President Jean Capillupo’s report: “At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result.
I plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
“17. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts. ACTION ITEM 1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. [R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
Note the inconsistency with how write-offs and waivers of fees are handled.
SCA Board did not vote in June 2014 to write off the amount in excess of NSM’s $1,100 offer.
See SCA 302 – NSM’s 5/28/14 offer of $1,100 (one year of assessments) See SCA 295 – RRFS presented SCA 302 to BOD as an owner request of waiver of $459.32 of interest and late fees while telling the Board that RRFS $3,037.64 collection fees cannot be waived.
5. Must be uniformly enforced under the same or similar circumstances against all units’ owners. Any rule that is not so uniformly enforced may not be enforced against any unit’s owner.
SCA 315 implied that the sale was approved on 12/5/13 [R05-120513]
The only disclosure made by SCA or RRFS to prove that the SCA Board approved the sale was SCA 315. which implied that the Board approved the 3/7/14 sale at the 12/5/13 meeting by approving resolution “R05-120513”
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
SCA 315 was the only evidence proffered of Board action to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive on March 7, 2014.
SCA 315 alleges that Jean Capillupo, Board President, signed on February 27, 2014 a statement on RRFS letterhead, dated February 14, 2014,
“The
Board of Directors of Sun City Anthem Community Association approves that Red
Rock Financial Services is to proceed with the foreclosure of the property
address 2763 White Sage Dr., Henderson NV 89052 on March 7, 2014 at 10:00 AM
pursuant to this authorization and the conditions set forth in the Permission
for Publication of Foreclosure Sale and Authority to Conduct Foreclosure Sale.”
SCA
315 also includes a note, handwritten by an unknown author, that stated
“approved
12/5
R05-120513”
Item R05 – 120513 on page 2 did not authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive.
“(R05-120513) UPON motion duly made by Dan
Forgeron and Jim Mayfield, the Board
unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study group for analysis and
recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.”
2012 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
9/27/12 Minutes
At today’s executive session, our Board considered six requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for a payment plan, and one request for variance of age requirement.
9/27/12 minutes page 10 of 13 Attachment 1 President’s report
10/25/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines, one request for credit, one request for a payment plan, and one request for write off of bad debt outside of the nine month super-priority.”
10/25/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
11/15/12 Minutes
“At today’s executive session, our Board considered two requests for waivers of fees or fines”
11/15/12 minutes page 11 of 15 Attachment 1 President’s report
“Write off bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the 1/24/13 executive session meeting in the amount of $3,431.39 and for one account reviewed at the February 28, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $13,395.48, for a total of $16,826.87 that is outside the nine (9) month super priority lien.”
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines by Committee and take action on appeal requests.
5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“There were no bad debt or write-offs considered at the Executive Session held earlier today. The Board considered three appeals for wavers of fines, and one appeal was returned to the committee.”
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“The Board will discuss the collectability from particular owners and the potential write off of same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 5. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors 6. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS (Action May Be Taken) The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“At today’s our Board considered two requests for payment plans of delinquent assessments or waivers of fees and/or fines. We approved foreclosure proceedings on fiveproperties and took no action on bad debt.“
“6. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. 7. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors. 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session. “
“The Board of Directors, in Executive Session on December 5, 2013, reviewed the possible write off of $24,568.94 from three accounts.
ACTION ITEM
1. Approve a write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94 that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien.
[R20-120513] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo andseconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to authorize the write off of bad debt for three accounts reviewed at the December 5, 2013 Executive Session meeting in the amount of $24,568.94, that is outside of the nine-month super priority lien. “
“At each executive session, your Board considers appropriate action regarding homeowners in our community who fall behind in paying their assessments. Last month, we took action to foreclose on the liens of five properties, and this month, at this afternoon’s session we considered other seriously delinquent accounts. It is important to note that the vast majority of our neighbors meet their financial responsibilities to the Association. There are a very few, however, who do not. As I stated in the President’s Report in this month’s Spirit, we believe that it is not in the best interests of our Association for your Board to sit back and allow certain homeowners to continually neglect their financial responsibilities to our neighbors. I am pleased to report that of the five homes the Board took action on in October, at least one has paid their balance in full. We also determined that another home was foreclosed on by the City of Henderson. The Association did not and will not receive any funds as a result. plan to continue the discussion of the foreclosure process in the January Spirit, providing more detail on the impact, financial and otherwise, to the Association.
At this afternoon’s executive session, our Board approved the initiation of foreclosure on nineteen homes. This process will continue after the first of the year. “
Page 2 Resolution [R05-120213] that SCA 315 alleged was approval of the sale
“[R05-120513] UPON motion duly made by Dan Forgeron and seconded by Jim Mayfield, the Board unanimously voted to refer the bids to the Reserve Study Work Group for analysis and recommendation presented at the January 23, 2014 regular Board meeting.“
2014 Specific SCA Board discussion of enforcement actions taken in secret
SCA board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)
The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May BeTaken)
7. UPDATE ON PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE8.
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS
The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.”
“”In our executive session held this morning, our Board heard appeals from residents regarding assessment payments and other issues of enforcement and acted to write off bad debts in the amount of $18,349.17”
[R25-012314] UPON motion duly made by Jean Capillupo and seconded by Dan Folgeron, the Board unanimously approved the write-off of bad debt for accounts reviewed at the January 23, 2014 meeting in the amount of $18,349.17.“
“4.ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5.STATUS OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS AT RRFS (Action May be Taken)
6.REVIEW OF PRE-COLLECTION ACCOUNTS (Action May be Taken)
7.REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
8.REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9.REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests. (Action May be Taken)
5. STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken) Red Rock Financial Services will provide background documentation to support discussion of these properties by the Board of Directors.
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken) 8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFSThe Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session.
4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken) The Board of Directors will deliberate regarding unit owner appeals from imposition of fines and/or penalties by Committee and take action on other appeal requests.
5. RED ROCK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
6. REVIEW OF POTENTIAL FORECLOSURE PROPERTIES (Action May Be Taken)
7. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
8. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
4/24/14 minutes of open session item 16 approved the action the Board took in executive session under agenda item 8.
4/24/14 SCA BOD minutes President’s Report on page 9 of 10 did not include any report of the action the Board took, or the information the Board received, under items 5, 6, or 7.
President’s report (Pg 9 of 10 4/24/14 minutes) does not report on action the Board took, or on information the Board received from RRFS, in closed session under items 5, 6, or 7.
“4. ACCOUNT REQUESTS, APPEALS & HEARINGS (Action May Be Taken)Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same.
5.STATUS AND RECONCILATION OF ALL SCA ACCOUNTS (Action May Be Taken)
6. RED RECK REPORT ON FORECLOSED HOMES
8. REVIEW OF PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY ACTIONED FOR FORECLOSURE (Action May be Taken)
9. REVIEW OF BAD DEBT & WRITE-OFFS The Board will discuss the collectability from particular unit owners and potential write-offs for the same. Write-off amounts to be discussed and decided in regular session
5/22/14 on page 7 of 14 of open Board meeting minutes, item 17, documents Board action agendized as #9 of the closed session agenda, “Review of Bad Debt” (Page 2 of 6)
5/22/14 President Report on page 9 of 14 is the same as 4/24/14 Page 9 of 10. There are no minutes related to Board action or discussion on items 4 (appeals & hearing), 5 (reconciliation of all SCA accounts), 6 (RRFS foreclosure report), 7 (review of potential foreclosures) or 8 (review of properties previously actioned for foreclosure)
President’s report (Pg 9 of 14 5/22/14 minutes) does not report on action the Board took, or on information the Board received from RRFS, in closed session under items 5, 6, or 7.
SCA 7/24/14board minutes show no quarterly delinquency report was given in 2014 (1/23/14, 4/25/14, 7/24/14, 10/21/14) as required by SCA bylaws 3.21(f)(v)
“(v) a delinquency report listing all Owners who are delinquent in paying any assessments at the time of the report and describing the status of any action to collect such assessments which remain delinquent…”
Sale was not authorized by a SCA Board action taken in compliance with the provisions of NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085
NRS 116.3102 define the powers of unit-owners’ association.
NRS 116.3102(m) limits the association’s authority to sanction an owner for an alleged violation of the governing documents by requiring the association to provide notice and due process as delineated in NRS 116.31031 to the owner who may be sanctioned.
(m) May impose reasonable fines for violations of the governing documents of the association only if the association complies with the requirements set forth in NRS 116.31031.
With certain exceptions defined in NRS 116.31085, Board actions must occur at duly called Board meetings, compliant with the provisions of NRS 116.31083, i.e.,
that are open to all unit owners,
that provide meaningful notice of the actions the Board intends to take at that meeting,
that provide minutes of all Board decisions made and actions taken.
SCA Board voted in closed meetings to impose sanctions without notice
SCA board did not take any valid votes to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage in any open meeting with agendas and minutes that complied with the requirements in NRS 116.31083 (2013) and NRS 116.31085 (2013).
Therefore, the decision and the sale are voidable.
No compliant agendas announced an intent to foreclose
SCA did not publish notice of its intent to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive on any agenda for any meeting of the Board in the manner prescribed by NRS 116.31083(5) and NRS 116.3108(4).
According to NRS 116.31083(5), meetings of an association’s executive board must comply with the provisions of subsection 4 of NRS 116.3108.
NRS 116.3108(4) defines requirements of notice and agendas:
(a) A clear and complete statement of the topics scheduled to be considered during the meeting, …
(b) A list describing the items on which action may be taken and clearly denoting that action may be taken on those items. In an emergency, the units’ owners may take action on an item which is not listed on the agenda as an item on which action may be taken.
(c) A period devoted to comments by units’ owners regarding any matter affecting the common-interest community or the association and discussion of those comments. Except in emergencies, no action may be taken upon a matter raised under this item of the agenda until the matter itself has been specifically included on an agenda as an item upon which action may be taken pursuant to paragraph (b).
No minutes of any SCA Board meeting, compliant with NRS 116.31083 and NRS 116.31085, document a Board action to authorize the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage Drive was ever taken, and therefore the decision is voidable.
NRS (2013) 116.31083 (8) (10) require the Board to maintain “the minutes of each meeting of the executive board until the common-interest community is terminated.” that include the following specific information:
8. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 9 (Section 9 allows the Board to “establish reasonable limitations on materials, remarks or other information to be included in the minutes of its meetings.”) and NRS 116.31085, the minutes of each meeting of the executive board must include:
(a) The date, time and place of the meeting;
(b) Those members of the executive board who were present and those members who were absent at the meeting;
c) The substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided at the meeting;
(d) A record of each member s vote on any matter decided by vote at the meeting; and
e) The substance of remarks made by any unit s owner who addresses the executive board at the meeting if the unit s owner requests that the minutes reflect his or her remarks or, if the unit s owner has prepared written remarks, a copy of his or her prepared remarks if the unit s owner submits a copy for inclusion.
IMPERMISSIBLE TO SANCTION AN OWNER IN A CLOSED MEETING without a hearing
The decision to foreclose on 2763 White Sage was made in a closed session which was not permissible under the terms of NRS 16.31085 (3) (4) and is therefore voidable.
NRS 116.31085(3) defines the only permissible topics of discussion and actions the Board is authorized to take in an executive session closed to owners
NRS 116.31085 (3)
3. An executive board may meet in executive session only to:
(a) Consult with the attorney for the association on matters relating to proposed or pending litigation if the contents of the discussion would otherwise be governed by the privilege set forth in NRS 49.035 to 49.115, inclusive.
(b) Discuss the character, alleged misconduct, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a community manager or an employee of the association.
(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, discuss a violation of the governing documents, including, without limitation, the failure to pay an assessment.
(d) Discuss the alleged failure of a unit’s owner to adhere to a schedule required pursuant to NRS 116.310305 if the alleged failure may subject the unit’s owner to a construction penalty.
NRS 116.31085 (3)
Whereas NRS 116.31085(3)(c) only authorizes the Board to “discuss” alleged violations of the governing documents in executive session, NRS 116.31085(4) only permits Board action to sanction an owner for an alleged violation in closed session when it holds a hearing at which the owner can present a defense to dissuade the Board from imposing a sanction for an alleged violation.
NRS 116.31085(4)
4. An executive board shall meet in executive session to hold a hearing on an alleged violation of the governing documents unless the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted by the executive board. If the person who may be sanctioned for the alleged violation requests in writing that an open hearing be conducted, the person:
(a) Is entitled to attend all portions of the hearing related to the alleged violation, including, without limitation, the presentation of evidence and the testimony of witnesses;
(b) Is entitled to due process, as set forth in the standards adopted by regulation by the Commission, which must include, without limitation, the right to counsel, the right to present witnesses and the right to present information relating to any conflict of interest of any member of the hearing panel; and
(c) Is not entitled to attend the deliberations of the executive board.
NRS 116.31085(4)
NO MINUTES = IT NEVER HAPPENED
NRS 116.31085(6) requires the Board to report its actions taken in closed session in the regular Board minutes.
6. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, any matter discussed by the executive board when it meets in executive session must be generally noted in the minutes of the meeting of the executive board.
NRS 116.31085(6)
There are no minutes of any SCA Board meeting that document a Board action to authorize the sale of 2763 White Sage Drive.
NRS 116.31085 (6) also defines a sanctioned owner’s right to receive minutes of any closed meeting at which the Board took action to sanction an owner for an alleged violation pursuant to a hearing.
The executive board shall maintain minutes of any decision made pursuant to subsection 4 concerning an alleged violation and, upon request, provide a copy of the decision to the person who was subject to being sanctioned at the hearing or to the person’s designated representative.
SCA refused to provide minutes as required by NRS 116.31085(6) to document a decision to foreclose was made pursuant to a hearing make the action voidable.
The fact that SCA Board did not provide notice of its intent to authorize the foreclosure of 2763 White Sage, nor offer the owner an opportunity for an open hearing, nor hold a hearing that provided the owner with the mandated due process is evidenced by CAM Lori Martin’s June 1, 2016 email refusing Tobin’s request for minutes of any meeting at which the BOD took action to foreclose:
“Your request for the “minutes where actions leading to foreclosure for delinquent assessment(s) was approved for 2763 White Sage” cannot be fulfilled since those minutes are Executive Session minutes and not privy to the anyone except the Board. The only time Executive Session minutes are released to a homeowner is if a hearing was held and then, only that portion of the meeting minutes is provided.”
CAM Lori Martin’s June 1, 2016 email refusing Tobin’s request for minutes
No notice or hearing was provided
SCA Board did not provide mandated notice and hearing prior to imposing a sanction for the alleged violation of delinquent assessments
4. The executive board may not impose a fine pursuant to subsection 1 unless:
(a) Not less than 30 days before the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed had been provided with written notice of the applicable provisions of the governing documents that form the basis of the alleged violation; and
(b) Within a reasonable time after the discovery of the alleged violation, the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed has been provided with:
(1) Written notice:
(I) Specifying in detail the alleged violation, the proposed action to cure the alleged violation, the amount of the fine, and the date, time and location for a hearing on the alleged violation; and
(II) Providing a clear and detailed photograph of the alleged violation, if the alleged violation relates to the physical condition of the unit or the grounds of the unit or an act or a failure to act of which it is possible to obtain a photograph; and
(2) A reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged violation or to contest the alleged violation at the hearing.
–For the purposes of this subsection, a unit’s owner shall not be deemed to have received written notice unless written notice is mailed to the address of the unit and, if different, to a mailing address specified by the unit’s owner.
5. The executive board must schedule the date, time and location for the hearing on the alleged violation so that the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed is provided with a reasonable opportunity to prepare for the hearing and to be present at the hearing.
6. The executive board must hold a hearing before it may impose the fine, unless the fine is paid before the hearing or unless the unit’s owner and, if different, the person against whom the fine will be imposed:
(a) Executes a written waiver of the right to the hearing; or
(b) Fails to appear at the hearing after being provided with proper notice of the hearing.
7. If a fine is imposed pursuant to subsection 1 and the violation is not cured within 14 days, or within any longer period that may be established by the executive board, the violation shall be deemed a continuing violation. Thereafter, the executive board may impose an additional fine for the violation for each 7-day period or portion thereof that the violation is not cured. Any additional fine may be imposed without providing the opportunity to cure the violation and without the notice and an opportunity to be heard required by paragraph (b) of subsection 4.
8. If the governing documents so provide, the executive board may appoint a committee, with not less than three members, to conduct hearings on alleged violations and to impose fines pursuant to this section. While acting on behalf of the executive board for those limited purposes, the committee and its members are entitled to all privileges and immunities and are subject to all duties and requirements of the executive board and its members.
Adam Clarkson stated unironically, and apparently, with a complete lack of self-awareness, that SCA Board compliance with specific meeting laws is required for its corporate actions to be valid.
In his first legal opinion as SCA’s Legal counsel and debt collector, Clarkson stated, inter alia,
SCA Board did not comply with NRS 116 meeting laws when it made decisions regarding collection fines, debt forgiveness or foreclosures.
SCA bylaws 3.15 provides that all HOA Board meetings must be open to members with specified exceptions. This provision parallels NRS 116.31083.
SCA bylaws 3.15A Executive Session defines the limited topics that can be discussed in closed meetings and define the due process required prior to the Board imposing a sanction against an owner for alleged violations of the governing documents. This provision parallels NRS 116.31085.
I have been dealing with other things this past month, and had not kept up with the last month of the two-year restaurant process. I had heard that the negotiations had broken down with the one vendor left standing.
So, I went into the Board meeting thinking that the deal with G2G was off the table.
When I sat down, an irritated resident told me the Board was still negotiating a sweetheart deal with G2G.
I was further confused when I opened my computer and saw that at 1:13 PM, literally minutes before the 1:30 PM meeting, palace-favorite, blogger Berman published a letter G2G sent to the GM saying that the deal was off, no matter how big the subsidy.
And here’s the kicker – it’s all Dick Arendt’s fault that G2G pulled out because he talked bad about them on Anthem Opinions.
How (and why) did Berman get a leg up?
It is inappropriate, from my perspective, for the GM and the Board to have a death grip on information which should be openly and immediately shared.
But it’s worse when they blatantly give David Berman “scoops” because they can count on him to consistently write favorably about the GM and the Board – NO MATTER WHAT – and unfavorably about other bloggers who won’t give the Board or the GM a free pass when they screw something up or screw someone over.
Shouldn’t everybody have easy access to the same information at the same time?
If it is confidential, it is confidential from everybody. If it is not confidential, it should be made readily available for the easiest possible access. The GM and the Board are creating a huge amount of unnecessary conflict by the way they mis-handle communications.
The GM and the Board play favorites and do not uniformly enforce the rules of confidentiality. They use information as power, and block access from their detractors. When criticized for this failure, they go crazy, and threaten the owners, particularly bloggers, who out them.
Why couldn’t G2G make it?
Apparently, free rent, free utilities, and ZERO profit-sharing with SCA until the obviously-unattainable $1.4 million revenue number was reached was not a sufficient subsidy to overcome the damage done by the bad-mouthing of the non-Berman blogger.
How did the GM characterize what happened?
The GM did not quote the entire G2G “we’re outta here” letter with those attending the Board meeting that she unfairly shared with David Berman before the meeting.
I say “unfairly” because it allowed her to use a willing tool to illegitimately stoke the fires of animosity AGAIN against their common nemesis, and his reviled, competing blogger, without her having to dirty her hands.
Anyone else who requested such a document would have been threatened with sanctions for even asking for it, and then had to swear on the head of her newborn grandchild that it would not be disclosed before it would have been handed over.
She did, however, in making her report, focus on the phrase in the letter that most effectively, albeit unfairly, shifted the blame away from her, and her own gargantuan part, in designing an RFP/negotiation process ensured to fail.
She said that the SCA-G2G negotiations had reached impasse over “drop and go’s”, alcohol and pot lucks,
The Board wanted to talk some more, and SCA’s team thought they could get a deal, but G2G wrote her today that it is no longer interested. She paraphrased this part of the pull-out letter.
“… the blogging of Dick Arendt and his call to boycott the restaurant even before we opened.
So, …(we’re withdrawing due to)… the poisonous atmosphere illegitimately manufactured by a blogger.” G2G
What’s the bottom line? The Board approved a motion to direct management to continue to look for a restaurant tenant.
The GM asked the Board to approve two Board members to work with her. Tom Nissen is now fully retired from the Board and not willing to serve as a non-Director member of the work group. No matter how many times this method has failed (using a couple of Board members with the GM instead of an independent, specialized expert), hope springs eternal.
The good news is Gary Lee, the Director I think has the most experience negotiating restaurant contracts, was appointed to the team.
The bad news is that, to get a successful restaurant, Gary Lee will probably have to do a lot of the GMs job. The GM has not demonstrated herself capable of getting a successful restaurant tenant in place since she got here in November 2015 – even through that expectation was the one specific criterion the Board adopted – and probably ignored – for her 2017 bonus.
Public comments
One owner had specific suggestions about how to economically poll owners about whether they want a restaurant at all, and encouraged the Board to look at the possibility of just a bar and appetizers. There were suggestions for the Board to take a broader view of what would work in that space, including a food court or the high quality of places he had seen in Asia.
The old guard continued to promote the idea that only people who show up at meetings should get a voice, but I got the sense there was a small crack opening in Board acceptance of the idea that other people need to be heard.
What were some of the Board comments?
Several Directors said they were disappointed to be back at square one, but had an interest in getting more owner input. They saw the need for improving the RFP process to more clearly spell out the parameters in advance and to be open to wider competition.
Several Directors unfairly blamed bloggers, particularly Dick Arendt, for G2G pulling out, just as other Directors have voiced this same unfortunate refrain to deflect criticism of previous Board decisions that weren’t particularly owner-friendly.
“Shut up. We’re in charge here.”
They again asserted that the Board should take legal action to stop the criticisms of the Board and management that they think are totally unwarranted.
It’s a weird perspective to me – this being America and all. Utterly lacking in a sense of what gives legitimacy to their power
“Governments are instituted …deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
-the Declaration of independence
I am particularly saddened when I hear Art and Jim rant about the need to silence dissent. I like them both, on a personal level, and think they are good people.
I think they just are not getting how they are unwittingly contributing to the polarization of the community by representing only some of the people, and by not tolerating diversity of opinion about the way we want to be self-governed.
To self-righteous and aggressively defend themselves and those who agree with them against perceived injustices only becomes dysfunctional when that outrage is used as justification for intolerance and threatening to use legal force to stop the free expression of dissent.
I never wanted to be a blogger, but now, I will defend my right of free expression to my last breath.
Sorry for the big break in my updates about SCA shenanigans.
I’m in California for some family events,
Nathaniel graduated
and a new granddaughter due any minute
But, while we’re waiting for the next big thing, I’ll tell you
The real cause for pause
After a fun-filled trip to Mexico, I dragged myself to the May 24 Board meeting. I was immediately stunned by the President’s report that NRED had stopped investigating two complaints that impacted me.
I wondered if NRED’s practice was to rely on management or agents rather than get the whole story. I hoped not. But, I had a sinking feeling…
Ordinarily, I would have posted something right away, but I decided to talk to NRED’s new chief investigator, Terry Wheaton, first. Multiple attempts to set up a meeting were unsuccessful so I documented my concerns in writing.
It is even longer than my usual missives, so I’ll break it up for you. It was full of hyperlinks to the actual evidentiary documents. I will break the links in this public distribution, just in case, my transparency forces the SCA Board and GM to claim it is their fiduciary duty to pay the attorney $10,000+ to threaten to sue me to kingdom come.
Part 1 of email to NRED
Fwd: Issues related to dismissed and open investigations; NRED Letters of Instruction to SCA
I have not received a response to my request for a meeting with you, and I have been instructed not to contact the Ombudsman because all my intervention affidavits (IAs) and complaints against management have been referred to the investigations division. I understand you are new to your position and may not have seen the full measure of the issues that I, and other SCA owners, are asking your office to address.
The fundamental questions raised by this myriad issues are:
How does NRED fulfill its role in ensuring that licensed HOA agents (managers, attorneys)
act as fiduciaries and not for personal, political, or financial purposes?
do not take advantage of homeowners or disenfranchise voters to manipulate the composition of HOA Boards?
How does NRED use the negative experiences of this HOA to develop policy guidance that protects all of the 3,000+ HOAs and 57% of Nevada households that are in HOAs?
I am writing you now to document my concerns and request that you evaluate these documents before there is a final determination on my form 514a, 781, and three form 530 complaints (harassment/retaliation, recall election interference, and for removing me from the Board without complying with NRS 116.31036 on false and unproven charges that I had placed matters before the Board from which I stood to make a profit.
1. NRED investigations are closed without notice or reason
In March, I raised this concern to Christina Pitch in the email I am forwarding here. You can see her response. However, the pattern of NRED closing complaints without a clear, legally defensible, equitable resolution seems to be continuing.
At the last Sun City Anthem Board meeting on 5/24/18, the new President Bob Burch made the following claims in his President’s report which were extremely disheartening because I have received no communication from NRED about these issues which intimately affect me and about which I have formally filed affidavits and declarations.
President’s report
Next, I would like to report that we have been advised by the Nevada Real Estate Division that two complaints filed against the Association have been closed. In one case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held an emergency meeting on July 18, 2017 to discuss employer liability and that the meeting did not meet the requirements for an ‘emergency’ under NRS116. In the second case, it was alleged that the Executive Board held secret meetings beginning in March or April 2017 in which appointments to committees were agreed upon and Association business was decided upon. Both complaints were closed without any action being taken against the Association when the division determined that there was no good cause to continue with the investigation. In other words, we prevailed. – Bob Burch, 5/24/18
What does “no good cause to continue the investigation” mean?
Does NRED condone or just not care?
Dismissed complaint 1: July 13 “emergency” executive session
In my view, having a Board meeting without notifying me for the other six directors to approve a cease & desist order against me was an unlawful abuse of authority and certainly not an emergency.
What does NRED think?
Does NRED’s closing the complaint investigation without disciplinary action against SCA mean:
That NRED says it’s okay for the GM to fail to give me, an elected Board member, ANY verbal or written notice that the Board I was elected to was being called into an “emergency” executive session two hours after I was standing in her office being denied access to ANY SCA records despite NRS 116.31175 and SCA bylaws 6.4(c)?
That NRED says it’s okay for a GM, an at-will employee, to use the association attorney at SCA owner expense to threaten litigation against SCA (her employer) and me, a Board member, personally for creating “employer liability” for asking for justification for her being paid double the market rate and criticizing her performance and judgment despite NAC 116A.345(5)?
That NRED says it’s okay for six Board members to meet without and issue orders against me, the seventh EQUAL, ELECTED Board member, to limit authority as a Board member, restrict my duties, TOTALLY restrict my access to information needed to make decisions as a Board member, and restrict my right to vote on an equal basis with the other directors despite the prohibitions in NRS 116.3103(2)(d)?
That NRED says it actually was an emergency as defined by NRS 116.31183(12) affecting the health, safety and welfare of the community for 6/7 of the SCA Board to meet to order me, the seventh, to stop asking for a verification of the GM’s former salary and to reprimand me, without legal authority, for asking the GM to reconsider a ruling she made to prevent equal time in SCA official publications for a proponent of the recall election?
That NRED says that six members of the Board constitutes a quorum, and they (6 of 7) can meet in executive session to make decisions for the Board as a whole or to take action against the seventh Board member even if the six directors prevent the seventh Board member, despite the limitations defined in NRS 116.31185 or NRS 116.3103(2)(d),
from attending their secret session,
from voting, or even
from knowing their secret meeting is going to occur ?
That NRED doesn’t care that the SCA Board failed to comply with multiple provisions of state law and SCA governing documents?
Or is NRED saying
these owner complaints are frivolous and aren’t serious matters worthy of at least a complete investigation?
That meeting, actually held on 7/13/17, had numerous flaws which I spelled out to NRED in form 514a on pages 4-5 and claims are supported by written evidence.
Congratulations to the newly-elected members of the Board:
Candace Karrow,
Jim Coleman,
Gary Lee.
Check below for why no congrats for Bob Burch
A message from Gary Lee
Nona …. I want to take this opportunity to thank any of your readers who voted for me in this election.
I recognize the fact that I do not have any “direct” experience on any of SCA’s committees or volunteer programs but … I do bring to the board an extensive background in the management of facilities, construction, budgeting, finance and human resources – all of which are basic to the operations of the SCA.
I promise to bring an element of “common sense” to the board and a diligent effort in exploring facts and conditions prior to voting on any subject.
I would welcome the thoughts and opinions of any of your readers. I will be open to receiving any input and I will certainly consider them in my decision making. -Gary Lee
All directors get an equal vote
I personally have great hope that Gary’s significant management experience will be treated with respect as mine was not.
The restaurant negotiation
Will Gary’s substantial restaurant experience be used for the benefit of the membership to protect SCA from giving away the store in negotiating with the probably pre-selected vendor?
Or is Rex’s death grip on consolidating power so strong that his expertise will be rejected in favor of Tom Nissen and Forrest Quinn who have no restaurant or negotiation experience that is specifically on point as Gary’s is?
SCA experience is required only for some
Rex Weddle and Bob Burch, in particular, proffered the pretext that my not having been on SCA committees was sufficient justification to refuse to treat as an equal member of the Board.
Keep your eyes open, new directors!
The new Board members need to guard against the incumbents claiming to possess special authority over them. Or that the Board is allowed to have secret meetings on topics other than the four permissible topics in NRS 116.31085 and SCA bylaws 3.15A.
Abdicating and usurping must stop
There is a surprising willingness for the GM and the attorney to play favorites and play fast and loose with the rules so that decisions that are supposed to be made by the Board in open session, informed by professional managerial and legal advice, somehow get made by who know who and who knows when.
Be careful, it is very easy to get sucked in.
Which brings me to why no congrats to Bob Burch
I am having trouble congratulating the fourth person elected, Bob Burch, because ongoing NRED complaints against him have not been adjudicated since being filed over eight months ago. These complaints include serious charges:
interference with the recall election
harassment and retaliation
abuse of authority
concealing SCA documents from members, including a director
taking action by secret votes against owners without cause or due process
acting for reasons of self-interest or revenge
failing to disclose a potential conflict of interest and then repeatedly voting on the issue
and more violations of owners’ legally protected rights
Never heard about these charges?
Voters probably didn’t hear about these open complaints because they were concealed.
Unfairly, “on the advice of counsel” and on owners’ dime, the Board and the GM purposefully concealed complaints against them, and the attorney from the membership.
They refused to place the complaints on an open Board meeting agenda as required by NRS 116.31187.
Board Policy Manual 6.1 was disregarded when they would not allow me, as an elected director, to discuss these violations in any open Board meeting.
They would not fairly even allow the complaints to be investigated or be fairly debated executive session.
When I tried to get the Board act lawfully, the Board’s official response was to kick me off the Board without notice or appeal.
If you set up a process to be the same as the process that failed in the past, you can expect to fail again. As Edward Deming, world-renowned statistician and management expert, said,
Quick re-cap
Sandy Seddon and Tom Nissen had a cozy relationship with one of the vendors, G2G, before putting out an RFP.
They picked G2G.
Operating parameters –
decided after only two vendors had submitted proposals
can’t have smoking,
ok to have a subsidy of free rent
can’t operate 24/7
vendor can decide not to have gaming (who needs it if owners pay your rent?)
coffee window is closed while restaurant open
100% catering is restricted to G2G in all three centers
Now, let’s make a deal.
Negotiating team is also a big surprise
Tom Nissen, Sandy Seddon and Forrest Quinn will now negotiate. Isn’t Tom going off the Board?
No problem.
A special exemption from the Rex only-buddy-director- work group philosophy was made to keep Tom Nissen, who is leaving the Board in two days, on the team with a death grip on the controls.
No other owners are included on the negotiating team. Board candidate Gary Lee who has negotiated many (I think I heard him say 500) restaurant leases, was not deemed worthy of participating.
But, good news! Rex did say that he was considering accepting help from Jean Capillupo, whose expertise is solely derived from her hand in the last failed restaurant lease.
or as Chuck Lorre, the creator of Big Bang Theory crudely put it in Vanity Card #586:
(Quote redacted)
Item 11 E – Quarterly Litigation Reports
Now that I have your attention, let’s discuss how item 11 E – quarterly litigation reports – is an example of how the Board wastes lots of our money to use the many SCA lawyers to control who sits on the Board. (I’m sorry. It seems I have to offend some people to keep everyone else awake.)
Only one Board candidate seemed to notice problems
In member comments, Board candidate, Gary Lee, pointed out some inadequacies in the reports.
Of the 15 cases reported, 9 are foreclosures. Is there a problem with the way we are handling foreclosures? There are inconsistencies.
Gary did not know what I’ll tell you below. In my case, that the defamatory and false statements were used as the pretext for kicking me off the Board and that the Board has refused my repeated requests to correct “errors” for a year.
Clarkson, SCA legal counsel and debt collector, lies like a rug
Clarkson Law Group has given the same false report for the last five quarters on the case that supposedly disqualified me from the Board.
Wrong!
The current status of the quiet title case is not as of 2/1/17. That is the date when the original cross claim was filed, but dismissed on 5/25/17.
This ignores that the claims of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, by Nona Tobin, individual and trustee, were dismissed by Judge Kishner at a hearing on 5/25/17, and that the order (due in June 2017) was not filed by the SCA attorney until 9/20/17, a month after I was ambushed and kicked off the Board on 8/24/17 .
The mere existence of this case is what Clarkson falsely claims disqualified me from serving on the Board. More importantly, what this lie has achieved is keeping my nose out of his debt collection business.
The Lipson law firm’s report is defamatory.
I was not removed from the Board “for cause”.
This is a horrible, hurtful lie.
It brands me “guilty!” without any finding of fact. It is a continuation of the harassment and retaliation I have been subjected to for over a year.
I was unlawfully removed by the other six Board members in a secret meeting based on the totally false and unsubstantiated allegation that I was making a profit from my position on the Board. Poppycock.
The FACTS
SCA was a named party in 2015 by the plaintiff Jimijack, who has possession of the house and been collecting rents on Bruce’s house since 2014.
Nationstar filed a second lawsuit against the buyer at the foreclosure sale of 2763 White Sage Dr. in January, 2016 and completed a failed mediation with SCA a month before I showed up as the third lawsuit.
On behalf of the Gordon B. Hansen Trust, I entered the case on 2/1/17 as a defendant in intervention on the two existing cases in order to regain the title for the trust.
The 2/1/17 cross claim against SCA was to get SCA to void the defective foreclosure sale from which SCA’s former agents unlawfully kept $60,000 that should have been distributed to either Nationstar or the GBH Trust after paying SCA only $2,701.
On 5/25/17, all claims against SCA were dismissed ($2,701 paid SCA in full in 2014 so SCA has no financial stake in the quiet title dispute), but the Lipson attorney did not file the 5//25/17 order until 9/20/17, a month after I was kicked off the Board on the pretext that the mere existence of this case disqualified me from being on the Board.
I did not, and could not, make a profit from my position on the Board.
And yet, the Lipson report brands me
My request to correct false reports was not heard.
The tone of the meeting and the mood of the crowd made it clear that there was a zero% chance that the Board would see through their prejudices and willful ignorance to treat me fairly.
There was a standing ovation for Jim Coleman who was shaken and outraged at being falsely accused of voting to kick me off the Board by lying, probably racist, Mr. (name redacted) blogger.
There was zero acknowledgement that I existed in the room, let alone was deserving of compassion as the falsely accused (of making a profit off my Board position) and the actually-injured (kicked off the Board without a trial or finding of guilt) victim.
Who cares?
Good question. The issue is way bigger than me.
The precedent puts homeowners in all 3,000 HOAs in Nevada at risk of losing control over who sits on their Boards if who they elect can be “disappeared” without cause, a trial or an appeal on a pretext.
Let’s face it
I was kicked off the Board because the GM and the majority of the Board did not like me telling them they sub-standard in their implementation of self-management and that they were breaking lots of rules and needed to straighten up or I would tell on them.
So, they made up a story to get rid of me
If it can happen here, it can happen anywhere
All the directors in any HOA would need to do to get rid of a Board member they don’t like would be to deem their position vacant by operation of law.
It’s easy to kill a political opponent if you have attorneys willing to ignore all the other laws that exist to protect homeowners from arbitrary and capricious abrogation of their rights.
This precedent is especially risky for the state because Adam Clarkson is the president-elect of the Community Association Institute and claims that his firm represents 300 HOAs, 10% of those in Nevada.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.” -Mark Twain
Blame the bloggers
At least the first hour of the meeting was dedicated to blaming bloggers for all that is wrong, including the loss of SCA property values. It was a stunning example of how the Board marches lock-step against owners rights and reflexively resists holding itself and the GM accountable for fixing problems of their own making.
Board beliefs vs. an alternative point of view
Tom Nissen listed his beliefs – all concerns shared by the Board – as his parting gift to the membership.
My beliefs offer another, albeit unwelcome, perspective, to show the way I think the Board and GM could better create value for owners.
Next time, I’ll share with you my planned request to correct the false and defamatory statements in the April SCA litigation reports. I didn’t speak up at the meeting because I was afraid I’d get lynched for complaining.
Today’s SCA Election Committee meeting was an important part of the SCA Board election process because it was the official start of the election process where candidates drew lots for their ballot position. What could it hurt if I drew a lot until the proper authority rules on my eligibility to serve?
Instead of considering the rejection of my candidacy for the Board as final, why not just treat me like any other neighborhood volunteer – at least until there was one iota of proof that I really was worthy of such vilification?
What happened went I went looking for justice?
I gave the Board and management notice that I was appealing the 2/9/18 Notice of Ineligibility that the Clarkson Law Group had whipped up on SCA owners’ dime to make sure that someone who had the support of at least 2,000 owners was blocked from even being a candidate.
In the prior notice, I asked for them not to use the attorney or security to threaten or humiliate me. They accommodated me only insofar as owners didn’t pay for an outside agent to ensure that I was relegated to pariah status. But then, they knew full well, they didn’t need to bring in the heavy-weights, the Election Committee – dutifully, sternly, and totally predictably stepped up to take on the enforcer role.
The Officials act official, or was it officious?
Before the meeting, I went to the EC chair, Carol Steibel, and told her that I was appealing the attorney’s decision to deem me ineligible and that I wanted to draw for a ballot number so I could stay on equal footing in the election process until a determination on my eligibility was made by proper authority (NRED).
When I handed her my 2-page appeal, she tossed it aside testily, and said,
“I’ve already read that.”
“How could you have? I just wrote it this morning.” said I.
“Well, I read something else, then. The attorney said you can’t be a candidate, and we have to listen to the attorney.”
When I sat at the table, two members of the committee told me sternly to get away from the table. Only candidates could sit there.
Carol somberly started the meeting by saying that the meeting would not be recorded and that no one was allowed to record it as it was against the law.
The thing about this edict that totally chaps my hide is a major owner protection to allow recordings so, to be ornery I guess, I said I was going to record it. Their reaction was intense. Forrest Quinn joined in saying that he did not authorize recording him.
Bob Burch said he wanted my assurance that I wasn’t going to record it. I said I wasn’t recording it, and he announced to the crowd,
“We’ve had this trouble before”
further solidifying the ‘Us vs. Them Her’ dynamic permeating the room.
Carol very formally read a notice from the attorney about my situation. She would brook no argument. It was FINAL!
The Board deemed Nona Tobin’s Board position vacant by law making her ineligible to be on the Board.
Nona herself made the charges public.
No circumstances have changed that would make her eligible.
Clarkson law office was merely asked to inform Nona since the Board’s decision that was ineligible has not changed.
My, my, my…what an awful person that Nona is! An existential threat. Carol’s tone made it totally clear that questioning the veracity or authority of the attorney would be considered treason, the concept of “Innocent until proven guilty” totally shrouded by her blind spot. P.S. None of the above statements from the attorney that Carol reported are true. I’ll be handing the documents over to NRED to prove it as soon as I can.
Carol was so busy genuflecting before Clarkson’s awesomeness that she might have forgotten for the teensyist second that as the Election Committee Chairperson, her primary job is to protect the integrity of the election process, to ensure the election is free from undue interference and to protect ANY owner from being disenfranchised.
Maybe a little training? I suggest training should come from NRED or any competent, independent professional, but absolutely not conducted by Adam Clarkson.
Gary Lee, Board candidate new to the scene, innocently asked for a better explanation why I was dumped, but Carol was adamant that she had said all that needed to be said on the subject, and that he was holding up the very, very important business of the committee. Tobin appeal to being disqualified as a candidate
Quick note about # 4 above, it should read that in addition to the NRED form 850, I also submitted the disclosure form as edited by the attorneys even though it was not legally-mandated for me to do so.
Tobin Appeal Page 2
Ask Yourself:
Would my actions make sense if I were on the Board to make a profit?
What does my being on the Board have to do with what the court does about the house? The Board doesn’t have anything to say about it.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the Board could vote on something related to the outcome of the title fight. If my ulterior motive was to get the Board to vote to quiet title to me instead of the bank, wouldn’t I have tried a different approach?
If I were trying to get a Board vote on litigation I could profit from, wouldn’t I have been smarter to ingratiate myself and “go along to get along”.
Wouldn’t I have been foolish to risk the ire of the Board to protect the right of owners to legally sign petitions to call for a vote to remove directors from the Board?
Would I have pursued formal complaints to enforcement authorities saying that the attorney and the GM should be fired for causing the Board to act unlawfully?
Ask yourself: Isn’t it more likely that the same over-compensated GM and attorney, after protecting compliant directors in power from a removal election, just created a convenient ruse to bypass owners’ votes and remove the thorn in their side and block me from coming back?
Nathaniel graduated
Wrong!
